I make no apologies for writing my first post on the two Mrs. Harrisons Pattie Boyd and Olivia Arias! As a George fan I have monitored his media coverage the closest, and therefore had a chance to observe how Pattie and Olivia have been treated more than I have any of the other Beatle wives.
Pattie Boyd- the Muse speaks out
The circumstances of the beginning and especially the end of Pattie’s relationship are very well known. Pattie met George on the set on ‘A hard day’s night’ in 1964 when she played a school girl on the train taking the Beatles to London. Pattie has written in her autobiography (more of which anon!) how she was immediately smitten with George, as he was with her. They married in January 1966 and were seemingly a well matched happy couple. George’s most famous song ‘Something’ was widely assumed be inspired by Pattie (this was in no small part due to the promotional film for the song which showed all the Beatles with their then wives). But in 1974 Pattie famously left George for one of his closest friends Eric Clapton, who she had been having a relationship with for some years. He had written ‘Layla’ about their relationship and would also go on to write ‘Wonderful tonight about her. In this paragraph you see the two main issues with the way Pattie has been portrayed. Firstly she is portrayed as the muse of two famous men. Secondly she is portrayed as being fought over by these two famous men. Why are both of these problematic?
A muse is a long standing trope of a person (usually female) who inspires great art in a great artist (usually male). They are in many cases in a relationship. The artist at best appropriates the muses’ voice and personality, and in most cases completely strips them of both. They project their own version of who the muse is upon them. The muse is perceived as how they are portrayed by the artist and valued only for the art they inspire in the artist rather than for anything they may achieve themselves. The relationship is always unequal and often exploitative. Therefore when you consider that the artist/muse relationship is usually that of male artist/female muse you begin ‘the muse’ trope is so problematic for women. There have been successful female ‘muses’ who have gone on to create their own highly respected art like Lee Miller or Camille Claudel. Even then their treatment at the hands of the male art establishment (and men generally) are hardly edifying.
Pattie Boyd had this to say about being ‘a muse’ in a piece for the Observer in 2008 ‘I think I was a romantic inspiration to Eric and George because I gave as much as I could to them both, to the detriment of myself. I was always there for them. Which I think is really what a muse is. You are living your life for somebody else.’ I don’t think I could sum up the whole problem of ‘the muse’ for feminists, and what the experience of being a famous muse actually was better than Pattie herself.
Pattie was also famously the third corner in rock music’s most famous love triangle, the other two corners being George and Eric Clapton. There is a possibly apocryphal story of George and Eric indulging in a guitar duel for Pattie’s hand. This harkens back to old chivalric notions of courtship, but reduces Pattie to an object which two powerful men fought over. Eric even compares the story of the love triangle to the Lancelot/Arthur/Guinevere love triange in the 'living in the material world' documentary. Her own feelings about what she would want do not seem to factor in the whole coverage of the story. Interesting Pattie repeats this story in her autobiography (John Hurt also repeats the story in an article about George in the November 2011 edition of Mojo). Eric Clapton however has denied it.
Pattie Boyd became one of the archetypical ‘dolly bird’s of the 1960’s era along with models such as Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy and singers such as Dusty Springfield, Sandie Shaw and Cilla Black. Young women in the UK and USA had seen the confined lives their mothers lived and were keen not to live such lives. To this end they adopted their own style, rejecting the prematurely middle ages styles of the 1950’s for a more playful and sexy style. This was epitomized by the mini dress, designed by another UK female style icon of the 1960’s Mary Quant. The look of the ‘dolly bird’ quite deliberately looked back to that of the ‘flapper’, a style that grew out of the greater opportunities women had after the first word war. While ‘Dolly bird’ can be seen as a pejorative term, it illustrates how young women in the 1960’s were entering the work force in greater numbers and had disposable income to spend on fashion and music. They looked for style icons such as Pattie for guidance as to what to wear, and wanted music sung by young women that reflected their experiences of relationships. It must also not be forgotten that the contraceptive pill had become available at the beginning of the 1960’s and abortion legalized in the UK in 1967. Young women were afforded greater opportunities to control their fertility and there were beginning to be more liberal attitudes to sex (but this had limits as I will discuss later!)
