Louis B Mayer to John Huston - on Realism

[Peter Pallotta]

MGM under Louis B Mayer was not only *part* of Hollywood's "Golden Age" (from the late 20s to early 50s), it was arguably the very *epitome/definer* of that age. Even just a short/select list from that time period includes these many critical and/or commercial hits, all of them gorgeous to look at and chock full of charm and *entertainment*: Singin’ in the Rain; The Wizard of Oz; Gone with the Wind; An American in Paris; The Philadelphia Story; Ninotchka; A Night at the Opera; The Thin Man; On the Town; Mutiny on the Bounty; Grand Hotel; The Postman Always Rings Twice; and Dinner at Eight.

But as Mr. Mayer (and Hollywood, and America) 'aged' into the 50s, he found himself confronted with a new kind of film and a new kind of filmmaker; *realism" was all the rage (or so some critics thought/wanted). Mayer was indeed going to finance John Huston's new picture, the gritty "Ashphalt Jungle", but he still had his misgivings about its *realistic* style. It is reported that he said (something like) the following to Mr Huston:

Is your wife an attractive woman, John? I bet she is, I bet she's very attractive. And let me ask you this: does she go to the *bathroom*? I mean, she *does* go to the bathroom, right -- to *pee* and other such things? Of course she does, John -- so does *everyone*, we *all* go to the bathroom to pee and take a crap. We'd be *dead* if we didn't go to the bathroom. We do it every day. It's a very *natural* thing to do, we all do it, going to the bathroom to pee and take a crap. It's very *realistic*. Now tell me, John: when your wife goes to the bathroom, does she *close the door*? Usually, when she goes in there to do this very natural thing, to *pee*, does she close the door? Yes, sure she does.  Like all of us, she not only closes the door but she also *locks* it, doesn't she John? And why's that -- I mean, why doesn't she leave the door wide open, when she's, say, *peeing,* for everyone to see? I'll tell you why, John: *because none of us wants to see it* We *all* close and lock the bathroom door, and we want others to close the bathroom door, because what is happening there is *not beautiful*, John, and it's not *lovely* or *fun to watch*. Sure, of course, it's *realism* , but none of us -- we as the *audience*, John -- we don't *want to watch* realism. We want *magic*.

So sayeth the king, the maker, the *inventor* even of one "Golden Age". It's not the one that we usually talk about around here, but I read it last night and found it interesting, with possible parallels to gca.

Peter

 

[DFarron]

Makes you think about all that goes on in our culture...thanks!

[Mac Plumart]

It really is a great post and opens up so many insights into what goes on behind the scenes...and do we really want to see it/do it?

Jordan Speith won the Masters.  We want to see that, we want to be part of that.  But do we want to see what happened behind the scenes?  The hours practice...putt after putt after putt...endless balls on the range.  We definitely don't want to see that...and most of us don't want to do that...to become great.

In architecture, there is the final course...we want to play that.  Most golfers don't give a rats a$$ about the construction and design of the course, but many of us on here do.  But do we want to see the actual deal being made and/or even know about what actually happened for the architect to get the job, the developer to secure the land and all the approvals?  Probably too much for many of us to handle.

Thanks, Peter.  Interesting post!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thankfully, Mayer was wrong. 

[Adam Clayman]

He wasn't wrong.

How else should water views, and framed vistas, be perceived, other than magic?

[Peter Pallotta]

Does anyone think that at golden age courses like Cypress and Augusta, Dr Mac was striving to achieve *realistic* bunker shapes/styles, or that with his greens at Augusta he was hoping for a *naturalist* aesthetic?  At NGLA and Lido, was CBM committed to leaving those sites just as he found them, so that in the end those courses would look/be both natural and realistic -- you know, *raw* and *truthful*? With all his tinkering on Pinehurst #2, was Mr Ross trying to, metaphorically speaking, leave the bathroom door *open*?

It doesn't seem to me there were too many great "documentarians" in the field back then, i.e. architects who simply wanted to capture and make permanent was *really was*. In fact, did any of the great ones even *pretend* that it wasn't about lovely and magical and make-believe and *entertainment*?

In the days of Greta Garbo and Clark Gable and Fred Astaire and the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars to recreate the Civil War South, do we really think that wealthy, influential clients and club members were looking for *ashphalt jungles*?  And 80 years later, has it changed that much -- when, for example, the most talked about and praised courses in Florida have the rare (and make believe) quality of looking *nothing like* Florida?

I've mentioned this before: one of the most important things that I think Tom D learned from Pete Dye, and the one that never seems to get mentioned, is that it's *showtime* out there, baby. Golden Age *entertainment* all over again.

