I Was Leaning Over To Tickle The Ostrich When (Cinesation 2005 report)
mikeg...@gmail.com
consisting of the surviving outtakes from something that no longer
exists!
What I find most fascinating about Cinesation, the four-day rare old
movie festival held in the fall in the Gish Sisters' hometown of
Massillon, Ohio, is the way it gives us civilians a palpable sense of
the adventure-- and the heartache-- of finding and preserving old
movies. A sense you don't get from gilt-edged DVD editions.
Partly it's that it's an intimate festival, small enough in numbers
(though the organizers doubtless wish otherwise) that you can start a
conversation in the lobby about why there were no 70MM Technicolor IB
prints and then spot someone (our own Early Film) who actually has the
professional experience to answer the question accurately. On the
whole, the collectors and archivists who attend the festival are
approachable and happy to chat, and the introductions explaining how
something was found and put back together are often as much fun as the
films themselves (indeed in one case this weekend, the story behind it
was the only redeeming part of a film).
The other part is that it's a festival that's willing to show
things rescued from the brink-- you'll rarely see an incomplete film
on DVD, for instance, or at a silent movie screening in your own town,
but here you see wonderful films which, like the Venus de Milo, remain
great finds and fascinating windows into their time despite being
incomplete in some way. Much of what was shown in 35mm this weekend
was missing a little bit here or there, yet that only made them that
much more precious, to see the part we caught before they disappeared
entirely.
These kinds of rescued films made up about half of the program. The
other half was made up of another kind of "lost" film-- the kind of
1930s programmer with mid-level stars that once played ubiquitously on
TV, but now is basically unviewable outside a venue like this IF it
doesn't come from one of the studio libraries shown on TCM. In this
case the bulk of them came from Paramount, and having seen by now
perhaps two dozen or more 30s Paramount movies outside the select group
of brand-name titles that Universal (owner of the library) pays any
attention to, I think this is one of the most pleasurable, and
criminally overlooked, groups of films we have, a group which shows how
remarkably high the run of the mill could run at a good studio in those
days.
Anyway, on with part 1 of the reviews. As before, my star ratings for
features are ****/Highlight of the fest, ***/Well worth seeing, **/Some
interest, */Vault fire candidate.
FRIDAY
THE DANGER SIGNAL (***) Some movies live for their last 10 minutes;
that's the case with this recent LOC restoration from 1925, the first
of two railroad thrillers we saw featuring one of the Novak sisters,
Jane and Eva. Here Eva plays the mother of twins, one of whom grows up
a rich wastrel under his railroad prez grandfather's care, the other
of whom grows up a decent lad who works as an engineer on the same
railroad. For 50 minutes or so, a pleasant but hardly memorable
programmer, and then a convict escapes-- there's a runaway train--
the Limited is heading right toward it-- someone's got to switch the
signal at Pottsville-- Decent Lad hops on his motorcycle-- can he
outrace it-- is that really the star bouncing his bike on railroad ties
right in front of a real train (yes)-- wheeeee!
CINEMA PARADISO (***) What do you play at Cinesation when a Joe E.
Brown comedy fails to show? Why, an Italian movie from the 80s, of
course. An unlikely but fitting last minute substitution, since it's
a movie with a love for the love of old movies-- and it's as unafraid
to ladle out the sentiment as any silent.
SATURDAY
SUPERMAN (***) Saturday morning kicked off the first of five chapters
this year of a sharp-as-Kryptonite restoration of Sam Katzman's 1948
Superman serial. The use of cel animation for the special effects is a
bit of a cheat (if kind of charming in its own way), but Kirk Alyn and
Noel Neill show nice comic flair as Clark/Supe and Lois, and I have to
believe that even though this was basically unseen by ordinary folks
for decades, the creators of the 1978 Christopher Reeve feature saw it
before creating their own affectionately humorous take on the nerdy Boy
Scout of superheroes. Plus it has a really rousing main theme by, of
all people, the black symphonic composer William Grant Still (who
apparently cranked out stock music cues like this for cash in between
gigs with Edgard Varese and Artie Shaw).
LET'S MAKE A MILLION (***) Continuing my trend of only attending
festivals with a starring Edward Everett Horton vehicle on the bill
(after Wild Money at Cinesation and Your Uncle Dudley at Cinevent),
this 1936 one has Horton trying to get his and his buddies' WWI
bonuses back after investing them with crooked Porter Hall (sorry for
the redundancy). Efficient, naturalistic little programmers, these
Horton comedies are kind of like W.C. Fields' early small town
comedies, but substituting Horton's genial bemusement for Fields'
suppressed anger (a big substitution); the costars here include the
"Pixilated Sisters" from Mr. Deeds, actually billed as such, who
really take their 15 minutes of fame and run with it in this one.
RICHARD ROBERTS' CAVALCADE OF STUFF was the title given in the
program book for an assortment of comedy shorts. The first two were
knockabout slapstick of little interest beyond their stars, Betty
Compson (who did look lovely) in BETTY WAKES UP, a 1917 Christie
comedy, and Raymond Griffith in his earliest surviving role,
Keystone's THE SURF GIRL (1916). (I think that's where my subject
heading comes from-- anyway, some comedy over the weekend had the
indelible title "I was leaning over to tickle the ostrich when he
swallowed my locket.")
More promising was the only surviving short of a deaf-mute Cuban mime
(!), Tommy Albert, 1927's GREAT GUNS; the comedy was hit or miss but
Alberts' genuine pantomimic skills and experience were in evidence
(he actually reminded me of the clips of the Italian comic Toto seen in
Cinema Paradiso). Alas, as Richard observed, "1928 was not the best
year for a deaf-mute to try to become a Hollywood star," and it was
Alberts' cousin, tagging along, who actually found success-- Cesar
Romero. Easily the best of the quartet was a 1928 Weiss Brothers
short, CIRCUS DAZE, starring Poodles Hanneford, a circus performer
whose attempts to break into movies were probably hampered by a face
that looks more like a noir wiseguy than a silent comic. (It's like
watching Dan Duryea trying to be Harry Langdon.) But half of the short
is taken up by Hanneford's comic acrobatic riding act, which was
first-rate.
LADIES LOVE BRUTES (**) Now there's a title that could only belong to
an early 30s movie (1930 to be precise). Based on a Zoe Akins play
(adapted by Herman Mankiewicz), this has the problem of changing genre
with every act: the first (and best) act puts George Bancroft in one of
those Edward G. Robinson comedies about the tough guy trying to learn
the ways of polite society, the second act is a doomed romance between
Bancroft and society divorcee Mary Astor, and the third takes a
genuinely distasteful turn with Bancroft kidnapping Astor's son so he
can win her back by rescuing him. The best thing about this was the
ultrastylish Paramount art direction (so of course the Variety reviewer
quoted in the program book complained that "drawing room interiors
are beautiful but a bit overdone"-- more proof for my theory that
contemporary reviewers are always clueless about what's best about an
era). Preceded by a Van Beuren not-the-cat-and-mouse Tom and Jerry,
REDSKIN BLUES, which doesn't miss a single imaginable racist gag
about Indians (and thus inaugurated a subtheme of the weekend, The
Cartoons That Time Would Really, Really Like To Forget).
THE WHISPERING CHORUS (***) Cecil B. DeMille's rare 1918 foray into
self-serious drama (sans bathing scenes and the Bible), about a bank
clerk (future western sidekick Raymond Hatton) who listens to the
voices in his head and goes bad-- well, if one of the voices in your
head was Gustav von Seyffertitz, you'd go bad too. (Ol' Gus is one of
the heads seen in superimposition talking to Hatton.) I had seen this
before on video, so it was less of a revelation to me than to most
folks, I think, though the beautiful 35mm restoration from Eastman
House was reason enough to see it again. Intense and somber, but also
self-pitying and the sort of drama that leaves you wondering why you
got up in the morning, this is interesting as a one-time foray into
such uncommercial territory for DeMille, but I'm not sorry he went
back to things like Male and Female right afterward. One could spend
all of one's space here complimenting the weekend's accompanists,
Phil Carli and Mark Kotishion, but Carli's sensitive minor-key
playing for this was a particular standout and helped keep the drama on
track for an audience.
TRUE-HEART SUSIE (**) Ah, you can't go home again... the only other
time I saw True-Heart Susie (1919), 20+ years ago, I was completely
charmed by it, and I saw nothing unusual about the print quality of the
surviving material, which was like most of the silents I saw then.
Many years and many more silents later, it seems less charming a slice
of small town life than The Wishing Ring, less three-dimensional a
picture of young love making wrong choices than The Stoning (the
terrific realistic 1914 drama I saw at Cinesation two years before),
less involvingly directed than films of Tourneur, Weber, DeMille, and
many others from the same time-- and the print quality looks awful next
to the luminous 35mms off camera negative we saw throughout the
weekend. Preceded by THE MYSTERY OF THE LEAPING FISH, which I was
surprised many people there had not already seen more times than they
needed to, like me.
