Among my favorite vintage magazines to collect are the gossip rags. While I don’t buy today’s celebrity gossip mags, I find these vintage issues to be very interesting. For one thing, I tend to at least have heard of, or recognize, the celebrities on the covers and headlines — the faces & names on those in the supermarket check-out lanes are virtually meaningless & unrecognizable to me.

But the old magazines, they are familiar…

While I’m not, as mentioned, a big fan or today’s celebrities, I do have a thing for the icons of yesterday. And these publications are full of them. While you can’t trust these old publications to have published the truth any more than you can the mags of today, you can find some photos you’ve never seen before, and read dramas that never were mentioned in celebrity biographies and autobiographies.

For me, it’s much more fun to live vicariously through those icons from the past.

But these old magazines aren’t only about the past.

Just look at the headlines on this October, 1959 issue of Top Secret:

Hypnosis — Secret Weapon Against Overweight

Why Brigitte Bardot Will Never Again Drop That Towel

Does Harry Belafonte Really Want To Be White?

For Sale: 20,000 Babies. Price: $35,000,000.

Now It Can Be Told: How Ike Saved The Life Of Maurice Chevalier!

The Real Inside Story: How Ava Gardner Sneaked 400 Gs Out Of The U.S.A…

The names may have changed over the years but some things never change… Sex, medical claims, race issues, celebrity & government scandals, fear-based “news”, legal issues… Gossip, gossip, gossip.

People haven’t changed much in nearly half a century, so the same issues and inflammatory headlines still work; just change a name or two, maybe update the street price of babies ($35,000,000? That’s a lot of money back now!), change who is suing who, and what’s really changed?

What has changed is the advertising.

With a cover price of just 25 cents, Top Secret and it’s ilk made money in volume — cranking out weekly or bi-monthly issues. Sure, the paper was cheap, more like newsprint than the slick pages of People or even Star, but then they were trying to quickly grind out more gossip for the mongers and rumor for the mills. Cheaper, both in terms of quality and cover price, than issues of Life, Good Housekeeping, Post, Ken, etc. the old gossip rags apparently didn’t need as much advertising to produce the magazines because they had far less of it.

Flipping through today’s celebrity publications, you find many ads; so many, they rival more “traditional” or “respectable” magazines. You might think that this is because the gossip business has grown over the years, become much more expensive with the slick paper etc. It could be those things.

It could also be that gossip magazines have grown to become more respectable than they once were. In vintage celebrity gossip magazines, you certainly do find much more risque advertising, sex fulfillment in marriage & Frederick’s ads, mixed in with the business opportunities, Bible fellowship out-reach, weight loss, body building, secrets to winning poker, and other ads for the easily susceptible.

There are a few other ads, toys for example; but they are not filled with the usual ads for food, cars, etc. Mainly these old gossip magazines are filled with the ads & offers reserved for the the back pages of other publications.

I’m not in any position to know the complete answer to the differences in advertising. But flipping through, it’s near impossible not to notice how different these magazines are from the more typical magazines.

Vintage gossip magazines are more difficult to find than other magazines. Their rarity is due in part to the cheaper paper, but other things shorten their lifespan.

Certainly then, as now, people quickly devoured their issues, passing them along to friends &/or cutting out photos of their favorite stars, then discarded them for the next issue with the latest celebrity news and gossip.

And I bet more than a few buyers & subscribers threw their issues away due to embarrassment; just like today, few want to keep their guilty pleasures laying around for others to see.

What issues do survive are fun to explore.

It’s fun to look at the past. Not just the celebrities, but to look at “the other side” of life from decades gone by. And to see how our culture still — perhaps even more so — idolizes celebrities.

Eve Arnold is known for her celebrity photographs, and perhaps most known for her photos of Marilyn Monroe.  This is how I, as a woman with an obsession with Monroe, discovered Arnold.  After reading my last book on Monroe, I had decided to swear-off my obsession and stop buying more Monroe stuff — at least books.  But then I discovered Eve Arnold’s book of Monroe photographs…

Full of photos — nearly 100, including 48 previously unseen — yes; but it’s the quality, not the quantity.

Arnold’s photographs of Marilyn are unique.  Unusually benevolent, these intimate photos of Marilyn Monroe expose the icon’s personality rather than her flesh.  In these photos we see a person, not a sex object; a human, not any kind of object at all.  And while I could go on and on about them, the important thing to know here is that these photos are different for several key reasons.

One is the all important matter of timing — and developing.  The two met at a party and forged a wonderful friendship that would last a decade.  As Arnold says, “We were both at the beginning of our careers, and I believe that neither of us knew precisely what we were doing.”

