Interviewing Anthony: John Bunny the man, the first, the forgotten Part 3 of 3

Continuing now from Part 1 Who was John Bunny? and Yesterdays Part 2: Flickers and Career. We present the final installement of Anthony's interview, Part 3: The Man Behind the Scenes

FTT: Bunny obviously died long before talkies were even a thought. What was his voice said to be like?

AS: Bunny's speaking voice was something that the movie audiences never got to experience. He was equally successful in his stage shows where he obviously talks. Bunny was adept at many dialects and if he would have lived, it likely would have transferred well to sound movies although by that time, he would have been in his late 60’s. In the 1940s, Bunny would have already been in his 80s.

FTT: In several interviews Bunny stated some eerily accurate visions for the future of motion pictures, which was then in its infancy. What were these predictions? What plans did he have for himself?

AS: Bunny had a huge ego. He talks about how he is really not funny, but it is his intelligence that is his strength. I almost have to agree with him on the intelligence comment. Bunny was smart. His predictions about film are right on the mark. Bunny made better more accurate predictions than Nostradamus!

Bunny realized the power of film. He knew film could be used for education. He knew that classic books could be translated to the screen for all to enjoy. When asked what his greatest ambition was, Bunny said just before he died, "I hope to improve the moving pictures. Just how I don't want to say, but they are not nearly as perfect as they should be. I am going to experiment and try to make them better. Also, I am going to set out some rules for the improvement of scenarios; they are often very inadequate. If I light a few more matches," he said irrelevantly, "you will think I buy them by the tree."

Bunny was able to assess his career and where the industry was going. “Look at the picture plays of just a few years ago: a moving train was a story then, now they're filming Les Miserables in twelve reels.”

It is also said that Bunny predicted color film and the advent of sound, "I believe the time is coming when motion picture machines will be a part of the equipment of every school and college in the country, and many branches of learning now so objectionable to children will be made interesting by the use of motion pictures. My principal worry is the fact that I can't hope to live long enough to do all the work, which I've mapped out for myself. I have planned fifty years of activity in the motion picture business, which I fear I will not live to carry out entirely. I want to see Latin and Green mythology taught in every school and college in the United States by the use of films. It can and will be done and will be one of the biggest gifts to mankind the world has ever known."

FTT: After Bunny's death Flora Finch made a go at a solo career. How successful was this? What happened to her later in life?

AS: Finch’s career went down hill after Bunny’s death. She is also included in the list of some of the bigger names who left the Vitagraph studios in 1916-1917.

In 1917 she started Flora Finch Film Production company and made several shorts all of which, like Bunny, she used her name in the title. Slide told me he doesnt know of any of these that still exist. She went on to work usually nothing but bit parts in the company of actors having any idea of who she was or what she had done. She appeared most notably in "The Cat and The canary" (1927) (which was just on TCM the other night) and a bit part in "Way out West" with Laurel and Hardy.

FTT: Bunny has been reported as a possibly cruel man and at the very least difficult to get along with. It has been said he and Flora did not get along. Are there any truth to these rumors? What type of man was he off the screen?

AS: Known as “Uncle John” on the set, Bunny would be happy to listen to a trouble or just visit. It would not be unlikely to walk into the Vitagraph set and see Mabel Normand or Florence Turner sitting on his lap. That was the public story: The old, wise, lovable man.

According to Anthony Slide in his book, The Big V, The History of the Vitagraph Company, Bunny was hated by just about everyone on the set. "John Bunny was pompous, rude and arrogant." states Slide. Larry Trimble's daughter states also in the book, "He was very bad-tempered, very difficult. He upstaged everyone. He was an old egocentric. He always wanted the camera on him. He wasn't as mean as W.C. Fields, but he was verging on it." Anthony Slide’s comments then go overboard. In his book Silent Players, Slide says of Bunny,
“The animosity generated by John Bunny is almost apparent in his film performances. You know not to like or to trust him. He is not your kindly uncle but more likely the older relative who sexually abuses his nephew or niece while offering them candy and chocolates.” This comment comes from the same man who also states in the same book that Larry Semon's death was “a blessing in disguise, for undoubtedly he could not have survived any longer as a screen comedian.”

In the same book, Slide exposes damaging, undeniable first hand accounts from people who knew and worked with Bunny. Slide quotes Trimble's daughter further as saying, “...Bunny was the most famous of the, at one time more than 400 people who worked at Vitagraph. I am sure he felt like a King. Vitagraph workers consistently made comments that Bunny was sleeping constantly while everyone else in the troupe was running amok trying to get a film made."

In a Helen Hayes letter, she even recalls Bunny sleeping in the rafters of the theatre! Hayes appeared with Bunny in Bunny’s last theatre appearance "Old Dutch" from 1909-1910. She garnered little attention being bombarded by publicity about Vernon Castle and of course, John Bunny.

Also consider the ego crossed with the fact that I believe that Bunny possibly had a drinking problem. Photos of Bunny in 1915 show (to quote the, FTT adds: dreadful , Kenneth Anger on W.C. Fields) “gin blossoms” and an even more bulbous nose.

Regardless, Bunny was a very sick man and probably kept this illness secret from the people around him. Bunny had Bright’s Disease which is a term for kidney disease that is a diagnosis no longer used today. It’s symptoms are devastating. Back pain, restricted breathing, edema made water retention and distention of the face and certain body parts which may have had a lot to do with Bunny hitting over the 300lb mark at the end. Bloody urine and extreme pain on top of his already overweight, worn down, unhealthy traveling from his show. His illness would have had to be full blown around his touring time because he died very soon after he returned. Bunny said he planned to tour with the show for two years, return to Vitagraph for one year making films and then retire.

When Bunny was ill, he called Alfred Smith very depressed and asked about returning to Vitagraph. Smith told him a film would be ready for him in October. I have a sense that both men knew that this was not going to happen.

FTT: Bunny married Clara Scallen in 1890. Did they remain married through his career? What was his wife like?

AS: Clara and John remained married until his death. Very little is known about her. They were married in Houston, TX in 1890. In the interview a month before Bunny died, he is asked, "What do you love more than anything else in the world, Mr. Bunny?" He replies, "Baseball and the sea, and my wife and two boys-and my friends."

