Showing posts with label 1950s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1950s. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 March 2016

The Hilton Sisters



It's funny how things can happen that cause you to take something of a left turn in your research. I had not expected to be doing background reading on vaudeville and burlesque entertainment in the early twentieth century, yet that's pretty much all I have been doing over the last week. Let me tell you, it's a bit awkward trying to read a large book about circus freaks on the train.

Violet (on the left) and Daisy (on the right) Hilton were born out of wedlock in Brighton in 1908. Their mother worked in a pub, and the landlady, clearly an enterprising woman, offered to buy the babies from the no doubt shocked parents, once it became clear that they were not going to die within the few days predicted by the doctor. The twins were almost immediately put to work in the pub, drawing crowds who could come into the back parlour for a glimpse and the opportunity to buy a postcard or two. For an extra couple of pennies you could lift up the girls blankets to check for yourself that they really were "bound by flesh." Before long the girls were learning to sing, dance and play instruments and were playing to packed variety halls and theatres around Europe. Whilst still teenagers they were whisked away to America, only returning to Britain once many years later.


From our more "enlightened" perspective the idea of exploiting the disabled for entertainment seems tasteless and crass, but from the 1700s right through to the mid-twentieth century  the freaks, geeks, pinheads, dwarves, midgets, indeed anyone deemed to be deformed, were basically given two options: go on the road as a performer or be left to rot in an institution. The Hilton sisters grew up with this used a constant threat should they ever refuse to perform. Refused schooling, all the girls knew was how to perform on stage. They became accomplished singers, dancers and musicians and audiences were often brought to tears seeing these diminutive girls overcoming such personal tragedy with such grace and style.


Anyone reading this will know the girls mainly from their appearance in Tod Browning's Freaks (1932).



By this point it had been many years since the girls had actually performed in the circus, and evidentially they were initially reluctant to appear in the film for this reason, but ultimately they perhaps saw it as an opportunity. They actually come off well in the film. They are required to act, something they were inexperienced in, rather than sing, dance or play music. Sadly, due to the problems the film had it was not the springboard to movie success they were perhaps hoping for, and they went back on the road, touring for many years with their own revue. Along the way were romances, fake weddings and even a baby: Daisy got pregnant from someone in her band, and the baby was born in Minnesota and put up straight away for adoption; just another in the long list of personal tragedies for the Hilton sisters.




After years of being ripped off by unscrupulous men they were advised to put their own money into another movie, this time with them as the stars. In 1952 Chained for Life was released, directed by the journeyman Harry L. Fraser, who had spent decades making 'B' westerns. This means that unlike many cheap exploitation films, this was at least shot with relatively decent production values. The girls were in their early forties at this point, and are showing what two decades on the road, smoking and drinking all the way, can do to your looks. It is still a fascinating watch, being semi-autobiographical in it's depiction of the Hamilton sisters who are still a big draw on the vaudeville scene. In real life they were anything but, and vaudeville was dying out.


The film is worth viewing especially for one astonishing scene. Daisy (playing Dorothy) is in love and wants to marry, but they have been refused a marriage licence on the grounds that it would be bigamy (this is something which did actually happen to them some fifteen years earlier). She goes to bed wishing that they could finally be free of each other, the screen wobbles and we are in a dream sequence, where Daisy climbs out of bed leaving Violet (Vivian in this movie) behind. She goes out into a garden and dances around, alone, until her lover appears and they dance together. This is a heart-breaking scene to watch, as one imagines the shooting of it. Obviously a double is used for the long shots, and there is enough Vaseline on the lens to make sure we can't tell it's not Daisy, but occasionally it cuts to close-ups of Daisy. At one point she is standing next to a tree, and you picture in your mind poor Violet crouching down out of shot. How the girls must have felt about this scene when they sat and viewed it for the first time one cannot imagine. Perhaps it was wish-fulfillment for them.


In the mid-1950s they actually set up and operated a burger shack by the beach in Florida, but this did not last long, possibly because customers felt slightly revolted at the sight of "freaks" serving up hot snacks. By the end of the decade they were reduced to travelling around the States making personal appearances at movie theatres and drive-ins, accompanying double-bills of Freaks and Chained for Life. All they really knew what to do was perform. They had not changed their act in fifty years, despite the entertainment industry irrevocably changing around them. By 1962, the kids at the drive-in would not have known who they were, or cared.


Just when their story could not get any more tragic they were left in Charlotte, North Carolina by the promoter who had been driving them from gig to gig. He took the money and the film prints and drove away. Daisy and Violet were taken in by the local community, offered shelter, jobs in the town grocery store and most importantly friendship. When they finally died in 1969, they had spent their last few years living something close to a normal life, with people who cared about them. This must have been some comfort after such a long and exhausting life of abuse, exploitation and abandonment.


