Tomorrow is Raymond Burr’s birthday! He was born
on May 21st, 1917, in New Westminster, British Columbia. I have a
reason for posting a day early, contrary to my original plans, and I will
reveal that further on.
I’ve been pondering on exactly what to share in
this post in honor of him. Usually on either the birth or death date posts, I’ve
tried to give a bit of biographical information for the actors. But so much
about Raymond seems to have been tall tales that I’ve all but given up on
figuring out which is fact and which is fiction.
I’m rather amused by the stories he spun about
himself. If he was trying to keep himself a near-complete mystery to the
general public, he certainly succeeded. I can imagine him being amused himself
as he thought of the various tales to weave.
EDIT: Okay, so the above would seem to be, from all known instances, incorrect. I won't change what I wrote, because then the comment session that follows below the entry won't make much sense.
EDIT: Okay, so the above would seem to be, from all known instances, incorrect. I won't change what I wrote, because then the comment session that follows below the entry won't make much sense.
Raymond seemed to not want to call a lot of attention
to himself. He didn’t even want his vineyard named after him. I believe I read
that he thought that would be too pretentious. After his death, his partner did
rename the vineyard after him. I think it’s a nice memorial touch. But it
impresses me that Raymond didn’t want that during his life.
From all that I’ve read, he was a friendly,
compassionate man. As I’ve mentioned, I love how he made the Perry set
such an enjoyable place. He was also quite a practical jokester. In addition to
the brick wars and other amusing nonsense he had going with William Talman, he
was often pranking Barbara Hale. According to her, once he even nailed her
shoes to the floor of the courtroom set!
I haven’t seen anything else that he has been in
since I made that post about the film Please Murder Me sometime back.
However, I don’t think I ever mentioned that prior to that I saw a movie he
made with Errol Flynn, Maru Maru. It was an adventure flick, with them
in search of a jeweled cross. Raymond plays the bad guy, as he typically did in
many of the films he did before Perry, and he is excellent, of course.
. . . And he was in Love Happy?! The same Love
Happy that was the Marx Brothers’ last film? I think it’s time to dig that
film out again. I haven’t seen it for years, probably not since I really became
aware of Perry Mason.
I have seen some of his TV appearances, including
the very first episode of Dragnet. He played the police chief. It was a
very intense episode as it was, and Raymond made it even more interesting.
I have also watched more of Ironside.
While I think Perry is my favorite of the two crime-solvers, Robert Ironside is
awesome too. My favorite of the episodes I’ve seen so far is probably the one
where it’s revealed that he had a relationship with a woman who can’t seem to
stop being a thief. That caused them to part in the past, and when they meet
again in the present, it isn’t able to last long then, either. It’s a very
well-written and bittersweet episode. Raymond portrays Ironside’s conflicting
feelings to perfection. My only complaint about the episode is that Wesley Lau is
in it but they never arranged for him and Raymond to interact. What a missed
opportunity. I hope they had a nice reunion off-screen, at least!
We lost Raymond on September 12th,
1993. While he is buried in Canada, I believe there’s a memorial to him in one
of the Los Angeles cemeteries. It’s nice when that sort of thing is done.
Raymond is still highly missed. He made the
character of Perry Mason his own. Robert Ironside, too. And many assorted
oneshot characters on television series and in movies.
On the 50th Anniversary DVDs, Barbara
Hale reveals that she met Raymond in the 1940s, sometime before Perry.
In fact, it was partially Raymond being a part of Perry that made
Barbara decide to give it a try (that, and she thought they were only going for
17 episodes. Ha!). She says that she and Raymond were dear friends for fifty
years. And that is a beautiful thing. Friendships often don’t last even half as
long as that. She also mentions that her kids all called him “Uncle Ray.”
Adorable!
On Perry and also Ironside, Raymond’s
stand-in was actor Lee Miller. Eerily enough, Lee was born May 18th,
1917! (And from the scant information I’ve found, he may still be alive. That
is awesome!) Born just three days apart? Wow. This has just come to my
attention now, and I feel badly that I didn’t know in time to have dedicated
Thursday’s post to Lee. I think Raymond would be happy to share this post with
Lee, who most likely became one of his friends after so many appearances. So I
have decided to post it today, between their birthdays, and dedicate it to them
both.
