Welcome to Bob Birchard

[movieman1957]

We have always heard about the actors that didn't make the transition from silents to sound but are there directors who suffered a similar fate? If so, what would have been their problem(s)?

[Bob Birchard]

We have always heard about the actors that didn't make the transition from silents to sound but are there directors who suffered a similar fate? If so, what would have been their problem(s)?

Yes, indeed there were a number of directors who didn't make the transition, or whose careers tanked in te talkie era, probably for a number of different reasons. Off the top of my head:

D.W. Griffith--"Abraham Lincoln" (1930) was very slow and plodding, but did demonstrate some understanding of sound technique (the Lincoln-Douglas dabate section, for example); but "The Stuggle" (1931) was an unmitigated box-office disaster and Griffith never made another film (unless you count his publicity-motivated consulting on "One Million B.C.")
"The Stuggle," I think is somewhat misunderstood. Critics found it old fashioned and it does seem so, but Griffith seems to have been telling his story set in 1910 as if it were a 1910 Biograph--a rather deliberate artistic choice. Still, it made Griffith unemployable.

Although Cecil B. DeMille went on to a long successful career in the sound era, her very nearly ended up on the ash heap of history after his three picture deal with M-G-M ended in 1931. "Dynamite" was a modest box-office success, "Madam Satan" and "The Squaw Man" both lost money, and no one would hire DeMille. He traveled to England and the Siviet Union trying to set up production deals, but he could not guarantee U.S. distribution so nothing came of these efforts He basically went to Jesse Lasky at Paramount with his hat in his hand in 1932, bringing "The Sign of the Cross" as a co-production deal where he put up half the money and promised to bring in the picture for something like $650,000. It proved to be a huge hit, but things might have gone the other way.

Fred Niblo--director of "The Mark of Zorro" (1920), "Ben-Hur" (1925), etc. Went from being one of the biggest directors in Hollywood to being out of the business by 1932.

Herbert Brenon-- He continued working until 1940, but mostly on lower end Britsh fare after 1932. Whatever talent he had in the silent era was lost by the time he made "Beau Ideal" at RKO in 1931. It is one of the worst films ever released by a major studio, and looks like a 1928 talkie rather than a 1931 effort.

Edwin Carewe--One major studio talkie, "Resurrection" (1931), and then only one other film, the self-financed independent "Are We Civilized?" (1934), which can only charitably be called "interesting" in the way the Chinese curse uses "interesting."

Irvin V. Willat--walked out of Universal after his project "The Big Gun" was cancelled, fought with Jack Warner on "Island of Lost Ships" (1929), went off to the south seas to make shorts with writer Gouvernor Morris and came back in 1932 to find that double features had killed the market for dramatic shorts. Made three pictures at Monogram in 1937--all forgettable--and spent the rest of his life bitter over the way the picture business had treated him.

I'm sure there are others, but these are a few prime examples.

[radiotelefonia]

One question I want to ask is the following:

In Argentina, back in 1925, Paramount Pictures and the Fray Mocho magazine organized a tango contest to get the title song of a film from the first company.

The winner was a tango written by Cátulo Castillo titled "Juguete de placer" (Pleasure Toy), which was also the Spanish language title of the film.

Here is the sheet music score:

http://www.todotango.com/english/biblio ... sp?id=4569

I have a large scan of the tango (it is there because I provided to them). I did manage to get a photo of Castillo receiving his award.

But... I was never able to identify the original title of the film in English, because I was leaving Argentina at the time and I did not have time to look for it.

I had the idea that the film is actually MANHANDLED... but I am not really convinced.

A recording of the tango, by the Francisco Canaro orchestra (that I restored myself), can be heard here: http://www.esnips.com/doc/c8749d28-1d66 ... 01-07-1925

Carlos Gardel also left a recording of the lyrics, written by Cátulo's father (José González Castillo, a filmmaker himself involved in silent and two sound productions).

Not surprisingly... I feel that this tango is much better than the film itself.

