Silents Review Index for "The Complete New Yorker"
Jason Liller
Complete New Yorker" DVD-ROM package that came out late last year.
1,161 film reviews indexed by title, covering issue No. 1 (21 Feb 1925)
through the last issue of 1929 (28 Dec). This is a simple Microsoft
Excel file, sortable by title or date, and is free for the asking --
just email me at DVDJaso...@CS.com (making the obvious deletion, of
course).
A few random observations culled from my experience:
"The New Yorker" likes Mal St. Clair.
"The New Yorker" does not like D.W. Griffith ("...we had rather see
imitation Lubitsch a hundred times than genuine D.W. Griffith once."
[OTHER WOMEN'S HUSBANDS, pg. 55, 1 May 1926]).
"The New Yorker" does not like Mary Pickford ("...fast-fading tomboy of
a comedienne who dresses up to the age of twelve (mentally and
physically) and indulges in slapstick and heartbreaks." [essay, pg. 45,
13 March 1926]).
"The New Yorker" laments the passing of silent pictures (essay, pg. 58,
23 Feb 1929, among others).
"The New Yorker's" review of THE JAZZ SINGER is highly perceptive
("That evening will probably turn out to be an epochal one in the
history of the movies..." [pg. 91, 15 Oct 1927]).
An alternate ending of THE CROWD is described (pg. 91, 17 Mar 1928).
And there are several mentions of expanding screens/changing aspect
ratios for THE TRAIL OF '98 (pg. 82, 31 Mar 1928) and WARMING UP (pg.
57, 21 Jul 1928).
I would encourage anyone with an interest in the 20th Century to pick
up a copy of "The Complete New Yorker." It's pricey, but worth every
penny. Again, the film review index is free. Just email me at the
previously mentioned address and I'll send you a copy.
--Jason Liller
P.S. If anyone out there with a silents related website would like to
host the index for permanent public access, please feel free -- just
let me know.
Darren
How do we access the complete articles?
Darren
"Jason Liller" <dvdj...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1143351240....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Jason Liller
The complete articles are available in a DVD-ROM package entitled "The
Complete New Yorker." It retails for $100.00 but, as of the date of
this post, can be had for $63.00 froom Amazon.com. It's really a nice
package. Every page of the magazine through 14 February 2005 is
included, to include advertisements, illustrations, etc. Unfortunately,
the accompanying search engine is woefully inadequate -- hence my
homemade film review index.
Of course, my index would also work if you just have a really big stack
of old magazines in the attic.
--Jason Liller
Ed Watz
Jason Liller wrote:
> At long last, I have completed the Silent Film Review Index for "The
> Complete New Yorker" DVD-ROM package that came out late last year.
> 1,161 film reviews indexed by title, covering issue No. 1 (21 Feb 1925)
> through the last issue of 1929 (28 Dec).
Thank you, Jason, this is a tremendous accomplishment and it's
sincerely appreciated. Years ago I accidentally came across "The New
Yorker" February 1927 review for THE GENERAL and was struck by the
modern tone of the piece (among other things, they enjoyed the idea
that Marion Mack played a useless leading lady) and they appreciated
the film. I wonder if that's the reason why Kevin Brownlow et al have
ignored this review -- it goes against the myth that Buster Keaton's
classic was universally panned by all leading publications in 1927.
If you could dig up that review, I think it might be an eye-opener for
ams-ers, and I'd be much obliged to read it again, myself.
Frederica
Ed Watz wrote:
> Thank you, Jason, this is a tremendous accomplishment and it's
> sincerely appreciated. Years ago I accidentally came across "The New
> Yorker" February 1927 review for THE GENERAL and was struck by the
> modern tone of the piece (among other things, they enjoyed the idea
> that Marion Mack played a useless leading lady) and they appreciated
> the film. I wonder if that's the reason why Kevin Brownlow et al have
> ignored this review -- it goes against the myth that Buster Keaton's
> classic was universally panned by all leading publications in 1927.
>
> If you could dig up that review, I think it might be an eye-opener for
> ams-ers, and I'd be much obliged to read it again, myself.
Might that not be simply flawed memory syndrome? I've found a lot of
that in what I'm doing. People haven't lied, but they perceive and
remember things that may not be true. I would think it more likely
that Brownlow took his view from Buster, who may have remembered a
universal panning.
Jeez, I wonder if Buster read the New Yorker?
Anyway, thanks, Jason--this is a great piece of work. Now if someone
would digitize the Hearst papers, I'd be in piglet heaven.
