1932: The Fans Speak Out About New Star Clark Gable

 

Clark Gable didn’t tiptoe into pop culture, he exploded. In 1931, he went from a virtual nobody to a superstar practically overnight. By the time 1932 arrived, he was declared either the next big thing or the next flash in the pan. Fan magazines of the time are of course full of fluff and are driven by studio publicity hounds–but what did the fans think?  The following letters were all written to Picture Play magazine in 1932.

From January 1932:

After seeing Clark Gable in “Dance, Fools, Dance,” “The Finger Points,” and “A Free Soul,” I believe him to be the greatest find the screen has ever known.

He has absolutely everything, and if given half a chance, will enjoy a popularity rivaling that of Valentino. He is equally at home as a villain, hero, or comedian. Such versatility combined with such a tremendous personality, unusual looks, and a voice thrilling with an undercurrent of danger, should carry him to the top. Every time I see him, I feel an electric shock run through me.

For about eight years I have admired Ramon Novarro a great deal, but he faded completely out of the picture as soon as I saw this Gable fellow.

I was very interested in [another fan’s letter] concerning Clark Gable. I agree [that] “The Four Horsemen” would provide a great role for Gable, but I hope people will not label him the second Valentino. He is the first Clark Gable, and no one else!

~Mary Ostronic

Los Angeles, California

____

Although having read [this column] for years, I have never felt inspired to send in a letter of my own until recently. The reason is Clark Gable. There is not nearly enough written about him, his glamorous personality, his remarkable ability to portray any character. I saw him in a very small part quite a while before his name appeared in print, and I knew then that he would go far. He hasn’t, in my opinion, even begun to realize his greatness. He will be loved by everyone. Greater than Valentino or any of the others. I do hope they will give him stories worthy of his personality.

~Bernice Meadows

Fort Worth, Texas

From February 1932:

In the words of an English king, “Will no one deliver me from this man?” I mean Barry Norton. I seem to have stirred up a hornets’ nest when I said I didn’t like Barry. Should I have kept it a secret? Well, I just couldn’t. And here’s another secret I can’t keep. I’ve discovered a brand new star!

Tall, dark, and steely-eyed, he walks among men, yet strangely apart from his fellows. One minute a nobody, and then–a giant of the screen! Just one more actor looking for his coffee and cake and then–a star of stars! Strange though it may seem, he does not come to us from far-off Spain or mystic Madagascar, but out of our own Middle West.

The physique of Dempsey, the gifts of a Barrymore, and the magnetism of a Valentino–he possesses all these, and more. His luminous gray orbs attract even when they should repel. His smile is a mixture of honey and hemlock. His voice changes in a split second from taht of pleading lover to the haunting tones of a man who has lost his way along the road to hell.

Fans, I give you Clark Gable. May his shadow never grow less.

~Frank Tully

Danbury, Connecticut

From March 1932:

One can’t pick up a fan magazine these days without having “Clark Gable’s Rise to Fame,” “Clark Gable’s Life Story,” “Clark Gable’s Early Struggle,” “Why Women Go Crazy Over Clark Gable,” et cetera, staring one in the face.

Mr. Gable must be good–or perhaps I should say “bad.” He may be Valentino’s greatest successor. The majority of the fair sex go into eulogies at the mention of him. Perhaps it is because I am of a slightly sarcastic nature that I find it all so vastly amusing, to say the least. At any rate, I for one, wouldn’t stake much on his endurance.

Those overnight sensations, players who strike up the most noise, usually fade out the quickest. Those who go slowly, causing just a steady ripple of interest, seem to go more surely. This has been proved so often that the fate of each case is almost inevitable. Mr. Gable’s role thus far have not hit mediocrity, and as long as they continue in their present strong, appealing state, he is safe. But his producers may cash in on his sudden burst of popularity by expecting merely his appeal to pit across just any old thing. Why use a big star in a big picture?

