Welcome to Bob Birchard

Past chats with our guests.
User avatar
mongoII
Posts: 12340
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 7:37 pm
Location: Florida

Post by mongoII »

Mr. Birchard, welcome to SSO and it's nice having you visit with us.

Perhaps you can give us the details about the death of Tom Mix on October 12, 1940 in a single auto accident in Arizona?

Also is either of his daughters still living?

Many thanks,

Joe
Joseph Goodheart
User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3404
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

Dear Mr. Birchard,
Thanks for such a detailed response and sharing your personal reflections!
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2023
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

mongoII wrote:Mr. Birchard, welcome to SSO and it's nice having you visit with us.

Perhaps you can give us the details about the death of Tom Mix on October 12, 1940 in a single auto accident in Arizona?

Also is either of his daughters still living?

Many thanks,

Joe
There is a pretty detailed account in my book, "King Cowboy: Tom Mix and the Movies," including statements from writer Walt Coburn and others, but from memory Tom was traveling across the country visiting friends along the way. He was driving fast along the highway near Florence, AZ, saw a road crew, swerved to avoid hitting them, Rhe suitcase behind his head came loose, breaking his neck, and the car turned over. There were, according to reports, no marks on his body. Although he had been drinking with friends the night before, he carriedon a lengthy chat with a motorcycle cop at his hotel before he got on the road, and he was apparently sober at the time of the accident.
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

moirafinnie wrote:Thanks for the great answer about the origins of your passion for the movies. Here are a few more queries:

Cecil B DeMille's impact on the movies and the public's perception of him seems to have changed over time. Do you think that his style evolved much during the transition from silents to the sound era?

Having seen the Charles Bickford movie Dynamite (1929) recently, it seemed as though the director might have been a bit inhibited by the technical challenges of the new technology at that time. Was there a subsequent movie when you think DeMille became comfortable with sound?

When did he first narrate one of his own movies? Was it after he became a familiar voice on the radio thanks to the Lux Radio Theatre?

Was DeMille as politically conservative as he is sometimes described?
How many early talkies have you seen? For me, "Dynamite" is an extraordinary film for its time. For one, it looks like a real movie and not merely a photographed play. The performances, while a little extravegant, in the "queer flamyoyant style" that critic Mordaunt Hall noted was DeMille's trademark, are quite good, and there are a number of sound usage innovations that were quickly absorbed by the industry and have lost their power to startle today--things like overlapping sounds, signaling the arrival of offstage characters with sound only, etc. Heck, even "Jaws!" looks dated today after thirty years of "Jaws!" rip-offs. It seems to me that DeMille was comfortable with sound from the very beginning, much more so than many other filmmakers, and I think that his three M-G-M talkies, Dynamite (1929), Madam Satan (1930) and The Squaw Man (1931) are head and shoulders above anything else M-G-M was turning out in this period on a technical level.

DeMille's films work on several levels. They are often rather bizarre melodramas, but there is rarely a black-hearted villain. More often that not the conflict is between two friends or brothers, one not entirely bad, the other not completely good. This adds a dimension that is often lacking in other filmmakers' works. Although the story lines are often "purple," there is an underlying sublety that is there if you look for it. There are also visual "jokes" that turn up, for example shooting Cleopatra through the strings of a harp, with the harpists hands in the foreground seemingly caressing Cleo's body in the B.G.

My recollection, and I may be off on this, is that DeMille first started v.o. narration on "Union Pacific," but certainly around this period, after he had become a star in his own right as the host-narrator of Lux Radio Theatre, which he took over in 1936.

DeMille's politics are more complex than is usually painted. His stand on "right to work" (which with I personally disagree) was certainly based on pronciple, though I believe the political right used DeMille by getting behind his right to work campaign and making him an ally.