Pattie and George’s story begins promisingly enough. Pattie came from a middle class background, and George credited her in his interview with Maureen Cleave in 1966 with introducing him to things (such as avocados!) that he had not previously been exposed to. Hunter Davies reflected in the ‘George’ section in his official biography that of all the Beatles marriages George and Patties seemed the most modern and equal. Certainly Pattie shared George’s interest in Indian religion and would accompany him on his fateful trip to India in 1966 when he met Ravi Shankar.
Pattie would eventually get an opportunity to tell her story. In 2007 her autobiography ‘Wonderful today’ was published. This gave a full and frank account of both her marriages. In it she relates tales of George’s infidelities, most notoriously his relationship with Ringo’s wife Maureen in 1974 which played a significant role in ending both George and Pattie’s and Ringo and Maureen’s marriages. However, as Pattie recounts, it was not so much adultery which undermined their marriage (although it played a part) so much as George’s growing emotional distance from Pattie. This was due in part to his growing interest in Indian religion (ironic how given this had been earlier such a bond between the couple), depression and guilt around his enormous fame, heavy workload and drug use. Pattie recounts how this helped push her into the arms of George’s friend Eric Clapton. Both Pattie and Eric admit he was emotionally demanding. Therefore the eventual outcome of Pattie leaving George for Eric was more or less assured. Pattie gives a moving account if how she told George she was leaving him for Eric after Eric issued her with an ultimatum in July 1974. Pattie recounts that George and herself remained on friendly terms and were regularly in contact until his death. She writes that she was always grateful for the way he dealt with the end of their marriage- graciously accepting her decision and leaving the door open if she chose to return. However when in later years Pattie asked George if he regretted they had not reconciled he said it was for the best for them both. Pattie also writes frankly about Eric Clapton’s alcoholism and infidelities, particularly the pain she discovered he had fathered two children by two different women during their marriage. Pattie writes about her infertility and failed IVF attempts during her marriage to Eric. As an infertile woman myself I find this moving and very open and it is sad to read that both Pattie’s marriages suffered because of her infertility.
Wonderful today’ was serialized in the Daily Mail in 2007. The Daily Mail is known for beginning primarily read by women and having a politically and socially conservative agenda. There are several reasons why Pattie Boyd’s story would appeal to the Daily Mail and its’ readers. Firstly it concerns a Beatle and another famous UK musician. Secondly Pattie’s memoirs had some highly amusing/titillating tales of rock star misbehavior. The Daily Mail may have had mixed feelings about George’s involvement in Indian culture and philosophy but he was still a Beatle and therefore a part of one of the UK’s most significant cultural exports of the twentieth century. Similarly while the Daily Mail disapproves of the permissiveness of the 1960’s, it recognizes that the period was one in which British culture was a world leader. Stories of rock star misbehavior from this period allow the Daily Mail to enjoy being titillating by the period while affirming a conservative social agenda. Therefore readers can enjoy Pattie’s story of rock star misbehavior while getting a message that sexual liberation was an excuse for exploiting women (therefore a ‘bad thing’ for them) and that liberal attitudes towards drugs and alcohol lead to addiction. This is illustrated by a piece by Roy Connolly http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-489273/The-Eric-George-Pattie-triangle.html which reflected on the publications of Pattie and Eric’s autobiographies. This piece while extending sympathy for Pattie condemns her naïve view of 60’s excess. Thirdly it allowed the Daily Mail to publish a story by a woman which testified to how 1960’s permissiveness was an excuse for men to treat her badly so it can be seen as paying lip service to feminism. In particular the interview that Pattie gave to Liz Jones in which Liz was highly critical of George and Eric (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-476091/Pattie-Boyd-Life-George-Harrison-Eric-Clapton.html) shows who the Daily Mail allows some ‘Men are useless’ stories in order to keep its women readers on side and pay lip service to feminism.
