Doris Day Icon

Nellie McKay’s review of Tom Santopietro”s book Considering Doris Day was an enjoyable read for a number of reasons. First, I was glad that his book got exposure in a major American newspaper. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Santopietro recently, at his book signing, in Connecticut. He definitely has a sincere admiration for Doris Day as an artist of great talent, having done an extensive research of her career. He also admires her as an exemplary human being and animal activist.

Secondly, it’s high time that the great talent of Doris Day gets more respect. She has for too long, especially in the media, been ignored or maligned.
And finally, Nellie McKay raises some interesting points about the Doris Day persona. She definitely did her homework regarding the scholarly evaluation of Doris Day as an actress, singer and popular icon.

Where I have to object is the pseudo-intellectual cleverness that Ms McKay tends to employ in such statements as “Did she embody McCarthyism or transcend it?”

This makes as much sense as someone asking fifty years from now whether Nellie McKay embodied Bush-ism or transcended it?

I also disagree with the statement that Doris Day was “generally underserved by her motion pictures”.

Sure, Ms Day had some duds, and all great stars did. But, mostly, she had wonderful movies, many of which are considered classics today: Calamity Jane, Love Me Or Leave Me, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Teacher’s Pet and Pillow Talk, to name a few. She was not number one star for many years just because of her great personality, but, also because the acting, singing, the scripts and the co-stars were of the highest quality.

Nellie McKay wears her politics on her sleeve with statements such as “In the later comedies there are sequences so offensive — to women, blacks, the obese, gays, the aged — they make one gasp”

Films of that era were products of the time when sexism and racism were rampant and where homosexuals were still deep in the closet. We can’t look at these films with contemporary sensibilities. The films of today have not evolved all that much, there is still prejudice against all the groups mentioned by Mc Kay, only in more subtle ways.
There are other comments I could quibble with, but, I choose to praise Ms McKay instead, for honoring Doris Day’s humanity:
“In a time when cynicism rules, her eager humanity is ever more precious.”

In the cynical post- fifties world, Doris Day was derided for being too wholesome, optimistic and pollyannaish. It’s interesting how we venerate wholesome food, yet, a wholesome person is considered ‘uncool’. Artists who destroyed themselves with drugs or alcohol, or committed suicide gain cult status, while stars who are resilient and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, after major setbacks, are trashed. Paradoxically, at the same time, we have self-help gurus such as Wayne Dyer and Oprah who encourage people to lead healthier, more wholesome lifestyles.

In the Seventies there was a great backlash against Doris Day, lead by film critics such as Pauline Keel and various types of scholars . Doris Day, by being the biggest star of an era, became a battlefield on which feminists, baby boomers and film scholars defended their ideologies. They blamed her for all they deemed was wrong with the Fifties: oppression of women, conformity, sexual repression, the ‘white-bread’ music and so on. Surely there was no other star that was so maligned. It is no wonder she chose to close the door to her career and orient herself towards helping animals.

All this unrelenting criticism lead to the undermining of one of the most talented entertainers, ever. If it were not for the efforts of admirers such as Molly Haskell, Liz Smith, John Updike and the million of fans around the world, Doris Day’s star might have dimmed.

It is heartening that there is a great upsurge of interest in Doris Day’s career. In addition to Tom Santopietro’s timely book, more books about Doris Day are on the way. It’s about time.