It was revealed during the Making Of Sunset Boulevard: A Look Back that after the film's screening, Louie B. Mayer, the head of MGM was angered immensely at Billy Wilder. His anger was for Wilder's exposing Hollywood in this manner. Was Mayer worried the image of the Hollywood machine would be tarnished by the corruptive lifestyle of both older wealthy woman and ambitious career seeking young men? Especially at a most critical point in time when the studios faced the threat of television. Is this the underbelly often described about Hollywood? Or at least one of them.

Film noir can have many meanings for people who watch films of this type. I've often related film noir with private-eyes, femme fatales and gangsters movies. The dark shadows and indirect lighting often suggest that sinister motives are involved. Sunset Boulevard takes the film noir approach to symbolize the darkness contained within those individuals the film is about. Sunset Boulevard would expose one of Hollywood's dark secret lifestyles to the public? Regardless of how accurate Sunset Boulevard may be to someone's life, Sunset Boulevard presents a viable example of people using each other for their own personal gain. Rather than people being genuine and true to each other with an appreciation for the goodness. Was the "kept man" life style so common and abundant that Billy Wilder thought it was viable enough to be told? Was art imitating reality? If Mr. Mayer wasn't happy about this film, others may have agreed with him? Sunset Boulevard was nominated for the Oscar's best picture of the year. It lost to All About Eve who many believe was less deserving.

It seems Hollywood as presented in Sunset Boulevard, has unseemlingly attached itself to the George Reeves story. By the time the film was released, Toni's and George's relationship was already a year old. The two had met in New York City while George was doing live television work. Let's remember first, the relationship Toni and George had was an "open secret" in Hollywood. There was no sneaking around. The relationship was also described as an "arrangement." The "arrangement" or "sophisticated lifestyle" was actually between Eddie and Toni. The two had allowed each other to have secondary relationships. By the time Eddie and Toni married in May 1951, they continued with other relationships. This included George. The marriage served to secure the Mannix fortune for Toni in the event Eddie died suddenly due to a decline in his health. Throughout the 50's he suffered from heart ailments and eventually passed away in 1963 as a result of a heart attack. If Toni's and George's relation can truly be defined as a "kept man" lifestyle, was it so easily acceptable by Hollywood insiders because the practice was widely common?

On more than one occasion (interviews), most notable in Speeding Bullet, the Life and Bizarre Death of George Reeves by Jan Alan Henderson, Phyllis Coates would describe Toni as being "absolutely, mad about the boy."  It was always my thought that the scene in Hollywoodland, which has the investigator looking at a wrist-watch with the "Mad about the Boy. TM" inscription, was derived from Gypsy's' comment.

However, Louise Blyton picked up on it coming from Sunset Boulevard. It has now become clear to me and I agree with Louise the line is indeed tagged from Sunset Boulevard. In Sunset Boulevard as Bette reaches for Joe's cigarette case she reads an exact sentiment, "Mad About The Boy. Norma." One begins to wonder after reading Gypsie's comment or during the film of Hollywoodland, how "mad" was Toni? Enough to kill George for leaving her? Was she mad like Norma Desmond who killed Joe for leaving her?

A question comes to mind. Has the media in the last 49 years used Sunset Boulevard as a template to describe the relationship between George and Toni. And in doing so, did it unfairly manipulate the public's judgement and perception? Did the media paint George Reeves as an equal to Joe Gillis, an opportunist willing to do whatever it took to gain his success in Hollywood? Did the media use Sunset Boulevard to draw a dark corrupt lifestyle of George and Toni? Right down to Toni being suspected of shooting George? The book Hollywood Kryptonite, a learning-in-process for the authors seemed to have used Sunset Boulevard as their ultimate guide. It leaned heavily on Toni being responsible for George's death. Hollywoodland, would put even more emphasis on prescribing to this model. Not only in the subject matter, but also for the basis of the film's structure. In doing so, they along with the many before them have passed unfavorable judgments of corrupt behavior the two allegedly played upon each other. They would have Toni using George for her romantic and sexual indulgences. George using Toni for her money and his ambitious career advancement.

