Mary Pickford Blogathon: Why Aren't We Talking about Mary Pickford Yet?

 

This blog is essentially 'whenever the hell I feel like it' these days, but when I was asked by Classic Movie Blogs to partake in their very dear 'Mary Pickford Blogathon'....how could I say no? I decided to whip out all the stops and I even found a surprise along the way. As I could talk about Mary for hours (poor Classic Movie Blogs can attest to this) and write many a post. Luckily I already have so its easier to condense. Below are some essential Mary things for the new Mary fans or merely curious:

My Previous Mary Pickford Posts: 

*What's a Mary Pickford For?

*Mary Pickford at the Oscars 

*Mary Pickford Oscar Lawsuit: Pickford Wasn't That Important Anyways...

*Save the Motion Picture Home

*Mary Pickford Cocktail

*The Talkie Myth: Why Some Transitioned and Others Didn't

*Silents Talk: Mary Pickford

*Mary Pickford in Technicolor!

*The Underrated Coquette

*The Horror That is Kiki

*The Demi Widow

*Pickfair Auction Pictures

*United Artist Theatre Pictures

Essential Mary Pickford Reading: 

*Mary Pickford: The Woman Who Made Hollywood by Eileen Whitfield

*Mary Pickford Rediscovered by Kevin Brownlow

Mary at Internet Archive 
  (and the surprise I found was Rosita is on there...God bless whoever did that! Note none of these films have soundtracks to accommodate copyright laws. So turn on something trippy and watch away. Better than nothing!) 

*Sealed in the Room (1909)

*The Country Doctor (1909)

*As it is In Life (1910)

*Ramona (1910)

*An Arcadian Maid (1910)

*The Unchanging Sea (1910)

 *Beast at the Bay (1912)


*New York Hat (1912) 

*Mender of the Nets (1912) 

*The Narrow Road (1912)

*Cinderella (1914)

*Tess of the Storm Country (1914 version)

*Poor Little Rich Girl (1917, first little girl movie)  

*A Romance of the Redwoods (1917, with DeMille directing)

*Little American (1917)

*Pride of the Clan (1917)

*Amarilly of the Clothes-Line Alley (1918)

*Stella Maris (1918) 

*Johanna Enlists (1918)

*M'Liss (1918)

*Hoodlum (1919)

*The Love Light (1919)

*Heart O The Hills (1919)

*Daddy Long Legs (1919)

*Pollyanna (1920)

*Suds (1920)

*Through the Backdoor (1921)

*Little Lord Fauntleroy (1921)

*Tess of the Storm Country (1922 version)

*Rosita (1923) 

*Little Annie Rooney (1925)

*A Kiss for Mary Pickford (1927) 

* Taming of the Shrew (1929 with Doug)

*Kiki (1930, the sound is terrible but there it is)

*One Rainy Afternoon (1936, Mary produced this, she is not an actor in it)

And finally, what has been going on in Mary Pickford-land so I don't have to rehash it: 

*Pickfair Studios Is 'In the Way of Progress' (2008)

*Fighting the Good Fight: A Bad Month for Mary Pickford

Since I last wrote a few more things have gone down.  Namely the Mary Pickford Foundation started trying to save face by hiring Elaina Archer and Cari Beauchamp for Pickford research and outreach. While I am deeply unhappy with what happened and how it happened; there is no finer man or woman for any silent film job than Elaina Archer.  She served as the Mary Pickford librarian in the late 90s and made several documentaries in those years (including one on Jack Pickford).  I'm glad to see Elaina back on the job and I hope they give her the money and freedom to do some mind blowing Pickford projects.

Also sadly Save the Pickfair Studios learned the film vault was quietly bulldozed...so that remains at a hopeless standstill with CIM and West Hollywood scratching each others backs.  West Hollywood's new Mayor decreed he was making a preservation committee much to our delight...then it was admitted that this thing was no more than a 'thing to discuss'...the new committee would have no power, say, or even attempt at saving buildings.  So Save the Pickfair is making our own and our first meeting was May 27th at Hollywood Forever Cemetery (a special thanks to Tyler Cassity for not only that but his hard work for this cause.)

Onto the article!

Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin were arguably the biggest 'greats' of silent film. While Charlie's image remains so imprinted on our cultural mind that even people who don't know what silent film was...know he was something 'that guy in the hat'. Charlie's kids (contentiously and sometimes not) were charged with 100% agreeing on any project of his estate before it could go through, his films (and even outtakes...do you get how rare that is for his era?!?!) are lovingly preserved and its very easy to see a Chaplin that is essentially HD and in better condition then some Michael Bay abortion.

You want a Chaplin film? You can buy all of them and pretty much have been able to since the advent of home video.  Want his face on something?  Officially and not that's pretty easy to find (Etsy has a charming 'Zombie Chaplin' tee.)

So what about Mary?  Are you kidding?  Of course not!

Mary Pickford has languished since her death as a 'what?' to film buffs and students.  'Oh you mean that Shirley Temple weird chick?'  NO.  Mary Pickford's time should have come...she's just obscure enough you think the hipsters would have latched onto her like Tesla...but nope.  She got a whiney femme folk song and....that was it.

The...*cough*...Biograph company announced years ago they were working on a Mary Pickford movie. While they still assert it and boldly so, nothing has come of it. Al Pacino's daughter announced a few weeks ago she had licensed Whitfield's pretty good bio to make a movie about Mary.  Soon after it was announced some random chick named Lily Rabe would play Mary.

To boot apparently a new Pickford bio on the University Press of Kentucky (who did Whitfield's before) is coming out in November, just in time to join Kentucky's likely stunning Mae Murray bio.  So maybe Mary's ship is coming in?

In terms of a movie it could really shock me...maybe it'll go all Artist and be something revolutionary.  But I can't help feeling the lovely Rabe looks nothing like Mary (I know nothing of her work so I can't judge her as an actress) and casting unknowns just puts Mary back in no man's land...Charlie's movie got freakin Robert Downey Jr.!  Although if you asked me I have no clue what popular actress would like Mary or be talented enough to play her (mostly because I ignore all modern movies as much as possible.)  One report (that I'm not really sure is final or accurate) had Jude Law for Doug...so....you get a major male actor to play Doug (who is of course important to the story) but you can't get a major actress for the MAIN character?  Wow.  Good job slogging off on sex again Hollywood.

Nitrateville was snarking the movie down doubting it would get made. It might...maybe, maybe not.  Either way its just too early to even guess at.  At least its not a Kozlov!

So Mary's ship has yet to come in...and its just so unfair.  This woman was HUGE...Hugh Neely always equated it with Michael Jackson during Thriller...but 20 years straight instead of a year or two.  I thought of another one: Johnny Carson.  Johnny also became a recluse...he couldn't even take his kids to the movie or go out without being constantly mobbed.  When you realize Mary, Charlie and Michael Jackson all had very similar reactions...it paints a fascinating portrait of what that level of fame can do to you.