In 1915 damaging articles appeared across the United States with the headline “What Bunny Left” questioning why a man like Bunny who made as much as $1,000 a week left an estate of only $8,000. One of the last articles I could find said Clara was going to buy a hotel with the money.

FTT: Bunny had 2 sons, George and John Jr, who at least lived until 1958. Did they ever try to follow in their father's footsteps?

AS: John’s brother George went on to appear in a series of shorts like his brother starting around 1918. He also appeared in the "Lost World" (1925) and an unaccredited role as a butcher in the Errol Flynn version of "Adventures of Robin Hood".

John Jr. worked for many years as a film editor for (I believe) Universal and in the 1950’s George was the only victim of an rooming house fire where apparently he left his cigarette burning and fell asleep. He is listed in the news article as being the son of silent screen comedian John Bunny.

FTT: How many films did Bunny make? And how many of them still exist? It's said he has a low survival rate.

AS: The main Bunny page on IMDB lists more than 170 Bunny films. I believe some are the same films with different titles. When I originally researched Bunny I read that he made more than 200! I think the correct number is around 150.

After much research, I find the survival rate of Bunny films to not be as bad as expected. I have read one article that stated only 4 of his films survive. I have 8 or 9 on DVD and VHS. I have seen at least 15 (some not complete) and can count conservatively another 10 in film archives. If just these 25 or 30 films exist out of Bunny’s 150+ films, that’s a pretty good percentage compared to other silent movie scarcity.

When I spoke with Anthony Slide, Slide said it would be almost impossible to estimate and cover all the archives that may have Bunny films, but said that there is at least 50 to as many as 100 that exist. I believe it has a lot to do with the availability of his films plus the fact that whenever any type of comedy compilation is put together, they always use that damn "Cure for Pokeritis" film which has been shown over and over. In addition, many believe that a lot of Bunny’s good films don’t exist and the ones that do, don’t give a good representation of his work.

Two of Bunny’s last films, "Bunny Backslides" (1914) and "Hearts and Diamonds" (1914) (now on DVD) are two great examples of Bunny films and much more developed in story, action and just funnier than "Pokeritis" made two years earlier.

FTT: Why do so few films survive? Is it because of the early era or just amnesia on our behalf?

AS: Vitagraph studios had a couple of fires that destroyed a great deal of their output. To have the films we do is remarkable (especially being made before 1915). The reason for the rarity of Bunny’s films is no different than the survival rate of all silent movies - films were looked at as a commodity and when its time was over, it was thrown away.

In addition, censors from individual cities would censor the films and cut complete parts from the films. Films were melted down to collect the silver content and until the 50’s films were printed on very flammable nitrate stock film, that still today is a hazard. An original 35mm print might self destruct in just a matter of time. When films were done showing here in the US passed from theatre to theatre, they were sent overseas. That is why so many great film discoveries are made in Europe or Australia. That was the last place they ended up at. An original 35mm print of an unnamed Bunny print sold on eBay around a month ago for around $300.00 It was a film that already existed and not a new find.

To sum this up: Bunny’s films don’t exist for more reasons than besides they seemed dated or not funny anymore. Films were like newspapers and magazines. We read them, and then threw them away.

FTT: What do you think is John Bunny's legacy? Do you think it will grow in the coming years?

AS: Bunny has not been completely forgotten. Distant relatives have contacted me over the years thanking me so much for my appreciation and websites and writings recognizing Bunny. One woman told me she cried when she saw my website proud that her great Uncle was being recognized.

Without a doubt there has been an increased interest in Bunny by film fans in the past ten years. More material is being released on DVD, the Bunny theatre in New York always garners attention with its big Bunny façade. The Vitagraph smokestack is still there next to the original Vitagraph studio that is now a school for girls. I was told when they moved in, the walls were covered with photos and posters of the Vitagraph stars that were sadly painted over.

Although he is brutal to Bunny, I want to thank Slide for mentioning Bunny so much because he has definitely supplied information that would not have been unavailable any other place. In an obituary from just four weeks ago, a man died and it mentioned the family story has it that Mr. Adelmann's nickname, Bunny, came from his great-grandmother, who thought the chubby infant resembled silent-screen comedian John Bunny.

Bunny was also given a star on the Walk of Fame Motion Picture located at 1719 Vine Street.
The biggest tribute of all was in 2006 when the Museum of Modern Art celebrated Vitagraph films devoting an entire evening to Bunny films with the same set being shown again the next day.

I don’t know how much more his legacy will grow. People tend to tabloid his life and discuss how mean he was etc.

FTT: Are there any DVD releases? Any biographies? Any plans for more in the future?

AS: David Sheperd told me that in his next Slapstick Encyclopedia it may include one of Bunny’s films "Pigs is Pigs" based on the popular short story of that time by Ellis Parker Butler.

I have so much more information stored on my computer but sadly the hard drive crashed. Hopefully, when I have time, I can take this drive in to be repaired and get the information off of it.

This concludes the Epic 3 Part John Bunny interview. I would like to thank Anthony for providing his time and research, as well as the photos. Anthony wanted me to include a note that he can be reached at anthonysusnick@insightbb.com, and hopes that Bunny descendants and fans will do so. He also started a personal website http://www.anthonysusnick.com. In the meantime we'll keep you up to date on the coming website (http://johnbunny.com/) and Bunny news.

Interviewing Anthony: John Bunny, the man, the first, the forgotten 2 of 3

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.

Click here to continue to Part 3: The Man Behind the Scenes

Interviewing Anthony: John Bunny, the man, the first, the forgotten

A few months ago I posted an article on John Bunny. It was WILDLY popular. To this day the only other article to rival it is the Silent Films and Family Guy post. I was also apparently the first to rediscover a long ago site http://ourworld.cs.com/silentmovies/bunnyindex.html run by Anthony Susnick, a silent film and avid John Bunny fan.

More than anyone Susnick had all the info on one of films first great comedians. However the site hadn't been updated in awhile and Susnick wrote to tell me he had lost access to it some time back but was still very interested in Bunny. To make matters even more HORRIFYING the hosting site deleted all of its sites on Halloween without notice. Thankfully via the wayback machine everything but the pictures have been saved. And I'd like to announce that a new site is indeed underway, something both me and Anthony will be working on.

While ya'll sit and wait patiently for that (and the eternally going to be fantastic Griffith Forever site) I asked Anthony if he wouldn't mind doing an interview about Bunny. 2 months, several revisions (hes a self proclaimed perfectionist), a few film historian consultations, and 14 pages later there was more Bunny info then one could ever hope for.