Peter

[JESII]

Didn't know if I could agree with a post more than your first on this thread...and I just did.

Thank you!

[DMoriarty]

Yes, I do think that AM was striving to achieve "realistic" bunker shapes/styles at Cypress, and that with his greens at Augusta he was hoping for a "naturalist" aesthetic.  He had to make these courses functional, but he wanted them to blend in with nature. The features may not seem "natural" by our standards now but compared to some of what had come before they were a large step toward a natural aesthetic.

In my opinion, the idea that one has to focus on the vulgar or offensive to be a "realist" is erroneous, and in this case Mayer was wrong.

[JESII]

I'd like to see/read the documentary of Tillinghast at Winged Foot. I doubt there was a lot of romance and the result is truly remarkable.


Regarding the concept of Realism in golf course architecture today...what's real? To me it's certainly not shaped (even if expertly) humps and bumps and fescue for the sake of fescue...

[JESII]

In my opinion, the idea that one has to focus on the vulgar or offensive to be a "realist" is erroneous, and in this case Mayer was wrong.

David,

Mayer isn't saying you have to focus on the vulgar, just that you have to include it if you're striving for realism.

[DMoriarty]

You may be right, but I'd say "not avoid" rather than "include." And in Mayer's example he is certainly focusing on the vulgar.

Regardless, I don't think naturalism is synonymous with realism.

[Jud_T]

PP,

I don't think it's an either/or proposition.  Many of the courses we love around here tend to be both; i.e. natural, interesting ground that is suited to the purpose to such an extent that it is both real and entertaining.  One could argue that it is rather, in fact, often extreme realism, when one encounters very odd naturally occurring land forms that are so unusual that they are entertaining due to their uniqueness.  Ever see "Freaks"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJVXTKkjsxA

[Mark Bourgeois]

What about hyperrealism?

[Tom_Doak]

I've mentioned this before: one of the most important things that I think Tom D learned from Pete Dye, and the one that never seems to get mentioned, is that it's *showtime* out there, baby. Golden Age *entertainment* all over again.

I won't pretend to know all about these terms and what they mean to different individuals.  I do know the difference between leaving natural contours alone and building things that look natural enough to fool golfers, and we generally do some of both in building our courses.

As for Mr. Dye, the one thing your quote brought up was him telling me that clients today wanted "18 postcards", like the set of postcards Pine Valley used to sell ... one for each hole.  It was their subtle way of reminding you that they were the only course that had 18 holes worthy of a postcard, but now that was what everyone strived for.  I had the impression that Mr. Dye did not LIKE this new mandate, but he accepted it.

[Dave McCollum]

Following up on Mac’s comment with a simple question:  have you ever seen a golf course being constructed?  It’s a mess of dozer tracks, piles of dirt, temporary roads, trenches, etc.  Most of us would have a difficult time imagining the finished product.  Natural is hardly the word that comes to mind. 

[Peter Pallotta]

After reading about MGM the night before, it struck me as a potentially fruitful/instructive lens through which to re-examine golf architecture's golden age, even if the analogies are imperfect.  

Gone were the ruts (as hazards) and flat (lay of the land, if the land was flat) greens and 18-stakes on Sunday approach; just as the text cards and broad silent gestures and 5-day shooting schedules and minuscule budgets disappeared once sound (and later colour) came to the motion picture industry and introduced its golden age.

As a way to revisit the supposed naturalism and lay of the land approach of the great architects/courses of the 1910s, 20s and 30s, I thought it interesting. The question isn't whether *we* looking back think the work/designs embodied anything approaching minimalism or naturalism or realism; it's whether the architects themselves actually had any real *intention* or *desire* to embody such aesthetics.

David M suggests that someone like Dr Mac did indeed intend to capture a naturalist aesthetic (in the context of playability) with, say, his greens at Augusta. From the written records he and other architects left behind, David would know better than me if this is so; but from what I see in photos of the original greens there, there was no place on the site (or anywhere in nature that I can think off) where small 10,000 square feet bits of nature heaved and rolled like what Dr Mac created there. There was a 'stylization' going on there (dare I say, almost like "technocolour") that gives one at least some kind of idea of what Dr Mac was actually thinking re naturalism.  

And, as Tom notes, it was Pine Valley - that epitome of everything pure and true and golf-first when it comes to golden age gca -- that sold the  18 postcards -- the rough equivalent, I'd suggest, of the absolute top priority that MGM put on *movie stars* (with MGM's corporate tag-line being "More stars than there are in heaven".)