Thus, creating the often described dark tone over the life of George Reeves.

Viewing Hollywoodland one cannot help but see why the media that surrounded the film described George as a "gigolo." A tag because he had an affair with an older, wealthy woman with connections, and in return she lavished him with expensive gifts and the promise of making him a Hollywood success. Another term describes him as being a "heel" or that it being implied he was a "selfish opportunist" for using Toni to advance his career with no genuine appreciation for her. On the surface these terms seem to apply.

Toni Mannix and George Reeves with
famous Spanish/flamenco guitarist, Vicente Gomez.

We should consider George was 35 when he met Toni at 43, both in legal terms were single status in 1949. As Serena Enger, a writer for TAC would make a valid point that their ages are not really all that much apart. I agree, after all, when George died, he was 45, Toni 53. It's not a 22 year old upstart, sneaking around with a woman old enough to be his mother. These were middle age mature people. The ambiguity of it all rest with the fact that by 1949, she'd already began living with Mr. Mannix and falsely identifying herself as Mrs. Mannix. Alternative names were common for Ms. Froomess. Perhaps, Toni felt entitled or justified to do so based on the length of time she lived with Eddie. Regardless, their marraige status title would not become legal until May 1951. Not to say there wasn't love between them, but it seems to me the foundation of their marriage revolved around Eddie's decline in health and the possibility his fortune would be lost to the State of California in the event he should pass away with no immediate relatives to leave his money and assets to. If Toni and Eddie were not legally married at the time of his death, a common law proceeding would take an inconvenient (for Toni) amount of time to sort through. A marriage would make legal proceedings much easier to deal with when the time came. Mr. Mannix had no children. By late summer of 1958, Toni proposed she and George build a larger house further up the canyon. However, George was eager to take control of his own life, under his own terms. He knew this was the time to make his break. He knew Toni wouldn't separate herself from the Mannix fortune since the reason for marrying Eddie in the first place was to secure the Mannix fortune. He countered with asking her to leave Eddie and marry him. As if on cue, she declined his proposal to leave Eddie. With that, George walked away and didn't look back. At least that's my opinion. Until someone can outline a more reasonable reason for the split, I'll stay with this. Did life imitate art?

In a conversation I recently had with a Jack Larson regarding George and Toni, he stated that if George realized he was a "kept man," he would never have left Toni. Meaning, he would have felt obligated to stay. Jack agreed, George appeared to be a "kept man," but he certainly wasn't hustling Toni to advance himself and any other selfish reason is simply untrue. The two simply were in love. However, by September 1958 his attraction to her had tappered off.

But, "nobody leaves the star," as Norman Desmond would claim. Did Toni live by the same proclamation? She was after all, a celebrated Ziegfeld Follies dancer. Toni often described herself as a Ziegfeld girl with "the million dollar legs and feathers up her ass." Enraged by George leaving her, many believe Toni is responsible for George's death. Sound familiar? The book Hollywood Kryptonite would favor Toni being responsible for the death of George Reeves. The authors presented a theory of Toni making a call to a hit-man and soon after in a moment of guilt and despair, tried to rescind the order. But it was too late. While both Norma and Toni were volatile woman, there are far greater differences between the two. Call Toni many things, but a crazed, depressed, pathetic, suicidal psycho, she was not. Rest assured that if Toni had pulled the trigger, Leonore would have had a field-day with the police and newspapers with a scandalous court testimony to follow. Some believe Toni gave Leonore $10,000.00 to remain silent. I do not believe this. It would speak volumes if it were true. If Toni had a fault, it was being bitten by the green monster, and she was controlling. She had it all. She worked her way up to this luxurious socialite life style. By October 1958, she had everything she wanted. Thanks to Eddie. Everything, but George. Otherwise, she was generous to a fault. In her presence, she paid for everything and in good faith she gave an enormous amount of monies to charities. Money was everything to her. To George, money wasn't everything. He proved that by walking away from Toni. Just like Joe Gillis did when he left Norma.

