Poor Forget the Talkies...I'm here really. And for once Rudy isn't stealing all my time. I'm actually in the middle of re-researching June Mathis, I found some INCREDIBLE stuff on her. That should be done by the end of the week. Mr. Griffith's site should be too. But in meanwhile its time for Gloria Swanson.
The first silent I ever seen was Beyond the Rocks, which gave me a chance to view the two greatest actors in the world. Despite my love of Pickfords I must put Gloria up with Mary in terms of talent. Most people barely remember either lady and when it comes to Gloria its usually fake bitchy stuff. Gloria had an image and a wardrobe that would put Lady Gaga to shame. But her acting...that's where her legacy should be.
I'm shocked and horrified at how forgotten she is. Mary makes some sense...Mary faded away kind of by choice. On the other hand Gloria was barely out of the spotlight from the 1910s until the 1980s and she had spurts of hipness right up until the end (including chatting with Janis Joplin on the Dick Cavett show). I just don't 'get' why we've forgotten her. If anything her name deserves that vague memory ala Chaplin. I can say Charlie Chaplin to anyone and get a 'I've heard that name somewhere before...' not so with Gloria.
Perhaps even more offensive is the belief some internet shut ins decided to spread: the 'she turned into Norma Desmond' rumor. I defy them to find one moment in her life where she turned into Norma. Gloria was active in one way or another even when she wasn't in film. In fact she deserves even more credit on that front: she was one of the first to jump into television (1948, and was the first to be on a cover of the regional newly launched TV Guide), she did radio shows, and she had a fashion line for 20 years made for little stout old women. You wouldn't see her walking down the streets of NY trying to pretend she didn't have wrinkles ala Mae Murray.
Oh and she had this whole thing with inventing. There was bad timing to it but her ideas were quite inventive. Throw in the art and sculpting and well...that rumor is just stupid.
All this aside I just can not stand to think the woman who portrayed Sadie Thompson or Norma Desmond is lost to that pre Marilyn Monroe era where our collective culture can not seem to remember. Reasons I hate the Oscars? Valentino never even received an honorary nod, and Doug only got one after he died, and well...Charlie and Mary and Griffith got screwed over too (but all 3 won at least one honorary Oscar). Gloria never even got an honorary Oscar...despite the fact she was nominated in competitive fields 3 times (for her 3 best movies at that). Shame on the Academy. And shame on film fans.
I am fascinated by Mary Pickford's talkies. Mostly because she was such a good actress, and it baffles me that the right factors just never seemed to sync up for her in relation to talkies. Ironically Mary was one of the first major stars to jump into making talkies with "Coquette" which is officially the one talkie of hers I have yet to see. It was actually a success, which makes the tepid response to its successor "Taming of the Shrew" all the more confounding.
All the right factors SHOULD have been in place. Mary and Douglas Fairbanks had their own studio and absolute freedom and financials, plus wonderful business minds to boot. Separately they were the biggest stars of the 1920s, Mary as 'America's Sweetheart' and Doug as the Swashbuckler. Together their fame would make Brangelina look like amateurs. They were the most popular couple in the world, their fame was at its height.
Or more accurately it had been until talkies arrived. Along with UA partner Charlie Chaplin (praise be his name) there was no one more famous, no one's films more anticipated or successful. Both strove to create the finest films possible, and unlike Valentino they had the business mind to make it happen. While Mary embraced talkies Doug embraced technicolor, being the first major star to do so especially for an entire film (in technicality "Toll of the Sea" launched Anna May Wong into fame, in fact that film inspired The Black Pirate greatly.)
Both had been stage actors before film, and both had made Broadway (though arguably Doug had been more successful, Mary's rave came after she'd been in film and returned to Broadway). The talkie myth is just plain stupid as there wasn't a single star who couldn't speak, and if you want to factor in accents then explain Greta Garbo. Both Doug and Mary's voices matched their personalities well, there was nothing off or wrong about them.
None the less the arrival of talkies put the fear of God into the film community. The technology was so new and touchy that it didn't matter how well they could act...either the technology would do them in making them sound funny or the all knowing bosses would easily use talkies as an excuse to do away with them.