What I find even more fascinating of Mary personally is the fact she was a woman.  I just gave you a list of the few people who have lived that level of fame and in addition I'd probably say The Beatles, Elvis at points and MAYBE Marilyn Monroe...maybe...and she barely made it through 10 years of it (I'm mostly at the belief she accidentally killed herself...though Dorothy Killigian always makes me pause for a moment.)

Mary was the only woman in that group.  Marilyn maybe could have reached Mary's heights had she lived (she was very close to being in full control when she died, her own company and full power over her movies).  But she may also have floundered like Elvis and never had the straight fame for 20 years.

One person, and I can not remember where, said Mary thought of herself not as a competent woman but as a competent person, sex was moot (though if you tell me Mary was unaware of it I'd laugh in your face.)  Men talked down to her and I'm sure there were a few casting couch attempts (Griffith tried his first day with her) but Mary shot them down and within a week of working with her they knew this was no woman to mess with.  She had more respect and praise (except from Charlie) than any man of her era.  One person said if she had wanted to she could have run Texaco and done it better than the fellows who were running it...she was just that good.

And YET she only had a 3rd grade education.  Much like Charlie, I think that ate at her and she spent a lot of time learning and proving she was as smart as anyone (hell I'd say MORE than anyone.)

I also feel, much like Charlie, Mary's films are timeless.  Its funny because 'the little girl' puts modern people off of her...but has anyone ever put Charlie's character in the same terms?  Mary and Charlie both had weird characters if you think of it solely by description: '30 something woman playing 12 year old...max 19 year old' and '30 something man playing 50 something hobo who likes to steal food down his pants and hit on teenage beauties'.  Think about Buster and Harold Lloyd 'Stonefaced fellow who is quick but sweet', 'Glasses guy who is a bit of a douche but ultimately sweet.'  Lillian Gish? 'Dying 20 something...'

So to me I see no reason Mary's girl is any weirder than Charlie's old sex fiend of a tramp (and I say that lovingly...I am a Chaplinite after all.)  Most everyone I know who isn't big into silents, or even mildly so and sees their first Pickford...their just shocked she looked so young.  My boyfriend seen her in My Best Girl and almost lost it when I told him she was almost 36.  Much like Fannie Ward...whatever Mary's method was she did look perpetually young.

I think perhaps one of the finest examples of how her little girl character can not only be tolerable but delightful is "Daddy Long Legs" (Mary was almost 30, playing a girl between 10 and 20).  The orphan scenes are fun and she's downright hilarious when her character is probably 12 or so.  I watched it in an alley in Pasadena.  Two valley girls were sitting behind me talking about mundane things, I think they mostly were there because it was somewhere to sit down and see something free.  15 minutes into the film they were laughing their heads off, "She is great!"

I have yet to see a newbie watch a Mary film and go 'well...that sucked' or 'well...that was weird.'  Everyone is constantly delighted, much like Chaplin her films are still enjoyable.  While she generally didn't make the social commentary Charlie did, she did tell good stories...stories that while no longer a big deal (baby farms, orphanages, Pollyanna) they aren't so foreign you're going 'WTF' like Garbo in A Woman of Affairs (no fault of Garbo's...but the censors.)  Garbo still has a 'Chaplin' reputation...not knowing her films you know it means great actress and dramatic.  Yet every Garbo film I've seen with an audience you can see the collective snore and question mark above all of us.  Garbo is highly regarded...yet Mary isn't.  Now that's a true WTF?

Almost as insulting as forgetting Mary was more than just a weird child burlesque act, is the fact no one remembers her as a comedienne.  You ask me what female comediennes we've had up till now and I'd say Mabel Normand, Louise Fazenda (she was magnificent!), Mary, Irene Dunne when she felt like it, Harlow when she felt like it, Gracie Allen, Lucille Ball, Marilyn, Roseanne Barr and there is some social belief that pretty much every woman in Bridesmaids was funny but I vehemently disagree.  I'd probably end the list with Christina Applegate.

The male list would be at least 3 times as long if not 6.  Mary was one of the first female production heads, studio heads, writers (yes back in 1909), producers and even directors (rarely but she did do it).  She wasn't the only female comedienne of her time but it was a significant part of her work.  And the minute Mary retired?  She became the last woman to do almost any of that (the two women to come close: Lucy and Oprah.  Those three are the only women from Mary onward to own their own studios.)

I find that with both drama and comedy there are two ways for it to go: timeless or dated.  Timeless Drama? Lillian Gish.  Dated?  Garbo.  Timeless Comedy?  Charlie and Mary.  Dated Comedy: the Michael Bay of comedy, Larry Semon.

The fact that Mary's films remain relatable is a big deal to me because I think if she had the support Charlie did from her own foundation, we'd all be talking a lot more about Mary.

Now in fairness to anything that now holds her rights: Mary was still hellbent her films were no good and should be forgotten.  She had donated them all (except Rosita...she was hellbent on forgetting it for some reason) to the Library of Congress where they promptly pissed away time and several were lost to deterioration.  In her will I was told she made provisions for all sorts of things (I mean this IS Mary after all) except her films...she did not designate any of her money to be used to restoring or releasing her films.  I don't believe she forbid it, but she wasn't saying 'save X million for my films.'

When the Mary Pickford Institute was created in I think 2003, they seen to it 7 of her films were released on DVD restored and with decent enough scores (they tried but I LOATHE My Best Girl's score...at least it wasn't a midi.)  Then the Foundation roped them in and they haven't been able to do anything for years.

I'm going to put this out there because I'm sure the Foundation would never give me any money and its all a lost cause now, but I believe deeply in it.  I think Mary's films should be restored (they HAVE the money) and released at least, the LEAST, in a Warner's Archive format so it was print on demand and they could save a lot of money...yet her films would be out there and in good condition to boot.

I also believe there should be a massive image campaign, but it doesn't matter if they listen to me on that one because it takes someone young and hip to get that to stick...and their all men in their 60s or so.

But unfortunately someone like me will never be in a position to make things like that happen due to all the politics and back stabbing which I just can't stand.  And its a shame because I could never be happier than knowing Mary finally got her due.

There's a photo in my many photo folders from some magazine from I think 1923 saying '100 years from now everyone will still know and love Mary Pickford.'  I'll do what I can.  Unfortanitly I was unable to find that photo in time for this, but I do have some goodies I wanted to share...I've never shown these before and to my knowledge one of them is completely unseen, I must have been the only person on Ebay that day.  So to cap off Classic Movies Mary Pickford Blogathon I present some rare Mary photos:

Mary in color from 1934 "Star Night at the Cocoanut Grove"

Mary in color from some point in the 1960s at Pickfair, photo from Corbis

Mary's color screentest for Alice in Wonderland about 1933. I don't remember exactly who found this but they may have been from Garbo Forever

Life with Father Hair and Make up Tests about 1946

Round Two from Life with Father Tests, 1946

The Good Fight: Saving Pickfair Studios and a bad month for Mary Pickford

Some of you may have heard (okay pretty much all of you) that I'm fighting the good fight with two brilliant minds to save Pickfair Studios from destruction by their current owner CIM.  While I haven't written much lately I felt compelled to put a little something here.

