Mary and the Marx Bros. - related or not?

[shimp scrampi]

OK, we need a geneaologist! I'm working my way thru the Benny biographies and I'm on Mary & Hickey's book - and they say (regarding the infamous first meeting of Jack & Mary via Zeppo Marx) that the Marx Bros. are not related to Mary and Hilliard's family. However, all of the others (including Jack & Joan's book!) state that they are distant relations. So, who is right?! I always thought that was a nifty little bit of comedian trivia.

[Jack Benny]

I always thoght the story was that Jack went with one of them to Mary's house, but that they were not related to her.

[shimp scrampi]

After I posted, I was searching around on the site (it looks so simple, but what a deep resource!) and saw one of the old chat transcripts where Laura also seemed to refute the idea of them being related - (is this right?) - so the relation story was essentially just a convenient way in storytelling to explain why Zeppo might be invited to Mary's non-showbiz parents' house? And that got picked up, repeated, and established as fact - is that essentially what happened?

[LLeff]

After I posted, I was searching around on the site (it looks so simple, but what a deep resource!) and saw one of the old chat transcripts where Laura also seemed to refute the idea of them being related - (is this right?) - so the relation story was essentially just a convenient way in storytelling to explain why Zeppo might be invited to Mary's non-showbiz parents' house? And that got picked up, repeated, and established as fact - is that essentially what happened?

Basically, like Jack meeting Mary at the May Company. Mary and the Marx Brothers were not related for the following reasons:

1. Mary's name was Marks, not Marx
2. Mary's father's family was from Roumania, and the Marx Brothers' father was from Germany.

There is an old saying that all Jews are seventh cousins, so I think that's the logic that's been invoked in this persistent connection.

As far as Zeppo taking Jack there, it has infinitely more to do with religion. Families of various backgrounds (e.g., Jewish, Chinese, etc.) would sometimes have vaudeville performers of similar backgrounds over for dinner, so the observant Jew would not have to worry about where to find a Kosher meal in a strange city, or other ethnicities could enjoy familiar foods. With the hardships of the vaudeville circuit and hotel rooms so small that even the cockroaches are hunchbacked, being able to have a good, home cooked meal was a welcome opportunity for many performers.

[shimp scrampi]

Very interesting, thanks! I could accept the difference in name spellings, those are pretty fluid - but the different countries of origin seems to settle the matter.

Funny that error would get repeated in Jack and Joan's book though.

On more of a social history note - Mary's family was fairly well-off and prominent, if I recall correctly. What was the "status" of Vaudeville players like circa 1924, socially speaking? I know that for many years performers were actually rather despised, being on the sketchier end of the spectrum of folks "well-to-do" people would choose to have over for dinner. (Unlike today's celebrity/actor mania culture) So, would having a couple of mid-tier performers like Jack and Zeppo over be a little thrill for the Markses - or more like a charity handout?

[LLeff]

On more of a social history note - Mary's family was fairly well-off and prominent, if I recall correctly. What was the "status" of Vaudeville players like circa 1924, socially speaking? I know that for many years performers were actually rather despised, being on the sketchier end of the spectrum of folks "well-to-do" people would choose to have over for dinner. (Unlike today's celebrity/actor mania culture) So, would having a couple of mid-tier performers like Jack and Zeppo over be a little thrill for the Markses - or more like a charity handout?

By that time, the Marx Brothers were well-established in their antics and zaniness, and could be considered stars or near-stars of the time. They weren't next to closing (top star position) just yet, as Jack was performing after them (what a spot! Yikes...). At the time of Jack and Mary's first meeting (1921), Jack was still establishing himself and was definitely not yet star status. But I think the ethnicities were much more closely affiliated then, and it would have been entertaining a "good Jewish boy".

[shimp scrampi]

Again, really interesting info. I guess I still wonder though if Vaudeville performers were considered sort of declasse in the early '20s - at least among the wealthy classes. I'm thinking about some of the mild disappointment Jack's parents expressed (or Jack perceived) that he became a comic rather than a serious violinist - certainly in the 19th century actresses were considered little better than prostitutes. Edgar Allan Poe, for example, denied that his mother was an actress for this very reason. Sort of a question about when attitudes changed toward performers. I think it is interesting that this era of Vaudeville seems to be around when that happened.

