A long time ago we did a Complete Filmography for Theda Bara. There were two clips at UCLA which no one knew if they were new footage or not. I viewed the "Stars of Yesterday" clip and found it was nothing new, just A Fool There Was footage (seriously 1931 they couldn't have used some Cleopatra? Jerks.) The other clip was listed as 'unidentified' and was unviewable as it was archive only and decomposing.
Someone contacted me about trying to get the unidentified clip transferred to safety stock and possibly used for a DVD release. I contacted UCLA again and unfortunately this is what they discovered:
Unfortunately, this very old catalog record is incorrect. There was never any Theda Bara footage on the compilation reel. According to preservation staff, the can contained several small snippets of film. In one of them there was a performer who bore a very superficial resemblance to Theda Bara, but it clearly was not her. We think someone simply misidentified the performer. This snippet of film deteriorated long ago.
They promised to update the listing. Its a shame whatever it was its already long gone. Maybe some lost Valeska Suratt (probably not, she was much slimmer than Theda)? Such a shame.
While I'm at it I should comment on the Cleopatra clip which is at The George Eastman House and can be seen in the documentary "The Woman with the Hungry Eyes". A friend helped me view this documentary and I must say it was FANTASTIC. The clip itself is very short, just Theda turning her head, and turning back. No one knows if it was just a costume test or part of the actual film but it is all we have...and that is an even bigger shame.
I believe Louise Brooks has some fans at the Silent Movie Theatre. And finally after several months of men (men who were not Charlie Chaplin though they have patiently explained to me several times that SOMEDAY there will be Chaplin...) they are doing a month of Louise! And its some of the good stuff too:
For the new layout I added a poll last month (by the way there is a new one, on the right hand side of your screen). The question: Who was the greatest silent comedian? These were the results:
#1 Buster Keaton: 43% #2 Charlie Chaplin: 26% #3: TIE Mabel Normand and Harold Lloyd both with 10% #4: Fatty Arbuckle 4% #5: TIE Charley Chase and Raymond Griffith both with 2%
Quite obviously there are a lot of Buster fans on my site. For a few weeks he and Charlie were just votes apart but Buster won with a landslide. The problem I find with most 'Great Comedian' lists is they stop after Harold Lloyd (traditionally 3rd). Below is my opinion on the matter.
#1: Charlie Chaplin
A self professed 'Chaplinite' I might be a bit biased. I really feel Charlie was a genius beyond anything we've seen in film before or after. Not only was he innovative but he could make you feel as well as laugh. The only person who even came close during silents to him in terms of greatness would be Mr. Griffith (who ironically hated comedy).
However I do feel Charlie 'took' from others. He liked to say he just entered film and revolutionized it with his sheer genius. In reality I think he owes a lot to Fatty Arbuckle and Mabel Normand. Mabel was in film long before Charlie, and it is usually said she was the one who saw the genius in him (Mack Sennett had no time for such things). If you watch some of her early shorts or even "Tillie's Punctured Romance" you can see just how Chaplin-like she is. Charlie could never give credit to women but I do feel credit is due.
The question was who is the greatest silent comedian? The reason I give Charlie the top slot beyond his sheer genius is what I call 'the chase factor'. Every comedy had to have a chase...well into the 30s. Harold Lloyd took pride in this aspect...yet his chases bore me. Most chases bore me...they're full of silly gags and no plot development. I usually end up feeling they're a waste of time. But with Charlie he makes you think during his chases...and even a few laughs are had. I also like the fact he didn't rely on chases...but when he did he did them well. He was amazing in talkies as well, but nothing will ever be better than "City Lights".
#2: Buster Keaton
IF Charlie Chaplin never existed, or had been solely a talkie star, I would put Buster in the number 1 spot. I can see why people like him so much: he has a very modern wit in his silents. Quite a few shorts end with him pretending to off himself...and yet it still makes you laugh!
However it can be very hit and miss for me. I adored "Our Hospitality" but I hated "Seven Chances". If City Lights is Charlie's genius moment then The General is Buster's. And as good a film it is I can not place it higher than City Lights. Its honestly not even my favorite Buster film, though I know most people usually rank it as his finest moment.
While I definitely appreciate the wit I also enjoy Busters acrobatics. Charlie could do some moves but Buster was definitely the King of Acrobatics...and considering he had been doing it since he was 3 its not much a surprise. That's the most amazing part about The General: trains don't stop that fast. Buster had to be right on with his movements or he would be run over. There's no one quite as brave or amble and there probably never will be again.
Buster had his chases (The General is in essence one long chase) but they never seem to do much for me. However during these chases he usually inserts one of his acrobatic bits (Our Hospitality would be one) which makes them easier for me to swallow. However a lot of them just seem to go on and on without much funny or plot advancement...which is another reason I have Charlie at #1.
#3: Harold Lloyd
I'd put Harold at third strictly because many of his films aren't 'comedy'. Its usually some type of story (complete with chase) with comedic moments. Harold's masterpiece is usually said to be "Safety Last!" and I can see that. Its hard not to appreciate climbing the Orpheum...let alone the fact that Harold was missing quite a few fingers from a prop accident.
In fairness when he wanted to be funny he was very funny. "Girl Shy" is usually cited as the first romantic comedy and it is just fantastic. However THE CHASES AHH!!! Harold's fans love him for the chases, gag filled to the max. Girl Shy ends on one such 10 minute long chase. Okay I didn't time it but it does go on forever. His chases usually are filled with gag after gag (such as Girl Shy he has to keep finding a new way to get to her wedding) but I don't find any of them that funny and they drag the plot rather than advance it. I'm sure his fans will hang me for that but I stand by it.
In fact the only chase of his I really enjoyed would be his masterpiece, Safety Last! The building climb is in essence one long ''chase''. Again there are gags, but given the context they are so breath taking its hard not to enjoy it (such as the clock bit). However I wouldn't say it was funny, it was more thrilling (wondering: would he fall?). He could be funny, and he could make a thrilling chase, but sometimes I feel he just let the gags get in the way. However fans of gags love him for that, so I might just be in the minority.
#4: Mabel Normand
What irks me (as a woman who loves comedy and a Mabel biographer) is that when the 'great lists' are made 2 very vital people are left off: Fatty Arbuckle and Mabel Normand. There is a reason for this beyond pure sexism (as Fatty is obviously male). Both found their careers stalled by scandal and personal issues by the early 20s and as such they made less features than the great 3 and depending what year/scandal it was sometimes their films would pass with barely a notice.
As much as people enjoy debating the great 3 they never bother debating the top female comediennes. Admittedly there weren't many...and Mabel by far was the most prolific. Constance Talmadge and Dorothy Gish (both sisters of major stars) would likely be the other names on the list, but both came into their own after Mabel. In fact according to Griffith's wife Dorothy idolized Mabel.
