The Case of the Missing Icon

I wrote the following piece a long time ago, maybe about 2005. I share it because I think the question I posed is still valid sixteen years later. Maybe it explains some people's resistance to "more truth" about Valentino. Who knows? Here follows a small piece I wrote which I titled, "The Case of the Missing Icon". Excuse some dated references.  

"I was vaguely aware of the Howdy Doody Show. As children my little sister and I did watch a few episodes on a neighbor’s television set. This was our only access to the show because our parents were nervous that television might have a negative influence upon their young offspring. Their refusal to allow a TV in the house ensured that the only media streaming into our developing brains emanated from our trusty radio. On Sunday nights we were permitted to sit before the oversized radio cabinet and listen to The Jack Benny Show. To listen was to imagine and in the process we forever bonded with Jack Benny and every member of his show’s cast of characters. Our minds happily filled in any blanks resulting from the solely auditory experience and we created our own individualized interpretation of each hilarious scene.

For the past few years, silent film icon Rudolph Valentino has been the subject of my intensive research. At some point during this research, I came to the conclusion that Valentino’s current mythical status is due in great measure to precisely the same mental process that I experienced as a child listening to the Jack Benny Show. For when Valentino became box-office gold in the 1920’s, there were few media venues available to his fans. The media then consisted of a relatively primitive radio technology, a few nationally distributed newspapers and movie fan magazines. Fan magazines were the primary source of information about Hollywood celebrities but these publication’s articles were highly-fictionalized and censored by movie studios and savvy business managers. Valentino’s business manager, George Ullman worked diligently in this regard to prevent the details of the movie star’s most personal affairs from ever going public. Consequently the many blank areas in Valentino’s life story were wide open to wild interpretation and speculation and his legacy was formed by his fan’s active imaginations.

I am continually amazed to be contacted through my website by people from around the world who share a deep admiration for Valentino while knowing very little about him. And often those who are knowledgeable express a highly individualized version of his life as a result of their own personal temperament and agenda. Since Valentino’s death eighty one years ago this August 23, he has been reinvented countless times by a remarkably diverse demographic of fans. I am able to say with certain authority that this phenomenon is not past history. Today there are Valentino chat rooms that have been founded solely upon the disparate versions of his life.

In recalling the scant media exposure of my childhood, I began to wonder if this penchant for personalizing Valentino might be due to the initial dearth of credible information about his life. Over the years, his fan’s excessive romanticizing and imagining has culminated in his being revered as nothing short of mythical. The logical assumption follows that if we have too much access to information about a celebrity, we risk losing interest in them entirely. Indeed, the live coverage today streams endlessly into our breaking news brains leaving us little to imagine, few mysteries to ponder and nary a single blank to fill in. We are duly informed, we are shown, we hear the contrived analysis and then we see and hear it again one thousand times. How could we possibly romanticize or mythologize Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears when we know every last thing about them?

Before Valentino’s manager George Ullman died in 1975, he wrote a memoir in which he divulged details of Valentino’s behind-the-scenes life story. I discovered Ullman’s memoir during my research and this revelatory document became the focal point of my work. I sincerely hope that the publication of this new information will not serve to demystify Valentino and diminish his appeal as a true icon. For in knowing too much about our celebrities we jeopardize the very process that makes them icons. Familiarity breeds contempt and the more we know, the less we seem to care. Conversely, the less we know, the sweeter the fantasy.

"Sporting New Face"

I share one more article on the subject of Alberto Guglielmi Valentino's intent to follow his brother into films. I think anyone can do as they wish with plastic surgery and do not post this in a judgment of any procedure. I share this because it is currently being alleged Alberto was some sort of victim in his quest. 

