Cinecon Report?
Rob Farr
breaths.
Rob Farr
Eric Stott
Rob Farr wrote:
Like a cheese eating cat outside of a mousehole.
Stott
JMozart17561791
that one soon.Also,didn't the Olive Thomas documentary premire at Cinecon?
James
>Subject: Cinecon Report?
>From: "Rob Farr" lipp...@nine.netcom.com(when replying change nine to ix)
>Date: 9/1/2003 5:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <5bP4b.5378$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Paul Larson
wrote in news:5bP4b.5378$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> We, the unfortunate and desititute who couldn't go, are waiting with
> baited breaths.
>
http://www.altoids.com/ please! ;)
BlakeMF
thought Sally O'Neil stole the film. The film is definitely worth showing on
TCM, if the rights can get cleared up.
I would also like to see The Sideshow make it to TCM Silent Sunday Night.
Nifty little gem from Columbia.
The Olive Thomas documentary, IMHO, was a loser. Poorly written narration,
lame recreation of scenes. However, this was supposedly a work in progress and
it is not 100% ready. Why they bothered to show it thsi way is beyond me.
O'Malley of the Mounted was a good Hart film. Sorry I cannot say the same
thing for the Ronald Davis book! :oP
The Actress, which I never saw ebfore, was really good. Spencer Tracy really
showed what a great actor he was.
Michael F. Blake
Lokke Heiss
> We, the unfortunate and desititute who couldn't go, are waiting with baited
> breaths.
>
> Rob Farr
Gee, I guess I'm the first to bother posting...
The banquet food was much better than last year, and I could actually
see my plate....oh, you mean the movies....
First the talkies. Wake Up and Dream was a real curio with crooner
Russ Columbo
dead within three days of the premiere. Maybe I'm the wrong sexual
orientation to like this film, but I thought it was just painful to
watch. Even more painful was Murder in Times Square, Painless
enjoyable time killer? Not to me. I could see the plot points coming
a mile away and it committed the worst sin of murder mysteries, I
didn't care who the murderer was. So those of you who loved these two
films can announce themselves and we can form a Siskel/Ebert division
litmus test on subsequent reviews for other readers. Nine Girls
wasn't much better, although at least it had some wit, although the
program's note of it being 'proto-feminist' is being incredibly
generous. Speaking of incredible generosity, the reviewer who
compared Oh, Mr. Porter to It's a Gift must have worked for Roger
Corman's PR department in the 60's. I guess they were both shot on
35mm so at least the films had something in common.
One talkie I did like was Two of a Kind (1951--oh, oh.. another rule
broken) starring Edmond O'Brien. The program was on target this time
mentioning the only problem of the script was the idea of O'Brien
being a 'babe magnet.' Agreed, but Liz Scott had a great part and they
made a good couple.
I admire Jean Simmons, but don't think The Actress is a particularly
good film. There are good scenes, but this is a case of a play not
making a good film. And the casting, in my opinion was all wrong.
Tracy is too strong a personality, or needed to underplay, and he
didn't, so we get a 'who's story is it?' question. Other films I
liked include Kick In with Clara Bow (only problem is that it didn't
use Clara to her advantage, but good to see she could do a dramatic
role if she wanted) and the very strange Hot Heiress, a Rogers and
Hart musical flipping gender roles of the 'marry the millionaire
fantasy.'
The silents were overall excellent. Fighting Blade (too long, but
mostly fun) The Turmoil (very good social message film of nouveau
American rich) Sally, Irene, and Mary, (straight-up moral message film
Joan Crawford's character (Irene) catching a train in the worst way
possible) O Malley of the Mounted, (a very good W.S. Hart picture the
the program correctly called as the story of 'bad good' man instead of
a 'good bad' man). I like Hart's morally ambiguous Western landscape,
he has the Western Hamlet down.
The two best films were 1) Half-Breed, a very interesting film that
unfortunately looks like it's missing a couple of shots at the end,
and 2) The Side how, starring Wizard of Oz's 'Little Billy' Rhodes as
the owner of a circus. It's inspired casting, great direction, a
clever story with a bang up finish. The Side Show is dynamite and I
thought it was the best film of the festival.
Early Film
Prior to the show, we had interesting silents, but ho-hum talkers. After the
films were unreeled, the exact reverse happened!
We came out to LaLaLand one day early and saw David Strohmaier's documentary
CINERAMA ADVENTURE at the Archlight across the street from the Dome and it is
very well done.
At Cinecon, we all know all late 1920s and early 30s Foxes are poorly
photographed, poorly acted, poorly directed, poorly edited and usually
boooooOORRRirring. Boy did we get a surprise on EAST LYNNE, 1931! Despite
having a story that is known by all, and a rather slow start, you were wrapped
up in the story and Ann Harding was perfectly cast. By far and away the best
of the show!
OH, Mr. PORTER, 1937, Gainsbourgh, ran a close second, and might have been the
best if these American ears could have understood all the dialog. I always
said, British talkers need subtitles. This film is non-stop insanity.
THE HALF BREED, 1916, Triangle, with Doug Fairbanks and a young and healthy
Alma Rubens. Only thing spoiling this were the replaced and sometimes
difficult to reed intertitles. One gets a feeling that some shots are still
missing and if one were to combine the best all surviving copies, there may be
room for improvement. I would never have thought of Alma Rubens as an Indian,
but she was convincing and was much better looking than we are used to seeing
her in her later films.
THE SIDE SHOW, 1928, Columbia, was an unexpectedly good film about the
backstage life in a small carnival. It is far - FAR better than Columbia's
talker remake in 1935 under the title CARNIVAL with Jimmy Durante. Hummmm.
Officially this may not have been a remake because they credited different
writers, but the story is the same.
WAKE UP AND DREAM, 1934, Universal, has been on my want list for probably 50
years and this is the first opportunity. Russ Columbo sings better when you do
not have to watch him, and this spoiled the entire film for me.
THE ACTRESS, 1953, MGM has Jean Simmons playing "Ruth Gordon." I missed the
credits on who played Jean's mother, and could not recognize her, and was
dumbfounded to learn it was the barely-older Teresa Wright. This was one of
the better films shown, despite it being a contemporary film. George Cukor
keeps the story moving with some of the fanciest camera shots to avoid editing
that go completely unnoticed. Am I the only one to observe this, or did
Spencer Tracy stumble on his lines several times?
THE ROAD TO NAIROBI, May 23, 1954 35mm Kineoscope of the Jack Benny show with
guest Bob Hope. This brings back memories of live TV, and was one of the
highlights of the show for me.
THE BIG KILLING, 1928. Paramount started this film staring Wallace Beery,
Raymond Hatton and Mary Brian with a great script for a two reel comedy, that
somehow got stretched to 6 reels. It opens good, mixing comedy with drama, but
half way through breaks down into slapstick comedy with no drama to separate
the comedy. One gets the feeling that Paramount knew that sound was here to
stay and rushed this film into release before the market for silent films
evaporated. In all fairness, all that survives is the foreign "B" negative,
and the domestic version could have been better.
KICK IN, 1931, Paramount. Print from original negative. Well done little
film, but Clara Bow was miscast. People expected to see Clara Bow. Hundreds
of actresses could have played this part. Clara was wasted in it.
Just prior to the show, color footage from RED HAIR and THREE WEEKENDS (I think
that was the other title, too many films, too little sleep) that had been
recently discovered in Clarence Badger's former cabin in Lone Pine Calif. This
footage was breathtaking and Clara once again proved she did not need to talk
to communicate!
SALLY, IRENE AND MARY, 1925 MGM, was a very good film, but I had been expecting
a great film. Sally O'Neill steals the film! Of the three stars, Joan
Crawford has the least on screen interest, although she does a great dance
number. Early into the film when the all-night party at Constance Bennett's
apartment is breaking up and the chorus girls mention going out for breakfast,
Jon played a few bars of "Keep Your Sunny Side Up", but don't know if the girls
took the hint.
TURMOIL, 1924, Universal. A father trys to bend his sons to his will, and the
only one to follow his father is the one he gave up on. Nice dam burst
sequence. A UCLA restoration in-progress.
ARE WE CIVILIZED, 1934, Raspin. A message picture. I hate message pictures,
but this one was rather well done, and it was fun attempting to identify where
the stock footage came from.
DAMES AHOY! 1930 Universal. Here is another picture that has all the plot of
a two reeler, but this talking feature stays interesting through out its
length!
THE FIGHTING BLADE, 1923 First National. Slow in starting, but this picture
slowly builds up steam and is rather interesting. Another silent that would
have been better if the character introduction part was shortened. During the
slow opening, I kept expecting Barthelmess to start singing "Weary River" at
any moment......
THE HOT HEIRESS, 1931, First National. For the first reel, I expected this to
be a remake of SKYSCRAPER, but it turned into a predictable, if completely
improbable love story.
OLIVE THOMAS, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD, 2003, Timeline. Very
interesting documentary on the girl in the title, if they would delete the
amateur recreations and let history tell the story.. Video projection.
UMPA, a two reel Columbia short, had the song endlessly repeated with the
forgettable lyrics:
Oh what that baby does.
I'm just like I used to was.
SEE AMERICA THIRST, 1930, Universal, had to be the worst thing on the program.
I knew it was no good on TV and was no good in a 16mm dupe, but hoped somehow
that a 35mm print directly from original would save it. Having learned my
lesson on SH! THE OCTOPUS, I left after 5 minutes, and was almost trampled by
others doing the same.
Earl.
ChaneyFan
Cinecon 39 was again held at the Hollywood Renaissance Hotel with screenings at
the Egyptian theater. Despite a slow start with several mediocre pictures,
overall this was a great weekend, with several surprises. Let me get my
several complaints out of the way first and then on to the film reviews.
First, I've said it before and I'll say it again...how late are we willing to
go to show films in support of guests. Kevin McCarthy was a good guest and
NIGHTMARE (1956) was a fine film, but does this mean that in 15 years we will
wheel in what's left of Al Pacino and run THE GODFATHER? At some point we have
simply got to draw a line in the sand and not cross it. I thought that line
was once 1949 but we keep moving later and later. Sooner or later, everyone
from pre-50s will be dead and I hope we don't waste time slots with loads of
50s and (God forbid!) 60s films because those are the guests who are still
alive.
Second gripe....why is it so hard to stay on time? I understand if a film runs
longer than planned or a guest Q&A drags on, but the first film of the morning
or after lunch/dinner was routinely starting 10-15 min late. By the end of the
night we were 30-45 min late. If the film starts at 9:00, then I expect the
lights to start to dim at 9:00:01. Why is this so hard?
Finally, to all the morons with cell phones and pagers in the audience, please
don't try to impress us with your supposed importance. Turn the damn things
off! I'd love to see a policy of evicting anyone with a cell phone that rings
during a show. Better yet, those with cell phones will be forced to move to
the small screening room to watch THE FIGHTING BLADE shown at Accu-Speed.
Now on to the films. Everything shown was in 35mm except where noted, and
films are rated from * (worst) to **** (best).
NIGHTMARE (1956, UA) Despite the top billing of Edward G. Robinson, Kevin
McCarthy was the star in a Cornell Woolrich story about a man who is trying to
put together the pieces of a recurring nightmare. Very stylish and weird, but
quite entertaining. ***
EAST LYNNE (1931, Fox) Well here's another early Fox title I can cross off my
list and never see again. Based on the oft-filmed novel and stage play, this
is what would have happened if Edna Ferber had written "Rebecca" while on
Valium. Starts out good, with Ann Harding marrying stuffy Conrad Nagel and
finding herself at war with his domineering sister as head of their household,
but then it turned into a l-o-n-g, s-l-o-w tear-jerker that got sillier as the
story progressed. **½
THE FIGHTING BLADE (1923, Inspiration) Richard Barthelmess in a swashbuckler
about a swordsman who joins with Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War.
There's a good 5-reel Kodascope lurking in here, but at 10 reels this was twice
as long as it needed to be. Nice looking in spots, but way way way way too
long. (Piano accompaniment by Jon Mirsalis) **½
THE TURMOIL (1924, Universal) Slow film version of a Booth Tarkington novel.
Except for the appearance of a young Eleanor Boardman, this had minimal
interest. It did have a very cool dam bursting sequence though. (Piano
accompaniment by Phil Carli) **½
DAMES AHOY! (1930, Universal) A stiff early talkie with Glenn Tryon a sailor on
leave, trying to get his buddy out of a parasitic marriage with a golddigger,
but he ends up falling for Helen Wright himself. An OK picture, but it never
really got up any steam. **½
WAKE UP AND DREAM (1934, Universal) a lovely print off the camera neg of a rare
Russ Columbo musical. Not much story, with Columbo, June Knight and Roger
Pryor trying to get theater jobs, but Columbo had a lovely voice and that
helped carry this along beautifully. ***
THE HALF-BREED (1916, Triangle) Seeing the almost-uncut version of this early
Doug Fairbanks drama was one of the highlights of the weekend for me. Not very
Fairbanks-like with few stunts, and a fairly serious tone. Doug is the son of
a wronged squaw, who is raised by a white man and falls into a romantic
triangle with Alma Rubens and Jewel Carmen (both of whom have never looked
better). The famous bare-assed Doug scene is all it's cracked up to be and the
film was quite entertaining, despite some obviously missing material near the
end. (Piano accompaniment by Jon Mirsalis) ***
MURDER IN TIMES SQUARE (1943, Columbia) Formulaic but fun murder mystery with
Edmund Lowe a pompous ham actor who is the prime suspect in a series of
rattlesnake murders who is trying to clear himself before the cops lock him up.
***
THEY DARE NOT LOVE (1941, Columbia) Crossing another James Whale off my list
was reason enough to watch this, but I was very pleasantly surprised, despite
the fact that I have a low tolerance for usually lukewarm George Brent. On the
eve of the Nazi invasion of Vienna, Austrian Prince Brent flees the country,
developing a shipboard romance with Martha Scott on the way to America. But
Nazi scumball Paul Lucas follows him to New York where his troubles are only
beginning. Quite good, with a great climax, and this was another magnificent
print off the camera neg. ***
O'MALLEY OF THE MOUNTED (Paramount, 1921) Another highlight of the weekend was
this solid western with William S. Hart a Mountie who goes after a killer, but
when he catches up with him, he learns there is more to the story than meets
the eye. Like all the Lambert Hillyer Harts of this period, this was very well
done. 16mm (Piano accompaniment by Jon Mirsalis) ***
KICK IN (Paramount, 1931) Though billed as a Clara Bow picture, Regis Toomey is
really the star of this tale of a convict who gets out of the pen, but then the
police simply won't let him go straight. Bow is his tough-gal wife in a
secondary role, but she does a honey of a job. Far better than most of Bow's
other talkies. ***
SALLY, IRENE AND MARY (1925, MGM) This was a double-treat....first it was a
thrill to see this rare MGM version, but then after hearing that it was missing
a reel it turned out to be the full 7-reel version and essentially complete. A
lovely film about showgirls Constance Bennett, Joan Crawford, and Sally O'Neill
trying to keep the customers happy without losing their virginity. Bennett
positively stole the show, though everyone in this was first rate. (Piano
accompaniment by Jon Mirsalis) ***
TWO OF A KIND (1951, Columbia) Alexander Knox and Lizabeth Scott concoct a
scheme whereby they will fabricate the lost heir of a wealthy man. They hire
Edmond O'Brien to pose as the long-lost son, and he seriously complicates their
plans. This was shown primarily for the appearance of Cinecon guest Terry
Moore who has a small but juicy part as the kooky secondary love interest. A
kinky film noir that was pretty good. ***
THE BIG KILLING (1928, Paramount) I've never seen a Wallace Berry-Raymond
Hatton comedy that was particularly good, and this one was no exception.
Starts with a great premise—a feuding family hires fake sharpshooters
Berry-Hatton to help them kill off their rivals, unaware that the boys can't
shoot worth a lick. Once the story takes off it goes downhill fast, and is a
couple reels too long, but the print was stunning and anything with Mary Brian
looking this good isn't all bad. (Piano accompaniment by Phil Carli) **½
NINE GIRLS (1944, Columbia) A neat little Leigh Jason murder mystery about
eight sorority babes holed up in a remote cabin after the ninth turns up dead.
An incredible cast like this (Evelyn Keyes, Jinx Falkenburg, Anita Louise, Nina
Foch, Marcia Mae Jones, etc.) is too fun to pass up, but I figured out who the
killer was about 20 min into the picture. ***
THE SIDESHOW (1928, Columbia) This is the answer to the trivia question, "Name
one good silent Columbia not directed by Frank Capra." This was the real
surprise of the weekend...an Erle C. Kenton picture that was more Tod
Browningesque than anything Browning ever did! Midget Billy Rhodes runs a
circus that is having more than its share of accidents, and he begins to
suspect there's a saboteur in his company. Ralph Graves and Marie Prevost are
the love interest in this genuinely weird tale with a marvelous climax. My
favorite of the weekend. (Piano accompaniment by Phil Carli) ***½
THE ACTRESS (1953, MGM) Glossy MGM version of Ruth Gordon's autobiographical
play about a young girl (Jean Simmons) who longs to be a stage actress over the
objections of her parents, Spencer Tracy and Teresa Wright. Simmons is
wonderful, but Tracy steals the show, and the early 20th Century atmosphere
(shot on the MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS sets) is lovely. ***
ARE WE CIVILIZED? (1934, Raspin Productions) Weird, weird, weird! That's all I
have to say about this oddity that basically fabricates a bogus anti-fascist
story around about 45 min of historical stock footage. The stock footage
itself is interesting and I'd love to learn more about the source of it, but as
a whole, this was the stinker of the weekend. **
OLIVE THOMAS, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (2003, Timeline Films) This
brief (55 min) documentary about Olive Thomas is low budget, but nicely done.
An interesting portrait of a silent actress even us hardcore buffs know little
about due to the scarcity of her films. The only negative is the dopey
"reenactments" of her life, though her great niece who plays her is quite a
babe and does bear a resemblance to Olive. A nice title to pick up on video
when it comes out. Video projection. ***
There were loads of interesting shorts and extras. THE ROAD TO NAIROBI (16mm)
was a funny Kinescope of a Jack Benny show with Bob Hope as guest; gives you a
real good idea of how goofy live TV could be. ASSISTANT WIVES (Mirsalis on
piano) was a slightly below-par Charlie Chase about Charlie getting a woman to
pose as his wife so his boss would give him a raise; I never did figure out why
he didn't just get his *own* wife to do it. Richard Roberts ran several funny
comedies, but I particularly liked A LIFE IN THE BALANCE (16mm; Carli on piano)
about Ford Sterling contending with bomb-throwing anarchists, and THE SLEEPING
PORCH with a barely-talking Raymond Griffith. WHO'S YOUR FATHER (Carli on
piano) was a very bizarre Tom Mix comedy (!!) with all the subtlety of a 1914
Keystone. THE IRON CLAW, Chapter 2, was a continuation of the serial started
last year; do we have to wait until 2016 to see it all? David Kiehn introduced
a series of early Broncho Billy films; despite the terrible nitrate decomp, my
favorite was the grim THE DEAD MAN'S CLAIM (1912; Carli on piano) in which
every single character dies! UMPA was one of my favorite shorts of the
weekend, a great musical 2-reeler with several funny ersatz Busby Berkeley
overhead shots. How come nurses never dressed like that for me when I was in
the hospital??
Dick May's presentation of the digital restoration of SINGIN' IN THE RAIN was
also extremely impressive, both for the actual finished product and his
presentation of how it was done. The A-B comparison of reel 1 with intercuts
of conventional CRI vs the new footage was a knockout.
The Rob Stone/Sam Gill/Jim Cozart Unidentified Film Fest was also fun. I
remain in awe of people like Richard Roberts who can identify Walter Forde from
a 7-sec clip of film. Hopefully the UCLA/LOC folks got enough actors
identified to allow them to match some titles to these previously unknown
clips.
Two other major highlights: fragments of the lost Clara Bow films RED HAIR and
THREE WEEK ENDS. I had thought I would only see Clara in Technicolor in my wet
dreams, but there she was in (albeit faded) two color from RED HAIR, wearing a
bathing suit that covered absolutely nothing! My other favorite was Michael
Schlesinger's trailer for the soon to be released THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA.
Simply too funny for words!
Once again, a fine weekend and my hats off to Bob, Michael, Stan, and the
others who worked so hard to make this happen.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
William Hooper
ilm runs
>longer than planned or a guest Q&A drags on, but the first film of the
morning
>or after lunch/dinner was routinely starting 10-15 min late. By the en
d of the
>night we were 30-45 min late. If the film starts at 9:00, then I expec
t the
>lights to start to dim at 9:00:01. Why is this so hard?
I wasn't there, but my guess as to one reason may be the tendency
of folks who don't do a lot of shows to expect that they can just
walk up with their movie 10 minutes before showtime & say, "Here's
the old movie, just press the button or whatever you do!"
If you've ever had someone who's four-walled a theater for some
classic movie, this is it. Maybe last plattered & leaders on with
masking tape, or no leaders, leaders that don't match reels, can't
tell which reel is #2, #3, etc., damaged film, etc. Film inspection
alone takes at LEAST 45 minutes with old prints, & if the world was
a perfect place & I could tell folks to do things the way they are
supposed to be done, it would be to tell them at the outset that the
show doesn't start until all the movie is inspected, patched, lined
up & the projectionist is ready to go.
