Continuing from yesterdays Part 1 Who was John Bunny? Today we present part 2 of 3: Flickers and Career. Click here for the final installment Part 3.
FTT: Much of Bunny's life and legacy has been in the dark all these years. What was his life like before pictures?
AS: Bunny was born on September 21, 1863 in New York City. Some claim that he was British born, but this is probably because his father was from Cornwall, England and mother from County Claire, Ireland. John was the 9th in a long line of sea captains and the first that would not follow.
John was very physical when young and learned boxing and swimming and about every other sport that existed at that time. He attended St. James High School in Brooklyn and worked as a grocery clerk. Before Bunny was "of age ' he was in a minstrel show. Bunny had experience in all facets of entertainment. From Vaudeville to Shakespeare, comic opera to stage manager, director to actor, Bunny appeared in various stage shows with the likes of Annie Russell and Maude Adams. His last theatrical show before entering films was "Old Dutch with Lew Fields Company" from 1909-1910. Anthony Slide in his book, The Big V said, “A detailed account of Bunny’s stage career would fill many pages, and have little meaning.”
FTT: Why and how did he join the new fangled flickers?
AS: The are numerous reasons and speculations why Bunny entered films. Personally I feel some of it was backed by an ego and desire to be a star which the theatre could not give him. " I didn't aim to be a comedian, but nature was agin' me. How could I hope to play Romeo with a figure like mine? It was many years before I learned to yield gracefully to the fate for which nature endowed me."
By 1910, Bunny was growing tired of the stage. Although he was making $100-$200 a week, Bunny had hit a plateau playing supporting roles. He knew that he possessed more talent and that the stage was offering no chances of showing what he could really do. Bunny took two weeks off and made a trip to various local motion picture theaters. He soon realized that the movies were the cause in the poor attendance of the theater and it would only get worse. He also realized that a real actor from the “legitimate theater” could make a major impact compared to the poor acting that he was currently seeing. Bunny knew that the movies were getting better and sooner or later, the acting would also.
Bunny said, “I awoke to the fact that the stage game was not what it had been and that the 'movies' were the coming thing. So I decided I would rather be behind the guns than in front of them. I wanted to be with the 'shooters' rather than with the 'shot,' so I canceled my thirty weeks' contract with the Shuberts, threw aside all the years of experience and success I had had, and decided to begin all over again.”
Bunny took that step that no other “legitimate thespian” of that day would lower himself to do (FTT note: to enter flickers from stage was seen by actors at the time as entering a lower form, something shameful only a hard up desperate actor would do). Bunny really did not care anyway and was quite optimistic about his future in films...until he could not find a studio that would take him. Henry Wysham Lanier summed it up best from a 1915 article on Bunny. “If his approximate 250 pounds had not contained a very much larger percentage of grit than fat, the “legitimate” would never have lost him.”
FTT: Coming from the stage he offered to act for free and eventually settled for a huge pay cut to join flickers. What happened when he arrived at the studio?
AS: Bunny said in an interview, "I went down to the Vitagraph studio, which was then in its infancy, and frankly told them I wanted to work in the pictures. They knew of me and my work and were naturally surprised, in view of the general attitude toward moving pictures at that time, that I should be seeking an entrance in to the field. However, I ignored this and offered to work in my first picture for nothing, so they could judge of my appearance on the screen. I was game and they accepted.”
Alfred E. Smith and J. Stuart Blackton give a slightly different story. Smith said they did not know who Bunny was. It was not until further research they discovered he was a successful stage comedian.
Anthony Slide in his book The Big “V” quotes J. Stuart Blackton who recalled, “A very fat man was leaning against the wall of the studio, like a buttress supporting the wall of Notre Dame. ‘We need a new comedy man,’ said Albert (Smith), ‘maybe this one will be funny.’ He saw us coming. ‘Look.’ he said, ‘Can either one of you gentlemen do this?’ Springing into the air he clicked his heels together three times before he hit the ground again. ‘I want a chance at the pictures,’ he pleaded, ‘just a chance!’ He got his chance”
Bunny offered to do one film without payment of any kind. Blackton refused this but did offer him $5.00 to play the opposing father of a daughter about to be married. Bunny said, "I knew it was up to me then, and the part was right: I went for it with all I had in me."
Although he gave it all he could, Bunny had problems. “I had a thousand don'ts fired at me in the first five minutes: don't get so near the camera, don't get out of the scene, don't turn away there - apparently, don't do everything I was about to do. But they never had to tell me the same thing more than once. And presently I got on to it. Before I had finished my first picture they asked me to play in the next and I agreed, saying nothing till I had finished the first. Then I asked them what they could do for me in stock. I must admit that I did not receive a very enthusiastic reception."