DeMille never ratted out any commies, never testified before HUAC, DID hire black and grey-listed actors like Olive Dearing and Edward G. Robinson. Even his notorious battle with Joseph Mankewicz and the DGA in 1950 is often misinterpreted. DeMille had nominated Mankewicz for the presidency of the DGA, and Mank was a Republican, not some wild-eyed radical. Al Rogell, who was a V.P. of the Guild at the time, told me that DeMille didn't care what anyone's politics were. What he was interested in was keeping HUAC away from the Directors Guild. The part of the story that almost never gets told is that after DeMille withdrew his challenge to Mank and resigned along with the rest of the DGA board, Mank and the new board did not do away with the loyalty oaths. The signed oaths are still in the files of DGA members from that period.
User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5072
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Post by MissGoddess »

Very interesting information on Cecil B. DeMille! I especially took note of this:

DeMille's films work on several levels. They are often rather bizarre melodramas, but there is rarely a black-hearted villain. More often that not the conflict is between two friends or brothers, one not entirely bad, the other not completely good. This adds a dimension that is often lacking in other filmmakers' works.

Because, thinking back even to his big budget pictures with Gary Cooper and John Wayne I often couldn't tell who exactly was the real "villain" because most of the characters had either a sense of humor or some other quality that made them more than one-dimensional. Reap the Wild Wind is a good example because neither John Wayne nor Ray Milland are either devil or angel. (And even Raymond Massey had his points. 8) )
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Post by moira finnie »

How many early talkies have you seen? For me, "Dynamite" is an extraordinary film for its time. For one, it looks like a real movie and not merely a photographed play. The performances, while a little extravegant, in the "queer flamboyant style" that critic Mordaunt Hall noted was DeMille's trademark, are quite good, and there are a number of sound usage innovations that were quickly absorbed by the industry and have lost their power to startle today--things like overlapping sounds, signaling the arrival of offstage characters with sound only, etc. Heck, even "Jaws!" looks dated today after thirty years of "Jaws!" rip-offs. It seems to me that DeMille was comfortable with sound from the very beginning, much more so than many other filmmakers, and I think that his three M-G-M talkies, Dynamite (1929), Madam Satan(1930) and The Squaw Man (1931) are head and shoulders above anything else M-G-M was turning out in this period on a technical level.
Thanks very much for the great answers about DeMille, Bob.

I'm sure that I'll never see as many early talkie movies as I'd like, but I've genuinely enjoyed most of those that I've seen. I think The Squaw Man (1931) is very moving and Madam Satan (1930) is a great deal of fun. I mentioned Dynamite (1929) as a bit of a disappointment because the print that I saw was poorly recorded and I was actually irritated by much of the seemingly incessant sound recording in the movie, particularly in the jail scene, but I can't say that about the other films of his from that same period. By the end of the movie, I was longing for some silence! I was probably just overwhelmed by that feature and the poor recording, which colored my judgment of the film. I will give it another try asap.

I'm so glad to see you clarify Cecil B. DeMille's attitude toward HUAC. I have often wondered about the tendency of people on both sides of the issue to paint things in black and white terms, rather than looking at the mixture of artistic, economic and political forces determining some of the behavior of that period.

I'm glad that you mentioned the humorous side of DeMille. Though I've yet to receive the copy of your book, "Cecil B. Demille's Hollywood" that I ordered, I'm looking forward to reading it even more now.

If you have time, could you please address a few more questions later this week?

1.) Given what you've mentioned about DeMille's politics not being black and white, what was his relationship, if any, with John Howard Lawson, later one of the Hollywood Ten, who is credited as the writer on Dynamite (1929)?

2.) Could you please talk about the times when DeMille pushed the envelope about as far as it could go in depicting some forms of decadence on film? Based on your comments about his apparent humor, do you think that some of the outrageous scenes in a movie such as The Sign of the Cross (1932) might have been meant as an "in joke"?

3.) Were DeMille's films faced with as strong local censorship from various groups around the country as other filmmakers prior to the Production Code, or did his tendency to try to incorporate scenes of decadence in historical stories, especially ones with Biblical roots, protect him from the censors? Did DeMille favor the Production Code or did he just accept it as inevitable to prevent government interference in the film industry?

4.) As a contributing writer to the omnibus volume "M-G-M: When the Lion Roars" could you please address the role of Irving Thalberg at that studio and his relationship with L. B. Mayer? Do you think that Mayer shared power comfortably with Thalberg at any time?

5.) Do you think that the literary roots of many of Thalberg's ambitiously prestigious productions change MGM movies for the better in the '30s?

Thank you very much.
User avatar
Lzcutter
Administrator
Posts: 3149
Joined: April 12th, 2007, 6:50 pm
Location: Lake Balboa and the City of Angels!
Contact:

Post by Lzcutter »

Hey Bob!

