In the first half of her memoir, The Memory of All That: Love and Politics in New York, Hollywood, and Paris, actor/activist Betsy Blair writes fondly about her relationship with and marriage to Hollywood song-and-dance man Gene Kelly. The reader learns, for instance, what Gene was wearing when the sixteen-year-old Blair first laid eyes on him: “an open-necked white shirt, a dark long-sleeved sweater, dark trousers, and moccasins. He seemed to be balanced on the balls of his feet, ready to spring like a cat” (9). More broadly, Blair recounts the couple’s Catholic wedding and arrival in Hollywood (Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1941) as well as the birth of their only child (a girl, Kerry) and the infamous cutthroat games of charades, volleyball, and ping-pong the two hosted regularly at their Beverly Hills home on Rodeo Drive.
Despite the couple’s divorce in 1957 (stemming from extramarital affairs), Blair writes positively about Gene Kelly as a person, husband, father, and Hollywood star. Regarding the latter, “He was, for all his talent and intelligence, a man of the people. He never lost sight of his vision or succumbed to film-star vanity. He fulfilled his youthful wish. He democratized dance in movies” (192). And more generally, “Gene was lively, smart and funny, tender and loving, a natural teacher. (I admit he was old-fashioned and paternalistic, but then so were most men at that time). He loved life, he loved children, he loved games, he loved books and museums, he loved to travel, he loved to sit home and drink beer” (3). For the most part, Blair maintains such praise for Kelly throughout her memoir.
But there is one person about whom the author does not speak favorably: Gene’s third wife, Patricia Ward Kelly, who was forty-seven years his junior. In fact, Blair’s memoir opens with an “explanation” (yes, that’s what it’s titled) about Gene’s “new, very young wife who betrayed him and his children” and ultimately “took away his pride, joie de vivre, and most of his fortune” (4). Moreover, Blair explains that after Gene suffered his second stroke, his young wife not only cut him off from all family and friends, but also changed the locks on the door and hired a new housekeeper, doctor, business manager, and lawyer. As well, on the day after Gene died, his three children arrived in Beverly Hills to a most “bizarre half hour.” As Blair tells it, “There were no friends, no food, no tears, and no embraces. They were given a tour of the flowers from famous people as if they were strangers [...] Gene’s children, who loved him, never got to say goodbye to their father. It would have saddened and, I imagine, enraged him, because he loved his children deeply” (6-7).
Whoa. What a way to kick off a memoir. Granted, every star autobiography (as well as biography) is biased. It is, after all, “a production centered on the presentation of self” (Amossy 673). But rarely does one begin with such a loaded prologue as Betsy Blair’s (right); at least none of the dozens I’ve read in the past few years starts this way. Although only three pages, Blair’s “By way of explanation…” packs a punch in terms of persuasion and establishing the reader-author relationship. For example, it immediately
- positions Blair as “the good wife” and Ward as “the villain”;
- invites the reader to side exclusively with Blair as well as her child and grandchildren, the latter of whom are represented here as “grief-stricken” victims of Ward’s apparent callousness and disregard; and it
- suggests that Blair, who “knew Gene intimately for seventeen years,” is the true/ultimate authority on his life.
Thus, before engaging with The Memory of All That, the reader has already formed diametrically opposing opinions of Blair (good/truthful) and Patricia Ward Kelly (bad/disloyal). And why shouldn’t she? The author’s words are clear: “I cannot forgive his widow, not because she got almost all of the children’s inheritance, but because I don’t think Gene had the happy ending he deserved” (6). Furthermore, why would the author lie about any of this? If these things were ultimately discovered as falsities, they would negate the integrity of the memoir, Blair, and potentially the publisher. And certainly that’s nothing Blair (or her family) would want to happen. Right?
These are questions I’ve thought about over the past year as I’ve considered Gene Kelly and his star image from the perspective of a fan and an academic. (Sorry, Henry Jenkins, but I refuse to use the term aca-fan.) They are also questions I’ve discussed with people who personally knew Gene Kelly, Betsy Blair, and his widow. And finally, they are questions I’ve explored with hardcore GK fans, none of whom ever met the man or his three wives (Gene’s second wife, Jeanne Coyne, died of leukemia in 1973) but who’ve read and seen everything published about him, his family, etc. I suppose it’s no surprise that virtually all of the people with whom I’ve conversed about this matter side with Blair and simultaneously refer to Kelly’s widow as deplorable, a “bitch,” a “gold-digger.” Ouch. That’s gotta smart.