In fact, it's usually more like telling them to PLEASE hold for 10
or 15 minutes so you can get one or two reels ahead, & then you're
still inspecting on the rewinds & cranking as fast as you can: you're
patching leaders & tails, bad splices & perf damage as fast as
possible, throwing more & more nice by-the-book procedure out as
you're coming up with ways to save time, making mental notes about
the changeover cues' damage or absence & strategizing "OK, looks like
motor start, count 1 and a half, thread the next one up on 6", if it
was heads out you're still having to rewind after inspection on the
hand rewinds because they're faster, 6 reels in you're to the point
where the end of reel alarm is going ding! ding! ding! while you're
cranking reel 7 on the rewind as fast as possible & praying you'll
make it while hyperventilating & mentally rehearsing a way to say to
folks in a way that they WILL finally understand that this crap is
GOING to end, they need to get their act together, or the next movie
will go only when you say it's ready to go. You only do that one
show per festival.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Tue Sep 2 10:53:55 2003 depuis l'IP : uslec-66-255-117-146.cust.uslec.net [VIP 9946225]
Max Nineteennineteen
source of Daffy Duck's "Dead-- and never called me mother!") Cinecon
should show the last theatrical version of the once hugely popular
East Lynne. Actually, from what I've read about the book and the
stage play, it sounds like what's wrong with this talkie version is
that they softened it-- if you did it full-blooded, as it probably was
on stage and maybe in earlier versions, you have quite a horrifying
tale about a woman living a shadow life in what ought to be her own
household as punishment for her transgression. But it sounds like
they made her a one-dimensional victim and basically took the
interesting, sort of pulp-feminist aspects out of the concept of the
Victorian wife as a kind of walking ghost, and just made it another
one of those Stella Dallas mother's sacrifice things.
Harlett O'Dowd
> First the talkies. Wake Up and Dream was a real curio with crooner
> Russ Columbo
> dead within three days of the premiere. Maybe I'm the wrong sexual
> orientation to like this film, but I thought it was just painful to
> watch.
No, it's not your sexual orientation. Great as it was to see a RC
film, this was tougher going than I expected, not helped by the fact
he had only two songs to sing (and sing and sing and sing) in the
entire film. Russ gives new meaning to the word stiff. But any film
with Wini Shaw is worth watching.
> I admire Jean Simmons, but don't think The Actress is a particularly
> good film. There are good scenes, but this is a case of a play not
> making a good film. And the casting, in my opinion was all wrong.
> Tracy is too strong a personality, or needed to underplay, and he
> didn't, so we get a 'who's story is it?' question.
I walked away thinking Spence was the lead a la Mama Rose in GYPSY.
Yes, it was Simmons'/Ruth Gordon's story but it was really about the
family and Spence as head of it was and should have been the star of
the show.
When I have time I'l offer a more detailed rundown - although I
already see trends here.
Overall a fun weekend if a little slow in starting - just about
EVERYTHING on Sunday was first rate!
Note to self: next time - MORE CAFFEINE!
John Aldrich
>Review of Cinecon, 2003
>ASSISTANT WIVES (Mirsalis on
>piano) was a slightly below-par Charlie Chase about Charlie getting a woman to
>pose as his wife so his boss would give him a raise; I never did figure out why
>he didn't just get his *own* wife to do it.
EXPLANATION
The set-up is that Charlie asks his boss for a raise, and as they
watched a blonde floozie flipping pancakes at a restaurant, Charlie
fibs and tells the boss (played by Eugene Pallette) that it is his
wife...who has to work for them to make ends meet.
The boss says: "Well, if that is really true, Charley, I'll give you
the raise" So then Charley has to arrange for the floozie (an almost
unrecognizable Anita Garvin in a curly blonde wig) to go to his office
to meet the boss to prove they really do need the raise. (He offers
her $10 to go along with the story)
He couldn't use his own wife, because the boss had already seen the
woman in the restaurant.
All goes well until the "wife" says to the boss, "You'll have to come
up to the house for dinner". The boss says "How about tonight?", and
we are off to the races with a prototypical Charley Chase situation.
--John A.
Precode
Well, as the scheduler, I gotta take the rap. But I must say, it's
never been as bad as it was this year, with virtually every daypart
running late. There were a variety of reasons:
1) Films ran longer than they were supposed to. At least three titles,
all silents, ran far longer than the footage counts in the AFI catalog
indicated. (And no, it wasn't because they ran at silent speed!)
2) Collections were longer than they were supposed to be. Both Richard
Roberts' and the Stone/Gill programs had more films than I had
budgeted for.
3) Faulty communications. Often the projectionist was ready to start
the next film, but nobody had told him to do so. This is something we
need to work on.
4) The audience. The break between SIDESHOW and ACTRESS ran an
intolerable 25 minutes, because a bunch of stars came in to watch it,
and everyone was hovering around for autographs and snapshots despite
pleas to sit down.
5) Unannounced speakers. When someone speaks for five minutes before a
film, and this happens three or four or five times, we get backed up
again. And yes, I'm as guilty of that as anybody!
The solution: next year, I'm simply going to put 20-minute breaks
between each show. If it means one less feature per day, so be it, but
this is supposed to be fun, not an endurance test!
Mike S.
(I sleep now)
Brent Walker
This was my second viewing of this and the first on the big screen,
and personally I think films like this--a lesser known sleeper film
from the 50's--is fine at Cinecon (you can't compare showing a black
and white crime drama starring Edward G. Robinson to showing an Al
Pacino film from the 70's). I like this a bit better than the
original version FEAR IN THE NIGHT (which is stil good) and it's a
good psychological noir.
> THE TURMOIL (1924, Universal)
Dam bursting scene was well-done, and I thought that it was a
decently-done study of a driven industrialist who neglects his
family's real needs. George Hackathorne as the poet son reminded me a
bit of Harry Langdon.
> DAMES AHOY! (1930, Universal)
I enjoyed this one quite a bit, despite needing to grant it "1930
talkie slack". Unlike the other 1930 Universal William James Craft
comedy we saw this weekend--SEE AMERICAN THIRST--this one maintained
one mood and plot throughout (though not much of a plot), and I liked
Glenn Tryon, Eddie Gribbon and Otis Harlan as the three sailors. I
enjoy these early talkies that have lots of location scenes--in this
case Venice and Ocean Park--with live unlooped sound that really
captures the ambiance of the location in a way that slicker made (and
better made) talkies from a few years later don't. My favorite scenes
were in the first half of the picture though--searching the boardwalk
for the blonde with the strawberry birthmark, and the scenes in the
Cocoanut Grove-inspired dance hall Tangoland. One of the films this
weekend that was a highlight for me, despite not being all that great.
> WAKE UP AND DREAM (1934, Universal)
I liked Russ Columbo better in his THAT GOES DOUBLE SHORT. In this
one, Roger Pryor was carrying most of the film, and Henry Armetta and
Catherine Doucet had the best moments. Enjoyable, but not something
I'd watch again.
> THE HALF-BREED (1916, Triangle)
I thought Alma Rubens had the best part in this, and I can see why she
gained popularity until her dissipation started.
> MURDER IN TIMES SQUARE (1943, Columbia)
This one was fun to see. Edmund Lowe really played up a
Barrymore-esque part as the pompous actor, and Esther Dale stood out
in her evil Apple Annie role. I didn't buy the finale as far as who
the murderer was, but it was still fun. Ann Savage had a split secone
bit as John Litel's nurse.
> THEY DARE NOT LOVE (1941, Columbia)
This one was better than I expected, though I too am not the greatest
George Brent fan. Not too bad of a swan song for Whale.
> O'MALLEY OF THE MOUNTED (Paramount, 1921)
I had a lot of trouble following the continuity, though I admit to
drifting off a couple times. Did he rob the bank just to get in with
the gang, or did he really go astray from his mountie duties?
> KICK IN (Paramount, 1931)
I found this one a bit slow, but I think Leslie Fenton stood out as a
realistic drug addict. Clara Bow was decent with what she was given,
though watching this after the RED HAIR and THREE WEEKENDS clips you
could see how she had let herself go over the course of those couple
of years.
> SALLY, IRENE AND MARY (1925, MGM)
This was good, with Sally O'Neill definitely the star of the picture
and the highlight. Kate Price and Aggie Herring were also good as the
feuding Irish mothers. I thought it was interesting that the Cinecon
audience--which has a tendency at times to go "clap happy" with every
new face that appears on screen--laid off applause for Constance
Bennett, Joan Crawford, Sally O'Neill and William Haines, gave its
sole hand-clapping nod of recognition to Kate Price!
> TWO OF A KIND (1951, Columbia)
Since late 40's/early 50's film noir/crime dramas are one of my
favorite genres, it was great to see this rarity, shown for guest
Terry Moore. The plot was essentially what WOULD have happened in
DETOUR had Vera's original plan been carried out. As Q&A guest
afterward, Terry Moore was quite a revelation as well--someone who
actually had lots of opinions and recollections on every film she was
asked about.
> THE BIG KILLING (1928, Paramount)
I'm glad I got a chance to see this Beery-Hatton comedy (?), but I
didn't think it was all that great. Beery's Oliver Hardy imitation
moments were the best thing, as well as the sequence where he puts on
some distance-distorting field glasses. Otherwise, the plot never
really gelled, and it was a hillbilly feud picture in which everyone
too forever to actually fire their guns at each other. The
Beery-Hatton pairing really had no chemistry, and Hatton didn't have
much to do (or do much). I was just imagining what Buster Keaton,
Harold Lloyd or even Monty Banks would've done with all the trick
elevators and doors in the mountain cabins.
> NINE GIRLS (1944, Columbia)
I found this one to be a whole lot of fun, with the actual whodunit
really incidental. It was almost a co-ed version of THE WOMEN, with
some great dialogue ("Confidentially, you slink"; and when one of the
girls is sitting on her suitcase to close it, another says "That's
using your head"). Lynn Merrick as the Kate Hepburn-mimicing drama
queen was fun, though she said "rally I do" about two or three times
too many.
> THE SIDESHOW (1928, Columbia)
This was the second time I saw this--having seen it at the UCLA
Preservation Festival a year ago--and it definitely held up to a
second viewing. Little Billy was brilliant, and this film was a rare
chance for "little people" to be portrayed with a dimensional
character. (On a sidenote, it was fun to see Keystone comic/Arbuckle
sidekick Joe Bordeaux in what was probably his biggest role ever as
Ralph Graves' assistant).
> THE ACTRESS (1953, MGM)
I'd never seen this before and enjoyed it. Spencer Tracy's character
reminded me of W.C. Fields (particularly when he was heard muttering
in the background upstairs).
> ARE WE CIVILIZED? (1934, Raspin Productions)
I'll cut this one a lot of slack because it was such a curio.
Obviously influenced by what was going on in Germany (though never
naming the country), it's also the only film from that era I've seen
that has censorship as it's primary theme, and it was interesting in
light of the fact that it was made the same year the Breen code went
into effect. Yes it took a complete turn when it started integrating
the stock footage (a real GLEN OR GLENDA moment), but the actual
footage they shot for the film with Wm. Farnum and others was much
slicker than I was expecting (I was anticipating sets that would
almost fall down when slammed, and not so many extras as they did
use).
> OLIVE THOMAS, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (2003, Timeline Films)
The silent movie recreations of moments in Thomas' life definitely
need to go before this can be taken seriously, but it was great to see
the footage from Olive Thomas' existing films. She was quite good,
and I can see why she was popular in the years before her untimely
death.
> OH MR. PORTER
This was the second time seeing this (the first on the big screen),
and this time I sat real close so I could pick up on some of the
dialog better. I'd love to see more Will Hay at a future Cinecon, or
some of the other comedies guest Val Guest wrote starring the likes of
the Crazy Gang (Flanagan & Allen et al) and Arthur Askey. It was
interesting to learn from Mr. Guest in his Q&A that the chubby kid
Graham Moffett was a studio page boy who was "discovered" by William
Beaudine when he was in England for his quote quickie period.
> HOT HEIRESS
This one was a bit of a disappointment, but probably would have worked
better with, say, James Cagney and Frank McHugh in the Ben Lyon and
Tom Dugan roles.
> SEE AMERICA THIRST
I really don't know where to start in talking about this one! The
first 15-20 minutes with Langdon and Summerville were their best
moments together, and could have made an okay two-reeler (though not
as good as Langdon's Roach two-reelers). They just didn't really seem
to be compatible with each other. The best moments actually were the
singing gangsters (which would have made a great Columbia musical
short!) and Bessie's Love's patter song. Once Harry and Slim got on
the large cannons, it was all over, and the rest of the film seemed
like it wasn't directed or edited at all, someone just turned on the
camera. But I am very glad to have seen it, and this is still the
kind of rarity that should be shown at Cinecon!
> THE ROAD TO NAIROBI (16mm)
Hadn't seen this in almost 20 years (before which I saw it 4 or 5
times). Great to see the adlibs Hope's writers stayed up all night to
create so Bob could surprise Jack!.
Richard's program:
The others like SLEEPING PORCH, ELEPHANT ON HIS HANDS, LIFE IN THE
BALANCE, Keaton commercials I had seen before (some at Slapsticon),
but HAM AND HAMLET from LOC (according to Richard, it was retitled
from THE BOOKING AGENTS) was new to me and was one of the best Ham and
Bud's I've seen.
Other shorts:
WHO'S YOUR FATHER
Though people had trouble watching it because of the Dutch titles and
the fast pace, this was quite interesting to me. Tom Mix smack dab in
the middle of a frenetic Fox Sunshine comedy with Heinie Conklin, Vic
Potel, Frank Hayes in drag, Guy Woodward, Tom Wilson and others.
THE IRON CLAW, Chapter 2,
Love that James W. Horne!
> a series of early Broncho Billy films;
All three of these showed the variety of roles Anderson played within
his western films (one one was Broncho Billy). I particularly enjoyed
in the 1909 film the ingenious way they got the Essanay indian logo
into the shot. Since there were no indoors scenes, the put the
Essanay logo on the radiator of a car which drove into almost every
shot.
UM-PA
This was a fun Columbia musical short, and thanks to Mike for
scheduling a number of these over the last few Cinecons. It was
interesting that the melody of one of the songs was reused again in
WOMAN HATERS with the Three Stooges, but with a whole new set of
lyrics (the ones that became "my life my love my all").
> The Rob Stone/Sam Gill/Jim Cozart Unidentified Film Fest was also fun. I
> remain in awe of people like Richard Roberts who can identify Walter Forde from
> a 7-sec clip of film. Hopefully the UCLA/LOC folks got enough actors
> identified to allow them to match some titles to these previously unknown
> clips.
I was the designated note taker on this so hopefully I'll get my notes
together soon and get them to Rob Stone, who said he's planning to
post them on a.m.s.
All in all another successful Cinecon (I enjoyed the banquet very
much, with very above average food and some great guests). Only 364
days to find out what happened in chapter 3 of THE IRON CLAW!
Brent Walker
Harlett O'Dowd
> Well, as the scheduler, I gotta take the rap. But I must say, it's
> never been as bad as it was this year, with virtually every daypart
> running late. There were a variety of reasons:
>
> 1) Films ran longer than they were supposed to. At least three titles,
> all silents, ran far longer than the footage counts in the AFI catalog
> indicated. (And no, it wasn't because they ran at silent speed!)
>
> 2) Collections were longer than they were supposed to be. Both Richard
> Roberts' and the Stone/Gill programs had more films than I had
> budgeted for.
>
> 3) Faulty communications. Often the projectionist was ready to start
> the next film, but nobody had told him to do so. This is something we
> need to work on.
>
> 4) The audience. The break between SIDESHOW and ACTRESS ran an
> intolerable 25 minutes, because a bunch of stars came in to watch it,
> and everyone was hovering around for autographs and snapshots despite
> pleas to sit down.
Not to criticize, Mike - and I can't imagine trying to organize this
thing - but I was right across the asile from the stars and heard no
pleas. Even so, if Ms. Simmons had been announced, everyone would
have taken their places pronto.
> 5) Unannounced speakers. When someone speaks for five minutes before a
> film, and this happens three or four or five times, we get backed up
> again. And yes, I'm as guilty of that as anybody!
>
> The solution: next year, I'm simply going to put 20-minute breaks
> between each show. If it means one less feature per day, so be it, but
> this is supposed to be fun, not an endurance test!
>
Thank you thank you thank you. I've been wondering for years why
there haven't been longer breaks scheduled between shows specifically
for the purpose of getting us back on schedule anyway.
Christopher Snowden
> Well, as the scheduler, I gotta take the rap. But I must say, it's
> never been as bad as it was this year, with virtually every daypart
> running late. There were a variety of reasons:
> The solution: next year, I'm simply going to put 20-minute breaks
> between each show. If it means one less feature per day, so be it, but
> this is supposed to be fun, not an endurance test!
The late starting times never bother me much. Every year, at
least once, I find *myself* running late, hustling over to the
Egyptian from the hotel, certain that I've just missed most of a
two-reeler. Once I arrive, I discover that the film hasn't even
started yet, and I haven't missed a thing!
Chris Snowden
Christopher Snowden
much-appreciated) job putting the convention together, but this was my
least-favorite Cinecon, of the seven or eight that I've been to.
However, I had to leave before getting to see THE SIDESHOW, which
turned out to be the hit of the weekend! Here's my review:
ASSISTANT WIVES: This was good, if a little top-heavy with
intertitles. I'm not a big Charley Chase fan, but this one was better
than average. The climax, in which Charley and his girlfriend enjoy a
blissful romantic moment, oblivious to the battle royale between Noah
Young and Eugene Pallette that's raging right in front of them, was
especially good.
THE FIGHTING BLADE: If I hadn't been so eager to see the Vitaphone
program that followed this feature, I would've walked out after the
first half-hour. Dull, dull, dull, and way over-long. Someone in the
row behind me was snoring through this thing, and I was close to doing
the same. The Packard Foundation was kind enough to restore this film,
but I wish they'd gone the extra mile and issued blankets and pillows
for the unfortunates trying to sit through it.
VITAPHONE SHORTS: We seem to be doing one of these programs every
year, and it's a tradition well worth keeping. This year, I enjoyed
every one of the Vitaphones, and many of them were gems. THE HAPPINESS
BOYS, CHAZ CHASE, WARING'S PENNSYLVANIANS, and HARRY WAYMAN AND HIS
DEBUTANTES were my favorites. Bravo!
SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE BERYL CORONET: This silent two-reel adaptation of
a Conan Doyle story worked a lot better than I thought it would. I
wonder how Doyle liked it?
THE TURMOIL: This Universal silent felt a little unfocused to me, but
it was pretty good overall. Didn't the actor playing the patriarch of
the family do a tremendous job with that scene in the barber shop?
That scene was even more memorable for me than the one of the dam
burst. Nice work by Pauline Garon and Eleanor Boardman, too. In the
hands of a more gifted director, this might've been a real classic,
but it's a pretty good film as it is. Phil Carli's elegant score was a
bonus.
DAMES AHOY!: I heard that some people hated this one, but I thought it
was harmless fun. Lots of material shot on location at a real
amusement park. A few snappy one-liners, and a few clever sight gags
perked it up for me. Not bad, but not worth seeing twice!
RICHARD'S COMEDY CAVALCADE: The short I enjoyed the most was the
first, a Ham & Bud comedy. The others were more interesting than
funny, but Raymond Griffith's THE SLEEPING PORCH had a few good laughs
in it as well. I hadn't ever heard his voice before this, and boy,
great as he was, there was just no way in hell this guy was going to
work out as a talkie actor. While most screen actors of that time
abandoned the expressive pantomime that they'd used in silents, Griff
was still using it in this talkie, and to good advantage.
ABSORBING, JR.: I don't usually care much for Shemp Howard, but I have
to admit this was a funny two-reeler, loaded with Stooges-type
knockabout comedy. Even the bratty ten-year-old gets slapped around,
prompting a gasp from the lady sitting behind me, and a hearty laugh
from me.
WAKE UP AND DREAM: I had suggested this title to Bob earlier this
year. I don't know if he booked it on my suggestion or not, but those
of you who disliked the film can blame me for it. I've seen it three
times in the last two years, and for me it gets better with every
viewing. Sure, I wish they hadn't had Russ Columbo singing the same
two songs over and over, and I wish there was a bit less of Henry
Armetta in it, but I like this movie a lot. Seemed to me that the
audience liked it too, laughing in all the right places and applauding
longer than usual at the end, so I'm surprised that the reviews here
in the newsgroup are so indifferent. Russ Columbo is a lot less stiff
in his other feature, BROADWAY THRU A KEYHOLE, than he is in this one,
but even here he gets better as the film goes on.
THE HALF-BREED: This one disappointed me. Fairbanks is practically a
supporting player in it, and he isn't as lively as usual. But the
giant redwoods were beautiful to look at, as were Alma Rubens and
Jewel Carmen. Like so many of this year's films, I'd file this one
under "Not bad, but nothing I need to see again."
ESSANAY PROGRAM: I agree with Jon that THE DEAD MAN'S CLAIM was the
best of this bunch, and it's a shame that the film is absolutely shot
through with heavy decomp. THE HAUNTED LOUNGE, which we got to see the
next day, was also particularly good, though I have to wonder if it
wasn't just a remake of a Pathe.