At the risk of more bad-pun-making, I’ll say what allowed the friendship to develop was the chemistry between the two.  While many dismiss Marilyn’s intelligence, Eve didn’t.  Both women knew what effect being a woman had on the world around her, and as Eve says, “We could make use of it, or we could let it be.”

Arnold would later say, “I didn’t want to be a ‘woman photographer’. That would limit me. I wanted to be a photographer who was a woman, with all the world open to my camera.” (And more recently confirms this belief, saying in a BBC interview, “No, I am a photographer. And you don’t say, a man photographer. So it seems likely that I am a photographer.”) This certainly puts the the two women on decidedly different paths, at least in appearance; yet it would stop neither’s success.

Arnold was the first woman to be nominated for membership in Magnum in 1951, and became a full member in 1957.  In 1995 she was made fellow of the Royal Photographic Society and elected Master Photographer, the world’s most prestigious photographic honor, by New York’s International Center of Photography; and in 2003, she was awarded an honorary O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) by the British Government.

Looking at her photographs, you can see why.

Through her photos of celebrities, we see more than famous people, more than a time capsule of “us” or “society”.  Even with such famous & familiar faces, we see something — someone — new.

If the mark of a really good novel is that you think of the characters long after the book ends, then photographs of people ought to do the same. Eve Arnold’s photos do that.  Even if you think you know the people in the portraits.

And when you don’t know the people in the photographs?  You long to…

In fact, if I have one complaint about Arnold’s works, it’s that I can’t find out enough.  I know that photographers believe that a photo is worth a thousand words, but often they do not seem to document the details which I long to know…  A perpetual problem for me, I know; but still, why can’t I find out more about Charlotte Stribling aka ‘Fabulous’?  Or Girl Holding Head, Insane Asylum, Haiti 1954?

The titles are stark, in such contrast to such compassionate, deep, rich images.  Perhaps this is by design, so that I, we, move past words and labels into what seeing and feeling.  But I still want to know more about Charlotte and Girl Holding Head.  For now, all I can do is stare at the photos and wonder.

Along with her famous celebrity protraits, there are a few others we can learn more about. Such as the Veiled woman, Muscat, Oman 1969.  She, and others, can (presumably) be seen in Arnold’s 1969 film about Dubai, Behind the Veil. This film is said, not only to capture “a traditional Muslim society just as it begins to become modernized, but also the antagonism between Islamic and Western societies that has been the stuff of news stories throughout the first years of the 21st century.”

I bet it’s amazing.

If there’s one thing I’ve read which seems to sum up the brilliance of Arnold’s photos, it’s this quote from the artist herself: “If a photographer cares about the people before the lens and is compassionate, much is given. It is the photographer, not the camera, that is the instrument.”

This is the gift of this talented photographer.  A gift no doubt noticed & appreciated by Monroe, allowing such a friendship, but by all who were before Arnold’s camera.  Indeed a gift she shares with all who see her photographs.

So now I’ll collect Eve Arnold works — likely in books, due to my modest means.  Not because she knew Marilyn; but because she knew how to take pictures of her.  And of everyone she photographed.

PS  Through June 14, the David Gallery exhibits All About Eve, the single largest collection of vintage and period Eve Arnold prints available for acquisition.  I wish I were close enough to see it.  If you go, I’m accepting souveniers.

Those who have read my blogs before will know that I am a seller on ebay and in our ‘store.’ I do not traditionally sell ‘widgets’, or a standard product but offer a very wide variety of items. I have sold accordions, cufflinks, buttons, sports collectibles, advertising items, china, tools; pretty much anything I can possibly carry to the house, clean up and ship. One of the benefits of selling such a diverse ‘product line’ is that you continually search for unusual items. And then you have to do some research when you do!

My latest find was a group of old movie photos, some from the original studios with names of the stars and the movie itself. Most did not have dates. My ‘new best friend’, Google, has been a tremendous help in this area. During the course of research, I have learned a lot about these early celebs. Some of it pretty darn interesting!

The first photo I show is Nova Pilbeam. Do you think the studio heads of today would allow her to KEEP THAT NAME? Very doubtful. In fact, one of her bios said she was known as the actress with the odd name. She was the daughter of an actor and at age 5 made her acting debut in a charity show, produced by her father. She was under contract with Gaumont-British and in 1934 was the lead in Little Friend. She was also cast in the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Man Who Knew Too Much. Nova also had various stage roles including Peter Pan. In 1937 Gaumont-British had financial difficulties and went out of business. David O.Selznick had wanted her for the lead role in Rebecca, but Hitchcock thought she was too immature and it did not happen. She also lost her dear husband in a plane crash during WWII. Nova was only 21 years old. She preferred the stage to movies after that. Read more about her fascinating life.