Us Perry fans should be very familiar with
Lee, as he appeared many times on-screen as Sergeant Brice (and a few times in
other small parts). Although credited only 50-plus times, he was in many
episodes uncredited. This may be because of Brice’s customary silence. He was
often seen and not heard. I was actually surprised the first time I heard him
speak!
There are several episodes where he has some
interesting interaction with Tragg or one of the other Lieutenants. Brice was
there through it all, with them all, from Tragg to Andy to Steve. He is an
unsung hero, largely forgotten in the overall picture, yet he is so often there
for those willing to look.
Usually Brice is a background
character, content to let the Lieutenant take the lead. One season 3 episode I
saw in the past week or two had Tragg expounding something in the crime scene
to Brice. That happens in several episodes, but in this one they had more
conversation than they typically do, so I found it especially memorable.
I just saw one again the other day where he has a
more expanded role. In The Ugly Duckling, Brice calls Perry to tell him
about his client’s car going over a cliff. Perry arrives at the scene and
continues to converse with Brice until Andy shows up moments later. I found
that one particularly interesting. I wonder what prompted the writers to give
Brice more lines than usual?
Although Brice was almost always played by Lee,
there were a couple of times early on where someone else took the reins. It
always gives me a bit of a start to see another man called Brice wander
on-screen. I like that the role later became Lee’s alone. It adds a nice bit of
continuity, which is especially refreshing for a fairly minor character such as
Brice.
It’s a pity the writers didn’t do more with him.
He could have been very interesting in scenes with the Lieutenants, developing
both his and their characters. But I am happy that the writers at least
occasionally ventured out and gave him more to say and do than usual. The rest,
well, that is up to fanfiction writers.
To
Raymond and Lee, happy birthday from the fans who love and remember you both!
Well whaddya' know? Happy birthday Raymond Burr and Lee Miller, wherever you are!
ReplyDelete1) Lee Miller, I recall reading, died, not that long ago, maybe a couple of years ago. I went to the movie data base to check that and saw that since I last was there, the format has been changed-I don't like it as much as before-and there is no death date. So, don't go quoting me on this, but I do think he passed. One can't always trust the info in the data base as fans maintain it.
ReplyDelete2.) Re Raymond Burr and his stories-it was a problem for him, a serious problem, most were not planned at all.
Ahh, I see. Yeah, that was why I didn't say for sure that he was alive, as I wasn't sure IMDB was accurate. Sometimes, indeed, it definitely isn't.
DeleteOh, that's interesting. I was thinking Raymond made up most of those stories himself. Do you mean that someone else (like a press agent) made them up, or that Raymond did make them up himself but he had so many that they all got mixed up? I thought it was more the latter, but I don't really know much about that element.
"I’m rather amused by the stories he spun about himself. If he was trying to keep himself a near-complete mystery to the general public, he certainly succeeded. I can imagine him being amused himself as he thought of the various tales to weave."
ReplyDeleteThey weren't a source of amusement. (This is not a criticism of you or your words, I hope you understand.) What I say below might help.
"Do you mean that someone else (like a press agent) made them up, or that Raymond did make them up himself but he had so many that they all got mixed up?"
Sorry to have been unclear. Yes, he did make them up himself, and yes, they did contradict one another and stumble all over one another because his practice was ingrained, probably born in his childhood or early teens, so frequent a habit that he forgot what he had said from week to week, month to month, year to year, forgot to whom each had been said, what was on record, what wasn't, etc. Only a rare few might have been planned, but "planned" only in the vaguest, most general sense, initially as a young newcomer and unknown to Hollywood, the first wife appearing to hide his sexuality or simply because he was aware that HW studio heads wanted their leading men to be married, even pushing many hetero and homosexual men into marriages or telling them to find another career, and Burr's goal as that young man was to be a leading man. He was quite ambitious.
con't...
