page 12

Gay Peoples Chronicle

BOOK

REVIEWS

A Cast of Killers, by Sidney D. Kirkpatrick. E.P. Dutton, New York. $17.95

On the evening of February 1, 1922, Paramount director William Desmond Taylor was fatally shot in his living room. His murder, never officially solved, destroyed the careers of two actress-

es,

Mabel Normand and Mary Miles Minter.

In 1967 director King Vidor reexamined the case for a potential film. Kirkpatrick describes how how Vidor solved the mystery and identified the murderer.

Learning the murderer's identity, 66 years later, is not the most arresting part of this fascinating book. Although officially cleared by the Los Angeles police, she had consistently figured as a suspect. One of One of the first persons Vidor interviewed named her without hesitation and described her motives.

Part of the book's fascination lies in Vidor's progress toward uncovering the truth. In the process he exposed falsehoods that have shrouded Taylor's murder since 1922.

some

very

Newspaper accounts said the police arrived at Taylor's house interrupting odd activities: Paramount executives burning papers in the fireplace, watched by Edna Purviance, who played with Chaplin. Mabel Normand, the industry's leading comedian, frantically searched for letters she had written. None of this happened; Normand was not there.

as

and

The police were described finding not only Normand's letters but abundant evidence of Taylor's very colorful sex life, including a closet of women's underwear tagged tagged with initials and dates; photographs of him engaged in intercourse with various actresses; silk nightgown monogrammed MMM, and letters from Mary Miles Minter, whom Paramount had chosen to replace Mary Pickford when she left the studio.

a

Most of this is also untrue. The nightgown, which did exist, was a Paramount plant. Paramount also handéd over letters, all quite innocuous. The other items were fiction. And Taylor was gay.

gali Vidor, 45 years later,

If

was

able to solve the murder, why couldn't the Los Angeles police? The chilling answer is that they had. The murderer bribed three successive district attorneys. To protect her, they suppressed dence and reassigned inves tigators who came too close.

They also threw suspicion others, with Mabel Normand their main victim. She

on

amount eveher.

had visited Tylor the alive when she left. ning of the murder. He was Two witnesses saw him walk her to her car. She had an airtight alibi for the rest of the night. Normand's innoso clear no in-

cence was

dictment

drop

had decided to Homosexuality seems to make Kirkpatrick uncomfortable. Apparently Vidor's reaction was similar. Too bad. Taylor's faults included a penchant for boys whom his

MABEL NORMAND

would have been possible. Yet the press received a constant stream of stories, often completely false, suggesting her involvement with Taylor and in his murder.

The police also planted false stories identifying Taylor's secretary, who had disappeared, as his brother and another suspect.

Simultaneously, the police suppressed evidence against Minter, which threatened the murderer. They stressed Normand's visit and falsely described her as present the records next day. Police show she was not. They concealed Minter's visit to the house and their discovery of three of her hairs on the jacket Taylor was wearing.

The mystery was complicated by a second conspiracy, Paramount's attempt to hide the fact that Tylor was gay. Before the police arrived, Paramount employees removed all letters from the house. They planted stories about the lingerie, the pornographic pictures, and compromising correspondence with actresses.

They also planted the notorious nightgown (whose origio remains a mystery), before discovering Taylor's death was not natural and without knowing it implicated Minter in a murder case. They knew it would destroy her virginal image, but Par-

houseman procured for him. Was this really worse than heterosexual director James Kirkwood's earlier seduction of the 15-year-old Minter by convincing her they were Darried in the sight of God?" And if Minter, at 19, struck fellow actreses, who didn't know about her abortion, as so childlike they suspecter her of playing with dolls, what was she like at 15?

MARY MILES MINTER

September 1986

If Taylor's boys were e manifestation of his gay DESS, I would arque ha another manifestation was his altruistic behavior toward Normand and Minter. Shocked that Normand read only scripts, Taylor had undertaken her education. He was trying to help Minter escape the grasp of her ruthlessly exploitive moth-

ex.

The most harrowing chapter in the book describes Vidor's meeting with Minter and his realization that her mother had destroyed her as a person. One reason he decided not to publish his conclusions was that official action would have required examination of Minter, who had witnessed the murder.

One final note by a gay reviewer observing heterosexual behavior. The account of Vidor's autumnal romance with Colleen Moore is charming, and a welcome relief fromthe

very grim glimpses of his marriage.

And

a grim footnote. None of Taylor's films has survived. Those that had not entirely disintegrated were burned by Paramount to salvage their silver content.

The Many Faces of Homosexuality Anthropological Ap proaches to Homosexual Be havior. Edited by Evelyn Blackwood. Harrington Park Press, New York. $11.95.

The publisher's blurb describes this book as "an eyeopening and fascinating account of homosexuality in various historical periods and in non-Western cultures. Written and edited by leading experts in their fields, it presents the results of Son of the best anthropological research on homosexuality that has been done in the past decade. Readers will be amazed at the many cultural facets of homosexuality presented here--from the often-astonishing forms of posturing plumming [huh?) and puffing of male homosexuality to the intricate web of sexuality, ourturance, and affection of

the

homosexual relationships of women.'

I

Well, that's as it may be. think the final sentence

misses the whole point of the book. After all, can't ppe call the artificial birth pains of Mohave male berdaches a form of aurturance? And what about Mohave female berdaches, dressed in breechclouts and armed with bows, sitting around with men and, like them, boasting about the beautiful genitals of their wives?

The book is noted here for two reasons. First, it's worth reading. Second, it includes "Men and Not-Men: Male Gender-Mixing Statuses and Homosexuality, by Charles Callender and Lee M. Kochems. If that is homosexual puffing, make the most of it:

It also includes an incisive review of Herdt's Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia, by Harriet Whitehead One of the bright lights of gender studies.