ONE FRIGHTENED NIGHT (****) Who knew that there was a first-rate old
dark house yarn made by Mascot in 1935? (The authors of Forgotten
Horrors, for one.) This has everything you want from a B studio
picture-- a cast of supporting actors given their shot at leads, comic
dialogue that's a little sharper and nastier than would get by the
bosses at an A studio (delivered by Charley Grapewin as the crabby old
millionaire with great relish), and a lightning pace from old pro
Christy Cabanne. (The only quibble is that the mystery is not so much
solved as pinned on one of several equally possible red herrings.)
Plus it proves, once and for all, that Regis Toomey and Wallace Ford
are not the same person! Preceded by JUNGLE JAM, in which Van
Beuren's Tom and Jerry show deep cultural sensitivity toward African
natives.
The evening ended with a real hodgepodge of shorts, including more
racist cartoons lovingly restored by your tax dollars (I want to know
more about ESCAPADES OF ESTELLE, apparently one in a series about a
black woman, animated in Terry Gilliam cutout style). A couple of Mutt
and Jeffs look great in 35mm but show why cartoons were small time
stuff till Disney came along. The funniest short in the bunch was, of
all things, a Chrysler promotional film starring Colonel Stoopnagle and
Budd, who seemed to really loosen up in their rapidly-ending 15th
minute of fame as they make jokes about not being able to find a
sponsor on radio.
more to come...
Lloyd Fonvielle
> TRUE-HEART SUSIE (**) Ah, you can't go home again... the only other
> time I saw True-Heart Susie (1919), 20+ years ago, I was completely
> charmed by it, and I saw nothing unusual about the print quality of the
> surviving material, which was like most of the silents I saw then.
> Many years and many more silents later, it seems less charming a slice
> of small town life than The Wishing Ring, less three-dimensional a
> picture of young love making wrong choices than The Stoning (the
> terrific realistic 1914 drama I saw at Cinesation two years before),
> less involvingly directed than films of Tourneur, Weber, DeMille, and
> many others from the same time-- and the print quality looks awful next
> to the luminous 35mms off camera negative we saw throughout the
> weekend. Preceded by THE MYSTERY OF THE LEAPING FISH, which I was
> surprised many people there had not already seen more times than they
> needed to, like me.
Funny -- I too just saw this again after a gap of about 30 years and,
though the print quality was depressing, I felt it had lost nothing of
its charm for me. The story is simplistic but the gorgeous images of
rustic small-town life and Gish's performance made it magical. Gish has
no high drama to work with here, so you see the subtlety of her genius
more clearly, the way she can communicate power and will through a mask
of ethereal beauty and physical frailty. This paradoxical quality,
first revealed clearly in "The Mothering Heart", is I'm sure what most
fascinated Griffith about Gish, and the unresolveable mystery of it may
have been what led him to send her away in the end. I think she
exhausted him creatively. Certainly when she came back to work for him
in "Orphans Of the Storm" he had nothing left to say to her or to give
her artistically.
=================
Nowhere Confidential:
J. Theakston
> ONE FRIGHTENED NIGHT (****) Who knew that there was a first-rate old
> dark house yarn made by Mascot in 1935? (The authors of Forgotten
> Horrors, for one.) This has everything you want from a B studio
> picture-- a cast of supporting actors given their shot at leads, comic
> dialogue that's a little sharper and nastier than would get by the
> bosses at an A studio (delivered by Charley Grapewin as the crabby old
> millionaire with great relish), and a lightning pace from old pro
> Christy Cabanne.
This one used to be (and still is to some extent) a late-night favorite
on PBS when they had nothing else better to run. Charley Grapewin is
great in it as I recall.
How was the print?
J. Theakston
Bob Lipton
Judging by the dvd from Sinister Cinema, it's in great shape.
Bob
Jason Liller
> time I saw True-Heart Susie (1919), 20+ years ago, I was completely
> charmed by it,
I told my wife I was going to Cinesation to see TRUE HEART SUSIE and
she laughed at me! She LAUGHED!
One thing I remember about this film is that it contains some genuinely
funny, un-Griffithian intertitles.
Based on your description of the print quality, maybe I'm glad I didn't
make the trip. Howerver, the Brownlow/Gill documentary D.W. GRIFFITH:
FATHER OF FILM boasts some sparkling, crystal clear excerpts from what
looks to be a pristine copy.
--Jason Liller
mikeg...@gmail.com
we saw, sharper than any of the Paramount TV prints as I recall.
mikeg...@gmail.com
D'OH NOTE: In my initial post, I mixed up the dates. The first two
films were Thursday night, not Friday, and everything else was Friday,
not Saturday.
* * *
SATURDAY
A BEAR, A BOY AND A DOG (***) I don't get the knocks against
Canada's Nell Shipman. Okay, she may not be the greatest actress of
the silent era, but her films are breezy, amusingly titled and full of
action, what do you want, Nazimova? This was a cute little 1920
three-reeler about exactly what it says it's about, in nice-looking
35mm from a Canadian archive.
The LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ARCHIVES SURPRISE was a series of short films
showing clips of old Hollywood, including stars, apparently made from
outtakes for other short films doing the same thing which no longer
survive, shown exactly as the footage survives (incompletely). As
always with such things it's the little surprises that surprise you--
who knew that Milton Sills was actually fairly tall, at least when put
next to truly pint-sized Viola Dana?
A LADY'S PROFESSION (****) Overall I'd say this was probably most
peoples' favorite talkie of the weekend, a forgotten 1933 screwball
comedy with lots of laughs. Alison Skipworth and Roland Young are
veddy-British aristocrats who come to America and wind up owning a
speakeasy; the complications which ensue barely rate repeating, but the
Wodehousian clash of aristo manners and gangster slang provides lots of
comic opportunity for Young (who walks away with the picture) and
Roscoe Karns as a tough talking doorman, among others.
I came back from lunch to find an Edgar Kennedy comedy, title unknown,
already in progress-- and within a few minutes, it proved to be the
SECOND comedy of the weekend to turn on the plot point of a bird
swallowing a piece of jewelry. I guess there are only so many plots in
Hollywood, and every 30 or 40 years, this is one of them...
HOT SATURDAY (***) "When Cary Grant, Randolph Scott and Grady Sutton
are on the prowl for girls, it's one hot Saturday!" --the publicity
slogan I would have written for Hot Saturday
So many pre-Codes start out saucy and funny and then turn drably
moralistic that it was a nice surprise to find one that actually gets
more interesting as it goes along. Nancy Carroll stars as a bank clerk
who attracts the attention of fabulously wealthy cad Cary Grant-- and
the first interesting thing about this 1932 film is that Grant,
probably fearing John Gilbert's fate if he read his overripe Lothario
pickup lines straight ("Your hair is like the moon..."), plays his
pretty-boy part with a world-weariness and hint of depressed Don
Juanism that puts far more into the role than was on the page. The
second interesting thing is that when the whole town thinks she slept
with him and turns on her, it becomes surprisingly feminist in its
attitudes (until a last-minute fadeout which is, however, easily
ignored). All in all, a more serious and thoughtful picture of small
town life than the stock romantic triangle yarn that it starts out
being.
THE DEVIL'S BROTHER (aka FRA DIAVOLO/BOGUS BANDITS) (**) I suppose we
all have our surprising gaps in our film education; one of mine is that
despite being a huge fan of Laurel and Hardy's shorts, I've seen
very few of their features and until this one, none of their operetta
films. After seeing this one (in a decent retitled 16mm print), I feel
that an operetta film is surely better with Stan and Ollie in it, but
Stan and Ollie's films are surely better without operetta in them.
Preceded by a title that will be familiar to Cinecon attendees: chapter
1 of THE IRON CLAW, a 1941 serial directed by frequent L&H director
James Horne, which piles up so many conspiring relatives, secret
passageways, and intentional unintentional laughs in its 20 minutes
that it might as well have gone ahead and cast James Finlayson as the
evil older brother and admitted it was a comedy.
PRODIGAL DAUGHTERS (**) I have to say that I considered the prospect of
a 2005 silent student film with alarm; I feared we were in for Snidely
Whiplash acting, direction that was either of 2005 or 1905 but not
1925, and such unnecessary indignities as artificial scratches. (For
this we gave up a slot that could have gone to, say, a Nat Pendleton
starring vehicle?)
Happily the result, if unlikely to knock Sunrise off anyone's
ten-best list, was much better than my fears. It's based on the
novel which produced a lost 1923 Gloria Swanson vehicle (you can pretty
much guess the plot from the title), and the adaptation is quite
solidly done and well-shaped dramatically. The direction is unflashy
and, as long as it sticks to period locations (a local B&B served as
the family home), does a surprisingly convincing job of looking and
feeling like a 1923 film; the illusion is harder to maintain when a
cinderblocked campus rec room tries to be a flapper-era nightclub. (I
would have pointed the director toward Florey and Vorkapich's The
Life and Death of 9413, A Hollywood Extra for inspiration on how to
create a vivid Expressionist look with paper cutouts and lighting
rather than unsuitable realistic locations.) The cast avoids the worst
of silent movie acting cliches, but on the other hand, understandably
has only a modest sense of how to create truly memorable moments of
pantomimic acting-- a few weekends of shooting hardly compares to the
years Swanson herself worked her way up through the industry, honing
her craft. But all in all, I think we appreciated that something we
feared might insult our love for silent movies turned out, happily, to
share it.