THEY DARE NOT LOVE: I knew better than to have high hopes for this, so
I wasn't disappointed. But it's a pretty ordinary film that could've
been directed just as well by almost anybody. Unless the schedule or
budgetary restraints were unusually tight, I'd have to guess that
James Whale's creative well had run dry by this point.
O'MALLEY OF THE MOUNTED: There wasn't anything wrong with this Hart
picture, and I like Hart, but somehow this didn't hold my attention
that well.
CLARA BOW CLIPS: These were marvelous. RED HAIR looks to be as
quintessential a Clara Bow vehicle as IT, and THREE WEEK ENDS looked
fun too. She's just so lively and effervescent in her late silents,
yet so subdued in her talkies! Almost as if she was being impersonated
by somebody else after sound came in. I've seen most of her talkies,
and there isn't as much charm and excitement in all of them put
together as there were in the three minutes of RED HAIR we got to see.
KICK IN: Just as WAKE UP AND DREAM is a Russ Columbo movie starring
Roger Pryor, KICK IN is a Clara Bow movie starring Regis Toomey. He's
great in it, and the film is a crackling Warner-esque pre-Code, but
Clara doesn't have all that much to do, beyond looking worried and
concerned in every scene. The print was stunning. It's not quite a
classic, but KICK IN was as much of a highlight for me as I was hoping
it would be.
SALLY, IRENE and MARY: Another anticipated highlight that didn't
disappoint... or not much, anyway. I couldn't disagree more with Bob's
liner notes, though: "The star of the film is clearly Constance
Bennett, but newcomer Joan Crawford steals the show." To me, Sally
O'Neil was far and away the real star, getting more screen time than
anyone and most of the plot as well. Constance Bennett doesn't do much
more than sulk, and Joan Crawford doesn't even do *that* much. William
Haines was markedly less annoying than usual, and it was refeshing for
me to see a Haines picture that didn't leave me wishing I could climb
up into the screen and kick his ass.
WHO'S YOUR FATHER?: This was a delirious slapstick two-reeler. We've
seen plenty of frantic Sennett comedies, but this one was like a
Sennett short on angel dust! And it was a Fox! Frenzied action,
stunts, broad comedy, female impersonation, racial insensitivity and
an incomprehensible plot. There was more stuff happening in any sixty
seconds of this than there'd been in all ten reels of THE FIGHTING
BLADE.
THE BIG KILLING: After a promising start, this one turned into a
snooze. It was a two-reeler's worth of comedy stretched out to a
full-length feature, padded out with a lot of venom and violence that
put a real chill into the humor. It's hard to laugh at Beery and
Hatton's farting around when we keep seeing poor Mary Brian sobbing
and abused, her boyfriend getting beaten up, etc. And Wallace Beery
was just a wee bit miscast as a cowardly milksop, wasn't he?
During every Cinecon, I somehow get to witness something that's
singularly outrageous or surreal, something I call the annual
"Hollywood Moment." Well, there wasn't much happening in that vein
this year. I'd have to say that this year's Hollywood Moment was a
toss-up between the chanting, arm-waving, bouncing-in-place Hare
Krishnas scaring the tourists, and the sight of the enormous dead
cockroach in the middle of the far right aisle of the Egyptian. I gues
the Hollywood cockroach had the edge for its metaphor value, but then
so did the sight of the construction crew drilling away inside the
"Erotic Museum" (coming soon, don'tcha know).
This year, there was no "warhorse" classic at Cinecon, and
nothing that I'd call a great film (though, again, I didn't see the
universally-loved THE SIDESHOW). It was a mix of pretty good films and
pretty disappointing films, the weakest program I've seen at a
Cinecon. Oh well. When Cinecon sets out to be a festival of obscure
films, as opposed to a festival of classic films, you have to expect
that.
During the business meeting, Bob said that attendance was shaping
up to be on a par with last year's, and I'll take his word for it...
but it sure seemed like there were more empty seats at the Egyptian
this year. I know of at least four Cinecon regulars who chose not to
come this year, because the film schedule didn't interest them enough.
And I know other film buffs who *used* to go to Cinecon, but no longer
do, because when the schedule is announced each year and they can't
find anything listed that they've ever heard of, they choose to stay
home rather than take a chance. During the meeting, a Cinephile or two
proposed showing more films, and more films that are highly-regarded,
and the suggestion was basically dismissed, as happens here in the
newsgroup.
Cinecon can keep going on this course, and I'll keep attending
every year, but I don't see how it will thrive in the future this way.
I believe that the average lover of vintage films wants to see
pictures and stars that he's familiar with. Cinecon seems to be
devoted to obscure films that no one else is willing to show, and
that's fine, but in pursuing this course the Cinephiles are catering
to a fringe group within an audience that's pretty small to begin with
(and steadily shrinking besides, as the oldsters who grew up on these
films die out).
Chris Snowden
Brent Walker
half-asleep, so my apologies for creating an array of grammatical
landmines to stumble over!
Brent Walker
Harlett O'Dowd
NIGHTMARE - started the weekend trend of murder mysteries that were pretty
easy to figure out (hint - it takes place in New Orleans) but some nice
location footage and good turns by Robinson and guest Kevin McCarthy kept
the interest going, but this is not something I would track down to see
again. **1/2
EAST LYNNE - wonderful art direction by Urban, good performances from the
women and a truly wacko finale made this worthwhile. BEAUTIFUL print - also
a consistent motif of the weekend. The font of all knowledge and wisdom
(www.imdb.com) states there were about a dozen silent versions of this
chestnut. It might be fun to run a silent version that's more faithful to
the novel and play at a subsequent Cinecon if one survives (Mr. Mirsalis?)
**1/2
THE FIGHTING BLADE - too too long but Barthelmess was cute in his pageboy
bob. The torture scene was pretty intense and made up for much of the
padding elsewhere. Probably would have earned *** if I had been well
cafeinated, but I wasn't. Oh, and Oliver Cromwell is one of the good
guys(!) **1/2
VITAPHONE SHORTS - I really love the Vitaphone shorts and hope to see more
programs in the future, but TWO HOURS is an awful long time for what is
essentially canned vaudeville. Less would be more here. Perhaps splitting
into two sets of 5 to 7 shorts arranged as if it were an actual vaudeville
program might be fun at a future event. Winners this time were Chaz Chase,
Kraft & Lamont, Ray Mayer & Edith Evans and surprisingly, Guido Deiro. I
HATE accordions but this guy could really play. Losers were Roy Fox and,
though bizarre and occasionally spirited, one can only take a minute or two
of Hawaiian Nights. No opera selections this year? **
SHERLOCK HOLMES - wins the award for the best telegraphing of guilt in any
silent mystery. I'm no Holmes fan but this was enjoyable. **
THE TURMOIL - I liked this family drama a lot - especially the dam damn.
Would have earned ***1/2 if it were a reel shorter but a solid *** as is.
DAMES AHOY! - I found myself shutting my eyes too often when Otis Skinner
was talking and thinking of SNOW WHITE. Some nice location shots aside,
this was far and away the weakest of the weekend. *
ABSORBING, JR - harmless Harry Langdon sound short. I need to drink coffee
at dinner. **
WAKE UP AND DREAM - Russ Colombo sings two songs over and over and over and
over again. Is it any wonder he appears comatose throughout the film?
Another pristine print and this was one of the films I was really looking
forward to seeing - but it was a real disappointment, even with Wini Shaw.
* 3/4
HALF-BREED - all the build-up of Douglas Fairbanks' bare-assed performance
was a bit of a letdown for me, although that one shot IS breathtaking - but
he's no George O'Brien. Loved Alma Rubens. A few more titles near the end
to fill in what was lost in decomposition would be nice for future
screenings. I'm no fan of westerns but this was good. **1/2
MURDER IN TIMES SQUARE - I have to keep telling myself that not every
Columbia comedy mystery can be expected to be another DANGEROUS BLONDES.
This would have been better if I could have kept my eyes open through the
second half but then again, maybe not. **
THEY DARE NOT LOVE - more obscure James Whale!!!!!!! Thank you thank you
thank you!!!!! This was a big reason for coming out this year and I was
pleasantly surprised. Nice romantic propaganda film with a decent climax.
** 3/4
KICK IN - another disappointment. Bow is fine with what little she's given
to do but she's essentially miscast in this WB-esque crime meler. Like many
here, the fragments preceding the feature were the highlights of the
program. **
SALLY, IRENE AND MARY - another big-ticket item this weekend and the first
home-run of the event. Joan Crawford has the tragic Anita Page role in this
pre-cursor to the OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS series. She has the least to do of
the three girls (is some of her footage missing?) and is overshadowed by
Sally O'Neil and William Haines as well as the dueling Irish mammas. Joan's
Charleston from beyond the grave was a keeper, though. TCM, if you're
reading, please try to get through the legal bru-ha-ha in order to air this.
***1/2
TWO OF A KIND - some nice black-comic touches in this noirish caper flick,
but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Guest Terry Moore effortlessly
steals every scene she's in. Great guest too. Look up "time-killer" in the
dictionary and this film will probably be listed as an example. Painless
and fun. ** 1/2
WHO'S YOUR FATHER? - western on crack. This was just strange. The image of
the drag old maid will haunt my dreams for years to come. Put Mr. Roberts'
(fun) comedy cavalcade to shame. *1/2
THE BIG KILLING - painfully unfunny comedy. It's not often I wish to go
back to the straight people in a comedy but this was one of those times.
The feuding hillbillies were infinitely more interesting than our "comic"
"heroes". Ugh. Easily the weakest silent of the weekend. It can duke it
out with DAMES AHOY! for the ultimate last in show position. *
NINE GIRLS - slightly better than MURDER IN TIMES SQUARE but only slightly.
The build up to the murder was infinitely more interesting than the payoff
once you get to the cabin. The second half would have played better if I
were more awake but probably not. **
Oh, MR. PORTER! - kinda the IRA vs. THE GENERAL in this odd British comedy
full of eccentric characters and bizarre situations. A bit too Green
Acres-ish for my taste in its depiction of the Irish but this was easily the
best and quirkiest comedy of the weekend. ***
THE HOT HEIRESS - THAT'S what Belle Watling looked like in her youth?????
Yikes! Oddball Rodgers and Hart musical with a great great cast and a
couple of catchy songs in this role-reversal how to marry a millionaire
story. Thelma Todd is great in her little supporting role. Pity and odd
the print was kinda yucky. ***
THE SIDESHOW - easily the winner of the weekend. A Browning-esque circus
meler but with more emotional depth. Little Billy Rhodes gives an amazingly
layered, morally ambiguous performance of a napoleonic midget circus owner.
And the more I see of Ralph Graves the more impressed I am - a very off-beat
but charming leading man. One of the few mysteries of the weekend I had to
work at to solve. This (along with SI&M) is the one I want to see released
on DVD some day soon. ****
PS - bravo Dr. Phil for a GREAT job on the piano on this one!
THE ACTRESS - really charming MGM/Cukor coming-of-age story for Cinecon
guest Jean Simmons with a wonderful cast led by Spencer Tracy. A lesser
actor would have been unbearable in this role but he's just perfect. On top
of that you get Anthony Perkins in his film debut and great cameos from Mary
Wilkes (billed) and Jackie Coogan (unbilled.) ***
UM-PA - the oddest and best short of the weekend. Who IS Jack Osterman? Is
he Mario Cantone's fairy godfather or something? The Busby Berkeley shots
were a lot of fun and the fadeout gag was fun. Now if I can only get that
damn song out of my head .... ***
ARE WE CIVILIZED? - what if Ed Wood remade INTOLERANCE with a slightly
bigger budget? heartfelt but didactic censorship primer with lots and lots
and lots of stock footage. More than its share of dialogue howlers and who
was that one actor who did all the step-ins as Christ, Caesar, Mohammed,
Lincoln, etc.? Not as dire as I feared it would be, thanks to better an
expected production values for the modern segment and some heartfelt
performances. Anyone name the origin for the stock footage? * 3/4
General Comments and Observations:
Congrats to Evil Bob and all involved for a good Cinecon.
Thanks Mr. Mirsalis & Dr. Phil for tickling the ivories.
The tote bags proved VERY useful. Hopefully this will become an annual
trinket.
Not scheduling anything after the banquet was a real boon for the
cheapskates like me who took the evening off to visit friends in town NOT
involved in Cinecon. Hopefully it worked out better for those who attended
the banquet this year as well.
I really enjoyed the book signings this year and hope that continues at
future events. My one issue was there was no bulletin board at the Egyptian
to serve as a reminder. It wasn't that big of a deal for those staying in
the hotel but I imagine the extra treking to and from the hotel may have
more inconvenient for the locals who wanted first and foremost to watch the
films.
I know guests are and will continue to be a controversial part of the
program as silent and 30s actors become fewer and fewer. As long as unusual
films I would be unlikely to catch on my own like NIGHTMARE and TWO OF A
KIND (or recent restorations we should support) are shown in conjunction
with guests I have no problem with screening 50s films at Cinecon. I really
would have liked another guest or two in attendance. I still believe that's
what sets Cinecon above the other fine festivals elsewhere. There's no way
to make everybody happy with this but hopefully some sort of balance can be
achieved in the future.
Note to the staff at the EGYPTIAN - great job but PLEASE install a coffee
pot in your concession stand next year. I know we were allowed but I felt
so wrong bringing in my coffee from the street.
Hopefully the problem(s) with keeping on schedule can be reduced in future
events.
ChaneyFan
The set-up is that Charlie asks his boss for a raise, and as they
watched a blonde floozie flipping pancakes at a restaurant, Charlie
fibs and tells the boss (played by Eugene Pallette) that it is his
wife...who has to work for them to make ends meet.
I got all that. My point was, why point to the girl flipping pancakes when all
he has to do is refer to his wife at home. Seemed lame to me.
Tony Spadaro
My cat likes tuna and sardines.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Rob Farr" <lipp...@nine.netcom.com (when replying change nine to ix)>
wrote in message
news:5bP4b.5378$Lk5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
John Aldrich
The comedic premise was that Charley had impulsively blurted out that
the woman who was so energetically flipping pancakes was his wife who
had to work outside the home (quite unusual for a married woman in the
20's) just so they could make ends meet.
The whole point of Charley's fib was that his 'wife' couldn't stay at
home and be a homemaker because of Charley's puny salary. So, to
point to his actual wife (who does stay at home) would not have made
sense.
He was just trying to badger his boss into giving him a raise, not
anticipating that the boss would require proof...as in a face to face
meeting.
And then, when "wifey' blurts out the dinner invitation, of course it
is too late, and Charley has to follow through with the ruse.
Chase built a career on these sorts of misunderstandings and little
white lies.
--John A.
Richard M Roberts
>
> Gee, I guess I'm the first to bother posting...
> The banquet food was much better than last year, and I could actually
> see my plate....oh, you mean the movies....
>
> First the talkies. Wake Up and Dream was a real curio with crooner
> Russ Columbo
> dead within three days of the premiere. Maybe I'm the wrong sexual
> orientation to like this film, but I thought it was just painful to
> watch.
(Opens parcel from the mail that has the new Acme Manure-Filled Pig
Bladder in it)
Even more painful was Murder in Times Square, Painless
> enjoyable time killer? Not to me. I could see the plot points coming
> a mile away and it committed the worst sin of murder mysteries, I
> didn't care who the murderer was.
(Unwraps it, shakes it around so that the manure is nicely packed at the
bottom where it will make that nice, slorpy impact)
Nine Girls
> wasn't much better, although at least it had some wit, although the
> program's note of it being 'proto-feminist' is being incredibly
> generous.
(pokes a few holes in it, just enough so the victim has to change
clothes )
Speaking of incredible generosity, the reviewer who
> compared Oh, Mr. Porter to It's a Gift must have worked for Roger
> Corman's PR department in the 60's. I guess they were both shot on
> 35mm so at least the films had something in common.
Hey Lokke, come here a minute.......
PBBBBBSSSSSPPPPLLLLAAAATTTTTTTTT !!!!!!!!
Okay Heiss, it's obvious that you don't get the good, entertaining
1930's and early 40's B feature, but don't you come out of your own
little world long enough to notice all the laughter that was going on
throughout OH MR PORTER and the warm appreciative applause that went on
for some time after the end title came up? OH MR PORTER went over
gangbusters with the Cinecon audience and it's a terrific Will Hay
picture. And as the writer of the notes (or at least what was left after
some Birchard whittling), I was only comparing OH MR PORTER to IT'S A
GIFT because I was distancing William K Everson's comparison of Hay to
Fields (which I only agree with in the broadest sense, these were two
middle-age-plus comics with more cynical views of the world), but
Comparing the two films as prime vehicles for each comic that gives them
perfect showcases for their point of views and for what they do best. If
you were expecting Hay to recreate the porch scene, you missed the
entire point.
MURDER IN TIMES SQUARE and NINE GIRLS were both delightful, non-taxing
entertainments that were exactly what the doctor ordered for the
late-night Cinecon slot. I could happily enjoy Edmund Lowe and Esther
Dale trading insults or ogle Jinx Falkenburg and Nina Foch in swimsuits
without utilizing my sleepy and spirit-soaked grey-cells too much at
that time of night. They were efficent and entertaining with a lot of
old (and at least in NINE GIRLS, a lot of new) pros working in films
that moved well and kept the audiences interested and laughing through
an hour or so. I'll take William Demarest doing headbangs in a car
window over your sixties Hungarian esoteric snoozefests any day!
Yeah, even if Russ Columbo had lived, he'd have never matched the
relaxed charm and charisma of Bing Crosby for even a second, but the
rest of the cast WAKE UP AND DREAM kept it rambling along nicely, and
the chances of you ever seeing it, or DAMES AHOY, or SEE AMERICA THIRST
in beautiful 35mm prints off the original negatives again is slim to
none. Whatever the quality of those films, I thank Cinecon for giving me
the opportunity to get to see them at their optimum, and make my mind up
for myself.
Heiss, we have to get you to a class in Light Entertainment 101.
>
> The silents were overall excellent. Fighting Blade (too long, but
> mostly fun) The Turmoil (very good social message film of nouveau
> American rich) Sally, Irene, and Mary, (straight-up moral message film
> Joan Crawford's character (Irene) catching a train in the worst way
> possible) O Malley of the Mounted, (a very good W.S. Hart picture the
> the program correctly called as the story of 'bad good' man instead of
> a 'good bad' man). I like Hart's morally ambiguous Western landscape,
> he has the Western Hamlet down.
Okay, you pretty much got those silents, we'll let the pig-bladder rest.
>
> The two best films were 1) Half-Breed,
Oh Dear.....
a very interesting film that
> unfortunately looks like it's missing a couple of shots at the end,
>
Best Film? Interesting (more-so for the ladies, who got a look at Doug
bare-assed) perhaps, but not much of a movie. An off-beat role for
Fairbanks no-question, more of a William S Hart script, but a failure in
the end. Five reels that seemed like twenty. But again, glad to see more
than the two reels I've seen before in 35mm.
2) The Side how, starring Wizard of Oz's 'Little Billy' Rhodes as
> the owner of a circus. It's inspired casting, great direction, a
> clever story with a bang up finish. The Side Show is dynamite and I
> thought it was the best film of the festival.
Bingo! This one was so good even Heiss figured it out! I'm going to do
an article on Erle C Kenton. His Columbia silents are a good as Capra's,
and I've never seen a film he directed that I didn't like. Solid,
capable direction that didn't call attention to the director. Like THE
MONKEY TALKS, this was a Tod Browning film from a director with talent.
Even Ralph Graves was good.
This was not my favorite Cinecon either. We do need to program more
warhorses in beautiful prints to go alongside the rarities, and they
weren't here this year. And I'm of the mind to dump the celebs when we
have to program films in widescreen for the stars that are still alive.
But I got to see films I've always wanted to see, good and bad. There
needs to be a place to give even less-than-great films an occasional
airing just for history's sake. Now we're all sure once again that SEE
AMERICA THIRST is not Harry Langdon's finest hour. Cinecon can unearth
these films, and they should continue to do so.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
William Hooper
>have to program films in widescreen for the stars that are still alive.
That will do much to ensure that nobody gets bopped on the head with
a Super Snaplite if the projectionist drops one out of the port
during a lens change.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Wed Sep 3 12:48:48 2003 depuis l'IP : uslec-66-255-117-146.cust.uslec.net [VIP 9946225]
Richard M Roberts
HAMLET:
Real title: THE BOGUS BOOKING AGENTS (Kalem, released 10/24/1916)
Directed by Lloyd Hamilton, Cast: LLoyd Hamilton, BUd Duncan, Ethel
Teare, Henry Murdoch.
Now a few more thoughts on Cinecon that I didn;t give you when I was
whackin' Lokke Heiss with the pig-bladder.
As I said, this Cinecon gave some some incredible rare opportunities to
see some films we're unlikely ever to see again in any form. It is
always taking a chance when a title is booked sight unseen, only on the
participants and synopsis, but those pictures do need to be seen as
well. I'd always wanted to see THE BIG KILLING (and I plead mea culpa, I
bugged Bob and Mike to run it when I found out LOC had material on it)
because it was Director F Richard Jone's last silent. I was actually not
dissapointed, I figured it was not going to be great because it's Beery
and Hatton, and I got pretty much what I expected.
