Jack Kelly: Kings Row - The Rest of the Story - Part I

Hello All! As you may remember, I wrote a post in 2009 about Jack Kelly's short-lived (1955-'56) television series Kings Row. After purchasing a number of rare stills from the series online last summer, I'd planned to do a photo feature about it, as well. But, there are so many JK photos, only one Bartista, and so little time... I saw some of the same images from Kings Row reposted elsewhere today and they reminded me of my long-deferred photo feature. The photos in my Kellection have the original episode info on the backs, so I can provide answers to questions about the other actors and actresses in the photos. I also have some additional images from Kings Row, including one very special photo of JK with an "easy rider" and a beloved actress in the splendor of her youth.

The original caption for the photo above reads: "Jack Kelly (Parris), Peter Votrian (Tim), Adrienne Marden (Mrs. Brownton) in 'Warner Bros. Presents,' 'Kings Row' ('Two of a Kind') for ABC-TV. " Now, don't ask me what JK is doing with that bell:

I can tell you, however, that this is another still from "Two of a Kind". And, the lovely lady is Myrna Fahey, who would later appear in several episodes of Maverick, including "Duel at Sundown" and "Mano Nera".

Now, here's a very distinguished looking JK with winsome Nan Leslie, his King's Row co-star, in a still from the episode "Wedding Gift":

Stay tuned for more Kings Row stills--coming after a pause for Saint Patrick's Day in TDS. :)

Jack Kelly: TV's Reluctant Top Gun Sounds Off - Pt. II :)

Hello Everyone!

Here's Part Two of the 1960 TV Weekly article:

"'I [JK] banged my head against a wall for two years before the thing finally equalized itself. It wasn't anyone's fault. It's just a peculiarity of the audience that it picks out one guy in shows like this and makes him No. 1. Sort of the same situation exists this time, but I really hope the same condition doesn't arise.

'After all," Kelly went on easily, "we're both in the same show getting the same exposure. And I know how hard Roger is going to have to work. When this 'top gun' business comes up about two people who are working together...well, you know what can happen.'

Actually, of course, Kelly walked out on the show only a few steps behind Garner. Warner Brothers talked him into coming back, however.

'I'd have come back anyway,' he said. 'I came back because it was the smart thing for me to do. Jim? Well, I figure he knows what he's doing.'

The question now before Kelly, Moore, Warners, ABC, et al is whether the series will be as successful without Garner was it was with him.

'I hope it won't hurt us,' Kelly shrugged. 'It don't think it will if Roger and I hit it off as well as Jim and I did. We clicked together right from the start. That's why I say now, don't call me 'top gun'.'"

Incidentally, Roger Moore had debuted as "Beau" on September 18, 1960. And, after only about a month, this Maverick cousin hadn't clicked with one viewer. They wrote to TV Weekly:

"I think we should send the 'Bundle from Britain' (Roger Moore) back to the British. When are we ever going to get the Maverick situation straightened out? The program was so good, but it sure has slipped, especially since they dropped Bret."

The editor replied: "They didn't drop Bret. He dropped himself from the series. Let's give Moore a chance to fill the gap."

Of course, Roger Moore ultimately didn't fill the Maverick gap. JK ended up being the only "gun" during the series' final season, although brother Bret did appear in reruns.

Jack Kelly: TV's Reluctant Top Gun Sounds Off - Pt. I :)

Howdy All!

Just a few posts back, we saw Jack Kelly dubbed one of "TV's Top Guns" by the writer of a 1962 magazine article about television westerns.

However, JK actually shunned the title of top gun on Maverick. The following 1960 TV Weekly story explains why:

"'Don't call me a top gun,' asks Jack 'Maverick' Kelly

Being a 'top gun' can have its disadvantages--even if it's only in a TV series.