Second wave feminists such as Shelia Jeffreys argued from the beginning that the sexual revolution of the 1960’s was an excuse for men to use women and that it brought a new set of issues for women. Pattie’s autobiography also movingly discusses her struggle to find a sense of self worth and of her own identity after her two marriages. While the Daily Mail coverage of Pattie Boyd’s story pays lip service to this, there is actually rather a nasty sting in the tale. The final extract from Pattie’s autobiography was published under the title ‘I burst into tears when George died. Was I right to leave him?’ This final extract concludes with Pattie saying ‘I regret allowing myself to be seduced by Eric and wish I had been stronger. I believed marriage was for ever, and when things were going wrong between George and me I should have gritted my teeth and worked through them’. So in spite of all the many issues Pattie had to deal with in her marriage to George the ultimate message that the Daily Mail wants the reader is that even if your husband is emotionally distant and unfaithful, stay with him as you may end up with an even more unfaithful alcoholic. The interview with Pattie that appeared in the Guardian that I referred makes considerably moreclear Pattie’s conclusion that she should not have been so dominated by her two husbands and the effect this had on her self-worth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/nov/30/women-pattie-boyd-relationships?INTCMP=SRCH
The Daily Mail ran last year under the title ‘Revealed: the ‘love’ note that shows George Harrison had forgiven Patti Boyd after she left him or Eric Clapton (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1370462/Love-note-shows-George-Harrison-forgave-Patti-Boyd-left-Eric-Clapton.html when she affirms again that George was the love of her life and that she wishes she had been reconciled with George. This story however has a number of critical comments on the web version. These take three forms. 1: If Pattie so regrets leaving George she should not have left him in the first place. 2: Pattie should not be declaring her love for George and her wish they had been reconciled as George was happily remarried to Olivia Arias 3: Pattie should not make public intimate love notes like the one from Eric that was reproduced in the article (however Eric had given permission!)
Pattie’s autobiography was published at the same time as Eric Clapton’s (interesting aside- Pattie was apparently paid a third of what Eric was for her autobiography). The media rubbed its hands with anticipation at this situation, enjoying the ‘battle of the books’ between the ex-spouses. Just whose autobiography would sell more and indeed be believed more? ‘Wonderful today’ debuted at no. 1 on the New York Times best seller list. The book was successful enough that it was re-launched last year as an e-book with additional material. In the end her story was more convincing and gripping for the public.
Pattie recounts that herself and George remained on friendly terms and were regularly in contact until his death. She compares this with difficulties in her post marriage relationship with Eric Clapton. However George remained even closer to Eric Clapton showing the primacy of the male bond in the rock world. She has successfully made a home for herself in Sussex and managed to establish herself a photographer of some note. It is good to see that Pattie has finally established herself as a figure of note in her own right.
Olivia Arias: the saving angel
Olivia Arias was working as a secretary at A & M records in 1974 when George signed to the label. They met shortly after the collapse of George’s marriage to Pattie Boyd and were very soon inseparable. She accompanied him on the ill fated ‘Dark Hoarse’ tour of North America that year (getting to go to the White House with him). George would acknowledge several times over the years that Olivia helped him get his life back on track. When they met his personal life and career were all at their lowest ebb. Olivia would help George find stability and calmest in his life. She would help look after him when he fell seriously ill with Hepatitis at the beginning of 1975. When in an 2004 interview Olivia was asked about George saying that she calmed him down she responded in typically self-effacing matter ‘If he said I calmed him down, then I probably did calm him down’ They would marry in 1978, the same year as the birth of their son Dhani. Goerge would write several songs for Olivia, the most noted of which is ‘Dark sweet lady’. Olivia would keep a low profile along with George, only really emerging to do interviews in 1990 when she became active in performing philanthropic work with orphanages in Romania. I will save discussing Olivia’ later press coverage as I want to focus on the specific issues around the press coverage of the 1999 attack on Olivia and George and her own brave role in deflecting that attack until later….