In a friendly exchange, a friend suggested that the film could have been BEYOND THE ROCKS, but it is not the case.

Most of Paramount pictures (they were known by that name and never as Famous Players-Lasky, nor with the name of any other production company) arrived with a considerable delay during the silent era for several years. The same happened with the majority of all studios, even though Argentina was the 7th film consumer in the world... a distinction that continues as to this day.

That changed during 1923 when Max Glücksmann briefly took over as its distributor, and most of its major films arrived faster to Buenos Aires, specially after the following year when it opened its own Argentine distribution branch.

In 1922 Swanson starred in a film called MY AMERICAN WIFE, directed by Sam Wood, that takes place in Argentina, although not much is known about it, except that the Argentine consul in Los Angeles complained about liberties in its depiction of the country (for which technical adviser and future director Harry D'Arrast, himself an Argentine, told the consul to not fuss about it because all of that was simply business).

The lyrics of the tango deal with an extremely bad woman who suddenly discovers that she has a heart and suffers because of that.

Anyway, BEYOND THE ROCKS was certainly released before this tango was even written.

And a footnote about Valentino, I was able to download from a blog a tango fom 1927, titled "Rodolfo Valentino", recorded in Buenos Aires.

I managed to get a few silents from Argentina. The most interesting one is called EL ULTIMO MALON (roughly, The last revolt) which deals with the final Indian rebellion in the nation. It was made by a politician who wanted to leave a sort of document of the incidents and the same indian recreated most of the incidents before the cameras.

But I need to put some sort of musical score to make it more watchable!

[pilgrimsoul]

Thanks so much for visiting this site, Mr. Birchard.

You mentioned earlier in this thread that you knew the pioneering photographer-cinematographer Karl Struss. Could you please write a bit about his remarkable career, and especially his work as the cinematographer of F.W. Murnau's Sunrise(1926)? How did they achieve those beautifully hazy shots and did he discuss the remarkable scenes on the city streets? They must've been choreagraphed to a minute degree.

TCM ran Coquette (1929), Mary Pickford's first talkie about a year ago. To me, the best thing about it was the cinematography, especially that final poetic scene as Pickford wanders home down the town streets as evening comes and the lights of the town slowly come on.

I'd also like to know if Mr. Struss discussed his work on Torch Singer, The Island of Lost Souls and The Story of Temple Drake(1933). I have never seen the latter much-discussed film, but have read that one of Jean Negulesco's first jobs in LA was assisting Mr. Struss and the director Stephen Roberts in the set-ups for this film through extensive storyboarding. Was storyboarding used throughout film history, or was there a period when it became more widely used?

Also, did Mr. Struss ever discuss the photographic effects used during the fascinating, nearly seamless transformation of Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde in the Rouben Mamoulian version with Fredric March.

When you knew Karl Struss toaward the end of his life, did he still think that 3-D should've been utilized in movies?

Thanks for any information about these films and Struss' career.

[SSO Admins]

First off, thanks for stopping by to chat with us this week. I wish I'd had more time to post, but the discussion has been quite interesting. It's great to see you posting to some other threads as well.

I'm really interested in film preservation, especially of silents. But interested seems to be the limit -- I don't really do anything.

So short of shucking my day job and going back to school, can you suggest practical ways of helping with the cause of preserving our film heritage?

[Jezebel38]

Hi Bob -

Although I live in NoCal, I have yet to make it to a Cinecon. I was tempted a couple years ago, when you ran The Letter with Jeanne Eagels. Subsequently, I had heard that it was to be included on the DVD release with the Bette Davis version, so I was looking forward to obtaining this. But then, it turned out not to be included - do you know the reason as to why it was dropped? Some of us here have been discussing this film recently, and would like any info on this.

Also, regarding Cinecon; where do you get most of the films that you run - from collectors, or archives like GEH? I know there had been some talk about repeating some of the titles shown over the years, so that newbies like myself might be more inclined to attend. I don't consider myself super hard-core (yet), but most of the titles that get scheduled seem pretty obscure to someone like me.