Frederica
Ed Watz
>Might that not be simply flawed memory syndrome? I've found a lot of
>that in what I'm doing. People haven't lied, but they perceive and
>remember things that may not be true. I would think it more likely
>that Brownlow took his view from Buster, who may have remembered a
>universal panning.
Well, I think it's important to note that Buster never made reference
to THE GENERAL being a critical or financial failure. Even in Buster's
interview with Kevin Brownlow, he implies that it was successful upon
its release when comparing its gross to his SHERLOCK JUNIOR. We didn't
get the full impact from the legend"of THE GENERAL's failure until Tom
Dardis' book came out in the late 1970s. Twenty years later when I
asked Dardis pointblank, he admitted that he only had access to the
domestic grosses on Keaton's UA features. That's just shabby
researching.
>Jeez, I wonder if Buster read the New Yorker?
I doubt it -- not their film reviews, anyway. Buster claimed not to
read or pay attention to film reviews. In his vaudeville childhood he
found it ridiculous the way The Three Keatons' act could be praised by
one critic and panned by another, after both witnessed the same
performance. "This one likes you, and that one don't." Eleanor
Keaton, Bill Cox and Raymond Rohauer all told me at different times
that Keaton never read the reviews of his films, and was visibly put
out whenever someone insisted on reading a review to him.
Frederica
Ed Watz wrote:
> Well, I think it's important to note that Buster never made reference
> to THE GENERAL being a critical or financial failure. Even in Buster's
> interview with Kevin Brownlow, he implies that it was successful upon
> its release when comparing its gross to his SHERLOCK JUNIOR. We didn't
> get the full impact from the legend"of THE GENERAL's failure until Tom
> Dardis' book came out in the late 1970s. Twenty years later when I
> asked Dardis pointblank, he admitted that he only had access to the
> domestic grosses on Keaton's UA features. That's just shabby
> researching.
Lots of that going on. Were the...uh..."other" grosses available then,
or did he just not look? Sometimes tracking a story back to its
genesis can be very illuminating. The idea that Buster's work wasn't
appreciated until late in his lifetime, or that he died in poverty is a
powerful archetype--the great artiste rescued from undeserved
obscurity--so I doubt it's going to disappear just because of a few
pesky facts.
Frederica
mikeg...@gmail.com
>interview with Kevin Brownlow, he implies that it was successful upon
>its release when comparing its gross to his SHERLOCK JUNIOR.
But weren't the MGM titles noticeably more successful than the ones
that had come before them because of MGM's superior distribution reach?
So The General might have looked successful compared to Sherlock Jr.,
but a few years later, not nearly as successful as The Cameraman or
Parlor, Bedroom and Bath. Isn't that the real source of the idea that
The General wasn't a huge hit at the time?
Also, as far as reviewers at the time not being that keen on it,
Mordaunt Hall's review in The New York Times, which was included in
that one-volume anthology that a lot of film writers would have had
handy in the 70s, is kind of tepid. So that example may have colored
things just because it was widely available when others were not.
Ed Watz
>Were the...uh..."other" grosses available then, or did he just not look?
I don't know if Tom Dardis had access to foreign grosses from the
Keaton UA films when his book came out the first time in 1977, but
regardless he simply did not acknowledge that he was comparing *only*
domestic grosses on Buster's UA films to the worldwide grosses of the
later Keatons at MGM. He was shoehorning the facts to make his book
have a saleable story -- to use the cliche, Dardis was "comparing
apples to oranges." That only perpetuates the misconceptions, doesn't
it?
Now, I'm too old for "dedicated film research stuff" these days (the
penalty for marrying a young gal in my middle age -- put me in that
Buster wed Eleanor stage and add our little son to the picture), but
for future Keaton scholars able to invest the time, this is from the
Wisconsin Center for Theater & Research website:
"The United Artists collection is the Center's largest and most
comprehensive manuscript collection, consisting of the company's
corporate records from its founding in 1919 until the early 1950s. It
details every aspect of motion picture sales and distribution,
including the company's corporate minutes and major financial records
as well as information on production and distribution costs, film
financing, and earnings..."
Dardis' book was reissued at least three times in his lifetime. When I
met him in the late 90s I delicately raised the point that this
information on the Keaton UAs was available at the Wisconsin Center.
He thanked me and left it at that. (I did give him about a dozen
corrections that were easy enough to pull from my research, mostly
background on the making of Buster's Educational and Columbia shorts,
and he did incorporate those into his third edition of his Keaton
book.)
Ed Watz
>But weren't the MGM titles noticeably more successful than the ones
>that had come before them because of MGM's superior distribution reach?