DeleteSome tales would extemporaneously have a few decorative ornaments hung on them down the road, (wife died in the same airplane accident as Leslie Howard during WW2--a story easily checked as either false or true by looking at passenger lists of that famous airplane crash), then, after getting the role as Perry, an ornament of a son from the union added to the story. Later, the name and age of the son, then conflicting ages of the son, then the reason for the son's death, leukemia, that "fact" shared at time when the public's knowledge of that disease occurred because of the illness and death of the son of the beloved tv comic, Red Skelton.
First year of Perry, he was a divorced man, having been married twice, first wife having died in plane crash, divorced from second wife, son from first union dead. The second wife was real, the marriage having actually occurred. Maybe he thought and hoped he had found a woman with whom he could lead a normal life, have a family. Maybe it was a sham, with her in on it, but I won't go into why I think that's less likely than the first scenario.
By third year of Perry, out popped a third wife (conflicting years of the marriage given --1954,1955), one who died shortly after they married, died of quick-striking cancer, a wife no one who ever worked with him during those successful, prolific movie-making years ever met or ever saw. However, during these two years, he was achieving desired publicity in the trades through his movie roles, through his trips to Korea with the USO, and by attending high visibility events such as the premiere of "A Star is Born" with his date and friend, Evelyn Russell.
con't...
DeleteSome tales would extemporaneously have a few decorative ornaments hung on them down the road, (wife died in the same airplane accident as Leslie Howard during WW2--a story easily checked as either false or true by looking at passenger lists of that famous airplane crash), then, after getting the role as Perry, an ornament of a son from the union added to the story. Later, the name and age of the son, then conflicting ages of the son, then the reason for the son's death, leukemia, that "fact" shared at time when the public's knowledge of that disease occurred because of the illness and death of the son of the beloved tv comic, Red Skelton.
First year of Perry, he was a divorced man, having been married twice, first wife having died in plane crash, divorced from second wife, son from first union dead. The second wife was real, the marriage having actually occurred. Maybe he thought and hoped he had found a woman with whom he could lead a normal life, have a family. Maybe it was a sham, with her in on it, but I won't go into why I think that's less likely than the first scenario.
By third year of Perry, out popped a third wife (conflicting years of the marriage given --1954,1955), one who died shortly after they married, died of quick-striking cancer, a wife no one who ever worked with him during those successful, prolific movie-making years ever met or ever saw. However, during these two years, he was achieving desired publicity in the trades through his movie roles, through his trips to Korea with the USO, and by attending high visibility events such as the premiere of "A Star is Born" with his date and friend, Evelyn Russell.
He grew testy with some interviewers if they pressed for details, either innocently unaware of the fabrications or because they were aware. He enjoyed press junkets to American cities and to Europe and to Japan, and he enjoyed trips where he spoke on behalf of the law (through Perry) and on behalf of the handicapped (through Ironside), so while interviews might be dangerous, he liked the attention, was drawn to the siren's call of continuing fame and the money that resulted from it, and had faith in his shrewdness, his mental agility, and his capacity to charm and to move an interview away from danger.
That brings up the question of why so many speak of Burr with such fondness. Surely a liar couldn't keep friends, couldn't be held in such high regard by others? It turns out no, they surely can, although I suspect there were those who chose not to get too close to him, and probably more accurately, multitudes he chose not to get close to knowing his propensity. Keep people at bay. Don't get too close. Socialize, yes. Have fun with get-togethers, yes, but not too close. They might discover your secret, find out who you really are, what your problem is, and you can't have that. (And, no, homosexuality was not the secret although in the very beginning of his career it might have been. After that, people knew.)
So, yes, loved, truly loved by many, a good man, even a great man if we are to believe the stories put forward about him, and I do believe there is sufficient evidence in his life to support the positives, although I would imagine there is some hyperbole here and there.
I read here, there, and about some who confidently conclude that Burr's stories were, while over the top, nonetheless understandable as a defense against homophobia. I thought that myself for awhile until I read some astute analysis by others and by some who know some clinical psychology and psychiatry. I won't detail this, but his homosexuality would not be the reason for his behavior.
con't...