WHAT'S WORTH WHILE? (****) This 1921 Lois Weber production, starring
(like the same year's The Blot) Claire Windsor and Louis Calhern, is
missing its first few minutes; but a few explanatory titles set the
scene and we are soon thrust into the thick of one of Weber's
patented moralizing dramas. Calhern, looking surprisingly natural in
western gear and on horseback, is the rough-edged but decent and manly
partner of Windsor's oilman father; Windsor falls in love with him
but is repulsed by his lack of refinement. Ultimately he spends two
years in Europe and winds up being refined into a society ninny,
driving her to question (organ cue)... What's Worth While?
Frankly, I didn't buy the idea that Calhern's natural man could
turn into a genuinely emptyheaded fop for a second, and yet Weber's
direction is so intense, stern and precisely detailed that it all works
anyway-- and it's a good thing the ending isn't the part that's
missing, because no one would ever guess the twist this takes
otherwise. Easily my favorite silent of the weekend, and one to catch
if the Library of Congress's 35mm restoration (which looks gorgeous)
should turn up near you.
MURDERS IN THE ZOO (***) Everyone who's seen it remembers the opening
of this 1933 horror movie, in which sadistic big game hunter Lionel
Atwill sews the lips of one of his wife's lovers shut and leaves him
to die in the jungle. But the whole movie is great (except for Charlie
Ruggles' comedy relief)-- the feral gestures Atwill makes while
attempting to woo his terrified wife are creepier than anything in any
Hannibal Lecter movie.
SUNDAY
THE DIXIE FLYER (****) The second of two railroad pictures starring a
Novak sister (Jane this time) is similar enough that I can't remember
exactly which sported certain details-- they each had a spoiled rich
son, a virtuous hero, a runaway train, etc. But this one gets down to
action faster, and the climactic stuntwork is truly spectacular in a
way that merits comparison to Keaton's waterfall stunts in Our
Hospitality. (As Early Film pointed out afterwards, if you look
carefully at the shot where the hero leaps from the handcar onto a
rapidly rising drawbridge, you can see that the stuntman is soaking
wet-- meaning he missed the first time!)
FROM NINE TO NINE (*) For Edgar G. Ulmer, the first stop after
Hollywood in a career that would take in everything from health
education shorts to Yiddish films was... a 1936 British quota quickie
shot in Montreal. (What else.) Alas, what this combination murder
mystery-jewel heist picture (the latter part of which is blatantly
stolen from Joe May's Asphalt) mainly proves is that Ulmer wasn't
born knowing how to shoot stylish, coherent movies for no money in no
time-- this is both inept and incomprehensible, a picture that seems to
use the same four feet of backdrop for every shot and looks and moves
like 1929. The only good part was Canadian archivist D.J. Turner's
shaggy dog account of tracking down the missing sound for one reel, an
amusing glimpse into the world of obsessively quirky film collectors.
WHEN DAWN CAME (**) Strikingly similar to the Lois Weber film the
previous night, this 1920 production by nobody you particularly ever
heard of is mainly notable as the earliest surviving Colleen Moore
appearance (and she lights up the screen when she finally appears
halfway through). Lee Shumway (who had been the foreman in the first
film of the festival, The Danger Signal) plays a doctor doing brilliant
charity work in the slums; like Robert Donat in The Citadel, he's
attracted uptown by society folks, but when despite his medical skills
he's spurned by a society gal as her social inferior, he becomes an
alcoholic bum (and, egad, an atheist!) until a little blind girl
(Colleen) who plays organ at the Mission of San Juan Capistrano (!)
needs his old skills... The lugubrious story isn't obviously less
credible than Weber's but it doesn't have her laser focus in the
telling (it even finds time for flashbacks to the Conquistadors and
Jesus), making it play more like an inspirational TV movie. However,
it was very handsomely photographed (by William C. Foster, who also
shot What's Worth While) and in a spotless 35mm print it absolutely
glowed-- up to the moment of Moore's unveiling, when the surviving
print stops! (Somehow, I think I can guess whether or not her faith
pays off and his is restored-- from the title for one thing....)
christoph...@und.nodak.edu
enjoyable weekend in Massillon. Below is a very cursory summary of the
2005 Cinesation, in the form I'll be submitting it for this week's
issue of the "High Plains Reader." If I have time in the next day or
two, I'll add more details and may address some of Mike's comments
individually (most of which I agreed with).
--Chris Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/MusicToMyEars-home.htm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/DigitalMovies.htm
http://www.hpr1.com/movies.htm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs
----------------------------------------------------------------
More movies, old and new
By Christopher P. Jacobs
Movies Editor
MASSILLON, OH -- Close to a hundred film buffs from around the country
and Canada gathered for the 15th annual Fall Cinesation, held in the
quaint old Ohio town of Massillon, where movie legends Lillian and
Dorothy Gish were born. From last Thursday night through Sunday
afternoon, the historic 1915 Lincoln Theatre took a break from its
usual first-run Hollywood fare to present rare and/or classic films
from the past: 16 features, 22 shorts, plus the first five episodes of
the 1948 "Superman" serial and chapter 1 of "The Iron Claw."
The low cost and easy availability of digital video production
equipment inspired one young old-movie buff to produce a full-length
silent feature for her senior honors thesis. Her 2005 remake of the
lost 1923 Gloria Swanson melodrama "Prodigal Daughters" played in
festival prime time Saturday night at 7 pm, projected from a DVD, and
DVD copies were for sale in the lobby. Although technically a new
movie, its adherence to the original plot made it fit right in
thematically with several of the authentic silent-era productions on
the weekend's schedule, most notably Lois Weber's interesting "What's
Worth While?" (1921), which immediately followed it in a newly-struck
35mm print, and D. W. Griffith's charming Lillian Gish picture "True
Heart Susie" (1919), which played the night before (though
unfortunately in a disappointingly mediocre 16mm dupe print).
Kent State senior Mandy Altimus did not just adapt the original novel
of "Prodigal Daughters" into a new and updated movie, but instead tried
to imitate the style and period of the original, shooting in black and
white with occasional blue tints for night scenes, often with effective
old-fashioned iris-outs instead of fade-outs, and using title cards
with an improvised piano score on the soundtrack in lieu of spoken
dialogue or narration. The amateur actors played their roles in
slightly larger-than-life pantomime performances in keeping with the
acting styles of the early 1920s without condescending to parody or
burlesque, which could have been a great temptation with such a heavily
didactic morality tale.
The movie's biggest drawbacks were its pacing (as its 90 minutes could
easily have been tightened to be closer to the original film's
60-minute running time), as well as some hasty-looking, flat lighting
through most of the picture, a few sets that were too obviously
makeshift, and most hairstyles and costumes too modern-looking for a
period story. Nevertheless, it was an admirable effort and extremely
ambitious for a student project with a budget of only about $500.
Highlights of the movie weekend were several fun but difficult to find
"pre-code" Paramount features, especially "A Lady's Profession" (1933)
with Alison Skipworth and Roland Young as newly impoverished British
aristocrats who come to America and wind up running a speakeasy during
the final months of Prohibition. The well-plotted "Murders in the Zoo"
(1933) has Lionel Atwill as an insanely jealous wealthy sportsman who
acquires wild animals for the zoo he patronizes and devises ways to use
them to get rid of his wife's lovers gruesomely (for example, sewing
together the lips of one romantic rival before leaving him tied up in
the jungle, then casually telling his wife the man did not say anything
before he left suddenly). Randolph Scott is the earnest young
biochemist-toxicologist who solves the crimes.
"Hot Saturday" (1932) was appropriately shown on Saturday, and stars
cute Nancy Carroll having to contend with small-town gossip and
severely test the faith of the shy, traditional man who loves her
(Randolph Scott again) when after leaving a wild party she visits a
notorious playboy (Cary Grant) late at night and comes home alone in
his car. The unexpected resolution conveys nearly the opposite attitude
from movies like "Prodigal Daughters" and likely helped hasten the
enforcement of Hollywood's production code by 1934.
Two silent railroad melodramas provided engrossing plots with some
fast-paced action and thrills, putting them among the most entertaining
silent titles of the weekend. "The Danger Signal" (1925) starred Jane
Novak as the mother of twin sons separated at birth, one raised by her
in loving poverty to become an admired train engineer, and the other
raised by her snobbish railroad-president father-in-law in pampered
luxury. Of course the truth eventually has to come out after much
excitement and worry. The only known surviving print was preserved
earlier this year and is still missing a few scenes.
"The Dixie Flyer" (1926) starred Jane's sister Eva Novak as the
daughter of a much more benevolent railroad president who goes
undercover for her father as a telegraph operator to learn who's
masterminding the labor disputes on their latest construction site. A
spectacularly shot and edited race to stop a moving train is the
climax. This print was newly restored with additional footage
discovered and re-inserted since the film was rediscovered and
preserved only a few years ago.