I ALMOST would put Mabel in the #3 spot (and obviously others agree with me judging by the tie) but yet I have to put her at #4. Compared to the other comedians she stopped short of reaching her genius potential. What would be her masterpiece? Some might say Mickey and I might agree, though there's a strong argument for The Extra Girl. If Mickey indeed was her masterpiece that would back up the unfulfilled label: it was her first solo feature. Or maybe she just never reached masterpiece, maybe there was something greater that could have came from her had she been healthier. That's the thought that places her below Harold.
Unrealized or not Mabel was extremely vital to comedy as we know it. She was there when Keystone was founded, she was part of the first thrown pie, the first comedic feature, and that whole Chaplin thing. She could be wildly funny, and its almost a shame that we have so few of her features left today. In Molly O and Mickey there's a cake eating moment which is hilarious, and her walk with the lion in The Extra Girl was fantastic.
Mabel also had the chases. Unfortunately Sennett was behind a lot of them and they just go on too long. He never seemed to be able to cut anything out and the 20 minute weird halted chase of Molly O is more annoying then anything Lloyd ever did. Admittedly it has the kitsch factor taking place in a zeppelin...but still it really takes away from the whole film. He should have ended it right after the bedroom scene much like Harold should have ended Girl Shy differently. Mickey had 3 chases (her relatives chasing her train, the horse race, and the final rapey race) all of which weren't funny but at least ended when they should have.
The saddest thing about Mabel is had she been healthier I think she could have eventually given even Buster a run for his money. It's quite a shame.
The Rest
Sadly I have not seen enough of the other men's films to rank them. I'm quite sure Fatty Arbuckle deserves a spot on that list...after all he discovered Buster Keaton! Charley Chase is quite possibly the only comedian who made chases that I enjoyed but I haven't seen any of his features. Raymond Griffith acted with Mabel but I am not very familiar with the rest of his work. Marion Davies might deserve a nod below him as well, though I have yet to see what is considered her best work. I also think Mary Pickford deserves a nod, though she wasn't strictly a comedienne her comedic bits are fantastic.
Theda Bara is a bit of a mystery to us modern viewers. Most of her films are now lost and the handful of surviving bits aren't her best work. With the little we have of her its hard to grasp the fact that she was just as famous as Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin during the 10s. And it wasn't just film popularity: she defined the ''vamp'' which still lives on today.
Silent film stars never seemed to be satisfied with the 'type' they eventually found themselves identified as. Mary Pickford, who was known for little girl roles, longed to play serious dramatic grown ups...maybe even sexy ones! Valentino, known for his 'Sheik-y' goodness, longed to play roles in which his talent would overshadow his looks (admittedly this is hard to imagine as he is so ungodly gorgeous, think when he played the elder sheik in Son of the Sheik). Mabel Normand played a comedic Cinderella types, yet she also longed to be taken seriously or at the very least in a more glamorous way. So very few stars ever made 'the change'. Two do come to mind however: Douglas Fairbanks (the all American boy to adventurer) and Gloria Swanson (the new Mabel Normand to a serious glamorous sex pot).
Theda Bara had what one could consider an easy 'type'. She was THE vamp, the sexy woman who destroyed men for fun and barely wore enough clothing to keep warm. When Theda took on that role she was almost 30, and very much hungry for some kind of fame or recognition. Little did she know that's all she would ever be known for.
After picking a few fights with FOX Theda won a few 'non vamp' roles for herself (The Two Orphans, Under Two Flags, etc). However her fans refused to accept her that way, and she was soon forced in to more money making vamp roles.
By 1918 even Theda's vamp movies were starting to lose business. What with the war and all vamps were becoming passe, how many more films could one make with the same basic plot? The films were admittedly becoming cheaper and cheaper, and Theda was growing tired of it. She became a bit of a diva, arriving late on set and such. Her contract would be up for renewal soon and she was sure she could either get a mighty raise or leave for a better studio. However things didn't work out that way.
With the vamp movies doing mediocre business, and knowing she would need a hit to go out on, Theda tried one last time to escape that damn vamp ''type''. She chose Kathleen Mavourneen. The title might not mean much to us now but it definitely showed what Theda wanted. Kathleen Mavourneen (Mavourneen is an Irish endearment, means My Beloved) was a popular song, poem, play, and flicker (1906) about a sweet little Irish girl. Theda's storyline would have been perfect for Mary's trapped 'type': Kathleen is a sweet early 19th century Irish girl engaged to her honest humble neighbor Terrence O Moore. Eventually she's kidnapped by an evil rich Squire of Tralee who makes her marry him by force. It turns out to be all a dream and she and Terrence end up happily ever after. Theda wanted to show she wasn't just the vamp, she could be America's Sweetheart too!
My apologies for picture quality but its all I could find. Unable to judge by acting ability I find it hard to IMAGINE Theda as anything other then the vamp. That was her look, its her image, its what makes her an icon to this day. Theda with little girl curls and a little dress nearing 40 years old is just...weird. Wouldn't it be odd if we could still see this picture? Would it be any good or would it be like when Mary tried to escape her little girl and made Kiki?
Theda was thrilled with the film and was certain it would be a hit. FOX denied her salary negotiations and she happily let it go...surely once Kathleen Mavourneen was released she could have any studio she wanted...right? Well...not quite.
Filming wrapped, Theda went to work on La Belle Russe, and early publicity began. So far so good, people were interested to see her in this new role despite her declining ticket sales (it is of note La Belle Russe was another vamp movie). Kathleen Mavourneen was released, a few good reviews trickled in, and then everything went to hell.
Theda was born Jewish, and how observant she was is unknown. However it wouldn't have mattered, in this era there was still some strong antisemitism...some of which it would take until the second world war to do away with. Oddly enough most studio heads were Jewish, and even Douglas Fairbanks had Jewish roots (his father came from a Jewish family). Ironically there had also been a strong history against Irish (NINA) in the US which had just subsided. You would think they would have learned there lesson but apparently not.
The Friends of Irish Freedom and The Central Council of Irish Associations were upset that the film portrayed Irish poverty (I guess they had never seen a Pickford film...that's okay she was Irish blood she could get away with it!) To prove they were being petty they also overlooked the fact that castles and the middle class had been portrayed in the film as well. Other Irish and Catholic groups were extremely upset a 'jewess' was portraying an Irish girl...these lovely people rolled stink bombs down theatre aisles during Kathleen Mavourneen screenings.
In San Francisco 2 Catholic priests demanded cuts be made. What these cuts were we do not know, but the newly censored version was all that was shown in that area. Didn't help: there were more protests, riots that caused $3,000 worth of damage ($30,000 in todays dollars), and injured several women. It wasn't just limited to San Francisco: protests and riots broke out across the country during screenings...and eventually Kathleen Mavourneen was pulled. Several tins of the film were returned to distributors unopened. Thanks to the antisemitic protests/riots Theda Bara's career was all but dead. It didnt matter if she had played it well or if the story was any good...she was Jewish and thus she just could NOT play an Irish girl.