I didn't have the heart to edit out all this wonderful info. So its a 3 part series! Today is part 1: Who was John Bunny? Click here for part 2, and here for part 3.

Part 1: Who was John Bunny?

Forget the Talkies: So simple things first, who was John Bunny?

Anthony Susnick: John Bunny was the first internationally known film comedian. Bunny worked for one film studio - Vitagraph Company of America located in Brooklyn, NY founded in 1900 by J. Stuart Blackton, Albert E. Smith and William T. ‘Pop’ Rock. Vitagraph was one of the pioneer studios in the US and Bunny was their claim to fame.

Although Bunny’s film career lasted a little more than 4 years, he made more than 150 films (all shorts, FTT note: features wouldn't debut as form until the end of his life) and became famous the world over.

FTT: Silents are obscure to begin with and Bunny even more so. How did you first hear of him?

AS: At the age of 8 or 9, I was sitting on my mom’s lap looking at the newspaper with her when I noticed a photo of a man. My mom told me his name was Charlie Chaplin. The Gold Rush was showing that night on the PBS program The Silent Years. To make a long story short, my obsession with silent film grew from that.

My mom bought me Daniel Blum’s A Pictorial History of the Silent Screen that really brought Bunny to my attention. Being a kid, I thought his name and the way he looked was funny. Through my love of silent films I would curiously look up Bunny here and there to find practically no mention of him in even extensive film history books. Walter Kerr wrote a couple of paragraphs about Bunny in his book the Silent Clowns but it was mostly the same info in other books.

A great silent film fan, Joe Franklin recognized Bunny devoting one full page and naming him one of the seventy-five great stars in his book Classics of the Silent Screen. During my college years when I began studying film more seriously, Bunny and Vitagraph were some of my first projects...a "mystery to solve" if you will.

FTT: Bunny is mostly forgotten today, but at one point he was extremely popular. Just how famous was he in his own day?

AS: Bunny was known the world over. At one time he was billed as “the man who makes more than the president”! He was known as Paxon in Russia and Monsieur Cinema in France. One newspaper headline read, "Bunny’s Death Ranks Near English War News".

When Bunny drove down the streets of NY, people would call out “Oh Bunny”. When he toured England, he was mobbed everywhere and the “bobbies” had to control the crowd. While in England, a man approached Bunny and said he was from South Africa and everyone there loved his movies. One of Bunny’s hobbies was collecting letters from his fans ad keeping track of how many different countries wrote him. He finally got a letter he had been waiting for - somewhere in China.

FTT: Chaplin had the Tramp, Mary had the Little Girl. What was Bunny known for?

AS: Besides being the obviously portly gentleman (he weighed up to 300lbs at one time) with a distinct last name, Bunny was cast as the middle class every day common man: part Ralph Kramden, part W.C. Fields meets Benny Hill. All rolled into one character endlessly trying to sneak things past his wife or some Margaret Dumont type character.

I mention Benny Hill not just because he is usually being henpecked by a bevy of Flora Finch type characters in his skits, but because Hill would constantly break the fourth wall and make the audience laugh even more. Bunny didn’t exactly break the fourth wall but maybe cracked it a little. For example at the end of "A Cure For Pokeritis", the audience is in view of Bunny laughing and hiding behind an overturned table while the situation in the background is in chaos. Only Bunny and the audience know that he is not going to be dragged in by the police. He is not looking at the camera but he is sharing the laugh with us.

Bunny’s character would either be gambling at the racetrack, playing poker, sneaking out to the pool room with his buddies, flirting with lovely women and a cluster of other shenanigans. Coincidentally, when mentioning Ralph Kramden, it’s interesting that The very first Vitagraph Theatre Show was called "The Honeymooners"!

FTT: So he was the henpecked naughty husband! He was definitely one of the first bonafide movie stars. Why was he so wildly popular?

AS: Around 1910 the movie studios began to recognize that the quality of films was more important than quantity. The practice to that point had been to produce as many films as possible from their stock company of stars. Audiences were growing weary of being bombarded with too many films. The public started to distinguish the quality and expectations of the film by what company made them. If it was a film from Biograph, chances are, it would be of good (FTT adds: thanks to Mr. Griffith!). In addition, viewers would begin to recognize their favorite Biograph actors and actresses. The problem was that no one knew their names! One concern of the film studios was that if an actor became well known and more popular than others, there would be a demand of more money and the stars would have the upper hand.

Studios continued to ignore the pleas of the public to reveal star names. Instead they began advertising popular players by titles. Florence Lawrence became “The Biograph Girl” while still having her remain anonymous (FTT adds: Mary Pickford later received the same title when Florence fled becoming one of the first named stars).

Studios finally had to give in especially when they discovered there was money to be made by doing it. The star and publicity system was born. Bunny entered at just that right time. He was the very recognizable, lovable plump guy with a funny last name. This was further helped by Bunny’s name appearing in the titles of his films. "Private Bunny", "Bunny’s Scheme", "Bunny Buys a Harem"! Then came cigarette cards, magazines and souvenirs. Even a Bunny doll (that in mint condition today is worth around $500)!


FTT: Publicity aside his talent definitely helped. What about his acting made him so special?

AS: For Bunny’s popularity as a comedic actor, I believe the central device (believe it or not) was his face which by the way he insured for $100,000. This element is something rarely discussed about Bunny today, but during his celebrated career it was a continual topic. Audiences didn’t laugh at Bunny because he was heavy. I don’t think Bunny’s weight had much to do with getting laughs as much as his overall gnome like figure.

John Palmer, a writer for Saturday review wrote: “Mr. Bunny has an extensive and extremely flexible face. When he smells a piece of gorgonzola cheese there is no doubt whatever that his nose has been seriously offended. When he sees for the first time a pretty and eligible young woman, there is no doubt whatever that he is immensely excited and moved with intentions so extravagantly honorable that they seem almost too grievous to be borne. Mr. Bunny’s emotions are all on the grand scale. His despair is incredible. His grief is unendurable. His smile is an ignis fatuus."

In interviews, Bunny would be asked about his expressions and if he studied his own facial expressions, Bunny stated, “No, no: that's fatal; it makes everything you do hard and unreal. If you can manage to be the character you're impersonating, feel it so thoroughly and vitally that you really transform yourself for the moment, your actions will tell more than you realize. That is, of course, when you are mastering this particular technique.”