Cecil B. DeMille's powerful melodrama "The Whispering Chorus" (1918)
was one of the director's personal favorites until its dark themes and
experimental visual effects turned off audiences and made it the only
film he made that ever lost money. Luckily this story of a
guilt-stricken man who changes his identity only to be accused of his
own murder survives in a beautiful color tinted 35mm print that was
shown at the convention, and is also available on VHS tape but not yet
on DVD.
Lois Weber's very rare "What's Worth While" (1921) was believed to
survive only in fragments, but additional reels were recently
discovered to have been mislabeled and have finally been reassembled
into proper order with only about the first ten minutes missing. The
slow-starting but nicely executed plot continues the pioneering woman
director's fondness for strong social commentary, here examining the
effects of class and breeding on romantic inclinations. The "moral of
the story" is to recognize the good in someone without trying to change
harmless habits one might find "uncultured." The same leading actors,
Louis Calhern and Claire Windsor, starred in Weber's rather more
effective film "The Blot" the same year.
Another woman director, Nell Shipman, made one of the festival's best
shorts, "A Bear, A Boy and a Dog" (1920), depicting an eventful
Saturday afternoon in the life of a small-town boy who goes "on strike"
from his chores and gets wound up with a stray dog, an escaped bear
cub, and a couple of robbers.
The most enjoyable short of the weekend was "The Screen Fan," made in
about 1917 and depicting noted artist James Montgomery Flagg painting a
model while telling her a story. The scene then dissolves to her
becoming a hopeful movie extra and imagining life as a Hollywood star
with her own studio. Memorable for anyone who had never seen it before
was the bizarre Todd Browning comedy short, "The Mystery of the Leaping
Fish," starring Douglas Fairbanks as a cocaine-sniffing,
heroin-injecting detective. This film is actually available in a
clearer copy on DVD as a bonus item on Kino Video's release of the
Fairbanks feature "The Gaucho."
Most of the films shown at this and other annual classic film
conventions around the country are not available on DVD, videotape, or
even on cable television. The next major event of this type, for anyone
interested in massive doses of movies you can't find anywhere else, is
the Syracuse Cinefest in mid-March.
JMozart...@aol.com
Okay here goes. Well, as always it was a most enjoyable weekend, and
it's a nice, easy going atmosphere with lots of very nice people. This
year's lineup wasn't as stellar as the past two years. There were far
less films with big name stars than in past years, and there were far
more programmers with second and third tier stars, which isn't
necessarily a bad thing. Many of those programmers are quite
entertaining. But, after the past two years of getting to see rare,
little-seen Dorothy Gish and Viola Dana films, it was kind of a
letdown, and I can honestly say there really wasn't one film on the
program that really grabbed me, unlike previous years. And there were
quite a few films on the program this year that I had already seen, so
I skipped True Heart Susie and The Mystery of the Leaping Fish. Still,
it was worth attending this weekend, and I'm glad I went. And putting
together a four-day film festival is a mammoth task, so the fact that
these folks manage to pull it off every year is really commendable.
You'll never totally please everyone. And the weekend had the expected
comedy and cartoon short subjects scattered throughout. ****=Very Good,
***=Good, **=Fair, *=Poor. And there may be spoilers, so all of you
folks sensitive to that are hereby forewarned
The Danger Signal(1925-***)- This was a very entertaining film. Sort of
a mother-love melodrama meets railroad action film. Jane Novak has to
be one of the prettiest leading ladies I've seen, which is why it's
unfortunate she had to spend most of the film wearing the worst aging
makeup. The movie opens in 1904. In it, Novak plays a young woman who's
just recently become a widow. She married into a wealthy family, but
her husband's father disowned his son because he didn't approve of the
marriage. After, her husband's death, Novak appeals to her
father-in-law for help, because she now has a child. He refuses.
However he offers to take custody of the child to bring him up right.
With "Everything money can buy" The twist, is that unknowing to the
father-in-law, Novak actually has twins( Must be fraternal, since two
different actors play the sons as adults) So, she gives one up, while
keeping the other. The film fast-forwards 21 years, and we see the
results of the two sons different upbringings. The son that Novak kept,
is thoughtful, sweet, hard-working, and is devoted to his mother, while
the son brought up by the grandfather, is a self-absorbed, snobbish,
wastrel. The film moves at a fairly brisk pace and is peppered with
pleasing performaces all around, particularly Robert Edeson as the
wealthy grandfather. I always like Edeson. He's one of my favorite
silent film character actors, and I always enjoy it when he turns up.
And Jane Novak gives a good performance. She's lovely, ethereal, and
she suffers with a Gish-like radiance.And it ends with a very exciting
railroad chase in order to prevent two trains from having a head-on
collision.
Cinema Paradiso(1989****)- I know everyone's wondering what a 1989
Italian film is doing on a program of silents and early talkies. This
film was a last minute replacement for what was supposed to be a Joe E.
Brown film. I was shocked when I saw this film roll across the screen,
but it actually turned out to be a very appropriate, and charming
movie. It's a coming of-age story beginning in post-war Italy, which
concerns a young boy and his deep friendship with the local movie
projectionist in his small Italian town, and how that friendship
endures through his childhood, adolescence, manhood, and his eventual
departure from his town to the world outside to greater things. It was
a lovely, sentimental story with good performances all around and
sprinkled with lots of fun and quirky characters.
Superman(1948**) Friday kicked off the first five chapters of the 1948
Kirk Alyn serial, which was shown throughout the weekend. It was great,
unpretentious fun. Simply pure, escapist entertainment.
Let's Make A Million(1936)- A Edward Everett Horton Paramount
programmer. In it Horton is eagerly awaiting his veteran check in order
to marry his sweetheart, while his two pixilated aunts( Wonderfully
played by Margaret Seddon and Margaret McWade) want him to invest in a
shrine dedicated to his grandfather, along the way Horton loses his
money in a phoney oil scheme. This was pleasing entertainment and
Horton is always fun.
Richard Robert's Comedy Shorts(*) Okay, this was probably my least
favorite part of the festival. I'm sorry Richard. I didn't meet you at
the festival, but you seemed very nice and I did enjoy your commentary
on the films. I'm not a major fan of most run-of-the mill slapstick
comedies to begin with, although it can be enjoyable. It's just usually
not anything I *have* to see. The shorts ranged from the pretty
good(Circus Daze(1928)- starring Edwin Poodles Hanneford) to the
dreadful( Surf Girl(1916) a Keystone comedy starring my comedic idol
Raymond Griffith.) Others in the program included Betty Wakes Up, a
pleasant 1917 Christie comedy starring a very young and beautiful Betty
Compson. And Great Guns(1927), another reasonably entertaining comedy
starring Tommy Albert, a little-known comic who was both deaf and
mute, and is a cousin of Ceasar Romero.
Ladies Love Brutes(1930**)- This was an interesting picture. George
Bancroft, plays a crude, but loveable widowed father who has amassed
his fortune in the construction business, who along the way gets
tangled up with a group of racketeers. But he longs for the refinement
and sophistication of his business colleagues. Along the way he meets
up with a beautiful and sophisticated society woman(Mary Astor) who's
on the brink of divorce from her husband(Fredric March.) and soon falls
in love with her. She likes him, but isn't particularly in love with
him. In a very strange twist, Bancroft decides to have Astor's son
kidnapped so he can rescue him and Astor will fall in love him. The
plot gets even more weird when Bancroft's racketeering nemesis kidnaps
*his* son, and makes him choose which boy he wants to take out
unharmed. His son or Astor's. Bancroft gives an enjoyable performance.
Mary Astor looks lovely, although she was stuck with a rather nothing
part with very little of interest to do. And Fredric March has a
thankless role as well, although both make the most of their time.
The Ranger's Bride(1910**) Early Broncho Billy film. Great outdoor
shots, but nothing special as a film.
The Whispering Chorus(1918***) I had actually already seen this one as
well, but I elected to stay and watch it. This film is actually quite
powerful, and I was glad to see it again. For those of you who think
DeMille is all about self-indulgent spectacle and heavy-handed
juxtapositions of sinful decadence vs. Biblical virtue, this film shows
what kinds of wonderful and artistic films Demille was making in the
1910s. In this film Raymond Hatton( In a tour-de force dramatic
performance) plays a young, married clerk struggling to make ends meet.
He decides to embezzle money from his company, so that his wife and
mother can have the enjoyments that his meager salary won't allow.
However when a later examination of the books comes up, he elects to
leave his wife and mother, and fake his own death, by disfiguring the
face of a dead body that he fishes out of the water, and giving the
body his identity. Hatton's wife( Kathlyn Williams) has remarried to a
promising public official( Elliot Dexter), not knowing of her husband
being alive. The twist comes when Hatton is later tried and convicted
of his own murder. This all may sound convoluted and preposterous, but
I recommend the film. It's much darker fare than most of the other
DeMille films you've probably seen. Aside from Hatton, Kathlyn Williams
plays his wife. Kathlyn Williams is another one of those stars from the
1910's that some of you might find hard to take, but I like her, and
she's very impressive here. And I don't think she ever looked lovelier
than she does in this film.