She finished La Belle Russe, and one more vamp picture The Lure of Ambition, before her contract was up. She tried other studios but no one would have her, all they could see her playing was a vamp. And they had younger prettier more modern vamps for that (Nita Naldi would take the reigns in 1922). Besides after the Kathleen Mavourneen fiasco how could Theda play anything other then a vamp? They just couldn't see it. Which is a shame because surely there were character roles or motherly types she could have taken on, perhaps in the talkie era. I guess we can be thankful for what is basically her one last go, "The Unchastened Woman" (which does still exist).
One ''good'' thing came out of Kathleen Mavourneen: it was the film she met her future husband Charles Brabin on (he directed it and her last few FOX films). She married him, he told her he didn't want her to stay in film, and besides no one had a place for her anyways. She made a few more attempts in the lates 20s, but in essence Kathleen Mavourneen ended her career.
Before I begin I'd like to give an update on the Mayfair/Majestic in Santa Monica. Apparently the interior was gutted in the 70s and 'made' to look older. Although I still would find that worth saving the Santa Monica Conservancy told me that a lawsuit took place a few years back which gave the rights to demolition. They say there is 'nothing they can do' which I find a crying shame. But I'm in a good mood today so I'm going to try and look over that for now.
Unfortunately I was too late for the really cool tour that went through The Los Angeles Theatre. But I did make the LA Historic Theatre Foundation tour that was scheduled for today. I don't go downtown...mainly because of traffic which even on a Saturday was backed up at the ungodly hour of 10AM. See we built our highways in the 40s (after tearing up our trolley lines...yeah that was real smart) and haven't updated them since. Its a hell of a shock coming from a more modern highway city but you get used to it.
On the schedule today was The Tower Theatre, The Rialto, and The Olympic. Except apparently a Nokia commercial decided to film at that intersection (using both the Rialto and the Olympic) so the Olympic was bumped. Instead we got to look at the Globe which I guess was on the last tour. Its gorgeous and I believe from 1913, created by David Belasco for 'real' theatre. Now its a nightclub where really drunk people get to enjoy it instead.
Next was the Tower. The Nokia people were using it for an office but we got around okay. It was built in 1927 so it really did not get to enjoy silents. In fact it was one of the first theatres in LA to have sound, but apparently no it didn't host the Jazz Singer in a premiere or preview. The sound system was so clunky they had to hang it out the window! Jeesh. Sadly that's not there anymore.
The Tower is in pretty good shape and is under good ownership. Its used a lot for filming including the Mambo King and oddly enough Coyote Ugly (which features a 5 second cameo by my favorite singer Alex Band). The ceiling needs redone (I mean pretty wise, its in good condition its just ugly) and the seats were torn out for the Mambo King on the first floor. The balcony still has its seats, but they really need repaired. I don't think at this point it'll ever be used as a real theatre for now, its doing too good filming wise.
Next was the Rialto. Now...you are warned...these pictures may give you a heart attack. Built in 1917 it was one of the major 'small' theatres and under Graumman's hands it was host to many a Metro/Famous Players opening. It also had stadium seating which was new at that time. I don't remember WHY its in the shape it is now, but its very sad. NOTHING is left...just the shell basically. Personally I think it'd make a great local band type venue/bar or theatre. Millionaire's feel free to contact me we'll make it happen. The LAHF have gone to great pains to make sure this theatre can not be destroyed (further). I'd love to see some kind of restoration effort...it could happen.
This is the stadium seating and what would be the projection area. I don't know if that's Charlie haunting me or just some bad lighting...my apologies for the spots!
This nearly made me cry....this was the movie screen!
Our docent said they had scratched away at the paint (this was on the right wall) and found some original paintings underneath. See restoration is possible!
The stadium seating again
Moving along...
At this point we were told no Olympic. I had parked a million miles away and spotted some great silent sites on the way. The Orpheum is just past the Rialto. This was the building that Harold Lloyd (and his stunt double) used for Safety Last. Its absolutely massively huge and one can just imagine filming on its rooftop! OMG! Considering Harold was missing a few fingers and still did such stunts gives me a great amount of respect for him.
Down the road from that is the United Artists Theatre. Some crazy crazy Christians have taken it over (okay I don't know for a fact they're crazy, but they tend not to open it up to non church goers) though at the very least their keeping it nice instead of letting it go to rot. Shall you suddenly find yourself holy you can get on their list and go in. I am not doing that...and I really hope I wont melt near the holy water. Supposedly Mary Pickford had a huge hand in designing it. It'll be interesting to see.
Heading the opposite direction one finds the Palace and The Los Angeles Theatres.
Spring Street was apparently the 'hotel street'. See back in the day when actors came here (I'd assume this lasted well into the 60s/70s) they would rent hotel rooms to live in instead of rooming with 6 people in a house or apartment. I seen at least 3 or 4 such hotels still there, now mostly condos. Sorry I didn't get pictures...I was too excited at finding The Alexandria!
I believe this hotel went up in 1906 or something like it. When Griffith and his company (complete with Mack Sennett, Mary Pickford, Jack Pickford, etc) first came to California in 1910 this is where they stayed. In fact I believe when they returned again (this time for good) they stayed here once again, until something more permanent was found. This is the hotel Valentino stayed in when he first came to LA, this is THE hotel to end all hotels!
I'm not going to post the many pictures I took, mainly because a very nice security guard said he seen nothing though apparently they frown on picture taking. The Alexandria was a hotel for many years, and as long ago as 2005 it was in very poor condition from most accounts. The people working there had no clue it had a history, and the lobby was filled with bums and various scary looking people.
I'm not sure what year it was renovated though I would guess 2007 or so. The Alexandria was turned into apartments/lofts and though I don't have enough pictures to say they were faithful they certainly have made it look nice. There's security at the front, the ball room is restored, and there is also a theatre for community performances (right now their doing a play about silent film stars, which I can not vouch is accurate or Hollywood Babylon bad...I need to see it first). There was also a room I wandered into that I'm not sure WHAT it was or what they were turning it into...but it looked like it had been a bar or something. That combined with the ballroom is enough to make me happy.
I was pleasantly surprised by Downtown LA. I've only been through once and it was on the other side of downtown. Parking isn't so bad, or expensive ($5 all day today) and there are just a ton of gorgeous buildings still standing (much to my surprise). Being yelled at in Spanish several times to buy things is never fun, but that's the same hazard you run anywhere in LA. Oddly I wouldn't call this area touristy. I don't think enough tourist know WHY these buildings are so spectacular to still have. And that is a crying shame.