I vowed in 2008 that if they ever tried tearing down my dear studios I'd chain myself to the fence.  I haven't ruled that out!  This current round started with a post from My Heritage LA that was shared on facebook.  We jumped in and I immediately began creating a site...my outrage at the idea so deep I didn't stop...for 5 hours.

I guess my training with other silent film endeavors took over because I knew exactly where to go.  But I had no idea it would become this. Personally I hoped we could top the Griffith petition which 4 years later sits at 200 signatures.  The lowest number the petition site would let me use was 1,000...I hoped we could make it...maybe in a month or three.

As the three of us watched the campaign slowly pick up speed we'd write each other, "200!  Now 400!"  Every time we'd email figures to a press or important contact it would change by 50 before we could hit send.  I guess its true, when you go viral you won't know it.  We didn't even dare to hope for it.  This kind of response is what I would have killed for when I released Affairs Valentino.  A Valentino love child is what I thought would deserve this kind of press.  It didn't (and I still believe it should have).  BUT saving a historic film relic did.

When I talk to minor film people...wannabe directors and actors and film students...I'd always mention D.W. Griffith and Mary Pickford figuring if they were truly these types in training they should know the name.  "Who?"  One film student, attending the New York Film School down the street from where Mary is buried had no clue who she was.  He thought he knew all about Griffith...after a half hour film class showing the most incendiary parts of Birth of a Nation.  I never even tried Douglas Fairbanks...if they didn't know those two they wouldn't know that lovely man...


While I wasn't big on The Artist I was touched how it seemed to worship at the altar of Douglas Fairbanks.  And once it won an Oscar (go Uggie!) I was certain Doug would be known more.  Maybe now when I said 'silent film' people wouldn't go 'like...when you mute the TV?' (REAL RESPONSE!)  I know I wasn't the only film fan with that hope.

Hollywood these days seems to always be a day late and a dollar short.  Debbie Reynolds tried for almost 20 years to get a home for massive, AMAZING film memorabilia collection (Doug and Mary's costumes, Rudy's suit of lights, Marilyn Monroe's white dress, Judy Garland's red slippers).  I think she went bankrupt more than once trying to do it and finally caved in last year with a massive auction.  No one stepped up to keep the collection together, while individual items went for millions of dollars.  A few months later the Academy announced a Hollywood Museum where these types would fit well (it appears they bought Debbie's ruby slippers).  WHY?  Mary Pickford wanted such a museum created in the 30s, later in the 60s.  Now once we've sold off our treasures or thrown them in the trash...80 years after the idea of turning Pickfair the home into a museum....we get one?

And of course there's Pickfair the house.  When Mary and Doug divorced she had the idea of making it a museum.  This was vetoed and she lived in the home with Buddy Rogers until her death in 1979.  Before she died, she and Buddy had offered the home to the city of Beverly Hills again hoping to make it a museum.  Beverly Hills said it would be too costly to upkeep.  Pia Zadora (the 80s Paris Hilton) got her hands on it and tore it down claiming it had termites.  People were outraged...but it was too late.  The gates are essentially the only original Pickfair relics standing.

Mary's costume collection (she had saved every costume she had worn in films) was auctioned with the rest of her estate.  The estate sale was meager with the auctioneer begging people to take the items.  The person who bought the costumes at a steal threw them in the WASHING MACHINE and ruined them...then called the auction house and wanted his money back.

What the hell?
 
Harold Lloyd and his estate tried desperately to make their Beverly Hills home into a museum and it was for a brief time.  But it became too expensive and most of the land was sold off, the infamously beautiful children's playhouse gone.  The house does still stand and was luckily bought by a historic fan.  But Falcon Lair, Rudolph Valentino's home, wasn't so lucky.  Nor was his Whitley Heights home.  The Whitley Heights one is now a foundation sitting on the freeway and Falcon Lair is some gates and the stables...now converted into a million dollar home.

Harold sold his studio land to Mormons, he thought they were trustworthy.  The second biggest LDS church now sits where it was.  Buster Keaton's studios were knocked down long ago, nothing of them is left standing...not even the statue dedicated later to commemorate him.  Charlie Chaplin got lucky (its my personal theory he was a witch, he seemed to always squeak by no matter what)...his studios were owned by him until there was some appreciation.  RCA Records preserved the studios which became a bonafide landmark and now Kermit the Frog sits on the roof...dressed as the Tramp.

Charlie's studio is still functioning, it even made an appearance in the 2011 Muppet movie.

CIM is like an evil villain to me, personally.  Their only plan since 1993 has been to bulldoze the historic buildings at the Pickfair Studio and put up ugly glass cubes that looked just as stupid in 1993 as they look today.  They've made no effort to preserve or restore to the point Mary's office is in shambles.  In 2007, through practices I personally find questionable, they got the West Hollywood City Council to allow them to knock down Mary's office and Doug's gym.  They planned to do this by the end of April.  A memo went out a few days ago saying it was moved up to immediately.

What is concerning and you can read all about it here, is that they have very little oversight and many developers like to go 'oopsy daisy' and knock down other things while at it.  West Hollywood's developer, Degrazia has refused to answer any of our emails and we have had no reply from CIM despite attempts.  West Hollywood's City Council set out a form letter listing a list of buildings they promised to not knock down, excluding Santa Monica West's building block (dating from 1919 and full of historic offices) and Soundstage 7 where many famous people including Frank Sinatra recorded.

I have written about this so much this week, but essentially what we want is oversight, a protection for those two buildings (that were listed on the memo as first to go), oversight of the restoration so its real restoration not just stripping everything down and putting up cubes and a historic designation that is more meaningful then 'oh this was historic or whatever' as a cultural monument seems to mean in West Hollywood speak.

The Fairbanks family sent some lovely quotes.  The authentic Pickfords (I consider myself an honorary one) expressed support for getting a real cultural designation.

We are just extremely touched by the out pour of support.  I've literally shed a few tears over it.  As of this writing (and in a few hours it will be inaccurately low) there is 1350 facebook members and 2550 petition signatures (which is great, for some reason in the beginning the petition lagged behind the facebook memberships.)  We've gotten so much press I could go on and on about it.  Today Variety published an article in support.  We've gotten 3,000 pageviews on the website and judging by the tweets and page views this protest is going to be a big deal.

Yup.  Sunday April 1st (yeah we get the irony) at 1pm at Formosa and Santa Monica we're gonna raise some hell (politely of course, we must be respectful and intelligent at all times).  Or as the City of West Hollywood is declaring it...Kardashian Day...When we came up with this idea I thought it might be 5 people...judging by the press for the protest alone its going to once again shock me.

I mourn a lot of the loss past (particularly the loss of the Ambassador, Pickfair the home and the Santa Monica ballroom) but to see Mary and Doug's descendants, film workers from gaffer to director and just plain film fans and Angelenos all cry out and say they support this...just wow you guys...seriously.