Alfred Smith in his (factually unreliable for the record) book, Two Wheels and a Crank said, “Bunny was a 'Mr. Four by Five' whose screen posturing of unendurable grief, incredible despair, and apoplectic wrath were imitated in every backyard Saturday playlet in America."

FTT: Why was he forgotten so quickly? Was it because his death was so early in film history?

AS: Yes, his name is forgotten partly due to his early arrival into film. But then, how many people can name a famous actor from 1913? Who was president in 1911? The year Bunny died, Chaplin was becoming incredibly successful at Essany and Griffith released "Birth of a Nation". The advancement of storylines and comedic work made Bunny’s sophisticated middle class films somewhat dull and archaic.

Bunny was not immediately forgotten. Vitagraph reissued some of his films in 1917 so there must have been a sense of some demand. I am not aware if these reissues were met with any success or not. To give an idea of how Bunny films were perceived as dated, just 10 years after Bunny’s death, an article in Motion Picture Magazine, quoted Bunny’s toothpick co-star Flora Finch as saying, "Some of my pictures, especially those which John Bunny and I were featured, I remember as downright funny. One of these entitled, 'Bunny Buys his Wife a New Hat' were especially amusing, would be even in this day of sophistication."


FTT: He died in 1915 while still very popular. Was his death the first of its kind or had other picture stars passed before him? How did they think he would be remembered at the time of his death?

AS: Bunny should not only be remembered as film’s first great comedian, His death was the first of its kind in the history of motion pictures. Bunny was film’s first great star to die and that showed for the first time, the impact of film made on the public. The only other early deaths were Chaplin villian Eric Campell who died 2 years later, and Vitagraph's Sydney Drew, but neither had the impact that Bunny or his death had.

I have postcards, tributes and article after article stating how he will always live on and never be forgotten because we will always have his films. “The name John Bunny will always be linked to the movies.” That was the prediction from the writer of John Bunny's obituary in the New York Times. Scores of newspapers all over the world printed tributes making statements such as, “The death of Bunny was a loss to millions of people”, “He was the father of acting without words” and “John Bunny is dead. The best known man in the world.”

One month before his death, Bunny made this poignant and sad prophecy: "I shall live longer than Irving and Booth, not because I deserve to, but because there is a record of me that they did not leave; the public can have me always the same, so long as the pictures are preserved. To be remembered the feet must move. It is the single photograph that gets put away, but throw me on the screen when I am only ashes and the people will respond the way they always responded. Indeed, I would wager that they would rise up and become enthusiastic toward a dead comedy actor who, in pictures, went right on amusing them with over country rides in pursuit of a runaway daughter. It has a tang of the game in it. Most dead people are dead for a long while, but the moving picture actor goes right on living and loving and laughing and walking, even if he is languidly strumming upon a stringed instrument in another world.”

Click here to read Part 2: Flickers and Career

Race in Silent Film: Redface and Brownface

You'll be hung for blackface. You'll be forgiven for yellowface. And well...you could probably still pull off both redface (the portrayal of Native Americans) and brownface (the portrayal of Arabic and Indian folk). Several movies and shows have used both up to this very day, though genuine Arabic actors find themselves now getting the thankless 'evil terrorist' roles in such shows.

Both groups (which in fairness beyond American racial themes have little do with each other) are still slighted, mistreated, and forgotten. Its always been something of acceptable to stereotype a Native American. Westerns did it well into the 60s and 70s. And it is still extremely acceptable and common practice to stereotype a Middle Eastern person. Not much has changed since the Sheik...despite Valentino's best efforts.

Climate of the Time

*The Trail of Tears had taken place less than a century ago

*You could still enslave Native Americans in CA until 1863

*During the teens and 20s Native Americans were still being forced to live on reservations, and forced to have their children attend a 'residential school system' which made them forget their ways and 'turn white'

*If Asians were extremely foreign and peculiar Middle Easterners were more so. Luckily for them not many provisions were legally against them during the time...though it got worse in more modern days.

What is Redface and Brownface?

Oddly similar both were a practice of darkening the skin, but not the depth of blackface. Think really deep tan. Actors with brown eyes (or eyes that photographed deep brown, like Mary Pickford's) were constantly chosen for these roles. For redface once the skin was sloushed with the sticky and heavy darkener a heavy black horsehair wig would be put on (braids!), animal teeth styled jewelry, and leather clothes and woven blankets were worn.

Ironically though it sounds stereotypical (and of course lots of it was to a point) several instances showed Native Americans similar to as they were at the time. D.W. Griffith had several films portraying them as a people wronged in a modern time, and "The Vanishing American" was extremely light on stereotypes and heavy on message. Maybe more so than any other group redface got off easy. Ironically it was with the talking Westerns it'd get more stereotypical. Of interesting note they didn't feature as much as you would THINK in Westerns. Both the Tom Mix and William S Hart films I seen used whitey bandits as the bad guys and I don't recall any redface in either film. But not being an expert I wont say they never used it anywhere.

As for brownface its a little more confusing. Think yellowface only trying hard to be ACCURATE...and failing miserably. Indians (people from India, I know I'm trying to keep the terminology as least confusing as possible here) and Arabs of any country were seen as pretty much related or interchangeable. The cultures were distinct and separated to a point, but both were seen as highly mystical and slightly savage. However this was what was in vogue especially in the early 20s...flattery was meant over anything else.

To achieve brownface actors usually naturally tanned, or barely did anything. Some for The Sheiks applied a light yellow to the skin (which the flies loved apparently). Depending on what they were portraying extremely traditional costumes were used, such as the white robes of the Sheik.

Characterizations

For Redface its ironic but the stereotypes were still coming into being. For the most part they were seen as a wronged dignified people, and in the films I've seen they don't act much differently than any other normal leading character...in other words no stereotyping. Not to say it never happened, but when it did it was on a much smaller scale. This was much more a talkie thing than a silent.

In fact one use of redface as the bad guy would be "The Iron Horse" where they proceed to fight and try to kill the settlers. Even being the bad guys I would say that's where the stereotyping ends...they got off WAY easier than the white lusting black stereotype, or the opium smoking conniving Chinese stereotype.