My colleagues who study Hollywood stardom might suggest this information about Gene Kelly’s widow is immaterial to his star persona and is therefore unnecessary to consider in any analysis of him. But I’m not so sure that’s the case. After all, Patricia Ward Kelly currently controls her husband’s image, oft describing herself as “the sole Trustee of The Gene Kelly Image Trust.” She also speaks on behalf of Gene at events like the Gene Kelly Awards, a prestigious high-school musical-theatre competition held annually in his hometown of Pittsburgh, and the 2011 TCM Classical Film Festival, which opened with a digitally restored version of Kelly’s Oscar-winning film An American in Paris (1951).
Further, a few years ago, Ward Kelly was in the news for (rather oddly) defending her late husband against NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd who, in passing, compared President George W. Bush to Gene Kelly. This is “not only an implausible transformation but a considerable slight,” Ward Kelly writes in the Huffington Post. “For George Bush to become Gene Kelly would require impossible leaps in creativity, erudition and humility.” Last, Gene’s widow is active on Facebook and Twitter, where she informs friends/followers about DVD releases of Gene’s films, posts pictures of Gene Kelly Awards winners, and promotes musical theatre in general. So, yes, I think she does function as an extension of or a commentary on Gene Kelly’s star image, particularly when she’s the one deciding whether to allow Volkswagen to cut/paste Gene’s face on another dancer’s body.
Despite the flack she receives from Blair’s prologue and some hardcore GK fans, it appears Patricia Ward Kelly is successfully carrying on her dead husband’s legacy, introducing and reintroducing people, young and old, to Gene’s onscreen work and talent. Just this week, as another example, she spent two hours with a group of Pittsburgh high school students, explaining to them how she met her husband, why he often lied to the media about her age, what they ate together on dates (boiled hot dogs!), why he preferred to dance in form-fitted clothing (like sailor pants), and how devastated she was after Gene died in 1996. “There was really no reason to live,” she confessed to the students. “My whole life was about Gene. And then I started to come out here to the Kelly Awards and I just fell in love with all of you.” (Read the entire piece here.)
From a distance, I can hear the exasperated sighs of hardcore Gene Kelly/Betsy Blair fans as they read that last quote above. “Your whole life was about Gene?” they cry out in unison. “Then why did you maintain your own apartment the entire time you were married to him? Why did you fire his secretary of 50 years? Why did you not kiss or touch him when his health was failing? Why did you dispose of his ashes before his children could say goodbye to their father? And why have you still not penned the Gene Kelly biography you were hired to write in the late ’80s, the reason you met Gene in the first place?” Perhaps there are valid answers to these questions. For instance, maybe Gene, I’ve heard, was rather cranky in his latter years and actually did not want visitors or people fussing over him. Maybe Ward Kelly kept a separate condominium because Gene purchased it for her and that was their agreement; at least that’s what biographer Alvin Yudkoff implies in Gene Kelly: A Life of Dance and Dreams (254). I don’t know. I know what Gene’s friends and family have graciously shared with me. I know what a friend of a friend of Patricia Ward Kelly has shared with me. But ultimately, I do not — nor will I ever — know the full truth, but such is a part of star studies.
Here’s what we do know. For Gene Kelly’s family, some friends, and most of his fans, it seems Patricia Ward Kelly represents a stain in the otherwise happy, productive, creative life of one of Hollywood’s greatest musical talents. She is, I’m speculating, a part of his life and star image they’d just assume forget. And as someone who has befriended several of these people (in real-life and virtually), I completely respect that. Yet as an academic, I also must consider the thousands of students, audience members, YouTube browsers, Facebook users, etc. who’ve been introduced to An American in Paris (1951), Singin’ in the Rain (1952), or Invitation to the Dance (1956) because of his widow’s appearances, lectures, and tweets. And yes, as much as I despise those Gene Kelly Volkswagen commercials and what they ostensibly stand for (e.g., making money off dead people, selling out), I also find some solace in the fact that after they aired, many people turned to Twitter, YouTube, Netflix, and IMDB.com to find out more about my favorite song-and-dance man. And that, I believe, is a good thing.