As for George's career, his like so many others go through cycles. All careers have their ups and downs. After filming TV's Superman, George's opportunities came to a slow crawl. It was time he took control of his career rather than the other way around. It has been told George was offered a lead TV role in a Dick Tracy series and having turned it down because he didn't want to do another series. Nothing today has substantiated this claim, but if it were true it meant he did not want to get locked into a long-term contract at that time. Eventually he did agree to return as the "Man of Steel," a commitment for one season. Perhaps meant to finance his newer projects and continue an improved residuals package.

It's obvious Hollywoodland was heavily influenced by Sunset Boulevard. From a filmmaking point of view that's not a bad thing. Were the filmmakers paying homage to Sunset Boulevard? Maybe like others before them, the writers Paul Bernbaum and Howard Korda found the similarities between Sunset Boulevard and George & Toni too striking and uncanny to ignore. Often one artistic influence is the result of another. Numerous similarities can be drawn between the two films. Some are as follows:

Opening: Both Sunset Boulevard and Hollywoodland open with police cars driving to the crime scene in the early morning hours.

The Crime Scene: The corpse of Joe Gillis (includes two lower case "L's", but who's counting) in the swimming pool is similar to the corpse of George Reeves on the bed.

Morgue. The original opening to Sunset Boulevard was meant to have the body of Joe Gillis arrive at the morgue and soon after his dead corpse was to carry on a discussion with another corpse. The Joe Gillis character begins his explaining the events leading to his death. At this point the film would continue into a flashback sequence, which dominates the majority of the film.

It was during the screening the director decided to remove this scene due the audience reaction. It was meant to draw smiles, but the idea of talking corpses was hysterical to the audience and they burst into a round of hysterical laughter. As a result the director altered the narrating-corpse to flashback transition and replaced it with the police motorcade and crime scene, which then transitions to the flashback. This film sequence is actually brilliant in not only the story telling method, but a credit to the creative filming it took to capture Joe Gillis floating in the pool from below. I won't give away their simple technique in favor of you enjoying for yourself the special features which describe how the end result was achieved. In Hollywoodland, there is a scene with the investigator speaking to the body of George. Soon the flashback sequences would begin. Only these flashbacks are weaved in and out throughout Hollywoodland.

(Refer to the film Hollywoodland for comparisons)

The Mansion: The Desmond home can be compared to the Mannix home as shown in Hollywoodland. However, in reality, the actual Mannix home dwarfs in comparison. Oddly, Mr. Mannix certainly could have afforded a home of similar attributes and why he didn't is not really important. One similarity that can be compared with the Desmond home and the real Mannix home is both were secluded (see Exhibit A), unlike the Mannix home shown in Hollywoodland. The home shown in Hollywoodland is very similair to those home types located on streets such as N. Rodeo Dr. and N. Beverly Dr., south of the actual road Sunset Boulevard (see Exhibit B)

Side Note: Ownership facts:

The Desmond mansion in Sunset Boulevard was owned by J. Paul Getty's ex-wife.

The Mannix mansion in Hollywoodland was owned by Sam McLaughlin, founder of General Motors Canada.

UPDATE ALERT - 11/15/2009-LK: On May 24, 2008 I had a brief conversation with Phyllis Coates regarding Flight of the Innocent. Ms. Coates was contrary to my description of the Mannix home at 1120 El Retiro Way not being more than one level as shown in the film Hollywoodland. My description of the home was taken from a personal view of the home looking through the front gateway. My gaze was just only 3 or 4 seconds and the extent was at best slightly more than the garage area since the front area is mostly secluded by the fence built up with foliage. Ms. Coates stated I was incorrect with describing the Mannix home as one level. Her knowledge was based on personally knowing the Mannix's. I respected her thoughts, but wasn't completely convinced and therefore I never altered my original discription. Perhaps the backyard has a slope to it, giving way to a lower level of the home and still give off the impression the house was one level. There is a slope from the gate to the garage and of course many homes in the Beverley Hills area, north of Sunset Blvd. have varied elevations, so the possibilty does exist that it continues.