A Bear, A Boy, And, A Dog(1920***)- This was a very charming little
picture produced by Nell Shipman. It's story is slight, and the title
tells it all. A young boy doesn't want to do his Saturday chores
because he has other things in mind such as fishing, and seeing the
latest William S. Hart picture. So he decides to go on strike and
hideout in the woods. Along the way he meets up with a bear and a dog.
As well as two robbers.
Life In Hollywood(1923-1925****) This was a few episodes from a series
that took you behind the scenes of Hollywood. This was one of the
highlights of the festival. I love things like this, as you get a
chance to get a glimpse of the inner-workings of Hollywood, and there
were several appearances from many Hollywood stars as themselves. There
were some particularly playful shots of Alice Calhoun. Also there were
shots of Frank Lloyd directing Corinne Griffith in Black Oxen, and also
Shirley Mason and Francis Macdonald working on a scene. And lots *lots*
more. Most of the material was 35mm, so the quality was gorgeous. I was
floored by that closeup of Corinne Griffith. I wish stuff like this
would come to DVD. This kind of footage is priceless.
A Lady's Profession(1933**) A pleasant, Paramount programmer starring
Alison Skipworth and Roland Young as a couple of titled, British
aristocrats who fall upon hard times, and decide to travel to America
where they open up a speakeasy.
Hot Saturday(1932***) Another Paramount picture. I had actually already
seen this and enjoyed it on a very crummy video I got from eBay. But it
was nice to see this in a great print on the big screen. It's a rather
light-hearted film with just a nice touch of drama. It stars the
wonderful Nancy Carroll, as a young girl in a small town who's
reputation is tarnished by the gossip of the townspeople who link her
unfavorably with a local, wealthy playboy( Cary Grant) Terrific picture
with fine performances. Seeing Grant at this early stage is great. He
already has that gentle breeziness, and luminous star quality. And
director William Seiter ably captures the languid, and routine life of
small town America.
The Devil's Brother(1933***) I am coming to really enjoy Laurel and
Hardy, and this one was amusing. Set in 18th Century Europe, L&H play
two men who are robbed of their money who decide to become bandits
themselves. It's based on an 1830 operetta. L& H are supported by the
terrific James Finlayson and beautiful Thelma Todd
Prodigal Daughters(2005***)- I couldn't wait to see what the folks on
a.m.s were going to say about this. I'm happy to see that it went over
pretty well. Actually the audience seemed very respectful of this film,
and there was even a question and answer period afterwards with the
filmmaker Mandy Altimus. This was the world premiere of the film made
by Kent State student Mandy Altimus who recreated the lost 1923 Gloria
Swanson film Prodigal Daughters. For a budget of only $500, Altimus
does achieve something noteworthy. And as a young, 25 year old classic
film lover, I was very excited to see a fellow young person interested
in this period of filmmaking. For those expecting or demanding that
this have the exact look of a 1920s era film will be disappointed( As I
said the poor girl only had $500), but she does manage to interject
several little silent-era touches such as the use tints and the iris
camera shot, and the film is in black and white. The actors are fair,
although a little amateurish at times. But it's a cast of mostly
non-professionals, and I'm sure getting 2005 folks, largely unfamiliar
with the style of silent films, to act in that style is difficult.There
isn't much seamlessness or grace to much of the acting. Even Altimus, a
silent film fan herself, seems to be under the misguided belief that
silent film-acting is all about being "over-the-top", so she's directed
her actors with that in mind. To be constantly animated, and employ
some excess mannerisms, facial expressions, and gestures instead of
making them act in a way that emulates the style of the silent cinema.
A balance of stylization and naturalness.Although the acting isn't
crude or denigrating to the art of silent film. Altimus is on the right
track, it just needs to be tightened up and brought to a more
controlled pace. The costumes and hairstyles were anachronistic, but
again that's due to limited budget. All in all, I think this was a
worthy effort, and anytime we see young people at the helm of such
things, is a great thing. Here's Altimus' website concerning the film.
You might even be able to buy a DVD of this for anyone who really wants
to see it. I think they were selling for $15.00 at the festival.
http://www.blueleofilm.com/
What's Worth While(1921**) Being a Lois Weber fan, this was one of my
most anticipated films of the weekend. While not a disappointment, this
didn't quite live up to the qualities that I really admire in Weber's
other 1921 films The Blot and Too Wise Wives. Cinesation very proudly
screened this film, as it is the first time this film has been publicly
screened since it's realease in 1921. The story concerns a young, bored
Eastern aristocratic genteelwoman, who meets and falls in love with a
crude, limited- in- the- social- graces, Westerner, who is her father's
partner in an oil field. However their different worlds clash, as the
young woman is very noticeably bothered by his uncultured, unrefined
ways. The young man travels to Europe to gain refinement. He comes
back,but is a different man from the one she fell in love with, so she
undergoes a campaign to get him back to his old self. Lois Weber does
make a worthy statement about unconditional love, and true love
transcending obstacles and class. And there is a very amusing, surprise
twist at the end. But Weber seems to have given this film a lighter
touch, and I missed the more languid, thoughtful, and intelligent
compositions Weber gave to her other films. And the principal actors
Claire Windsor, Louis Calhern, and that very striking and divine
creature Mona Lisa( Wonder what happened to her) didn't give as
interesting performances as they did in Too Wise Wives. The
cinematography was lovely, and I don't think Claire Windsor ever looked
lovelier. And DoN's, Windsor sports a jaw-droppingly beautiful wardrobe
throughout. Still, worth seeing and I'd love to see it again. Hopefully
it'll get a nice DVD transfer like The Blot recently did.
Murders In The Zoo(1933***) This was a weird and fun little Paramount
programmer starring Lionel Atwill as an insane zoologist who is
intensely jealous of his wife, and kills any man who is his wife's
lover, or who he *thinks* is his wife's lover. The film has everything.
Rare, poisonous snakes on the loose, a young woman eaten alive by
crocodiles, wild animals on the loose, lively comic relief from Charlie
Ruggles, and Atwill suffering a bizarre, almost surreal denouement
which has to be seen to be believed. I won't spoil it here, but anyone
wanting to know what fate Atwill meets, write me off-list. A nutty
film, but highly enjoyable. Rounding out the cast are Gail Patrick,
Randolph Scott, and Kathleen Burke.
The Dixie Flyer(1926***) This one went over pretty well with the
audience, and indeed is a very enjoyable and well done film. It's
another railroad action film. It concerns sabotage amid a railroad
project and the railroad president's daughter as well as the railroad
superintendent working together to figure out where the cause for all
the trouble. Eva Novak( Jane Novak's younger sister) is a very spirited
actress in this film, and like sister Jane, was a real beauty. Nice to
see her lovely face illuminated on the big screen in a stunningly
beautiful print, instead of the poor video tapes I've seen of her in
other films. I've not liked Cullen Landis in most of what I've seen him
in so far, but he managed to be somewhat more likeable here, although
still not an actor to get overly-excited about. And seeing him on the
big screen in a gorgeous print, he was a lot handsomer than I
previously thought. Lots of great edge of your seat stunts and railroad
action sequences including a chase involving a runaway, disconnected
train car.
>From Nine To Nine(1936**)- This was touted as perhaps the rarest of
Edgar G. Ulmer's films. Shot in Montreal in ten days, it was the last
film of former 1910's serial queen superstar Ruth Roland. It's a
mystery involving the murder of a prominent jewel dealer. The film is
peppered with mysterious characters and fun performances, and despite
the slight budget and shooting schedule, Ulmer creates something rather
entertaining, although the plot was difficult to follow at times, and
some characters appeared out of nowhere. Although I believe there was
mention of some footage possibly being missing.
When Dawn Came(1920**) This film is noteworthy because it's a recent
discovery of a rare, early Colleen Moore appearance which was being
shown for the first time. It was an okay film. It starts off very
interesting. A young man, talented, and intelligent with a promising
career as a doctor. He is devoted to helping the poor people of the
slums, until he meets and falls in love with a wealthy society girl,
who convinces him to set up an exclusive, private practice to treat
wealthy society men and women. He soon looses his purpose and turns to
drink and a road of self-destruction. While this material makes for a
very interesting story, the film is handled very heavy-handedly, and it
really hammers home it's message of redemption through faith, prayer,
and God. And it's through Colleen Moore, as the blind girl that helps
the doctor find his way again. Not a great, or even particularly good
film by any means, but it has it's moments, and is interesting as an
early Moore appearance. Especially one that was formally thought to be
lost. I'm glad I got to see it.
Best Wishes,
James
Jenny
Daytonian, I just want to clarily one thing - the Gish sister were not
born in Massillon - rather, they spent some summers there at a
cousin's house when they were touring young stage actresses. Lillian
was born in Springfiled, Ohio on October 14, 1893 and Dorothy was born
in Dayton, Ohio on March 11, 1898. Some sources on the internet,
including the IMDb, mistakenly list Massillon as Dorothy's birthplace.
Also, Mike got the Novak sisters mixed up: Jane was in DANGER SIGNAL
and Eva was the heroine in DIXIE FLYER. Chris and James got it right.