One person wondered why no one tried this back in 2007.  Well for starters I don't think I was in LA when the hearings occurred.  Even if we had been in the know social media was myspace and an ad riddled petition site.  I had some of the funnest times of my life during those years which involved some heavy myspace promotion...but I'll tell ya this kind of protest is really in its time and place now.  I've long hated facebook...but after this I may have to take back everything I've ever said about it.  And the petition sites are much more professional.  Also there's now youtube and twitter...they make all the difference.

As I wrote on the 'About the Stars' page both Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford died thinking no one cared about them, their works or their films.  This was obviously untrue in the 30s and 70s as much as it is today but hearing Doug's gym and Mary's office are already approved for demolition (this would cause a riot in 1925) would arguably further that point.

However I think Doug and Mary would be as equally touched as we are if they seen the outpouring of support.  People do care.  Developers and city councils don't...they never will.  But the people care.  The film industry cares.

Mary's birthday is April 8th.  In addition to this whole Pickfair issue her Foundation, which provides film classes to under privileged youth and furthers her name, films and works...has been 'orphaned' by the main company, the Mary Pickford Foundation.

I do not speak officially for anyone but myself on this matter, but its bullshit.  The Mary Pickford Foundation was founded in the 50s by Mary to do her charitable works.  Now the descendants of her lawyer and accountant sit on the board.  Its a 3 man board making $60,000 EACH a year for 12 hours of work.  Someone on nitrateville complained that the Institute has released no new Mary movies in 7 years.  The institute has basically had its hands and money tied, always having to beg to the foundation to do anything.  Frankly I think the board members on the foundation don't give two hoots about Mary and direct money at really ridiculously stupid and useless projects like the "Land of Dreams" the one woman act portraying Mary as Mae Marsh on a redbull binder.

Hugh Neely and Andi Hicks, the two main people at the Foundation, are very dear.  They spoke up because the foundation gave itself raises, while telling the Institute it had no money.  Women at the institute making almost 50% less then what the men make, which is a big no no for an Institution founded by a business WOMAN.  Yes maybe there doesn't need to be a woman on the foundation board, but all members should be paid equally for hard work done well.  And being able to give themselves raises for 12 hours of work is ridiculous...its like Congress and their infinity for cutting everyone else off, squabbling, then giving themselves huge raises constantly.

The foundation now has $17 million dollars and basically wants to sit on it slowly draining it and doing nothing.  They cut off the Institute with no warning and now they can't pay their staff or even make this month's rent.  The Institute has been trying to further Mary and her ideals, including monthly screenings of her films for FREE.

According to the end of their press release: "If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Andrea, Hugh, Manon, or members of the MPI board of directors, please call Manon Banta at 323-459-2640 or email Manon at manon@marypickford.com.  About the Mary Pickford Foundation  The Mary Pickford Foundation was started in 1958 by Mary Pickford. No woman has served on the board since the death of its founder in 1979. The Foundation offices are at 40730 Calle Bandido, Ranch Adm Blvd, Murrieta, CA 92562. The phone number is 800-338-8128."

Do that.  And also help us save Mary and Doug's studio by protesting, signing the petition and joining our facebook and twitter.

To each and every person who has made a call, sent an email, told a friend, attended the city council meeting or plans to attend the protest...THANK YOU.  From the bottom of my heart.

Silent Life 'half silent movie' by Vlad Kozlov

I am going to vomit if I see one more British tabloid tout Vlad Kozlov's renamed Rudolph Valentino smear as something akin to The Artist (one example, and its not the only one: http://t.co/T4TFQiau).  The minute The Artist started getting buzz I found several press releases popping up linking them.  Kozlov is a one man operation along with his aptly named girlfriend, Natacha.  A few years ago (2006) he made "DayDreams of Rudolph Valentino"...a weird short film that hinted at Rudy being gay/bi, included a long dreamy orgy sequence, and tons of overwrought acting that makes The Artist's talkie nightmare look restrained.  He had it on youtube and after calling him out on it he removed it, he also was selling DVDs for $30 on Ebay for awhile.

I met him a few years ago when he was planning what was at the time called "Death of a Sheik" which he has now renamed Silent Life.  He looked me straight in the eye and told me Valentino and Ramon Novarro had a brief affair (at a time impossible by either of their histories) and that Novarro had given him the flags of Falcon Lair as a reminder of such a sexy time filled weekend...never mind Natacha made them.  I literally got up and left...I couldn't believe anyone could say such things and take themselves seriously.

After that good ol harassment of Valentino fanatics started against me he bombarded my forum (which is now closed) and other Rudy forums with a several paragraph rant about how I was rude and wrong and tra la la...never mind actually proving his claims.  With David Bret taking his place he faded into obscurity until now.

I think nothing makes me sicker, literally physically sick, then the fact that we could never get through to any press for Affairs Valentino, a 10 year researched biography on Rudy, and yet Kozlov can't get mentioned several times with a film that no one could have possibly seen.  Making Rudy gay is always good business, people would rather hear 'dirty' stories about stars, something they did that was secretive and scandalous no matter how much the facts dispute it (and frankly I find it insulting to gay people, equating gay with dirty and scandalous when its a perfectly natural thing.)

I have been very touched by how many hits I've gotten since I put the site back, and how they were mostly debunking myths like 'oh silent stars failed in talkies'.  But I'm not blind enough to know the people in power who could help won't, and most people would rather look the other way than get David Bret's wrath on them.  Right now he's harassing the parents of a missing child, so I'm sure he doesn't have much time for his old haunts (and even if he does I don't care, I quit reading that stuff literally a year ago.  Its there, it always will be until justice is served.)

Nothing makes me sicker than the fact that here we are again, silents are getting a moment and facts are hidden in favor of scandal and good ol boy relationships.  This is exactly why I will not be updating this blog.

Thoughts on The Artist (2011)

When the news came out that a silent black and white film had just been made in France, rocked Cannes and seriously was coming to America I redefined the word 'squee'. I have no shame in telling you that I literally, LITERALLY, jumped up and down screaming like I'd won the lottery.

The night after I reserved a ticket for me and my silent loving boyfriend, I noticed during The Daily Show and Colbert Report that a brand new spanking commercial was running for The Artist. Silent was not used. No hard sell needed. It was as if for any normal movie. AND it would be in theatres nationwide by the end of January 2012. I was tickled.

After arriving at the Arclight I got a feeling of great soul stinging anticipation I have only felt once before in my life: when I sat waiting after the shorts to watch my first Mary Pickford movie, already a huge fan just from what I knew of her life and her business dealings.

Mary didn't let me down....The Artist did. It was like an arrow to the heart. It was frustrating that this film could have been if you will, a fucking masterpiece, but the director got in the way of himself. “Why the hell would they make a musical in 1933 and consider that a good career move?” “I can see her FRECKLES! And her hair is so messed up, they would never have allowed that!” “This music is...atrocious.” “WTF is this silence about?”

MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD.  IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T READ SRSLY!