[Maxwell]

Again, really interesting info. I guess I still wonder though if Vaudeville performers were considered sort of declasse in the early '20s - at least among the wealthy classes. I'm thinking about some of the mild disappointment Jack's parents expressed (or Jack perceived) that he became a comic rather than a serious violinist - certainly in the 19th century actresses were considered little better than prostitutes. Edgar Allan Poe, for example, denied that his mother was an actress for this very reason. Sort of a question about when attitudes changed toward performers. I think it is interesting that this era of Vaudeville seems to be around when that happened.

From some of the stories I've heard (particularly about the Marx Brothers), vaudeville performers would not have been very high up on the social order for the simple reason that male performers might very well "ruin" one's daughter.

[LLeff]

From some of the stories I've heard (particularly about the Marx Brothers), vaudeville performers would not have been very high up on the social order for the simple reason that male performers might very well "ruin" one's daughter.

And from what I've heard, the Marx Brothers "ruined" quite a few daughters!

Per the previous comment about Jack's parents being disappointed in his decision to pursue vaudeville rather than classical violin, also remember something about the time. This was when Mischa Elman and Jascha Heifetz and Fritz Kreisler were all big, and having your boy grow up to be a great violinist was something to which many Jewish families aspired. Someone once observed that the violin seemed to be a highly Jewish-connected instrument because of its portability, and when escaping Russian pogroms or other persecution, one could easily carry a violin as opposed to, say, a piano. (Also c.f. the violin's deep connection with Klezmer and other Eastern European music, the performers of which often travelled around performing in the various rural villages.)

Consider the plot of The Jazz Singer (and "I Love to Singa"), where the Cantor wants his son to follow in his footsteps and not be a JAZZ SINGER! I think that the difference between classical violin and vaudeville was much the same, with one being respectable and the other being sort of honky-tonk in comparison. Pull a Variety newspaper of the time, and you'll find separate sections for Vaudeville and Legitimate Theatre. Perhaps vaudeville was illegitimate theatre? Hmmm...[/i]

[shimp scrampi]

Wow...all really fascinating, this adds a lot of context to Jack's early career for me. I will add my own humble thought here that just thinking through my question - I suppose there would also be a hierarchy of sorts within Vaudeville - being an Al Jolson would be one thing...being a low-rent hoofer, the trainer of "Fink's mules" or the other scruffy acts would be quite another in terms of your "respectability". So, the high end vaudeville would be almost in a class with "legitimate" artists. Sort of like today how there is still a distinction between a "big" TV star, and a "big" movie star.

[LLeff]

Wow...all really fascinating, this adds a lot of context to Jack's early career for me. I will add my own humble thought here that just thinking through my question - I suppose there would also be a hierarchy of sorts within Vaudeville - being an Al Jolson would be one thing...being a low-rent hoofer, the trainer of "Fink's mules" or the other scruffy acts would be quite another in terms of your "respectability". So, the high end vaudeville would be almost in a class with "legitimate" artists. Sort of like today how there is still a distinction between a "big" TV star, and a "big" movie star.

Right on the money, my man. There were various echelons in vaudeville, different circuits (Keith and Orpheum were tops, Western and others more middling, etc.), different theatres (two-a-day were tops, and the quality usually decreased in inverse proportion to the number of performances...I think Variety only listed theatres that featured three or fewer performances per day), the big time and the small time. Many performers would take a new act to the more rural small time theatres to work out the kinks. Researching Salisbury and Benny has been extremely challenging because they were usually playing in those little small time houses that were only listed in the local paper.

On the bill there was a pecking order as well, next-to-closing being Star billing for someone like Al Jolson, Sophie Tucker, Nora Bayes, etc. Opening and closing were usually flash acts or dumb acts (no words, like Fink's Mules), because people would be filing in and out of the theatre (many left right after seeing the star). And one could write many paragraphs about the levels of the various acts in between. Suffice it to say that Jack was in between from pretty much 1914 to about 1924 or 25.