If you do find yourself in the LA area the Los Angeles Conservancy will be screening several films this summer in the Million Dollar Theatre, The Orpheum, and the Los Angeles Theatre. My favorite is Louise Brook's in "Pandora's Box" in July. THESE are the type of events we need more of (*coughtherudolphvalentinofilmfestivalcough*)!
Proving I'm really an 80 year old man instead of a nearing 22 year old woman I have injured myself...in the most old person type of way. I've pulled a vital muscle in my writing arm, which hurts like an SOB. Whats even sadder is I've been doing this on and off since last summer, only now its lasted a week instead of a day or two. Christ I need to be more active.
Anyways the dear doctors have given me happy pills, and I now have some muscle cream which makes me smell like an old man (blah). Hopefully I'll be typing again in no time. There are a few articles I've been waiting to write, so stay tuned later this week!
Also cutting in to the articles this month is some rapid honor projects work. I'm aiming to launch Mr. Griffith's site mid May so stay tuned for that. Some major work has begun on The Rudolph Valentino Film Festival. Volunteers are needed so if you'd like to join up please see http:///therudolphvalentinofilmfestival.com . Way too early to give it away, but lets just say everything looks very exciting right now. I also have a very good shorts idea I want to do, but there wont be much to say about that for awhile other than its very exciting.
And to top it off of course there is dearest Mabel. So give me a few days and a few bottles of sake...FTT will be updated shortly!
The Iron Mask screening last week was fantastic...very touching and bittersweet. I particularly liked Kevin Brownlow's opening line (speaking to the massive audience), "I guess this proves talkies are indeed a passing fad". Fantastic!
I tried to brave the exhibit again, this time staying to watch the whole newsreel projection. It's in the part about Doug and Mary, which spans 2 rooms. Then a double whammy of insults hit...a young couple walked in from the second room (which note also features tons of pics and info about the couple) and the girl asked, "Who is that woman with him?" Then not too long after the man behind me who had been watching the newsreels since before I showed up commented, "She doesn't have ''the look''. She would never make it today no way." Ah...self proclaimed experts with no actual study (he had remarked earlier that he knew nothing of Doug's life)!
We can argue until we're blue in the face about who was major in the silents during their original run...and most would include the lord almighty Chaplin, Doug of course, Valentino, and Griffith. Rarely would more than a few women names come up...probably Gloria and Mary. Maybe Lillian. Maybe Theda. But if we're talking overall superstars really only Mary shines through. She was the only woman (and one of the only people period) to go from flickers to talkies and sparkle the entire 20 years. Literally that's how long her star shone.
Sadly beyond Chaplin, Keaton, maybe Lloyd, and maybe Clara, Louise or Theda...not many Average Joe's know who even the brightest stars were. Chaplin is by far arguably the only one who gets his due recognition in this day and age. Buster enjoyed a renewed recognition though I feel the masses wouldn't recognize him. This Doug revival has been nice, and beyond a few little blips his legacy is pretty intact. But Mary is a whole another story.
She lived until 1979...and she was active right until the 60s (which ironically is when the silent film revival began). In the 30s people could still remember what she had done, by the 40s she was that woman with the boring radio show and publicity work, by the 50s she was even fading as that, and by the 60s she had finally been rediscovered having her one last film fest. She attended, took it in, went back to Pickfair, and went to bed for near on 15 years.
By the time she could have received her due like Chaplin had, she was a frail old woman who had to be in a wheel chair and wore a very bad wig. Instead of going out on a touching note more people were shocked and horrified wondering if she was a real life "Baby Jane" (admittedly the resemblance is freaky!) However most modern people go off photos alone. Her actual speech wasn't that bad. That was 1976, she died in 1979. When she died most newspapers had to explain why she was important.
Her stuff was auctioned off, for a mere pittance. Pickfair was sold to Pia Zadora who promptly destroyed it. VCRs were a new thing and the possibilities for silent film were endless. But all that came too late for Mary. She had hidden herself away from the public, wanted her films destroyed, and unlike Chaplin didn't see to it her legacy lived on. It might have been the way she SAID she wanted it...but its a crying shame.
Actress
By the 70s, and even after Mary died, no one knew what to make of her acting. Silent films had been poorly acted anyways right? That was the theory. To make matters worse for a public that appreciated the Tramp they just didn't ''get'' the little girl. In fact it was Mary's little protege, Shirley Temple, who really undid her legacy. Shirley's look had been based off Mary's, her whole early career had been a careful clone of the older woman's. In fact Shirley remade several of Mary's films including Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, Poor Little Rich Girl, Annie Rooney, and so on. These films were watered down versions, with lots of dancing and cuteness. No offense to Shirley but she was no Mary in the acting field. These sugar sweet versions are what most assumed Mary had done as well.
Shirley cant really be blamed. Likely desperate for some recognition Mary clung to the little girl. She wanted her to star as herself in a film about her mother Charlotte's life. Thank the merciful Gods this was never made (though if Mary had played Charlotte it might have done away with the 'Shirley and Mary are one in the same' acting rumors). They posed together when Shirley was a teen and the mag titled it "The Two Greatest Has-Beens". It definitely didn't help her ego, and apparently she considered suing. But that wouldn't have helped...instead she just pretended it hadn't bothered her and in fact had been a compliment.
Modern viewers just couldn't wrap their heads around a 40 some year old woman running around in curls playing 12 year olds. Admittedly it is a hard concept to grasp. And without her films being readily available no one could really see her acting for themselves. Thankfully this has changed what with the internet and DVDs and all.
However Mary still doesn't get the respect. On the AFI greatest actresses list she was #24...below dear Mae West and Joan Crawford. As much as I enjoy Marilyn Monroe and Greta Garbo I don't think they both outrank Mary. Mary should have been in the top 5. No way is Bette Davis (Baby Jane!) a better actress than her.
A lot is made of 'natural acting' in silent films. Honestly I don't think its as rare as many people think it was. The overacting came from people who had been mostly stage stars. Mary had her moments on stage, but with her mother's help she was quickly able to adapt to film acting. Even her earliest Griffith shorts show that.
She was a method actor before there was method acting. Her mother taught her not to THINK about what she was doing, but to do it as she naturally would. Mary would immerse herself in her characters so deeply it would affect her even off set. When they did Annie Rooney she was thoroughly a 12 year old girl, when they did Sparrows she couldn't stop crying over the dead baby. She took her roles seriously and was a good actress.
What is interesting is that the 'girl with the curls' wasn't ALL she was capable of despite what some think. When she joined Griffith she played roles that varied from wife to prostitute to Native American. Linda Arvidson (Griffith's wife) said she felt bad for Mary when she'd have to curl for roles, as it took her an hour at night. She said everyone knew there was something special about Mary from the moment she entered the studio looking for a job. Some people just have IT even when IT doesn't exist at the time.