> So The General might have looked successful compared to Sherlock Jr.,
>but a few years later, not nearly as successful as The Cameraman or
>Parlor, Bedroom and Bath. Isn't that the real source of the idea that
>The General wasn't a huge hit at the time?
Mike, I agree with you completely that MGM often could turn a profit
even on weak films because of that superior distribution through their
Loew's chain of theaters. I don't doubt that the initial Keaton MGMs
did better than the Keaton UAs which preceeded them. But Dardis was
only using domestic gross for THE GENERAL, COLLEGE and STEAMBOAT BILL
JUNIOR and claimed that THE GENERAL and STEAMBOAT BILL were huge money
losers. STEAMBOAT BILL and THE CAMERAMAN came out only 5 months apart
from each other. The way Dardis interprets the "facts," it appears
that CAMERAMAN grossed twice as much as STEAMBOAT BILL, but again it's
a case of comparing incomplete data without clarifying for the reader
that it's not the whole story.
Jason Liller
>Yorker" February 1927 review for THE GENERAL and was struck by the
>modern tone of the piece (among other things, they enjoyed the idea
>that Marion Mack played a useless leading lady) and they appreciated
>the film.
You have a good memory. And "The New Yorker's" reviews do tend to have
a more modern tone -- different from the fan magazines and trade
journals that we're used to reading.
>If you could dig up that review, I think it might be an eye-opener for
>ams-ers, and I'd be much obliged to read it again, myself.
Here it is -- from the 12 Feb 1927 issue:
"Buster Keaton is at the Capitol in a quiet and unassuming comedy
entitled THE GENERAL. There is nothing raucus about it, and, let us
light a candle, there is no pathos, and it is altogether a pleasant
relaxation. What is even more to its credit, a new type of heroine
makes herself evident, and a new treatment of the lady is indulged in.
She is terribly inefficient, and her attempts to be of service during
emergencies are all dismal failures. That is something, of course, but
on top of that departure from the standard, the girl is subjected to a
mass of indignities. She is tied in a sack and put where stevedores
throw barrels and packing cases on top of her. The hero chokes her
after one of her little blunders, and when she perpetrates an act of
considerable stupidity he hurls a log of wood at her. That may not be
an inspiring light for American womanhood to be placed in, but it is
certainly a novel one.
"Marian Mack takes the part and she does so with great good humor and
willingness and I hope she has completely recovered from any bruises
she may have suffered during the taking of the picture.
"Such things are all part of a gentle kidding of the Civil War story.
Keaton is a locomotive engineer who tries to be the first to enlist,
but the Confederacy won't have him. Later the Federal troops steal his
engine and he pursues in another, rescues his girl, and is chased back
to where he started. He recovers his locomotive, saves the army, is
accepted in the service and reaps romance. Most of the action takes
place on the engines, and it is laid out with more wit than
wisecracking."
--Jason Liller
Ed Watz
its reflection and insight. And while today we tend to praise THE
GENERAL as a silent comedy epic (rightfully so), it's nice to know that
a reviewer in 1927 recognized its "quiet and unassuming" qualities and
appreciated its "gentle kidding of the Civil War story."
Lloyd Fonvielle
>>Years ago I accidentally came across "The New
>>Yorker" February 1927 review for THE GENERAL and was struck by the
>>modern tone of the piece (among other things, they enjoyed the idea
>>that Marion Mack played a useless leading lady) and they appreciated
>>the film.
> Here it is -- from the 12 Feb 1927 issue:
[Last line:]
> "Most of the action takes
> place on the engines, and it is laid out with more wit than
> wisecracking."
And "War and Peace" has some interesting battle scenes.
=================
Nowhere Confidential:
haub...@yahoo.com
FLYER from a year earlier....two railroad pictures where the heroines
couldn't be any more opposite in their competence.
Brent Walker
mikeg...@gmail.com
Well, this is nothing more or less than the usual mild condescension
toward comedy and, more broadly speaking, entertainment. The current
hullabaloo over whether Brokeback or Crash deserved Best Picture will
amuse the Usenet posters of 2050, for whom the only significant
Hollywood movie of 2005 will probably be The Wedding Crashers or
something, while those two dramas of social concern will be about as
well remembered as, say, Gentleman's Agreement or Pinky (not to pick on
Elia Kazan, who ultimately transcended the need to make movies out of
political position papers-- who knows, maybe George Clooney will too).
Ed Watz
Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
> > "Most of the action takes
> > place on the engines, and it is laid out with more wit than
> > wisecracking."
>
> And "War and Peace" has some interesting battle scenes.