DeleteSo, what is his problem? He had a range of compulsive behaviors. Even his friend Ms. Hale calls him "driven." It manifested itself in any number of ways. He made money and spent more than he made. So he made more, then spent more. He was never content for long in one place. Travel. Go home. Travel. Home. Not content. Travel. Buy something, like a house, but keep changing it, over and over, remaking it. Creative, yes, but compulsive. Not content even if he liked what he had created. It had to undergo more changes. He had to have projects, several at time, throwing himself into them with passion, then the passion dying, and on to something else. Some projects were completed, some not, because he always thought big, dreamed big, huge, and many times those dreams could not be met. I think it fair to assume his motto was "You can't achieve unless you dream big." He was a doer, like his mother, and forgive me for my attempt at some psychoanalysis, he was proud he was not like the way he perceived his father, a man whom he though was content with the small in life. It appears his fascination with and devotion to THE BIG and THE UNIQUE rendered him unable to understand people like his father, people who were not just satisfied with but supremely happy and content with the simple and the familiar in life.
He was a big smoker, a big drinker, a big eater. Not until he was very ill late in life with lung problems did he manage to quit smoking. His eating (he was a gourmant) reached dangerous, destructive proportions, and not even his career was important enough to him to help him overcome that compulsion. In fact, I suspect that when he took on the role of Mason and they told him he had to lose weight, he managed to lose just a few pounds now and then (judging from what my eyes tell me as I watch the series), but actually, from season one, there is a steady gaining of weight that appears to have been reversed just once (I don't recall the season where he looks to have taken off pounds). The same was true during "Ironside." He started heavy and grew heavier. It must have occurred to him from year to year, and it probably was huge surprise to him that he didn't have to lose weight to keep an audience from dismissing him as a hero and a leading man. That he kept his audience was probably quite unhelpful from a health standpoint. After "Ironside," his weight ballooned to truly staggering proportions, the result of the eating that his friends refer to in articles. He obviously had lost all control.
con't...
DeleteThe same control was lost decades before when he spoke. We can't know if the tales started in childhood or a bit later, but the research for such a problem tells us the teen years are a common starting point although it's not uncommon for it to begin earlier. Did I mention this? (I don't quite have the time right now to go back and read my words). There's an article in which his mother said decided to send him to military school because he was "a dreamer," her words, if we can believe the article. She said he was a good kid, but that, try as he might, he lacked discipline. A divorced mother with three children, an ambitious, self-reliant woman with a background in classical music, a woman who made ends meet by giving piano lessons and selling sheet music in a small store she had opened, thought her eldest son's behavior disconcerting enough to remove him from the public school, to fork over what must have been big dollars for such a school, to separate him from his family at least 5 days a week (he was about 11), yet she did. I suspect she saw behavior that involved tall tales, and that, try as she might, his behavior had not been stemmed. Maybe he told lies to his school mates or to teachers or even to her. Maybe she chose to see this as the manifestation of the mind of an imaginative kid. Afterall, she was a creative woman herself, interested in the arts, and probably had a great deal of appreciation for the creative in anyone. But after a certain age, a parent recognizes that storytelling has morphed into something else. A habit has developed and if not broken, could have dire consequences.
Others have suggested she might have felt he needed the model of and the firm hand of males, both to take care of teaching him discipline and to, perhaps, stem whatever the "dreamer" might have been spouting, something which sounds reasonable. It's also possible she felt he needed some toughening up, that he was even effeminate, for all we know, something she couldn't possibly have said in an interview.
con't...
DeleteHowever, the "dreamer" would explain a lot. If you'd like to actually see this with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears, go to YouTube + Raymond Burr and scan for the 3 part interview with Charlie Rose. If you don't want to watch all 3 parts, watch only the last part, the one that reveals to what I've been referring. It wasn't that long ago it was still up, all 3 parts. While there are several places along the way that are related to this problem, it's in full view in the last part. There is no evidence that Burr is trying to be humorous or trying to spin an entertaining tale, nothing of the sort. The words tumble out, uncontrolled.
In their daily lives, meeting strangers and chitchatting, and telling lies, compulsive liars may or may not feel remorse at what comes out of their mouths or embarrassment. With some, it happens so often, they don't even recognize when they have done it. A lie feels natural. The truth does not.