Only recently, Buddy Rogers was riding atop much the same flattering wave of public adulation and acclaim that is now being enjoyed by Gable. And today? Hastily mismanaged, over exploited, stripped of the glories of stardom, disheartened, and almost ready to quit the screen–through!

Of course, I’m pessimistic in wondering whether one not-so-distant day this may be the predicament of the current man of the hour. However, if Mr. Gable is in reality the demanding sort of individual he represents on the screen, so unlike the modest Buddy, he will probably never let such a thing come to pass. his fans would do well to hope he is–and won’t.

~R.L.E.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

From April 1932:

It seems that of late there has been a popular demand for a talkie version of “The Sheik,” with Clark Gable in the title role. Oh, please, you movie magnates who make the final decision on these matters, don’t do it!

Clark Gable is not fitted to play the part of an Arab chief or any other kind of foreigner. That he is a great actor, a first-rate cave man, and an incomparable lover, no one can justly deny, and at first glance these things do seem to qualify him for the part of Ahmed ben Hassan.

But look a little deeper. Clark Gable is first, last and above all else, a typical American. It is written all over his face and in every accent of his voice. If you put a dozen turbans on his head, you couldn’t make him look like anything else. Let us continue to see him in the kind of role he was made for–the red-blooded, he-man American.

The Arab dress would not become him, and the Arab speech–oh, give me ether, somebody! Can you honestly imagine Clark Gable forsaking the snappy lingo of his native land for the poetic thees and thous of the Orient–and do it with a straight face?

If “The Sheik” is remade at all, it should be with a star of Latin extraction, as it was the first time. I doubt if it would click so well with today’s audiences–we have learned to expect so much more of our movies than we did when that far-fetched romance made its big hit. At any rate, it is utterly unworthy of Clark Gable, aside from his personal disqualifications for it.

Nevertheless, if you vote me down and put him in it anyhow, I shall go to see it. I kind of like this Gable fellow.

~Estelle Wade

Houston, Texas

____

I must express my opinion of an actress, who I think is absolutely silly. That is Helen Chandler. Someone ought to rename her “Weeping Willow.” All my friends agree with me. If you saw her in “Salvation Nell” and “The Last Flight,” you’d agree with me.

If I ever saw her smile or look happy, I’d faint. Even at the end of a picture she cries because she’s happy. Of all the actresses she’s the worst.

Three cheers for Clark Gable, he’s a honey!

~Mary Casker

Chicago, Illinois

(I had to put that one in here because I burst out laughing when I read it—a letter devoted to insulting Helen Chandler ends with a random proclamation that Clark is a honey! Love it!)

____

I am writing about the only man in the movie world who gives me that funny sensation when I see him on the screen–Clark Gable. He has “It” and plenty of it. This may sound unladylike, but I’d like choke “S.C” of Philadelphia. If Clark can’t act, then she is deaf, dumb abd blind. I’m sure S.C. is a woman.

Mr. Gable, you may be prehistoric in her sight, but she’s the only one. We need more he-men like you. The sweet-boy type has had its day.

~Agatha

Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania

 (There are a lot of angry letters to “S.C” from Philadelphia, who apparently wrote a nasty letter to the magazine about Clark. I believe it must have been in the November or December editions of the magazine however, which I do not have access to.)

From May 1932:

I never miss reading [this column] and I can hardly refrain from sending in my say, especially when the remarks are so cruel, and pertain to the players’ psyhical looks.

Take Mrs. M.C.M’s letter in the February issue critizing Clark Gable’s ears and saying he is “terrible looking.” How can one he as cruel as she? In my opinion, Mr. Gable is the picture of how a hero should look and act. He is decidely manly in appearance–nothing effeminate about this Gable boy. Masculinity, the exact opposite of ourselves, is what we femmes want in our movie heroes. Big, tall and rough.