Thanks so much for joining us this week. I really appreciate it. I am loving all the questions and all the new info I am learning.

Couple of things:

1) Why do you think that the DeMille side of the Mank/DGA gets portrayed as DeMille as the bad guy instead of the truth? (There's that John Fordism about truth and myth again, I suspect). The myth is the story I have heard for over 30 years now.

2) Could you talk a bit about film preservation. Why are some restored versions such as The Big Parade (which was restored in 2004, I think) still unavailable for broadcast? Is it legal problems? There are a number of restored films that we in NYC and LA are lucky enough to see but the majority of folks rely upon TCM to get them and it seems even TCM has a problem getting them.

Is it getting any easier for people and studios to understand the need for film preservation?

3) I loved the CineCon festival that I went to in 2004. It was there I caught back up with you, met Mike Schlesinger and the wonderful Sally Dumaux. I have been unable to attend the last two (but follow the talk about them on alt.silents) because of family stuff, but I would love to know the history of the festival and how you came to be involved.

Thanks again for being here!
Lynn in Lake Balboa

"Film is history. With every foot of film lost, we lose a link to our culture, to the world around us, to each other and to ourselves."

"For me, John Wayne has only become more impressive over time." Marty Scorsese

Avatar-Warner Bros Water Tower
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

Thanks very much for the great answers about DeMille, Bob.

I'm sure that I'll never see as many early talkie movies as I'd like, but I've genuinely enjoyed most of those that I've seen. I think The Squaw Man (1931) is very moving and Madam Satan (1930) is a great deal of fun. I mentioned Dynamite (1929) as a bit of a disappointment because the print that I saw was poorly recorded and I was actually irritated by much of the seemingly incessant sound recording in the movie, particularly in the jail scene, but I can't say that about the other films of his from that same period. By the end of the movie, I was longing for some silence! I was probably just overwhelmed by that feature and the poor recording, which colored my judgment of the film. I will give it another try asap.

I'm so glad to see you clarify Cecil B. DeMille's attitude toward HUAC. I have often wondered about the tendency of people on both sides of the issue to paint things in black and white terms, rather than looking at the mixture of artistic, economic and political forces determining some of the behavior of that period.

I'm glad that you mentioned the humorous side of DeMille. Though I've yet to receive the copy of your book, "Cecil B. Demille's Hollywood" that I ordered, I'm looking forward to reading it even more now.

If you have time, could you please address a few more questions later this week?

1.) Given what you've mentioned about DeMille's politics not being black and white, what was his relationship, if any, with John Howard Lawson, later one of the Hollywood Ten, who is credited as the writer on Dynamite (1929)?

2.) Could you please talk about the times when DeMille pushed the envelope about as far as it could go in depicting some forms of decadence on film? Based on your comments about his apparent humor, do you think that some of the outrageous scenes in a movie such as The Sign of the Cross (1932) might have been meant as an "in joke"?

3.) Were DeMille's films faced with as strong local censorship from various groups around the country as other filmmakers prior to the Production Code, or did his tendency to try to incorporate scenes of decadence in historical stories, especially ones with Biblical roots, protect him from the censors? Did DeMille favor the Production Code or did he just accept it as inevitable to prevent government interference in the film industry?

4.) As a contributing writer to the omnibus volume "M-G-M: When the Lion Roars" could you please address the role of Irving Thalberg at that studio and his relationship with L. B. Mayer? Do you think that Mayer shared power comfortably with Thalberg at any time?

5.) Do you think that the literary roots of many of Thalberg's ambitiously prestigious productions change MGM movies for the better in the '30s?

Thank you very much.
Well, "Dynamite" is indeed an early talkie, and sound was EVERYTHING in 1929. Harold Lloyd said that he got phenominal audience reaction to a scene of bacon frying in "Welcome Danger" and that the picture was one of his most successful simply because it had sound.

I think DeMille was somewhat scared in early 1950s Hollywood. He had indeed worked with John Howard Lawson and with one or two other of the "Hollywood Ten," and he had traveled to the Soviet Union in 1931 with the thought of perhaps making movies in Russia, and his film "The Volga Boatman" gave a relatively sympathetic picture of the Russian Revolution. DeMille probably was in no real danger of being called a red, but he had been essentially down and out career wise in the movie business in 1931-'32, and he was not about to allow that to happen again. I believe it was fear that HUAC would start snooping around the DGA that motivated DeMille's actions.