So their story does have a happy ending. I think they are fascinating and have enjoyed revisiting their story over the last week or so. My reason for this renewed interest was because I was invited to contribute to a short piece on the girls for BBC's The One Show. It has not been aired yet so I don't even know if I will make the final cut. You will learn far more about the girls if you watch the documentary recently produced by Leslie Zemekis called Bound by Flesh (2012). It's a great overview of their lives and features interviews with people who actually knew them. I watched it on American Netflix, but you can also find it to buy and download on iTunes.





Thursday, 21 May 2015

E.J. Fancey's Exotic Thrills


Following some deep thought after my last post I realised that trying to write three papers at the same time was more than any sane mind could handle, so reluctantly I dropped the Hammer conference. It will undoubtably be a fantastic event, but I just couldn't do it. Plus it was really straying from my current areas of research so it was purely an indulgence even to consider it.

However, I am going to Lincoln next week to give this paper on the fascinating world of E.J. Fancey. At least, I hope it's fascinating. I've been researching this for a long time, and writing the paper itself has taken me the best part of two weeks. 

I have delved into the Fancey family history to unravel some of the complicated relationships behind his companies, which included S.F. Film Distributors, D.U.K. Films and New Realm Pictures. I have also uncovered original marketing materials and BBFC documentation which highlights the sometimes friendly, sometimes fractious relationship they had with the censors.

I am mainly focusing on the films they distributed rather then their own productions, although they did make several of their own. Largely forgettable is the kindest way of describing them. They did however give Michael Winner his first break as a feature film director, although if you have ever seen Parting Shots (1998) you may not be able to thank them for that.


Karamoja - Land of the Naked People (1965) has to be one of the best exploitation titles of all time. This was actually one of Kroger Babb's films, the American exploitation king who gave the world Mom and Dad (1945) and "She Shoulda Said 'No'!" (1949).



The Fancey's empire, which was eventually run by E.J. himself, his wife, his common-law wife, and his children by both wives, was a major player in the world of independent film distribution in the 1960s.

Edwin's son Malcolm had great success in the 1970s by acquiring the rights to Emmanuelle (1975), and he invested the money into making sex films of his own. In the 1980s he gained notoriety for this little publicity stunt to promote Nightmares in a Damaged Brain (1981). This backfired when he and partner David Hamilton-Grant were prosecuted for obscenity because they "accidentally" distributed the version refused a certificate by the BBFC. He got off with a suspended sentence whilst his partner went to prison.

The Fancey's are a fascinating and slightly elusive family that I hope to continue to find more on. I have contacted some living members of the family but have had no success in persuading any of them to speak to me. But I will not give up!

Now that this paper is finished I have to start my giallo one for the Rome conference in three weeks. Oh dear...

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Conference Papers, and The Tyranny of Choice

I have submitted a proposal for a conference being held in Rome this June. The whole conference is devoted to the giallo, a film genre I have to admit to only now becoming acquainted with. But my desire to expand my academic reach, coupled with the idea of spending some time in Rome again, has prompted me to get on board. I had previously seen The Bird With the Crystal Plumage, and my interest in Mario Bava has been developing for a couple of years now, so it is not impossible that I can find something to say on it! Indeed, I think I have found an angle that fits well with my own research interests, and hopefully will be fairly original for the conference. If I get accepted I'll start presenting some of the research here.


I also found out last week about a three-day conference in Paris on Hammer films. This sounds like my sort of thing too, but writing academically about Hammer is out of my current comfort zone. I wrote about some Hammer films during my degree, but that was a long time ago and I have felt, somewhat arrogantly, that I have "moved on" from Hammer.But it still has a hold over me. By a rough count today I have over eighty Hammer films on DVD and blu ray, and I have written extensively about them for Cinema Retro. I have interviewed stars and directors, and been to loads of Hammer events and conventions. I have had my photo taken with many a Hammer Glamour girl, as well as many of the ageing male stars too. I feel like my problem is that I'm in too deep with Hammer. It is such a vast subject area, that to choose just one small part to present a paper on seems virtually impossible.

Surrounding myself with DVDs today, and looking through the list of suggested topic areas by the conference organisers, I think I have come up with an idea. It has nothing to do with my PhD, but I feel I can justify it by saying I am stretching myself as an academic. If I can speak on a wider variety of subjects, I'm going to get more exposure in the global academic community. This, like I said, is how I justify it to myself anyway. Spending a few hours of a day staring at Hammer DVDs has to be justified one way or another.

So I think I've narrowed it down to The Stranglers of Bombay and The Terror of the Tongs.


I've also submitted a proposal for a conference on exploitation cinema being held in London this May. So I've gone from doing one paper in the past two years to potentially writing and presenting three within a couple of weeks of each other. Fun times ahead.