For Brownface it was a mix of mystic, savage, and noble. By far The Sheik definitely colored this for the worst. However Valentino tried his best to thwart it...but nobody listened. Again beyond this there just wasn't much portrayed in the Silent era (beyond the obvious copycats).

The Brief Appearance of Princesses

As the years passed there weren't many Native American actors of note. However in the very earliest days of film there were 4 who made a tiny impact.

Thomas Ince made several films glorifying Native Americans. The community adored him and he was also one of the first to use an authentic Native star: William Eagleshirt in Custer's Last Fight (1912).

However he unfortanitly set a trend: though there were a few noteable Native actors they very rarely rose above bubbling under. Griffith discovered a native from Nebreska named Lillian St Cyr (stage name Princess Red Wing) in 1909 debuting in "The Lute". She continued work with Griffith and also made her way over to DeMille, taking a major role in his 1914 version of "The Squaw Man". Princess Red Wing was married to John Young Deer, and together the couple acted in several films through several companies. They were all the rage until about 1918, when Young Deer fled to Europe to avoid legal issues (and apparently made some documentaries). Red Wing continued to act through the 20s but by then both of their stars had faded. It is of note during their careers Young Deer also directed and wrote several of their films.

Another 'Princess'' Mona Darkfeather also had a similar career. However she was a lot less authentically Native: she was about 1/4th Native American. Like Red Wing and Young Deer her career was passe by 1917. She continued acting on stage for the rest of her life. And once the war was over, and the talkies came, so did the stereotypes thus ending any influence these actors had.

Why was it popular?

It would be wrong to say that either brownface or redface wasn't popular; though the use of it was a lot less 'demanded' than yellow or blackface. To this day there is an extreme shortage of actors from both groups, and that was definitely true in the teens and 20s. Black and yellowface both made a false claim they HAD to use it due to shortage; but both black and redface most likely really did.

As for popularity it went down to the themes portrayed. In redface it was the yearning for the times they had known were past. It was also the first awareness of what exactly we as a country had done to this people and that their way of life was disappearing (re: The Vanishing American).

In brownface it was that sexy mystical portrayal. Something between being wise, and being rapey. I know it doesn't make much sense now; but go ask Edith Hull or the other 'erotic romance novel' writers of the day.

Why was it used?

Again likely due to the shortage of authentic Native American, Middle Eastern, and Indian actors at the time.

The Shit List

If yellowface doesn't inspire outrage than red and brown never will. Maybe more than anything Valentino could be placed upon it. He was constantly used in brownface (and posed in red, though never acted). However Valentino did his best (once The Sheik was over) to not act stereotypically, and to speak out when people took his films that way. Hes never really been in trouble over it, and I don't think he really deserves any.

Interesting note: Mary Pickford constantly played redface in her Griffith days (due to the eyes). She never did in a feature though.

Ramifications

Honestly this story brews long past the Silents and if any ramifications come in than its definitely a talkie thing. During the 40s-60s the Savage Indian was a big staple of the Western. Even "Peter Pan" (the Disney version) was some cringe worthy moments in relation to the new redface stereotypes.

Once the Civil Rights movement took place the Native Americans tried their own especially in the late 60s and early 70s. They even had Marlon Brando on their side (who notoriously refused an Oscar for his Godfather portrayal because of 'the depiction of Native Americans in film'. It didn't really work...It took till 1990 for a real hit about Natives "Dances with Wolves" which was extremely popular (and tried to use authentic Native American actors). Disney's 1995 "Pocahontas" was also an extreme hit (using an authentic Native for the title role) though so PC it hurts...and still caused some uproar.

Even recently, the 2008 film "Twilight" (which is so kitsch you must see it, and if you have a tween in your family you will) has a Native American character named Jacob using apparently authentic actor Taylor Lautner. The second film (which should be in production any minute) is supposed to focus on him, but rumor has it they don't think hes beefy enough for the role (hes supposed to be wolf like). That being said it'd be again one of the few films in the past 20 years to portray Native Americans.

As for Brownface that's...been even more complicated. Middle Eastern and Indian characters were rarely leading fodder, usually comic taxi drivers or the like. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee claims Hollywood follows the 3 Bs when portraying Arabs: billionaires, belly dancers, and of course bombers. While relatively quiet even through the Iran thing and the first Iraq War there has been a huge increase in stereotyping Arabs since 9/11 (though in fairness "Rules of Engagement", the most slighted film by the committee was released in 2000).

This phenomena has been so apparent that a book has been written titled "Reel Bad Arabs" by Jack Sheehan. He viewed 900 portrayals, and found only 50 were positive or balanced. Several Arabic descent actors have complained they have no other way to break into acting other than playing the typical 'terrorist' in various shows and films.

Ironically cartoons play into this arena. The Simpsons recently had an episode titled "Mypods and Boomsticks" which the Council of Islamic Relations praised (Homer suspects Bart's new Muslim friends are terrorists; but the entire episode shows how silly that was).

As for Indians The Simpsons are a little more slighted. Probably one of the most recognizable Indian characters on TV is Apu, the stereotypical Kwik E Mart clerk. Though he is exaggerated several episodes have focused on him as a human and human issues, and even correcting overt racism (such as Homer's statement, "Want to come to the civil war reenactment with us Apu? We need lots of Indians to shoot!)

Another recent Indian character would be that of Rajesh Koothrappali, Ph.D. (portrayed by Kunal Nayyar) on The Big Bang Theory. Possibly one of the greatest sitcoms ever. And the show goes above the call to make sure the stereotypes really aren't there (Raj loves bagels and smears, finds Indian food boring, isn't a fan of arranged marriage, and a white character named Sheldon thinks he knows more about India and Hinduism than Raj, who grew up there). The show debuted in 2007.

Notable Indian, Native American, and Middle Eastern Actors of the Silent Era

*Princess Red Wing (Actress)

*John Young Deer (Actor, Writer, Director)

*Princess Mona Darkfeather (Actress, Performer)

*William Eagleshirt (Actor)

Pickford Oscar Lawsuit: "Mary Pickford was not really that important..."

In happy news I've finally received "Pickford: The Woman Who made Hollywood" for Xmas. I haven't read it in years. But Jesus...did Whitfield have a personal vendetta against Lottie? Every time Lottie is mentioned: 'less talented', 'barely talented', 'less pretty' 'less attractive'. Great book but I want to know WHY the hater vibes towards Lottie?