Which is why Jack Kelly, who inherited all rights to that title on ABC's Maverick show when Jim Garner decided to go looking for greener ranges, says 'It's something I can do without.'
The handsome, happy-go-lucky Kelly learned the hard way what it means to play second fiddle, or gun, to a co-star. For at least the first two years of Maverick it was commonly regarded as Garner's show, even though they alternated in the starring roles and shared equally high ratings.
He doesn't want his new co-star, Roger Moore, who was introduced in the series this season as long-lost [cousin] Beau Maverick, to have the same problems.
'I know from personal experience that it's terribly discouraging,' Kelly said, shaking his head. 'My problem was that Jim starred in the first six shows before I got on the air. So naturally, all the promotion was about him. The show came with a built-in star. When people thought of Maverick, they thought of Jim."
Don't miss Pt. II - plus, a TV Weekly reader's reaction to Maverick's newly discovered relative - next time in TDS. :->

Jack Kelly: Out of the Shadows :)

Hello All!

It will be a few weeks before Spring officially arrives. There's still some snow on the ground here. However, there are already buds on the maple tree in my front yard. The hostas are sending up some spiky shoots in the garden. It looks like the crocuses are starting to peek through the frozen soil, too. And, the days are getting longer. So, it won't be long before the world emerges from the shadows of winter.

With Linda Alexander's upcoming book, the Jack Kelly group on Facebook, and this blog, JK is starting to come out of the shadows, as well. But, we weren't the first to recognize that JK deserved greater visibility.

Way back in 1960, a reader of the now-defunct British publication Picturegoer wrote to the magazine and shined the light on "K. O. Kelly":

The reader, Patricia B. from Birmingham, UK, wrote:

"It is time that Jack Kelly of Maverick was brought out of the shadows. Clint Walker [of Cheyenne] and Robert Horton [of Wagon Train] have been getting all the publicity. Yet when it comes to Western heroes, I think Kelly can beat the lot with his looks and his acting talent."

Me too! :->

Jack Kelly: Happy Valentine's Day! :)

"Hello, Acme Florists?

Could you please deliver

four hundred dozen roses for me?

The card should read
'Happy Valentine's Day to:

Jo, Nicole, Linda, Sue, Janet,

Sharon, Julia,

Liz, Geri, Betty, Debbie

--are you getting all this?--

oh yes, and Cindy Lou, and Samantha,

and Clover, and Nancy, and Stella, and...'"

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY

TO ALL JK FANS

EVERYWHERE

FROM LA BARTISTA :)

Jack Kelly: The Missing Maverick :(

Hi Everyone,

I spent almost 10 minutes yelling at the TV this evening.

Why?

I was witnessing an outrage.

No, not an episode of Two and a Half Men.

Actually, it was an episode of the PBS documentary series Pioneers of Television focusing on the western genre.

It opened with grainy Dust Bowl footage, over which narrator Kelsey Grammer solemnly intoned the tale of a young man named "Jimmy" who overcame an impoverished childhood and grew up to become a national hero.

An astronaut? The President?

Nope--Maverick.

Yes, little "Jimmy" grew up to be James Garner. And, after watching this segment, if one had never seen Maverick, one might have thought Garner was the whole show.

"America loved Maverick because they loved James Garner," Grammer gushed.

Okay, a few years ago, I would have thought nothing of such overly effusive praise. James Garner was Maverick, and I didn't know any different.

Then, I started watching Maverick and discovered the show actually had another star in addition to Garner: Jack Kelly. And, he played Maverick longer than James Garner did.

But, was JK credited this evening as a pioneer of television? As the other star of Maverick? At all?

Nope, although he could be glimpsed for a second or so in two black-and-white stills. Meanwhile, Garner was showcased in color stills and in film clips from the show.

Perhaps the creators of Pioneers of Television thought, "Well, maybe it will be simpler if we mention only James Garner. And, he's still alive, so we can interview him."

However, they later discussed The Wild Wild West and interviewed star Robert Conrad. They also lauded his late co-star, Ross Martin.

They spotlighted the Gunsmoke gang, too. That segment wasn't just a valentine to James Arness. It also acknowledged his supporting cast, nearly all of whom are now deceased.

And, Linda Evans warmly remembered Barbara Stanwyck, the late star who portrayed her mother on The Big Valley.