Who needs the realistic or believable or natural when you have Lana Turner?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with TD that I won't/don't know what all these terms might mean to others.  IMHO,  you really can't be truly natural in golf design, since turf isn't natural, 10% putting greens aren't natural.  Many here don't seem to grasp that.  Its landscape architecture in that we are adapting the natural landscape to a specific human use, i.e. golf.  Not to mention, people do need things somewhat organized for their minds to comprehend them, and design does organize things. 

I think Mac realized that golf elements were best as stylized versions of nature, and that it was show time.  I also think Americans in particular are getting less and less comfortable with pure nature, since our developments are taking us so far from it.  You might think giving them some would be best, but I think stylized is better, with just a few really natural areas.  I saw where a Disney theme park is advertising itself as a true adventure vacation, for instance.  So, now, going to a controlled and stylized representation of an African Safari suffices to most of us as true adventure?

Golf is somewhat unique in landscape architecture in that you really control the viewpoint 18 times, as opposed to a park or plaza where people wander around at many angles, places and sequences.  You would be a fool NOT to take advantage of that in the name of naturalism, especially after the big movie era, and now the whole TV generation.  If anything, people want to be entertained even more now than in the 1920's, and design must accommodate it.

The sad part is, in some ways, I think the next gen of golfers will clamor for more realism.  They like the well warted Simpsons over Leave it To Beaver, sort of a sanitized family sit com.  But, they also like real time information.  I see some form of Top Golf, with instant data analysis of each shot immediately available.  Or golf helmets that let you see over blind hills, etc.  Not sure exactly how that will work into design, but I suspect it will, unless golf becomes a pure nostalgia activity for most, rather than a regular regimen and part of life.  Of course, the market is big enough for different type golf experiences, just like there is comedy, drama, action, etc.

[John Connolly]

I think Mac realized that golf elements were best as stylized versions of nature ...

Very good post overall. Really like the clipped phrase.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I do think that AM was striving to achieve "realistic" bunker shapes/styles at Cypress, and that with his greens at Augusta he was hoping for a "naturalist" aesthetic.  He had to make these courses functional, but he wanted them to blend in with nature. The features may not seem "natural" by our standards now but compared to some of what had come before they were a large step toward a natural aesthetic.

In my opinion, the idea that one has to focus on the vulgar or offensive to be a "realist" is erroneous, and in this case Mayer was wrong.

David,

I like this thread, although I have seen some criticism of it.  But, to me, tese are the things we should debate more than rankings, etc.

I would agree with you that he found the CP landscape breathtaking, and responded by leaving a lot of the dunesland alone to convey the special qualities of the site. 

That said, do you think some of the early contrived mounding we saw in the old ANGC photos posted here recently really blended in the Georgia landscape? Like 8?  What about the fancy, contrived green shapes in a gentlyr rolling and expansive landscape of hills and trees?

I am posting on this thread because I think too many apply some romantic principles to the ODG, often wrongly.  Mac said he was trying to impose design ideas from another, completely different landscape, i.e., TOC.  Jones wanted ideas from TOC.  Granted, both knew they had to adapt, but they weren't letting the land suggest the design. Not to mention, the landscape had already been changed from native trees to exotics in a nursery previous to golf, and they committed to a "nursery" course, not an natural course.   

And, I think the shaping was done to support the design idea, not to emulate nature, and it sure doesn't emulate nature, does it? 

As you can tell, I sincerely doubt too many gca's of any era really embraced naturalism.  You just have to change the landscape to make it suitable for golf, and that is what GCA is really all about.  We can pay lip service to naturalism, and they did, but mostly, it may have been forced on them until construction technology caught up.  We can preserve the perimeters, a la CP, but I see little in even Mac's other bunkers there to suggest he wasn't stylizing bunkers as much as a Japanese landscaper might present his gardens, an organized look, much more regular than nature.

Or put another way, sometimes when I see posters here suggest golf course design is all about the land, I want to remind them, its really all about the golfer/customer and their reaction to it.  While there are certainly benefits and advantages to using the natural landscape (where it is beautiful) they occur only when golfers will like the course more than otherwise, and if it functions more than it would otherwise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Can't understand the 'criticism' Jeff mentions. It may be a misguided and banal thread, but it *is* gca related, and hopefully engenders some posts that explore a bit outside the bounds of consensus. 