Neither Mary nor Doug had to worry about the bosses. They could afford to hire the best sound people possible. And if it was no good they could go all Chaplin and hold out until it was better (or maybe they didnt see it that way but they COULD have). But fears aside talkies ruined and stilted what had been a very smooth and artistic environment. Watch almost any silent from 1926-1930 and it flows as smooth as a modern day talkie. But with the new technology for talkies the game changed. Cameras had to be behind a pane of glass, while big bulky mics hung everywhere. If your jewelry dangled wrong or if you walked too fast the mic would pick it up, ruining an entire take. With the touchy flawed technology the smoothness and naturalness was taken out of acting. Imagine having to stand by the flower pot where the mic is hidden while trying not to breathe wrong. That would be about it.
Doug said he thought with talkies the romance had left filmmaking...and he was right for that time. No longer could there be mood musicians, no longer could people on set laugh and reply to the action on screen making it a warm and fun atmosphere. If you were funny or looking at the wrong mark you would never know until the take was ruined. Add to that you now had to learn lines, and you could no longer just say whatever the hell you felt like. In The Four Horsemen of the ApocalypseRudolph Valentino and Alice Terry spoke French in their scenes for the lip readers. In those years that would never have flown during talkies. Gloria Swanson said screenwriters would hang around and here what the actors made up, sometimes incorporating it into the title cards. All this spontaneity was gone.
For both Doug and Mary one more factor was looming: old age. Doug was 46, Mary was 37. Both were known for playing youthful characters. In Mary's case she had grown sick of it, trying to upgrade at least to teenager. In Doug's case he prided himself on being athletic and fit and energetic, but aging was starting to take that away from him. Add to that seeing his son Douglas Fairbanks Jr start to outshine him (in looks, fame, and athleticism) and well...he wasn't very thrilled. For Doug it would lead to depression, for Mary when she realized she could no longer hold the audience like she once did it also led to depression...and alcoholism.
This was Doug's first official talkie. "The Iron Mask" had quickly added some talkie scenes to it but overall it was a silent film. Mary already certain she was fine in talkies (complete with an Oscar) needed another solid project. The reigning mindset during the silent era was 'one star per film' thus maximizing profits and holding in budgets. The reason we get flukes like "Beyond the Rocks" is because (despite The Sheik) the studio felt Valentino was still a no one...but Gloria Swanson was a star!
With talkies around and nerves a twitter Mary and Doug decided at long last to team up. It would guarantee a hit! It would be the biggest thing since Birth of a Nation! You must remember though there fame had slipped a bit both were still very popular. Surely a film together would be as well.
During the silent era theaters told distributors they would not screen a Shakespeare film ever as it would be boring and the yokels wouldn't 'get' it. So naturally every artistic actor in Hollywood longed to make a Shakespeare film. During the early 20s Romeo and Juliet was constantly said to be in the making. Mary, Lillian Gish, and Norma Talmadge were all named as possible Juliets. Valentino seems to be the only rumored Romeo (and he couldn't do it because of his strike).
The mindset when talkies came was everything must be from the stage...people like plays and that must be what they wanted to see in a talkie right? Odd considering a similar mindset had come around when flickers began and that failed miserably. No one thought of that apparently. Doug and Mary decided "Taming of the Shrew" would be a good pairing for them. Who could dispute Shakespeare dialogue?
To add to this theory they decided to go all out. Not only would it feature 2 stars and be Shakespeare and a talkie but...it would be in color! Musicals were starting to follow a similar thought pattern but no one had done a non musical talkie in color! They would be trailblazers.
Unfortunately even for the deep pockets of their production companies it would be too costly. Costumes, sets, and everything had been made ready for color filming. This is perhaps one of the saddest things to think of...we could have had a talkie from 1929 in color! They would have been way ahead of their time on that one especially considering the depression that would wipe out color ambitions for almost a decade.
One of the sadder things though is somewhere along the way life began to imitate art. Doug and Mary had been perpetually in love since their risky marriage in 1920. Though they surely had their moments, nothing had ever driven them apart. Fears of old age and lost fame apparently ate away at them. Between 1927 and 1929 they fell apart. Doug was the real life Petruchio laughing and 'whatever-ing' through life at this point. He hated conflict so he'd just try to avoid it. Mary on the other hand was fed up with his antics, and growing more 'Katherine' like by the minute. Doug would show up late and come laughing in ready to whatever through his lines. Mary would sit steaming counting just exactly how much he was costing them per minute of being late (if I remember right it was $30 a minute, he was on average a few hours late per day). Those on set said the tone was different from any other Doug or Mary set they had worked on. The two would do their scenes then not speak a word to each other. It was mind blowing considering the public still thought they were madly in love.
