Trade Talk #6
What Trades Told: 1929 from 1970 Viewpoint
Films in Review was among few ways film folk kept in touch, (more/less) monthly means for kindred souls to share plus be reassured that others, if few, were like them. Write in and chances were they’d print your letter. Industry notables contributed, FIR house organ for the National Board of Review, which had been around long as movies themselves. Average press run per issue was 7980, this circa September 1970. There were over 4000 paid subscribers. I was on-off among them. Considering numbers printed, it’s no wonder eBay bulges with back issues. 3100 are lately listed. They go fairly cheap, two dollars and up, even less where bunched up. My submission of two multi-part articles, one about theatrical trailers, the other on reissues, got printed around 1989, 1990. Robin Little was editor at the time. Films in Review ranks high for picture history, easy to lose myself in whatever pile falls off the shelf. Certain writers were ubiquitous. William K. Everson showed up lots. Herman Weinberg had a regular column. One feature circa seventies was “Films on 8 and 16,” by Samuel A. Peeples. Clearly this was for collectors, but Peeples addressed more than just that. He had begun as a writer for westerns, mentored by Frank Gruber of prolific past penning them. Peeples made further contacts as he gained experience. Lancer was his TV series. There also was Star Trek which he helped Gene Roddenberry develop, and for which he wrote the second pilot which sold the series to NBC. Peeples did not discuss these things in his column. Latter was for helping fans find prints to home view, legal and above board of course. Sam died in 1997 and left his collection to the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming. There are 225 boxes open to scholars with no restrictions. Much of that is 8 and 16mm movies. I can’t picture researchers asking to watch Sam’s black-and-white flat print of Holiday for Lovers (1959), while silent titles are long superseded by digital versions superior in visual quality. Digital has its cruel way with analog antiquity.
One extraordinary thing I came across in the inventory was a King Kong model constructed by Willis O’Brien and used in the 1933 film. That needs to be in a vault, at least under glass where visitors to the library can easier worship it. As things stand, I suspect Sam’s accumulation of a lifetime sits largely ignored, as who recalls him apart from past readers of Films in Review? Such reality weighs heavy upon all collectors who’d ask what fate awaits treasure they have gathered and nurtered. One thing I realize for looking over Sam’s backlog: No two collectors were ever alike … choices in spite of overlap were nonetheless specific to him and could not be confused with anyone else. Collecting speaks to individual identity. None need compose a memoir so long as their collection survives to speak for them. Samuel Peeple’s accumulation tells posterity who he was. There also of course is the writing. Peeples’ column reads like an ongoing story of his life, at least life spent with classic film. He’d been a child of the twenties, born 1917, saw silents give way to talkies, recalling it all for the August-September 1970 issue of Films in Review. Sam’s mother was in the amusement business and so canvassed towns surrounding home base. Berg where they lived was small, theatres not yet wired. Some closed for lacking funds to convert, same as my hometown and lamented “Rose Theatre” that shuttered soon as ’29 curtain rang down. Sam watched silent versions of shows city dwellers got to see and hear, The Broadway Melody, Alias Jimmy Valentine, The Canary Murder Case. His being road worthy thanks to Mom gave Sam access to mute plus talkie treatments, each before or after the other, comparisons constant, him evaluating both at leisure.
Was this luck or what, Sam born in a right place at an ideal time. Late as 1970 he still remembered in detail. Alias Jimmy Valentine was “a good little melodrama” minus talk, running 7142 feet, while sound Jimmy expanded to 7803 feet, difference being seven minutes of “stand-still dialogue that was unnecessary in the silent version and would have made it drag.” What entertained before was “cinematically and dramatically useless, but necessary, in order to permit actors to speak dialogue.” Imagine being eleven (Alias Jimmy Valentine released in late 1928) and getting to compare technologies, one rushing in, the other being eased out. Stark was seeing one Broadway Melody more/less beside the other. How far apart was the talking/singing Melody from what live accompany supplied in still "silent" houses? Sam saw The Broadway Melody with sound in the city at 105 minutes, then silent back home for 66 minutes. “Of course the musical numbers are much briefer in the silent version,” he recalled. Peeples attributed slowness of conversion not just to expense, but which system to adopt, theatres knowing but one could survive. To choose was to gamble, not unlike pick between Beta or VHS. We know sound on film won, but how could showmen long ago have anticipated that? For a meantime, they'd play safe with both silence and sound, at least till viewer preference could sort it all out. Sam, being a boy, liked his action fare, sound chosen “especially” for the “airplane ones.” Live accompany still suited best for “spooky background music” by pianos or organists addressing mysteries and “mood pictures.” For Sam, The Unholy Night was “a bore” with talk, him “loving every minute” of the same show where sound was absent save (again) that spooky music. This didn’t go so much for also mysterious The Canary Murder Case, which needed talk for explanation, especially of a “sound gimmick” around which the resolution revolved (again note length difference as estimated by Peeples: Canary with sound at 7171 feet, silent 5843 feet).
