And that is how his career as a journalist was born. From then on he made his living covering the celebrity trials of the late twentieth century: Claus von Bulow, Erik and Lyle Menendez, Michael Skakel, O.J. Simpson, and William Kennedy Smith. If these pieces focused a little bit too much on the defendants’ Adolfo suits and the luxuriousness of places like Greenwich, Connecticut or Beverly Hills, California, the point was made: the American rich hire defense attorneys widely outside the price range of most Americans; they buy justice for themselves.
Dunne later managed to turn this particular focus into his own television series, the entertaining if unsubtle Power, Privilege, & American Justice. In his high, whiny voice, he narrated episodes focusing on crimes and trials in America’s most exclusive neighborhoods. It was a light and somewhat shallow television show, but was apparently very popular. It was celebrity journalism and suffered from all the weaknesses of the type—but, perhaps for the first time in recent memory, Dunne managed to infuse an essentially vacuous type of journalism with at least some degree of social consciousness.
Robert Kennedy Jr. once said Dunne was a “gossip columnist, not a real journalist.” But that explanation is somewhat unjust; much journalism is essentially frivolous. There are entire magazines devoted to shopping for weddings and succeeding at fantasy football. Celebrity journalism is about following pretty people and recording how they live. If someone can use that popular medium to make a greater point about society and how it functions, well, more power to him.
So rest in peace, Dominick Dunne. The caviar and champagne will flow with wild abandon wherever you are going. And the population of the Social Register will come out to greet you with open arms.
I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Dominick Dunne's pieces in Vanity Fair all these years -- his Hollywood stories, his fascination and love-hate attitudes toward the rich and famous, and his sense of outrage about people buying justice. I gathered that he wanted to be a part of the upper-crust, even as he was at the periphery as an observer watching the parade pass by. VF is probably my favorite magazine, as a terrific blend of first-rate journalism and celebrity eye-candy coverage.
#1 Posted by David Ammons, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 01:30 PM
I absolutely LOVED Dominick Dunne's writing and his TV show! I never got the sense that he was at all jealous of those rich-and-famous that he reported on. After all, he was able to report first-hand from those private dinner parties attended by the social elite, so was therefore considered enough a part of that 'social elite' to get invited to those soirees. I'll miss his wonderful, descriptive story-telling in my favorite magazine, Vanity Fair!
#2 Posted by mrsbeans, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 01:44 PM
A lightweight jorno and an upper-class wannabe. Hey, I think I just described David Ammons' and mrsbeans' fave mag, VF!!
#3 Posted by Kevin Ewald, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 02:26 PM
Dominick Dunne deserves better than this weak, half-assed appreciation. I can’t speak to his show, but I am a huge fan of his writing—the books and the V.F. column.
I was astounded by Luzer’s comment that "The problem, of course, was that he was so often vulgar about it," referring to Dunne's fascination with the rich.
I don't agree that Dunne is vulgar. Moreover, Luzer never establishes why this would be a problem--or even defines what he means by vulgarity. He just asserts that "of course," vulgarity is undesirable, then quotes Dunne on an anecdote about Judy Taubman that does not make his point at all. Bitchiness is not the same thing as vulgarity. Dunne could be bitchy--one of his strengths as a writer--but he was not vulgar. It is Taubman who is vulgar in this anecdote.
It's vulgar to pretend to be what you're not--a trap Dunne never falls into, but that Luzer does by setting himself up as the Emily Post of celebrity journalism. “His journalism was always a little bit too interested in that sort of thing: the clothes, the jewels, the titles, and the parties to which he was not invited,” Luzer opines. It sounds as if Luzer is jealous of the many parties to which Dunne was invited, to which he would not get in the door.
What is wonderful about Dunne's writing is his candor about his conflicted feelings about the rich. He doesn't b.s. and pretend he never feels envy for the plush life and the power of some of the people he encounters. He also chronicles the snobbishness and unearned sense of superiority--as in the anecdote about Taubman.
Dunne makes himself a character in his writing along with his subjects, interrogating his own desires and insecurities as well as theirs. I admire him for his honesty about his struggles along the way, including his alcoholism and his hard-won sobriety—which Luzer does not mention in his un-appreciation of Dunne. He is a cautionary tale himself, writing cautionary tales about his milieu.