I almost wonder if egotism wasn't one more part of it. Doug and Mary had always had different working styles (Mary was very efficient, Doug was more lazing about) but when you put two major stars in a film and those styles clash I wonder if the ego didn't factor a bit. And if perhaps that egotism helped destroy their relationship further. Both were wonderful actors, but resenting and avoiding each other could not lead to happy feeling. Mary meticulously practiced her lines with a top expert. Doug barely practiced at all using an old friend from Broadway. Mary showed up on time and had her lines memorized. Doug would waltz in 4 hours late and need cue cards...and yet somehow he still was very good.
Below is a clip from the film (not great quality, but the DVD has stellar quality). Petrucho has decided to marry Katherine, mostly for money. Katherine is a literal shrew (who enjoys whipping the piss out of men). This is the moment they meet, needless to say it doesn't go well. It's a hilarious scene:
The film itself is quite good, especially for an early talkie. There's lots of camera angles and movements, something very rare for its time. The dialogue isn't too bad though being Shakespearean its a tad grating to the ears for a film. Sound effects (such as thunder, dog barks, so forth) are used very well, something you didn't see in early talkies much.
Doug is delightful as Petruchio literally chewing every inch of the scenery. For someone using cue cards and not wild about sound he just blows it all away. The personality that is Doug comes through and it matches his character very well. He also escaped the problem all early talkie actors had: that stiffness. Since he didn't care or fear talkies he just went about it his own way and there is no mic fear conveyed in his performance. It seems very natural. Doug was what all talkie actors should have wished to be at that time. One note is the technical limitations DID get him in these early years. Apparently the first sound test was so high and bad that the sound engineer regretted immensely Doug had ever heard it. Judging by this film his voice required a pinch higher than normal. Its not bad or off putting but considering how sensitive people were at the time its a shame. Thankfully most contemporary reviewers found both he and Mary to have fine voices.
Mary as Katherine is a little less mind blowing. She had this thing about accents...she was going to prove she was a good actress in talkies and would do so by pulling out every accent in the book. Mary was a wonderful voice (click here to see what I mean) but her accents were something else. In Kiki she drops her French accent every 2 sentences, and almost comes across as German at moments. In Taming of the Shrew she sounds too rehearsed and too stiff. The clips floating around youtube of her in this film WERE dubbed or something...because on the DVD her voice is much lower and it sounds more 'right'.
She has what I call 'Theda Bara Syndrome'. The vamps decided that the older they got, the more regal and British they would become. Mary never pulled this in real life, and she could act just fine in her real voice. Yet in Taming of the Shrew she sounds too fake, she's trying too hard. That being said her performance is good. Its stiff, but had she not used that silly accent it would have been just as good as anything else (its no Kiki). In fact the oddest thing about Taming of the Shrew is Doug is waltzing through it, effortlessly talking all over the place. Mary on the other hand has a few key outbursts but for most of the film she is silent. Whether this was intentional or not is very interesting especially given Coquette.
This film apparently originally (at a premiere) included the title card "Written by William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor" which was laughed out of the room. Its no longer in there needless to say (of course some people are certain it was never there at all...indeed no proof has surfaced). I know the bare minimum of Shakespeare and I'm not familiar with this play. Some things didn't make sense...I feel more set up was needed. It seems Petruchio agrees to marry Kate for money, but why does he stick with it so insistently even before he sees her? And Kate absolutely loathes him so why does she agree to the marriage? Is it 'for revenge' as her soliloquy would insinuate, or is it because of the kiss he forced on her and she seemed to enjoy? Either way why does she put up with the crap he pulls later and only decide to act her revenge when she realizes he intentionally being a jackass? And at that the final reconciliation occurs after she waps him in the head with a chair seriously injuring him. Yet to that point we'd been led to believe he could over power her and take all her abuse...so why didn't she just throw a damn chair at him earlier?
And finally the most unexplained part to someone unfamiliar with the story would be the whip. Kate carries it with her apparently at all times and this is just accepted. Petruchio has a whip to...so what is this? Was this a common thing for shrews? And if so where can I become a shrew? Was it a Middle Aged hint at BDSM or what? I'm just not getting it.