If only the first reel had turned up with no identification, we'd have
thought we had found an incredibly photographed backwoods drama! But it
went downhill from there, although the middle portion had some good
gags, such as the aforementioned bit when Beery put the binocular lens
on. But the last two reels were a blur when it broke down into a chase
around the house. But the print was sparkling, and probably will never
be booked again. I'm glad I had the chance to see it.
DAMES AHOY was actually a pleasant suprise. I had seen the silent
version, and thought that was a painless timekiller, but the sound
version had a lot more relaxed charm. The opening sequence with the
singing on the ship was, of course, nowhere to be seen in the silent
version, and like Brent said, the sound footage shot at Ocean Park in
Venice was worth the price of admission. I also found Helen Wright to be
appealing and she had a nice chemistry with Glenn Tryon. Again, where
else would I get to see this in 35mm.
I was geared up to suffer through SEE AMERICA THIRST, but I still found
things to like. Harry Langdon's performance cannot be faulted, he's
doing what he does, and he's working very hard to improvise because he
knows he's got a lot of dead space to fill, but he's a ship without a
rudder. It looked like they had a heavily plotted script that they then
threw out the window and said "just improvise something". Any laughs the
picture had were Langdons. He and Summerville had no chemistry together,
through no fault of their own, they're both comics who react to their
surroundings and needed a Vernon Dent to drag them through the plot.
The film also looked like it had been heavily truncated after preview.
Things were set up, or appeared without set-up. It felt like there was a
reel missing when the climax suddenly started, and they had this
armoured house on wheels that came out of nowhere. The cannon on the
roof sequence had promise, and was rather elaborate, but it went on too
long and nowhere in particular. A lost opportunity as far as Langdon was
concerned, but I'd wanted to see it for twenty years, and I never
thought I's see it in 35mm.
As for SALLY, IRENE, AND MARY, I like any film that imparts the message
that girls who start to go bad, then try to go good end up getting hit
by trains. Crawford, Bennett, and especially Sally O'Neill whom I think
stole the show, were enticing, and where else would you have the dueling
irish washerwomen, the triple-threat of Kate Price, Aggie Herring, and
Lillian Elliott. This was a womans picture with an eye on the men in the
audience too.
It was great seeing Clara Bow play a Helen Twelvetrees part in KICK IN.
She wasn;t her usual sexy self, but she showed she had the acting chops,
and the film was a beautifully photographed film-noir(more proof for the
boneheads who say there are no film-noirs before the forties).
O'MALLEY OF THE MOUNTED was a great William S Hart picture, it needs a
full restoration, but it was definitely ol Bill in his prime. For the
person who said WHO'S YOUR FATHER with Tom Mix put my Comedy Cavalcade
to shame, I'm the one who got Bob Birchard to program it as well. I had
seen it at LOC a few week earier and thought it was a hoot. So consider
it an annenda to my show! NYEAAAAAHHHHHH!
After my complaining that we're showing to many fifties films to
accomodate still-living celebs, I muat say I really enjoyed both Kevin
McCarthy (is he really 89 years old! Then he's amazing) and especially
Val Guest, who had an amazing career. Nest year I'd love a panel with
Val Guest, Ronald Neame, and Ken Annakin. Thats a large chunk of british
filmmaking history.
This was definitely an obscurists Cinecon, and I don't think thats a
good idea either. We had no warhorses, and no technicolor, and there's
still a lot of real goodies out there that need to be seen. But all in
all, a worthwhile show, and I'm glad I went. Kudos to all who
participated.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Harlett O'Dowd
> This was definitely an obscurists Cinecon, and I don't think thats a
> good idea either. We had no warhorses, and no technicolor, and there's
> still a lot of real goodies out there that need to be seen. But all in
> all, a worthwhile show, and I'm glad I went. Kudos to all who
> participated.
>
>
> RICHARD M ROBERTS
Amen.
Just because I (and others here) felt the overall quality of this
grab-bag of selections was below average when compared to other
Cinecons, this in no way means I felt this was an unworthy show.
For SI&M, THEY DARE NOT LOVE and THE SIDESHOW alone it was worth the
trip.
And Frederica's AMS lunch of course.
Thanks to all and hope to see y'all soon.
Harlett O'Dowd
"Harlett O'Dowd" <ccon...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:c4c5b.23481$Om1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> ABSORBING, JR - harmless Harry Langdon sound short. I need to drink
coffee
> at dinner. **
Must .... get ... sleep .... soon. COLD TURKEY was the harmless Langdon
short (the mix-up with the turkey and the black toddler was the best.)
ABSORBING, JR. was the bizarre Shemp Howard. Involving the kid in the
slapstick was the best part here. Both were fine if undistinguished.
Mr. Roberts' comedy cavalcade was ... unique. The Keaton commercials were
amazing. How he could do that much physical comedy at that age is beyond
me. I don't believe I am typing this but the Ham and Bud was probably the
best. Ray Griffith might have prospered as a supporting/cameo clown with
his lack of voice but not as a star.
Early Film
> EAST LYNNE - . . . . . . . .
> The font of all knowledge and wisdom (www.imdb.com)
> states there were about a dozen silent versions of this
> chestnut. It might be fun to run a silent version that's
> more faithful to the novel and play at a subsequent
> Cinecon if one survives (Mr. Mirsalis?) **1/2
EAST LYNNE (UK, Bert Haldane, 1913)
Barker Motion Photography
Blanche Forsythe, Fred Paul
BFI/National Film and Television Archive (London)
EAST LYNNE (US, Travers Vale, 1915)
Biograph Co.
Alan Hale, Louise Vale, William Russell
Library of Congress (Washington)
Museum of Modern Art (New York)
Pacific Film Archive (Berkeley)
EAST LYNNE WITH VARIATIONS (US, Edward F. (Eddie) Cline, 1919)
Mack Sennett
Ben Turpin, Marie Prevost, Charles "Heinie" Conklin, Bobby Dunn, Charles Lynn,
Tom Kennedy, Alice Lake, Bert Roach
Netherlands Filmmuseum (Amsterdam)
EAST LYNNE (US, Bertram Bracken, 1916)
Fox Film Corp.
Theda Bara, Ben Deeley, Stuart Holmes, Claire Whitney, William H. Tooker, Loel
Stewart, Eldean (Eldine) Steuart (Stewart) (Stuart), Eugenie Woodward,
Stanhope Wheatcroft, Frank Norcross, James O'Connor, Ethel Fleming, Emily
Fitzroy, Velma Whitman, Herbert Evans
Museum of Modern Art (New York)
EAST LYNNE (US, Emmett J. Flynn, 1925)
Fox Film Corp.
Alma Rubens, Edmund Lowe, Lou Tellegen, Frank Keenan, Marjorie Daw, Leslie
Fenton, Belle Bennett, Paul W. Panzer, Lydia Knott, Harry Seymour, Richard
Headrick, Virginia Marshall, Martha Mattox, Eric Mayne
Museum of Modern Art (New York)
Just because an archive has it, does not mean that they have preserved it and
just because and archive has preserved it, does not mean that they have a
viewing copy.
Earl.
BlakeMF
A comedy that had John George in it (Elephants on his hands) and Buster Keaton
commericals is jake with me.
Michael F. Blake
who happily remembers when Richard showed the Keaton industrial short a few
years back!
Eric Stott
Early Film wrote
EAST LYNNE (US, Bertram Bracken, 1916)
> Fox Film Corp.
> Theda Bara, Ben Deeley, Stuart Holmes, Claire Whitney, William H. Tooker, Loel
> Stewart, Eldean (Eldine) Steuart (Stewart) (Stuart), Eugenie Woodward,
> Stanhope Wheatcroft, Frank Norcross, James O'Connor, Ethel Fleming, Emily
> Fitzroy, Velma Whitman, Herbert Evans
> Museum of Modern Art (New York)
I wouls dearly love to see this one. Even aside from Bara the cast has
possibilities. From what I've seen of Ben Deeley in VICTORY he could be a superbly
creepy villain, rivaling Tully Marshall. (The fact he married Barbara La Marr is
mind boggling). Emily Fitzroy was just MADE to play in a victorian melodrama.
Stott
Bill Coleman
2 disc set with CONVICT 99 (no slouch either) or a box set with something
like 7 Hay movies. It has subtitles that can be turned out. I found it
helpful to
turn them off and one for certain scenes. Marvelous film...it would've been
wonderful to see with an audience. Actually I ran the film for a film
society
about 28 years ago (it was Bill Everson's print) but I think I was the only
one who showed up for it, so that doesn't count!!
Bill Coleman
--------------------------
"Early Film" <earl...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20030901235636...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Max Pierce
> We, the unfortunate and desititute who couldn't go, are waiting with baited
> breaths.
>
> Rob Farr
Someone asked, and in my delirium of trying to recap the weekend for
CLASSIC IMAGES, I can't find the original post, about Jack Osterman,
from UM-PA and the Vitaphone Short #950 that was screened
sometime(it's still a blur).
A search of the IMDB reveals he died in 1939, at the age of 37. Only
UM-PA and a crime short with Charles Laughton and Dorothy Gish, called
WOLVES have him credited.
I think the revelation of his early death really sucks, for I found
him to be a rather engaging personality. Thank heavens for film.
Max
Richard M Roberts
This was run at a Cinecon in the mid-90's, and was a bonafide stiff. Of
all the Theda Bara movies that don't survive, this is one that turns up!
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Leslie
I was intrigued by Osterman as well. He and Chaz Chase were the two
who "stuck" with me after the Vitaphone program. The Vitaphone Project
website calls him an "unknown monologist". I thought him quite witty
and funny. Hmmm a short with Osterman, Charles Laugton and Dorothy
Gish? Wonder if the Cinecon folks can dig that one up for next
year...
Leslie
MaxTP...@aol.com (Max Pierce) wrote in message news:<66f7fc49.03090...@posting.google.com>...
James Roots
> Richard's comedy calvacade was not slouch, either!
>
> A comedy that had John George in it (Elephants on his hands) and Buster Keaton
> commericals is jake with me.
Wasn't there one with Paul Ringo in it, too?
Jim
(real nowhere man)
James Roots
> Actually, if you have a multi-region player, it is out on Region 2 DVD (in a
> 2 disc set with CONVICT 99 (no slouch either) or a box set with something
> like 7 Hay movies. It has subtitles that can be turned out. I found it
There's a Will Hay DVD box set out?!?!? INFO PLEASE!!
Jim
(sneezing with Hay fever right now)
James Roots
Never mind the films, we're still waiting to hear about
Frederica's luncheon.
Also waiting for the framable (in both senses) photo of
all you AMS mugs.
Jim
Stephen Cooke
You might be thinking of Pete Stuart.
> Jim
> (real nowhere man)
swac
Goo goo ga joob
Brent Walker
>
> EAST LYNNE WITH VARIATIONS (US, Edward F. (Eddie) Cline, 1919)
> Mack Sennett
> Ben Turpin, Marie Prevost, Charles "Heinie" Conklin, Bobby Dunn, Charles Lynn,
> Tom Kennedy, Alice Lake, Bert Roach
> Netherlands Filmmuseum (Amsterdam)
>
Does anyone know if Nederlands Filmmuseum has preserved this one?
Brent Walker
John Aldrich
greta de groat
Christopher Snowden wrote:
>
>
> SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE BERYL CORONET: This silent two-reel adaptation of
> a Conan Doyle story worked a lot better than I thought it would. I
> wonder how Doyle liked it?
>
I've been waiting to hear more about this one. Was it a Stahl/Eillie
Norwood one? That's the only one in IMDB. Was it better than the others
seen so far? (I've only seen the handful that are on video, and they are
kind of on the dull side)
Still wondering if the Carlyle Blackwell Hound survives
greta
Brent Walker
When those Vitaphone shorts were shown with MAMMY at the UCLA
Preservation Fest, someone (somebody from the Vitaphone Project? Miles
Krueger?) said that Osterman had a very bad drinking problem which
made him a reliability risk, and presumably resulted in both his
truncated career and his early death.
Brent Walker
Max Nineteennineteen
Thanks to film, at least Labor Day 2003 could be an Osterman Weekend.
Lokke Heiss
> Frederica's luncheon.
Think of a cross between Fellini's Sartyricon and Pasolini's Salo...
(Frederica gives a great party)
Anyone find a shoe in their material?
sparky spiegelman
> We, the unfortunate and desititute who couldn't go, are waiting with baited
> breaths.
>
> Rob Farr
and now for the Sparky Spiegelman report...
It was a Jack Osterman weekend at Cinecon as there were two films
featuring entertainer Jack Osterman. Many Cinephiles didn't know
Jack, but now want to buy the Jack in the Box set.
I did notice a couple problems that are often present at classic film
festivals:
1) A good percent of male Cinephiles did not wash their hands in the
men's room. I tried to check out the women's restroom, but I was
kicked out by a woman that looked like a Bobtail truck.
2) Some Cinephiles lack good bathing habits or do not wear deodorant.
I think Cinecon next year should remedy this by:
1) Showing some vintage hygiene films.
2) Bob Birchard and Mike S. should dress up as Doctors and hawk some
hygiene pamplets to the Cinecon audience. We should get some women to
dress up as nurses too (my first choice would be the female bartender
with the big zabongas at the Pig N Whistle).
3) We should warn our guests not to shake hands with the Cinephiles
as this practice may not be sanitary.
The $150 Full Monty Collins fee is a little steep. Here are a few
money raising ideas for Cinecon so the cost can be reduced:
1) Sell ad space above the urinals in the men's room.
2) Sell ad space on slides shown between intermission as is done in
the suburban malls. This is a way to bring the dealers room to the
Egyptian.
3) Charge to deprogram nearby sect members by repeated viewing of See
America Thirst.
4) Sell reserved seats in the Egyptian Theatre as some of these
choice seats are in demand and "reserved" by some Cinephiles.
Not enough young people are interested in Classic movies, so we should
be giving free passes out to those people who hang outside the
McDonalds on Hollywood Blvd.
I really don't know if was the fault of Cinecon or Richard Roberts's
personal assistant (there was a lot of finger pointing), but Richard
Roberts was supposed to get a couple bottles of wine with a Wine
Spectator rating of over 85 delivered to his dressing room. The
bottles were not of the caliber requested by Mr. Roberts, but he was
not disagreeable, probably due to the success of the Ham and Bud
comedy. I hope this can be straighted out next time.
This has been another Cinecon report,
Sparky Spiegelman speaking.
Robert Lipton
sparky spiegelman wrote:
A fine idea. If you can get that old Jack Ford classic, SEX HYGIENE, I
might be persuaded to show up.
Bob
Christopher Jacobs
----------------------
I didn't mind the Bara version of EAST LYNNE, but missing footage made
it pretty hard to follow for someone unfamiliar with the plot (as I
was until seeing the talkie version this year). It might be a fun
Cinecon programming experiment to run all surviving versions of EAST
LYNNE (or any other film, for that matter) the same weekend.
I agree more or less with most of the reviews posted so far, with my
favorites of the weekend definitely being THE HALF BREED, O'MALLEY OF
THE MOUNTED, THE TURMOIL, TWO OF A KIND, SALLY IRENE & MARY, THE
SIDESHOW, and THE ACTRESS. KICK IN was also both good and interesting
for a number of reasons. WAKE UP AND DREAM was a great musical
showcase for Columbo, though gave him little chance to act or show
much screen charisma. THE HOT HEIRESS was pleasant, and both MURDER IN
TIMES SQUARE and NINE GIRLS were very entertaining. I thought all the
films were worth seeing at least once, not particularly enjoying but
also not out-and-out disliking SEE AMERICA THIRST and DAMES AHOY, and
finding ARE WE CIVILIZED to be well-enough produced and sincere enough
to overcome its heavy-handed diatribe. The Vitaphone shorts were a
mixed bag but most were a lot of fun (especially the boy-girl musical
comedy teams). The Ham & Bud short was the best of theirs I'd ever
seen, and the unidentified films were fascinating.
My general summary of the convention for the High Plains Reader is now
posted online at http://www.hpr1.com/movies.htm (and should be up
about a week).
Now it's back to teaching classes and editing the movie I shot this
summer.
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/DarkHighways-home.htm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/PosterGallery.htm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/DigitalMovies.htm
http://www.hpr1.com/movies.htm
Bill Coleman
including most of the best
of his films. Many of the remaining Hay films were due out in another box
set from a different
company Canal+, but have been delayed, according to the following Will Hay
website:
http://www.totalcress.co.uk/willhay/willhayreleases.html
Even so, Hay is doing better in the UK than W.C.Fields (to make that
comparison again)
is doing here in the US on the DVD front. Some of Hay's films (including Oh,
Mister Porter!)
have actually been out on DVD twice already!!!
Bill Coleman
----------------
"John Aldrich" <jazz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:muoelvodnt5jkjbum...@4ax.com...
John Aldrich
<repro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It was great seeing Clara Bow play a Helen Twelvetrees part in KICK IN.
>She wasn;t her usual sexy self, but she showed she had the acting chops,
>and the film was a beautifully photographed film-noir(more proof for the
>boneheads who say there are no film-noirs before the forties).
Well, in this case, the boneheads would be correct.
Since it was in the mid-1940's that some French critics first applied
the term "Film Noir" to describe a particular genre of films that
started to appear from Hollywood, by definition, a film from 1931
would not qualify.
While it is certainly true that earlier films may contain elements of
Film Noir, it is generally accepted that the Noir period did not begin
until the 1940's.
In any event, KICK IN, even if it had been made 15 years later, would
not even come close to qualifying as Film Noir...it is missing too
many of the key elements...such as the subjective point of view, low
key lighting and deep focus photography (amongst many others).
--John A.
Richard M Roberts
Ah John, you keep sticking to your stereotype and hang out with the
boneheads. Who made up these so-called rules to describe film noir? KICK
IN was full of low-key lighting and deep focus. And why does a film have
to have a subjective point of view to be a film noir? As far as I'm
concerned, DOCKS OF NEW YORK and UNDERWORLD are film noirs. Any crime
drama shot atmospherically that features dark themes is a film noir. It
was a consious style that began in the late twenties (late twenties,
heck, I'd qualify OUTSIDE THE LAW as a film noir) and continued to
develop into the sixties. Bring on the film-noir sheriff to say nay!
RICHARD M ROBERTS
John Aldrich
<repro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As far as I'm
>concerned, DOCKS OF NEW YORK and UNDERWORLD are film noirs. Any crime
>drama shot atmospherically that features dark themes is a film noir.
>
>
>RICHARD M ROBERTS
Well, that's the whole problem. If you use that broad of a
definition, the term Film Noir loses all usefulness as a way to
describe certain types of films.
Crime dramas by definition feature dark scenes. Shot atmospherically
is subjective and takes in a lot of ground.
By your definition a crime film pretty much equals Film Noir, which
then begs the question: Why use the term Film Noir at all?
CITIZEN KANE is shot atmospherically and features crooked politicians,
so is it Film Noir?
KICK IN is not Film Noir. Only a bonehead would claim that it is.
--John A.
Brent Walker
Since the term "film noir" was a subjective phrase to begin with, we
probably need a new word to describe the very distinctive cycle of
films that occured starting in 1944 (with DOUBLE INDEMNITY, MURDER MY
SWEET, PHANTOM LADY, etc.) and ended around 1959. Obviously "film
noir" isn't the word because I've seen it applied to everything from M
to TAXI DRIVER. Personally I saw KICK IN as being a (lesser) product
of the early 30's cycle of tough crime films, manifested by LITTLE
CAESAR, PUBLIC ENEMY, SCARFACE, I WAS A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG,
BEAST OF THE CITY, etc. These films were obviously influential on
what became film noir (as were German Expressionism, pulp fiction,
World War II combat experience and subsequent disillusionment, etc.),
but still didn't yet have all the elements that made the late
40's/early 50's films distinctive. Randy Skretvedt has said he's read
several comtemporary reviews from the late 40's where films like OUT
OF THE PAST were referred to as "red meat." Maybe we should start
calling those post-World War II films from 1944-1959 "red meat," and
leave the "film noir" monicker to everything made before or after that
period that have some elements but not the whole enchilada (or
whatever French film critics want it to mean, since they invented it).
Brent Walker
John Aldrich
wrote:
>
>Since the term "film noir" was a subjective phrase to begin with, we
>probably need a new word to describe the very distinctive cycle of
>films that occured starting in 1944 (with DOUBLE INDEMNITY, MURDER MY
>SWEET, PHANTOM LADY, etc.) and ended around 1959. Obviously "film
>noir" isn't the word because I've seen it applied to everything from M
>to TAXI DRIVER. Personally I saw KICK IN as being a (lesser) product
>of the early 30's cycle of tough crime films, manifested by LITTLE
>CAESAR, PUBLIC ENEMY, SCARFACE, I WAS A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG,
>BEAST OF THE CITY, etc. These films were obviously influential on
>what became film noir (as were German Expressionism, pulp fiction,
>World War II combat experience and subsequent disillusionment, etc.),
>but still didn't yet have all the elements that made the late
>40's/early 50's films distinctive. Randy Skretvedt has said he's read
>several comtemporary reviews from the late 40's where films like OUT
>OF THE PAST were referred to as "red meat." Maybe we should start
>calling those post-World War II films from 1944-1959 "red meat," and
>leave the "film noir" monicker to everything made before or after that
>period that have some elements but not the whole enchilada (or
>whatever French film critics want it to mean, since they invented it).
