Talk:Louise Brooks

LGBT?

An editor has removed the LGBT-related cats from the article. The evidence supporting those cats in the article is ambiguous. Thus:

Brooks enjoyed fostering speculation about her sexuality,[109] cultivating friendships with lesbian and bisexual women including Pepi Lederer and Peggy Fears, but eschewing relationships. She admitted to some lesbian dalliances,[112] including a one-night stand with Greta Garbo.[113] She later described Garbo as masculine but a "charming and tender lover".[114][115] Despite all this, she considered herself neither lesbian nor bisexual:

I had a lot of fun writing Marion Davies' Niece [an article about Pepi Lederer], leaving the lesbian theme in question marks. All my life it has been fun for me. ... When I am dead, I believe that film writers will fasten on the story that I am a lesbian ... I have done lots to make it believable ... All my women friends have been lesbians. But that is one point upon which I agree positively with [Christopher] Isherwood: There is no such thing as bisexuality. Ordinary people, although they may accommodate themselves, for reasons of whoring or marriage, are one-sexed. Out of curiosity, I had two affairs with girls — they did nothing for me.[116]

So, Brooks did not consider herself to be gay, but she admits she had affairs with two women. Which of these is dispositive? I think there should be at least a modicum of discussion before the cats are removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reading between the lines I think it's safe to keep the LGBT categories. She was obviously comfortable having sexual encounters with either gender, regardless of how few she admitted to having. The fact that she believed "There is no such thing as bisexuality" is a smoking gun as to why she chose not to label herself as such. Adding such categories to an article about her is hardly pigeonholing her, if that's what Template:U is concerned about. Her sexuality, ambiguous as it may be, was a defining characteristic. She obviously intended for it to be that way. nagualdesign 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just because a person does something with someone of the same gender doesn't make them gay. She was a party girl and experimenter and said she didn't like such a thing. Maybe she was lying when she said she only did it two times and felt nothing, but there is no evidence to support such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeln4444 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• And maybe she was lying when she said that she did not consider herself either a lesbian or bisexual. We can't start throwing out her statements at will, we have to in some way deal with both of them. The way to do that is by citations of evaluations by reliable sources, i.e. someone who is not Louise Brooks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ping I don't think that having LGBT categories in a Wikipedia article about you makes you officially gay either. What it does is make LGBT-related articles easier to find. What you're suggesting is tantamount to removing Brooks from such public discussions, which seems rather pointless. Whether someone enjoyed their sexual encounters or believed that there's no such thing as bisexuality is irrelevant. By her own admission she was arguably what most people today would call bisexual, and she made a point of publicly flirting around the idea, which I believe makes it a 'defining characteristic' by WP standards. To be honest, it sounds like you're trying to argue that "LGBTQIA+ people have a right to call themselves heterosexual!" Like Ken says, the only thing that matters here is what reliable secondary sources have to say about Brooks. nagualdesign 13:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

More info - According to Barry Paris' book she claimed to have had 3 lesbian explorations, which he calls a conservative figure,(in the Tynan quote it's two) and be 'not much sexually' though 'strongly', attracted to women. He says she was fascinated by sexual experimentation and approached sex impetuously, but was a 'pansy' not lesbian, in her love of women. Paris also quote a friend of Brooks as saying that she didn't care one way or another about liasons with women, but then Paris refers to her 'highly charged approach to boys and girls' and 'petulant unpredictability about each sex'.Paris also quotes Louise as being upset about a 'dyke photo' of her, then saying that lesbians are 'double sexy', and then saying that nearly all lesbians are bisexual, being 'almost playfully inconsistent' about it. He compares her to the bisexual Bankhead, who said she only became a lesbian to get publicity.