Then entered the pay, "They said, 'Mr. Bunny, you are a high-salaried comedian. We have looked up your past engagements, and while we realize you would be a very valuable to the Vitagraph, yet since we have just started we could not afford to pay you anything approaching $150.00' So I knew by this that they were looking into my past and learned that my salary was $150.00. This was all true, but I felt that the big future would be with the 'movies' so I asked them what they would offer, and they said, 'There's no use for us to make you an offer, Mr. Bunny, you would only laugh at the ridiculous low sum.' I promised to be a real good boy and not even smile, so they continued" 'The best we could offer you now, Mr. Bunny, would be $40.00 a week.' No, I didn't laugh. I could see the big difference between what I had been getting and the $40.00, but I could see a greater future on the side of the $40.00 with the shooters. So I said, 'You're on, I'm game!"
FTT: What do you think that first film was?
AS: There is debate on that. Perhaps the film he did in the studio was "Doctor Cupid" although not released until January 1911. Bunny expert and film historian Sam Gill believes Bunny’s first film was "Jack Fat and Jim Slim at Coney Island”. When I viewed the latter, it is assumed that the “Jack Fat” character is Bunny. I don’t believe it is. The other heavy actor looks nothing like Bunny. Bunny is in the film in parts, laying on the beach etc. but is not the star. The print I watched had the original intertitles cut out and replaced with spliced in German ones. (as luck would have it, my date that night was Swedish and able to translate...which by the way a John Bunny retrospective is not a good first date...But hey, I warned her and she still insisted on going! ) The film was also missing the opening credits so there was no way to verify who played what characters.
FTT: Was he popular with the public right away? What were his first films like
AS: It took several months for any type of notoriety. At that time, actors were used when needed. You can see Bunny in a bit part in "A Tale of Two Cities" (along with a short appearance of Norma Talmadge at the end) and that was made in 1911 after already appearing in a dozen other shorts.
Like the early Vitagraph films, everyone pitched in together and no one knew what to expect at the beginning. Bunny might play the lead in one and a bit part in another (FTT note: this was common of all studios at the time, kept the egos in line...at least that's how Griffith reckoned it).
There was never any “slapstick” but towards the end there was a little more “physical” humor such as in the baseball film "Hearts and Diamonds". When I attended a special Bunny retrospect at the Museum of Modern Art, the theatre was almost packed for two showings of his films. Contrary to Anthony Slide’s harsh reviews such as, “He is remembered as a comedian, and yet those of his films which have survived are not funny, nor would they appear ever to have been funny, or even mildly amusing." At the showing, the films were funny and this was not just “polite” laughter from the audience. Viewers from that period must have perceived some sort of appeal and humor in the performances. Why would Vitagraph make 150 of them if else wise?
FTT: Bunny is most well known for his films with a thin woman named Flora Finch. When and why was he teamed up with her?
AS: Finch was already in film before Bunny, even appearing in the popular D.W. Griffith short “Those Darn Hats” (it is on DVD, she is the one with the biggest hat). She also appeared in other Griffith shorts. Bunny and Finch were in various films together but it was not until 1911 that she officially appeared as his partner or wife. Another actress Kate Price was also paired in the same type of roles with Bunny. A lot of times Finch played a character like Margaret Dumont of the Marx Brothers crossed with the Wicked Witch of the West. She was the perfect contrast to Bunny.
FTT: Why was their pairing so popular? What types of films did they make?
AS: If Finch was not Bunny’s wife, she was the old spinster, church lady persona that seemed to have little enjoyment in life that went against Bunny’s uncooperative, troublesome situations that made audiences laugh.
In one of their early films, "The New Stenographer", Bunny and his associates are in the process of interview very attractive young woman for the job who really has no skills. The guys are having a great time until Flora Finch walks in with all the experience and ability to master the jobs of the office. Bunny and his associates wives enter, get suspicious about the situation and make them hire Finch.
Sometimes, Finch played a pure nemesis of Bunny. In the film "Which Way Did He Go?" (1913) Finch and Bunny have a daughter played by Lillian Walker who wants to run off with suitor Wally Van. Finch wants Walker to marry the other famous “hefty” Vitagraph comic Hughie Mack. In a unconventional and touching moment, Bunny sides with his daughter and consoles her on the porch of their home. She is crying as Bunny gently rocks her as if she was his baby again and he would be there for her. In this film, Finch is extremely cold and unlikable.
Soon the public started to believe that Bunny and Finch were really married. Their films became known as 'Bunnygraphs', 'Bunnyfinches', and 'Bunnyfinchgraphs.' Although Bunny and Flora Finch made more than several dozen comedy shorts together, for Vitagraph, studio chief Albert E. Smith recalled that "they cordially hated each other".
Smith also gives another, what I find to be a bizarre reason in his book, “It wasn’t technically proper then to show half an actor on the screen; it was whole human or nothing. Getting two persons into a space of three feet (necessary because the camera was always set nine feet from the actors) was not much of a problem - except when one of the players was John Bunny. Alone, he could expand his chest and occupy the entire screen. Flora Finch was an ideal film partner for Bunny. Besides being a fine actress, she took up no more room than a long darning needle.”