Mary didn't like the little girl roles, realizing they were limiting. She grew tired of them especially by the early 20s. She did Rosita which still gets great reviews today (despite her hate of it for reasons no one fully understands). Dorothy Vernon of Haddon Hall is a great costume piece with some drama and romance thrown in. Ironically Lottie (who plays her maid...so terrible I know!) looks older than her in that one. By the time talkies came she had thoroughly killed the little girl, and her acting became hit and miss. Kiki was an atrocious crime against her legacy and humanity but Secrets was one of her finest films ever. The scene above shows just how and why Mary was a great actress. Consider it her Oscar moment that never came (she won for Coquette but that was it).
Mary was also a great comedienne...something I wish she'd be known more for. She didn't ALWAYS do it but when she did she did it well. My Best Girl is the finest rom-com ever...personally I feel its miles ahead of Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances" or Harold Lloyd's "Girl Shy".
When it came to drama dead babies was best. Sparrows is a hugely dramatic film which shows Mary's talents well. The swamp scene literally makes you hold your breath. Stella Maris (in which she plays both lead roles) and Tess of Storm County were made for drama.
And yes there's the sentimental as well. Films that Shirley Temple destroyed come off much less annoying and quite touching. Sure I wouldn't be playing the glad game after I was run over ala Pollyanna, but that entire film shows Mary at her best child acting. She was 28 playing maybe 8-10 but it was just perfection. For as much hell as modern people like to give her over playing young I'd like to see a modern actress pull such a feat off. Even with CGI and all the computer effects it would take a special type of actress to pull off a child at age 40.
Writer
Mary took to scenario writing when she found out you could make $12 or so for the honor (about $120 in today terms). She wrote 6 of her Griffith shorts, and quite a few more for others. It was she who suggested the story "Chink and the Child" to Griffith which would become "Broken Blossoms". She wrote 3 of her features and possibly more (its hard to tell, she wasn't always credited).
During the teens she had a 'Daily Talks' syndicated newspaper column. While its unlikely she wrote all of these (Frances Marion probably did the rest) she was still one of the first movie stars to do something like it. Mabel Normand and Valeska Suratt did similar stints.
When she quit acting she took to writing a lot especially about religious topics. Somewhere along the line she had become a Christian Scientist (think Scientologist of their day) and became very devout after her mother died. She wrote 2 such books, "My Rendezvous with Life" and "Why not try God?" She contributed to several magazines on the subject as well including one article titled "Why die?" I doubt they were ghosted though its possible. She had a very interesting writing style and based off "Why Die?" she had some very interesting beliefs as well. From her books came many quotes oft repeated today, including the one about failure.
Not satisfied with just preaching she also wrote a novel in the 30s called "The Demi Widow" (which I so sorely want a good dust jacket version of). Its actually quite a wonderful novel. Then in the 50s came "Sunshine and Shadows" her light touch autobiography. Again she wrote in a good style but she left out a lot of things or glossed over what she didn't like (her kids were about 5 years older than they actually were in her book, Jack was a saint, Lottie didn't really exist, her father was also a saint).
While not a major force in writing she definitely took an active role in it. Just one more interesting angle to what a Mary Pickford is for.
Director
We're not sure how many of her films she directed, but it was probably a good chunk of her later features. Half the time her directors were just figure heads, with her word as final say. It is likely she directed most of Dorothy Vernon.
Producing and the Movie Biz
In 1916, once she signed with Famous Players, Mary created her own production company "Pickford Film Corporation" with her mother as treasurer. With this move she took almost complete control of her films: she had a final say in story selection and the final cut, she had final say in cast and crew selection as well as promotion. She went from making $10 a day with Griffith in 1909 to making $10,000 a week plus profits in 1916...meaning she would make at least A MILLION dollars a year...the highest salary ever for a film star at that time. This move solidified her as the first real movie star, and the first celebrity.
Mary was an extremely shrewd business woman...which was nearly unheard of at the time (and still is...). She had the perfect sense of when to ask for more money (such as reminding Griffith about her raise as she sat covered in mud and water from a scene in the river), and if she didn't get it she would not settle. One dispute between her and Goldwyn went on so deep and so long that his wife Frances threw herself at Mary's feet begging her to stop and negotiate for the sake of her and her children. Mary promised she would. But she was as fierce as any of the men (and twice as smart). If she didn't get her way she would move to a new company where she could. And once that wasn't working (the film companies were planning a merger that would make them a monopoly) she went and started United Artists.
Honestly I don't know why United Artists is so touted. I've read about it in depth and it seems like several bad moves at crucial moments (Chaplin couldn't make films, Griffith owed too many films to others and was severely in debt as a business, etc). But in all fairness it wasn't Mary's fault. She had to make a certain number of films to end her contract with First National. She did with no problem and then sat about what she could for United Artists. She quite possibly was the only artist to NOT let personal troubles affect her...until her mother died, talkies came, and Douglas left (and seriously those are some heavy blows!)
However United Artists was a unique idea and it gave Mary complete control over her films. Once things started stabilizing it also gave her a chance to act as a business woman. Both Valentino and Gloria would be lured to UA by the late 20s.
Once she quit acting she kept producing well into 1949. She remained with UA until 1956 when Charlie had finally sold his shares and the company they had created went into public hands. She also lost the Pickfair Studio (which was then UA Studio) which became the Samuel Goldwyn Studio. Thankfully both UA (though sadly in a loon's hands) and the Studio still exist.
Interestingly enough Mary's business sense did get in her way on two very important occasions. In 1933 she was prepping for television...something that at that point was little more than an idea (1928 had been a good developmental year for TV). She did the radio shows as a prelude to this. And she knew TV would be a big deal...in fact its what she lost Walt Disney over.
Disney's contract was up with UA and he was already quite valuable. UA was ready to give him everything...except future rights to television broadcasts of his work. Disney left them and UA fell into disrepair until it left Mary and Charlie's hands. While she had the foresight, it would have been much more valuable to keep Disney round. In the same mess up she botched her chance to play a live version of Alice in Disney's Alice and Wonderland. Had Mary done that she definitely would not be forgotten today.
Many years later Billy Wilder approached her about Sunset Blvd. But she wanted too much control and thought the story should be focused on the silent star and a happy story. Once willing to do anything for a role (in Stella Maris she went all out ugly, in Sparrows live corked crocs were in the swamp) she just couldn't make fun of what she had been. Gloria Swanson took the role and went into history for it. Had Mary taken it maybe she would be more remembered today.
Would she have made it today?
Its hard to say. Are we going off the theory she would be like someone born today and thus possibly taller, less childlike, and maybe even fatter? Or are we going off the theory that she would be just as she was but in today's times? I'll take the latter since its simpler.