Thanks to the Cinesation staff: Dennis and D.W. Atkinson, Terry &
Margaret Hoover, Lois & Andy Eggers and Bill Hewitt for a wonderful
weekend. In adition to the films which have been ablely covered here,
the staff arranged a wonderful dinner on Saturday night, provided free
coffee and donuts in the morning and did everything possible to ensure
a smooth schedule and a good time for all.
Frederica
<JMozart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128427872.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
THE DANGER SIGNAL played at Cinecon--like you, I found it quite enjoyable,
even it it wasn't SUNRISE. I was tickled that the twin who grew up rich
bypassed youth altogether and went directly to middle-age, whilst the manly
working twin was hunky and good looking. And Jane Novak was lovely!
Fabulous train chase scene at the end, although I kept looking for Rinty.
But I always look for Rinty.
Frederica
mikeg...@gmail.com
Danger Flyer on Friday...
I felt guilty about hitting Post without saying much about the
organization of the fest but I trust they will recognize that my deep
engagement with the films is the highest compliment. Cinesation is a
homey festival in the best ways-- the Lions club even gave us free
popcorn, the private club next door whips up a nice dinner on Saturday
nights, and as we left the theater on Saturday the whole town was
standing out in the middle of the street waiting for the high school
football team to get back from Beating Ignatius, just as every shop
window in town had urged them to do. I had a great time and thank them
for their hard work!
D.W. Atkinson
of 2 from the Library of Congress. Yvonne Howell was the maid. Gotta
see more of her!
About the second Mutt & Jeff cartoon, from the LoC notes:
CRAMPS (1916)
Prod.: Bud Fisher; Dir.: Charlie Bowers, Raoul Barre.
That was Bud Fisher's face, full frame, at head of reel.
The most enjoyable silent short of the weekend was "The Screen Fan".
The 35mm Edgar Kennedy title was Feather Your Nest.
BOGUS BANDITS was also 35mm.
DW Atkinson
Donuts? What Donuts!
Larry41OnEbay
such a poor print ran at Cinesation... A year ago, I found a print for
sale on the internet and bought it, knowing that the poor VHS I had for
years was barely watchable. After I viewed the print, I realized it
was not much better, but still it was Lillian Gish, Robert Harron &
D.W. Griffith. I offered it to CINESATION stating up front the poor
condition. They grabbed it up and I recommended they view it first
before advertising it. Meanwhile I checked with the Library of
Congress to see if they held any material on TRUE HEART SUSIE. They did
not. According to further research, both The George Eastman House and
The Museum of Modern Art hold material on this title. I wrote to both
asking if it could be borrowed to play at Cinesation. Both archives
told me they had no copies of TRUE HEART SUSIE available for loan. So,
I bit the bullet and wrote the program notes for my print and described
it: "This print has damage to the beginning and is high contrast with
soft focus, but it is not with out charm." I also hoped to introduce
the film and again warn the audience but I was late returning from
dinner and the film had already started. In conclusion, I do not want
this to sound like a whiney excuse, but I did want to make it known
that three major archives were approached for better material. And
sometimes film preservation means we film buffs have to step up to the
plate and do the best we can with our meager resources even if we know
the print is not going to look good. As least, those who have never
seen this rare title (including some enthusiastic local teenagers in
the audience) were able to view it and hopefully look for it again in
better condition if they can find it.
P.S. And thanks to those people who did enjoy it and said so having no
idea what it took to find it and how hard I tried to find a better
print to share.
mikeg...@gmail.com
point was that what passed for perfectly expected 20 years ago now
seems so much inferior to the other things we saw, Cinesation being
among the things that have so raised my expectations after showing me
gorgeous 35mm restorations off camera negatives and so on. (A similar
recent experience: I taped the Killiam print of Three Bad Men off the
Encore Westerns channel, having fond memories of playing it in 16mm
years ago; the result now seems so murky that I couldn't watch it.)
I'm glad to have seen Susie again anyway, though I now know that I'll
never know Susie like I knew Susie....
Similarly, I would say none of the Paramounts was in a particularly
good print-- they were all 16mm TV prints timed to produce the gray
tones that a TV station film chain could handle 30 or 40 years ago.
I'm sure that if 35mm material exists on these titles, it could produce
a far better print today. But at the same time, I know perfectly well
that no one's going to strike new prints of A Woman's Profession or
Ladies Love Brutes; at most we might get better video transfers, IF
they were playing on TV, which they aren't. I wouldn't hesitate for a
second in playing a TV print of any of those titles over the
alternative, which is leaving them unseen among the "existing lost."
Jason Liller
>such a poor print ran at Cinesation...
Ack! Now you've made me realize how nasty my post of 3 October sounds.
I appreciate all of the work that goes into these events and I really
wish I could have been there. I think I was just trying to say that I
wouldn't want to make the trip specifically to see a movie that may not
look any better than my Grapevine copy.
--Jason Liller
Lloyd Fonvielle
> I'm glad to have seen Susie again anyway, though I now know that I'll
> never know Susie like I knew Susie....
Check her out again in another 20 years -- you might be surprised at how
much the old girl has learned in that time . . .
mikeg...@gmail.com
>much the old girl has learned in that time . . .
Well, anything's possible. But I have come, by honest means, to the
James Cardian view that the more you see of silent film, the less you
admire Griffith, because the less you think of the landscape as being a
flat plain with one peak in it.
It's not to say that I don't think he has a major period where he's
hugely influential and advancing the art form significantly. The later
Biograph period through Intolerance, certainly-- though one thing I've
come to realize is that he's also a fairly eccentric filmmaker in that
period. There was a time that I would have taken the choppy, jittery
continuity of the modern story in Intolerance as evidence that
filmmaking in the mid-teens hadn't smoothed itself out yet; but now,
having seen a number of extremely smooth and fluid films of that time
(The Stoning, Alias Jimmy Valentine, The Italian, The Cheat, Traffic in
Souls, etc.) I realize that in fact lots of people knew how to make
very smooth and professional-by-modern-standards movies by that point--
and Griffith wasn't necessarily one of them. Griffith seems more like
Welles in the 50s, making movies that are very different in feel from
anyone else's, brilliantly innovative in some ways, overdirected and
overedited in others, both blazing trails and climbing too far out on
limbs.
So problem number one that I have with Griffith is that in a lot of
ways he retrenches stylistically-- after Intolerance's modern story,
which is full of affecting closeups, there are almost none in
True-Heart Susie, and thus it's much harder to get into the characters.
It wasn't just print quality that made it seem far earlier a film
than, say, What's Worth While?, made just three years later but in a
fully fluid and intimate style that would have suited a Wyler or
Zinnemann film of the 1950s. And with maybe the one exception of
Broken Blossoms, that seems to be the case with almost all of his
post-Intolerance films-- impressive pageantry, little memorable acting.
There's just no way now that I could consider the director of The
Greatest Question, America or Isn't Life Wonderful to be the obvious
superior to even the other top directors of 1918-1922, let alone the
late 20s.
The other issue, of course, is thematic-- while there's a lot of charm
in the picture of small town life in Susie, there's also an instinctive
condemnation of the flapper played by Clarine Seymour that, to put it
in terms of another movie at Cinesation, shows Griffth is clearly on
the side of the narrowminded townsfolk who would have run Nancy Carroll
in Hot Saturday out of town on a rail for supposedly sleeping with Cary
Grant. I just have run out of sympathy with Griffith's flattery of the
prejudices of the conventionally pious when I can compare it to
something like The Stoning, which is as clear-eyed about human nature
as Bresson, or The Wishing Ring, which simply sees no need to assign
white hats and black hats at all. Griffth's women's-magazine-level
sensibility doesn't interest me unless the filmmaking interests me--
and the filmmaking after Intolerance doesn't interest me all that much.
But Gish was good....
Jenny
enjoyable,
even it it wasn't SUNRISE. I was tickled that the twin who grew up
rich
bypassed youth altogether and went directly to middle-age, whilst the
manly
working twin was hunky and good looking. And Jane Novak was lovely!
Fabulous train chase scene at the end, although I kept looking for
Rinty.
But I always look for Rinty.
Frederica
Actually Gaston Glass who played Ralph, the spoiled rich twin, was 25
years old when THE DANGER SIGNAL was made while Robert Gordon who
played the good hard-working twin was 30. Maybe it was the mustache and
sneer that made him look older. Jane Novak, who played the boy's
mother, was only 29 at the time. Go figure.
Frederica
"Jenny" <jlp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128520813.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Actually Gaston Glass who played Ralph, the spoiled rich twin, was 25
> years old when THE DANGER SIGNAL was made while Robert Gordon who
> played the good hard-working twin was 30. Maybe it was the mustache and
> sneer that made him look older. Jane Novak, who played the boy's
> mother, was only 29 at the time. Go figure.
I was wondering (delicate, sensitive question coming up)...did Gordon manage
to have any descendants? Because parts of that train chase looked
remarkably (AHEM) damaging to certain tissues, if you know what I mean.
(AHEM.)