I didn’t like Martha Alice Trifero’s letter, either. She also criticizes too severely. In her letter she was knocking Mr. Gable and the film “Susan Lenox.” This picture was great. Miss Garbo was great, and Mr. Gable was greater.  What did Miss Trifero mean by saying “If Mr. Gable had played his part?” His role couldn’t have been played better! Miss Trifero must have cried for the moon when she was a baby.

~Gladys Estes

West Asheville, North Carolina

______________

I was taken aback at the sudden generousity of Frank Tully. He “gives us Clark Gable” and I, for one, wonder why. For the life of me I can’t see him–Gable, I mean.

I am unmoved by the appeal of this so-called hero of the hour.  I can see only two big ears, a large, brutal mouth, black hair, sullen eyes, and a heavy, over-balanced body. Where, oh where, is the voice that can change from the pleading tones of a lover to the agonizing cry of the soul lost in hell, or wherever Mr. Tully said souls would be lost? Where is the flash of passionate steely eyes, or the tender glance of the lover? Where is the overwhelming smile that is a mixture of honey and hemlcok? Seems to me that Frank has been reading novels and bad ones at that.

Gable lacks polish, the one virtue that all heroes must possess. Here is a man that spells brutality from every feature. There can’t be any doubt that he is miscast. A villian, yes, and a darn good one, but lover and protector never.

Why must he always strike his women? I’m sure that isn’t necessary. Gable is supposed to fill Valentino’s shoes. Well, Valentino never went in for slapping his women–kidnapping, yes, but never once did she show signs of downright meanness. One can’t say that much for Clark Gable. I do not say that he is no actor. He is, and a fair one at that, but he is not meant for the drawing-room and milady’s chamber. Clark is a menace, not a hero or a lover.

Perhaps I’m blind and stupid that I can’t see this wonder man of the hour. I only hope that the wrath of Gable fans won’t fall on my poor unprotected head.

~”The Voice from Chicago”

Chicago, Illinois

From September 1932:

To “The Voice from Chicago” I must say I have never in all of life read such a mean, hateful letter as the one which you wrote about Clark Gable.

What do you expect of a mere man? You should have lived in the days of Jupiter, when flat-footed gods came and played sweet music and sang beautiful, tearful songs to you. What a glorious time you would have had!

I’d rather see Clark Gable with his brutal mouth and large ears than to see the slick-haired, honey-coated hero which you have pictured. If he likes to strike his woman, OK. It might be that the cave men are ocming back in style. He’s a great lover.

~”The Voice of the South”

Memphis, Tennessee

_____________

Why is there so much slush about Clark Gable being a great actor? When did he ever go any marvelous acting? I like Clark personally. He is very attractive, but I would never call him an actor. In “Hell Divers” he was supposed to be in great sorrow over the death of Warner Baxter, yet not an expression crossed his face except a slight frown. In the same picture, when his leg was hurt, all he did was wrinkle up his face and grunt. I don’t call grunting great acting.

My nomination for the greatest actor is Frederic March. He is versatile and convincing in every role he plays. In “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” he was called upon to portray a man torn by great inner suffering and he portrayed it, too. Clark Gable could never have done such great work, even if he had been the type. Clark had better stick to tough or heroic types of roles which don’t require much skill.

The second-best actor is Irving Pichel. He can play any type of character role brilliantly and convincingly. He also has a spectacular personality.

I hope Paramount will give Frederic March and Irving Pichel good roles which further their popularity.

~M.V. Underhill

Galveston, Texas

___

It amuses me greatly in reading female movie fans’ comments on Clark Gable. He seems awfully popular with a lot of them. Just because this so-called he-man slaps and knocks his women down in his pictures. Well, I think that if those same fans who make a hero of Clark Gable were to be slapped and knocked down by their own lovers or husbands there would be a different story to tell. I am an old-timer and have failed to see or meet the women who would stand for being slapped or knocked down by any man.