Luxury and "decadence" started entering DeMille's films with "The Cheat" in 1915, but really became prominent in his films in the late Teens and early Twenties. Probably the most outrageous example is The Candy Ball in "The Golden Bed" (1925), in which young men pluck strategically placed poeces of candy from thge gowns of young ladies at the party. But much of DeMille's screen decadence seems pretty tame today. One example of the humor in DeMille's work is in "Why Change Your Wife?" in which the two female rivals duke it out the see who will win Thomas Meighan. It is a fine example of role reversal.

The milk bath and the lesbian dance in "The Sign of the Cross" also come to mind, as examples of pushing the envelope---even by pre Code standards. Surprisingly, DeMille had few censorship problems. The Hays office raised some objection to the lesbian dance, but DeMille simply refused to cut it. It was later trimmed for reissue in 1938 and 1944, but is restored in the DeMille boxed set DVD release put out by Universal.

Mayer hired Thalberg, and I think was quite fond of him--at first. The main problem is that Mayer and Nicholas Schenck, who really ran the company from New York, were never fond of each other and Thalberg was given more and more power by Schenck--until his health gave out. Mayer was, perhaps understandably, resentful that his protege was gaining so much power.

The literary films M-G-M made in the mid 1930s seemed an overall studio policy raher than just Thalberg's doing. David O. Selznick produced some before he went off on his own, Hunt Stromberg did "Treasure Island," etc. I think they were generally better films than the general run of star vehicles M-G-M was turning out because they had more solid underlying stories. IMHO M-G-M only got the hang of making talkies about 1933. Their earlier efforts, for the most part, are incredibly crude technically compared to all the other studios in that 1929-1932 period.
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

Lzcutter wrote:Hey Bob!

Thanks so much for joining us this week. I really appreciate it. I am loving all the questions and all the new info I am learning.

Couple of things:

1) Why do you think that the DeMille side of the Mank/DGA gets portrayed as DeMille as the bad guy instead of the truth? (There's that John Fordism about truth and myth again, I suspect). The myth is the story I have heard for over 30 years now.

2) Could you talk a bit about film preservation. Why are some restored versions such as The Big Parade (which was restored in 2004, I think) still unavailable for broadcast? Is it legal problems? There are a number of restored films that we in NYC and LA are lucky enough to see but the majority of folks rely upon TCM to get them and it seems even TCM has a problem getting them.

Is it getting any easier for people and studios to understand the need for film preservation?

3) I loved the CineCon festival that I went to in 2004. It was there I caught back up with you, met Mike Schlesinger and the wonderful Sally Dumaux. I have been unable to attend the last two (but follow the talk about them on alt.silents) because of family stuff, but I would love to know the history of the festival and how you came to be involved.

Thanks again for being here!
I think that the reason the DeMille/DGA episode is told the way it is is for largely political reasons. Ford comes off as a hero for defying DeMille, but of course he actually sent DeMille a sympathetic letter after the incident and DeMille responded with graciousness. I guess it just makes a better story if it's "good guy" vs. "bad guy" with no shades of grey.

Preservation and marketing and distribution are simply different areas of these big companies and they have different schedules and priorities. Hollywood seems to have come to the conclusion that the older films are worth preserving, and all the studios have preservation programs, but the home video people make their bonuses on sellng hundreds of thousand to millions of units--which they won't realize from old movie releases. Warner Bros. has also been trotting "The Big Parade" around to festivals and special venues, and they may not be interested in giving away the restoration on TCM just yet.

Cinecon started in 1965 as a labor day weekend gathering of film collectors who were loosely confederated as The Society for Cinephiles, Ltd. The "Ltd." was intended to convey that the society's interest was devoted only to silent films at the time.

The name of the society and the club itself were the ideas of Tom Seller. The name Cinecon, derived from cinema convention, was the idea of "8mm Collector" editor and publisher Sam Rubin, who sponsored the first Cinecon at the Hoiday Inn in Indiana, Pennsylvania. Cinecon moved from city to city through its first 25 years.