However, when they are in an environment in which they know their words might be scrutinized because people know them or, in the case of Raymond Burr's interview with Rose, they know their words reach many ,and they know the people listening might question what they've said, there's likely to be an "Oh, my God, what did I just do?" and a "I've done it again," and, attendant shame ("I'm a worthless piece of junk, a sham, I'm weak, I can't even stop myself")....or, depending on the nature of one's personality and lifetime of defenses they've constructed to avoid shame or blame ("Hey, no big deal-I gave an interesting interview, just what the guy wanted; it's not my fault if people believe me. I don't owe them the truth about anything. I didn't hurt anybody." A man who has justifiably convinced himself his sexuality is no one's business and who may have developed a persecution complex might have had an easy time convincing himself that all stories he told were justified, no matter what they were about.
There'd be no way of knowing how he felt about his problem unless he shared his thoughts with someone. Compulsive liars rarely do. They deny the problem and walk away. If someone close to them insists on talking about it, their m.o. is to cut off that person's access to them.
If you watch the youtube, let me know.
There'd be no way of knowing how he felt about his problem unless he shared his thoughts with someone about. Compulsive liars rarely do. They deny the problem and walk away. If someone close to them insists on talking about it, their m.o. is to cut off that person's access to them.
If you watch the youtube, let me know.
Hope I haven't been too long-winded, but it's a hard thing to simply say the man suffered from compulsive lying disorder (and it appears other compulsions)and then offer nothing by way of explanation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh, my, it appears that in cutting and pasting so as not to exceed the limits of the number of characters permitted in one post, I have double posted some paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteSo sorry.
Also sorry for not having proofed anything.
Perfectly alright! It's very intriguing reading everything you have to say. You seem to have managed to do a great deal of research. Does some of it come from that book about Raymond Burr that was written not too long ago?
DeleteThat is very sad if the stories came about at least in part because he was a compulsive liar. Thank you for the heads-up on the interview! I've seen it around while performing searches, and it's on my 50th Anniversary DVD set. I've meant to watch it, but I hadn't got to it yet. I've been moving very slowly through the special features on the fourth disc. I will let you know when I get to it. Errr, how do I do that, though? Reply again to your anonymous posts here and assume that you will be checking back at some point?
Hi,
DeleteJust a quick check back with you--
Only a bit about Burr came from "that book" (written by a guy named Starr), the interviews he had by phone with people who worked a long time with Burr, particularly long-time assistant director, then director, Art Marks, and writer Dean Hargrove of the Mason movies. This book is one of those poorly researched bios that entertainment writers often write to make a quick buck, chosing to write about beloved stars who have indiscretions or character traits the public was generally unaware of (in Burr's case, his orientation) after they've died, There was an earlier bio of Burr written by a long-time fan, a woman who seems to have compiled everything she'd ever read about Burr in entertainment magazines, who appeared to have assumed the stories were true but recognized they often conflicted, and the book was, I think her attempt to make everything fit together. It was astoundingly poorly edited, with her stating bio "fact" in one chapter that directly conflicted with bio "facts" in a following chapter. Her writing attempt appeared to be a labor of love while the more recent bio was a piece meant to ...."shock" is too strong a word as I think the writer discovered he'd be very unpopular, both with fans and with the Hollywood community who knew Burr and liked him, if he tried scandalous hyperbole. He does indeed deal with Burr's lying, but uses words like "fabrications" and "storytelling" and "imagination" not only in discussions of wives and a son, but in other areas as well, but he never ventures into a more blunt explanation that tied this behavior together, that explained it. As a reader, it was hard for me to gauge if this last writer had learned the truth (I think he may have based on what it appears Marks told him ) and knowing the truth, if he felt it was a bridge too far to use the clinical term "compulsive liar" or if those to whom he spoke, such as Marks, even knew that there IS such a disorder. It was clear that the people he interviewed liked, even loved Burr, and respected him in a number of ways, knew full well of his "eccentricities", but it is not clear if even they ever realized anything other than Burr "had a habit of" or "had problems in". Does that make sense?
Ironically enough, in his bio, the second writer made fun of the first bio, pointing out how much of it simply regurgitated all the silly fabricated stories, then turned right around and used her book for reference of much of what he put forward. There are a lot of hacks out there, but once in a while, they do stumble on truths by doing some research and using primary sources.