Mary had the perfect child body: a bit large head that looked good with long curls, she was barely 5ft, and the way her body was built was very childlike...not fat but not thin. She would never pull off a Swanson look. Many noted such comparisons with Doug's second wife the skanky Sylvia Ashley. She was tall and lanky, someone said she looked like the horse faced Nichole Kidman and I'd agree with that. Compared to Mary they couldn't be any more opposite.
Would Mary have the 'look' as that one dork mused she wouldn't? Depends what she was doing. No she couldn't be a Paris Hilton, but we wouldn't want it that way. Based on sheer acting talent and business knowledge she could probably fight her way in. With the internet and all she would probably start in indies and charm her way from there. Despite the child body and showing her age once she hit 50...she photographed very well during her career. A picture of her while she was filming Secrets would show two different women. She had a whole mess of make up and camera and lighting techniques to achieve this.
Add to it that those very early cameras were as harsh and judgmental as HD is today. It made as little sense as it did then as it does now: sometimes an absolutely gorgeous woman would film poorly, and a homely one could film very well. Its mystical like that. Given that ability I think she would still find her niche...so few actresses these days can achieve that affect without botox and a face lift (and boob implants for good measure).
Also figure in this: despite starting with Griffith at age 17, she spent most of her 20s working as a little girl. Mary never had a chance at Kiki sex pot roles when they were appropriate. We have no clue how well she would have fared in them at the right time. Also given today's obsession with old women trying to be sexy (Sex and the City, Madonna, ''cougars'') she could very well take Charlotte's place at the bistro table. Ironic side note: Mary had to be one of the first cougars (marrying the much younger and very cute Buddy Rogers in the 1930s).
Mary could photograph extremely beautiful when done right. I have yet to see anyone else achieve such perfection (Lillian Gish had some moments too...otherwise she went all goat eyed). Maybe she wouldn't be able to control the 24/7 paparazzi...but then again she practically invented it. She was a PR genius who married and divorced a fellow actor who did the same at a time when such things were scandalous and unheard of. Instead of being run out of town and career she and Doug became the first major celebrity couple. Even Posh and Becks can't come close.
I don't feel Mary's beauty or 'look' is in question...but lets say this: she had the talent and the know how. Whether that would have left her in character roles or not she still would have a career today if this was the time and place she was placed in.
So what IS a Mary Pickford for?
Mary Pickford was one of the greatest film actresses of our time. Had she been younger or more willing she could have had a career till the day she died ala Lillian Gish. She was an amazing and innovative business woman...one who just can never get enough due in film history ever. She made some of the greatest films of all time, and a good chunk of her work is still as fantastic to modern viewers as it was to contemporary ones. No one ever quite matched her, and no one ever really has since.
To prove my point below is a list of some samples of her work. If you have not yet seen a Pickford or really gotten into her career I highly suggest you check some of it out. And FYI: Secrets will be on TCM the day before her bday on April 7th.
Pickford Silents on DVD:
*The Mary Pickford Collection (mute it and enjoy: Little Annie Rooney, Pollyanna, Poor Little Rich Girl, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms)
*Check out the pretty link box on the left, some of it has been updated especially the Silent Star sites. I find it tragic theres not MORE out there *cough cough*
When it comes to silent film there are two types of preservation...and both are plagued with troubles. Consider this a twofer rant! And for what you can do to help either cause please see the bottom of this article. We need you!
Site Preservation
Now I'm all for progress. If people in the 1920s hadn't built up Hollywood it wouldn't be anything more than some gorgeous Orange Groves and Victorian houses. Neat...but not Hollywood. However it seems modern people have a different take on what constitutes 'progress'.
Again people of the 20s knocked things down themselves (the Famous Players Lasky Studio on Selma, the original Hollywood Church, the De Longpre House, etc) yet something more interesting always took its place. Los Angeles is filled with these beautiful buildings. Yet today its just a bunch of idiots who want sky scrapers for 'offices and condos'. Three particular ones come to mind (the one going up across from Pantages which I believe knocked down some particularly beautiful building, the one going up right past Selma, and the one that stands where Famous Players once did). All 3 look the same...just tall massive ugly hunks of windows (the one across from Pantages has to be an entire block wide at parts) which developers swear will be filled with hipsters and offices. There's trouble with this theory however. Not the least of which would the obvious that the Taft Building on Hollywood and Vine is begging for the same tenants.
All over the country similar ideas sprung into action especially in the early 00s. In Orlando where I came from (a town easily swindled by con men such as Lou Pearlman and Cameron Kuhn) developers swore up and down if they were allowed to build such and such ugly office/condo building THEN these hipsters and businesses would come and downtown would be revitalized again (it had been dead since the 70s not counting the boyband prison that was Transcon). So all around these ugly buildings started going up...especially around 2005-2006. I can remember at least 5 of them in one area. Then by 2007 the building stopped. Downtown was as dead as ever and the hipsters never came (because 'if you build it they will come' is a stupid theory that never works). Now many of those buildings sit half built, or the built ones sit unfilled and unsold. No $3 million penthouses occupied as promised.
It took until I moved to LA to hear they had done a similar thing downtown. I haven't followed it as closely but I hear its had similar results. Nothing much interesting is downtown these days...which is a shame when you consider what BUILDINGS are down there...and just how usable they are. In 2005 (sadly long before I was here) the city decided to raze The Ambassador Hotel which was built in 1921. Not only was it just so amazingly important to film history (everyone and anyone did everything there) but it had lived on past silents...the Cocoanut Grove (which was in the hotel) had been the hip spot well through talkies and RFK was shot at the hotel after his nomination. Nope not important enough! There goes the wrecking ball! Now an ugly school which poorly tried to replicate the building stands there. We need more schools...but we didn't need to raze the building for them. Go raze one of those ugly empty condo buildings instead!
Two other equally important hotels the Alexandria (where the Griffith company stayed when they first arrived) and the Knickerbocker (where Griffith died and Elvis wrote many of his songs) thankfully avoided a similar fate. The Alexandria became apartments (after decaying for many years), and the Knickerbocker an old folks home (and sadly since the adjoining cafe closed in 2005 outsiders cant come in and see the legendary bar or chandelier).
Los Angeles is built on two things: filming and tourism. I don't see any reason why neither can be used for these old buildings. Thankfully some things like The Los Angeles Theatre (where City Lights premiered) have been used this way...I mean look at those pictures are you telling me we need more stupid condos instead of THAT lovely palace? The only thing I find heartbreaking is they don't screen films anymore...and they just really should. Ah to have the days where you seen a film then followed the orchestra to the ballroom and danced the night away (then ran to the Ambassador for a drink)!