As with my initial paragraph about Pattie, several issues jump up about the way Olivia has been portrayed that are problematic to a feminist. Firstly there is the way that the media portray Olivia and George’s early relationship. The story of how a humble record company secretary came to the notice of one of the biggest rock stars in the world and got on to marry him would seem to be like something out of a fairy tale. Witness Katie Couric’s interview with Olivia in 2002. This fits nicely into a ‘Fairy tale’ trope where the beautiful, virtuous and above humble heroine eventually wins the hand of the handsome prince through her virtue and beauty. He rescues her from her humble circumstances. One of George’s quotes rather buys into this! "I fell for her immediately. I told her that I didn't want her doing all that typing" This particular trope has been fed to young girls over the years, telling them that all they need do is be selfless and humble and Prince charming will whisk them away to a comfortable life. Little attention is given to the fact that Olivia is a highly intelligent woman with a university degree who was making a career for herself when she met George. It also does not take account of George and Olivia’s mutual interest in Indian religion.
The second trope which the media had chosen to fit Olivia’s story into is that of the ‘Saving angel’. This is where a woman manages to ‘rescue’ her male partner from the woes that surround him and indeed saves him from himself. This trope takes positive qualities associated with women- being nurturing, self sacrificing, pacifying and places them at the disposal of their men folk.
Olivia obviously had to deal with the ongoing fascination with Pattie Boyd and the story of the Boyd-Harrison-Clapton love triangle. There is a slightly racist aspect to this. Olivia remains a strikingly attractive woman in her 60’s. She is clearly Latina, being petite, with dark hair and eyes and olive skin. Pattie Boyd’s beauty conforms to a more Eurocentric view of female beauty, with height, long blond hair and blue eyes. Pattie conforms more clearly in her looks and profession (model) to what a rock wife should be like for the media. However Olivia has her share of Hispanic fans who appreciate that a Mexican woman now plays an important role in the world’s biggest band affairs http://mexicanbeatle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/normal-0-21-false-false-false.html
Olivia came from a close knit working class Mexican family that had emigrated to Los Angeles when she was young. Her background was quite similar to George who came from a close knit working class Irish-Liverpudlian family. George was very fond of Olivia’s parents who spent a lot of time at Friar Park and the only guests at Olivia and George’s wedding. Olivia was educated at Hawthorne High School (the same school as the Wilson brothers and Al Jardine of the Beach Boys!) and in a 1995 interview with the Daily Telegraph she said she was not exactly cheerleader material (indicating the racism she faced as a Mexican-American).
Olivia kept a very low profile during the 1970’s-1980’s, in keeping with George’s own desire to maintain a low profile himself. The majority of pictures I can find of her in this period are of George, Olivia and later Dhani going through customs at various airports, taken by press photographers. Olivia’s own reticence about appearing in the public eye was probably one of the main reasons for the long term success of the Harrison’s marriage. Olivia was also raising her and George’s son Dhani. Note how the Daily Mail approves of this in this article about the various Beatles children! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1290891/The-Beatles-dynasty-Their-surnames-famous-born--curse-blessing.html. (I would also cite the Sun’s piece about Olivia in the Sun’s obituary feature about George reproduced here http://darksweetlady.tripod.com/mexican.html) In the many comments on various press articles about George and videos on Youtube of George and his spouses, Olivia’s role as Dhani’s mother is frequently cited. So while Pattie may be more glamorous, Olivia fulfilled her role as a wife by ‘giving’ George a son and remaining by his side until his death. As an aside I remember a couple of articles that appeared in the Daily Mail in the early 1990’s under the title ‘The Beatles Dads that got it wrong’ and ‘The Beatles dads that got it right ‘with John and Ringo (products of single parent homes who divorced the mothers of their children) appeared in the former category with Paul and George (products of two parent homes who remained married to the mothers of their children) appeared in the later, the message being that two parent families were better and products of these families will be better parents themselves. Part of Olivia’s reticence of being a public figure may be due to the negative treatment Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman McCartney received at the hands of the press for daring to share their husbands limelight.