Parading in public with reporters does not demonstrate a victim stance for me. I guess there is nothing wrong with his wanting to succeed his brother in films but later on Alberto claimed he never had such intentions. And today it is falsely claimed Ullman was responsible. This article is also interesting in that it mentions Ada's show business history. From the LATimes, October 19, 1927: 

In Alberto's Own Words

Some time ago I heard that those "Ullman detractors" were trying to blame him for encouraging Alberto Guglielmi to have his nose surgically altered. This absurd theory is just that and I share an account of the inspiration for the nose jobs in Alberto's own words. For the record, (see below). I have transcribed the article, or page of the article I have, because my copy is poor. I included the copy below the transcription. 

From The Literary Digest, September 21, 1929

The Tragedy of Valentino's Brother's Nose

"Cyrano De Bergerac's poesy and wit would be needed to celebrate worthily the tribulations endured by Alberto Guglielmi, in pursuit of nasal betterment. Guglielmi calls himself Valentino, because that was the screen name under which his brother Rudolph became famous.

The tale of his martyrdom on the altar of pulchritude comes out of Hollywood apropos of the news that his little son, Jean Valentino, has arrived at that metropolis of beauty culture, having traveled from Italy in the company of Tito Schipa, the operatic tenor, who is to sing in the talkies.

Small Jean, age thirteen, is to be groomed, we are told, for a screen career. He is said to resemble his famous uncle whom Mr. Mencken once credited with having been 'catnip to women'.

In the family group shown on this page little Jean stands beside Rudolph and our readers may judge for themselves to what extent he promises to recapture some of the magic that once went with the name Valentino.

Meanwhile, relates Florabell Muir of the New York Daily News, under a Hollywood date: There is rejoicing in the home of Alberto Guglielmi, who also calls himself Valentino, because he sees in the young son the embryo of the fascinating sex-appeal that was the magic of Valentino. The proud father has concluded that a film career for himself is impossible, but with his eyes on his son, he is able to look back on the four years he devoted to whipping his nose into shape, with a less tragic air.

And this tale of a modern Cyrano, which he relates himself with much humor, as we shall see serves to enlighten us on the problems that may beset a family blessed with a prize beauty, male or female.

For emulation enters into the picture and one or more members of the beauty's family are sure to be seized with a noble ambition to live up to the aura of the enchantment that has descended upon the tribe.

Moreover, when ambition is fortified by dreams of a dazzling reward of fame and fortune, even torture may lose its terrors. As Miss Muir tells us:

When Rudolph Valentino died, his family were loath to lose the spell of fame the handsome young screen idol had cast over them. Eagerly they reached out to catch some of the glory, in the hope of keeping it alive. The most determined in this endeavor was Alberto Guglielmi, Rudolph's eldest brother.

The torture he underwent to have his nose fashioned into the beauteous one displayed by his brother was recalled with the arrival of his thirteen-year-old son Jean. He discussed it with me almost merrily. This is how it came about that he tried to fit himself to play the Shiek:

He was talking with Sylvano Balboni, husband of the late June Mathis, scenarist who created the role in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse that made Valentino famous.

'The public idolizes your brother. It would receive you with open arms in pictures. You look like him, all but your nose', Balboni paused.

'So what must be done?' demanded Guglielmi. 'I have my nose. I have no other. Perhaps you could tell me how to change it.'

'There are ways,' said Balboni, 'Jack Dempsey had a nose the camera did not like. It was remodeled.'

'But how', urged Guglielmi.

'Plastic surgery,' whispered Balboni, he gave the whisper the importance of sesame for Guglielmi's entrance into the motion pictures.

'Plastic surgery?' echoed Guglielmi, 'You mean cut the nose to fit?'

'Exactly,' exactly said Balboni.

The modern Cyrano did not hesitate but followed his nose into an establishment for the reparation, mitigation and renovation of human features. What followed is best conveyed in his own words:

'We agreed it could be done. I am ready. It begins. Painful. Well not pleasant, but I do not care. The nose it is not pleasant either. I am expectant. You can think what you like. A new nose to look upon. The days of the bandages are long. Then what happened? Horrible. My nose sticks up. It is too short. I return to the doctor. Something must be done. I said, the nose, it is more unpleasant than before. I ask that you give me a nose that will photograph. I do not demand a pure Grecian nose, just one that the camera will like. It is not as good as before. The superior part is always good.....