Oh, no, the C. Rose interview I am referring to is NOT the one included on the 50 year dvd. That interview took place at some other time. You'll have to go to Youtube to view the revealing one.
Cheers. Have a great day.
Ah, that's what I kind of figured that book was like, which is why I hadn't bothered with it. Thanks for the insight. Wow, what a hypocrite: ripping the other bio up and down and then repeatedly referencing it. Ugh.
DeleteYes, what you're saying makes sense.
Oh, I see. Okay, then! YouTube it is.
I forgot to add, and then I believe I am done!
Delete-----After I posted my lengthy responses, I discovered that in copying and pasting, I had omitted a few paragraphs and then accidentally deleted them in the process. I thought the points somewhat important: one dealt with the press' growing discomfort repeating the presumed tragic events of Burr's life; the other dealt with Burr equaling Mason as a man of integrity, honest, justice, and grit in the public's consciousness and actually surpassing both Mason and Ironside as an intriguing person.
-----the words used by his friends to describe him always seen to include, among all the positives, words like "complicated," "complex," "puzzling," "a mystery," or "mysterious," etc. Those words seem to be used when we grasp at ways to describe those who are hard to figure, whose behavior is contradictory. I think now it makes sense what they were striving to say without giving specifice---that he was a wonderful man with many gifts of personality, with behavior that was warm and selfless, but that he did things (told lies that were at times awful in their content and maybe even suspect in motivation) that they just couldn't understand or approve of. They couldn't and wouldn't say that.
Those would have been very interesting paragraphs to see! Thank you for describing their content to me.
DeleteIt's good that his friends wouldn't get more specific than that.
Thanks so much for the bday reminder. I'm usually too weary these days to read much of anything about Ray Burr because everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion about him and his life. Mind you, never friends or relatives, which should say enough IMO. Tabloids simply annoy the heck out of me.
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter note: Raymond Burr also shared a birthday with Barbara Hale's hubby btw. For some reason that always made me smile.
Yeah, I tend to stay away from things too, such as those books I and ... someone (wish I knew who) are discussing above. As mentioned, I gave up trying to sort out fact from fiction and pretty much just want to celebrate Raymond. :)
DeleteAwww. That's neat!
I see we think alike, darls. :o)
DeleteHello again.
ReplyDeleteFor your convenience (for D. Mae as well) I've included these. I never know when the Youtube owners of the videos will take them down or let them expire or whatever it is that happens to them when they disappear. Even saved links go dead after a while.
It's always been easy to assume that when a biography seems totally out of whack, it's primarily because writers, particularly those writing about entertainers, have take liberties, have made up interesting stories, have exaggerated truths. Similarly, it's assumed that overeager publicity agents have done the same in an effort to push their guy or gal.
All indications are that Mr. Burr, known for his stubbornness, (sources--Barbara Hale, Robert Benevides, his publicity agent Robert Strauss)was, as someone said, given to seeking "his own counsel" in life. I offer these videos for two reasons--1) you write of Burr, and this alone suggests you are interested in him, even if not to the degree you are interested in Mason and Hamilton so might as well learn something about him so that you don't misspeak and 2) it's always helpful to hear and see the person himself to get a measure of him or her, not that insights about a person by others aren't equally helpful.
It's impossible, after watching the last part of the interview, to reasonably argue that others rather than he himself fashioned the odd and implausible stories about him. It's impossible to believe he was "just joshin," just "playing around" with a polite, non-intrusive, friendly yet serious man as an interviewer on a serious program. They are instructive.
1987 Charlie Rose, "CBS Nightwatch," from WA, DC
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ0PpqZnc1s 9 minutes
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVBxFht64rc 10 minutes
part3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9NER4UwjUI 5 minutes
You are determined, aren't you. ;) Nevermind; thanks for the push. I only get the chance to watch a little something in the morning, pretty much, and I usually choose something fictional to wrap myself up in. But I am interested in the interview and have intended to get to it. I have seen some Raymond Burr interviews and non-fictional content, but not much.