Before I went everyone raved. EVERYONE still raves. But I remember reading an article invoking Rudy's name (after all the main character is named George Valentin) and asking why George couldn't make it in the talkies as according to the author, his voice seemed fine?

I was so excited for this film because it had done something that has only been done once before (1970s with the aptly named Silent Film): it brought silents back into the mainstream for a moment and made people acknowledge they existed...and that they just might be worth watching for entertainment value. I hated this film because instead of doing that (or in spite) it mussed up the worst conceptions of silent films (literal silence, cheesiness, mellerdrama, bad music) while leaving many things poorly understated to the point that someone not in the know had no fucking clue why this was (George's failure in talkies.)

The scoring was beyond atrocious. Its like the director consulted the idiots who make bad scores (and there are many) and decided it was the way to go. He would have been wiser to request the tapes of Bob Mitchell playing or even consult Kevin Brownlow (if he did I'm not aware of it) and do something apt. Even when I wasn't a big fan of older popular music (it grows on you I assure you, ask my Itunes) I would ALWAYS end up tapping my foot to Bob's scores. The only person who got me there since then: Brownlow's Photoplay Productions restoration of Four Horsemen.

Since I am more aware of 20s music now it was just an assault on the ears...it didn't match at all and in fact it distracted. It reminded me just how important music is...literally its like 60% of making a silent film not only tolerable but enjoyable (even the best masterpiece silent is a work of patience when viewed ONLY in silence, as it was never meant to be. Like watching a TV show or modern talkie on mute.) During the years I went to the Silent Movie Theatre they ran Pandora's Box with Louise Brooks twice and the Orpheum ran it once. The first time I seen it Bob played and it moved me so deeply that 7 months later the minute I seen Xmas decorations I thought of the night Lulu is murdered. It was STUNNING.

The second time at the Orpheum, about 3 months after the first, Bob Mitchell was scheduled to play but he was too sick, so another fellow who's name escapes me, took his place and he was well trained...it was again mind blowing. Sadly Bob died soon after. So the third time back at the Silent Movie Theatre, some experimental modern band was playing.

This was a highly billed endeavor and while I was weary I was hopeful. It.was.a.hot.mess. Just horrible. I wasn't the only one who thought so, every comment on the way out was about it. It was so bad I found myself daydreaming half way through. It RUINED a film I considered (and still do) a masterpiece.

The Artist is most offensive in this way in regards to the dance scenes, which are key. When Pepe meets George at the studio (he, unaware she has been hired as an extra) he spots her legs behind a screen practicing a tap dance, which he imitates and a little Fred and Ginger thing is done until the screen is removed and all is revealed. He's enchanted and insists she be cast in a lead role, which makes her a star. At the end of the film after he's tried killing himself twice (well the first may have been a psychotic accident...but he seemed wont to die at that point) she insists he join her in a movie as a co-star. He insists no one wants him. She says she has an idea and the film ends with the duo filming a tap dance number. This leads up to the big voice reveal and an implied comeback for George.

The music had no baring on the dance what so ever, and considering I had been watching nothing but musicals for 2 months before this it somehow seemed even more offensive. Even odder the tapping sounded wrong...as if they didn't record it right. My guess is that she only had half the taps that they used to (one instead of two)...otherwise I have no clue where they went wrong. The tapping was almost muted, which defeats the purpose of a tap dance. But then the tapping is supposed to be part of a peppy rhythm, which was missing so maybe that was the point.

The silent vignettes were not only jarring, but stupid. Much like the metaphors and several other parts of the film the director seemed to start with a good idea (being silent for a moment at the start to adjust the audience) and then beat it over the head with its own arm. The silence during the falling in love scenes...just...horrible. And whats even worse was not only were they ill timed, but they went on WAY too long...every single one. I've heard silence in some scores, but usually apt to the plot and not 2 minutes long. These vignettes were neither.

After butchering the music, tapping and silence the director couldn't leave sound out. After watching a sound test he considered hilariously bad, George has a nightmare in which he's in his dressing room and literally everything but him makes a sound: the dog barking, the phone, the mirror, his shoes, everything. I turned to my boyfriend and said 'This is fucking brilliant.' Then he slit its wrist: George goes outside well over 3 minutes into it, sees a girl laughing as she walks. That's...kinda stupid. Then she multiplies until she's like 20 girls laughing and he wakes up.

Much like every other blundered metaphor I think the director was trying to imply this was a dream and it was the climax of his nightmare. Instead he kept beating a dead horse. If the sequence had added with George either inside or as he walked out on his steps unable to scream it would have worked. Instead he had to overdo it.

It seems the director and the backers of this film tried their damndest to get it right...and they didn't. They used great old locations, and good costumes...but blundered the make up, hair and most horrifically the lead actress. Classic (talkies and silents) black and white films redefined reality. Even when Lillian Gish was a beaten pulp of a waif she still had flawless skin...not a line to be found. Every silent with some chase or lovemaking or hair pulling (literally) scenario would never muss a woman's hair beyond perfectly coiffed. Mostly I believe that's because the wigs and/or products were extremely strong...they might move but retain most of the form. You rarely seen a frizzed out waved bob no matter how stressed the real bonafide hair was. In fact I believe Peppy was supposed to be a mix of Clara Bow, Marion Davies and Jean Harlow. Jean and Clara both were worked so much (Clara's hair was dyed constantly all week between blonde and red) their hair literally started falling out (Jean eventually needed a wig to recover.) Yet show me a film their hair is frizzed out in the close ups and I will give you a cookie. Ain't gonna find it.

I don't blame the actress for these failings. And in fact if the frizz had been controlled the hair team did good style wise. But the makeup artist was atrocious, if they win any sort of an award it is a pox on every make up artist before 1950.

It took me out of the realism of 'hey this is a 20s movie see!' Which seems to be what they were going for. Much like heavy parts of the music being made up of pieces from 1936 or later, the make up seemed to be strongly leaning towards a modern look (oddly not even a modern film look, just whatever Cover Girl bullshit Kardashian fans are wearing these days.) There was a line on Peppy's face near her nose on the left side of the screen that constantly showed (I wondered if its a scar but perhaps its just a wrinkle or the way her face naturally goes). The silents and early talkies would have never allowed that. Even worse was the fact you could easily see her freckles. Marion Davies, who seemed to me to be the main inspiration of the character (if not intentionally than unintentionally) was heavily freckled. Mark Wanamaker is a huge collector and researcher of hers. When I trained to be a docent at her beach house he told of her freckles and how she had gone to great lengths to not even allow private photos of her without her makeup on. He laughed, “But I managed to find ONE.” Marion would have died on site if she had been on screen with freckles through the whole ordeal.

I would like to clarify I am not insulting freckles, wrinkles or frizzed hair as a whole...just that for a movie saying it is of this time period, it is jarringly wrong as it just was not done then. My boyfriend later mentioned the worst offender of all, which when he said it I immediately shouted YES: Peppy's lips were ALWAYS bare.