The Iconic Booth

A reader of and commentator on this blog sent a photo from their recent vacation; seated in Valentino's booth in the Hollywood restaurant Musso and Frank's. Thank you to "Anonymous" for sharing this iconic locale.

More about the history of Musso and Frank's here:

https://mussoandfrank.com/

The Currency for Favors

This little mention (see below) appeared in The Los Angeles Times on August 28, 1927. So a Max Autrey bought it from the person who bought it at the auction. I wonder what happened to the images he found in Rudy's camera. It seems every time I mention some article sold at auction which once belonged to Rudolph Valentino, I hear some ridiculous diatribe from the "Magus of the Cult of Terhune" how Ullman stole it, tossed it in his trunk when Alberto was not looking and then sold it 30 years later for a twenty dollar bill.

Perhaps he can offer something interesting and less vicious about this camera. Perhaps he can share something that is not posted with every intent to inflict harm...on someone. 

I do know that the Alberto Valentino family and the collectors who affiliate with them, use photographs of Valentino which are yet to be public as currency for favors. 

The enticement of a rare photo of the man is enough to keep a spy loyal. And no greater reward for a favor than a heart stopping picture of Valentino no one else has yet to see. I think there are many, many images we have yet to see which are being hoarded and parsed out. A bit more on Max Munn Autrey, who bought the camera... can be found here:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q65922873

The Morals Clause

Today I found the following (see below) from Rudolph Valentino's United Artists' contract and thought it relevant to the discussion on why Natacha and Rudy divorced. I commented that perhaps the "no children" issue was a smoke screen for something more grievous. 

Below, the morals clause which made me think Valentino had no choice in the matter or he risked losing the contract. Because nearly everything going on at the time was in violation of this clause. 

One Key Word

A follow-up note on the previous discussion about the reasons for Rudolph Valentino and Natacha Rambova's separation. This excerpt is taken from a longer article appearing in The New York Times on November 11, 1925, titled, "Valentino Seeks Citizenship Here". Natacha includes one key word, "yet". She refers to the subject of having children as something she would not do "yet". This implies she might have.

I doubt it for some reasons. In the 1940's, her second husband, Alvaro de Ursaiz was granted an annulment from Natacha on the grounds she married him without intentions to bear his children. Here, in 1925, it appears she was still open to the idea because she was not ready, "yet". 

The quote reads: " It is all very well to have and rear children but no woman should embark upon this phase of life until she is prepared to give up everything for the children. That I will not do yet."

 

Taking Care of Business

I have some serious business to take care of today. David Bret seems unhappy with the names he is being referred to here. This is the height of hypocrisy coming from him.

I am not one to call people names but I feel at this point the comments on this blog concerning Bret are more than justified. Has he forgotten the decade of name-calling of me, Renato, my friends and family? He began calling me names in 2009, bore down when my Dad died and within days was calling me a “daddy-f-er”. He has called me a “coke head”, alleging I did cocaine when none of that is true, claimed I had warrants out for my arrest, posted my personal information with enticements to do me harm, etc. He now whines piteously about the name-calling here. I can not think of another person on earth who karmically deserves every brilliant and truthful moniker shared here as comments.

He has not just name-called but done so at times on up to five blogs devoted to defaming us. In 2014, I made a video response to his bullying in which I read some of the names he called me up to that time. Bear in mind some seven years have passed since this was recorded and he has not stopped for a day.

He claims we write the comments here but we do not. I would add that the names he is being called here imo are accurate. Because he mocked the death of my beloved father and ruined his online search with pornography, Davis Bret IS a bastard and those names all make perfect sense.

Bret claims Renato penned most of the things said about him in this blog's comments. Here follows Renato's response to this.

"One of David Bret's specialties is to invent quotes in an effort to fool people into believing his lies, his vile lies!