DeleteI don't recall ever saying that others fashioned the stories about him, though; I was under the impression that I'd always maintained that he made them up himself. I thought the point you wanted me to understand is your feeling of him being a compulsive liar. I didn't think I'd said anything to the effect of him being playful about the stories since our last conversation, either. I took your word for it that he was dead serious talking about them and I intended to keep doing so until I could get around to watching the interview and draw my own conclusions. And I was also under the impression that we agreed about the books mostly being unhelpful for various reasons (the one even hypocritically jeering the other and yet drawing much of its material from it).
Alright, I watched part 3 for right now, as I thought that was the main thing you wanted me to see to prove your point. Yes, he definitely seems to be serious (and I'd already trusted you that he was). It's very sad if he was a compulsive liar. I can see how your evidence, including the interview, certainly looks that way. However, in the end it's still only evidence, an interpretation of the facts. We have no concrete proof, and the fact that Raymond's friends and relatives did not want to talk about the subject should be proof enough that whatever the case, it should be left alone. It's not our business. I have no interest in theorizing about things that would be detrimental to Raymond's reputation.
DeleteBut thank you for wanting to share the interview, if indeed your motives were as you said last night and not mostly, as I suspect, that you wanted me to come around to your way of thinking and believe that Raymond was a compulsive liar. That is also an interpretation of the facts, on my part, and could be entirely wrong. :)
Now I would like to watch the rest of that interview, and the other one as well, but just for fun and not to debate his truthfulness, as Raymond is quite an engaging interview subject.
I am sorry for appearing to be a gnat. I don't wish to debate, and it's my fault that I gave you that impression. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteHere is my goal: I am hoping that people who have no way of knowing better, who really have no ill intent, in fact, who have good intentions, talented writers such as you and the person who is one of your visitors who has her own site on which she provides a bio of Burr, might come to understand that there was damage done to many people through Ray Burr's stories. My guess is you've seen or read "The Crucible"? I am reminded of the line, "You cannot lightly say you lied, Mary."
The man and woman who had lost a child, "like him," or a spouse, "like him," or the soldier who returned from combat and came home broken, enduring repeated surgeries from war wounds, "like him," were his most devoted fans, understandably. When they discovered their emotions had been manipulated, it was devastating. Imagine your son or daughter having been killed in Iraq, then hearing or reading about an actor who has shared that his son or daughter had perished there as well, identifying with his loss, empathizing, sympathizing, agonizing, watching him and helping him to his success, only to find out that the greatest loss you or any human could ever suffer had been treated as emotional fodder for advancing a career.
I am not one of these. However, I saw the results in those who did feel it most. They were people close to me and their recovery group, all of them people who were bound by having lost children at an early age. That someone would lie about losing a child, that someone might use their "loss," that someone who did that had earned your sympathy, your respect, your admiration...it was an abomination.
It grew very easy after his death for people to conclude that he meant nothing by such fabrications, ( to "lightly" explain away such behavior), offering that in fact, he was the victim, the victim of homophobia. We don't like to doubt our heroes. We like to believe all the wonderful things. Having followed this for years along with a few others, I knew much about his behavior made little sense. I had known about his sexuality decades before the average person, and I knew that fact was not the answer to the behavior, just another component of it, yet I did not know the answer for such inexplicable behavior. Someone on another site, I discovered, had figured out what had been dawning on me and a few others too. The lies were about everything and anything, were rarely consistent yet conveyed common themes about himself. They astounded interviewers (and yes, even friends) to whom they were told, yet were told in all "seriousness," were often easy to dispute and were illogical, and while they were supremely successful in building a devoted fan base, they were just as dangerous to his career had they been revealed for what they were. This was not a narrative that had been constructed by careful planning, nor was it a narrative that was safe, it became obvious. Those facts led me and others to the truth, after much thinking, much re-reading, and consultation with a couple of people who know a lot more about this than I. The video was confirmation since it didn't rely on print, but it's not the only "evidence."
con't.
ReplyDeleteA man who wove lie into lie, seemingly, to make himself respected, interesting, honest, lovable, admired, tragic, cannot, or at least should not, then turn around and be surprised when people come to view him as respectable, interesting, honest, lovable, admirable, and tragic; he cannot then be angry with those who grow to care about him, grow to be interested in him when his very stories were designed to extract that from them. The man who maintained he wanted privacy did all he could to make people more interested in him. The man who got angry with the press toward the end (a few tabloids) had been protected by and advanced by that press, by and large, for all his career.