My boyfriend is a casual silent fan, he's mainly watched whatever I conjoled him into and its been very heavy on Chaplin films. But even HE caught that. To hammer home the point as we discussed it we were sitting in my living room where a big portrait of Mary Pickford in little girl get up hangs. Our Mary had colored lips. EVERYONE DID. You did not star in a film in the 20s and NOT have dark colored lips. For a Peppy type she should have been legally required to have a Clara Bow lip. AND SHE DIDN'T.

As if blundering it more, my boyfriend pointed out on the poster of 'Beauty Mark' (Peppy's Platinum Blonde apparently) this was fixed...but at no other time were her lips darkened. All the more annoying when I realized on the poster and the illustrated fake magazines I thought she did finally look accurate...that's why!

If I may dig one more nail in, the actress was all wrong for the part. Too thin, even for thin, very tall looking. And I noticed she was like the definition of French, which even Renee Adoree couldn't accentuate in America without a bow lip: small breasts, heart shaped booty and dark hair. Clara was a famous red head and Jean Harlow had a brownette phase (to save her hair) but the whole movie all I could think was 'to make her work, she should have been blonde.' I almost bet this is a Joan Crawford abominable reference. I still don't know why people say she stole Our Modern Maidens, Anita Page ruled that shit.

The actress' face just was never going to do. She did not have the 20s look. She looked the definition of modern, which I spent a long time trying to define but it was hard. I think its because she had such a narrow chin and a heart shaped face. Her cheeks were too tiny. She's pretty and even more so out of costume...but I can't imagine if this were 1927 they would have lost their shit over her like they did. As I lamented to my boyfriend the actress with the Brooks bob to her right during the audition scene look more accurate...whoever that woman was she had THE face.

Something was just off with the performance of Peppy. But the more I thought about it the more I'm certain it wasn't so much the acting as the directing. Maybe its a little of both (WHY was Bérénice Bejo cast? Oh maybe she's married to Michel Hazanavicius...the director.) It seems as if Hazanavicius can't direct women (for the record I haven't seen any of his other movies, this is solely based on The Artist.) The first actress, playing George's spiteful co-star looked kind of right...but if her hair isn't a wig I'll eat my hat. Blonde...but horribly fake. Judging by the do and the 'funny' sound test I believe she's a pot shot at Mae Murray, and inaccurately so.

George's wife isn't much of anything, though she SHOULD be funny its not much of anything. Why does she hate him so? Doesn't seem clear...just like 'oh she does, ball busting bitch.' The hate seems to pre-date Peppy and if not then it was hamfistedly implied. Other than her, Peppy and the co-star I don't think there's many women to speak of...all duds and distracting or forgettable.

I wanted to like Peppy, but in the silent parts she was just annoying and I'm not quite sure why. Both my boyfriend and I agreed she became much more tolerable when she was a talkie star. I wanted to like the bit where she's giving a pandering radio interview slamming silents only for George to hear and put her in her place. But much like everything else it was beaten over the head, it should have went somewhere but really didn't other than to be a reference point.

Despite all to be said above, and why I give Hazanavicius ANY credit in doing good, I thoroughly enjoyed George who was played by Jean Dujardin. He LOOKED the part, a perfect Doug with miniscule Rudolph Valentino and John Gilbert references. This part actually fascinates me as Peppy is so dull and obnoxious who cares where her inspiration came from, she butchered it (the three actresses I named are all actresses I greatly enjoy.) With George its an interesting view of where Hazanavicius got his inspiration, which kind of makes me think along with Clifford and Zimmer he's a 'guys director'.

George looks and acts exactly like Doug: constant laughing, swashbuckling, swaggering and star of adventure films with the obvious plot (lots of fighting and guy stuff happens then he quickly saves the girl.) Hazanavicius even inserted clips of Doug in with Jean for the Black Gaucho, something George is watching as he drinks and mourns the loss of his career and life. The melding is seamless and this is why I hate Hazanavicius so: he COULD have done more brilliant stuff like this (not exactly like this but mind blowing type of things all the same) but he botched it at almost every turn.

George's last silent looks exactly like the Three Musketeers which was what Doug's last silent was (The Iron Mask.) George is personable and an attention whore, much like Doug. He's also deeply crushed when the public looses interest, very much like Doug (Doug Jr said that while walking with his father in New York in the mid 30s someone called out 'Hey Doug!' and Doug Sr was tickled, “See! They still remember me!” even though it had only been a few years since his final film.) He lived in what is in reality one of Mary Pickford's houses, from when she was having her affair with Doug. His wife kind of looks like Mary and I kept wondering if that was the inspiration, but she was so off I decided if it was it was better not said. She also leaves him when he becomes a loser of an alcoholic mess, similar to Mary (though Mary's reasons where more so the rampant cheating.)

In fact the drinking intrigued me the most of all, because Doug's absentee father was an alcoholic and his mother made him swear to never take a drink....so for his career he did not (much to the chagrin of his alcoholic boyfriends and family in law)...until things went to hell with silents and Mary. Then he became a borderline heavy drinker.

However one reviewer only vaguely familiar with silents believed the relationship of Peppy and George was supposed to mirror Garbo and Gilbert: Greta Garbo went on to great talking roles and John Gilbert drank himself to death. I think its clearly there, but almost a ghost of a thing...I see next to nothing of Garbo in Peppy other than the constant attempts to protect George. But George in his depression seems more like John than Doug. And unless I missed something no one had to give Garbo a hand up (she arrived as a promised sensation....John had been doing movies for quite awhile and just very shortly before she came did he make a big splash with Valentino's strike and The Big Parade...co-starring Karl Dane.)

Sadly he almost reminds me the most of Karl, which I kind of doubt Hazanavicius intended (cuz seriously so few people know of poor Karl.) The fall from famous and a married home owner with lots of money and such to poor drunk who lives in a hovel of an apartment and turns his only boyfriend away in a depression then attempts to kill himself is pretty much word for word Karl (Karl's fall was similar only more detailed, and in the end he was a heavy drinker in a sad hovel with only a little money and one boyfriend. He turned her away and killed himself.)

While Jean was fantastic as George, again the director let the 'brilliant' level slip. I blame this most on what I call 'ham fisted metaphors'. I rarely find films (even FRENCH FILMS which I do enjoy) too pretentious but this one got up its own ass several times. My boyfriend and I agreed the reference term for this is 'The Lonely Star'...spotted on the marquee as George leaves his estate auction and almost walks into traffic. The liquor on the mirrored table, the ass grabbing coat, its like one ham fist for every 20 minutes of film.

The only 'brilliant' bits that stand out to me are Clifton (played by James Cromwell) and Uggie. Perhaps Cromwell got it so right as his parents John Cromwell and Kay Johnson were late silent/early talkie stars...literally playing in important films during the years The Artist is to take place. He nailed it.