>
>Brent Walker
The term Film Noir shouldn't really be all that subjective, and it
only becomes confusing when it misused, as it is in this case.
When I took film courses in college (which I admit was quite some time
ago) there were some pretty strict definitions that were used in
determining if a film qualified as Noir. Admittedly, those
definitions have been stretched and contorted over the years, but the
basic principals have not changed.
The intro to the book A GIRL AND A GUN contains a nice overview
description of what makes a noir..and what doesn't.
It doesn't make any difference whether you use the words Noir, Red
Meat, or... For it to be useful, it has to have a definition.
Since the French critics in the 1940's were actually pretty specific
in their descriptions, and it is their terminology, if we are going to
appropriate their word, it behooves us to stick with their definition.
--John A.
Max Nineteennineteen
do think there is something lost when you can call any movie with
shadows in it a "film noir."
I have a hard time with seeing any movie before Le Jour Se Leve as
being true film noir, just because I do believe noir begins in the
late 30s and comes out of two wellsprings-- hardboiled fiction and
French poetic realism which was, in turn, a revival of German
Expressionist styles. There are many films before that that are
"proto-noir" in that they have strong noirish characteristics. But
they usually don't have the hardboiled attitude.
The real defining characteristic I think comes from the fact that noir
almost always refuses to moralize in a way that suggests that reform
is possible-- a key inheritance from hardboiled fiction. Society is
sick and the individual is weak in a true noir. That's why Pandora's
Box, which is shadowy and about a femme fatale, is almost but not
quite noir, because it accepts Victorian notions of the fallen woman
and her just end. A loose dame may get it in a noir but that's just
because she played a risky game and lost (you play the black and it
comes up red). It's why Fury, which comes very close to noir, is
ultimately a social problem picture with an unusually tough feel to
it, but is not a noir. It's why the first Maltese Falcon turns more
conventional and softhearted at the end, and the third hangs tough
with Hammett's original ending (though still cuts the very last
scene). It's why it's The Sin of Nora Moran, but The Strange Love of
Martha Ivers. One was a moral failing, the other a psychological
condition.
So anyway. "Proto-noir" for what's before '38-41, because what's
interesting is often (as with Fury) the way it gets close to noir but
isn't quite the same thing as Double Indemnity. And "neo-noir" for
movies which are made consciously referencing the noir era, which
certainly is true of almost any noir made after 1960 (although I could
see an argument that a movie like, say, John Frankenheimer's Seconds
has all the characteristics of noir but no sign whatsoever that it's
trying to evoke a past period or genre).
There, the Lawgiver has spoken. No, seriously, you can call things
whatever you want, but to me there's an essential difference between
1935, 1945 and 1965 that this division reflects.
Flying A
Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> Ray Griffith might have prospered as a supporting/cameo clown with
> his lack of voice but not as a star.
I'm going to put my rusty speech and hearing degree to use. Raymond
Griffith's voice sounded as if his vocal folds ("vocal cords" to those of you
without S&H degrees) weren't vibrating.
Jack Klugman's voice is due to one vocal fold being paralyzed. But there
didn't appear to be any voicing or vibration in the larynx with Raymond
Griffith. I'm guessing complete vocal fold paralysis.
Nancy
Richard M Roberts
>
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:20:37 GMT, Richard M Roberts
> <repro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > As far as I'm
> >concerned, DOCKS OF NEW YORK and UNDERWORLD are film noirs. Any crime
> >drama shot atmospherically that features dark themes is a film noir.
> >
> >
> >RICHARD M ROBERTS
>
> Well, that's the whole problem. If you use that broad of a
> definition, the term Film Noir loses all usefulness as a way to
> describe certain types of films.
Speak for yourself. Maybe you just need to add other adjectives to make
it 1920's Film Noir, or 1930's Film Noir. English, what a useful
language!
>
> Crime dramas by definition feature dark scenes. Shot atmospherically
> is subjective and takes in a lot of ground.
>
> By your definition a crime film pretty much equals Film Noir, which
> then begs the question: Why use the term Film Noir at all?
You asked it, I didn't. Frankly, I hate labelling genres like that, when
so many styles are interconnected, but if you're going to,you'd better
expand the ranges of the term to take in all the historic and esthetic
background you can, or what ever theory you're trying to attach to a
style is going to be dishonest.
>
> CITIZEN KANE is shot atmospherically and features crooked politicians,
> so is it Film Noir?
Yes it is actually, and it's the film that had so much of the technique
that the makers of film noirs in the late forties and early fifties
copied in their pictures that it should get some credit. Frankly, it is
a detective film, using dark themes and subjective photography.
>
> KICK IN is not Film Noir. Only a bonehead would claim that it is.
Only a bonehead (or a Cahiers du Cinema worshiper, same thing really)
would pretend that a genre sprang up in a prescribed period fully
blossomed without years of development, flirtation, and experimentation
with themes that fit into that genre.
Film Noir styles developed slowly as the movie industry discovered the
crime fiction that had come into vogue with the writers from BLACK MASK
and other publications. WW1 and later, the Depression brought more
fatalistic attitudes into both Print Fiction and Filmmaking, and one can
find the themes associated with Film Noir in numerous films from the
twenties and thirties, a well as numerous camera and acting styles that
would be absorbed into what one might label the Golden Age of Film Noir,
but certainly not the ONLY Age of Film Noir.
It's like saying screwball comedy sprang up fully formed with IT
HAPPENED ONE NIGHT or TWENTIETH CENTURY, without acknowledging all the
two-reel comedies and situation comedies that came before it(and
Restoration Comedies and stage farces that came before that) that
enabled the styles to finally blend into things like MY MAN GODFREY and
the like. Somebody can say it, and write it in a book, but it really
just shows that they have lot more films they need to watch.
There was no word that came down from on high(or the Breen Office) that
said: WE ARE NOW GOING TO MAKE FILM NOIRS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY WILL
HAVE TO ENTAIL TO HAVE THAT STAMP. It took years and years of working
around the style to create the style, and those films that trace that
development have to be considered as well, if you really want to learn
anything about what they arrived at in the so-called "Golden Age". Just
because some idiot film historian decided to set some rigid rules about
what he thought a film noir was doesn't mean I or anyone has to accept
it.( Kinda like those looneys who think the World was created in seven
days because it says so in a book ).
KICK IN is definitely an early film noir, and you Aldrich are definitely
a bonehead. But you didn't become a bonehead overnight, it took years of
experimentation and development, and I'm not sure you're even a prime
example of the Golden Age of Boneheads, which I'm beginning to believe
we're living in.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Max Nineteennineteen
Richard Roberts sledgehammer. What do you have to do around here to
get mugged?
Seriously, although much of what he says is true, I think there's a
point where terms like film noir cease being modified and start being
abused. The Musketeers of Pig Alley has been described as noir. That
would evidently mean that it managed to predate all the artistic
movements that led to the main flowering of noir 30 years later, to
anticipate (even invent) German Expressionism and hardboiled fiction--
quite a remarkable film if it were true, which of course, it isn't
remotely. I don't see how even modifying it as, say, "Victorian noir"
(!) or "Biograph noir" or something helps. I think what helps is not
bending the term noir beyond the point where it ceases to mean
anything, and acknowledging that someone has imprecisely used "noir"
because all they think noir means is "has to do with crime and is
filmed in a relatively realistic setting."
Richard M Roberts
The problem is more with historians who want to think something is new
or original to a certain period, when there is really little new under
the sun in the movie or entertainment business in general. The truth is
that the traits in film noir do go back to the beginning of film, and
you learn far more broadening the spectrum than being narrowly focused.
Just like westerns, which go back to THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY and
further, the interest in crime goes back to the beginning of the
industry. You have to remember that the labelling of a "genre" is an
after-the-fact bit of nonsense made by parties who had nothing to do
with the original films, so should be taken with a grain of salt.
The minute you try to apply rigid rules like " there were no films that
used subjective camerawork before 1941" you'd better be ready to be
proved wrong when the exceptions appear. I know it's hard for a interest
that seems to appeal to anal-retentives in general to be less rigid
about these sorts of labels, but it is a good thing really.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Christopher Snowden
> Christopher Snowden wrote:
> > SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE BERYL CORONET: This silent two-reel adaptation of
> > a Conan Doyle story worked a lot better than I thought it would. I
> > wonder how Doyle liked it?
> >
>
> I've been waiting to hear more about this one. Was it a Stahl/Eillie
> Norwood one? That's the only one in IMDB. Was it better than the others
> seen so far? (I've only seen the handful that are on video, and they are
> kind of on the dull side)
I don't remember who was in the cast. Really, this short wasn't
without its flaws (a bad performance from the female lead, for one).
But there were two things that impressed me. The first was the
appropriately English flavor the film had. American-made Sherlock
Holmes films, good or bad, never feel authentically English to me, but
this two-reeler was the real deal. The other thing I liked was the
adaptation. The screenwriter, whoever he was, condensed a Doyle story,
simplified it, emphasized the action and de-emphasized the dialogue,
and made a good little silent movie out of it. That's not an easy
trick.
I hadn't read "The Beryl Coronet" in over twenty years, so I'd
forgotten the plot when I saw the film. I was surprised when the
greasy tramp turned out to be Holmes in disguise! The actor playing
him did a great job with that. I'd like to see more of these
two-reelers.
Chris Snowden
Neil Midkiff
Richard's responses to Max's post (of which the quote above is the second)
don't really address the heart of Max's proposal of a useful definition of
noir.
Paraphrased to the best of my understanding, he tells Max that 'no genre
arrives fully formed without a basis in film history' and 'rigid
definitions about when technical innovations created a new style are
usually wrong'.
But Max never argued that noir was defined by its photographic technique -
in fact just the opposite, as when he said "I do think there is something
lost when you can call any movie with shadows in it a 'film noir.'"
Max's post is valuable because he gets to the philosophical and moral
roots of the noir attitude, which he traces from literary roots outside
the mainstream of film history:
>>>The real defining characteristic I think comes from the fact that noir
>>>almost always refuses to moralize in a way that suggests that reform
>>>is possible-- a key inheritance from hardboiled fiction. Society is
>>>sick and the individual is weak in a true noir.
The darkness of these films is in the minds of the writers and directors,
not in the sparseness of the lighting nor the length of time the film
spent in the developing tank. The shadowy technique supports the
fundamental pessimism of the story, but it doesn't *create* the attitude.
-Neil Midkiff
Harlett O'Dowd
French film scholars who recognized a trend in post-war american film-making
and named it noir did not have the luxury we have today of seeing those
films alongside the half-century of output which preceeded it.
Noir is a nice label to give film students and say "Look! here are a bunch
of films you can lump together because they share common traits." Same for
the auteur theory. Yes, you can see Hitchcock traits in some/most/all of his
films. You can also see additional auteur traits from the studios in which
he worked and the imput of other artists (Bernard Herman, Jimmy Stewart)
with whom he worked often but not always.
Pre-code is an easy, user-friendly way to describe sound films made before
mid-1934. However, Fairbanks' butt shot in THE HALF-BREED would never have
been allowed in a post-34 film. Does that make it pre-code? In the
broadest sense of the term, yes.
Immitation is the sincerest form of plagurism and film history is full of
it. No genre or trend or whatever ever sprung up over night and the more we
get to see vintage film the more we get to see where, consciously or
unconsciously, the film-makers of the 30s, 40s and right up to today learned
their craft by watching film in their youth.
Frankly, for many AMSers, terms like Film Noir have little if any use. The
question arises, because of a better understanding of the continuum of film
styles from the earliest silents through today, are these mid-century
theories and terms really valid anymore, even when teaching basic film
theory to those discovering vintage film for the first time?
I offer no answers here but it seems to me we either accept a stringent
textbook definition of these terms to describe films made in a certain
rigidly defined time period or use the existence of films like KICK IN as
proof these old terms are no longer valid theories. In either case no, KICK
IN is not a noir film.
John Aldrich
<repro...@earthlink.net> wrote (in essence):
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
Rich, since the overall theory of Film Noir and it's precepts are
obviously too complex for you to get a handle on, perhaps you could
start slowly with a scaled down discussion of one of the simpler
aspects. Try this out:
http://members.aol.com/bobbuttman/bowlingnoir/bowlingnoir.htm
If the concept of the importance of bowling in Film Noir is still too
deep for you, I'm sure there are folks on a.m.s. who'll be glad to
explain it to you.
--John A.
Dr. Giraud
or original to a certain period, when there is really little new under
the sun in the movie or entertainment business in general.>>
True. Eminem is as lousy an actor as Elvis Presley. But Eminem, master of his
fate in a way the Elvis never was, held out for Curtis Hanson instead of a
Norman Taurog, and starred in a decent film without being asked to do any more
than he was capable of.
<<The truth is
that the traits in film noir do go back to the beginning of film, and
you learn far more broadening the spectrum than being narrowly focused. >>
"Traits," yes. But noir was coined as a specific term for a specific genre of
film. While there are pre-code elements of films of the 20s, and in films of
the late 60s after the code was smashed, we all know what a pre-code film is.
Shawn Stone
Max Nineteennineteen
period, because I think that points to a number of interesting things
that changed during that time period:
1) German Expressionist look. Overwhelmingly ghettoized in the horror
genre (often by the very same practitioners of it, e.g. Karl Freund)
during the 1930s. Why? Because people didn't want to make talkies
that looked like those moldy old "poetic" silents. Only in the horror
genre is moldiness an asset. C. 1938, French "poetic realism" applies
it to the crime genre (prompting some B imitators like The Stranger on
the Third Floor and, even earlier, Panama Lady); Citizen Kane uses it
a year or two later in a straight drama (a newspaper movie no less,
the quintessential 30s genre), and suddenly it's back, substantially
freed of its silent/horror associations.
2) Society IS the problem. To me this is the key difference between a
gangster movie of the 30s and one of the 40s. A 30s gangster is an
aberration, the shame of a nation, a problem to be cleaned up with New
Deal idealism and vigor. A 40s gangster is a smooth operator who's
gotten ahead in this rotten world. Often he has everyone from cops to
governors on his payroll. Sometimes (e.g. Force of Evil) there's the
explicit question raised-- so what is the difference between the good
guys and the bad guys, anyway?
There are certainly others (the difference between the Blondellian
moll and the Stanwyckian peroxide femme fatalle, for instance) but
these changes are the kind of thing that you can only readily identify
if you start by thinking of noir as belonging to a certain era. Yes,
there are films from before that share certain characteristics,
balance on the edge of being noir. But the point of a genre is that
certain things are happening repeatedly across multiple films. That's
how film noir, the genre, belongs to a time period which has its
earliest stirrings in 1938 or so (I would date it specifically to the
international success of Le Jour se Leve) and particularly kicks into
high gear after the one-two punch of Citizen Kane and The Maltese
Falcon in 1941.
Bruce Calvert
Flying A stated...
Raymond Griffith contracted diphtheria as a child and apparently this caused
paralysis of his vocal chords. He never publicly talked about the diphtheria,
apparently because it is a disease of poverty. The source of his lost voice was
the first question that I asked his relatives when I tracked them down.
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.comcast.net/~silentfilm/home.htm
Remove the "xspam" to reply
Richard M Roberts
>
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:39:55 GMT, Richard M Roberts
> <repro...@earthlink.net> wrote (in essence):
>
> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
Ah, the emotional maturity of the man, I rest the Bonehaed case.
>
> Rich, since the overall theory of Film Noir and it's precepts are
> obviously too complex for you to get a handle on,
The classic defense when the emperors clothes are questioned. The French
also think I'm incapable of understanding the sensitive subleties of
Jerry Lewis.
perhaps you could
> start slowly with a scaled down discussion of one of the simpler
> aspects. Try this out:
>
> http://members.aol.com/bobbuttman/bowlingnoir/bowlingnoir.htm
This is cute, but it illustrates my arguement perfectly. This is
frankly as valid an opinion as the Cahiers du Cimema nonsense, and just
as skewed, if at least, only in jest (I like the Rita Hayworth with
bowling ball shot though).
>
> If the concept of the importance of bowling in Film Noir is still too
> deep for you, I'm sure there are folks on a.m.s. who'll be glad to
> explain it to you.
Thats okay, I have a life, apparently unlike others, which is also why
I'm cutting this fascinating discussion short. Believe what others tell
you John, it's easier than thinking. I still say the precedences of Film
Noir go back to the beginning of filmmaking, and that the French et all
can try to make any rules after the fact to fit their ludicrous
theories, but the films themselves prove them wrong.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Richard M Roberts
>
> I think what is getting lost in all this "is it or isn't it" debate is the
> French film scholars who recognized a trend in post-war american film-making
> and named it noir did not have the luxury we have today of seeing those
> films alongside the half-century of output which preceeded it.
Which mean the French could have seen them at the time if they had
bothered to to look at them.
>
> Noir is a nice label to give film students and say "Look! here are a bunch
> of films you can lump together because they share common traits."
Yes, what they says is that in the forties and fifties, the cliche's
that made up the "film-noir" style had become so set in place that they
were considered the form. That doesn't mean that the whole creative
cycle of the form begins and ends there. It just means that Hollywood
made so many films were made with guys in topcoats and fedoras, smoking
in half-shadows as they dealt with murderous molls and crooked cops and
the corrupt system. It's also ridiculous to say that these films
represent their era's as a lot of the books these noir classics were
based on were written in the thirties. The best one might say is that
the so-called "film-noir" films of the forties and fifties were just
another variation of the long-lifed crime/detective thriller genre that
was so stylistically standardized that even the French can discover
similarities in their execution. But to consider the forties and
fifties "film noirs" to be a genre in and of them selves in downright
codswallop.
Same for
> the auteur theory. Yes, you can see Hitchcock traits in some/most/all of his
> films. You can also see additional auteur traits from the studios in which
> he worked and the imput of other artists (Bernard Herman, Jimmy Stewart)
> with whom he worked often but not always.
But this is where the Auteur theory completely falls apart. You can't
have more than one auteur on a picture, and anyone who has ever worked
on a film knows damn well that no one person, director or otherwise, can
be the total author of a picture, no matter how much credit they try to
hog. Hitchcocks's best films are written by strong screenwriters like
Angus Mcphail, or in collaboration with good writers like Raymond
Chandler, Thornton Wilder, Robert Bloch and Joseph Stefano, etc., and
have strong, talented stars in them. Most of Howard Hawk's best pictures
are written by Jules Furthman. Even Chaplin and Welles
had their assistants( Welles himself copped that directing is really
one of the easiest jobs on a picture if all the other talents are
strong) .
>
> Pre-code is an easy, user-friendly way to describe sound films made before
> mid-1934. However, Fairbanks' butt shot in THE HALF-BREED would never have
> been allowed in a post-34 film. Does that make it pre-code? In the
> broadest sense of the term, yes.
Well, technically, yes, everything made before 1934 is a Pre-Code Film.
>
> Immitation is the sincerest form of plagurism and film history is full of
> it. No genre or trend or whatever ever sprung up over night and the more we
> get to see vintage film the more we get to see where, consciously or
> unconsciously, the film-makers of the 30s, 40s and right up to today learned
> their craft by watching film in their youth.
>
> Frankly, for many AMSers, terms like Film Noir have little if any use. The
> question arises, because of a better understanding of the continuum of film
> styles from the earliest silents through today, are these mid-century
> theories and terms really valid anymore, even when teaching basic film
> theory to those discovering vintage film for the first time?
I agree that it's nice to have nice, easy catch-phrases to generally
sum-up certain periods and genres, as long as we don't try to hold
slavishly to these terms when the facts present otherwise against them.
We must remember that the rules really are that there are no rules, and
that after-the-fact theorizing is always suspect. Despite what academics
might want to shoehole the movie industry into decades and forms, it was
all one continuous wash, and to look at it that way makes the gradual
changes much more interesting.
>
> I offer no answers here but it seems to me we either accept a stringent
> textbook definition of these terms to describe films made in a certain
> rigidly defined time period or use the existence of films like KICK IN as
> proof these old terms are no longer valid theories.
I believe in the latter.
In either case no, KICK
> IN is not a noir film.
In any case, KICK IN is DEFINITELY a noir film.....
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Harlett O'Dowd
"Richard M Roberts" <repro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F5B65...@earthlink.net...
> Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
> >
> > I think what is getting lost in all this "is it or isn't it" debate is
the
> > French film scholars who recognized a trend in post-war american
film-making
> > and named it noir did not have the luxury we have today of seeing those
> > films alongside the half-century of output which preceeded it.
>
>
> Which mean the French could have seen them at the time if they had
> bothered to to look at them.
OK, now I'm confused. Are you suggesting the French in 1945 had the same
access to american films from 1895-1944 on video, tv, and festival/archival
screenings as we do today with TCM, DVD and Cinecon, etc?
Did the french have ANY access to current american releases during the years
of occupation? Would they have not gone back into the cinema remembering
recent american releases like THE WIZARD OF OZ and seeing new american
product like THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE? If that was the case, I can
understand (short-term memory) how they came up with the noir theory.
That doesn't make it right, of course. It's basically the same idea as the
fable of the blind men and the elephant.
