Celebrating Black History Month

To celebrate this month I want to highlight some of Stephen Boyd’s African American co-stars.

SB.jpg

Stephen starred in two movies with an almost exclusive African American cast ; Slaves in 1969, and Black Brigade (or Carter’s Army) in 1970.

Slaves was one of the first Blaxspolitation movies which highlighted not only the abomination of slavery, but it also the sexual enslavement between a white master and his female slave.

Black Brigade highlighted the brave actions of a desultory army unit during WWII which is put to the test and heroically achieves a dangerous mission in Germany during WWII.

Stephen was also a cast member of Island in the Sun filmed in 1956-7, which was one of the first films to explore cross-racial relations on a Caribbean island, based on the novel by Alec Waugh.

So here’s to Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Dionne Warwick, Ossie Davis, Robert Hooks, Billy Dee Williams and Richard Pryor, to name a few!

slavesfrench

‘Bad’ Stephen Boyd in “Slaves”, 1969

“Slaves” is one of my favorite Stephen Boyd roles. He plays a thoroughly corrupt slave-owner names Nathan MacKay in the early 19th century at a plantation in Mississippi. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this handsome villain! Stephen must have had a great time relishing in another bad guy role. Nathan MacKay reminds me a lot of Boyd’s other great villain, Messala, from “Ben-Hur”, even down to the whip he gets out to attack the hero at the climax of the movie, this time being his nemesis Luke Stillwill, played with incredible dignity by Ossie Davis.

At the time of making this film, Stephen said his only reason for doing the picture was not out of a social or moral obligation, but simply that he liked the role.

“Some people have the impression that people are in this picture because they want to say something. I don’t have a damn thing to say. MacKay says it, and what he says, God knows….Show me a business anywhere which is successful, and I will show you a man who could very easily be MacKay,” Boyd argues. “And that, to me, is really the point.”

Boyd had more to say after the movie had been released.

“You’ll search a long way before you find a more technically imperfect film, but that’s not what we were trying to do. We were trying to make the first true picture of slavery in America and we did…The black problem was still an untouchable on the screen prior to “Slaves” because the new films made that touched on the problem didn’t make money. But we’re breaking records everywhere we opened, and that’s where it counts…”

Indeed it did! But the reason “Slaves” was popular really boils down to a couple of things – sex and violence. It was exploitation, or blaxsploitation, in this case. I am sure the filmmakers had all the best, noble intentions for showing slavery for the horrid institution it was, but to sell a movie, you have to resort to other means.

The contrast is seen in the presentation of the “Slaves” LP cover compared to the movie poster. The LP cover shows the real ugliness and inhumanity of slavery with a picture of an anonymous black man’s foot chained by a horrid looking cuff on a wooden plank. If this had been the movie poster, only a few brave souls would have walked in the door to see this film!

In comparison, the half-size movie poster is lavish and sexy with beautiful artwork showing a burning plantation with a handful of some violent scenes, like the whippings and hangings, but softened by the handsome Boyd, dignified Davis and beautiful Warwick. These are all gorgeous people! The centerpiece is a defiant yet receptive Dionne Warwick being seduced by Stephen Boyd, who is just about to plant a kiss on her neck, clasping her naked shoulders. One look at this poster and audience feel immediate titillation and interest : interracial sex, violence, drama, Southern scenery and excess, a sort of diabolical “Gone with the Wind.” Even the tagline on the poster is alluring – “The tamings…the desires..the furies of the Old South as you have never seen it!” – “He bought her for $650. But she owned him!”

img_20160511_0759271
“Slaves” review, 1971: “Plantation owner Stephen Boyd collects African sculpture, but the story is about Dionne Warwick’s progress from his cotton fields to his bedroom”

Speaking of breaking records, it looks like “Slaves” had a fairly lengthy shelf life. It was released in May of 1969, and continued to be played at drive-in movie theaters, paired with other exploitation flicks, as well as late-night, adult movie screens up through 1973, and then the midnight TV circuit into the late 70’s and 1980’s.

The entertaining review below is from the Schenectady Gazette from June 23, 1973.

“At State Has ‘Bad’ Boyd”

By Louise Boyka

“Slaves” when it came out several years ago was pretty much of a shocker. Even today Stephen Boyd and Dionne Warwick seem to be trying to shock us all. It’s at the State Theater with “Girls are for Loving.”

Anyway, Boyd has always been a favorite actor of mine and I thought anything he was in shouldn’t be all bad. Boyd plays a Southern plantation owner.

And he’s all bad.

