I must have too much time to waste today…

Marlene never, not ever, not once, never told any hostess anything about lighting, pink BS, etc. Marlene was a lady, to do so would be bad manners, something she never exhibited. The only lighting she ever commented on was stage and set lighting - in the act of her profession. If she was a guest (and I attended many such dinners and parties with her), she always went out of her way to stay out of the limelight, to compliment and accentuate the hostess as the prime person in the room, and in all things remain the grateful invitee. As Alex Liberman said, let her anywhere near the kitchen and she’ll do the dishes while you finish dessert.

I know, it is hard for people to understand her. She was not a struggling star, she was an aristocrat who naturally commanded attention but had absolutely no vanity whatsoever. Her desire to maintain her image for her fans - a professional responsilitity - she took seriously but never, not once, to the level of fake teeth, face-lifts or any other artifice. Did she pin her hair back to tighten facial lines? Sure, but then at 73 (her last stage performance) you need to work harder (and in some pain) to maintain your responsibility.

As for her craft of performing, as Robbie Lantz said, "Who knew before the War that she was such a good actress, decades ahead of Hollywood." By this he meant that she did not "emote" as Garbo did (coming from the stage). Marlene stood, almost still, and made the movie camera come to her, worship her, adore her. That is why her image lasts to this day. As one of the pre-eminent actresses of her period (see Judgement at Nurnberg or the full version of Touch of Evil or Desire) she helped consolodate the actor’s control of the screen, helped make the close-up the most powerful visual tool and, never least, dominated the medium with her personality.

Now off-screen, it was a different matter… she was always a lady to the last.

Mr. Riva:

I’m so glad to see your comments here. It has become increasingly rare for family members of our great stars to speak out against all the nonsense we are endlessly fed nowadays by anyone with a book deal. I’m a fan of many of these stars, including Hepburn and Dietrich, so I admit to a certain bias. Still, it is frustrating not only to see them so casually raked over the coals by these writers but also to see some of what they write so casually accepted by reviewers and readers. Mostly the stories go unanswered by family members and friends. And I understand the desire to remain mum because arguing in public just brings more attention to the stuff - and more curiosity to the books and more cash in these writers’ coffers. With what’s been perpetrated on Hepburn in books that have been published in recent years, for instance, my frustration level is at the bursting point. So it’s a real joy to read your rebuttal of these stories about your grandmother, who was a great, great star.

In fairness to Liz Smith, she doesn’t exactly give Higham a pass; she does say that some of his revelations are considered fanciful, at best. But in that case, I agree, why publicize them? What makes him reliable and his accounts reputable and worth repeating?

I guess one should just laugh this stuff off. But if one is a fan, one cares not only about their work but also about them as people (and caring about them as people doesn’t necessarily translate into making them ordinary or remove any of the eccentricity that made them fascinating people). I hope most can recognize the difference between good biography and bad, but worthless or not, this misinformation becomes part of a star’s lore and perpetuates a lot of misinformation and revisionist history.

Lindsay Lohan truly leads a charmed life, doesn’t she?  Robert Rodriguez and possibly DeNiro?  No matter what she does, she seems to come out smelling like a rose. 

No offense intended to Ms. Lohan, but I just don’t see that this young woman has any more talent than a number of her contemporaries, yet she’s continually promoted above them as the bright and shining star.  Perhaps in today’s world it’s all about notoriety and antics so I suppose that’s why people think she’s so much more.  As for me, the proof is in the pudding - time (and a greater body of work) will tell.   

As for Higham, I’m no more interested in reading his sensational stories than I am in picking up a National Enquirer.  I’ll admit to enjoying the Cecil B. DeMille story, but the sexual antics of the Duchess of Windsor, favorite film stars, or Mr. Higham himself?  No thanks - I can easily find something better to read.

There was an account in Gavin Lambert’s biography of actress Alla Nazimova  which convets Marlene Dietrich’s magnetism. Nazimova was backstage  after a performance in a play when she recieved a visit from Dietrich. After being invited into Madame’s dressing room, Marlene grabbed a chair, turned it around and sat on it backwards, leaning on the back of the chair. She looked Nazimova straight in the eyes and said "Take off your wig". The older actress was disquieted by the request, but she complied. Nazimova stated that this was something she would NEVER ordinarily do, but she was totally disarmed by Marlene’s blue eyes. Marlene’s reply to Madame sans wig: "That’s better".

I think of this story whenever I read anything about Marlene Dietrich. She was beautifully and, no doubt, extremely charming in person, as well as on the screen. That she used that charm to promote the Allied cause against her native country showed both courage and class.  Thanks for sharing your personal memories of her with us, Mr. Riva.