Recently, he commented on the blog Tracy Terhune runs under the title of Affairs Valentino, as a guest of his buddy. He cited my alleged insults both against him and Tracy Ryan Terhune and many other dubious characters.

Here is the example of David Bret's lies he posted as a comment on Tracy Terhune's blog on October 28, 2021. I excerpt under Fair Use guidelines to illustrate my point:

Apart from porn-fiction writer, which is not an insult but a pure and simple observation, the other epithets do not belong to my language and I never said those things at all. This is a lie by David Bret. I confess, I am not a great expert on English insults.

The worst, however, is what follows:

That my dressing in Morocco in Moroccan clothes is somehow deviant.  

I did not refer to them as "Gals" and "tarts" and I did not denounce Tracy as "Mistress of Ceremonies". None of that has ever even crossed my mind. I can well say that, subtly, in my opinion, here Bret tries to put words into my mouth which he would love to say to Tracy Ryan Terhune. If there is a champion of homophobia here, he is David Bret; homophobic and cowardly because he wants to offend his host by making others bear responsibility.

I confess, I have no interest in Tracy Ryan Terhune's sexuality as I have no interest in anyone's sexuality, "each in his own way" and I respect everyone. But I can not respect liars like David Bret who does issue decidedly defamatory statements.

Perhaps the sentence of the Asti court did not teach him anything, as it did not make him understand that future judgments could also land on his back.

I urge readers to consider all of Bret's claims about us, without valid documentation, absolute lies.

For Tracy I just say: Be careful not to hold a viper so close to your heart."

David Bret lost the defamation case we brought against him (see www.zumayawinslawsuit.com)  and in the verdict the judge addressed his rhetoric towards me:

So his violent name-calling and defamation was of such a sick and high extreme there is no way it can be compared to the monikers and tag-lines about him left here.

I refer to him as the “Valentino Porn Fiction Writer” because Michael Morris coined that phrase and made me promise him I would always refer to Bret that way. It is a factual moniker.

To Bret I say shut up for god's sake. After all you have done and still do, the depths of depravity to which you resort...you have this coming and more. Own it.

Rudy Comments on Ullman's Investment

I think it was something not so widely known until I brought it forth, that George Ullman fronted most of the money for Natacha's movie, "What Price Beauty". The history of that movie is a subject for another post some day but I wanted to point out what Rudolph Valentino himself said about Ullman's investment. 

I believe the amount invested was about $40,000 which by today's exchange rate would be x 15 or $600,000. So I emphasize how absurd it is for Tracy Terhune to be claiming Ullman "stole a cane" worth less than a hundred dollars, presenting this in a mocking way dearly hoping this will impugn Ullman in everyone's eyes. Such a measly and peevish point by Terhune speaks volumes about him and in fact says nothing about Ullman in light of Ullman's mighty personal investment in Natacha's movie.

An interesting quote from Rudy himself (see below). And I venture to say he would not be pleased today at all with Mr. Terhune's attempts to portray Ullman as a thief and bandit when S. George was the hero of the story hands down. 

"Another Black Mark" on Tracy Terhune's Legacy

“On another site”... another blaring “black mark” on Tracy Ryan Terhune.

He claims no, (as in zero)... canes were sold at Valentino's auction... when in fact (see below)

Item #672 of the auction inventory lists 13 canes for sale. Count 'em Tracy... 13!!

So he can remove his completely wrong statement claiming there were no canes for sale and his pathetic smear about Ullman. If selling something that once belonged to Valentino is a "black mark" then I think Mr. Terhune should look in a mirror. Does he own said cane in question? And he can stop using the terms "black mark" and "black market" to deceive his followers. 

How can anyone believe anything Tracy Terhune says about anything Valentino when he is so consistently, yet proudly wrong? But kudos on his cute bubble graphic there even though it represents his complete ignorance about the sale of Rudy's many, many canes at auction.

Yes. Fact.

Item #672

Complete shite from Tracy Terhune. There were 13 for sale. We await a retraction.