The biggest thing to me beyond the complex beauty of these sites (and their usefulness...not all these buildings dilapidated bum filled hellholes) is their importance. Many towns don't appreciate their old buildings but nowhere is it more important than somewhere like New York or Los Angeles. Many of these buildings were part of history (film history but like the RFK thing or the Elvis thing it goes beyond that as well) well into the 50s when LA started declining (took till the late 90s to get her going again!). I find it surprising that a building where RFK was shot or where Martin Luther King Jr spoke (Palladium which was recently renovated but had sat empty for a very long time) are deemed to be ''in the way''.
I have my favorite sites around LA. If I could ever make it downtown without getting severely lost I'm sure I'd have more (the Adams district, the old movie palaces, etc). Sadly my favorites are the ones on the chopping blocks. Chaplin's Studio seems to be safe (complete with a Kermit dressed as The Tramp) but Pickfair Studios (now known as The Lot) is not. Down the road from Charlie and the strip clubs (yes tis true...and hilarious) its right across from a Target shopping complex that is nice enough but really isn't lending value to the area. That is the studio where Mary and Doug filmed a good chunk of their films (including masterpieces like Thief of Bagdad) and Griffith and Valentino did as well. That studio lasted on well into talkies as Samuel Goldwyn Studios. However it declined in the 80s, and in the 90s it was purchased by an independent company and renamed (poorly) "The Lot" which is still the given name. It recently sold I believe only a year or so ago and the new developers wanted to take the wrecking ball to parts of it (and put in glass box pieces...WHY?!)...supposedly they were talked out of it but nothing new has been heard since last years article.
I've been in Santa Monica a lot lately for the Marion Davies Beach House thing (which should be opening early May I believe). Now Santa Monica has been better then LA as a whole on preservation (thank you for the Pier!) but still has their moments. One building I always liked was The Mayfair Theatre (or as it was last known 'The Majestic'). The Mayfair is a victim of bad luck. Built around 1909-1911 (depending where you read) it was originally a live theater and vaudeville house. The theatre was there when Keystone and Ince were causing mayhem! When Tillie's Punctured Romance was filmed! It later became a silent movie theater and tried to transition to talkies but apparently it had a subpar sound system. So it became a second run house where rowdy bratty 50s teens (damn 50s people ruined a lot of these preservation efforts) would go watch films. It continued this well into the 70s before it reverted back to some live acts as well.
In 1994 it reverted back to the original owners son, Karl Schober, just days before the earthquake. He stated in 2008 that originally he planned to rent it out for filming and events much like the Los Angeles Theater does. The earthquake severely damaged it, so badly it was red tagged. And for 15 years it has sat...red tagged and nothingness. Its boarded up so it wont fall over and kill anyone but no progress has been made. The owner said he wanted to raze it, as he didn't feel it was worth fixing (or maybe too expensive?). However its a historical site (you know that useless term most developers ignore and raze anyways these days) so he had a lot of red tape to go through if that's the move he wanted to make...and he refused to.
Literally a year ago he announced he was going to raze everything but the front, and turn the back into you guessed it: condos and offices. This building is right off the Third Street Promenade and a few blocks from the ocean. Being Santa Monica someone would probably inhabit it but I still find it unnecessary. They have a whole dead mall they could raze and make into ugly condos! Nope has to be the Mayfair. Now in fairness to the owner it wasn't his original intent...but I'm wondering where all the help is to save this place. In Santa Monica alone the Aero Theatre is just one of the restored old theatres certain groups saved and restored. However the conservancy apparently just said, "Its a shame but what can ya do?". A quick googling shows no effort to save the building or raise funds to preserve it. I wonder if the owner would be so opposed to it being saved and restored if such an organization bought and took control of it. Sure would save him a lot of trouble. Hes had 15 years and yet no one seriously approached him like that? I just find that all very sad and very curious.
But it should be of note I was just there last weekend (so same year later) and the entire building looks intact and I didn't see any destruction going on. Just boarded up, same as when I first visited Santa Monica (just shortly before that article). Of the 80 or so conservancy groups in the Los Angeles area can not ONE make an attempt?
Film Preservation
Now onto a more tricky and universal matter. On nitrateville not too long ago a discussion was initiated: when did we stop destroying films? The consensus was maybe we haven't, and another question was raised: how much preservation should occur? If we saved every film ever in safety stock 36mm we would have a lot of buildings full of film. And also would that literally be every film ever? Every stupid youtube vid and every indie that resembles Jay Sherman "L'artiste est Morte"? What about porn? Its film too! And then what about TV (who in all fairness has suffered way worse a fate than film when it comes to preservation)?
Its definitely a gray area. In all fairness to people of old before TV and even to a point before internet (what with its on demand films, youtube, and amazon) what was the point in saving old films? No one wanted to watch a silent in 1941! Theda Bara and Griffith were dying off but no one could quite remember why they were important. Old films were a funny memory to them...like a magazine article you might have read 20 years ago. Why would it be valuable?
Honestly even at best its still a gray area. What I find important others might not (Kiki) while what others find important I find silly (apparently bits of War and Peace have been found...and were spliced into a Swedish travelogue. Since its just outdoor scenes that have little to nothing to do with the plot or film why save it or even bother?) I guess much like the National Film Registry certain criteria could be set...hopefully not by people who have no clue what their talking about like usual.
I think overall what was important to the time it was filmed (the melodramas and the Keystones) should be saved, as well as what stars/artists were the most popular (Mary Pickford, Valentino, Theda, etc), and whatever was deemed artistically important at the time or after the fact (Keaton, Stroheim, the arty Ukrainian films, etc) should be saved by some type of organization. Maybe not every little piece (leave that to the fans and the stars if they are living) but the vital things. In Mary's case a lot of her IMP films are lost which I think is just fine overall...they weren't said to be very good. Keep Sparrows and Secrets and Little Annie Rooney. Those are the things future generations need.
Theda is an example of why this is vital. She was important for her time and people are curious about why and how. However only a few of her films still exist and mostly only one is available. She was as big as Mabel and Mary in her day...maybe even bigger as she was THE Vamp thank you very much. For those few years she reigned Theda was so very important to what we would now call pop culture.
I think a really good example of what I mean is Valentino. His pop culture films exist (Sheik, Four Horsemen, etc) as does the rest of his work which shows his talents (Monsieur Beaucaire, The Eagle, even All Night). He has an extremely high survival rate and the funny thing is for the time he was important (not a b actor) everything but a good chunk of his flops exist. The Young Rajah (which in hormones alone we mourn), Uncharted Seas, A Sainted Devil, are all lost. Monsieur and Cobra are his only flops to still exist. Sure it'd be nice as a fan to see those films, but if this had been done on purpose by some type of preservation body I wouldn't be too angered...much like Mary it just makes sense.