Let’s see. The color is flossy. The plantation is stagey and immense. Massa is after his slaves all the time with cruelty and evil intentions. Little babies arrive without proper medical care and Massa is atrocious.

The plantation owners from far and wide hold a top-level meeting. It’s in Massa’s living room. Massa Boyd tells them of the rotten way he treats his slaves. He gives a rather interesting lecture on the African tribes with whom he did business. The African chiefs arranged with him to sell their own people. He describes his African art collection.

Dionne Warwick sings haunting blues throughout. She’s very alluring with Massa Boyd. Her own people are skeptical about her. The film, entitled “Slaves,” goes on in lurid fashion and Massa Boyd is bad. Very bad.

IMG_0029

IMG_0004-001 (4).jpg

“She’s a slave who by day picks cotton and by night wallows lasciviously in the bed of her master. Between times she prances around the plantation in wildly colorful African garb and tribal makeup, a bourbon bottle under her arm and vengeance in her heart…Stephen Boyd is bland, but evil, as he approaches his mistress on his quest for what he calls “man-woman truth.” (Detroit Free Press, July 4, 1969)

To read some excellent true accounts of slavery in the Southern States, please refer to such classics as Harriett Beecher Stowe’s novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (1952), and true life accounts by Harriet Jacobs in the riveting “Incidents in The Life of a Slave Girl” (1861), and Frederick Douglass’s classic account in “The Narrative of a Life” (1845).

A Candid Stephen Boyd Interview from 1969

Stephen Boyd Explains His Lousy Movies

The Journal News – White Plains New York, 09 Jul 1969

By Bernard Shaw

New York – Stephen Boyd was in town briefly to publicize “Slaves” in which he plays a plantation owner and which was to open in a few days. I hadn’t yet seen the film when its publicist called and asked if I cared to meet Boyd. I hedged and said that the only burning question I had for him was why he made so many lousy pictures.

“Ask him that, “ the publicist urged. “I did and found that he’s very bright and articulate and he has no illusions about the business. He’ll speak candidly about anything.”

I agreed to see him, the date was set, and in the meantime, I attended the premive of the 70-mm elongation of “Ben Hur” in which Boyd had played Messala way back in 1960, and I found, to my surprise, that his was by the far the best performance in the film.

He had managed to endow an almost impossible villain with so much humor and intelligence, even sympathy in his 27 minutes out of a total of four hours on screen, that he rather threw the whole marathon epic out of kilter. I even found myself hopelessly rooting for him to win the chariot race against the archangel Heston.

I meet Boyd a week later in his suite at the Elysee, still not having seen “Slaves.” He is a tall, handsome Irishman from Ulster – Belfast is his home- and he was dressed in conservative black, having some kind of semiformal luncheon to attend later on.  He had a ruddy bloom on his cheeks all the Irish seem to have when they arrive here, but lose too soon. His sole concession to the now look was an elegant guardsman moustache.

After the usual amenities, my first question, predictably, was “How come you’ve made  so many lousy movies?”

“20th Century Fox,” he answered immediately, “20th Century Fox. I was under contract to them- chattel- and if you think and you are correct in thinking, I made so many lousy movies, you should see what I turned. Down. I was under contract with them for eleven, which should give you some indication of how many suspensions I took.”

Why did he ever get himself involved in such a situation? Simply because at the time the contact was waived before him, it seemed like mana from heaven. He comes from a large, poor family in Belfast, and at the age of seven he went on Ulster Radio’s Children’s Hour because the family needed the money.

At sixteen, he left school and broke with the family trade – which his father and brothers all practiced – truck driving, to work with the Ulster Theater Group, and then there were long, fruitless years in stock companies in Canada and the United States where he made alarming progress getting nowhere.

In 1952 in London, where he had gone to storm the British theater, he was literally starving, and reduced to playing his guitar and “busking” to the cinema queues in Leicester Square for pennies.

That did lead to a job as doorman of the Odean Cinema which in turn led to his becoming an usher and then to his meeting Michael Redgrave who gave him an introduction to the Windsor Repertory Theater and the Midlands Theater Company and several more years of playing all kinds of roles in addition to some small parts in British films.

So that when 20th Century Fox, impressed with his performance in “The Man Who Never Was, “ offered him a Babylonian Captivity, he had to accept.

“I don’t know how I lasted,” he said, “And I’m about the only one of the bunch of white hopes who came in when I did, who did last – there were Bradford Dillman, Stuart Whitman, Bobby Wagner – they put you in anything they want to and  there’s nothing you can do about it. When you try to speak to them, you’re told you’re a tax deduction. It isn’t so much a question of your making money for them but your’e enabling them to save money. You mean nothing.”