Cromwell may have stole the cameras, but Uggie stole the scenery, crew and kitchen sink. That dog is fucking fantastic. Before seeing The Artist I wondered if the campaign to get him an Oscar was just because well...he's preciously adorable. After seeing the film he no kidding, deserves it. Didn't think a dog couldn't be qualified as a fantastic actor but seriously...he is. When the dog even outdoes a sexy french man well...seriously. If they seriously make a non offensive Fatty Arbuckle movie in the next few years (rumor has it HBO is doing it) Uggie needs to be Luke. I don't give a shit if he's the wrong breed, he EARNED that role.

Two things really irritated me about this film to the point that much like the 92 Chaplin film I might have trouble recommending it to others (that film was fantastic...except for its portrayals of Mary Pickford and Mabel Normand. Charlie may not have minded, but it bugs me to my core): the lack of intertitles and the lack of information that perpetuates the talkie myth.

The talkie myth is just...a fucking nightmare I debunked almost 4 years ago but it still hangs around, even by 'film buffs', and people who should know how to do their job like journalists, commentators, directors and historians. Literally no star lost their job for a bad accent or funny voice. Of all the stars Raymond Griffith was the only one to have a serious voice deformity (his vocal chords were either injured by an illness as a child or in the war, no one is sure or clear on it) as he could only speak in essentially a whisper. Guess what: even HE made some successful talkies (the voice thing was explained away as a cold or some other character ailment)!!! As the main point of my talkie article points out: okay if voices and accents were detrimental, explain Greta Garbo.

We only hear two words of George's voice. Wikipedia aggravatingly characterizes this as quote, “In the final shot, the sound finally comes in as the film starts rolling. Afterwards, Zimmer calls "Cut! Perfect. Beautiful. Could you give me one more?" Valentin, in his first audible line, replies "With pleasure" in a clearly French accent, revealing the reason he refused to speak on camera.”

I did think his accent was a little heavy, though I could understand him my boyfriend couldn't. BUT I don't even believe this is a fault of Hazanavicius...George's failure is explained away as 'oh talkies are a thing now and you're an old star, no one gives a shit how you talk. They want new faces.' This is actually kind of right (along with curbing temperamental and/or expensive stars and the fact most silent stars were nearing there 30s and 40s by this time). But Hazanavicius didn't elaborate and that almost cruelly leaves the door open for people to say shit like Wikipedia did. I don't believe this was intentional. Hazanavicius is a silent film buff, and he clearly knows well enough even though he didn't execute it perfectly. I think much like I probably would, he figured that was good enough and didn't leave bad voices that door open. But it wasn't detailed enough to debunk a long standing myth ala Rudy and the imaginary art deco dildo. Film buffs are sick to death of hearing it, but trust me there's a lot of people who don't know that talkies didn't bring on the end of these supposed funny accented stars. Even my boyfriend's film teacher repeated it not 6 months ago!!!

Obviously George was going to have a French accent, he's a pure French actor from France in a French production. The fact it wasn't in French is pretty much more than we should ask for. But okay let's take this at face value: George Valetin was a silent star in America of apparently French origin, and thus he maintained his accent and everything happened as it did in the movie. That STILL does not imply to me that he failed because of an accent or the tone of his voice (or both). America was big on France back then, a fascination that has never really faded but was particular strong at the time (France was the Mexico of the 20s because the War made their money nearly worthless, so the creative types low on money flocked there in droves and revitalized it.) George's failure as a talkie star seems to me to highly mirror Doug's more than anyone else's (dashes of Karl and John but not really...very minimal.) Doug put some talking into The Iron Mask, but he held out on talkies until 1929 when he did Taming of the Shrew with Mary...and it opened literally a week or so before the stock market crash. Obviously it failed despite the fact they were still the King and Queen of film and Mary's first talkie right before this was very successful (as well as Doug's final silent.) It was literally their first flop individually, which was not only shocking but devastating as they had always thought teaming together would have been a hell of a thing (think if Brangelina if they did Mr. and Mrs. Smith NOW instead of when they decided to break up some marriages and get together.) Doug also lost a bit (not everything but a hefty sum) in the crash, much as its implied with George (he fully funded his last film.)

Doug made a handful of films after this mostly because he did have the money to do so, and they all flopped royally (each one harder than the last.) In fact the musical idea really through me as Doug's attempt at a musical flopped harder than Kiki (Reaching for the Moon, mostly because they decided musicals were a fad so cut out all but one song leaving a plotless movie with no bang.) In fact now I wonder if its a cruel joke...we're led to believe George has a happy end but if this follows Doug's trajectory the musical will flop hard while the formerly silent now talking woman stays a star (Bebe Daniels/Pepe) and the man makes a few half assed attempts before dying of various ailments by the end of the decade.

Doug's voice was fine, very regal...my boyfriend fell in love with him watching ONLY Taming of the Shrew. I imagine the same would be of George. Both were at the height of their success when talkies came, both made a film on their own (but Doug has been doing that for years and unlike George he was eager to give talking and color a try), both key films came out right as the stock market crashed and the US went into a long depression, both films flopped because who the hell wants to see a movie right now?, and both men took it very personally. Then cruelly both men made a musical with a silent leading lady successful in talkies...and Doug flopped...we're left believing George did not but we do not know. Either way the talkie myth was not the cause of it.




If Greta Garbo does nothing for you, then consider the obvious that any Frenchman should know: Maurice Chevalier.  He tried silents in France and the response was lukewarm despite his success as a singer.  He only really started venturing into American films when talkies arrived.  From 1928 to 1934 his films were widely popular...which you may also recognize as a chunk of the period George's failure takes place during.  Frankly when I remembered this it makes any French talking argument beyond ridiculous.

Onto my other pet peeve...within the first 10 minutes I knew the intertitles would ruin it. There were certain directors (Griffith was one of them) who felt intertitles were good for only very minimal descriptions, like 'oh here we are 20 years later in New York.' Hazanavicius must have taken this to heart because there couldn't have been more than 15 intertitles in the whole 100 minutes (while I didn't count I'm sitting here sincerely wondering if that's too generous.) There were moments that I, someone who has watched probably well over 200 silent films, wondered what the hell was going on. In fact between that, the metaphors and the lack of one constant directorial voice is mostly why this film never reached masterpiece status. It threw the pacing off BADLY. In fact the few times there was a few intertitles together it felt much more entertaining.


Now I've been almost cruel to Michael Hazanavicius and I actually, despite it all, don't want to be. I don't know very much about him or what went on to make this film. Just bits and pieces and they tell me very little about everything I have written, which is why I wish I could sit him down and pick his brain about it. Because it might explain some things.

This man has a love of films, classic, silent and modern. He's been a director for years and (apparently) eagerly waited almost a decade for a chance to make a modern silent film. He formed the idea, he wrote the script, he co-edited it...I mean he literally went balls to the wall hands on with this film. He lived out not only my own but every film buff's dream...to make an homage to something he loved. Though I don't know much about him, from what I have read and watching the film its VERY obvious his heart is every where in this film...he truly loves silent films and did his damndest to honor them.