However the film is quite funny. Petruchio tricks Kate's father into thinking she's docily sitting on his lap, when in reality he's got his hand over her mouth so she cant scream. As Petruchio gladly plans the marriage while speaking to her father Kate keeps whipping him...and he doesnt flinch one bit. The wedding scene is delightful, as is the bedroom confrontation. Petruchio's attempts at 'waking Kate up' (unknown to him she overheard his plan and is faking to get back at him, another really unexplained plot point) were so funny I probably woke the neighbors up laughing. THAT was Doug. And Doug was a hell of a film actor. Mary's retaliation as Kate is still quite wonderful especially in that scene, but rarely does she outshine Doug in this film.
In fact maybe the most disturbing part of this film is 'just how close to home was it hitting?' Petruchio goes out of his way to annoy Kate mostly for fun, and it works. They fight but there seems to be some hidden love still somehow. After arriving in the bedchamber Petruchio begins to play solitaire completely ignoring Kate on their wedding night. Kate is obviously upset by it. Perhaps the most disturbing scene if we're doing an imaginary comparison is after they've had it out in the bedroom full on fight mode they begin a slap fight (this is shortly before the chair wapping). It almost seemed they took too much delight in it. One wonders what it was like to be on set that day.
But then there is one sweet scene, the moment they finally bend to each other as Kate comforts him on the bed. That right there is why all this fighting is such a shame, because even after all they went through Doug and Mary still were close apparently sitting by their pool asking where they went wrong. One wonders what would have happened if Doug had lived longer. Poor Buddy...
One other thing I do like about how this plot was presented was the wink and the nudge. Kate is a 'shrew' to be 'tamed' yet she never quite gets there. At the end of the film while smiling lovingly at Petruchio she gives this speech about women bending to men's wills and why that's the way to go. Her sister looks horrified. Kate finishes her speech saying women should 'love, honor, and most of all obey' and on the word obey she winks at her. Delightful!
Despite everything this film was doomed. Maybe it was one of those destiny things. Mary and Doug were on the skids and the doomed film did nothing to help either personally or professionally. It was released right around the stock market crash and was unfortunately overshadowed by the climate of the time. It had good reviews and a good opening but people weren't in the mood anymore...they had bigger things to think about then Mary and Doug in a nice talkie.
Doug never really did well in talkies despite his stellar performance. Mary always cited Taming of the Shrew as not her finest moment, words attributed both to it and its follow up Kiki (frankly I'd dub Kiki the more atrocious moment). As with other things she found a personal failure Mary forgot about it and held a loathing towards it. When her film retrospective was held in the 1960s Taming of the Shrew was shown and delighted the audience. Mary reportedly gripped the person she had come with and said, "I can not believe this is happening." Soon after a supposedly recut version of the film was released to TV (thankfully this was after the dreaded fractured flickers era). This version is currently on DVD though it is not an official MPI release.
Last time I asked MPI wasn't sure whether anything had been cut. Marty Kemp was the one who edited it in the 60s and supposedly all he did was add and enhance background music. Like 3 out of 4 of her talkies Taming of the Shrew needs a proper restoration and release. Just like Kiki the music is too loud while the dialogue is too soft (whether this is just an age thing or an original problem I do not know). Some small film defects appear on the DVD and some of the opening shots are jumpy. More than anything this film should be restored for Doug, as it's one of those wonderful things that shows him off.
I wanted to post some clips from the DVD but my computer isn't reading it, so apologies. But you can buy it rather reasonably priced from Aikman Archive. Click here to purchase.
On a friend's invite I had a free pass to the annual Cinecon here in LA last week. It was a 4 day fest that spanned Labor Day weekend. Unfortunately for me the entire thing was a mess just in planning...I didn't realize I had a full pass until late Friday night, and I had been battling a cold all week which resulted in massive insomnia. For a festival that prides itself at starting around 9am this did not bode well for me. I looked forward to the Mary Pickford screening on Saturday at 1:45pm but my alarm didn't go off and I woke up just too late to get there and see it. I was very disappointed and vowed for my next film I'd set 2 alarms (didn't help considering I couldn't sleep all night and ended up there on an hour of sleep...but I did get there!)
Cinecon was one of the first classic film festivals. Founded in 1964 its been running ever since with just a slightly tweaked formula. Originally it had a heavy focus on silents and had many silent film guests while holding the 'con' in various major cities. Somewhere along the way they stopped that and just started hosting in Hollywood where they have been for many years now.