One thing that is certain, which was my point in Flight of the Innocent, the house paled in comparison to the ficticous home shown in the film Hollywoodland.

In an article I recently found titled "A Castle of His Own," from the L.A.Times INNER LIFE dated September 28, 2006, the owner offered details of an extensive make-over project of the home. The home is described as a 6,000-square-foot, one-story ranch, built in 1958 by Eddie and Toni Mannix. The article includes interior and backyard photos. There is no slope in the backyard and the owner discribed the property as grounded, rather than the feeling of floating in space a 100 feet above the boulevard as so many homes in the area do.

Based on my findings, Ms. Coates may be referring to a different Mannix dwelling. Another Mannix address was 516 North Linden Drive, also a one-story house. This is a documented address from 1930. I'm not certain how long Eddie lived there or if Toni ever did.

Flashback approach: Both films rely heavily on the use of the flashback approach to tell it's story. However, Hollywoodland wisely did not incorporate the use of the narration given by the deceased. Knowing the character was a real live person may have proved unsettling for certain audience members.While it appears to be flashbacks, these sequences have more to do with the inner thinking the investigator surmises for the various scenarios. It's his idea what could have happened to George based on his own growing knowledge of the case. The film is about a fictional character, Louis Simo and the effect the George Reeves case has on himself and his family. Since the flashbacks are really the fictional investigators thoughts, the entire film is fictional. Thus its own justification for setting aside any obligation to stay within the boundaries of accuracy. The problem is the general public doesn't know the difference and perceptions and distortions are created, harming those of innocence. See Flight of the Innocent for further details.

The comparisons throughout the film are moreso. I will savor this for your viewing interests.

The true similarity between the films Hollywoodland and Sunset Boulevard, as well as the book Hollywood Kryptonite is they all tell the same story of the "kept man" lifestyle. In these you'll find the losers, the users and the opportunist to gain Hollywood success at all cost. Hollywoodland seems designed to be a modern day telling of Sunset Boulevard. It being a template for Hollywoodland is now obvious. However, Sunset Boulevard is based entirely on fictional characters. Thus any effort for accuracy is moot, as long as the subject is presented and the point well made. Hollywoodland, by definition is fictional and therefore gives off the impression it too is moot no matter how you absorb and analyze it. However, it's sole difference from Sunset Boulevard is that it injects us with the lives of real people. Thus the same rules allowed by Sunset Boulevard don't apply to Hollywoodland. The irony of it, what should be treated as moot throughout the film, cannot be since it involves real people. It had an obligation to its viewers to stay within the known truths instead of exploiting George in undeserving manners to match a theme equal to Joe Gillis, a self serving opportunist loser. Opportunist have no limits when it comes to reaching for the Hollywood merry-go-round prize-ring. Sadly, both Hollywoodland and Hollywood Kryptonite failed to explore or present the well known fact that Toni and George worked together to raise money for specific charities and attended church every Sunday together. Both book and film tend to lean towards a hustle gone wrong. In truth, George Reeves did not hustle Toni Mannix. They were both very much in love with each other.

Louise Blyton would wonder if George and Toni went to see Sunset Boulevard at the time it was released in theaters. She makes an excellent observation. It being an important film about Hollywood at the time, it would stand to reason they most likely did. But we don't know for certain. It's also possible they had no interest or perhaps decided to stay home and boycott the film in support of Eddie Mannix's disapproving boss, Louis B. Mayer. It is Toni's remark to Gypsy, "absolutely mad about the boy," that may well be the indication she lifted the line from the film.