FTT: In 1912 Bunny traveled to England to film "Pickwick Papers". Tell us about this film and any interesting stories behind the making of it?
AS: Bunny sailed to England with director Larry Trimble, cinematographer Arthur Ross and when I looked at the ships records, Bunny also took one of his sons.
"The Pickwick Papers" films were in three parts and more were supposed to be made. Pickwick was a project that Bunny wanted to do for quite some time . The Feb. 1913 issue of The Moving Picture World, Hugh Hoffman wrote, “Mr. Bunny as Pickwick needs hardly to be described. Nature endowed him for the part, and one who cannot imagine him as Pickwick must have imagination poorly developed indeed.” Parts 1 & 3 survive and are available to view on an English website but you must join the organization and pay a fee to view. You can also see it on the DVD Dickens Before Sound produced by the BFI (click here to purchase)
Vitagraph took as much advantage of Bunny as possible on this voyage even making the movie "Bunny at Sea" on the boat while traveling there using the passengers as actors. Bunny was mobbed everywhere he went. Bunny said, “I found myself better known than I had any right to expect.” England tried to steal Bunny from the US. This prompted Vitagraph to triple his salary. Anthony Slide quotes J. Stuart Blackton as saying, “The trip spoiled him…..He returned with delusions of grandeur and was never the same again.” Bunny’s ego had grown to enormous proportions.
FTT: Bunny commanded quite a fee during his day. Was he the first of his kind to garner such high numbers? Or did Mary Pickford beat him to it?
AS: Yes, Bunny was one of the first. Again, we really don’t know what is true. Alfred E Smith’s book and other information contains many inaccuracies. It is agreed that he started making $40 a week which was supposed to be way less than what he made in the theatre. In 1912, Bunny made a $1,000 for only one week giving a comic monologue at a theatre in New York. Jack Lodge in an article for The Illustrated History of the Movie, said Bunny was making $1,000 a week from Vitagraph in 1912, but Slide said Bunny wasn’t offered that amount until 1913 for fifty weeks of work.
I can’t tell you the exact the comparisons chronologically of income between Pickford and Bunny but if I had to guess, Pickford easily beat him. There’s a lot of information about Pickford’s salary that vary but no doubt about Pickford‘s income skyrocketing from $5.00 a week for Griffith in 1909 to $300.00 a week in 1911! By 1915 Pickford was making an estimated $2,000-$4,000 a week. This was also because she was getting a share of the profits. At one time, Vitagraph tried to woo Pickford at $10,000 a week. When Bunny died, he left an estate worth only $8,000.
FTT: Towards the end of his life Bunny left Vitagraph for vaudeville. Why did he do this?
AS: Bunny was making theatre appearances a early as January 1913 and maintained these engagements while simultaneously making films. It was the ever growing ego and something that he never had - to be the star of a show in the theatre with an immediate audience response. It was the great dose of fanfare in England that he was craving to have in the US. When he arrived back to the US, he returned to Hammerstein’s Victoria Theatre with a new comic performance.
The summer of 1914, Bunny left Vitagraph on an 8 week tour with his show, "Bunny in Funnyland". The September 1914 issue of Variety said it was “one of the best ‘kids’ shows that has come this way for sometime.” A neat little note, I was happy to speak to an elderly gentlemen who contacted me through my website said that he remembered his father telling about how he got to sit on Bunny’s lap.
FTT: Was it a success? What did these shows consist of?
AS: Before he went on the road with "Bunny in Funnyland", a film was shown of Bunny in bed, realizing he is late, he gets ready etc and comes through the screen as if he came out of the film showing in some way ala Buster Keaton. The ensemble was more than 60 performers. In the finale, he appeared as Teddy Roosevelt.
When Bunny returned from the failed "Bunny in Funnyland" tour, he produced "The John Bunny Show" at the Bronx Opera House. The March 19, 1915 issue of Variety gave a long, scathing review of the show with excerpts commenting: "Funny Bunny eh? At a nickel a throw to see the screen star in his silent antics, perhaps the billing is appropriate, but at a dollar per copy to see him at the Bronx opera house cavorting around with a mediocre company of mixed talent, presenting a brand of entertainment that forcibly suggests memories of a one-night-stand tabloid, it's a bit pathetic.
And duly apologizing for the time-worn wheeze, let it be early recorded that as a star of the speaking stage, Funny Bunny is one of the best studio actors extant..."
FTT: Why did he return to Vitagraph? And why did he keep doing stage shows even after his return to Vitagraph? Were these later shows successful?
AS: There are a number of reasons. The shows were losing money, the travel was too much for him and his comedy did not translate well to the stage. Today’s audiences would think of Bunny as overweight and unattractive and not very pleasing to watch. But, that is what the audiences of that time loved about him. Audiences wanted to see his film antics and not him Singing along with a parade of 60 vaudevillians and actors.
0 comments:
Post a Comment