And look at him! I kind of doubt he really believed it would not only leave France and Europe but go to America...but not only did he do THAT but he got it a WIDE RELEASE...I mean holy hell next week people will be able to see it even in the most podunk of towns! That is HUGE. When I heard of this film I didn't dare dream that. Even when I finally got to see it I was still startled by the commercial and that news. He did good.

I'm well aware some of my complaints make Comic book guy look like a jock compared to me. And I could have let a good ton of it go if this film hadn't had the fatal flaws that just stopped it from being overall entertaining and well put together. I think why he failed so in this is (and this is just my theory here, one of the many things I'd love to hear his thoughts on why he did it that way) he seemed to take different tones that disrupted the flow of the film. The best parts were when he did it straight up 20s, like the shots of George and Peppy's various films. This was accurate despite the nitpicky bits and every time they happened my hope would come back to life for only a moment. It seems when it was the behind the scenes bit he ran with the idea of trying to make it modern...which since the rules don't exist he just decided to write them how he liked. The filters, lighting, makeup, hair...much more off. In fact the technicals (lighting and such) seem to be too modern, they jar the hell out of the black and white (if he could have made them look as smooth as say a 50s film I would have loved that.) I blame this on the fact other than Schindler's List next to no one has done this since color film finally strangled black and white (now that I think of it Silent Film, the 70s film, was also in black and white and much less jarring in its technicals method.)

It just seemed more polished when the 'film' parts were shown, and almost gritty when it was the 'real' parts...even happy 'real' moments. I can't fault him for trying to do something new, but it just didn't 'take'...maybe something new could work (what it is I have no clue) but it would have been saner to just take the old method as doing it that way is rarer than nitrate these days.

In fact I think the failure is why The Artist is almost painful to me. Michael Hazanavicius clearly tried very hard, and he got it to a point I couldn't even dream of. But as a film alone it was just mediocre and I feel for him...its like it was SO close to being great, and however he went off the rails he just did. And I know he didn't mean to. He deserved to succeed.

I will say this: its better than that Vlad Koslov bullshit (which he tried to piggyback on The Artist release announcement judging by my google results.) Its better than a lot of shitty movies out there....like 90% of all the current films. And if it truly gives our generation a moment to go 'oh yeah I know what a silent film is' instead of the good ol 'what like muting the TV?' then he got through despite the lows of this film. And I will always be appreciative for that.

Chaplin and Occupy Wall Street

I have been watching the Occupy Wall Street protests with horror and I could not be any prouder to be a part of OWS LA if I tried.

The other day I was discussing his holy Chaplin with a fellow protester and a little light bulb went off in my head: Monsieur Verdoux.

While most silent film fans skew 'older' and 'Replican-er' even they would have to admit Charlie was for the little guy (I've had quite a few of them say in dead seriousness they KNEW for sure Chaplin was a Commie.  I think he was a Socialist but that's a topic for another day.)  Any Chaplin film could do, but a few came to mind immediately.

City Lights he's wrongly accused of stealing a ton of money, which is then used to pay for a poor girl's much needed surgery (he's quite literally accused by a whitey drunk driving fat cat).  She can't support herself or her grandmother very well without it.  Once she has the surgery she flourishes, while Chaplin's accused Tramp goes to jail and becomes even poorer and beaten down from it.

Modern Times is duh.  Charlie works himself into a nervous breakdown and is rehabilitated without his job.  While readjusting to life he is wrongly accused of leading a Union riot and taken to jail.  In jail he snorts smuggled coke (accidentally) and becomes a Prison hero where he is given all sorts of luxuries...including early release which he desperately does not want.  Out on the street again he is jobless, hungry and poor (and presumably homeless).  He makes several attempts at honest work (also seen in City Lights which included shit cleaning and getting beaten to death in the ring) but they all fail.  When the 'gamine' gets real work she's arrested for being underage, even though she'll just be thrown into a foster system where she will be beaten and mistreated.  They run away again and Charlie says something I've said to myself many times these last few years, "Buck up!  Never say die!  We'll get along!"

I feel very strongly that if one lined up these films to the current situation it would start with City Lights, the last few years would be Modern Times, and this current moment would be Monsieur Verdoux (you could maybe switch Modern and Monsieur but its very close.)

Monsieur Verdoux is one of those 'post Dictator' films that most people don't know.  It was mildly successful but coming in 1947, right after a horrible war and right before the good ol booming 50s were set to begin, people really didn't want to think about the theme: Capitalism causes us to eat each other.

I have friends who vow Sarah Palin is the bees knees.  And while I strongly disagree, I try to not dash too much silent film with those view points.  But in this case I don't think I would be able not to...even if I literally wanted to.

(warning: mild spoilers ahead)

Monsieur Verdoux is set in the early to mid 30s, prime Great Depression time.  It takes place in various parts of France, usually returning to Paris.  Charlie plays Henri Verdoux, a man who was once an honest and great banker for a few decades.  But then the depression.  Not only did he lose his jobs but all his savings, stocks, money, everything.  So going slightly mad he decided to take up a 'new profession': killing rich old hags for money after marrying them and taking out hefty life insurance policies.

The film opens with a particular murder (his then latest) which will eventually undo him.  Through the film we watch him 'prep' 3 or so women, and between trying to figure that out we also meet his reason: his family.  In the lovely countryside of France he has a home for his invalid wife (what's wrong with her we are never told, she's in a wheelchair.)  He has a child and has to upkeep healthcare and education costs.  So he murders.

The film hits a climax and he is inevitably caught before his finale murder (of a woman I swear to God is based on Mary Pickford...she's even named Marie).  We see his trial and boom...the film hits its greatest moment.  And while discussing Chaplin with my fellow protester this is what came to mind: the courtroom scene.

Chaplin/Verdoux is judged guilty and asked if he has anything he'd like to say.  While the words are great, Chaplin's delivery of them make it 18 times greater.  Perhaps the speech is not above the Great Dictator, but its fucking brilliant and very timely right now.  I googled 'Monsieur Verdoux speech' and couldn't find it.  So below I give you both the video and text:

Judge: Have you have anything to say before sentence is passed upon you? 

Henri Verdoux: Oui Messieurs I have. However remiss the prosecutor has been in complimenting me, he at least admits that I have brains. Thank you Monsieur, I have. And for 35 years I used them honestly. After that, nobody wanted them. So I was forced to go into business for myself. As for being a mass killer, does not the world encourage it? Is it not building weapons of destruction for the sole purpose of mass killing? Has it not blown unsuspecting women and little children to pieces...and done it very scientifically? As a mass killer I'm an amateur by comparison. 

However, I do not wish to lose my temper because very shortly I shall lose my head. Nether the less. Upon leaving this spark of earthly existence I have this to say: I shall see you all very soon. Thanks.

*claps*

Why Chaplin isn't viral by now I don't know.  But he should be.  Occupy Wall Street should replace the V masks for his...though his estate would probably sue for royalties.

***Side note: yeah I don't want to post at blogger anymore, but the new site isn't up and I figured fuck it.  It will be in time.  Don't know when.***