So, they could have also given Jack Kelly his due if they'd wanted to. But, instead, they made their tribute to Maverick a tribute to James Garner. As I've said before, I have nothing against Garner; I've enjoyed watching his performances over the years. But, there was so much more to Maverick than just James Garner, and he was not the only reason people watched and loved the show.

Once again, however, the true history of TV was headed off at the pass, and Bart was the missing Maverick...

Jack Kelly: TV's Top Guns Sound Off! :)

All aboard!

Let's take the Wayback Machine to 1962:

The place? A conference room in Los Angeles, California, where writer Jim Goode has corralled the stars of five popular western series--"TV's Top Guns"--to "talk intimately about their profession" for Show Business Illustrated, a lively but short-lived magazine published by (gasp!) Hugh Hefner.

The top guns? Well, you might recognize them, especially the hombre on the far left:



Yep, it's our own JK, "the sharp-faced cardsharp from Maverick", joined by Clint Eastwood, "the gangling dogie drover of Rawhide"; Dale Robertson, "trouble-shooter employed by Wells Fargo"; Lorne Greene, "the stentorious sagamore of Bonanza"; and Robert Horton, "outrider for Wagon Train" (and JK's erstwhile Kings Row co-star).

Mr. Goode was searching for the secret of the TV westerns' popularity:"What keeps the oaters up there? What is the reason for their remarkable staying power? Is there benefit or harm in the tinseled image they offer? Does the denouement of the typical western--the triumph of good--justify the means, which is violence? Is the folklore, in short, worth preserving?"He turned to the cowboy quintet for the answers to his high-falutin' questions. I've included JK's incisive and well-spoken answers here, although I wish I could transcribe the entire article because all of the actors' responses are very interesting:

Q: ...What is a western? How does it differ from other shows on television?
JK: ...On Maverick we have chosen to imagine if we took the western clothes off the Maverick actors and set them on Park Avenue, we would have a modern story.
Q:...Are westerns the best example of what the American character is? There was a tradition in the United States which is fading rapidly, of nonconformism, that is, an unwillingness to compromise. The point of Arthur Miller's movie and short story 'The Misfits' was that he thought he had found in actuality a man living near Reno who had held out the longest of anybody in the United States. This was the last man who hadn't compromised, as far as Arthur Miller was concerned. Is he worth presenting? Does he take enough into account of society as it is?
JK: Let's identify what we're discussing. Did the last question take on a sociological flavor that I am not in a position to defend as a purveyor of western entertainment on television? My show Maverick has very little if any to do with any sociological preservation whatsoever. My show does not represent anything that is good for America or is representative of America. On the other side of the coin, it does not represent anything that is bad for America. My show is merely damn strong entertainment. It has nothing to do with the reality of the west or the historical value of the west. Our most humorous, effective Maverick stories were based on the most unsavory gutter-type characters that permeated the west.

Q: [Lorne Greene] has said that a great many of the ['Bonanza'] segments [he] has done were morality plays.

JK: I have a peculiar feeling that in every piece of entertainment, depending on the attack, from the origination of the screenplay, the novel or the short story, there's a moral automatically built in. In my show a writer is saddled with a character study, which he must employ to the fullest extent in whatever format his submission happens to have. But, dramatically speaking, and automatically built into that story, at the end of that story, there has got to be a moral. The good guy perseveres over all, and the bad guy gets cut off somehow.

Q: Do you think that any of the people whose business it is to review what happens on television have taken a serious look at westerns?

JK: Fashionable* is a real unusual term as to whether or not one should criticize an endeavor affirmatively or negatively. In five years, I don't remember Maverick being reviewed more than twice. Both of them were reviews of particular satires. One of them was a satire on Bonanza and one of them was a satire on Gunsmoke.

[*B27: Clint Eastwood had responded that it was "fashionable" for the TV critics of the day to "bum-kick" westerns.]

Incidentally, this top gun gabfest lasted for five hours--until 2:00 AM!--so Mr. Goode hopefully found the answers he'd been looking for.