Sam saw seemingly everything off 1929’s menu. “It really was a marvelous year,” he wrote, to which we could say, Yes, it really was … and wouldn’t it be marvelous to have experienced it first hand like Samuel Peeples. Consider sobering truth of no one left to tell us what that year was like at theatres. Reading Peeples’ essay is for me like watching an early thirties film where tens of thousands of people watch a football game. You know they are virtually all gone, yet here they all were in the sunshine and having the time of their finite lives. Easy to wish I’d been around in 1929 to see The Canary Murder Case new, but then where does that leave me in 2026? Certainly not here with the rest of you. Sam chose a favorite for that pivotal year, nominees The Virginian, The Cocoanuts, Noah’s Ark, The Iron Mask, The Wolf of Wall Street (where oh where is that one now?), his pick perhaps unexpected … Paul Leni’s The Last Warning, another where he saw both silent and sound editions. Sam said Leni was such a skilled director that one couldn’t distinguish between the two, that Leni “retained the full fluidity of his mobile camera where other directors confined their cameras to sound-proof booths and boxes.” What survives of The Last Warning is the silent print, lately restored by Universal and released on Blu-Ray by Flicker Alley. That’s OK by me. From what program notes report of the sound version, we are much the better with silence, that is apart from music and effects supplied by Flicker Alley, us lucky to have The Last Warning at all. Much as I would have enjoyed canvassing theatres with Peeples and seeing silent plus sound versions of 1929 releases, chances are my vote would have tipped heavily toward the silents. Remember Murnau’s City Girl? Historians say we’re blessed it survives silent as the director intended, the talking pastiche doubtless lost for good. And what was that about Fox bringing another guy in to graft dialogue onto The Black Watch after John Ford finished it? Much of 1929 product was crazy quilt in extremis. Truth is most of it could not be digested by latter-day general viewership, but let’s be thankful Samuel Peeples stayed long enough to look back from forty years’ distance to tell us what being there was all about.













13 Comments:
The UK version of "The Informer" from 1929 is a perfect example of how good a silent movie can be... until it starts yakking at roughly the half-way mark. Voices provided with offscreen talent, pacing going from lively to a death march, mobile cameras suddenly glued to the floor. Watch enough of these hybrid pictures and it becomes understandable why many people thought talkies would never last. Let it be a warning to those who believe A.I. will never look like the real thing.
Thanks for posting the Lupino Lane trade ads. Got me digging through old newspapers to find out why Lupino Lane walked away from Hollywood.
It turns out that Educational spoke too soon in announcing eight talking two-reelers starring Lane. He couldn't wait to get out of his Educational contract, and only four talkies had been completed when the agreement lapsed. Here it is from the man himself: "I have wanted to get out of this two-reel racket for the last three years, but I couldn't because of my contract with Educational. That contract was completed when I finished my last picture, and now I am through. The majority of theater audiences don't even stay to see the comedies. Consequently, no matter how big a man may be in the field of two-reelers, he gets no recognition from the fans because they don't see him. In the old days when Charlie Chaplin and Roscoe Arbuckle were kings of the comedy lots, things were different. Comedies played just as big a part on theater programs as feature productions then. And they were made with that in mind. Today they are merely fillers." Lane had hoped to star in musical-comedy features, but after a few featured roles in someone else's movies, he went back to England in December 1929.
Trivia: Educational tried to hire him back -- in 1936. Joe Cook was leaving the studio and Earle Hammons needed a star name to replace him. Lane gave the idea enough consideration for Hammons to announce the possibility, but Lane finally decided to stay in England. Would have been interesting to see Lane working with the Educational gang in New York.
Looking at that ad for "Phonofilm and Phonodisc Combinations", with cheaper options for one format only. At the time, what share of theaters could afford to hedge their bets with both? And even with "Liberal Time Payments", how many showmen simply closed down? Seeing this as another driver for big studio / theater chains.
Some time ago saw an article about current art and revival houses facing a similar crisis as physical film gives way to digital. For distributors, cheaper than producing and shipping physical films. For small playhouses, a huge investment to play newer films (or older films owned by majors).
Was Lupino saying that shorts were run after the feature rather than before?
Occurred to me after reading your comment, Scott, that I had seen very little of Lupino Lane's work, silent or sound, then I remembered the Dave Glass/Dave Wyatt Blu-Ray compilation of Lane shorts. Among many other things, they include a talkie comedy called FIRE PROOF that I'll watch before this day is out, along with some of the silents. Also assume there is lots of Lupino Lane on You Tube, which I'm sure will be worth checking out.