Frederica
Lloyd Fonvielle
> . . . I have come, by honest means, to the
> James Cardian view that the more you see of silent film, the less you
> admire Griffith, because the less you think of the landscape as being a
> flat plain with one peak in it.
>
> It's not to say that I don't think he has a major period where he's
> hugely influential and advancing the art form significantly. The later
> Biograph period through Intolerance, certainly-- though one thing I've
> come to realize is that he's also a fairly eccentric filmmaker in that
> period. There was a time that I would have taken the choppy, jittery
> continuity of the modern story in Intolerance as evidence that
> filmmaking in the mid-teens hadn't smoothed itself out yet; but now,
> having seen a number of extremely smooth and fluid films of that time
> (The Stoning, Alias Jimmy Valentine, The Italian, The Cheat, Traffic in
> Souls, etc.) I realize that in fact lots of people knew how to make
> very smooth and professional-by-modern-standards movies by that point--
> and Griffith wasn't necessarily one of them.
Griffith had other concerns than creating the kind of seamless narrative
that became a requirement of the studio style. Indeed, it was
Griffith's failure to master this style, or more precisely to find a way
of applying his peculiar genius to it, that resulted in his fall from
grace in Hollywood. But it's well to remember that this style had no
intrinsic, logical aesthetic rationale . . . it was simply part of the
commodification and homogenizing of movies that was an inevitable
consequence of the rise to power of the corporate functionaries.
"The Aeniad" has a more pleasing and well-considered literary form than
the eccentric and rambunctious epics of Homer, but that doesn't make it
a greater work of art.
> Griffith seems more like
> Welles in the 50s, making movies that are very different in feel from
> anyone else's, brilliantly innovative in some ways, overdirected and
> overedited in others, both blazing trails and climbing too far out on
> limbs.
The films of Griffith and Welles are overdirected in the sense that
Shakespeare is overwritten -- as opposed to the more natural and
vernacular style of Neil Simon.
I reprint below a piece I wrote on this very subject, which can be
conveniently skipped by those who think Irving Thalberg was a genius:
THE STORYTELLER'S VOICE
D. W. Griffith was a product of the stage and was indeed a failed
playwright. But he was also a product of the Biograph years, where he
honed his craft as a filmmaker in short self-contained stories, which
often have an anecdotal quality. In his feature work Griffith fared best
when he had well structured stageplays as source material for his
features -- he simply never mastered this formal discipline in stories
he wrote by himself -- but this is a crucial failing only if you think
movies need to be tightly-plotted narratives with an overall structure
which the individual scenes all serve.
This ideal became the Hollywood norm, but Griffith was at his best when
he didn't follow and didn't need to follow it -- which is why his later
films, when he was trying to fit in to the standardized studio style,
are so inferior to his earlier work.
"The Birth Of A Nation" is a rambling, disjointed film narratively --
more like a collection of tales than a unified story in its own right --
and it is least satisfying when it narrows its focus in its last
episodes to the melodramatic mechanics of its theatrical source. Only
the pure cinematic beauty and power of the Clan ride redeems it from
this reductive derailment of its epic expansiveness.
"Intolerance" of course takes this narrative expansiveness to wild
extremes, but even Griffith's great small films, like "Broken Blossoms"
and "True Heart Susie", have an anecdotal quality. There may be a
heart-stopping final action climax or melodramatic denouement, but the
films as a whole don't build towards it with the kind of precision and
economy and momentum we have come to expect from popular movies since
the onset of the studio era.
This is a criticism one could also level at "Huckleberry Finn", which
lies somewhere between the delightful, rambling yarn-spinning of "Life
On the Mississippi" and the tauter formula fiction of "Tom Sawyer". It
is a criticism one could level at "The Odyssey", too -- and the Bible.
All of these works use narrative formulas, with a more or less developed
overall structure, but proceed episodically, like a series of related
tales told by the fire over the course of many evenings.
One can see why the studios resisted this sort of storytelling in
movies. It's too hard to predict in advance how movies made this way are
going to turn out -- they depend too much on the instincts and the
genius of the storyteller and they lend themselves too much to
improvisation. Griffith's style of anecdotal epic was still fresh in the
mind when one of his truest disciples, Eric Von Stroheim, tried to
emulate it in darker tones in "Greed". From his perspective, the
experiment of "Greed" probably didn't look THAT outrageous -- Griffith's
method had, after all, led to astonishing success both critically and
commercially. "Greed" was longer and grimmer, but followed the same
narrative strategy.
Thalberg, a corporate functionary with taste, but a corporate
functionary first and last, really had to destroy the film -- not just
as a warning to profligate directors but as a signal that the days of
Griffith's method were over. Enter Rupert Julian and the era of the
sensibly-made, pre-visualizable film. That era produced its own kind of
treasures, but I think one of the reasons we are attracted to the silent
era is because it was the last time the ancient voice of the storyteller
could be heard it all its eccentric, iconoclastic, unclassifiable glory.
Its echoes took a long time to die out. It was last heard clearly, I
think, in "The Godfather, Part II", with its parallel storylines that
reflected each other elliptically and suggestively rather than according
to some formal narrative dialectic. It's a messy film, on one level, but
unified by the passion and conviction of the storyteller's voice -- and
the same is true of Griffith's messy masterpieces.
mikeg...@gmail.com
My point, admittedly somewhat less than clear in the earlier post, is
that I'm fine with Griffith's too-impatient-to-be-slick style in the
modern story because it gives a vital story much of its vitality.
My problem is that after that point, with certain exceptions-- Broken
Blossoms, isolated sequences in other things-- he doesn't seem as
vitally engaged and his style, competent, eccentric or whatever,
doesn't really create the moments that win our sympathy and made stars
out of Gish, Harron, et al. To use the analogy of Coppola, here's the
Coppola not even of The Outsiders but of Jack and The Rainmaker.
Why did that happen? Conspiracy? Success and the nice house? I don't
know. All I know is, the more I see other films of the post WWI
period, and even the time around BOAN and Intolerance, the less
exceptional Griffith seems and the more I'm impressed by the general
run of talent and variety of voices at that time. (Will some other
festival please play The Stoning? Seriously, one of the best teens
silents there is.)
Harlett O'Dowd
mikeg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why did that happen? Conspiracy? Success and the nice house? I don't
> know. All I know is, the more I see other films of the post WWI
> period, and even the time around BOAN and Intolerance, the less
> exceptional Griffith seems and the more I'm impressed by the general
> run of talent and variety of voices at that time.
I think it's primarily the Jolson effect. Griffith was the master and
never noticed or cared that his students quickly bypassed him. In his
way, I don't think that Griffith ever left the edwardian era and
steadfastly belived that what worked in BOAN still worked 5, 10, 15
years later.
Jolson's huge success in JAZZ SINGER and THE SINGING FOOL also spoiled
him for talkies. Jolson refused to pay attention to the advances in
sound film acting by those around him, with the result that his later
films - especially SAY IT WITH SONGS - are excrutiatingly painful to
sit through.
mikeg...@gmail.com
I think it's not just a matter of the master being passed by the
pupils. I think the entire period is more diverse and fertile than the
Griffith-centric view of things we got from film history classes and
books until quite recently, in which Porter begat Griffith, and
Intolerance begat the Soviets, and so on.
Instead of seeing Hollywood as an atelier in which everyone studied
under Griffith, we need to see it as an industry sprouting in many
different ways. Griffith, DeMille, Tourneur, Chaplin, George Loane
Tucker, Reginald Barker, etc. etc. coexisted and sometimes fed off each
other, the way Hitchcock, Welles, Hawks, Ford and Jean Negulesco
coexisted and fed off each other in the 40s. There was a time when
Griffith may have had pride of place in that group-- but a year or two
later someone else did because he was capable of something Griffith
wasn't or just had a different sensibility. Who knows what we lost, or
have but haven't paid attention to, because we were convinced that you
could largely stop looking at this period beyond a single man's work?
Harlett O'Dowd
Well, I think Griffith "believed" he was the master, which is all I
said.
I think I discussed something along similar with Richard Roberts here a
year or so ago. As more film becomes available and studied, the old
theories are going to evolve (how much George Loane was readily
available 40 years ago?) I still think it's valuable to teach Griffith
first because Griffith and, especially, BOAN had such an impact
financially, if not so much artistically or technically, on the
industry.
But yes, there was a lot more going on in the teens besides Griffith
and it's high time additional pieces were added to the puzzle.
I still think the traditional auteurs are a good film-history-101 hook,
but only if additional auteurs (less well-known directors, studios,
writers, stars, etc.) are at least mentioned. Anyone who teaches
beyond the 101 stage who still slavishly follows the auteur party line,
however, should be publicly horsewhipped.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Instead of seeing Hollywood as an atelier in which everyone studied
> under Griffith, we need to see it as an industry sprouting in many
> different ways. Griffith, DeMille, Tourneur, Chaplin, George Loane
> Tucker, Reginald Barker, etc. etc. coexisted and sometimes fed off each
> other, the way Hitchcock, Welles, Hawks, Ford and Jean Negulesco
> coexisted and fed off each other in the 40s. There was a time when
> Griffith may have had pride of place in that group-- but a year or two
> later someone else did because he was capable of something Griffith
> wasn't or just had a different sensibility. Who knows what we lost, or
> have but haven't paid attention to, because we were convinced that you
> could largely stop looking at this period beyond a single man's work?