I believe that parting line just may have been a backhanded reference
to the *other* silent Civil War comedy feature which immediately
preceeded THE GENERAL -- Raymond Griffith's HANDS UP! Bob Sherwood, as
we know, preferred the latter.
Lloyd Fonvielle
Still, it's an oddly tepid response to some of the most brilliant
passages in cinema history -- enough to brand the reviewer as a
clueless, patronizing dimwit.
mikeg...@gmail.com
>passages in cinema history -- enough to brand the reviewer as a
>clueless, patronizing dimwit.
Well, most of them are. God knows Graham Greene seems barely able to
drag himself out of bed for what we now see as the glories of the
1930s, to name one dimwit who's constantly disappointed by the
offerings at the local Odeon.
Basically, I don't trust anybody writing about a movie until at least
30 years after it was made.
Ed Watz
>it's an oddly tepid response to some of the most brilliant
>passages in cinema history -- enough to brand the reviewer as a
>clueless, patronizing dimwit.
I'd be interested to know what you really think about Mordant Hall.
Actually Lloyd, you bypassed all of the interesting things that the New
Yorker reviewer had to say about THE GENERAL. Half of an insightful
review for THE GENERAL is a better percentage than nearly all of the
other contemporary accounts I've read about it, with the exception of
the Brooklyn Eagle's extremely favorable evaluation. It's not like you
to be so dismissive. Have you been hanging around those right-wing
clubs?
Igenlode Wordsmith
> Ed Watz wrote:
>
> > Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
> >
> >>>"Most of the action takes place on the engines, and it is laid out
> >>>with more wit than wisecracking."
> >>
> >>And "War and Peace" has some interesting battle scenes.
> >
> > I believe that parting line just may have been a backhanded reference
> > to the *other* silent Civil War comedy feature which immediately
> > preceeded THE GENERAL -- Raymond Griffith's HANDS UP! Bob Sherwood, as
> > we know, preferred the latter.
>
> Still, it's an oddly tepid response to some of the most brilliant
> passages in cinema history -- enough to brand the reviewer as a
> clueless, patronizing dimwit.
>
It sounds like a compliment to me; perhaps it depends on one's
acquaintance with understatement -- and relative preference for wit and
wisecracking respectively?
--
Igenlode Visit the Ivory Tower http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/
** Melodrama is the art of knowing how precisely too far to go. **
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Lloyd Fonvielle <ll...@fabulousnoSPAMwhere.com> wrote in message <NNYVf.1724$IG.113@dukeread01>
>
>>Ed Watz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"Most of the action takes place on the engines, and it is laid out
>>>>>with more wit than wisecracking."
>>>>
>>>>And "War and Peace" has some interesting battle scenes.
>>>
>>>I believe that parting line just may have been a backhanded reference
>>>to the *other* silent Civil War comedy feature which immediately
>>>preceeded THE GENERAL -- Raymond Griffith's HANDS UP! Bob Sherwood, as
>>>we know, preferred the latter.
>>
>>Still, it's an oddly tepid response to some of the most brilliant
>>passages in cinema history -- enough to brand the reviewer as a
>>clueless, patronizing dimwit.
>>
>
> It sounds like a compliment to me; perhaps it depends on one's
> acquaintance with understatement -- and relative preference for wit and
> wisecracking respectively?
It's just that that's ALL he says about the "action on the engines".
Less a question of understatement than obtuseness, I'd say.
Ed Watz
>It's just that that's ALL he says about the "action on the engines".
>Less a question of understatement than obtuseness, I'd say.
It's also worth being informed that Harold Ross was a ruthless editor,
known to prune reviews to half their length (at least in The New
Yorker's early years).
Lloyd Fonvielle
The article did have some interesting things to say about the variations
among ingenue types, and about the attitude of the film towards its
historical sources -- but these are things the reviewer could have
discerned just by reading a written synopsis of "The General". He
doesn't seem to be responding to the work on a visual level at all.
Lloyd Fonvielle
You're being very kind to the reviewer, but I suspect he's like many
reviewers and academic critics, even today -- they analyze a film by
reducing it to a literary text and then review the text. They don't
actually LOOK at it, excpet out of the corners of their eyes.
Igenlode Wordsmith
[snip]
> The article did have some interesting things to say about the variations
> among ingenue types, and about the attitude of the film towards its
> historical sources -- but these are things the reviewer could have
> discerned just by reading a written synopsis of "The General". He
> doesn't seem to be responding to the work on a visual level at all.
>
Ah; not plastic :-)
--
Igenlode Visit the Ivory Tower http://ivory.150m.com/Tower/
(Sorry -- it was irresistible...)