> I agree that it's nice to have nice, easy catch-phrases to generally
> sum-up certain periods and genres, as long as we don't try to hold
> slavishly to these terms when the facts present otherwise against them.
> We must remember that the rules really are that there are no rules, and
> that after-the-fact theorizing is always suspect. Despite what academics
> might want to shoehole the movie industry into decades and forms, it was
> all one continuous wash, and to look at it that way makes the gradual
> changes much more interesting.
Richard, I think we basically agree on this and that the French theory of
noir is shoddy academics at best. Given that, I don't understand why you
would choose to look at a film like KICK IN and say "look, this is noir as
well" instead of "see, this negates the whole silly noir period because it
IS a continuum, not a filmic flavor of the month." The latter to me would
seem to hold more academic weight and make a more convincing argument to
those who steadfastly hold onto the validity of the old and not
terribly-accurate theories.
John Aldrich
Right. You can't on the one hand dismiss the whole idea of Film Noir
as a category of films and then at the same time, assign the Film Noir
label to every crime film from The Musketeers of Pig Alley on.
First of all, it is a misrepresentation to claim that the French
critics are responsible for this mess...if you actually read their
writings (particularly Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton) you will
see that their descriptions are quite precise and clearly defined.
(See "A Panorama of American Film Noir 1941-53", which has been
reprinted as recently as last year. It is widely considered a classic
piece of film criticism.)
Whatever confusion there is comes from later attempts to include more
films under the Film Noir umbrella than was ever intended by the
critics who first identified Noir and gave it a name.
The very popularity of the theory of Film Noir is what has worked
against it's being used in it's original intention. Virtually every
university with a Film Department now offers courses in Film Noir.
Here in Phoenix, you can take a Film Noir course at a local community
college. (Perhaps Richard might benefit from that).
The American Cinematheque holds a massive Noir Festival annually, and
it is extremely well attended. Also, this past Summer, extensive
Noir Festivals were held in Palm Springs, Santa Fe and elsewhere..
With all this attention and focus, it is natural that the boundaries
and definitions are going to get stretched a bit.
However, if you need help defining what is or isn't Noir, look into
the Cinematheque Festivals and the programming done by Eddie Muller.
He also wrote two of the best books on Noir: "Dark City: The Lost
World of Film Noir" and "Dark City Dames: The Wicked Women of Film
Noir".
Certainly, influences abound throughout the history of film. But,
just because Keith Richards always names Robert Johnson as a major
influence on his guitar playing, that doesn't make Robert Johnson a
rock and roll guitarist.
Similarly, while Lang's M may be the ultimate expression of German
Expressionism, and it certainly influenced later Noir films, that
doesn't make M an example of Film Noir.
As far as KICK IN is concerned, I seriously doubt it influenced
anybody. And it is no more FIlm Noir than HORSEFEATHERS.
Which is where I came in...
--John A.
Precode
> I hate to say it, because Bob, Mike and the rest do a tremendous (and
> much-appreciated) job putting the convention together, but this was my
> least-favorite Cinecon, of the seven or eight that I've been to.
> However, I had to leave before getting to see THE SIDESHOW, which
> turned out to be the hit of the weekend! Here's my review:
>
> (snip)
>
> This year, there was no "warhorse" classic at Cinecon, and
> nothing that I'd call a great film (though, again, I didn't see the
> universally-loved THE SIDESHOW). It was a mix of pretty good films and
> pretty disappointing films, the weakest program I've seen at a
> Cinecon. Oh well. When Cinecon sets out to be a festival of obscure
> films, as opposed to a festival of classic films, you have to expect
> that.
The lack of a Franklin title wasn't intentional, ditto the lack of a
color film (save the SINGIN' IN THE RAIN clip); that's just the way
the sked finally worked out. Since next year is our Big 4-0, we'll
undoubtedly do some big-ass repeats.
>
> During the business meeting, Bob said that attendance was shaping
> up to be on a par with last year's, and I'll take his word for it...
> but it sure seemed like there were more empty seats at the Egyptian
> this year. I know of at least four Cinecon regulars who chose not to
> come this year, because the film schedule didn't interest them enough.
> And I know other film buffs who *used* to go to Cinecon, but no longer
> do, because when the schedule is announced each year and they can't
> find anything listed that they've ever heard of, they choose to stay
> home rather than take a chance. During the meeting, a Cinephile or two
> proposed showing more films, and more films that are highly-regarded,
> and the suggestion was basically dismissed, as happens here in the
> newsgroup.
I don't buy that "never heard of" argument. The ratio of good to bad
is very, very high; why would anyone skip a film because they hadn't
heard of it? That doesn't mean it's no good. And even if it stinks, so
what? You've still had a chance to see it. Or go visit the dealers'
room. You must remember that 2/3 of our attendees are from out of
town, and they're not going to spent hundreds of dollars and fly
thousands of miles to see stuff they've already seen or even own. The
whole point of this thing is to show pictures that can't be seen
anywhere else.
>
> Cinecon can keep going on this course, and I'll keep attending
> every year, but I don't see how it will thrive in the future this way.
> I believe that the average lover of vintage films wants to see
> pictures and stars that he's familiar with. Cinecon seems to be
> devoted to obscure films that no one else is willing to show, and
> that's fine, but in pursuing this course the Cinephiles are catering
> to a fringe group within an audience that's pretty small to begin with
> (and steadily shrinking besides, as the oldsters who grew up on these
> films die out).
>
> Chris Snowden
There's no question it's a problem, especially when you're dealing
with a generation that considers Paul Newman and Steve McQueen old
news. But becoming the film-convention equivalent of AMC is certain
doom. Elsewhere on this thread, we were sarcastically asked if in 15
years we'd be honoring Al Pacino. The answer, of course, is no. As we
run out of potential guests, we'll simply have to terminate that part
of the program. Our rule of thumb is, no movies made after 1939 (or
1945 if it's a late show and/or particuarly hard-to-see) unless
there's a guest attached, and even then, we go for extremely rare
titles, and we still haven't gone past 1956--which is 47 years ago!
Lawrence Bulk made his annual diatribe about not showing anything made
after 7/1/34, when the Code went into effect--which is simply insane.
But to arbitrarily veto a picture because it's too "recent" (whatever
that could mean) is equally nuts. We're going to continue to show the
best and rarest films we can, and try to present as balanced a program
as possible. It's inevitable that not everyone will be pleased by what
we've done, but that's all part of the game, and we accept it.
Mike S.
Check it out: www.lostskeleton.com
John Aldrich
(Precode) wrote:
>unk...@yahoo.com (Christopher Snowden) wrote in message news:<216855b2.03090...@posting.google.com>...
>> I hate to say it, because Bob, Mike and the rest do a tremendous (and
>> much-appreciated) job putting the convention together, but this was my
>> least-favorite Cinecon, of the seven or eight that I've been to.
>> However, I had to leave before getting to see THE SIDESHOW, which
>> turned out to be the hit of the weekend! Here's my review:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> This year, there was no "warhorse" classic at Cinecon, and
>> nothing that I'd call a great film (though, again, I didn't see the
>> universally-loved THE SIDESHOW). It was a mix of pretty good films and
>> pretty disappointing films, the weakest program I've seen at a
>> Cinecon. Oh well. When Cinecon sets out to be a festival of obscure
>> films, as opposed to a festival of classic films, you have to expect
>> that.
>
>The lack of a Franklin title wasn't intentional, ditto the lack of a
>color film (save the SINGIN' IN THE RAIN clip); that's just the way
>the sked finally worked out. Since next year is our Big 4-0, we'll
>undoubtedly do some big-ass repeats.
It makes me squirm when a discussion of repeats at the Cinecon always
gets boiled down to Joe Franklin titles and "warhorse' classics.
It is fine to schedule those when appropriate. When it's not, don't.
They are certainly available enough that nobody can complain when they
aren't shown every year.
Forget those for the moment.
But, it bothers me that many worthy titles that aren't necessarily Joe
Franklin titles get rejected because they were shown at Cinefest in
1979 or at Cinecon in 1985. That is ridiculous!
How many people were at Cinecon this year that have regularly attended
Cinecon, Cinefest, and Cinevent over the last 25 years? You can count
them on two hands (maybe even one). Go back to Cinecons 1-10 and
you can count them on two fingers.
Let me give you an example. At the Cinecon in Orlando (I think it was
1988), they ran TAKE A CHANCE (1933-Paramount). Being a huge Cliff
Edwards fan, I really wanted to see this. It's the film where he sang
(It's Only A) PAPER MOON.
Well, I can't remember what the film was that was shown opposite it,
but it was something I also really wanted to see and I decided to
forego TAKE A CHANCE, figuring I could always catch up with it later.
Well, as you can guess, the other film was a stiff and about 1/2 the
way through, I gave up and moved over to catch the last 15 minutes of
TAKE A CHANCE. I instantly realized I had made a huge mistake.
It's 25 years later, and I STILL haven't seen TAKE A CHANCE, despite
having attended vintage film conventions pretty regularly.
Of course, this is a specific example and I'm sure Jon Mirsalis can
shoot holes in it, by pointing out that it was shown somewhere in
between. Or by pointing out that it is a lousy film.
But, looking at the bigger picture, there are zillions of examples of
films like that...for me and for other Cinephiles, both new and old.
That is why the Cinevent approach to programming always made
sense to me...program films that are entertaining and particularly
good examples of certain types of movies. If it is rare (whatever
that means) so much the better. But, that isn't the #1 priority.
Because let's face it, what is rare to Frederica is not necessarily
what is rare to Jon Mirsalis.
I always come away from Cinevent feeling I have seen some great
examples of !920's and 1930's movies. I come away from Cinecon
feeling like I have seen some rare stuff in 35mm. Boy, if only the
two could be combined!
And please don't tell me to write the Cinecon committee and suggest
titles. I've done that and the response is always: WE'VE ALREADY
SHOWN THAT!
--John A.
Harlett O'Dowd
> That is why the Cinevent approach to programming always made
> sense to me...program films that are entertaining and particularly
> good examples of certain types of movies. If it is rare (whatever
> that means) so much the better. But, that isn't the #1 priority.
> Because let's face it, what is rare to Frederica is not necessarily
> what is rare to Jon Mirsalis.
First priority, I feel is, or at least should be, what's new on the
saving/restoration list. If a previously thought to be lost film has been
found and a new 35 print has been struck - that puts it to the top of the
Cinecon list. If there's a new Brownlow/Davis restoration of an old
favorite but the new print is GORGEOUS and there are no immediate DVD/TCM
deals (in the US, anyway) in the works, this should go to the head of the
class and be *sold* to those who want to catch up on the basic literature
they may have missed or want to see again in 35 with an appreciative
audience.
Next should come the films for guests. In the best of all possible worlds,
the majority of guests would have at least started their careers in the
1930s (Maureen O'Hara) to avoid TOO much bellyaching from those who have
been there and done that. I have to admit to being a bit disappointed in
the number of guests this year but was delighted they were all interesting
and well worth having. I am sure there are a ton of variables that go into
the whole guest thing but hopefully we can rustle up five to six a year for
the next decade or so while they are still with us.
Add next the educational bits (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN restoration demo),
premieres/works-in-progress (Olive Thomas doc), the serial(s), Mr. Roberts'
Comedy Cavalcade and, one would hope, in an average year the Cinecon
planners would already be over the half-way point in programming.
Finally, after all that's done hopefully the holes can be filled in with the
something-for-everyone rule of thumb - with an effort to balance the
silent/sound ratio, western/drama/comedy/musical ratio and a nice balance of
shorts.
In a perfect world, this is how I would like to think Cinecon is programmed.
If it is anything close to this, Bob et al might stave off some of the
yearly bellyaching by including the reason WHY a film was chosen in the
program notes for ALL programs that would be applicable to such an
explanation.
Christopher Snowden
> Christopher Snowden wrote:
> > I know of at least four Cinecon regulars who chose not to
> > come this year, because the film schedule didn't interest them enough.
> > And I know other film buffs who *used* to go to Cinecon, but no longer
> > do, because when the schedule is announced each year and they can't
> > find anything listed that they've ever heard of, they choose to stay
> > home rather than take a chance. During the meeting, a Cinephile or two
> > proposed showing more films, and more films that are highly-regarded,
> > and the suggestion was basically dismissed, as happens here in the
> > newsgroup.
>
> I don't buy that "never heard of" argument.
Nevertheless, it's the truth. In fact, the guy who took me to my
first Cinecon doesn't go to the convention anymore for exactly that
reason.
> The ratio of good to bad
> is very, very high; why would anyone skip a film because they hadn't
> heard of it? That doesn't mean it's no good.
It's not just a question of skipping a screening. It's the
question of "Do I want to buy an airline ticket, spring for several
nights in a hotel, and fly to L.A. and back so I can see a bunch of
obscure films that I may or may not like?"
No one wants to do away with the rarities. But if a quarter, or a
third of the schedule consisted of films that potential attendees
already KNOW they'd enjoy, they'd be more likely to make the trek to
Cinecon.
> And even if it stinks, so
> what? You've still had a chance to see it. Or go visit the dealers'
> room.
At the business meeting, Bob suggested that it's not a big deal
if Cinecon shows films that will be unpopular, because that would just
drive people into the dealers' rooms.
But I've bought a dealer's table at several Cinecons, and I can
tell you that if you want to please the dealers, you'll program the
schedule in a way that brings more people to the convention, and you
can't do that by booking bad films. Book more of the films that more
people want to see, and they'll come to the show. Once they're at the
show, if they have ANY interest in buying stuff, they'll hit the
dealers' rooms sooner or later.
> You must remember that 2/3 of our attendees are from out of
> town, and they're not going to spent hundreds of dollars and fly
> thousands of miles to see stuff they've already seen or even own.
No? Look at the crowds you got for SON OF PALEFACE and THE EAGLE.
A year or two ago, the best-attended film of the whole convention was
THE IRON HORSE. And when you ran THE CIRCUS, it was standing-room
only.
These crowds are telling you that the Cinephiles DO want to see
some familiar films, and they want to see them very much!
How many of us have seen KING KONG, THE BLACK PIRATE, or LITTLE
CAESAR in 35mm? I haven't, and I'd love to. Plenty of other people
would, too.
> The whole point of this thing is to show pictures that can't be seen
> anywhere else.
But is that the best way to serve the membership's interests?
When you have (what is it?) 1600 film buffs on your mailing list, and
maybe one-seventh of them pre-register? When half of the Egyptian's
seats are empty at almost every screening?
I love Cinecon and I'm not trying to imply that the convention is
a failure. But I do think you could please more people by giving them
what they want. You already know you can draw 500 or so people by
running the rarities. That's great. Now, why not draw 500 more by
running a significant number of classic titles and star vehicles as
well?
Chris Snowden
ChaneyFan
having attended vintage film conventions pretty regularly. Of course, this is
a specific example and I'm sure Jon Mirsalis can shoot holes in it, by pointing
out that it was shown somewhere in between. Or by pointing out that it is a
lousy film.
OK, I'll bite. It was shown somewhere in 1988 in 16mm, but I can't tell you
where. And it *is* a lousy picture!
>>>That is why the Cinevent approach to programming always made sense to
me...program films that are entertaining and particularly good examples of
certain types of movies. If it is rare (whatever that means) so much the
better. But, that isn't the #1 priority. Because let's face it, what is rare
to Frederica is not necessarily what is rare to Jon Mirsalis.
I agree with the concept of running some big classics again if (a) you can get
an exceptional print and (b) if silent, you do something exceptional for a
score. IRON HOSE run a couple years back was my favorite of that year, and it
was a lovely print with a fabulous new orchestral score. Likewise the gorgeous
camera neg printdown of FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE with the wonderful Robert Israel
orchestral score.
On the other hand, a festival with a whole bunch of common titles simply isn't
going to draw people in. Since much of the attendance now comes from
California, you're going to have a harder time attracting hard core buffs from
LA and San Francisco where the more common stuff shows up in 35mm all the time.
I stopped attending the Columbus Cinevent many years ago because since the
late 1980s there have never been more than about 4 titles that I had never seen
before. In contrast, Cinefest and Cinecon average 15-20 new titles I had never
seen every year. To put it simply, a weekend of THE IRON HORSE, BEAU GESTE,
THE EAGLE, and FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE (all run within the past few years at Cinecon)
simply isn't going to be interesting enough for me to leave my family for 4
days and pay for travel and lodging. Phil Carli would probably say the same.
I think there's a happy medium we can reach here. Next year is Cinecon 40 and
Bob is already talking about doing some big classic repeats. There are
typically about 24-28 slots for features or collections of shorts. I think 4-5
repeat classics, plus 4-5 films to cover guests, and then 15 rarities certainly
seems reasonable.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Richard M Roberts
>
> "Richard M Roberts" <repro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3F5B65...@earthlink.net..
> > >
> > > I think what is getting lost in all this "is it or isn't it" debate is
> the
> > > French film scholars who recognized a trend in post-war american
> film-making
> > > and named it noir did not have the luxury we have today of seeing those
> > > films alongside the half-century of output which preceeded it.
> >
> >
> > Which mean the French could have seen them at the time if they had
> > bothered to to look at them.
>
> OK, now I'm confused. Are you suggesting the French in 1945 had the same
> access to american films from 1895-1944 on video, tv, and festival/archival
> screenings as we do today with TCM, DVD and Cinecon, etc?
Well, the French weren;t writing about film noir too much in 1945, most
of the groundbreaking nonsense was written in the fifties and early
sixties, and at that time, yes, they could have seen lots of that
material. KICK IN was probably playing on the late show in an EMKA
television print in many TV Stations around the US. We see lots of
goodies today that were not so available then, but it was just as visa
versa then in terms of what was available both in Archives (especially
the Cinematheque, where Langois still had a lot of titles he failed to
preserve in time) and in general circulation. One could write volumes
regarding the ebb and flow of availability of film titles over the years
of preservation and archival history, but it boils down to the film noir
theorists did not do their homework for a variety of reasons.
>
> That doesn't make it right, of course. It's basically the same idea as the
> fable of the blind men and the elephant.
Exactly.
>
> > I agree that it's nice to have nice, easy catch-phrases to generally
> > sum-up certain periods and genres, as long as we don't try to hold
> > slavishly to these terms when the facts present otherwise against them.
> > We must remember that the rules really are that there are no rules, and
> > that after-the-fact theorizing is always suspect. Despite what academics
> > might want to shoehole the movie industry into decades and forms, it was
> > all one continuous wash, and to look at it that way makes the gradual
> > changes much more interesting.
>
> Richard, I think we basically agree on this and that the French theory of
> noir is shoddy academics at best. Given that, I don't understand why you
> would choose to look at a film like KICK IN and say "look, this is noir as
> well" instead of "see, this negates the whole silly noir period because it
> IS a continuum, not a filmic flavor of the month." The latter to me would
> seem to hold more academic weight and make a more convincing argument to
> those who steadfastly hold onto the validity of the old and not
> terribly-accurate theories.
Well, I was basically saying both in my own inimitable fashion. The
themes and some stylistic points in KICK IN are the same that you see in
forties film noir, and this fact coupled with the many other gangster
and crime films from other pre-ww2 eras that also contain those elements
does negate the rigid theories created after the fact without enough
research(or a refusal to accept the facts because it doesn't fit in with
a theory one is too in love with to change). And if it tweaks the
academics, all the better. Those cages need more rattling than most.
And it can be fun to get Aldrich frothing for awhile, although he
usually gets tiresome and never knows when to get over it.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
Harlett O'Dowd
>
> I agree with the concept of running some big classics again if (a) you can get
> an exceptional print and (b) if silent, you do something exceptional for a
> score. IRON HOSE run a couple years back was my favorite of that year, and it
> was a lovely print with a fabulous new orchestral score. Likewise the gorgeous
> camera neg printdown of FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE with the wonderful Robert Israel
> orchestral score.
My point exactly. Classics with a hook.
> I think there's a happy medium we can reach here. Next year is Cinecon 40 and
> Bob is already talking about doing some big classic repeats. There are
> typically about 24-28 slots for features or collections of shorts. I think 4-5
> repeat classics, plus 4-5 films to cover guests, and then 15 rarities certainly
> seems reasonable.
Works for me. Thanks Jon. However, *I* would like to see TAKE A
CHANCE, even if it is a stiff.
Greta de Groat
Christopher Snowden wrote:
> But is that the best way to serve the membership's interests?
> When you have (what is it?) 1600 film buffs on your mailing list, and
> maybe one-seventh of them pre-register? When half of the Egyptian's
> seats are empty at almost every screening?
>
> I love Cinecon and I'm not trying to imply that the convention is
> a failure. But I do think you could please more people by giving them
> what they want. You already know you can draw 500 or so people by
> running the rarities. That's great. Now, why not draw 500 more by
> running a significant number of classic titles and star vehicles as
> well?
>
> Chris Snowden
As a non-attendee, maybe i can add my two cents. If i lived in LA i would
just plan to go overy year, since it wouldn't be a significant expense and i'd
know and be able to plan ahead of time. I go to the SF Silent film festival
every year even though they show things i've seen and some pretty bad things i
haven't (i thought i was going to shoot myself before the end of the Alice
cartoons, but i stuck it out). I want to support silent film showings (even
though admittedly i don't get out to the Stanford or PFA for things i've
seen).