If she did, it was because the phrase greatly appealed to her. Toni often referred to George as "the boy." Serena Enger would wonder if Toni's comment to Ms. Coates was meant in an intentionally campy manner, quoting the Norma Desmond character, but with underlying sincerity. Both she and George Reeves seem to have had a zany sense of humor. Interesting to note, the film Cecil B. DeMille is filming at the time Norma visits Paramount studio; is Samson and Delilah, a film George appeared in. My guess is Toni and George did see this film.

Another trivial note worth mentioning is, during the New Year's Eve party scene, Artie Green played by Jack Webb jokingly described Joe Gillis as "the Black Dahlia killer." Jan Alan Henderson has taken a great interest in this case and recognizes it as an equal Hollywood mystery. The 2006 movie The Black Dahlia was released in theaters within a couple of weeks of Hollywoodland.

Recommendation: I strongly recommend anyone who has not yet seen Sunset Boulevard to do so. It will be difficult to set aside the similarities to George and Toni, however the film stands on it's own merit for all the fine actors and its film noirish style. The film is a classic and brilliant from start to finish. Gloria Swanson is magnificent. The films finale of Max coercing Norma to leave her upstairs bedroom by telling her the cameras are awaiting her is extremely interesting to watch unfold.

Swanson, as Desmond believes she is on the set of a DeMille film she had wrote. Her mind is so lost to a time when she was filled with the uncorrupted innocence of a young starlet. A time when films stars exuberated their craft through physical showings of emotion because technological sound limitations existed. Ironically, her ending is anything but innocent and uncorrupted. Max (as he did with Queen Kelly) calls for action and Norma descends slowly in film surreal-like fashion down the grand rotund staircase. Indeed her craft never left. In fact, it absorbed her completely.

Reaching the bottom, she stops for a moment to recognize all her admirers, the people who she believes have come to see her wonderful performance. Ready to continue, Norma delivers a line to her imaginary director, "Mr. DeMille! I'm ready for my close-up." She seems innocent enough. Except for the fact she just killed Joe Gillis. She exhibits an oddlike dance towards the camera,...captivating to the very end.

So, did the media paint a dark picture of George's life, using Sunset Boulevard as its model? You're thoughts are welcome. looper56@aol.com

Interesting observation from Serena Enger: Refer to the DVD, Ace in a Hole, another early 1950's Wilder film with Kirk Douglas. It has a similar feel to TAoS season one in its use of photography. It also features Richard Benedict and Jan Sterling in substantial roles. I could imagine Phyllis Coates as Lois and Clark covering the incident, with the interference of Douglas's cynical journalistic handling of the mine accident.

Resources:

New York Times, February 21, 1949; LEAD ROLE IN FILM TO GLORIA SWANSON by Thomas F. Brady.

New York Times, March 19, 1949; HOLDEN REPLACING CLIFT IN FILM LEAD by Thomas F. Brady.

New York Times, May 22, 1949; NO WRINKLES GROW ON LA SWANSON, by Helen Colton.

New York Times, May 29, 1949; DEMILLE TAKES DIRECTION by Phil Koury

New York Times, July 2, 1950, HOW SCRIPT FOR 'SUNSET BOULEVARD' WAS BORN by Phil Koury.

New York Times, August 11, 1950, THE SCREEN: INNER WORKINGS OF FILMDOM

New York Times, August 13, 1950, HOLLYWOOD HURRAHS BY HOLDEN by Howard Thompson

New York Times, August 27, 1950; HOLLYWOOD SCANDAL by Bosley Crowther.

Special thanks to

Serena Enger, for providing the news articles listed above.

Dave Orbach, for lending his Sunset Boulevard DVD.

Louise Blyton, for simply raising the issue.

Return to Page 1

Thanks for Watching.

Lou (August 1, 2008)