I’ve got some advice for you, Luzer: If Dunne’s work is too lowbrow for you, stay away from The Great Gatsby or anything else written by Scott Fitzgerald.
I'd appreciate Luzer explaining how one could write honestly about one's fascination with the rich and powerful without being vulgar--at least, as the term is defined by those with more limited sensibilities and lesser talents. In Edith Wharton novels, it’s always the arrivistes or the timid, establishment snobs who accuse those with more wit, talent, intelligence and personality than themselves of being vulgar. That strikes me as the case here.
Dunne deserves better, CJR.
#4 Posted by typingperson, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 02:27 PM
I always enjoyed Dunne's window into that rich society world. I don't understand the author's obvious bias against Dunne. Perhaps Mr. Luzer is from that elite class - I apologize for not knowing who he is if he is indeed a Superior One.
This piece came off petty and perhaps spiteful. Why be so hostile? The guy's dead, he left a body of work and I enjoyed it. We need people out there warning us about the emperor's new clothes instead of fawning admiration.
I would expect to see this kind of classist attack in a society glossy, not CJR.
#5 Posted by Valerie Wells, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 02:50 PM
Pretty haughty commentary, beneath that of Dominick Dunne for sure.
His death was a coincidence shared by Aldous Huxley, who died Nov. 23, 1963.
#6 Posted by Bill O'Donovan, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 05:09 PM
I see your last name is "Luzer." Is your middle name "Hader?" What a whining, disrespectful baby.
#7 Posted by Jealous Much, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 08:39 PM
"His death was a coincidence shared by Aldous Huxley, who died Nov. 23, 1963. "
And CS Lewis had the misfortune to die on 11/22/1963 itself. Amazing to realize that neither Lewis nor Huxley's obits got front-page play ANYWHERE in the world.
#8 Posted by Andrew, CJR on Thu 3 Sep 2009 at 10:11 PM
Jesus Christ, of all the articles on this website, this is the one you people are upset by? The one that ever so slightly rips on a dead celebrity journalist? No wonder the country is going to hell.
#9 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 09:10 AM
Mr. Luzer's name must be pronounced "loser." This article is just a cheap shot from a nobody who obviously is jealous of the success of Mr. Dunne. What exactly do we know Mr. Luzer for, apart from his ability to savage Mr. Dunne's reputation after he has passed on?
#10 Posted by CG, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 10:47 AM
I know that many people liked Dominick Dunne the person and Dominick Dunne the writer. And I know that he had a family who cared for him deeply. But I also agree wholeheartedly with Luzer's assessment of Dunne's oeuvre. And I suspect that Luzer and I are not alone in our opinion of Dunne's writing. I also suspect that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
I also know that I read every single word of nearly almost every Dunne column I'd come across in Vanity Fair, so it's fair to say that Dunne may not have been to everyone's taste, but he was compelling and he did earn his peculiar place in American Journalism.
What I find so ironic is that he was such a rabid Kennedy Family critic, and yet his passing was ultimately overshadowed by that of Teddy Kennedy's. Perhaps Dunne and his brother John and the brothers Kennedy now find this all highly amusing wherever their spirits are currently floating.
#11 Posted by EIO, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 12:50 PM
How petty this review. Dominick had a view into society and Hollywood that few others had. I loved his style of writing; yes he emphasized how justice is purchased by the rich and I think this was important to know. How many "regular people" would be aquitted from some of the crimes he covered? His coverage of the outrage of the OJ trial was wonderful. He knew the truth from the beginning and he showed us what happens when money, showoff attorneys and judges get together. What a farce that trial was and to think it tied up TV for almost a year. If it were you or I, we would have been convicted almost immediately. His Vanity Fair articles were the reason I subscribed to the magazine.
Your article shows your jealously and pettiness. You owe the Dunne family an apology and the public who adored him.
Grow up!
#12 Posted by Margaret Innis, CJR on Tue 8 Sep 2009 at 07:08 PM
Americans will put up with anything provided it doesn't block traffic.
#13 Posted by Dedonouccuh, CJR on Wed 2 Mar 2011 at 08:37 AM
The automobile is technologically more sophisticated than the bundling board, but the human motives in their uses are sometimes the same.
#14 Posted by Arortcaktah, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 07:16 PM