[Maxwell]

Wow...all really fascinating, this adds a lot of context to Jack's early career for me. I will add my own humble thought here that just thinking through my question - I suppose there would also be a hierarchy of sorts within Vaudeville - being an Al Jolson would be one thing...being a low-rent hoofer, the trainer of "Fink's mules" or the other scruffy acts would be quite another in terms of your "respectability". So, the high end vaudeville would be almost in a class with "legitimate" artists. Sort of like today how there is still a distinction between a "big" TV star, and a "big" movie star.

Right on the money, my man. There were various echelons in vaudeville, different circuits (Keith and Orpheum were tops, Western and others more middling, etc.), different theatres (two-a-day were tops, and the quality usually decreased in inverse proportion to the number of performances...I think Variety only listed theatres that featured three or fewer performances per day), the big time and the small time. Many performers would take a new act to the more rural small time theatres to work out the kinks. Researching Salisbury and Benny has been extremely challenging because they were usually playing in those little small time houses that were only listed in the local paper.

On the bill there was a pecking order as well, next-to-closing being Star billing for someone like Al Jolson, Sophie Tucker, Nora Bayes, etc. Opening and closing were usually flash acts or dumb acts (no words, like Fink's Mules), because people would be filing in and out of the theatre (many left right after seeing the star). And one could write many paragraphs about the levels of the various acts in between. Suffice it to say that Jack was in between from pretty much 1914 to about 1924 or 25.

One place you can get a sense of the different levels of vaudeville is the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy" where George (played by James Cagney) is seen by the theater owners as a trouble maker and thus prevents the family from making the "big time."

Speaking of "Yankee Doodle Dandy," I once heard an interview with Jack Benny in which he told how the part of "George M. Cohen" was promised to him by Jack L. Warner if only he'd do (I think) "The Horn Blows at Midnight." At any rate, it was a movie Jack didn't want to make, but he did so based on that promise.

When he finished the movie, he said he went to see Warner, who thanked him but mentioned nothing about the movie. Finally Jack asked him, and Warner told him the part had been given to Cagney.

"But you promised that I'd get the part of George M. Cohen," Jack protested.

Warner by way of apology said something like, "It turns out his name is Cohan. It it was Cohen, you'd have gotten the part."

A great story, and probably just that...but a great example of Benny's sense of humor.

[David47Jens]

From some of the stories I've heard (particularly about the Marx Brothers), vaudeville performers would not have been very high up on the social order for the simple reason that male performers might very well "ruin" one's daughter.

Ah, how true... as was freely admitted by Groucho himself, mostly in later (and less censored) interviews. Groucho always pronounced "Chico" as "chick-o" as opposed to "cheek-o" (as most people do). And according to Groucho, the stage name came from the fact that Chico was always chasing the "chicks," even moreso than the other brothers, if such a thing were possible!

Then again, Groucho was not always the best person to approach for facts about anything... including Groucho.

[David47Jens]

Again, really interesting info. I guess I still wonder though if Vaudeville performers were considered sort of declasse in the early '20s - at least among the wealthy classes. I'm thinking about some of the mild disappointment Jack's parents expressed (or Jack perceived) that he became a comic rather than a serious violinist - certainly in the 19th century actresses were considered little better than prostitutes. Edgar Allan Poe, for example, denied that his mother was an actress for this very reason. Sort of a question about when attitudes changed toward performers. I think it is interesting that this era of Vaudeville seems to be around when that happened.

If you're interested in an in-depth analysis of the transitional phase between the "little better than prostitutes" era and the burgeoning "cult of celebrity" this thread is discussing, I strongly suggest that you look for Herbert G. Goldman's Banjo Eyes: Eddie Cantor and the Birth of Modern Stardom, available at Amazon.com, among other places.

Here's a quote, not from the book itself, but from Amazon's product description: Before Eddie, a "star" was merely an actor in the top rung of what was widely regarded as a rather curious profession... Goldman shows that while the notion of the entertainer as role model and the blurring of the line between an actor's public and private life may be staples of today's celebrity culture, it was Eddie Cantor who first made them so, redefining what it meant to be a star in the process.

Again, it's a lengthy and very detailed look at Cantor's life and career, and an equally detailed analysis of the evolution of stardom and celebrity... but it's well worth the effort for a dedicated "student."