- 'According to actress Louise Brooks, she and (Peggy) Fears were involved with one another, but Brooks never allowed herself to let the affair develop into a serious relationship.' a quote from Fears' Wikipedia page- see documentary When Ocean Meets Sky

-from autostraddle article https://www.autostraddle.com/a-brief-history-of-the-lesbian-heiress-351808/ -Dupont Heiress Louisa D’Andelot Carpenter bailed her girlfriend, stage actress and torch singer Libby Holman, out of jail after Libby shot and killed her husband. The two raised Libby’s son together and went on to adopt a child in a relationship that was largely accepted by their peers. Rumour has it that Carpenter was also involved, at various times, with actresses Tallulah Bankhead, Louise Brooks and Greta Garbo.

- from -http://allanellenberger.com/pepi-lederers-100th-birthday/- Though Louise Brooks never publicly admitted to an affair with Pepi, she once told a friend that Pepi said, “Let me just fool around a bit,” and Louise said, “Okay, if it’s anything you’re going to get some great enjoyment out of, go ahead.” And so they fooled around, but said she got nothing out of it. (The cite for Pepi fling is wrong - I can find no mention of it in Lulu in Hollywood, but Paris does mention it).

- the Roger Ebert quote on Brooks' Wikipedia page mention a reputed affair with Marlene Dietrich - this should be added to personal life section.

- the Paris bio mentions an (aborted due to racism)one-night 'menage a trois' between Tallulah, Louise and an unnamed 'black man.' 94.197.145.166 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Over the phone 1983 Louise Brooks...more interview...

<ref name="nytimes-at-the-movies">{{cite news |last1=Chase |first1=Chris |title=AT THE MOVIES |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/16/movies/at-the-movies.html |access-date=6 September 2021 |work=The New York Times |date=16 September 1983 |quote=These days, even though she is bedridden - in addition to osteoarthritis, she suffers from emphysema - the eyes remain unclouded. Over the phone, she sounds every bit as forthright as she is said to have been in her heyday, and she is delighted by the renewed interest in her pictures.}}</ref>

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Louise Brooks by John de Mirjian.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors of this article are urged to go to the Commons discussion page to express their views on whether this image should be deleted. [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This photograph is mistakenly attributed to John de Mirjian. It was actually taken by Alfred Cheney Johnston and can be found in the book Jazz Age Beauties of photos taken by Johnston. Mwillyk (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Louise Brooks in Overland Stage Raiders.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WPFilm

Following recent edits by Template:Ping, I looked at WPFilm which says: “The project generally considers all articles directly related to film to be within its scope, except that it does not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers, which are within the scope of the Biography WikiProject and specifically the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects.” It looks as if this page is not in the scope of the project. —Northernhenge (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles can be in the scope of more than one project. This article is definitely within the scope of the film project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a naked image in this article?

The nude image should be removed. Researching actors of the silent screen should not involve seeing them naked. Please consider removal. 2601:207:702:2B30:6175:B82E:D1FB:3953 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting point.

• Should we have any naked images in Wikipedia? Clearly, there are plenty throughout it, used to increase understanding and knowledge of the page's subject.
• Should we have naked images of any actors? I think the test probably includes whether the image was captured with the actor's consent at the time, and that consent continued thereafter; and whether it helps Wikipedia readers' understanding of the subject (and not just ogling of a nude celebrity). Two examples: the sex tape images of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. Clearly, the publication of these images was non-consensual and there can be no argument for having them in Wikipedia. However, what about Marilyn Monroe's 1949 nude calendar photos? Monroe admitted to them, while stressing that she had been broke at the time. They are an important part of her biography. If it were not for the copyright issues, I think it would be justifiable to include them in Wikipedia as examples of a "sex bomb"'s early career.
• How does this apply in Louise Brook's case? The photo was taken with her consent. She was building her career, as with Monroe. The article says she was a sexually liberated woman, unafraid to experiment, even posing nude for art photography. It also says she sued to prevent publication of risqué studio portraits of her. It is unclear from the article what her subsequent attitude was to the photos. The example used in Wikipedia is in the public domain. I suspect Brooks probably didn't care after she abandoned Hollywood.

I think the naked image is justified here.

Hasn't the question been discussed elsewhere, previously? Masato.harada (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)