Cinecon is like a relic in time...a time that reminds of Three's Company. Their website like many other antiquated silent film arenas is well...antique. While Hollywood Heritage can get by with a simple site and function Cinecon really cant. They post their schedule but only post a few select synopsis' which makes it quite hard to discern if this is a film or an entire fest you would want to attend. Their theory is you would just take them at their word for programming; which might be all well and good...except even veterans are starting to complain about lineup quality. While I think Cinecon and its hard working programmers are very sincere in their efforts they take too many things sight unseen; and don't care if its more interesting historically or entertainment wise. While certain festivals are based solely on historical type merits (UCLA's Preservation Fest usually goes that route, with information on the web to boot) most other film festivals try to squeeze in some entertainment. Cinecon is stuck somewhere between the two.
I honestly intended only to go to the Pickford screening until I plugged in a few more of their silents (nowadays they run about 1 or 2 a day during the fest) into IMDB only to find some gems that included my beloved June Mathis and the curious Norma Talmadge. I couldn't even figure out where the Mary film was originally! "The Dawn of Tomorrow" is one of her early features (1915) and this was the premiere of it since it was thought lost for many years. One would think that's a big deal...apparently not though. About 1 day before the screening they put a flyer for MPI on their site but by then if you had been a Mary fan unaware of Cinecon you would have never known of this screening.
For some reason they are dead set against technology and judging by the attitudes I seen at the fest I'm guessing they barely know what it is. The San Fransisco Silent Film Festival shows rarities and yet manages to post prudent information on their site as well as solid and easy ticket info. Cinecon claims they cant do this...costs too much. Yet they also claim they have enough volunteers and dont need new young ones. Wrap your head around that.
The two films I did end up making just confounded me more about the workings of this fest. "Paid to Love" was run 9:45pm on Friday night (what I would consider a prime spot) and it was just dreadful. Judging by other people's remarks they felt the same way but had found some sort of interest in it (in fairness the direction was quite good and the innuendo was divine). On the flipside "Turn to the Right" (a June Mathis film) was run at 10 something AM on Sunday (second film of the day I believe) and it was quite wonderful again judging by the consensus. Why they went this route I'll never know. The San Fransisco Fest runs stuff that early but its usually real true rarities only hardcore people will want to see. They save good movies for a more decent hour.
The atmosphere at Cinecon was quite depressing. I've been to every shade of a silent screening you can think of in LA...things heavily advertised and things not advertised at all. And I have never seen such an older skewing crowd (complete with wheezing, coughing, and constant cell phones going off...I hear a fist fight broke out over this a few cons back). There is nothing wrong with the older crowd, if it weren't for them and their work and devotion there probably wouldn't be much left in the way of silents or silent film history. I think many people mistake my words to mean I'm a youngin who fancies myself better than old folk. Actually its the opposite: most of my friends are in their 40s (or older), I feel like I'm 80 complete with various arthritic styled ailments, and I argue silent film with my 67 year old Grandmother every day (and in fact she acts younger than me!) Frankly I've been shocked and horrified with the immature behavior I've seen some of these older people take. Several times I've encountered it, mostly in what I'm certain is "waaa you cant write about that I write about that go away!" attitude. Many people have told me they thought this site (and my personality) were fake...a cover for some other silent film fan much older and most likely male. No I am real. Just as I say. Apparently some people don't like that.
Whatever the semantics it comes down to this: as humans we only live so long. We should all be so lucky to be like Frederica Sangor Maas or dearest Doris Eaton! But most of us are not, and if we be quiet, or stop sharing history, history will die with us. Maybe this now older generation of silent film fans feels they are special and should be the only ones for some reason; maybe because they discovered it while young and learned from the stars themselves. But to hoard knowledge is self destructive, and just silly and shameful in my opinion. I was shocked when I started Forget the Talkies as I thought most of this stuff would be online. Considering the internet has now had mainstream appeal for over 20 years its a shocker nothing like The Rudy Society has been online, with all the info you could ever want (that's not a shameless plug, its a sincere statement). Several times I've run into these hoarders, telling me to not research something or just take the accepted story because they wrote it and it should not be changed. Nita Naldi is a prime example (and apparently word of her story is still just getting out). In fact one such person told me Nita's story was the the common one and not to research it, why do that? This same person is a member of 'Daughters of Naldi' a vamp fan group that hasn't found the internet and is mostly Cinecon members. This same person also branded me, "Arrogant, ill mannered, and ignorant" yesterday off the same rumors they got from Cinecon. That person never said a word to me in real life yet they were able to make such an assessment. Maybe they were jealous of such research. I think more than anything all this is jealousy and petty bitchiness. Such a shame as I thought that was something only young people did. I have no urge for drama, but apparently they do. So much so they misconstrued a comment of mine into an insult of someone, and then they just went from there.