Anyways that Pickford Oscar thing has been going on forever now. The original intent was to sell them at the Pickfair Auction which just took place. However the Academy is having a hissyfit and insists that the Oscars are bound by a 'Sell back to us for $10 rule' or at least give them the chance first. It is of extreme note that the whole point of selling Mary's 2 Oscars (and one of BFed: Buddy Rogers) was it was stipulated in Beverly Rogers (Buddy's second wife) will...and the proceeds were supposed to go to a charity to give underprivileged kids a chance at music. In short: the Academy=Douchebags.

The proceedings have dragged out for over a year or so now. Beverly's nieces are the ones fighting the battle and have had to quit jobs just to do so. They also fear any proceeds might have to now pay LEGAL BILLS instead of all going to charity.

The whole hearing is based on this: the Academy has had that rule for 50 some years, but when Mary won for Coquette in 1929 she never signed such a document. When she received her honorary Oscar in 1976 they made her sign a document enforcing that rule on the new and the old statuettes. However Mary was extremely well...decrepit by this point (I have spared you and her legacy by NOT posting those pics) and its extremely likely her secretary signed it, not her. Thus however you want to look at it as long as the Academy is putting up a fight a court ruling is indeed needed.

What more than anything gets me is this part:

"...While on the witness stand, Boyer did not dispute testimony earlier Tuesday by Scott Miller, AMPAS' assistant general counsel, who said she proposed during a May 2007 meeting that he approach some members of the Academy to see if they would donate money to the charity mentioned in her aunt's will in exchange for the return of the “Coquette” Oscar to AMPAS. “I knew there would be some members willing to donate,” Boyer said. “I told him we were not receiving a dime of this and it would all go to charity.”

However, Boyer disputed Miller's testimony in which he denied telling her that Pickford was not a vital figure in film history and therefore the statuette was not worth the price she was asking. “He said Mary Pickford was not really that important,” Boyer said..."

Apparently the Academy offered a 10th of the estimated $500,000 in exchange for the award. I hate to use it twice in a journalistic setting but: douchebags.

So the trial is ongoing. You can read about it here. And here. And here. Hopefully a verdict will be handed down soon, and hopefully not in those disrespectful AMPAS favors.

100 Years of Griffith: Pictures and Review!

First things first. We have a new logo which is thanks to Jennifer! It's even grammatically correct (something rare for this site LOL!) Also another note: due to my cable still not working I have been watching a lot of The Critic, and thus updated the "Silent Movies and Family Guy" post with the new Silent references I found (Chaplin and Ben Turpin were a few). It honestly is a great series if you shall ever happen upon it.

Now to Griffith Night! I was worried there wouldn't be much of a turn out but honestly if it didn't sell out it was near close! I haven't seen so much excitement since Sheik Night! Every chair was filled, and everyone seemed excited. Sadly the crowd did skewer much older than usual (though I did see a very enthusiastic couple who couldn't have been 30) but that's okay...appreciation is appreciation!

7 films were shown, 5 of which were Griffith's (one starred him, the other was a Méliès for comparison of the era) and 1 had a young Mary Pickford! However I must confess I felt a little of the enthusiasm wasn't there...it seemed there was more enthusiasm for fundraising and Wattles than for Griffith. I'm all for Hollywood Heritage continuing its work and for keeping the Wattles Mansion...but it shouldn't take up a 10 minute introduction with more pep than the rest of the night.

Once that bit was over we were shown a 1908 Méliès for comparison, showing how the camera never moved. We seen Griffith's actor appearance in "Rescued from an Eagle's Nest" (1/1908). Griffith was a fine actor if this is even worth going off, but when your older than Theda Bara (and not as pretty) as films are being BORN well...no wonder he went for the camera instead. The film itself was kinda funny...bad sets and effects. Apparently reviewers of the day agreed with that sentiment.

Making an interesting case for our "Race in Silent Film" series both red and yellowface came up in the night (but no blackface hmm...) The next film, one of Griffith's first as a director was "The Redman and the Child" which was actually a lot more tolerable than the films previously before it. The story was good and the redface wasn't stereotypical...in fact it was on par with "The Vanishing American". Griffith favored this theme because just months later "The Girl and the Outlaw" (which starred Florence Lawrence) featured Native Americans as both hero and villain. Sadly that was a paper print, and lacking the intertitles a little hard to follow. Florence was good though...and kinda hot. Early Mary Pickford definitely. And the hair down thing...I got it. How 1900s Britney Spears of her!

The film shown between them "The Fatal Hour" had a terrible example of yellowface. In "Broken Blossoms" (made about a decade later) the Asian is a little cartoon-y...but the good guy and his mannerisms (beyond a few opium hits, look for a yellowfaced Valentino in the background) aren't too bad. Yeah this would be the opposite. Basically some evil white guy wants to do away with his girl (Linda, Griffith's wife) cuz she found some secret of his. The intertitles are missing again, its hard to follow completely. White guy hires an Asian guy who looks like some yellowed Nosferatu. Asian guy just does as White guy says, and cleverly ties a gun to a clock that will shoot her at 'the fatal hour' (midnight?) Shes rescued in a nick of time by two policemen (Mack Sennett and Griffith ironically). One of the best films of the night by far.

The Sacrifice was a story we've all seen a million times over by now (poor couple cant afford gifts. Girl sells hair to buy a watch for husband, husband sells watch to buy hair combs for girl) but this was one of the first filmings and tellings of it (the story came from a New York paper). Also interesting note: they began filming this 100 years ago today. Now THAT is something! Right up there with the Fatal Hour, my favorite of the night! It was again Florence Lawrence (showing off that sexy hair) and she was fantastic.

The final film was the "The Lonely Villa" which was one of her first appearances. She was 17 at the time, interesting to see she basically looked the same from 17-40 something. The story was a little boring but it apparently was all the rage of the time (this was one of 3 film versions, and it was a popular play. Remember the telephone was like the Ipod of the time...fascinating.)

After this the presenter asked if anyone had actually MET Griffith. Considering half the room had to be over 60 it was possible, though Griffith died in 1948. Two people raised their hands and one got up to speak. His name was Miles Kreuger and he runs the Institute of the American Musical in Los Angeles. I'm hoping to get an interview with him but these stories were too delicious to NOT try and paraphrase poorly.