There is a major problem with Silent film which leads to a major problem with its preservation. Despite a revival in the 60s and 70s by college kids and the curious it really has not found its rightful place in history amongst the masses. And before video, before internet, was it even feasible? Probably not so much. The sad truth is unless it seems profitable most people wont bother. And when it comes to silent film there is a LOT of work to do. I think its criminal how underpaid (or not paid) most of these hard working people are. However with the internet I do think there might be a new profitability. Warner Brothers may prove me right or wrong on that.
Nowadays someone can see a film on TCM, hop on the internet and google, and get an answer which just might lead them over to amazon for a book about the star or the DVD. Or maybe another film of the stars on DVD. I quite adamantly believe there needs to be one massive silent film resource to help with this (instead of leaving it up to morons like Wikipedia who have literally declared me too smart to edit silent film articles). But such a resource would take a lot of time...and even possibly money. And no one is going to pay anyone to make such a resource. Passion is one thing, paid gigs are another. And there is no shame in that...beyond the fact that there isn't some organization out there trying to support such a project. I have come up with some various ideas on how to do it but sadly amongst 3 organizations, viewing actual films, and writing a book all on the free and the out of pocket I just don't have the time or the funds yet. Don't worry...I wont drop the idea. Someday!
Film preservation has always been shotily supported at best. They didn't quite get why they were doing it at first. If you read this article about preserving Mary Pickford's films and how the Library of Congress destroyed them well...you'll get the idea (lucky she didn't want her films saved I guess!). For that destruction they ran out of funding and Mary personally gave $10,000 to help. And they ran out again. Many of these film archives are horribly underfunded by whoever put them together (usually colleges and studios) and thus the work is horribly shoddy at best despite how hard the dedicated preservationists try.
Imagine one person trying to save several thousand films that take so much time to restore and make right. Heck imagine one person trying to do that and just stabilize said amount of film! Its kinda how regular jobs these days are making one employee do all the work for the fired employees with less pay and benefits (you know feudalism) with said employee to overworked and scared of getting fired to ask for more. Preservationists don't need to fear firing (at least for speaking up) but its not really going to do much to ask for help...the money just isn't there.
There is one of two ways this could be solved. Either a company or a government (worldwide take your pick) could step in and help or silent films would have to be viable financially again. Either via the internet or wonderful revival houses. But this would take more work...and there just isn't enough man power, interest by the masses, or funding at this point in time. And that is a shame.
What can you do?
Bitching does no one good. For both film and site preservation there are several groups out there dedicated to both. Donations of even $5 can help. There is a list of several preservation sites in our affiliates at the right. Feel free to click on any one of them and see what you can do. Even if you don't live in the Los Angeles area there are still ways to help (letter writing, calling, donations, media ruckising, etc). If you are in LA I suggest very much so you get involved. If that's still too much then the simplest way is to enjoy any number of screenings such places tend to put on. It shows the interest and it helps put some money into the organizations as well.
For film preservation there are many institutes and colleges you could donate to or volunteer at (UCLA, The George Eastman House, The Netherlands Film Institute, etc). A quick googling can show whats in your area. In addition there are always silent film screenings all over the US and the World. Yes its a bit LA focused on this site mainly because its easier for me and my perpetual laziness. I try to include all the major events though. For a more nation and worldwide view please click here as nitrateville lists those screenings much more thoroughly than I can. Libraries and Revival houses tend to show a lot of them. Again googling can help. If you know of any projects in your area I highly suggest getting involved...even grunt work helps! But sitting on your butt and enjoying the film doesn't hurt either.
And perhaps the easiest way to help film preservation is to support it as a medium. Watch your TCM and write them telling how you'd like to see more silents (might not happen but hey they know theres interest!) Buy DVDs, go to Film Fests (or start one!), buy and read silent film tinged books, use things like the Warner Brothers service, and just overall show you care! Don't forget free things like the internet archive! Also certain torrent sites tend to have silent films on them (both legally and illegally). Since I dont want the Chaplin family after me I wont link...but you can find them. One site had Doug's talkie "Mr. Robinson Crusoe" (hint: Wikipedia it)!
For the more artistic or driven bunch I'd especially suggest you find ways to bring new folks in. Rebirth of a Nation is the ideal of what I mean. Many local plays have used silent themes (there was an excellent Mary Pickford play I hear, but please dont use Mack and Mabel its just pathetic). Every little bit of public recognition can help. A guy on youtube likes to do reviews of modern film as a silent film (click here to see what I mean). Its hilarious and has brought him quite a bit of attention.
There is definitly an ignorance void out there about silent film...but its not stupidity or a lack of caring it is simply that: a lack of knowledge on the subject. A lot of people I meet might joke at first or write it off as something akin to watching a really bad Keystone in silence like a museum piece. But the more they know, and if they actually view a real silent (complete with music), the more interested they become. A good silent is just like a good talkie: a great film that gives you an emotional ride whatever the emotion may be. Sparrows or Son of the Sheik or Bed and Sofa or City Lights...you get the idea! When I watched Way Down East for the first time I was shoutin "Yo go girl!" by the time Lillian told that playboy off. You should have seen the crowd at the Silent Movie Theatre (mostly silent film no0bs) hold their breath as Mary and the kids crossed the swamp in Sparrows. And heard the cheer once they made it through. It was amazing. And more people need to know and expierence that...instead of watching crap like "I love you man" or "Bride Wars".
So not only support it yourself...but spread the word! If you cant take a friend to a film fest or a Silent Movie Theatre (and if you can you totally better or get off my site) then why not hold a Silent Movie night at home? Put out the booze and some pizza...trust me they'll be much more willing. I couldnt suggest anything that could be more helpful than getting the word and the information out there.
The Ultimate Flapper Wedding
-
Vilma Banky is one of those odd flapper figures, we don't think of her as a
flapper, but she totally was in a chic sort of way. Her cute little cloche
h...
I'm a little OBSESSED with Silent Films...and I have decided it is my mission to bring them back to the general public. Rudolph Valentino is my love and Charlie Chaplin (praise be his name) is my God. If I were a silent movie star I'd probably be a vamp...because vamps had more fun.
I believe my life can be summed up with a quote by Theo Brooks: "She scared men shitless."
Down the road from that is the United Artists Theatre. Some crazy crazy Christians have taken it over (okay I don't know for a fact they're crazy, but they tend not to open it up to non church goers) though at the very least their keeping it nice instead of letting it go to rot. Shall you suddenly find yourself holy you can get on their list and go in. I am not doing that...and I really hope I wont melt near the holy water. Supposedly Mary Pickford had a huge hand in designing it. It'll be interesting to see.
BJqzWrtQig~~_1.jpg)
A lot is made of 'natural acting' in silent films. Honestly I don't think its as rare as many people think it was. The overacting came from people who had been mostly stage stars. Mary had her moments on stage, but with her mother's help she was quickly able to adapt to film acting. Even her earliest Griffith shorts show that. 