“But you’ve been living in Europe these last few years,” I said.

“I’ve been a resident of the United States,” he said, “ and a United States citizen for the last ten years. My home is in Los Angeles. Of course I never see it. They keep shipping me abroad which is another way of their being able to make money on you.”

“Were you forced to make things like ‘The Oscar’ and ‘The Caper of the Golden Bulls?’ ” I asked.

“I would do ‘The Oscar’ again with the original script I saw, but not with the people involved in it,” he said, “and I would do ‘Caper of the Golden Bulls’ again, but not with people involved, and many others which turned out so badly.”

“And ‘Slaves’ is different?” I asked.

He nodded, “You’ll search a long way before you find a more technically imperfect film, but that’s not what we were trying to do. We were trying to make the first true picture of slavery in America, and we did.”

“At least it’s an original of the Irish Rebellion,” I said, “I saw Sidney Poitier’s ‘The Lost Man’ which is an adaptation of ‘Odd Man Out’ and it’s terrible.”

“Sidney can’t do what he wants, superstar though he is, “ Boyd said. “He can do what he wants provided that it’s salable amd makes money. Remember, he and Jim Brown knocked themselves out, but they made it as personalities, not as blacks. The black problem was still an untouchable on the screen prior to ‘Slaves’ because the few films made that touched on the problem didn’t make money. But we’re breaking records everywhere we opened, and that’s where it counts with those boys. Will it make money?”

I asked him about some of his earlier films, about his brilliant but aborted Nimrod in John Huston’s “The Bible.” The role ended in the middle of nowhere.

“I had just made the test of Huston and had been on the film for only a couple of days when Fox yanked me off to make ‘Fantastic Voyage.’”, Boyd said. “I assumed they were going to junk what I did or do it over with someone else, but later on, Huston decided to use what little he had, so of course, the actor is blamed for it. You have to make compromises all the way. Big ones on the big picture, smaller ones on the smaller ones, you even have to make them on the good pictures, and I say the hell with it.  You can make a lot of stupid pictures that make a lot of money, so why eat your heart out?”

I wondered if he was looking for a stupid picture now, but I asked instead, “Why did you bow out of ‘Cleopatra?’”

“They changed the story on me, “ he said, “When I was scheduled to do it, when Mamoulian was supposed to direct, Peter Finch was to play Caesar and I, Anthony, and it was the story of Caesar and Cleopatra an then Anthony and Cleopatra. But then it became just the story of Cleopatra, “ he shrugged.

“And you let Richard have it, “ I said.

“I let Richard have it, “ he said.

“How come you don’t return to the theater?” I asked, “Isn’t it more satisfying for an actor?”

“From an ego point of view, yes, “ he said, “but films could be satisfying too for an actor is he was involved in the creation. We all make a picture together, but nobody talks to anybody. Nobody will sit down and discuss it beforehand, and you never do discuss it – with very, very few exceptions- unless some crisis occurs. The cameraman is off creating his mood, the actor is creating his mood, the set designed only worries about how his set looks, the costume designer, her costumes.”

He shrugged “It’s no wonder so few things turn out well. If I did do a play, I’d like to do O’Casey. ‘Juno and the Paycock.’ But it would have to be played right, as it was originally in Ireland. The first two acts are comedy and the last, tragedy. You have to be very careful about the way you do Irish drama. There are so many misconceptions abroad about Catholic and Protestant in Ireland. I heard Bernadette Devlin’s maiden speech in Parliament and I was deeply moved. She was elected, remember, in a predominantly Protestant community, and she said, “There is not a religious question in Ireland. It is simply a question of poverty.”

“Of course, that was distorted in all of the foreign press,” Boyd said angrily, “Nobody had it right but the London Times. Of course it’s a question of poverty in Ireland, and people everywhere was so ignorant of the situation. Only yesterday someone said to me, ‘But you’re Catholic,’ and I said, ‘No I happen to be Protestant, but what has that to do with it?”

“I come from an Irish family, the youngest of nine. My father was a truck driver. When he retired, he was at the height of his earning power. He was making six pounds a week, that’s about thirteen dollars. How the hell are a man and his wife and nine children going to live on thirteen dollars a week?”

Then he grew less angry and he said, “And then I think of something O’Casey said when I did ‘June and the Paycock’ in Belfast and he came up to see it. He said, ‘There are many, many, many noes in the world , but there is always a bigger yes.’”