[Bob Birchard]

First off, thanks for stopping by to chat with us this week. I wish I'd had more time to post, but the discussion has been quite interesting. It's great to see you posting to some other threads as well.

I'm really interested in film preservation, especially of silents. But interested seems to be the limit -- I don't really do anything.

So short of shucking my day job and going back to school, can you suggest practical ways of helping with the cause of preserving our film heritage?

The obvious answer is to send money to your favorite archive. But beyond that, attend archival screenings when you can and encourage others to do so. I note that you're in Baltimore, not too far from LOC, where they have regular screenings in the Pickford Theater. Also, purchase the silent DVD releases that interest you. The market for these things is small, and it helps to encourage those who do this work.

The real problem in film preservation now is not with the major studios and the sound holdings--Sony (Columbia), Universal (which iniclues 1928-1948 Paramount), Warner Bros. (which includes RHO-Radio and pre-1985 M-G-M), 20th Century-Fox and MGM/UA all have strong preservation programs. But the perception among many of the home video people is that there is not enough interest in the "vaulties" to justify putting them out. This will probably become an increasing problem as Hi-Def takes over and there will be less incentive to put out those old B&W "square" screen titles.

But silents are an even bigger problem. Only about 22 percent of American silent features survive, many of those only in 16mm or in fragmentary form. Probably fewer than 10 percent of the nickelodeon era shorts survive--and often the problems with these films is that they are "orphans." The archives want to do the work, but they lack the funds. So money, awareness, and stepping up to the DVD counter are all things you can do. Even small donations can help.

But I'd also suggest attending festivals like Cinecon in Los Angeles or Cinefest inSyracure. There you'll meet a number of folks involved in preserving films and you can get a sense of what's going on in that world.

[Bob Birchard]

Hi Bob -

Although I live in NoCal, I have yet to make it to a Cinecon. I was tempted a couple years ago, when you ran The Letter with Jeanne Eagels. Subsequently, I had heard that it was to be included on the DVD release with the Bette Davis version, so I was looking forward to obtaining this. But then, it turned out not to be included - do you know the reason as to why it was dropped? Some of us here have been discussing this film recently, and would like any info on this.

Also, regarding Cinecon; where do you get most of the films that you run - from collectors, or archives like GEH? I know there had been some talk about repeating some of the titles shown over the years, so that newbies like myself might be more inclined to attend. I don't consider myself super hard-core (yet), but most of the titles that get scheduled seem pretty obscure to someone like me.

You're not alone. The two biggest complaints I get when we try to pitch Cinecon to newbies are:

1) I've never heard of any of the films you show; and

2) I can't sit there all day

First off, you don't have to sit in the theater all day if you don't want to. We have dealers rooms with lots of great stuff and there's plenty to do in Hollywood. Plus, even at full freight registration you're only laying out about $2.85 cents per film (okay, so there's air fare and hotel as well, so I'm gilding the lily a bit). You'd blow that on a latte at Starbucks. Get your coffee at McDonald's for a year and save up!

But as for the films being obscure, that's part of the point. We obtain films from all the major archives in the U.S. and all the major studios. Only a few come from private collectors. Attending a Cinecon is a real, and relatively painless education, and it affords an opportunity to get a sense of what audiences were experiencing when the films were new. Okay, you can sit at home and watch TCM, but these films were made for audiences. Case in point, though not terribly obscure: W.C. Fields. Yeah, he's funny at home alone, but the films seem rather slow and measured. But when you see them with an audience you come to realize that they were cut for the laughs, and the pauses are timed to the frame to when the audience settles down.

This past year we ran "Trail of the Vigilantes" (Universal, 1940). Few had heard of it, some are not that fond of Westerns, many were wondering why we ran it in a prime-time evening slot on Friday evening--until they saw it. There were whoops and cheers at the end, the audience enjoyed it that much.