In 1990 Olivia entered the public arena when she founded the Romanian Angel Appeal Foundation to help in the many orphanages that were left in post communist Romania as a legacy of Ceausescu’s anti-abortion laws. Olivia and George did several interviews and photo shoots together to publicize the appeal and Olivia spend a considerable amount of time in Romania helping to get the foundation active in the orphanages. This foundation is still active and now performing work in HIV treatment and prevention and reproductive health. Linda McCartney, Yoko Ono and Barbara Bach were also active in this foundation. Olivia began to show that she was a formidable woman in her own right. She wrote a strongly worded letter to The Guardian in 1992 condemning one of George’s unofficial biographers Geoffrey Giuliano after her made comments about George in an interview.
George and Olivia lived quietly in the late 1990’s. No doubt part of this was due to George being diagnosed with throat cancerin 1997. Olivia had spotted the cancerous lump in George’s throat while he was gardening.
Here we must enviably come to the darkest part of Olivia’s story. On the night of December 30th 1999, a mentally disturbed young man Michael Abram broke into Friar Park (the Harrison’s main home) with the aim of killing George. George was stabbed several times in the chest, only narrowly avoiding death. Olivia managed to subdue Abram by hitting him with a lamp. In the police statement that was issued shortly after the news became public the police singled out Olivia for particular praise and commended her courage.
It would only be at Abram’s trial the following year that fuller details of the attack would become public. The public learnt that George had initially tried to disorientate Abram by saying the Hare Krishna chant and that Olivia would come to his aid first with a poker and later the aforementioned lamp. The press took great glee in publishing pictures that had been released of the wounds Abram had sustained in the attack under titles such as ‘What Mrs. Harrison did to the intruder’. One paper even juxtaposed a picture of Abram and his wounds with a picture of Olivia arriving at the trial. The attraction of the picture was many fold. Firstly the press knew that the public would be delighted that someone who had dared to harm a Beatle had been dealt with so thoroughly. Secondly there is an ongoing debate in the UK about the right to defend yourself and your property from attack in the press and the pictures of Abram appealed greatly to the right wing element of the press that want greater rights to defend property by force. Thirdly, there was the astonishing fact that these wounds had been inflicted on a young physically fit man by a petite middle aged woman (thus the ‘What Mrs. Harrison did... headlines and photos). While the press thoroughly approved of Olivia and her actions, I feel that there was a couple of slightly worrying elements of sexism to their coverage, quite apart from the glee that the press took in printing these pictures.
Firstly, the media still has issues around portraying women who use physical force, particularly in the defence of men. Women in the UK, US and some other western countries may have entered the armed forces and seen combat (whatever the dubious morality of that combat) We now have a slew of ‘kickass’ heroines such as Lara Croft, Buffy the vampire slayer, Ellen Ridley from the Alien films, Lizabeth Salander , ‘The Bride’ and Sarah Connors. However women acting in an aggressive manner to defend others is still seen as something exceptional. The press was astonished that a petite, elegant middle aged woman possibly subdue a man half her age and twice her weight. Some looked to Olivia’s working class Mexican roots, to wit Tom Petty’s telegram to George when he heard news of the attack- ‘Aren’t you glad you married a Mexican girl?’ This article comparing the Harrison’s home life to a typical Hispanic family and praising Olivia’s Latina spirit was written by an Hispanic writer http://latinola.com/story.php?story=43. While these comments are obviously commending Olivia they reveal an underlying assumption that working class Latina women are more likely to resort to violence to sort problems than women of European origins.
Secondly, there was an element of condemnation of George for the way he dealt with Abram. The press were obviously sympathetic but surprised that when faced with a homicidal maniac his course of action was to chant ‘Hare Krishna’. This fits in with decades of George facing public pillorying for his religious beliefs. More seriously to the press he had failed in his role as defender of the hearth, leaving it to his wife to take on the male role of fighting a violent intruder. This piece by Deborah Orr both attacks George’s initial actions and the Harrison’s religious beliefs is a good illustration of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/an-unedifying-tale-for-all-concerned-702305.html
Olivia is clearly aware of this criticism and has addressed it in several interviews recently. She points out that George coached her through the attack and that he came to her aid when Abram started to attack her in spite of the fact that he was seriously wounded. Olivia uses a very interesting choice of words during her account of her final subduing of Abram in the Living in the Material World documentary ‘Don’t throw like a girl!’
