IT'S VERY SHOCKING TO SEE.
I agonized over whether to include it. You notice that it's not part of the photo insert, it's only in a section opening [Part Three: Who Killed Paul Bern?]. Ultimately I decided it needed to be seen, because there's so much time spent on Paul Bern's suicide, and in such detailed description, that I felt all the verbiage needed a visual correlative. I was writing about what happened, but I wanted to show it. And I do think the shock value is important, because it's an ugly picture of an ugly event that this poor 21 year-old girl had to deal with. I wanted the reader to empathize with Jean Harlow, to imagine what she was going through. If you had to pick any event in her life, this was certainly the most cataclysmic.

The photo itself came from the widow of an LAPD photographer, who had died and her effects were thrown out in the trash. One box of negatives was picked up by a homeless person, who kept it and heard I was writing a book about Jean Harlow. He called me from a pay phone -- unbelievable, right? -- and told me to meet him at a gas station. I drove all the way out to Santa Monica, and he never showed. A few weeks later he called again. I went to another remote location, and he stood me up again. The third time I said, "Look, if you're not there don't ever call me again." So this time he shows up with the negatives but says he's decided they're worth six figures, so he's going to sell them and retire. [LAUGHS] This went on for about six months. He'd demand cash and I'd say, "I don't pay for any of my materials, but I will give you full credit for the pictures." Because if you give one source money, it sets a precedent, and suddenly everyone wants to cut a deal. Anyway he hemmed and hawed and finally I said, "Either you're going to give me the negatives or you're not. It's up to you." And he did. In the end I got him a publication fee, so we all ended up happy.

DID YOU SUFFER THROUGH ANY "SO-CLOSE-AND-YET-SO FAR" ANXIETY?
Are you kidding? It was driving me nuts! Because like I said, I felt it was extremely important, plus on top of that it was unique. Virgil Apger told me that his negatives were destroyed. So I knew these were the only ones left.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT A HOMELESS PERSON WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF HOLLYWOOD HISTORY WOULD FIND IT?
He didn't see a negative and go, "Aha, Paul Bern! Labor Day 1932!" He'd gotten ahold of "Hollywood Babylon", which has a similar photo from a much more distant angle. And he wasn't sure when we first met. But I was so stunned, I couldn't hide it. And my reaction confirmed it for him.

YOU MAP OUT THE EVENTS OF PAUL BERN'S DEATH AND SHOW COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT JEAN HARLOW WAS IN THE HOUSE WHEN IT HAPPENED. THIS INCIDENT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SUCH CONTROVERSY SINCE DAY ONE, DO YOU THINK EVERYONE WILL EVER ACCEPT ONE VERSION OVER THE OTHER?
If you were to say to me, "Do you stand by everything in your book?" I would say that I stand by what I reported, but I don't think we'll ever know exactly what actually transpired. Because the only people that could tell us are all dead, and there was so much going on, on so many levels... In terms of Jean Harlow being in the house at the time: Elaine St. Johns, who is Adela Rogers St. Johns’ daughter, told me that Howard Strickling told her -- and I report it exactly that way in "Bombshell," because I want the reader to know this is secondhand information. I know from dealing with Elaine over the course of two books that she is an impeccable source. So I tend to trust what she says, but then again, it's still secondhand...so you just don't know.

IN A COURT OF LAW THAT'S CALLED HEARSAY.
That's why it has to be treated as such -- and why I was careful to document the source. But do I think Paul Bern was murdered? No way. There's not a shred of solid evidence to suggest it. On the other hand, there's abundant evidence of suicide.

I THOUGHT THAT CHAPTER WAS EXTREMELY WELL WRITTEN AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED CAREFULLY, ALMOST LIKE STEPPING ON EGGSHELLS.
It's easy to portray Paul Bern as some über-creep who destroyed Jean Harlow's life. But he's also the same man who brought her to MGM and gave her the confidence and material to launch her career as a comedienne. That's why it's all so bizarre -- while he's doing this for her professionally, in her personal life he's putting her in an untenable situation -- and at forty-two, he should've know better. Some people would say that she ought to have know better, too, and as I point out, there are many women I interviewed -- Mary Duncan, Patsy Ruth Miller, Irene Selznick, Madge Bellamy -- who dated Paul Bern but never considered him marriage material, let alone a potential sexual partner. It shows how naive Jean Harlow was. Or how trusting. Or both.

YOU TALK ABOUT HOW PAUL BERN WAS CREDITED WITH TRANSFORMING HER AS AN ACTRESS YET YOU ALSO WRITE ABOUT HOW SHE REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE AN ACTRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
She never thought of herself as an actress. You have to remember that in those days, movie actors thought of themselves as tradesmen. Unless they came from the New York stage, these were people with no training, signed to contracts solely for the way they looked. This was true for Jean Harlow, and she knew it. So she had no confidence, and it shows in her early films. Abysmal. Who would've ever thought that the performance in The Public Enemy could come from the same woman who, a year later, gave us Red-Headed Woman? What Paul Bern did -- and I don't know how he did it -- was encourage Jean Harlow to relax. Before his influence, she's wooden and stiff and uptight -- and any actor will tell you that if you're not relaxed, the camera will pick it up right away.

Bern turned her into a comedienne -- and comedy's hardest of all to pull off. I'm sure if Bombshell was released today, Jean Harlow would get an Oscar nomination, if not win; look at Frances McDormand and Fargo. But back then if it wasn't Norma Shearer, it wasn't great acting. And look how badly Shearer's work has dated, and how popular Harlow's performances remain.