I poked about a bit on some of the other threads here at SSO--notably the ones about Bing Crosby and Dan Dailey in the musicals section. What surprised me from a group of film buffs was the relatively narrow list of film suggestions others were offering. Not that they were bad suggestions, but that clearly what most people had seen and were recommending were the common, "spoon fed" titles that show all the time. "There's No Business Like Show Business," for example gets shown because of Marilyn Monroe--but there are many better Dan Dailey films;. "White Christmas" and "High Society" are both good, but they don't represent Crosby in his prime.

My point is: Life is an adventure. Take a chance. You won't like everything, but you'll undoubtedly discover gems that you never knew existed. I've always said that a revival theater (that is, when there really were such things) would never go broke showing a double-bill of "King Kong" and "Citizen Kane" every week. The audience craves the familiar. But they're missing a lot by not taking a chance on making new finds.

As for the 1929 version of "The Letter," we too were under the impression that it was going to be included in the Davis DVD set, and that's why we ran it to get a shot before it was readily available and also to help promote the DVD set. What I believe the issue was, and I may be wrong on this, is that Paramount sold the story rights and their materials to Warner Bros. for the remake, but that they still retain the copyright on the original version of the film--so it is in a sort of limbo that would cost a lot of lawyer time and perhaps licensing fees to solve, and it just didn't seem to be worth it to Warner Bros.

There are other films that fall into limbo like this, two that we've run at Cinecon include the 1925 M-G-M version of "Sally, Irene and Mary" and the famed M-G-M John Gilbert talkie, "His Glorious Night." In both cases, story rights were sold, physical materials conveyed to 20th Century-Fox and Paramount respectively, but the original producing studios still maintain copyrights on their versions.

[Bob Birchard]

Thanks so much for visiting this site, Mr. Birchard.

You mentioned earlier in this thread that you knew the pioneering photographer-cinematographer Karl Struss. Could you please write a bit about his remarkable career, and especially his work as the cinematographer of F.W. Murnau's Sunrise(1926)? How did they achieve those beautifully hazy shots and did he discuss the remarkable scenes on the city streets? They must've been choreagraphed to a minute degree.

TCM ran Coquette (1929), Mary Pickford's first talkie about a year ago. To me, the best thing about it was the cinematography, especially that final poetic scene as Pickford wanders home down the town streets as evening comes and the lights of the town slowly come on.

I'd also like to know if Mr. Struss discussed his work on Torch Singer, The Island of Lost Souls and The Story of Temple Drake(1933). I have never seen the latter much-discussed film, but have read that one of Jean Negulesco's first jobs in LA was assisting Mr. Struss and the director Stephen Roberts in the set-ups for this film through extensive storyboarding. Was storyboarding used throughout film history, or was there a period when it became more widely used?

Also, did Mr. Struss ever discuss the photographic effects used during the fascinating, nearly seamless transformation of Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde in the Rouben Mamoulian version with Fredric March.

When you knew Karl Struss toaward the end of his life, did he still think that 3-D should've been utilized in movies?

Thanks for any information about these films and Struss' career.

Struss started his career as an art photographer in the early 1900s and was highly regarded for his still work. Cecil B. DeMille hired him as a special photographer in the late 1910s to bring some of his art study techniques to cinematography.

I must say I knew Struss in a film-related but largely social setting. My friend, Richard Simonton, Jr., put up the money for the rent on the vaults for the UCLA Film Archive in the early days. His father owned Muzak for the Western U.S. and had a 65 seat theater in the basement and full 35mm projectin and a 4-manual Mighty WurliTzer to boot.