Kevin, I'd guess Lane was referring to earlier silent days when Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton and other star shorts were billed over the feature on both marquees and certainly newspaper ads, not a few of which have turned up in previous Greenbriar posts, such comedians indeed the "Spice of the Program."
Always had the impression that it was in the early sound period, during and after the transition, that major studios really consolidated their power and would not begin to lose same till after the next World War.
Noticed that Kino offers this on Blu-Ray ... should I go for it?
Years ago, I introduced a deaf man to silent era films. He said he enjoyed them tremendously because he didn't feel accomodated watching them like he did watching closed captioning.
After the advent of photography. human rendering still flourished.
After the advent of sound recording, exhibitions of live music still flourished.
After the advent of the motion picture, stage presentations continued to flourish.
However, when sound films took hold in 1929, silent film completely disappeared, except for Chaplin who only made two silent films. I wonder how the deaf audiences of 1929 felt?
Just remembered that Lupino Lane plays Maurice Chevalier's valet in Lubitsch's "The Love Parade." He's paired with Lillian Roth for their own number, and he does get various chances to show off. It looks like he was on the way to the feature roles he wanted, but chose to return to England with broader ambitions to direct and produce as well -- not likely opportunities at American studios.
Hi John, just noticed your question. I think it's a good movie; definitely not a waste of money. The silent version has a new score, while the hybrid of course has the original Photophone soundtrack. It's also interesting to compare it to the John Ford version (which is better).
The movies started as short, one reel films. By the time Lupino Lane was making them features were the rule. It does not make sense to show short films after the feature as it is the main draw. When it is over people will leave. Short films were used by some as chasers to empty the theatre of people who came in after the feature had started. By the way, if you're looking to buy IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT DVDS of Chaplin titles don't buy them on EBAY or AMAZON. Go here: https://www.ednapurviance.org/chaplininfo/chaplinfirstunited.html . Next to each on the right is a button: DVD. Hit that and we get reasonable prices instead of unreasonable prices (sometimes over $200). Those IMAGE discs offer the original cuts.
Richard M. Roberts supplies further info re Lupino Lane:
John,
Lupino Lane is not saying that theaters were running shorts after the features, he's talking about how they were billed in advertising, as an expert on this yourself you should know what he is talking about. Looking at theater advertising in the early 1920's and you do indeed see Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, even Larry Semon's short comedies being billed in larger space over some of the feature product, those comedians then were that popular. By the late 1920's, short comedies, though still an important part of the full program, were usually billed below the feature in the ads, frequently with one line saying something like " plus New Lloyd Hamilton Comedy" or whomever the star was. Short comedies were still popular, and Laurel and Hardy were then proving that one could still make the jump to feature stardom from shorts, but the full program had become more standardized, and audiences knew there would be a short comedy, but really were only interested in who was appearing in the short comedy than the title of that comedy. This would continue into the 1930's with the cartoons as well, theaters would only put the words "New Mickey Mouse" in the ad.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
When I fell in love with the movies, I loved reading about them, too, especially in magazines. It was not the celebrity magazines like “Photoplay” or “Modern Screen,” however, which were still extant then, but those published for exhibitors or by or for fans. So, over the years I bought at newsstands or subscribed to the likes of “Film Bulletin,” “Film Fan Monthly,” “Photon,” Gore Gazette,” “Castle of Frankenstein,” “Cinefantastique,” “Classic Images,” “Film Fax,” “Video Watchdog,” “Phantom of the Movies Videoscope,” “Psychotronic,” "American Cinematographer," and “Sight and Sound.” These were both a window and mirror to my enthusiasm. Among my favorites, though, was “Films in Review.” Other magazines might be eccentric or even bizarre, especially among the ones I favored, but “Films in Review” was grounded in a certain orthodoxy, that movies were intended to tell stories in images, including those set in a recognizable reality, and should be evaluated accordingly. There was also a suggestion that an enthusiasm for movies was not strange or unusual, but part of the larger world of art and entertainment. Or at least, so it seemed to me. While my own interest in them might have seemed excessive to the casual onlooker, here there was assurance that I hadn’t divorced myself from the world but only found a particularly interesting aspect of it. And, unlike so many of the other magazines by which I sought to satiate my interest, it came out regularly; that is, alas, until it didn’t. Even with the diverse sources available on the internet, not least of which is this marvelous blog, I would be most pleased if that little digest dense with information would appear again in my mailbox. Since that seems most unlikely, I shall probably have to follow your lead and seek out back issues, which apparently are available in abundance.
Post a Comment
<< Home