A lot depends on what we're looking for. Most film history takes the
evolved studio style as a given and defines everything in relation to
it. Therefore when it was commonly believed that Griffith "invented"
the close-up or parallel editing, he was the Father Of Film. When it
was shown that he didn't, he got demoted.
When Griffith stopped contributing to the evolution of the studio style,
in the Twenties, he became the Man Whom History Left Behind.
This is not necessarily the most useful way of looking at film history
-- it's sort of the equivalent of taking the British Empire as the
perfect evolution of human governance and analyzing all history leading
up to it in that light.
There's a sense in which the greatest of the late Biographs could have
come at the end of the era of the silent feature instead of preceding
it. In that case they could be read as brilliant abstract distillations
of the silent melodrama, retaining only the sublime visual and crucial
dramatic passages, dispensing with the slick transitions and
unnecessarily elaborated exposition.
Looking at it this way is simply a way of recognizing that almost
nothing truly original in the art of film happened after the flowering
of Griffith, despite all the stylistic developments and despite all the
wonderful films of the era. One might argue that Von Stroheim took
Griffith's achievement one step further, perfecting it, but that's about
all one can offer.
Godard said that nothing really important had happened in the art and
form of filmmaking between him and Griffith, and he was right. The more
I see of other filmmakers' work in the silent era, and the more I study
the Biographs, the bigger Griffith gets.
George Shelps
>Godard said that nothing really important
>had happened in the art and form of
>filmmaking between him and Griffith,
>and he was right. The more I see of
>other filmmakers' work in the silent era,
>and the more I study the Biographs, the
>bigger Griffith gets.
Amen to that..
++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis."
Stott
>
>
>Jolson's huge success in JAZZ SINGER and THE SINGING FOOL also spoiled
>him for talkies. Jolson refused to pay attention to the advances in
>sound film acting by those around him, with the result that his later
>films - especially SAY IT WITH SONGS - are excrutiatingly painful to
>sit through.
>
>
>
Hallelujah I'm a Bum is pretty good- Jolson is subdued enough that he's
nearly human- but it's an atypical film in his career. (And "You Are Too
Beautiful", the best song in the score, is nearly thrown away)
Stott
George Shelps
>And "You Are Too Beautiful", the best
>song in the score, is nearly thrown away)
A song delivered by Jolson without his
usual over-the-top pizzazz, proving he
could be restrained and human (as well as
talented) as a performer.
un fake di Alberto
> Cinema Paradiso(1989****)- I know everyone's wondering what a 1989
> Italian film is doing on a program of silents and early talkies. This
> film was a last minute replacement for what was supposed to be a Joe E.
> Brown film. I was shocked when I saw this film roll across the screen,
> but it actually turned out to be a very appropriate, and charming
> movie. It's a coming of-age story beginning in post-war Italy, which
> concerns a young boy and his deep friendship with the local movie
> projectionist in his small Italian town, and how that friendship
> endures through his childhood, adolescence, manhood, and his eventual
> departure from his town to the world outside to greater things. It was
> a lovely, sentimental story with good performances all around and
> sprinkled with lots of fun and quirky characters.
Just curious: was there a scene with (protagonist) Jacques Perrin and
Brigitte Fossey talking in a car? I'd like to know if the shortened
version is still getting seen outside Italy, or if the earlier longish
cut has resurfaced there as well.
The version that won the Jury Prize inn Cannes and an Academy Award is
the short one, in case you wonder.
--
UFV:Dawn of the Dead(2004-DVD)/L'estate di Bobby Charlton(VHS)
Romanzo criminale/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Fury(DVD)
Viva Zapatero! - http://www.albertofarina.tk
mikeg...@gmail.com
we see everyone going gaga over Bardot in And God Created Woman, which
is 1957; then later we see him marking things on a calendar, which
reads 1954.
homes...@netburner.net
Keystone's THE SURF GIRL (1916). (I think that's where my subject
heading comes from--
Mike Gebert
When I first saw that topic line, (I Was Leaning Over To Tickle The
Ostrich When..) I thought this would be a thread about Billie Ritchie.
CINEMA PARADISO is one of my favorite movies and I had no idea that the
comedian excerpted was Toto.
Tommie Hicks
un fake di Alberto
> CINEMA PARADISO is one of my favorite movies and I had no idea that the
> comedian excerpted was Toto'.
He's possibly the single most popular comedian of all times in Italian
cinema. I doubt he's much popular abroad, even if he has roles in some
well known classics as "Big Deal in Madonna Street". There's a ton of
films he did as protagonist - most of them not very good, although he's
usually amazing anyway.
Eric Grayson
> Just curious: was there a scene with (protagonist) Jacques Perrin and
> Brigitte Fossey talking in a car? I'd like to know if the shortened
> version is still getting seen outside Italy, or if the earlier longish
> cut has resurfaced there as well.
The long version of this has resurfaced in the US and was reissued a
few years ago in a special roadshow. I think they only made one print,
and it was partly destroyed by a genius who stretched the living hell
out of it on a platter with brain wrap (if you don't know what this is,
email me offline... I'd be shot explaining it here).
IMHO, this is one of the greatest films ever made, and also IMHO the
long version is even better. For those of you who saw it on the big
screen at Cinesation, you were lucky to see it in 35mm at all, but, do
yourself a favor and rent the long version on DVD (yes, this is me
saying this).
Eric
un fake di Alberto
> The long version of this has resurfaced in the US and was reissued a
> few years ago in a special roadshow. I think they only made one print,
> and it was partly destroyed by a genius who stretched the living hell
> out of it on a platter with brain wrap (if you don't know what this is,
> email me offline... I'd be shot explaining it here).
I don't know what a brain wrap is - is a platter an old fashioned
movie-ola?
(my address is valid if you take ".invalid" out of it)
> IMHO, this is one of the greatest films ever made, and also IMHO the
> long version is even better.
I don't know about it being among the greatest, but I could not agree
more on the fact the longer version is better. While charming, the short
version is essentially about love for the cinema and nostalgia. The
longer one is a much more complex story, that I won't spoil for those
who have yet to see it - suffice it to say that it's all about how you
can destroy a friend's one shot at happiness while trying to do what you
think is best for him.
Eric Grayson
fake di Alberto <sin...@iaciners.org.invalid> wrote:
> Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The long version of this has resurfaced in the US and was reissued a
> > few years ago in a special roadshow. I think they only made one print,
> > and it was partly destroyed by a genius who stretched the living hell
> > out of it on a platter with brain wrap (if you don't know what this is,
> > email me offline... I'd be shot explaining it here).
>
> I don't know what a brain wrap is - is a platter an old fashioned
> movie-ola?
>
> (my address is valid if you take ".invalid" out of it)
A brain wrap is when the static of a film builds up on a horizontal
platter containing the entire film. If it's on polyester stock, it
won't break, but will instead stretch to unusual proportions. The film
wraps around the center of the platter (the brain) and stretches to
eventually destroy it. If there's actually a projectionist somewhere
within 15 minutes of the projector, this can be stopped and cured very
quickly.
Polyester film has actually been known to jam and tear down ceiling
joists.
That should be non-technical enough that even Freddie won't complain.
Eric
christoph...@und.nodak.edu
A platter is a big disk beside the projector that holds the whole movie
instead of a half-dozen or so separate reels, the film running over to
the projector on rollers and then back to another empty platter (there
are usually stacks of three to five platters on a cleverly designed
"tree" by each projector. And the actual reason for wrapping is is that
the roll of 10,000-18,000 feet of film is wrapped around a large ring
that is removed so the film can be threaded out of the middle. Most
wraps happen in the first ten minutes because the "operator" simply
didn't bother to check if the film was feeding properly immediately
after starting. Wraps later in the movie are usually due to film
sticking to itself. The static cling (also sticky splices or leftover
glue from peeled-off automation cue tape) causes the film to pull a
double thickness of film that gets folded over when it tries to go
through the rollers in the "brain" and jams it all up. The film stuck
in the projector gets ground up by the sprockets while the frame in the
film gate melts and the platter keeps winding the rest of the film
tighter and tighter because it can't feed to the projector. The rollers
then all get bent out of shape and the projector itself can also be
damaged, especially the alignment of the digital sound readers. Oddly
enough, however, platter wraps seem to occur far more often on nights
when I'm not in the projection booth. Hmm... And if that's not enough,
just don't get us all started on cyan soundtracks and red readers. (see
rec.arts.movies.tech for more of that sort of stuff)
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/MusicToMyEars-home.htm
Early Film
> . . . . . . . Hmm... And if that's not enough,
> just don't get us all started on cyan soundtracks and red readers. (see
> rec.arts.movies.tech for more of that sort of stuff)
Now, that is completely on topic.
A projector with a red reader and a B&W print with a variable density
sound track is enough to bring back silent film!
Earl