Related posts:
16 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Ambitious, Creative, and Indispensible: RIP, Gene Kelly (Pic of the Day) | Media | Academia - [...] Betsy Blair. For example, in the epilogue of her memoir (about which I’ve written at length here), Blair recalls ...
Leave a Reply
I'm following
Instagrams
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,
This is interesting. You've raised some intriguing questions and I'm looking forward to delving into the subject further.
Going mostly by passages and quotations in this blog post, it seems that Betsy Blair set herself up in her book prologue as rather disagreeable, and frankly, by trading on an intimacy that ended so long ago, not particularly trustworthy at all. Certainly the facts she put in evidence regarding the aftermath of Gene Kelly's death could be taken as truthful, since, as you point out, they'd be easily corroborated or dismissed. But she based her self-interest in it all on a relationship that ended far too many years ago to be supportive of that interest.
She said that she saw Gene once or twice a year for tea after the death of his second wife, the one he left her for around 15 years earlier. And his third marriage took place over 30 years after their divorce. Yet she claimed she still knew him intimately. She knew him intimately, at least in some respects since it's clear he was unfaithful to her (I do not know enough about her to know if this was reciprocal,) for 17 years while he was ages 28 to 45, in the 1940s and 50s, at the height of his career. Yet he married two more women and lived until age 83. During those remaining four decades, she saw him less often than most people see a dentist, long after his career as a box office star had ended, and his mind had turned toward a variety of other endeavors; his lifestyle and habits probably very much different.
It may very well be that Patricia Ward Kelly was and is a shameless golddigger the world should collectively sneer at. If she made it difficult for Gene Kelly's three children to properly mourn the day of his passing, that's terribly sad, though certainly they would have moved on from that point by the time Ms Blair's memoirs were published seven years later. But it seems just as likely to me that Blair was also doing some "trading on a name" to generate interest in her book, since her own fame, such as it was, seems to have peaked several years before the third Mrs. Gene Kelly was even born, and might not have reached that peak at all if not for the intervention of her extremely well-connected husband. I'd surmise she was well-qualified to speak on their years together, but should have left the ill-advised prologue out of the final draft.
I read Betsy Blair's book. As this post says, she has almost nothing but good things to say about Gene. The negative (mostly that he was patriarchal, she met him at a very young age and, from what she says, wasn't able to "grow" because he always saw her as the young girl he married) sounds realistic and not all that bad, anyway. About their divorce – she was unfaithful to him, as well. She describes how it all came about (as a side note: in no way ever excuse infidelity) and describes in detail the night they decided to divorce. She doesn't say he left her. Based on her portrayal of Gene, I don't believe he ever would have; not because he loved her too much, but because he was Catholic, old fashioned about marriage, and honorable (as honorable as one who cheats on a spouse can be). Plus, according to her, they didn't have a bad marriage (she says, as she was cheating, she was asking herself how she could cheat on such a wonderful man and jeopardize their wonderful life). It was a nice life but she wanted to grow and do her thing, he didn't want her to, they grew apart and the relationship ran its course.
Ohhhh, Kelley, you're responding to Mer above, aren't you?! (FWIW, reader comments are delivered to my dashboard, often without context, whom they're in response to, etc.) So, I'm sorry about that! Carry on, carry on… =)
Hi, Kelley — thanks for stopping by and commenting!
I agree with virtually everything you say here, so I must admit that I’m a bit confused as to why your comments sound slightly defensive (e.g., “[Betsy] was unfaithful to him as well,” “she doesn’t say he left her,” “plus, they didn’t have a bad marriage,” etc.). I don’t think I state anything to the contrary in my post. Or perhaps I’m just reading your statements incorrectly?
In any event, thanks again for reading.
I don't have much to say that Mer hasn't already said, as I agree with an awful lot of it. Naturally I don't know Ward Kelly personally, and like you, will never really know the full story. As a mere "hardcore fan," I don't feel in a position to choose sides on this issue, which ultimately is a deeply personal one.