I attended my first Cinecon in Hollywood in 1968. This was Cinecon 4. I attended two or three other Cinecons held in Hollywood through the years and also New York in 1976 and Cleveland in 1989.

It was becoming increasingly difficult to find suck . . . er . . . volunteers to host Cinecon so some of the old timers thought it might be a good idea to establish it permanently in Los Angeles. Leonard Maltin, then active in the Society, volunteered to host Cinecon 26 in 1990, but he enlisted Randy Haberkamp and I because of our having started the Silent Society, to do the grunt work.

Randy ran Cinecon 26 and 27 in 1990 and '91. and others, including Ed Hulse, Margarita Lorenz, Randy again, Kevin Charbeneau, and myself traded off running it between 1992 and 1997.

I have been in charge since 1998, but it is a collaborative effort with the other comittee members, including Michael Schlesinger, Robert Nudelman, Stan Taffel, Marvin Paige, Stella Grace, Sue Guldin, Sharon Arndt, Danny Schwartz and others. For those interested in finding out more about Cinecon, go to:

http://www.cinecon.org

We don't have next year's info up yet, but you can see what we did this past year.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Two quickies.

1. What silent film(s) do you suggest most to newly interested viewers? Once I get past the staples and well known of those I'm not sure what to suggest.

2. Do you think some films today are over edited? I watched a couple of minutes of one of the "Lord Of The Ring" movies and in the course of a simple conversation between two characters there must have been 12 or 15 cuts. Some lasting around a second. It seemed to be bring a different look just because they could. I found it distracting, but that's me.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

movieman1957 wrote:Two quickies.

1. What silent film(s) do you suggest most to newly interested viewers? Once I get past the staples and well known of those I'm not sure what to suggest.

2. Do you think some films today are over edited? I watched a couple of minutes of one of the "Lord Of The Ring" movies and in the course of a simple conversation between two characters there must have been 12 or 15 cuts. Some lasting around a second. It seemed to be bring a different look just because they could. I found it distracting, but that's me.

A more or less sure-fire film to introduce people to silents is "The Kid Brother" (1927) with Harold Lloyd--though the Lloyd films always work best with a audience rather than watching then solo at home. "Girl Shy" and "Safety Last" are also good.

Keaton also works well.

Some films that you might not think of, but that are quite illustrative of silent technique are "The Love Trap" (1929) a part-talkie available on DVD with a William Wyler documentary, and "The Man Who Laughs" (1928).

If you're looking for a DeMille, the obvious is "The King of Kings," but "The Golden Chance" (1916) is a first rate film that is accessible. "The Godless Girl" (1928) is great for technique, but it may be a bit over the top for a newbie.

The silent baseball colection out on DVD has a charming Charles Ray film in it, and there are a number of Mary Pickford tiles available. "My Best Girl" (1927) always plays well with audiences.

A film technology historian, whose name escapes me at the moment, did one of those strange studies a few years ago and noted that the avereage shot length for American films was somehing like 5 seconds from relatively early on unto recently. (the avereage shot length in European films he claimed was 6 seconds, which may account for why foreign films someties seem slower than American films). All this changed with the arrival of digital editing equipment, and if I remember correctly, he noted that average shot length in American films is now something like 3.5 seconds.

There may be a number of reasons for what you perceive to be "over cutting" in the "Lord of the Rings" installment you mention. "Because they could" comes down to a matter of choices and style. You have to have the angles to use them, after all. But sometimes a scene might be cut quick to cut around slow performances, or lesser moments in a performance.

I saw the new Bourne movie recently, and I wonder if the first team crew actually spent much time shooting. It looked like the second unit went out and did a lot of grab-shots with a wildly moving camera and the editor just put random footage together after the set-up was established and the continuty of the scenes were oten suggestd more by sound effects than anything that was seen on screen. Clearly a matter of style.

I've always felt that editing is a matter of rhythm. You can have a fast-cut sequence, but it will only seem fast if there are some slower sequences around it. In other words it becomes "fast" by contrast rather than by constantly having scene after scene with fast cutting.

A case in point would be "Potemkin" (1925), one of the classic "editing" movies. The picture is little more than an hour long, but it feels like it's three hours long because there is so much cutting and so little real characterization. The cuts are fast, but the overall impact is to skow things down. This was true with the Bourne movie, for me, as well.