Miles grew up in New York where his mother took him to the brand new Museum of the Modern Arts when he was about 9 years old (during WW2...1942-1943 I believe). The woman who founded the film department, Iris Barry, noticed his frequent visits and asked him why he was there watching old movies instead of playing baseball. Miles said he hated baseball and loved old films and that's why he was there. From that day forward he was the Museums little mascot and allowed to meet all the visiting luminaries.

One day a man in a white suit (which he found crazy in New York City as it would get dirty fast) visited and Iris introduced him as "Mr. Griffith". He and the man became friends discussing the Broadway shows they had seen. One day Iris told Miles that the next day they were, "Showing a very special film made by your friend Mr. Griffith and you better get here early because there will be a crowd".

So he came and as he tells it there was a very long queue. He entered with Iris on one side, and Griffith on the other. He said thunderous applause broke out and he wondered "If someone famous was here?" He didn't understand who Griffith was and hadn't really drawn the conclusion that what he was going to see was made by Griffith. He sat between the two luminaries and watched "The Birth of a Nation". He said before every scene Griffith would lean over and tell him what was going to happen in the next, prompting people to SHUSH Griffith! He said he had a little crush on Mae Marsh who appeared to be his age in the film. When the rape scene was coming he said Griffith leaned over and said, "Miss Marsh is about to be in a bit of trouble..."

On another day Miles was up in Iris' office. During WW2 they had been told if a bombing occur ed to take the stairs, not the elevator. Iris received a call, shouted "Oh my God!" and ran down the stairs. Miles thought maybe a bombing or something had occurred and followed her expecting her to go to the basement. Instead she went to the projection room where as he told it, "Two big burly union like projectionist were WRESTLING Griffith on the ground of the projection room! Griffith had a print of Intolerance in one hand, and scissors in the other." Griffith was saying, "That scene is too long and I MUST cut it!" Iris had a fit and shouted, "Mr. Griffith if you wanted to cut that scene you could have done it in 1916!" She apparently cooled the situation by saying, "We wouldn't let Mr. Picasso come in and draw on one of his paintings, its part of the museum now."

Regardless Miles remembered back up in the office Griffith was sitting at a desk, his fists clench glowering, "Its my film and I should be able to cut it if I want to!" He added ironically that through the years bits of "Intolerance" have been found and spliced back into the print, not like DVDs were its an extra but right back in the actual print. He noted Griffith probably wouldn't have liked that as he was trying to tell a narrative, and cutting was necessary.

Overall a brilliant night! Rumor had it Kenneth Anger was there, and I indeed seen some bald guy with a Backstreet Boys tee on. But since I wasn't sure and he didn't do his usual attention whoring I didn't want to punch an innocent man who might have just LOOKED like him and had a love of boybands. I'm sure Griffith would want the same...Anger alleged the Gish sisters were lesbians in his first book.

I'd like to give thanks to Hollywood Heritage, Michael Mortilla (who did the accompaniment), Bob Birchard, and Randy Haberkamp (who presented). Also please dont forget to sign the Griffith petition and join the Griffith Facebook.

Below are some more pictures, my apologies on the quality...I didnt want to use the flash and be obnoxious (though some old crochety guy behind me still gave me hell over a little red light...)

A seen from "Rescued from an Eagle's Nest"







The lovely programs they gave out

Race in Silent Film: Yellowface

Much to modern surprise not much is said of yellowface. Nothing will put you on the shit list faster than using blackface (ask Al Jolson) while using yellowface seems to go unnoticed in the annals of history (ask Myrna Loy). Much like blackface, yellow face was an exaggerated way of showing Asians in film. Unlike blackface the practice was much more accepted and used much longer.

Climate of the Time

*It was illegal for a non white to marry a white

*Production Codes forbid interracial love portrayals, the Hays Code later made it a standard rule

*The Chinese Exclusion Act made it illegal for Chinese to immigrate to America between 1885 and 1943. In the West Chinese were seen as 'taking all the jobs and land' and strong anti Chinese sentiment was created due to this.

*The Chinese Exclusion Act also made all American citizens of Chinese descent (even 2nd, 3rd generation, etc) 'permanent aliens' revoking their US citizenship. If they travelled outside the country special visas and permits were needed; it was extremely hard to travel especially for Chinese men

*In 1902 harsher restrictions were applied, with a certificate of 'citizenship' needing to be obtained. Lengthy interviews and tests were given to determine all the rules had been followed. If one did not have the proper certificates they could be deported...even if they had been born in the US.

*In 1924 the Immigration Act made it impossible for Chinese to immigrate at all and extended the racism to other Asian countries as well. Beyond Asians, Indians and Arabs were also included to certain extents

*The original act was repealed in 1943, but it took until the mid 60s for all the restrictions to be lifted. It was the only act to ever deny immigration on the basis of race.

*In 1913 the "Alien Land law" was passed...'Asian Aliens' could no longer own property. It wasn't repealed until the 40s as well.

*In the early 1900s Hearst papers perpetrated a 'Yellow Peril' myth. By the 1920s Asian lynchings were on the rise.

*Asians were seen as 'inherently different' unable to 'integrate' to the Western way of life. Combined with yellow peril these views were wide spread at the time.

*During the early 1940s Japanese Americans were interred in 'internment camps'. This fact was hid for many years and only recently have some began to receive compensation and acknowledgement

What if Yellowface?

While blackface simply stuck to darkening the skin and exaggerating the lip line yellow face went way further. Particular types of white were sought out (Irish American Myrna Loy was the 'go to Asian girl' of the late 20s/early 30s). Before technicolor the actual shade wasn't so important; though a little 'yellowing' had to have been used.

Yellowface actually focused more on the 'features'. Caucasian eyes were pulled to the sides to give a 'slanted' look which also would pull up the cheekbones a bit. In some instances fake buck teeth were used (to give a umm...more cartoony look) though this was more a men then women thing. A wig was usually utilized with black hair pulled up into a bun with some decoration used. More then anything yellowface was the give a 'white version' of Asian stereotypes...trust me its as bad as it sounds.