I don't think it was a wise way for Blair to open a book that is ostensibly about her life. By simple virtue of having purchased the book, readers are going to invest a certain amount of trust in what she says, and Ward Kelly is mercilessly attacked. The accusations, if true, are unconscionable; is it not possible that Blair believed them to be true from her very limited point of view? I guess what I'm suggesting is that it's not necessarily a case of her fabricating a tale, but perhaps relating what she experienced and relating it, rather unfairly as the case may be, as fact. When I read the prologue again, I don't see much in the way of bare facts; only things that she and Gene's kids experienced and things that were (rightly or wrongly) inferred from them.
I don't have time to say more now. I will only say that I do think Ward Kelly could do a lot to stem the tide of ill will if she were to publish the book. It is, after all, the reason she got to know Gene in the first place.
I do think Ward Kelly could do a lot to stem the tide of ill will if she were to publish the book. It is, after all, the reason she got to know Gene in the first place.
— Yes, and even if her book didn't completely "stem the tide of ill will," it would at least offer her perspective on the matter, thus making this situation less one-sided than it appears. Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Jennifer and Mer!
Let me start off by stating that I know no more about Patricia Ward other than what has been listed in print. Clearly, there has been a lack of communication between Ward Kelly & Gene's children, which became most evident at the time of his death. I think people would need to read the entire "By way of explanation" chapter from Blair's book. As one blogger pointed out, the events that took place can easily be corroborated. I doubt that Ms. Blair would have fabricated anything just to sell her book; this is too personal. Her daughter, Kerry Novick, has expressed her opinion about Ward Kelly & they are quite pointed. Gene's youngest adult children have chosen to take the high road. I've read Betsy's book & realized that she was not some ordinary woman! As a young woman when she met Gene, she seemed ambitious, greatly opinionated & about as unconventional one can imagine a woman to be. Now we're talking about a 1940's coming of age story, not the 1960's era! Having said this, I tend to believe that there is a great deal of personal info concerning his family dynamic to which the public is unaware. Example: The other day, I was listening to Kerry Kelly Novick on Icons Radio dated on August 2007. (For all of those GK fans, it is a "must listen") She offered an interesting insight of her father's true persona, away from the camera. However, Novick noticeably steers clear from some obvious topics: Patricia Ward Kelly & Stanley Donen. Donen was a fixture at the Kelly home in the early years & co-directed with Kelly on some memorable film musicals. Yet he was conveniently left out of discussion! You are made to infer that Donen was a footnote in Gene career which was to the contrary. Look, I'm no fan of Donen's character but even I can't agree with that depiction; they were really true collaborators. Anyway, my hope is that Patricia Ward Kelly will find the time to write a comprehensive, biography on Gene to which she promised; reconcile with his adult children (he really loved them); and finally, continue to promote his image to topics to which he cared so deeply..the arts & dance.
Hi, Michelle. Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
You’re right about several things here, particularly the Icons Radio interview and that “there is a great deal of personal info concerning [Gene's] family dynamic to which the public is unaware.” Re: the latter, absolutely — and that makes writing an essay like this one rather tricky. In the same vein, others have shared stories with me, some first-hand accounts, about the situation above; but it’s not my place to disclose them. Hope that makes sense.
I’m not sure that the Donen name is quite as problematic as you suggest above — at least from his as well as Gene Kelly’s perspective (via interviews/biographies). Have you seen or listened to Donen’s “Private Screenings” interview with TCM’s Robert Osborne? Like Blair’s Icons Radio spot, it’s well worth a listen. An uncut, 2-hour version is available for free on iTunes.
Thanks again for reading!
I came across this thoughtful piece on Gene Kelly and his wives and really enjoyed it.
I used to be a bit skeptical of Patricia Ward Kelly, based on odds and ends of things I’d read — including Betsy Blair’s book — but then I found myself extremely impressed with her articulate and knowledgeable work hosting the commentary for AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. I also enjoyed her introduction to a screening of the same film at the Egyptian Theatre last December. A couple days after seeing the film, I found a lovely email from Ms. Ward Kelly thanking me for my blog post on the screening. I thought it was a gracious gesture.
While we can’t puzzle out a lot of the past history and family relationships, I have come to feel that Patricia Ward Kelly cares deeply about Gene Kelly’s legacy. I do hope she will complete the book on her husband so as to preserve more of his history.