~M.B. Walsh

Newark, NJ

____

While all this howling is going on about Clark Gable’s ears, how about:

Johnny Weissmuller’s ears?

Doug Fairbanks Jr.’s ears?

John Gilbert’s nose?

Richard Arlen’s peculiar-shaped head?

Charlie Farrell’s piping voice?

William Haines’s receding forehead?

Dick Barthelmess’s odd upper lip?

Phillips Holmes’s gaunt expression?

Leslie Howard’s funny face?

Anita Page’s eyebrows?

~”Canada”

Toronto, Ontario

From November 1932:

Clark Gable is a capable actor, deserves all the praise that he is getting, but I am sorry to say that he lacks one thing, and that is politeness. He is indifferent to his fan letters!

He must surely realize that he is making a grave mistake in failing to respond to his many letters of praise. I know if a long-standing actor like Richard Barthelmess answers his fan letters, Mr. Gable can do the same. Mr. Barthelmess is a polite and conscientious man. That is partly the reason for his lasting popularity.

Take a tip from me, Mr. Gable, and answer your fan mail.

~G.I.H.

Knoxville, Tennessee

______________

Poor Clark Gable! A little more miscasting and his popularity will wane.

Does MGM not realize that his success is due to the he-man roles, as in “Hell Divers?” I’m sure many fans will echo my sentiments when I say that I am heartily sick of seeing him make love to exotic ladies in perfumed boudoirs. I’d bet that he hates to play them as much as we hate seeing them.

Why don’t some of those highly paid writers at MGM studio get busy and write a story based on the life of Jack Dempsey? It would be great to see Clark as a boxer. Please, MGM, leave all the dressed-up Romeo parts to the pretty boys, and give us Clark as he really is–a strong, two-fisted he-man who knows what he wants and can fight for it. Then his popularity will be greater than ever.

~Marie Brown

Montreal, Canada

_____

If you want to be a success like:

Clark Gable–get a reputation for being a he-man, and then take the part of a minister and bead your eyelashes and goo your lips to show your public you’re not such a bad-looking guy underneath. Never bother to do any acting, but display a lot of blah that will pass very well. Cater to a mob of half-wit flappers and show your manly strength by manhandling a few weak females. Pose in the great outdoors of a photographer’s studio  with a high-necked sweater, an empty pipe and a prop horse.

Joan Crawford–pick the most glaringly bad faults of every popular actress and use them all in your own pictures. Forget you once earned your way to fame by being a good, honest dancing daughter and assume a culture that is ridiculously beyond you. Look as actressy as possible and wear gowns that would prove outlandish even on an exaggerated manikin. Never for a moment be yourself.

Constance Bennett–be a member of a famous family. Use exactly the same expressions in every one of your pictures. Demand a fabulous salary for doing as little as you can. Portray characters such as artists’ models and minikins when your figure wouldn’t earn you a dime modeling gingham aprons. Look as dead as it is possible for a live person to look.

If you want to be a failure like:

Leslie Howard–have a wife to whom you have been married for years and don’t even hint at divorce. Never give out any lurid publicity and don’t break into print with why you adore American women and which of your leading ladies you love the best. Don’t show yourself at every premiere and grin vapidly into every camera. Speak with a natural, subdued voice and act like a human being. Use gestures that are real and always be a gentleman.

Ramon Novorro–possess such a remarkable flair for beauty and romance that you are immediately put into a football film like “Huddle.” have a gorgeous singing voice so that you can be kept in musicless films despite the outcry of your public. Give evidence that you have culture, brilliancy, and intelligence, and you will be put in asinine films like “Daybreak” and “Mata Hari.” Be the hero of a hundred wonderul and famous stories so your bosses can go to a great deal of trouble digging up a lot of stupid ones in which they can miscast you. Prove altogether that you are the most magnetic, handsome individual and talented star in filmdom, and you will be kept out of pictures altogether.

~H.N. Temple

Los Angeles, California