But since i don't live in LA, it is a significant expense, as someone pointed
out, to arrange plane tickets and pay for at least 4 nights in a hotel. Plus,
since we don't get the schedule until a couple of weeks before Labor Day, i'm
not confident i couldn't find out what was playing in time to not be bumped
into the higher airfare category. Plus there is taking off from work at our
busiest time of year, and arranging it far enough ahead of time so that i can
actually get permission from my boss. So the fact that the schedule comes out
so late is a real deterrent to planning ahead, which is essential if i am
going to be able to attend. I can't imagine that i am alone in this. And i'm
in California--i think if it were a cross country trip i'd be very hard
pressed to manage it unless i had very significant lead time (annoyed right
now because i didn't know about Pordenone's Mozzhukhin retrospective a year
ago so i could have made plans for an overseas trip)
And the film lineup has frankly been less interesting over the last couple of
years. The one i'm really sorry i missed was probably 97 or 98, when Salome
Jane and Martin Eden played, was well as some other interesting things..
Those are films i very much wanted to see but again i didn't find out in time
to plan. Since then there has usually been only a couple of films that i was
excited about, but not excited enough to take off and travel for. It's going
to take four or five major draws for me, unless it's something from one of my
website divas that i haven't seen (which means probably nobody else would be
interested). Along with those, i certainly wouldn't mind seeing nice prints
of warhorses as long as i was there, but wouldn't travel for them. This year
i had seen only two films on the program (The Actress and The Hot Heiress),
and two i wished i could see if i didn't have to travel for them (East Lynne
and The Fighting Blade). The rest i simply didn't care about, and after
reading your reports i still don't (and i don't think you could pay me enough
to see the Wallace Beery/Raymond Hatton film--and i'm someone who once i was
there i would attend everything)
I've been asked the last couple of years whether i would be coming, and have
always joked that if they ran a double bill of Norma Talmadge's and Clara
Kimball Young's Camilles, that would draw me. That's perhaps unfair--of
course if they happen to cater to my special interest, that would be a
significant drawing card (plus if i thought it was done at my suggestion, it
would be very boorish not to attend). My list of must-sees is probably very
personal, as i imagine is true for other folks as well. But it seems like the
Cinecon planners take the attitude that if you love films you will just plan
to come whatever they play, so they don't need to tell us what's playing. If
films were the only thing going in my life and i had no other committments,
maybe that would be true. But it's not real life for me and probably isn't
for most people. I know the planners been burned by having films be cancelled
at the last moment, and of course if it's the one you want to see it's a
tremendous disappointment. But not knowing ahead means i probably will end up
not coming at all.
I don't want to sound like i'm carping--you all do a tremendous job putting it
together. It must be a logistical nightmare. I really would like to be able
to come sometime (i even have a wardrobe now--though i'm still working on the
foot long cigarette holder)
greta
John Aldrich
Thanks for posting this, Greta. I couldn't agree more.
Yes, the late announcement of the schedule is a real deterrent to me,
also.
After having missed only one Cinecon from 1973-1994, I stopped going
in recent years. I know at least ten other people that stopped
attending Cinecon around the same time. When I talk to them about it,
they cite a lot of the same reasons. So, I don't think any of what
you have said, or what Chris Snowden has said, is isolated to just a
couple of people.
I gather that this is no big deal to Cinecon planners as they seem to
met their attendance goals every year.
I love seeing vintage films in 35mm. I'm one of those bozos who will
watch almost anything in a pristine 35mm print. But, the Cinecon
programs lately have really tested this for me. Heck, my favorite of
this year's Cinecon was TWO OF A KIND, which says all that needs to be
said.
Lizabeth Scott in a black dress does it for me every time...
--John A.
Precode
>
> But, it bothers me that many worthy titles that aren't necessarily Joe
> Franklin titles get rejected because they were shown at Cinefest in
> 1979 or at Cinecon in 1985. That is ridiculous!
>
> How many people were at Cinecon this year that have regularly attended
> Cinecon, Cinefest, and Cinevent over the last 25 years? You can count
> them on two hands (maybe even one). Go back to Cinecons 1-10 and
> you can count them on two fingers.
John, you're absolutely right--except that we DO repeat titles! That
"we ran it 15 years ago" mindset went out with the trash years ago. It
was 1998, I believe, where we showed four pictures that had run in
Syracuse fewer than ten years prior, including A SUCCESSFUL CALAMITY
and MYSTERY RANCH. Last year, we played BULLDOG DRUMMOND STRIKES BACK,
which they'd shown TWICE! (We also had several "common" titles last
year, including IT'S A GIFT, THE EMPEROR JONES, GOD'S COUNTRY AND THE
WOMEN, and that super-rarity, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.) Hell, even SH! THE
OCTOPUS! screened at Cinefest before we ran it! And of course, THE BIG
KILLING had run in Orlando. So throw that out yo' mind. We repeat all
the time.
BTW, we DO honor requests. Some asked why we were showing stuff like
EAST LYNNE and SEE AMERICA THIRST. Answer: they were requested. So
always remember: maybe you don't want to see it, but someone else
does.
Mike S.
"Never let it be said that a Sporum ever refused the request of a
Ginglebusher."--Herbert Marshall in THE GOOD FAIRY
John Aldrich
(Precode) wrote:
OK. Good point. I didn't attend last year or the year you showed the
things that were shown in Syracuse, so I hadn't really noticed this
shift in philosophy.
Understand, I'm not suggesting the schedule be dominated by "repeats",
all I am saying is that a title should not be rejected just because it
has been shown somewhere else.
So, if you showed SEE AMERICA THIRST due to a request (gee, I wonder
who asked for that??) then, TAKE A CHANCE shouldn't be too far out of
left field.
Maybe you could reserve a Monday morning slot for requests of lousy
films from grizzled old Cinephiles. That way those who aren't
interested can sleep in....
--John A.
Frederica
"Bruce Calvert" <silentf...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:F4N6b.19035$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
> Raymond Griffith contracted diphtheria as a child and apparently this
caused
> paralysis of his vocal chords. He never publicly talked about the
diphtheria,
> apparently because it is a disease of poverty. The source of his lost
voice was
> the first question that I asked his relatives when I tracked them down.
>
> Bruce Calvert
Ah. I'd wondered if perhaps he'd been in WWI and had been gassed.
Diphtheria explains it.
Frederica
John Aldrich
(Precode) wrote:
>Hell, even SH! THEOCTOPUS! screened at Cinefest before we ran it! And of course, THE BIG
>KILLING had run in Orlando. So throw that out yo' mind. We repeat all
>the time.
>Mike S.
See Mike, the idea is to repeat GOOD stuff. There are plenty of dogs
already in the first run stuff. There needs to be some balance!
--John A.
Bruce Calvert
Greta de Groat stated...
>But since i don't live in LA, it is a significant expense, as someone pointed
>out, to arrange plane tickets and pay for at least 4 nights in a hotel. Plus,
>since we don't get the schedule until a couple of weeks before Labor Day, i'm
>not confident i couldn't find out what was playing in time to not be bumped
>into the higher airfare category.
It is kind of a leap of faith. I use airline miles to pay for my airfare, and I
have to have my ticket booked about six months ahead of time. The Rennaisance
is a little pricey for me (even using Marriott points), so I have to book a
cheaper place several months in advance.
>And the film lineup has frankly been less interesting over the last couple of
>years. The one i'm really sorry i missed was probably 97 or 98, when Salome
>Jane and Martin Eden played, was well as some other interesting things..
>Those are films i very much wanted to see but again i didn't find out in time
>to plan.
Part of the joy of Cinecon (or other festivals) is to be pleasantly surprised by
a film that you normally would not normally take the time to see. THE DIXIE
FLYER last year, a B-railroad movie, was an excellent example of an unknown film
that was a thriller.
A bonus for Cinecon is the AMS lunch, where you get to meet lots of a.m.s
regulars. I thought the 2001 program was excellent. Even the warhorses THE
IRON HORSE and THE EAGLE were wonderful. I had already seen both before, but I
loved them with outstanding prints, great orchestral scores, plus the Q & A
sessions with Kevin Brownlow.
I couldn't go for financial and family reasons this year. It didn't bother me
too much anyway because I spent most of Labor Day weekend sick with a stomach
virus. (I should have told my wife I was sick because I missed Cinecon!). I
have heard great things about Slapsticon this year. I'm going to have to decide
early next year which festival I will attend. (I'm also going to the Kansas
Silent Film Festival, but I can drive there and it is free except for the hotel
room.)
BTW, nobody has mentioned how the poster auction went this year...
Edbina
>>But since i don't live in LA, it is a significant expense, as someone
>pointed
>>out, to arrange plane tickets and pay for at least 4 nights in a hotel.
>by
>a film that you normally would not normally take the time to see.
>regulars.
>decide
>early next year which festival I will attend.
Frankly I'll watch almost any vintage film nowadays, but right now I primarily
want to see my film friends, and my new friends whom I only know from this ams
group. My wife has seen me moping about the house too often lately, so next
year we're driving down to the Slapsticon from Jersey and then -- as long as
the money holds out -- we're going to Cinecon 2004 (it'll be my first since
2000). Naturally Baby Dennis is coming along, his cinema education can't start
too soon. I only hope my wife doesn't kill me when we get back home.
Ed Watz
Christopher Snowden
> On the other hand, a festival with a whole bunch of common titles simply isn't
> going to draw people in.
And a festival packed with obscurities will? That's not what's
happening with Cinecon, which is lucky to break even financially, and
where attendance has been stagnant for years and many long-time
attendees have dropped out.
Yet, when Cinecon runs a famous film-- like THE CIRCUS, which
we'd all seen before-- the screening room is jammed with people. With
THE EAGLE, THE IRON HORSE, over and over, the result is the same. It's
just as true with the Cinecon crowd as it is with the Stanford or the
SF Silent Film Fest: the rarities can draw in some people, but the
classics draw in a lot MORE people.
I'm not saying we should do away with the obscurities. But while
the rarities will draw in that hard-core fringe, we need the famous
titles to bring in the mainstream film buffs-- the ones who haven't
been supporting Cinecon. Those familiar titles will please the
mainstream buffs, AND (as past experience proves) the usual attendees
as well.
However, the mainstream buffs won't fly to L.A. just to see one
or two classics, even in 35mm. We'd need to lure them in with six or
eight at least... which still leaves two-thirds of the film program to
be filled with obscurities to satisfy the old guard.
Chris Snowden
Tommie Hicks, Jr.
Having passed that physical I can tell you first hand that if your
voice is not intact, you cannot get in. Lives depend on you being
able to communicate with your shipmates. I believe that his voice
accident happened after his navy stint.
Tommie Hicks
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bjlcek$fq2$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>...
Frederica
"Tommie Hicks, Jr." <homes...@netburner.net> wrote in message
news:d018c63d.0309...@posting.google.com...
> What I don't understand is how Griff got in the navy with that voice.
> Having passed that physical I can tell you first hand that if your
> voice is not intact, you cannot get in. Lives depend on you being
> able to communicate with your shipmates. I believe that his voice
> accident happened after his navy stint.
>
> Tommie Hicks
Bruce, do you have Griffith's Navy records?
Frederica
Bruce Calvert
<bjnsd1$t3s$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>, Frederica stated...
Yes, I do have his Naval service record. I posted this information last year.
Obviously the U.S. Navy's enlistment requirements are stricter now than in
1910...
After a two-year wait, I finally received comedian Raymond Griffith's military
service record from the U.S. National Military Records Center. It had a
surprise on it in that he gave his birthdate to the Navy as January 23, 1892.
Since his birthday was really in 1895, and he joined the Navy on January 17,
1910, this means that he had not quite turned 15 when he enlisted! He served
from 1910 until the middle of 1912, on five different ships. His service record
does not show him being drafted by the Navy during World War I, as an article in
GRIFFITHIANA claimed.
If you want to get the service record of another U.S. serviceman, you can get
the forms here:
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/standard_form_180.html
Be prepared to wait a long time...
Bob Birchard
this year:
Kick In, The Vitaphone Shorts, Are We Civilized?, Wake Up and Dream, They Dare
Not Love, Murder in Times Square, The Big Killing and East Lynne were requests, and
programmed to satisfy those requests. We might have run them anyway at one time or
another--but all of them on the same program was an attempt to show that we care.
If you guys want better movies, then you gotta pick 'em, and don't complain when
your long-desired unseen title turns out to be a buptke. Anyway, I thought all were
worth seeing and They Dare Not Love proved to be especially good. I'm not sure I'd
put all these on the same program if I had it to do over, and the guy who requested
They Dare Not Love ended up not coming to the convention--but what are you going to
do?
Dames Ahoy! first came to my attention when Chris Snowden gave me a set of
Vitaphone disks on the film (thanks again, Chris). It turned out Universal had a
print, they screened it for me and I knew it wasn't very good--but it was
interesting with all the location footage in Venice--and when would you ever get a
chance to see it? So we ran it.
See America Thirst. Normally I would not put two 1930 William James Craft
pictures on the same program, but this is a picture I've wanted to see for forty
years, and with Universal in the unsettled condition it has been in and with no
assurance that their material will be as available in the future as it is now I
decided to program it as my gift to myself for putting on the show. If you don't
like it, go to the dealers room.
O'Malley of the Mounted was programmed because we wanted an additional silent
feature. We sent a list of about a dozen titles to MoMA and--for various reasons
that are of little interest to this discussion--MoMA came back with a list of three
out of the 12 that would be available for us to run. I asked Jon Mirsalis to make
the decision (it never hurts to keep our great volunteer accompanists happy) and he
selected O'Malley.
The Essanay program was set to give a boost to David Kiehn's Broncho Billy
book. We originally planned to run a selection of Vitagraph shorts on which the
Society had partially funded the restorations.
The Unidentified program had been done with some success in the smaller room in
Glendale several years ago--all in 16mm. We thought we'd try to do it in
35mm--broadening the possibility of rare unidentified stuff. Mike Mashon at LOC,
Rob Stone of UCLA and Sam Gill put in hours of work sifting through eight hours of
stuff to come us with an hour's worth of stuff that was reasonably entertaining and
possible to identify (at least some of the people). This is TRULY obscure
programming, but definitely worth doing.
The other shows in Syracuse and Columbus and Michigan often rely on collectors
to supply prints. We don't do this as much because we get such great cooperation
from the Studios and the Archives and generally speaking are able to program most of
the show in 35mm--but several years ago we made some effort to reach out to
collectors, and part of this effort turned into the Richard Roberts Comedy Cavalcade
(now in its 5th year). The only requirement we give Richard is a time limit.
Otherwise he sets his own program and he always brings unusual and intriguing
stuff--the Keaton commercials alone were worth the price of admission to his show,
and the Ham & Bud from LOC was a real delight IMHO.
Celebrities. If it were me, I'd dump the celeb slots altogether, but about a
third of our audience comes specifically for the stars, so who am I to deny them?
Our original intention was to run Death of a Salesman for Kevin McCarthy--but no
35mm print was available and we were not sure who controlled the rights and so we
settled for Nightmare, which is a pretty interesting picture and not commonly seen.
Val Guest gave us an opportunity to run a much requested repeat from Cinecon or
Cinefest from years ago, Oh, Mr. Porter! Jean Simmons requested The Actress, and
Two of a Kind was programmed for a specific reason that eventually did not pan out
but it just became easier as the start of the show loomed ever closer to keep with
this title for Terry Moore.
Tim Lanza screened a 16mm print of The Half-Breed for me in Columbus this year
and told me he also had a 35mm print. It immediately went on the schedule.
The Side Show was programmed because several of us had been unable to see it at
the UCLA preservation show last year--and we all heard it was a very good picture.
It was.
Sally, Irene and Mary is something we've been trying to run for years and we'd
also had a request for Joan Crawford silents. We were finally able to work out the
rights issues for a one time screening and couldn't pass up the chance to show it.
It was one of the highlights of the weekend for me--a much better film than I
remembered (having seen a private screening several years ago).
We'd had good response to two other Leigh Jason comedy mysteries in the past and
so we thought Nine Girls would also be a hit. Columbia made a brand new print
specifically for our screening--a much better print than the old studio print we'd
screened for ourselves a week earlier, and who would turn down such favors? This
was programed into too late a slot, but by the time we'd realized this the schedule
had already been published and we couldn't move it. You guys want the schedule
published as early as possible--there are many reasons why it's a pain for us to do
so, but we try to be accommodating.
Overall comments on the schedule this year? Too few silents (we could have used
two more silent feature), too many mystery films, too many shorts, no sleeper
blockbusters (just the luck of the draw--some years we get really lucky programming
stuff we haven't seen), no war-horses (we just had too much rare stuff and dropped a
couple of Joe Franklin titles along the way).
Rest assured we'll have a different mix next year and some will love the
programming and some will hate it--but we'll try our best to put on an entertaining
show.
If you have requests--NOW is the time to start sending them in--NOT next May.
Hope to see you all at Cinecon 40. Little did Sam Rubin and Tom Seller know
what they started back in 1964!
--
Bob Birchard
Coming from the University Press of Kentucky in 2004
“Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood”
by Robert S. Birchard
Bob Birchard
> Let me give you an example. At the Cinecon in Orlando (I think it was
> 1988), they ran TAKE A CHANCE (1933-Paramount). Being a huge Cliff
> Edwards fan, I really wanted to see this. It's the film where he sang
> (It's Only A) PAPER MOON.
>
> Well, I can't remember what the film was that was shown opposite it,
> but it was something I also really wanted to see and I decided to
> forego TAKE A CHANCE, figuring I could always catch up with it later.
>
> Well, as you can guess, the other film was a stiff and about 1/2 the
> way through, I gave up and moved over to catch the last 15 minutes of
> TAKE A CHANCE. I instantly realized I had made a huge mistake.
>
> It's 25 years later, and I STILL haven't seen TAKE A CHANCE, despite
> having attended vintage film conventions pretty regularly.
>
John,
Orlando was 1998--by my calculation 15 years ago, not 25 years ago. We did run one repeat from Orlando this
year--The Big Killing.
To the best of my memory you've never asked me to screen Take A Chance--but I may be wrong about this. Anyway. We
do listen to requests, and we do program requests. Send them directly to Michael and me via e-mail or snail mail at
the Cinecon post box. Don't do it verbally, cause we'll never remember, and do it sooner rather than later.
Every year it is a balancing act putting the program together--and some years we succeed better than others.
I always used to say you'll never go broke running a revival theater if you run a double bill of Citizen Kane and
King Kong every week--folks will always come out to see what they already know. What we try to do is balance
entertainment value, variety and rarity.
To Greta I say shame on you--how can you possibly dismiss a film simply on its title? We've found many, many
discoveries over the years. The whole precode phenomenon started at Cinecon and Cinefest--nobody wanted to see these
films before the conventions started screening them.
While you may want to see Salomy Jane because of its northern California origins, I bet there were many who
thought--God! a 1914 10 reeler with an unknown cast and director. Ugh! But it turned out to be quite a good movie.
Where else will you see it?
On the other hand, Martin Eden (Bosworth, 1914) was a picture we knew was incomplete and had heavy nitrate damage
in the surviving footage--and I also knew from contemporary reports that it was not a very good film--but we ran it
anyway. Who else would program it? You'd have to fly to Washington, D. C. and schedule flat bed time to see these
films otherwise--and the cost wouln't be much different than coming to Cinecon.
And just for you, we'll run one picture from one of your web babes next year and shame you into coming. ;-}
The real problem in programming a show like Cinecon is that you really can't please everybody. Case in point.
One of Lawrence Bulk's favorite films of the weekend was The Hot Heiress. He didn't care for Sally, Irene and Mary.
Now my reaction was just the opposite. I thought The Hot Heiress had no redeeming value whatsoever--and I (not having
seen it) had fought to keep it on the schedule after Michael had bumped it several times. Sally, Irene and Mary, on
the other had, I thought was a really fine picture--beautifully made, well-acted, great sets and costumes--everything
you might want in a silent.
For all of those who hated The Fighting Blade, there were just as many who came up to me and said it was the
highlight of the weekend.
Some loved The Turmoil, some thought it was slow.
Some loved Oh, Mr. Porter! some couldn't understand the regional British accents.
I loved the Osterman weekend and especially Um-Pa--but I'd swear we ran that a couple of years ago, because I've
seen it and I don't know where else I might have seen it.
Jon Mirsalis suggested we run "Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood" as a Joe Franklin title next year--there is a
stunning print available and Jon feels his score for the film is one of his best. Without hesitation I said, yes,
let's do it--even though it was run in Syracuse about five years ago (at my suggestion). James Cozart heard that we
were considering showing this film and immediately registered the complaint that it was recently screened in
Syracuse. I will point out that the concept of the "Joe Franklin title" was one I came up with and suggested to Phil
Serling in Syracuse several years ago--I am absolutely aware that many of our attendees have not seen the war horses
on a screen). I also know that every time we run one of those titles I'll get a chorus of "We've run that!" So the
trick is to find a reason to run these films again--a stunning print, an unusual score, a special guest. With this
formula, even the "we've seen its" will sit through it again.
By far the largest block of our members have been attending 12 to 14 years. Lamarr McCarty and Phil Capasso hold
the attendance records. Lamarr has been to every Cinecon since Cinecon 2, Phil has only missed two, I believe, since
Cinecon 3--and one of those years his wife was dying.
