Olivia de Havilland: Sweet and Strong, Last of the Era, and a Fighter
by John Aquino on 07/26/20
Olivia
de Havilland died July 25, 2020 at the age of 104. She was likely the last
of the great Hollywood stars of the golden era, having made her first U.S. film
in 1935. She also garnered attention with two lawsuits, one filed in her 30s
and one toward the end of her life.
She
was one of the most active stars in Hollywood from the mid-1930s to the
mid-1940s. She made 26 films from 1935 to 1943, not including cameos in which
she played herself, and she usually was the lead actress. One of those films
was Gone with the Wind, in which she portrayed the noble,
long-suffering Melanie. It was, depending on your method of measurement,
probably the most successful film of all time. Although it has very recently
been criticized as racially insensitive, her portrayal endures. As she herself
said, while actresses relish portraying a villainess, it is difficult to make a
genuinely good person dramatically interesting. And she did.
She
made a string of movies with Errol Flynn--swashbucklers, including Captain
Blood and The Adventures of Robin Hood; westerns, such
as Dodge City, Virginia City, and They Died with Their
Boots On; and even comedies, such as Four’s a Crowd.
De
Havilland came from a British family that could trace its ancestors to a
supporter of William the Conqueror. Her more recent relations were theatrical
ones—her mother, Lillian Fontaine, had appeared on stage and screen, and her
sister, Joan Fontaine, had begun to shine in the early 1940s in such films
as Rebecca and Suspicion. Her father practiced
law.
By all accounts, de Havilland was a team player. But she
also wanted to stretch her skills as an actress and not just jump from film to
film as Errol Flynn’s girl or the “sweet one in the picture.” But the studio to
which she was under contract, Warner Bros., felt they had a good thing going
and a known quantity with de Havilland playing the types of roles she’d been
playing. When the studio refused to give her meatier roles, she declined the
parts they gave her and, as a result, did not appear in films for three years.
Rather than relent, the studio told her that they were extending her contract
by 25 months—the time she had not worked.
This
was a familiar studio tactic. It demonstrates that the Hollywood moguls felt
that actors were property rather than people. Studios sometimes deliberately
offered actors roles that were unworthy or demeaning just so that the actors
would refuse them, and the studios could extend their contracts. The actors
were then faced with either playing roles that could hurt their careers or
being locked in with one studio that could cast them in poor films. Some played
the bad roles and lost their popularity. Others stayed with the studios—and
sometimes ended up playing inferior roles anyway.
De
Havilland, for all of her sweet exterior, would have none of it. Her father
had, after all, been an attorney. She did what not a single one of the other
Warner Bros. contract players—not even the “tough guy” actors like Jimmy
Cagney, Edward G. Robinson, or Humphrey Bogart—dared to do: she sued Warner
Bros. in California court in 1943 and won—de Havilland v. Warner Bros.
Pictures, 67 Cal. App. 2d 225 (1945). The court held that entertainment
contracts could last no longer than seven years. This was codified in
California labor law as California Labor Code § 2855. It is popularly known as
“The De Havilland Law.”
Having
beaten and, indeed, broken the Hollywood contract system, de Havilland returned
triumphantly to films. In 1946, she appeared in four movies—only one of
which, Devotion, was released by Warner Bros., and it had been
on the shelf for the three years that de Havilland was suing the studio. One,
appropriately named To Each His Own and released by Paramount
Pictures, won her the best actress Oscar. She then—in contrast to her previous
“23 films in nine years” pace--slowed down. She made no films in 1947, and only
one each in 1948 and 1949. But they were good selections. She won a 1948 Oscar
nomination for her performance in The Snake Pit, released by 20th Century
Fox, and a second Oscar for her performance in The Heiress, released
by Paramount.
But
for all of this great success after her court victory, de Havilland’s film
career continued its slow pace. She left Hollywood for Broadway in 1950 and
after meager success returned to films for the 20th Century Fox
costumer My Cousin Rachel in 1952, where her co-star, a young
actor named Richard Burton, attracted the attention and won a best supporting
actor nomination. Over the next 36 years, from 1952 to 1988, de Havilland
appeared in 23 films—less than she’d done in her first nine years with Warner
Bros.--and only four of which gave her starring or lead actress roles. Most of
them were filmed in Europe. In one of them, a weak comedy titled The
Ambassador's Daughter (1956), she played at the age of 40 a role she
would have been more suitable for when she was 20--the daughter of a U.S.
ambassador in Paris who breaks rules by dating an American soldier. Roles for
her were apparently hard to come by.
It
looks like filmmakers were bearing grudges after all. Also, the studio heads
were changing. Moguls were leaving the studios or had less power and corporate
business executives were taking over. Someone with a tendency to go to
court—and who had ruined a profitable studio system—was not welcome.
Her
friend and co-star (in Raffles) David Niven summed it up. “Olivia
struck a great blow for freedom, and everyone in the industry should bless her,
but she hardly ever worked in Hollywood again.”
At
the age of 102, de Havilland sued filmmakers for their depiction of her in the
2015 tv movie Feud. The film was about the feud between Bette Davis
and Joan Crawford during the making of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. De Havilland claimed that the teleplay's portrayal of her was false.
The
lower court had declined to dismiss the case, showing great deference to de
Havilland, indicated that she could conceivably succeed on the merits of her
complaint that FX Networks had violated her statutory right of publicity,
misappropriated her image, and that the miniseries constituted false light
invasion of privacy. (She didn't sue for libel, which is a false statement
fixed in a tangible medium that is defamatory, is clearly about the plaintiff
and that causes damages.) De Havilland based her claims on an interview at the
1978 Academy Awards ceremony that the filmmakers admit didn't factually
happened but that they used to frame their story and two comments in which she
was shown to call her sister Joan Fontaine a "bitch." She also
stressed that the filmmakers hadn't asked her person or paid for the use of her
name or likeness.
A
difficulty for de Havilland was that the movie wasn't about her. She was a minor
character in the film. Another was that, while she hadn't called her sister
a "bitch," she had called her a "Dragon Lady." A third
was she was a public figure and many of the events shown in the miniseries had
actually happened.
The
appeals court made its position clear early on in its opinion: "Whether a
person portrayed in these expressive works is a renowned film star--"a
living legend"--or someone no one knows, he or she does not own history.
Nor does she have the legal right to control, dictate, approve, disapprove or
veto the creator's portrayal of actual people."
It
probably wasn't how she wanted to spend her last moments in the public
spotlight--as a loser. But she was anything but. She created moments of life on
celluloid that are still breathtaking and that will last forever. And she
always fought for what she believed in, win or lose. God bless her.
Copyright
2020 by John T. Aquino