American films in the past used to build the rhythm in by playing the dramatic stuff with relatively fewer cuts and saving the editorial pyrotechnics for the set-piece acion sequences--the chariot race in "Ben-Hur," the car chase in "Bullitt," the climactic chace in "Girl Shy," etc.

Today, in part because of MTV techniques, and perceived shorter attention spans, and also because many dialogue scenes are covered with multiple cameras today, it has become more common to break up dialoge scenes into shorter cuts.

Interestingly, as far as young viewers go, "Sesame Street" recently started a campaign to slow down their shows slightly. It had been perceived that attention spans were shortening and so they had picked up the pace on their editing. But every time they picked up the editorial pace, the attention span got shorter and they came to realize that the speed of the editing actually had a tendency to make the young viewers more agitated and less attentive.
User avatar
Jezebel38
Posts: 376
Joined: July 15th, 2007, 3:45 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by Jezebel38 »

Hi Bob - I’m interested to find out what you may be able to tell us about actor Henry Wilcoxon, his casting as Marc Anthony in Cleopatra, and his professional and social relationship with DeMille. This actor made quite an impression on me (be still my heart) the first time I saw Cleopatra, and the subsequent film The Crusades. IMO he has screen presence, but I wonder why he never caught on as a leading man. I understand he worked as an associate producer with Mr. DeMille? Also, the barge scene in Cleopatra is certainly a jaw dropper – any anecdotes you can tell us about its filming?
User avatar
Gagman 66
Posts: 613
Joined: April 19th, 2007, 11:34 pm
Location: Nebraska

Post by Gagman 66 »

Bob Birchard,

:D Hello, thanks much for stopping by here! So many fascinating things about the great Tom Mix! I am really going to have to find your book! My late Father had a chance to meet him, when Tom came to his home town with his Circus one day in the late 1930's! I wish at least some of Mix better films would pop up restored on official DVD! I have been waiting patiently. It's a disgrace that nothing is available!

:) Also very interesting to hear what you have to say about De Mille, and so many of the great Stars you actually had a chance to meet before they passed on such as Lillian Gish. How I envy you! Yes, THE GODLESS GIRL has become one of my latest favorites, though I was disappointed that the Carl Davis Photo-play Productions version did not show up on the new Image DVD set?

:lol: Harold Lloyd is my Idol, so it's always great to hear nice things said about him, and his work! To many film historians seem oblivious to Lloyd, to say nothing of main stream critics! This really ticks me off! I consider it their loss!

:roll: Regarding THE BIG PARADE, I have seen the Thames version from the late 80's many times and have it on DVD-R. So I am used to the Carl Davis score, even though it was partially derived from the William Axt-Glen Mendoza original. I have not seen the new restoration, and have been expecting a TCM debut for the past 3 years. I am curious about the additional footage that was uncovered, and any restored sequences? I have also heard that the new print is dramatically improved over the Thames version. The details, as to how the European Camera Negative came to light, are very sketchy to me? Could you perhaps elaborate?

In addition, I was told in December of 2005, that TCM commissioned a new score? I can scarcely imagine the film without the Davis arrangement, although I know people who have seen it with the Original Axt-Mendoza score, and described it as superior? This is one film I do not want to see desecrated with some new-fangled Young composers drivel! Do you have any info on who the new score might be by, and what it is like?

:? Another King Vidor film I would desperately like to see restored, and scored is WINE OF YOUTH (1924). With it's amazing cast, and the important folks that showed up as extra's, you would think this would be one of the first Silent's TCM took a look at? I consider it probably Vidor's most underrated feature! What are your thoughts on this movie?