Lastly, it is not lost upon me that there is another victim of his behavior--himself, but not for the conventional reason one might see, homophobia. That is hogwash as concerns this topic, and there's plenty of explanation and evidence to show it as such, but there is no reason to go into that.
When a person has lost control of himself for any reason, he is the victim of his own behavior as well. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I am sorry for him. I know a bit about the clinical progress of this disorder. Few people escape torment from the problems it causes in one's life (although some do manage little distress.)
I'm back where I started. I am hoping to share with just a few who've writen of Burr, as you have, that you might reconsider words such as these as being unintentionally hurtful should certain people come upon them: "I’m rather amused by the stories he spun about himself. If he was trying to keep himself a near-complete mystery to the general public, he certainly succeeded. I can imagine him being amused himself as he thought of the various tales to weave."
And to your other poster, I'd say this: On your site, you do a really good job of not repeating most of the old inaccuracies. On the other hand, both here and on your site, you 1) criticize the press for stories he himself composed (I used to believe that too at one time, but it's the defense he used when he was asked to clear up what seemed to be conflicting stories--what else was he going to say, "I lied"?) and 2) you criticize writers, claiming they can't know the truth of his life while at the same time you yourself have written a short bio of his life based on what? Based on material written over the years by other writers, some of it based on what he said about himself, some of it based on studio concoctions that are common to all shows and performers. One can argue all is suspect. I applaud you for avoiding speculation about the most personal parts of a human being's life. I will tell you there are some inaccuracies--he was not a reader, for example. Bright guy though he was, he was not a reader, even though I know most fans have seen the books on the shelves in his Malibu home and have read about his voracious reading habits. That was concocted for publicity in order to portray him as a Renaissance man as he sought to remake his image from villain to hero and this was undertaken even before he won the Mason role.
All in all, you ladies have wonderful sites, a joy for readers, and I am absolutely overwhelmed at how prolific you both are. One wonders when either of you finds time to sleep.
I hope you no longer doubt my intentions, and that I haven't taken up too much of your time.
Thank you so much for explaining yourself better. It all makes more sense now. You're certainly right about how the lies could hurt the fans. I agree with that and have thought about that angle, although I preferred not to talk about it. And I haven't ever thought it right for Raymond to say he had a son who died if he never had a son, let alone one who died.
DeleteI wasn't planning to change the content of the original blog post (perhaps you thought I would?), since this is a collection of my thoughts on the specific days and not a strict information site. True, I have slipped in red-ink edits now and then, but considering all the comments on this particular entry, I think it would make more sense to leave it unaltered. (Although I might slip in an edit to point readers to the comment section.) But as I mentioned, I believed what you said in the other conversation and didn't think I'd said anything else since then. Since I fully agreed with you that if Raymond was serious (and he certainly seemed to be), it wasn't funny at all.
Thank you for your kind words! Between the blog and assorted fanfiction projects, it does take a good deal of time. But it's fun.
And I will fully respect your apparent desire to remain completely anonymous and say nothing more about it. :) You sound now like someone who actually knew Raymond and didn't just spend time researching him, so I completely understand if you do not wish to divulge your identity.
Hi. It's me, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no. I certainly don't think you should change a thing of what you have written. Why should you. You have a wonderful site here, a very personal one which is, I believe, why I posted what I did. What I've written is not the kind of thing I'd shout to the world as I, like you, have no intention of doing anything to soil Mr. Burr's reputation.
BTW, so as not to mislead you, no, I didn't know him personally. The use of "anonymous" is.....well, a name really means nothing in this case.
Your post on Ray Collins is very sweet. Doesn't it seem he'd be a great guy to invite to one's table?
Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining further!
DeleteTrue. I was mainly wondering if I knew you from somewhere, such as the Yahoo Group, but then later I figured I likely didn't, as your speech pattern and personality didn't seem to reflect the person's in the Yahoo Group.
Thank you so much! And he would, indeed!
dear anonymous your comments are a fascinating read. I would love to find out why you say he wasn't a reader and other opinions you stated.Thanks anonymous 2
ReplyDelete