Characterizations

Blackface had it bad, yellowface to some extent might have had it worse. While blackface stereotypes utilized childish, superstitious, idiotic and silly behavior, Yellowface not only followed suite but also went the opposite route. There was the silly Asian sidekick, with the buck teeth and 'rs' in place of 'ls'. Mickey Rooney in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" anyone? Of course during the silents it was more focused on the other half: the conniving evil Asian. Someone with deep mysticism and scheming ways. Murder and opium were favorites.

Dragon lady was another popular one. The sexually available/loose Asian woman who dared to try and be with the white man. Of course she always died or killed herself by the end (ask Anna May Wong).

Unlike blackface the right gender usually played the right part. However it was almost always undeniably a white person, in yellowface in the lead...with an authentic Asian in a stereotypical supporting role. Blackface did this to a lesser extent but it was extremely widespread in Asian themed films.

Why was it popular?

Unlike blackface there wasn't a long tradition behind yellowface. During the mid teens to mid 20s 'Orientalism' was all the rage. For some reason this term not only applied to various Asian countries but Arabic countries as well (The Sheik, Young Rajah, and The Toll of the Sea would all fall under this banner). Several literary traditions probably helped this, especially as film transitioned from nickelodeon to early features.

Interestingly enough it also probably owes something to early Asian actors. Sessue Hayakawa (Japanese) and Anna May Wong (Chinese American) were both extremely popular, and vehicles suiting them did well. Unfortunately they didn't have much say, as will be said below in a bit.

Why was it used?

Blackface liked the claim that there weren't enough black actors to take the black parts. Though that doesn't appear to be true it definitely is not the case in yellowface. Sessue Hayakawa rose to prominence in 1914. Anna May Wong rose in 1922. Both were popular well into the late 20s (and in Anna's case on and off through the next few decades in various ways). Not to mention the various Asian communities around California...thus definitely meaning authentic Asians could not only be used but star as well.

Unfortunately it was as was always the case: pure and simple racism. It was just as taboo for an Asian to be with a white as a black with a white, and the Hays Code (and earlier codes) prevented portraying this. Due to the popularity of the actors both Anna and Sessue would be given various white onscreen love interests...but always with consequences. In all but a few of her films Anna was murdered or killed herself by the end of the movie. This was a way to make it all right...make it a moral: interracial romance is bad mmkay. Unfortunately to this day it really hasn't been done away with...Lucy Lui and Jackie Chan aside name me an Asian leading actor who is on par with Will Smith or Nicole Kidman.

Second Class

Due to all that despite their star status Asian actors found themselves more and more regulated with time. Anna had several vehicles that should have given her leading lady status (Toll of the Sea, Thief of Baghdad, Piccadilly, etc) but she was constantly time and time again given the supporting role, while a white person in yellowface played the lead. When Luise Rainer was given the role of O-Lan in "The Good Earth" that is when Anna mostly gave up with the Hollywood film system...they had once again wanted her to play a small supporting role, while a German American actress got the lead as an Asian woman.

A prime example of this is the film "Daughter of the Dragon" made in 1931. Anna made $6,000 for her role, Sessue made $10,000, and Walter Oland (who played in yellowface) made $12,000...and he was only in the film for 23 minutes! Needless to say the studios didn't think too highly of there Asian actors.

The Studios themselves are partly to blame. Time and time again in Anna's career she was told she was 'too Asian' for Asian parts. It was believed someone like Myrna Loy in yellowface looked more 'screen Asian'...whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.

The Shit list

Ironically unlike blackface, yet just as offensive, yellowface isn't all that crucified these days. Several people starred in yellowface...ironically including Mary Pickford (thank God she did everything but blackface...or she'd be crucified too!)

Some of the better known examples are of course Myrna Loy and Boris Karloff. Neither of their careers were affected by it. Lon Chaney, Warner Oland, and Richard Barthelmess all had their moments as well...and all were never slighted for it.

In fact its interesting just how many notable people (especially in talkies) gave performances in yellowface and were never given much hell for it. Edward G Robinson and Loretta Young, Peter Lorre, Anthony Quinn, Katherine Hepburn, Fred Astaire, John Wayne, Yul Brynner, Shirley MacLaine, and even more recently Rob Schneider and Eddie Murphy!!!

In fact the only one person to ever get hell for yellowface was Mickey Rooney. To this day he apologizes for his performance...but he seems to be the only person slighted for it in the mainstream press. Does that make any sense vs what people have done to Al Jolson?

In fact whats even ODDER is the fact that the yellowface offenders have gotten off so easily; while for many decades (and to a lesser extent even still today) Anna May Wong was seen as a stereotypical dragon lady, acting out stereotypical roles and to blame for all the yellowface stereotypes...the very things she fought so hard against. That would be like blaming Evelyn Preer for all blackface stereotypes ever...is that even remotely right?

Ramifications

Unlike blackface...there haven't been a lot of ramifications. A Chinese film production company was attempted in the mid 1920s, 'Chinese Six Companies'. Anna May Wong starred in one of their films, "The Silk Bouquet" in 1926, later rereleased as "The Dragon Horse". Its now a lost film but was much like Oscar's films made for Chinese by Chinese with an all Asian cast.

In 1924 Anna started "The Anna May Wong Production Company" intending to bring Chinese myths to the screen. However her business partner was crooked and the company was dissolved before anything had ever happened. She spent many years trying to reverse stereotypes...including a 1950s TV series (all lost) "The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong" about an Asian museum worker who is a detective on the side.

Sessue was a little more successful. In 1918, tired of being stereotyped by Lasky, he created his own production company "Haworth Pictures Corporation". Over the next 3 years he made 23 films and made about $2 million a year. He is usually credited as helping influence American views of Asians for the better...despite some early rapey films (The Cheat). Odd he isn't slighted but Anna is. He suffered through the 1930s due to accent and well...the rise of anti Japanese sentiment (oddly something Anna would later help...Japan wasn't so nice to China during the 30s and 40s).

Despite this an all Asian American film industry never really rose to prominence. Asians have been largely ignored in film since, and much like silents they have still been shown in the most stereotypical of ways (such as Kung Fu movies). Hopefully this will continue to change...probably slowly (if it took 80s years to get HERE well...)

Notable Asian Actors and Filmmakers of the Silent Era:

*Anna May Wong (Chinese American)

*Sessue Hayakawa (Japanese)

*Tsuru Aoki (Japanese, married to Sessue)

*Philip Ahn (Korean American)

*Yasujirō Ozu (Japanese, in fairness only famous in Japan)