Struss attended a number of times when 35mm nitrate prints of his films were screened--the long version of the 1932 "Jekyll & Hyde" being one such occasion, "Isle of Lost Souls,: I bveleve, being another and perhaps also for "Four Frightened People," but certainly a number of others. We would chat often, but these were not formal interview sessions by any means. He did talk about the transition effect in "Hyde," which was achieved through the use of panchromatic film and color filters. Moulding shadows and lines would be painted with makeup on March's face, say in green, and shot through a green filter, which netralized its photographic effect. As the filter was removed the makeup would appear. This made it possible to do the early transitions without any cuts. Of course, for the more drastic later incarnations of Hyde there were prostheics and hair added to March's face, and these transitions were effected using the standard match-action dissolve thechniques later used in "The Werewolf of London" and "The Wolfman."

[catherine]

Mr. Birchard,

Thank-you for a very interesting discussion!

It seems that films come to the big screen in clusters ie: westerns, and I would be interested in your choice for new productions of biographical movies such as CHAPLIN. A film on Keaton, Lloyd, Chaney, Swanson or Clara Bow would be very welcome in the context of that richly beautiful art deco time, not to mention the historical significance worldwide. This might be how this film era could be introduced to new generations as the themes and humour remain fresh.

Libraries (public, school, technical colleges, fine arts, etc.) are another way to increase the profile of these great films now that they are coming to dvd and I've found librarians welcome lists of suggestions for their collections. There are about half a dozen sold-out screenings with live orchestra/year in my city so I know there is a solid interest. And of course there's Oprah...if she would only start the wave...

Thanks again and I'll be looking for your books.

[cinemalover]

Hi Bob,
First I have to say that I've really enjoyed your answers to all of the questions. I love the fact that you've strolled around the other threads and made some comments. If you were interested, I'm sure we would all love to see a list of your top 25 films posted in the pick the best movie thread under General Chat. I think you would add several films that no one else has listed would help to broaden our appreciation of them.

Again, thanks for joining us this week.

[Bob Birchard]

Mr. Birchard,

Thank-you for a very interesting discussion!

It seems that films come to the big screen in clusters ie: westerns, and I would be interested in your choice for new productions of biographical movies such as CHAPLIN. A film on Keaton, Lloyd, Chaney, Swanson or Clara Bow would be very welcome in the context of that richly beautiful art deco time, not to mention the historical significance worldwide. This might be how this film era could be introduced to new generations as the themes and humour remain fresh.

Libraries (public, school, technical colleges, fine arts, etc.) are another way to increase the profile of these great films now that they are coming to dvd and I've found librarians welcome lists of suggestions for their collections. There are about half a dozen sold-out screenings with live orchestra/year in my city so I know there is a solid interest. And of course there's Oprah...if she would only start the wave...

Thanks again and I'll be looking for your books.

You're welcome.

Wouldn't that be great the Oprah Silent Movie DVD Club?

I must say that I've never been a huge fan of show-biz biopics. The problem for me always (and it's probably because I know something of the original performers by having seen them on film) is that the impersonaters never seem to match the original. That said, I did enjoy "Walk the Line" about Johnny Cash.

I thought the Chaplin film with Robert Downey, Jr. worked very well when it was recreating the films and the routines. Less so when it dealt with his personal life.

One of the problems, of course, is that most performers don't lead particularly interesting lives once you get beyond the glamour of being in the movies. They get up, get out of bed, drag a comb across their heads and go to work. Work may be at a studio or in an exotic location, but it's still work and not much more interesting from a dramatic point of view than anyone else's job.

One film I did rather like several years ago was Gable and Lombard, which was a pretty good film about the lives of movie stars. The stars happened to be Gable and Lombard, but the story itself had very little to do with their real lives.

I guess I'm much more partial to documentaries. It would be very difficult for any actor to capture the excitement Gloria Swanson brought to the screen. What you'd be left with is the story of an actress played by say Kirsten Dunst with a black dye job--playing at having a proxy Tully Marshall drooling tobaccy juice on her in "Queen Kelly" or sneaking around with Crispin Glover as Joseph Kennedy while Rose Kenndy, played by Julia Roberts, gets to flash a big smile while all the while we know she's suffering underneath. It is always the scandals, arguments and artistic squabbles that get magnified in these bios, because frankly it's pretty difficult to dramatize business decisions and script revisions and how many takes an actor needs to be his or her best.