:shock: Finally, what do you know about the breaking news concerning Vidor's BARDELEY'S THE MAGNIFICENT (1926), with Gilbert, and Eleanor Boardman, being discovered in France? Apparently, this story is true? But I wish That I had more information on the condition of the film, and any potential restoration?
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

Jezebel38 wrote:Hi Bob - I’m interested to find out what you may be able to tell us about actor Henry Wilcoxon, his casting as Marc Anthony in Cleopatra, and his professional and social relationship with DeMille. This actor made quite an impression on me (be still my heart) the first time I saw Cleopatra, and the subsequent film The Crusades. IMO he has screen presence, but I wonder why he never caught on as a leading man. I understand he worked as an associate producer with Mr. DeMille? Also, the barge scene in Cleopatra is certainly a jaw dropper – any anecdotes you can tell us about its filming?
Accordaing to "Lion Heart in Hollywood," promoted as Wilcoxon's autobiography, but actually written by his long time friend Katehrine Orrison after his death, DeMille blamed Wilcoxon for the box-office failure of "The Crusades" and stopped returning his phone calls. I don't know if I buy that, there were no appropriate leading roles in DeMille's next several pictures that Wilcoxon would have been right for, and he was not yet a character actor.

Anyway, during WW II Wilcoxon was in the Navy and wrote DeMille asking if he might be able to help get 16mm prints of movies to keep the crews aboard ship entertained, and this renewed their association.

After the war Wilcoxon had a character role in "Unconquered" (1947), and he became DeMille's associate producer on "Samson and Delilah" when Ralph Jester got fed up with DeMille and quit the picture. He remained with DeMille until the director's death and continued to develop a final project for DeMille's company, Motion Picture Associates. When the script for "On My Honor," which Wilcoxon was to produce and direct, was completed in 1961. Paramount passed on financing the project.

DeMille hired his niece, Agnes deMille, to choreograph the dancers for the barge scene, but was apparently dissatisfied with what she did. The sequence is wonderful. Nearly totally gratuitous, but filled with wonderful "eye candy."
Bob Birchard
Posts: 35
Joined: November 7th, 2007, 9:52 pm

Post by Bob Birchard »

Gagman 66 wrote:Bob Birchard,

[snip]

:lol: Harold Lloyd is my Idol, so it's always great to hear nice things said about him, and his work! To many film historians seem oblivious to Lloyd, to say nothing of main stream critics! This really ticks me off! I consider it their loss!

:roll: Regarding THE BIG PARADE, I have seen the Thames version from the late 80's many times and have it on DVD-R. (snip) I have also heard that the new print is dramatically improved over the Thames version. The details, as to how the European Camera Negative came to light, are very sketchy to me? Could you perhaps elaborate?

In addition, I was told in December of 2005, that TCM commissioned a new score? I can scarcely imagine the film without the Davis arrangement, although I know people who have seen it with the Original Axt-Mendoza score, and described it as superior? This is one film I do not want to see desecrated with some new-fangled Young composers drivel! Do you have any info on who the new score might be by, and what it is like?

:? Another King Vidor film I would desperately like to see restored, and scored is WINE OF YOUTH (1924). With it's amazing cast, and the important folks that showed up as extra's, you would think this would be one of the first Silent's TCM took a look at? I consider it probably Vidor's most underrated feature! What are your thoughts on this movie?

:shock: Finally, what do you know about the breaking news concerning Vidor's BARDELEY'S THE MAGNIFICENT (1926), with Gilbert, and Eleanor Boardman, being discovered in France? Apparently, this story is true? But I wish That I had more information on the condition of the film, and any potential restoration?
My fondest memories of Harold Lloyd are sitting in the basement theater in the home of Richard Simonton while Gaylord Carter scored a number of the film on the Simonton's Mighty WurliTzer. I made a point of sitting behind and to the left of Lloyd so I could watch his reaction to the films. He was able to laugh just like everyone else, and had the ability to divorce himself from his screen persona. He always talked about the screen character in the third person and referred to the character as "the boy" or as "the glass character' NOT "glasses" character.

I have seen the new print of "The Big Parade" with the original Axt & Mendoza score played by the Robert Israel Orchestra. I liked the original score, and generally I prefer Hugo Riesenfeld or J.S. Zamecnik over Axt & Medoza, who I usually find to be not very good as score compilers. The film is largely made up of source material from the 1931 reissue. The main ti9tle reflects the house style of 1931 M-G-M, not 1925. For the most part the print is beautiful. I know there is some better and/or additional footage in th enew restoration, but I'm not familiar with the details of this restoration project.

TCM will only run silents with redcorded scores, so "Wine and Youth" won't show up on THC intil they have a recorded score for it.


All I know about the duscovery of Barldleys the Magnificent is what I read in the papers.
Locked