I wish I'd written Pasatiempo instead of Cypress, though.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I wonder if the term realism in the way it is used for film making is quite the same as for gca.  Ian Andrew used the term finished to describe how golden archies differentiated themselves from pre 1900 gca (the date is random, but fairly accurate).  I think some of the modern minimalists strive to create courses which offer the illusion of being unfinished, but in fact are very polished designs.  Hence one reason the term "random" is thrown around when there is nothing random about these designs.  In truth, unfinished courses were a product of the time due to restraints which don't exist anymore.  Colt and co were really about creating thoughtful, finished products for the first time...creating a sense of realism (nature) without in fact leaving much to nature.  Plus, golfers now know what finished is and demand a finished product.  Some may clammer for the look and playability of an 1895 course, but the reality the vast majority of golfers can barely get past the illusion (which is currently all the rage among gca officionados) let alone face the real deal.  I think this is perhaps why many people love links...not only do some elements harken back to the day, but the weather adds to this experience in a way which isn't possible on a great many "master designs" of the modern era. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Can't understand the 'criticism' Jeff mentions. It may be a misguided and banal thread, but it *is* gca related, and hopefully engenders some posts that explore a bit outside the bounds of consensus. 

I wish I'd written Pasatiempo instead of Cypress, though.

Peter, some comes from off line, from a former poster who now lambasts us all on FB.  The other comments I received are in PM form from a current poster. 

Both seemed to think anyone who answered on this thread was pretty full of themselves........ok, ok, maybe I am guilty, who knows? I do think that every so often, it is good to step back and study the underpinnings of it all before arguing about this or that bunker.

Basically, my response is in recalling TePaul and others who long ago held the position that golf course architecture is completely different than landscape architecture.  I disagree, as both form the landscape for specific human use first, and both seek to respect the landscape as the best way to do that, at least in most cases. 

Of course, in golf, you had Fazio (symbolizing a generation of top end designers in the 90's who were trying to outdo each other in the "show time" department, and in Landscape Architecture, you had Sasaki, who famously said "The land is putty."

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks. That's interesting to me.  

You're a working professional of many decades experience who has garnered much success and respect in your field. I think I understand the fact that such working professionals, in any field, eventually get past the need for/grow tired of thinking about the *process* or the *theory*; they are too busy *doing* to spend their time *talking*. Some of the best professionals, however, past and present, have stayed engaged and interested and growing enough to *occasionally* dip their toes back into the less practical realms of thought. Granted, that might not be some great *praiseworthy* quality, but it is a shame, it seems to me, when the pendulum swings totally the other way and such professionals are accused of being *full of themselves* (which is, frankly, a term and concept most grown ups have left behind in high-school.) And how the *rest of us* can be full of ourselves I just don't understand -- we're self professed geeks!

I know I mostly just post whatever comes into my head -- I read about *one* golden age and it strikes me that it might have parallels with *another* golden age, and so I start typing and watch what emerges. Maybe the thread has legs, maybe it doesn't. But when the alternatives around here are mostly: thinly veiled self promotion; belt-notching; conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseam; day-dreaming and make believe; endless and pointless rankings and ratings; the spouting of bile and grudges; a dating service; and criticism for criticisms sake, then I feel okay about tossing some ramblings into the mix.

In fact, sometimes I think the ramblings fit in (value-wise) just behind the course profiles of posters like Benjamin, Jon, Sean etc; the historical compilations of Joe B and Sven etc; and threads about arranging to meet at a Masters' practice round -- and that's pretty good!

Peter

PS - Sean, thanks - good post there.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  I don't understand what you mean by "naturalism," don't understand what it has to do with gca, and I don't think your account of what AM was doing and why is accurate. Peter, I guess this applies to you as well, although perhaps with different "isms."

Ramblings are fun and all, but if we are talking about history at some point we have to make an effort to understand what actually happened.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - yes, I agree: the idea is to try to understand what actually happened back then. And, while you're under no obligation to me or anyone else to challenge (or even engage with) the premise of the thread, your insights/details/facts and figures into the period would be appreciated -- even if, as I think you've already done, it's simply saying "you're wrong".  

From photos, I personally don't see the original Augusta greens as having anything particularly *natural* about them. They don't seem to 'fit their surrounds' at all, and it doesn't seem to me that Dr Mac had any *intention* of having them do so. (I think of how the greens at, say, St Andrews seem to fit the site/nature of the site so much better/more naturally than those at Augusta do; sure, the Augusta site *rolls*, but nothing like Dr Mac made its *greens* to do.) And when I look at photos of NGLA, I think mostly of how *beautiful* (in the context of an engaging *field of play*) CBM tried to make it. That course, in photos, says to me *magic* and *make believe* much more than it says natural or lay of the land or 'realistic'.

Again, the reading about one golden age brought to mind the *possibility* that there might be others ways to look at *golf's* golden age. But of course, I could simply be *wrong*....  

Peter