Another lovely lady was Wendy Barrie! This photo shows her in the RKO Radio Picture Don’t Bet on Love. She was born in Hong Kong in 1912 but lived in England in her early years. She started pursuing her career as an actress while still in her teens. Her screen debut was in 1932 in Threads. Later movies included The Private Life of Henry VIII which starred big names such as Charles Laughton and Merle Oberon, etc. Wendy played Jane Seymour. She moved to the United States in 1935 and starred opposite Spencer Tracy in the romantic comedy It’s a Small World. She also starred in the 1936 film called Speed with James Stewart. Other big names she worked with included Lucille Ball, and George Sanders. She made her final motion picture in 1943. With the dawn of television, she turned to roles in that medium. During 1948 and 1949 she hosted a DuMont TV comedy show, but is best remembered as hosting one of the first-ever television talk shows – called The Wendy Barrie Show. She starred in more than 15 films in Britain and 30 in the states – earning her a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Our third ‘femme-fatale’ is Gladys Swarthout. She was not only an actress but an opera star as well. Born on Christmas Day, 1900, in a small mining town, called Deepwater, Missouri. Her family had a lot of musical talent. She began singing at a young age, first as a singer in the church choir, making her professional debut on radio in 1927 for WDAF-AM. While her career began in music, becoming a well-respected opera star, she also had a high level of success in movies.

Her first movie was in 1935 – Rose of the Ranch, for Paramount Pictures. She also starred in a movie with Fred McMurray and Jack Oakie, called Champagne Waltz. Although she was in only 5 movies, she was very highly regarded and also has a footprint in the Hollywood Walk of Fame! To read more about Ms.Swarthout, you can visit this website.

It was good fun learning about these three celebrities and their early and rather modest beginnings. While they were not familiar when I found their old photos, I have come to know and admire them. One wonders how they would have fared today. All three were classy ladies.

Glossy 8 x 10’s, signed books, tickets to special events, props from television sets, movie scripts, dollar bills with celebrity faces, sports equipment, cards, personal items, clothing, these all seem to be the stock and trade of fans, but apparently we want more.As if the paparazzi weren’t bad enough, fans obsessed with their favorite celebrities now run about trying to obtain photos and autographs of their own. (I admit, I myself have done that!)

This fan-atical attention to persons in the public seems rather normal, and we tell ourselves that being a celebrity means a bit of intrusion now and then. When the chance to bid and buy personal artifacts arises, we jump in and bid, and we tell ourselves that celebs want all this attention, or why would they have these auctions for charity?

It’s not like we are trying to insinuate ourselves into their lives or solicit real friendships with them or anything, we just want a piece of them… or their lives…

We fans buy strange little things, and normal large things, which become important because of their connection to a celebrity. Case in point, Barbra Streisand’s Floral Print Sofa. It sold for $264.00 — a decent price for a used couch, but I wonder what they did with it? Surely a couch so important as to have Ms. Streisand’s delightful derriere rest upon it was not left in the family room for Joey to spill Kool-Aid on it and Fido to take a nap… One must have a rather large home to dedicate a furnature shrine to the one you adore.

And adore them we do. We seek more unique items such as locks of hair and the 3 tablespoons of water said to have been touched by Elvis at a 1977 concert.

Some of us even want souvenirs of their tragedies.

With head lines such as Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston’s Complete Divorce File, Marilyn Monroe’s Signed Hospital Patient Card, celebrity last will and testaments, and even “Chris Penn’s Autopsy Report Now Available”, websites lure in the collector who simply must have it all. This is the creepier side of celebrity collecting, to be sure.

Why do we do all this, in such a modern and enlightened age? Do we really think objects and paper become imbued and infused with the very life essence of the beings we admire?

Paul Gray pondered this in 1996 regarding the public sale of the estate of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. He said, “We are much too busy and progressive, thank you, for the magic charms and potions and amulets that so bedazzled our dim ancestors. We clasp at this faith and manage to hold on in spite of the myriad irrationalities of daily life. But every so often some public event gives our congratulatory self-image a sharp blow to the chops.”

He continued, describing the actual event as “not only a bewildering binge of conspicuous consumption but a perverse tribute, crass in some eyes and innocently romantic in others, to the allure of nostalgia and of the woman who single-handedly, and in many ways involuntarily, redefined the culture of celebrity.”

This notion is called celebrity worship, and be it romantic or crass, creepy or stylish, we all raise our paddles in salute to celebrities.