I find it interesting that most press coverage of Olivia’s actions focus on her use of a lamp (a symbol of the female hearth) and down play her initial use of a poker (a more masculine object)
Olivia would be shown in a more conventional wifely role within months of the trial.
In July 2001 the UK press found out that George was terminally ill with a brain tumour. A picture of a gravely ill and short haired George being cradled by Olivia, dressed in angelic white appeared on the cover of several newspapers. The Press also reported that Olivia was by George’s side as he was recovering from his treatment for the brain tumour. In a reversal of the tradition of wives taking their husband’s surname, the press reported George had assumed Olivia’s surname Arias while receiving treatment. George died on 29 November 2001.
While there was an enormous amount of sympathy for Olivia, she managed to become involved in a minor controversy over the exact location of George’s death. She would also show herself to be formidable by successful taking out law suits against her sisters’ ex-husband Carl Roles, who had stolen some of Georges personal possessions and Dr. Lederman, who had treated George in the final stages of his cancer.
Upon George’s death Olivia inherited several unenviable roles (along with a considerable fortune it must be noted!), as Yoko Ono had done in 1980. However, Olivia at least had an adult son to help her with these roles. She inherited George’s vote in The Beatles’ business affairs. She became George’s representative at events when he was honoured such as his receiving a star on the Hollywood walk of fame and induction into the Rock and Roll hall of fame. She inherited the bulk of George’s estate along with their son Dhani. She also became keeper of Georges’ memory and reputation. Olivia was finally persuaded to allow Martin Scorsese permission to make a documentary about George’s life and allow him access to George’s archives of photos, home movies and letters. This documentary received considerable critical acclaim and several awards. The intensely private Olivia has admitted she found it a challenge to open up these archives and discuss her life with George.
When the documentary was released, there was a large amount of press coverage of comments Olivia made in the documentary about ‘challenges’ in her marriage to George ,. She admitted “he did like women, and women liked him”, and that there had been a number of ‘hiccups’ during their marriage. However she rounded these comments off with saying that “There is a reward at the end of it, There is this incredible reward because you have lived through more and you have let go of something." She won a lot of respect for allowing a rounded complex portrait of George and of their marriage and the dignified way she dealt with and discussed the issues in her marriage to George. Rather than coming across as another story of rock star excess which is how the press portrayed Olivia's comments, they strike me as a description of a marraige that like any other had it's challenges as well as it's joys.
The documentary also allowed Olivia to put on record her account of what happened on the night of December 30 1999. She also admitted in this interview with the New York Times that the documentary was a way of closing a chapter in her life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/arts/television/george-harrison-living-in-the-material-world-on-hbo.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Olivia also wrote a very moving piece for the Huffington Post on the process of dealing with George’s terminal illness, death and her deep grief for him and her life administering George’s estate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivia-harrison/material-world-george-harrison_b_988989.html
Note the positive comments from readers.
Olivia has received overwhelmingly positive press coverage, no doubt in large part to the dignified way she has conducted herself over the years and for her role in saving George’s life during the 1999 attack. She does have a reputation for being formidable as the Lederman affair shows. About the most negative press Olivia has received was over a security fence around Friar Park which her neighbour the actor Rodney Bewes objected to. Bewes claimed the wire fencing around Friar Park had seriously injured his cat Maurice. As this Daily Telegraph article notes Olivia kept her counsel until after the affair was settled.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7883188/George-Harrisons-terrified-widow-hits-back-at-actor.html
There is one significant point that I would wish to reflect on from Olivia’s press coverage. Despite the ongoing enormous media interest in George, Olivia and George managed to make a happy life and home together and managed to make as near to a normal life as possible under the extraordinary circumstances of Georges fame and wealth.