So we don't have huge numbers of people who've been coming for more than a dozen years, but we do have quite a few
who've been coming that long and we have a few first timers every year as well. Again, the question of balance. We
don't want to load up the schedule with repeats and drive away our core audience, at the same time we want to have
some accessible films for those who are just becoming Cinephiles.
I suppose I'm not the typical film fan. I've seen thousands of pre 1948 films--many of them in 35mm nitrate.
When Richard Roberts comes to LA we'll get a group together and screen unidentified films at the UCLA archive with Rob
Stone--that's my idea of a fun time--others may not be as dedicated to seeing anything and everything.
As a young film fan I dreamed of being able to open the vault and pull out anything I wanted to screen--The
longevity of the Cinecon, and the support for preservation, and the personal relationships the Cinephiles have built
up through the years have actually allowed this to happen to a certain extent. Believe me, in the early years the
studios and archives were actively hostile to what we do.
Now I could ask for King Kong next year and be certain it is an entertaining picture that everyone will love and
that many will sit through again--but if I had my druthers I'druther take a chance on "Nice Women" (1932) because I've
seen "King Kong" and "Nice Women" may just turn out to be a great little picture.
Lokke Heiss
complain when your long-desired unseen title turns out to be a buptke.
Anyway, I thought all were worth seeing and They Dare Not Love proved
What Bob is talking about is the problem of the casual fan vs. the
dedicated fan. In my informal polling of people after the films, I
ended up talking to a fair number of casual fans who 1)have no idea
about this 'request' option.
2) Might actually get more interested in the convention if this
possibility is made PAINFULLY clear to them when they show up. Like
having this request page and comments page shown to them as they are
making up the badge (yes I know the volunteers have too much to do
anyway, but this is by far the best time to make it clear to the
Casual Fan (CF) that they indeed have some input.
>
> O'Malley of the Mounted was programmed because we wanted an
additional silent feature. We sent a list of about a dozen titles to
MoMA and--for various reasons that are of little interest to this
discussion--MoMA came back with a list of three out of the 12 that
would be available for us to run. I asked Jon Mirsalis to make the
decision (it never hurts to keep our great volunteer accompanists
happy) and he selected O'Malley.
I liked O'Malley and thought it was one of the most pleasant surprises
of the festival.
>
The Unidentified program had been done with some success in the
smaller room in
> Glendale several years ago--all in 16mm. We thought we'd try to do it in
> 35mm--broadening the possibility of rare unidentified stuff.
No one I talked to had a problem with this section, and it gives a
chance for audience participation.
part of this effort turned into the Richard Roberts Comedy Cavalcade>
(now in its 5th year). The only requirement we give Richard is a time
limit.>
Otherwise he sets his own program and he always brings unusual and
intriguing
stuff--the Keaton commercials alone were worth the price of admission
to his show, and the Ham & Bud from LOC was a real delight IMHO.
My problem was that you rescheduled him at a time Friday when I had to
work, but I know the schedule isn't going to accomodate everyone.
Celebrities. If it were me, I'd dump the celeb slots altogether, but
about a
third of our audience comes specifically for the stars, so who am I to
deny them?
The celebrities don't float my boat either but I can't begrudge other
tastes. The question is though, for this group, will this celebrity
interest extend past 1960? How many more 90-something celebs can we
keep wheeling, er, trotting out? Some decision will have to be made
about reducing this part of the convention, or allowing a special
section or night with more recent films.
> Our original intention was to run Death of a Salesman for Kevin McCarthy--but no> 35mm print was available and we were not sure who controlled the rights and so we settled for Nightmare, which is a pretty interesting picture and not commonly seen.
I would have been happy to see the 16mm Death of a Salesman. Here's a
case where a good film takes precedence over an excellent film because
of gauge. How does everyone else feel? Two films equal value, OK, go
with 35. If one film is better by most standards, it drives me batty
to drop it just because it's 16mm.
> Two of a Kind was programmed for a specific reason that eventually did not pan out but it just became easier as the start of the show loomed ever closer to keep with this title for Terry Moore.
I thought it was one of the better of the talkies.
> Tim Lanza screened a 16mm print of The Half-Breed for me in Columbus this year and told me he also had a 35mm print. It immediately went on the schedule.
Is Half-Breed missing a some frames/shots at the end???
The Side Show was programmed because several of us had been unable to
see it at
the UCLA preservation show last year--and we all heard it was a very
good picture. It was.
-I thought it was the best film of the festival.
Overall comments on the schedule this year?
-The silents were overall much stronger than the talkies.
, too many mystery films,
-yes, and they were mostly stiffs too.
too many shorts, no sleeper
> blockbusters (just the luck of the draw--some years we get really lucky programming stuff we haven't seen), no war-horses (we just had too much rare stuff and dropped a couple of Joe Franklin titles along the way).
-This is my major beef. You know when even Richard comments that this
was a specialist's con, the 'rare stuff' took over the programming. I
talked to about twenty people over the weekend at random and threw
names at them of 'warhorses.' Nobody had seen any of them. Nobody.
Let's be nice to the casual fan, they become the dedicated fan of the
future. Remember about ten years ago we showed Four Horsemen at the
Roosevelt. It was a big deal. Nobody complained that it was a
warhorse then, at least I didn't hear of any complaint. Times have
changed you say? No, I would argue strongly that times haven't
changed. Yes, lots of titles are available on DVD now, yes titles are
shown on TCM, but to use that as a criterion NOT to show them
completely misses the point. Warhorses are warhorses because they are
great films. Have we all become such snobs that Four Horseman is
great programming in 1990 and passe in 2003? Skyscraper Souls is
available on video and also on TCM. I don't care. I know most of the
audience won't have seen it in any version, and I'd love to it up on
the big screen.
If the thought of seeing a great film on a big screen bugs you because
you've seen it before on TV, then why the hell are we so obsessed
about 35mm over 16mm for??? That's arguing with both sides of your
mouth.
To summarize, I think Cinecon owes the casual fan two warhorses a year
and I'd like to see one additional film a year picked as 'best of' of
previous festivals. If that crowds out some speciality films, so be
it. They can be first on the list for next year's festival.
> Rest assured we'll have a different mix next year and some will love the
> programming and some will hate it--but we'll try our best to put on an entertaining
> show.
>
> If you have requests--NOW is the time to start sending them in--NOT next May.
Well, I have my list from July...including anything with Jean Arthur.
How about the '34 Whirlpool?
Max Nineteennineteen
of a Salesman, and was deliberately suppressing it.
Well, as someone who hasn't attended Cinecon, but has thought about
it, I have no standing or actual info whatsoever, but I'll throw some
thoughts out anyway. On the one hand, I think any event is doomed
which can't figure out how to offer one or two events of broad appeal
to attract new folks. Attracting a certain number of new fish every
year is a requirement for survival. On the other hand, would I fly
from Chicago to see Steamboat Bill Jr. even in 35mm with Rodney Sauer
leading the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Doubtful. Somewhere between
those two extremes is a couple of broad-appeal programs which would
draw a number of folks out who haven't been before, I have to think,
without alienating the diehards. Too much.
Beyond that, it just sounds like the luck of the draw that this year
there were more stiffs and fewer things that really blew folks away--
the tone of everyone's posts last year after Bulldog Drummond Strikes
Back proves how much one really knockout presentation (with the added
cachet of being unseeable elsewhere) can color your notion of how
successful a whole weekend was. John Ford's line was that a movie
needed five great scenes. Sounds like this was the year Cinecon could
only manage four. Not fatal or cause for great panic.
Frederica
"Max Nineteennineteen" <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa2a3f47.03091...@posting.google.com...
> Beyond that, it just sounds like the luck of the draw that this year
> there were more stiffs and fewer things that really blew folks away--
> the tone of everyone's posts last year after Bulldog Drummond Strikes
> Back proves how much one really knockout presentation (with the added
> cachet of being unseeable elsewhere) can color your notion of how
> successful a whole weekend was. John Ford's line was that a movie
> needed five great scenes. Sounds like this was the year Cinecon could
> only manage four. Not fatal or cause for great panic.
I for one am not panicking, even though I'm one of the people who likes the
warhorse idea very much. I'm a newbie at this, but I'm still genetically
weird enough to enjoy sitting through almost everything. And I say, bring
on your Vitaphone Shorts, they have no more power over me! I have faced my
fears, and I have overcome them! I CAN TAKE THE VITAPHONE SHORTS!! I
wish to reiterate that I had a great time at Cinecon and really appreciate
all the hard work that goes into it. It really is a luck of the draw thing
that nothing I saw turned out to be a big winner. I'm glad to have seen all
of it.
Frederica
Bob Birchard
> There, the Lawgiver has spoken. No, seriously, you can call things
> whatever you want, but to me there's an essential difference between
> 1935, 1945 and 1965 that this division reflects.
This is what I think makes film so interesting. It captures the
sensibilities of the time in which it is made and is not subject to
physical or mental revision as one can do with plays or novels.
A film like "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) may delight us today, but it
could never be remade as is. This is why so many "homages" turn into
campy, crappy pastiches. Similarly, all those awful films of the late
1960s and early 1970s capture their time in fascinating ways even though
the are just as unwatchable now as they were on first release (I'm talking
about things like Strawberry Statement, the Magic Garden of Stanley
Sweetheart, Zabriskie Point, et. al.)
The value of watching lots of films from the past is that one expands
the lifetime in which one lives, and often it is the smaller, less
well-known films that are more illuminating than the blockbusters of
yesterday. But sometimes you have to pay attention.
One of the most stunning moments in movies comes in the rather light
and frothy 1930 Eddie Cantor picture, "Whoopee." In the film the posse is
after Eddie. The sheriff tells his men, "Don't let a white man escape."
Eddie hides in the stove. It explodes and he emerges in blackface. He
manages to elude capture because he is not recognized and he shuffles out
of scene. Outside he runs into his friend, Sally, and says something to
her. She, not recognizing him, rears back and says: "How dare you talk to
me." The idea that a common darky would utter a word to a white woman
without first being spoken to is abhorrent. This scene says as much about
race relations at the time as hundred of books and documentaries. It is a
scene that could not and would not be made today, but it offers insight
into the attitudes of 1930 that few other works could do so casually and
so succinctly.
There have been any number of attempts in recent years to recreate
"film noir" and nearly all of them (including the much vaunted "Chinatown"
IMHO) have been pretty pathetic in capturing the true flavor of the 1930s
or 40s. In fact, the only film I can think of that really recaptures the
1940's in recent years in "Devil in a Blue Dress," which really does
capture the look and feel of the Los Angeles I knew as a kid.
Dave Garrett
says...
> This is what I think makes film so interesting. It captures the
> sensibilities of the time in which it is made and is not subject to
> physical or mental revision as one can do with plays or novels.
>
> A film like "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) may delight us today, but it
> could never be remade as is. This is why so many "homages" turn into
> campy, crappy pastiches. Similarly, all those awful films of the late
> 1960s and early 1970s capture their time in fascinating ways even though
> the are just as unwatchable now as they were on first release (I'm talking
> about things like Strawberry Statement, the Magic Garden of Stanley
> Sweetheart, Zabriskie Point, et. al.)
>
> The value of watching lots of films from the past is that one expands
> the lifetime in which one lives, and often it is the smaller, less
> well-known films that are more illuminating than the blockbusters of
> yesterday. But sometimes you have to pay attention.
Well put, Bob. I was trying to make a similar point recently in another
forum, with the main difference being that you said it far more
eloquently than I did. That, and I was defending some of the films Bob
Hope did in the 1960s. ;-)
Dave
Max Nineteennineteen
Though for the picky, it contains a serious historical-detail howler--
when Washington is going through some crime scene there's a TV knocked
over on the floor which is playing, as I recall, The Honeymooners.
Several years before it aired.
And at 3 AM, which was NOT when it (or anything else) was on TV in the
late 40s.
Although I like Chinatown a lot more than Bob Birchard does, it is
interesting how it now can't help feeling less like the real 30s than
like the recreated 30s of the 70s-- more like Won Ton Ton, The Dog
That Saved Hollywood or Lucky Lady than like The Maltese Falcon or The
Big Sleep.
Greta de Groat
Bob Birchard wrote:
>
> To Greta I say shame on you--how can you possibly dismiss a film simply on its title? We've found many, many
> discoveries over the years. The whole precode phenomenon started at Cinecon and Cinefest--nobody wanted to see these
> films before the conventions started screening them.
Gee, i'm trying to remember which film that was. The Big Killing? Title sounds like a film noir, which would be fine with
me. I dissed it on the stars, given that Behind The Front was probably the most unpleasant silent film experience i've
ever had. I must say that the combination of stars and title did sound particularly appalling. Of course, as we all
know, our likes and dislikes are very personal so now you know what pushes my "yuck" button!
But i'm usually open to a surprise.. I was astonished at how much i liked Sporting Blood on TCM a few weeks ago (though
Captain Thunder was worse than i could have imagined). I even thought The Better 'Ole was ok, which i had not had any
hope for. So once you've got some great drawing cards, unknown surprises are definitely in order. I'm surprised that more
people didn't like The Hot Heiress, it thought it was unusual and rather fun. I like Ben Lyon much better in talkies than
silents.
>
> While you may want to see Salomy Jane because of its northern California origins, I bet there were many who
> thought--God! a 1914 10 reeler with an unknown cast and director. Ugh! But it turned out to be quite a good movie.
> Where else will you see it?
Exactly! Now that it's been run i'll probably never see it.. Ditto with The Social Register, one of my top "must see"
films, which ran unbeknownst to me at a recent festival (to apparent audience indifference), so it's unlikely to show
again anywhere.
> ...
>
> And just for you, we'll run one picture from one of your web babes next year and shame you into coming. ;-}
>
Just let me know long enough ahead to get plane tickets! A friendly word of warning--Don't show Ashes of Vengeance unless
you're looking for a chaser or think the audience has a particular yen for ten reels of Conway Tearle in tights (Now
watch, there'll be someone who's dying to see this).
In commenting on some of the other comments, i'll add that i love the idea of the unidentified clips program--and i'm
still waiting for a report on that one--did anything get identified? Anything look interesting? I enjoyed Richard's
comedy program in Niles this year and think it's a great regular feature for Cinecon--and i'm not even a big comedy fan.
I don't care about celebrities and don't particularly like banquets, though i suppose i need someplace to wear my evening
dress. Count me in for the lunch, though, i'd love to meet y'all.
> ...
> The real problem in programming a show like Cinecon is that you really can't please everybody. ...
That's for sure! I've enjoyed reading the reviews every year--and seeing how people disagree.
Truly, you guys put on a great program, and to do it every year is amazing. It's just the law of averages that you'd get
an occasional year with mostly clinkers. But that makes it even more imperative that for folks like me for whom this may
be a once in a lifetime experience to choose our year wisely.
cheers,
greta
Harlett O'Dowd
> The Essanay program was set to give a boost to David Kiehn's Broncho Billy
> book. We originally planned to run a selection of Vitagraph shorts on which the
> Society had partially funded the restorations.
>
> The Unidentified program had been done with some success in the smaller room in
> Glendale several years ago--all in 16mm. We thought we'd try to do it in
> 35mm--broadening the possibility of rare unidentified stuff. Mike Mashon at LOC,
> Rob Stone of UCLA and Sam Gill put in hours of work sifting through eight hours of
> stuff to come us with an hour's worth of stuff that was reasonably entertaining and
> possible to identify (at least some of the people). This is TRULY obscure
> programming, but definitely worth doing.
Bob, I believe anything the Society (partially) funds to restore
should automatically be run at Cinecon. We need to see where our
money goes.
The unidentified program, Mr. Roberts' Comedy Cavalcade & the
Vitaphone shorts are all worthwhile programming. Even if there are
some stiffs in the grab-bag, Frederica's look of horror always makes
these adventures entertaining.
> Celebrities. If it were me, I'd dump the celeb slots altogether, but about a
> third of our audience comes specifically for the stars, so who am I to deny them?
And I am one of them. Bob, while I appreciate your honesty, this
statement chills me.
> Overall comments on the schedule this year? Too few silents (we could have used
> two more silent feature), too many mystery films, too many shorts, no sleeper
> blockbusters (just the luck of the draw--some years we get really lucky programming
> stuff we haven't seen), no war-horses (we just had too much rare stuff and dropped a
> couple of Joe Franklin titles along the way).
With the exception of the shorts, I agree with all of the above. One
caveat I might wish to add to the shorts program - the weirder the
better. An UM-PA or CROOKS' TOUR will always be welcome in my book.
COLD TURKEY had its moments, but ten of these over the course of a
weekend will wear out their welcome.
> Rest assured we'll have a different mix next year and some will love the
> programming and some will hate it--but we'll try our best to put on an entertaining
> show.
>
> If you have requests--NOW is the time to start sending them in--NOT next May.
OK:
More William Haines
More Joan Crawford silents
Julian Eltinge
more obscure James Whale (maybe WATERLOO BRIDGE, GREEN HELL or HELLO
OUT THERE?)
more pre-code sizzlers
more musicals
more sick shorts a la CROOKS' TOUR
more book signings (an easy way to get more celebrity guests without
having to run recent films)
more celebrity guests - but with a bigger effort to get people who at
least started in the 30s, like MAUREEN O'HARA or JACK DAVID HOLT)
the remnants of THE YOUNG RAJAH
more two-strip Technicolor
just about anything recently discovered/saved/restored
Again thanks to Bob and everyone at Cinecon. I can't begin to imagine
what goes into planning a festival like this. Any chance to see
vintage film, especially in beautiful 35 prints is a reason to
celebrate. I think everybody here will agree that balance is the key
to a festival that will please just about everybody most of the time
and provide an equal number of "go to the dealers' room" opportunities
for everybody.
As suggested here, advertising the opportunity to make requests AT the
festival would also be a good idea for future Cinecons - perhaps a
wish box next to the dealers' room bulletin board.
Thanks again for listening and see you next time!
Harlett O'Dowd
> Celebrities. If it were me, I'd dump the celeb slots altogether, but
> about a
> third of our audience comes specifically for the stars, so who am I to
> deny them?
>
> The celebrities don't float my boat either but I can't begrudge other
> tastes. The question is though, for this group, will this celebrity
> interest extend past 1960? How many more 90-something celebs can we
> keep wheeling, er, trotting out? Some decision will have to be made
> about reducing this part of the convention, or allowing a special
> section or night with more recent films.
Gggrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! If I had a nickel for every time this half-baked
argument was raised I could pay my travel, lodging and registration
fee for the next 20 Cinecons!
There are still PLENTY of un-booked guests who worked in the
pre-widescreen Hollywood studio system - and many many who started
during or even before WWII. Assuming this year of a seemingly bumper
crop of celebrity deaths does not mean this trend will continue, I
would believe we have a good ten to twenty-five years before we really
have to worry about post-studio-system guests becoming a "necessary
evil."
While I am sure all of us would prefer to take a time machine back to
when we could have Buster Keaton or Clara Bow or Warren William as a
Cinecon guest, all of the guests this year were interesting,
well-spoken and delighful.
That said, the more pre-war guests we can find and get "out of the
way" in the next five years or so, the happier I think we will all be.
> -This is my major beef. You know when even Richard comments that this
> was a specialist's con, the 'rare stuff' took over the programming. I
> talked to about twenty people over the weekend at random and threw
> names at them of 'warhorses.' Nobody had seen any of them. Nobody.
> Let's be nice to the casual fan, they become the dedicated fan of the
> future. Remember about ten years ago we showed Four Horsemen at the
> Roosevelt. It was a big deal. Nobody complained that it was a
> warhorse then, at least I didn't hear of any complaint.
I loved FOUR HORSEMEN at the Roosevelt - but it was preceeded by a
major disclaimer that although a warhorse its inclusion was deemed
viable by the recent restoration and Carl Davis score. HORSEMEN is
exactly the sort of warhorse that should be scheduled at Cinecon - a
recently restored and/or scored film that will play a whole lot
differently than the muddy dupe you purchased on VHS in the early 80s.
This is an easy way to have our cake and eat it too - offering famous
titled the newbies will delight in seeing while offering new material
(restored sequences, etc.) that will make a second or tenth viewing
worthwhile.
In addition, while I am grateful for TCM and all the various DVD
releases, just about everything plays better in 35 than on video -
comedies and epics especially. I am thrilled for all the Harold Lloyd
and will fire up my VCR tomorrow to catch what I missed the first time
around on TCM but I have yet to crack a smile at a Lloyd film on video
- although I've enjoyed myself when seeing him "live."
Dr. Giraud
1960s and early 1970s capture their time in fascinating ways even though
the are just as unwatchable now as they were on first release (I'm talking
about things like Strawberry Statement, the Magic Garden of Stanley
Sweetheart, Zabriskie Point, et. al.) >>
WAY O.T., but . . .
Zabriskie Point, I haven't thought about that one in years. Visually
beautiful--just for the shots of the kid driving around LA after the shooting.
That sequence contains everything worthwhile Antonioni had to say about
America--well, I like the Rod Taylor scenes too--but the rest of the film is as
lousy as most of his films. (L'Avventura has to be the most overrated "great
film" there is, except maybe 8 1/2, imho.)
Shawn Stone