I do think that a dramatization about early movie making with fictional characters might be more appealing than some full blooded bio of a past star--say something like "Nickelodeon," only a lot better, or "Hollywood Cavalcade."

Libraries can be great, and you're right that they'll often take suggestions. The problem is that with budget cuts they need to play to the widest possible audience, and if you'tre the only one checking the stuff out, they'll soon stop ordering.

One thing that might work to increase interest and might be supplement through a site like SSO would be for someone to propose a monthly silent--something on DVD, not something merely screening on TCM, and get groups of friends together in different cities to all watch the film on the same day and have a discussion face to face with those in the living room and in cyberspace over the forum.

[Bob Birchard]

Hi Bob,
First I have to say that I've really enjoyed your answers to all of the questions. I love the fact that you've strolled around the other threads and made some comments. If you were interested, I'm sure we would all love to see a list of your top 25 films posted in the pick the best movie thread under General Chat. I think you would add several films that no one else has listed would help to broaden our appreciation of them.

Again, thanks for joining us this week.

You ask, and I obey. They're up there now, though it is a list of personal favorites, not necessarily an all-time best list.

[catherine]

Mr. B,

Thanks for that exhilarating answer- good fun! Your casting suggestions are also hilarious. Point well taken and I always thought someone from Cirque de Soleil would have to play Keaton. I prefer the non-sensationalized truth, too, but truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes! Take THE AVIATOR, for example...

[Bob Birchard]

Mr. B,

Thanks for that exhilarating answer- good fun! Your casting suggestions are also hilarious. Point well taken and I always thought someone from Cirque de Soleil would have to play Keaton. I prefer the non-sensationalized truth, too, but truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes! Take THE AVIATOR, for example...

My Howard Hughes story:

In the fall of 1976 I was working for a company called Echo Film Service, a post production company that had its offices in the editorial building of the General Service Studio at 1040 N. Las Palmas in Hollywood. Howard Hughes had once been a partner in the studio in the early 1930s when it had been known as the Metropolitan Sound Studio, and it was here that he had made Hell's Angels, Scarface, The Front Page, etc.

It was about six months after the world heard the news of Howard Hughes's death, and one day this old editor (I wish I could remember his name) came into our place to rent a Moviola. We weren't in the rental business, but he was insistent that he didn't want to rent from a regular rental house. We were to deliver the Moviola, an editing bench, a splicer and some reels and split reels to the old art-deco Multicolor building on Romaine Street--Multicolor having been the process in which Hughes shot the color sequences for "Hell's Angels." Hughes had also maintained one of his hideawawy offices in the building through the years.

Anyway, this old editor--a guy who'd been around since the 1930s, but who was now officially retired--had been hired to do a re-edit on the Howard Hughes film "Cock of the Air" (1932).

This was a film that had had a troubled production history. Lewis Milestone directed it, and then Hughes fired him and took over direction himself, though the final screen credit went to Tom Buckingham, and it had been virtually unseen since its original release. There were no big stars by 1976 standards, no one remembered the film. Who could possibly want to recut this thing? I came to the (perhaps romantic) conclusion that Howard Hughes had to still be alive. Who else could want to re-edit this film?

Anyway, we delivered the quipment. Security was super high at what was essentially a boarded up building that had a lot of Hughes's stuff stored in it, and we had to have clearances to get into the buiding.

I never saw Howard, of course, and several weeks later the equipment came back.

I later saw a bootleg tape of "Cock of the Air" (the original release edit), and what a mess it was. It felt as if every scene in the film was in twice, first in a version directed bt Milestone with his distinctive moving camera and quick editing, followed by a different version of essentially the same scene directed by Hughes with his signature clunky stlye so evident in "The Outlaw."

So when did Howard Hughes really die? The news said it was April 5, 1976 in Houston Texas, but I'm conviced it was sometime later in Hollywod, California.