Best wishes,
Laura
Yes, I hope she will complete the book as well!
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Laura. Looking forward to reading your blog!
I was saddened to learn of the apparently bleak existence Gene Kelly lived during his last years. I became a fan of his when I first saw "For Me and My Gal." And of course, his musicals, his dancing and his influence on the artistry of Hollywood musicals. He seems to have been an extraordinarily creative and intelligent actor, dancer, choreographer, and singer (of which I read little). No one else comes close to his accomplishments as a whole, and particularly as dancer and choreographer.
I am just an avid GK fan and certainly no academic but from all I've read of Patricia Ward Kelly I was sceptical of her motives. To begin with all I heard was glowing praise for Patricia's work in supporting the arts, etc which seems fair enough but I read very early on that when she was hired to write about Gene Kelly, she initially didn't know who he was! This may or may not be true but I think it is quite unlikely that in the late 80s an American in her line of work hadn't heard of Gene Kelly. She does continue to support the arts in his name and that is admirable but I'm quite sure his children would have been willing and able to do this. Even if it was left up to a board of trustees I think it would have been carried out just as passionately. As for the separate apartment there could be a number of reasons for that but firing his long serving staff? Cutting him off from his children? Then when he died they were given a tour? Why was he cremated so quickly? What they deserved at least was a private goodbye without her even being present. As the partner of a much older man I know such relationships can succeed but you have to consider the feelings of children who may possibly be older than you. Acknowledge the life they had before you came along. Betsy Blair may well have known a very different Gene all those years ago but she would have known something of the situation from his children & grandchildren. (Family members talk to each other.) I'm afraid that to the ordinary fans I've talked to Patricia Ward Kelly is definitely a gold digger and marriage was a means to an end.
Hi, Bridget. First, thanks for stopping by! Second, I appreciate your comments and your unique perspective as \”the partner of a much older man.\” A May-December romance and all that entails must indeed be a sensitive situation particularly when, as you mention above, there are children involved. Thanks again for reading.
Kelli: loved reading your take on the Betsy Blair memoir.. The Icons Radio August 2007 interview with Kerry Kelly Novick…. I would like to hear this. Do you know where I might find it? ~ thanks.
Hi, Beth. Thanks! Yes, do an iTunes search for Icons Radio (hosted by Stephen Bogart, Humphrey’s son); it should show up. Hope this helps!
I’ve just come across this interesting study of yours and I have to say that you have put into words lots of things I’ve been thinking about. I also read Betsy Blair’s memoir and felt strange afterwards – I didn’t quite understand this woman. Her great love and admiration for Gene, and her love affairs and the decision to leave him. It just seems to me that she didn’t have the chance to see what ‘real life’ can be because Gene was so loving and protective. Or maybe she was just immature. It’s hard to judge someone’s decisions, but hers are not clear to me.
As for Patricia Ward Kelly, I’ve heard all the opinions mentioned above. And I also think we’ll never know the whole truth. Patricia may have benefited from Gene’s position, fortune and fame, but we can all see that she really cares about Gene’s legacy – she is very active and always talks about Gene warmly and with great respect.
The fact that Gene chose such a young person for his wife must have influenced the way their marriage worked. I suppose it was a kind of agreement rather than a great love affair. And it’s perfectly understandable – he could’ve been her grandfather.
And his children? When a wealthy man marries a young woman, she is likely to be rejected by his children – for obvious reasons – that’s life. And his decision to marry Patricia might have resulted from the fact he felt lonely after his children left home. It puzzled me that they just disappeared from his life and, as one of his biographies says, had problems calling, contacting, or visiting him. I don’t quite understand it. If you have an elderly parent (who devoted himself to bringing them up alone) you should take care of him (stay close or just share the house / residence).
And finally the fact that Patricia separated Gene from his friends? – We don’t really know what was happening and how Gene felt about it – when you’re old and sick, you may not want to be visited and watched by people. And it’s not an easy situation for someone who takes care of such person.
That was quite long – I didn’t intend to judge anybody – I just tried to share some possible explanations that came to my mind – true, or not? I don’t know.
I liked the article very much. I like, admire and respect Gene Kelly very much and hope to see lots of articles, documentaries (and books?) about him.
It’s such a pity his film list is closed – but what we have is truly amazing.