The whole reason for that rant is that is the prevailing mind set of Cinecon. They are a tight creaky clique from the 70s and they like it that way. They don't want newbies and they don't want newbies who don't worship the ground they walk on (and even if they do the prerequisite age is 55 apparently). This attitude quite frankly makes me sick, as it goes against everything I have passionately advocated for silent film. I've had quite a few people who only attended Cinecon for LA silents and report back to me they think the situation is bleak, there is no young people interested. No...young people just don't know about Cinecon. And Cinecon just doesn't know about young people.
Is that a shame? Yes. If Cinecon doesnt change a drop of programming there is still no reason to shut new people out. Who will advocate for and support and raise funds for film preservation when they are all gone and no new people know or care about these films? Maybe the stubborn old folks don't care. Again I'd like to stress ESPECIALLY in Los Angeles this is a Cinecon only mindset, other silent film screenings and groups are not this catty, cliquey or bitchy...or old.
I only made it to two screenings but there wasn't much openness in the air. The first night I got there I didn't have my pass yet, and my friend told me it would be at the registration desk. When I got there the panel of old people behind it treated me very rudely and said it was too late to register (it was the second to last film of the night if I remember right). Most film festivals sell individual tickets and day passes. Cinecon only does day and fest passes. Even if I had paid for that day pass and only wanted to go to the last 2 screenings I don't see why they would be burdened by that. If I had just wandered into the festival and wanted to see those last 2 films the 'sorry its late' excuse would have disappointed me and left a bad taste in my mouth. Especially at 9:45pm when most normal screenings run.
The second day the volunteers were much nicer, but no one really engaged me. Everyone was already in their own little cliques and did not budge a bit. I'm not a shy person, and I've been known to speak with strangers when in the mood or mode. But I was with my friend, and when I was alone I was getting ready to leave. Let me add that while just being there (talking to my friend about nothing controversial or getting validated) 1 old man glared me down, while another kept staring at me in what I'm sure is a distasteful manner. I have never seen anything like it.
Despite this mindset and hostility I met a handful of very nice people and had lunch with one of them. He must have liked what he heard well enough as he suggested working on a project I had mentioned (top secret now, trust me ya'll will hear about it soon). I spent most of the 2 screenings with my friend, and maybe 10 minutes outside both nights just getting validated or looking at flyers. Apparently just being young was too much for these people...one person left me a very nasty comment on a silent film board saying how I had too much 'attitude' (sure say that of my site but in person those 2 days...no way!) and that I wore 'ill fitting clothes and a gaudy flower in my hair'. This same person even went as far as to tell me I'd get a quick reputation for such an attitude and dress...despite the fact I spoke to maybe 4 or 5 people total at Cinecon (all of whom I was very nice to and enjoyed speaking with.)
Funny...looking around at Cinecon not only was I horribly depressed by the state of the cloistered elderly in the room but most of them resembled homeless people they were so shabbily dressed. On my way home I passed one lady who I sincerely thought was homeless until I got a closer look and seen Doug Fairbanks on her shirt. This same person said I had no clue about classic icon fashion (apparently they've never seen Perpetual Flapper?) as no icon would 'dress that way' (the hell ya say? Carmen Miranda, Veronica Lake, Natacha Rambova, Gloria Swanson, Theda Bara, Nita Naldi, Alla Nazimova, Valeska Surratt...oops sorry just tired myself out. Glad ya know what you were talking about!). I dont know who this person is but I do know the night in reference I was there barely 5 minutes outside of the film speaking with a friend. Both days I went to Cinecon I went above and beyond to dress nicely as I do with most silent film screenings (meh sometimes one grows tired but you get the jist). Several people complimented me both days on my way to Cinecon, so sorry the bag ladies didnt agree! I may be a little mouthy pudgy thing but you have to give me an A for effort! I loathe small towns and cliques for this bitchy attitude...I love LA because people are so nice. 6 people complimented me on that flower, today someone complimented me on my dress, later someone complimented my finger waves. LA doesnt need this kind of uppity bullshit from people who need to feel big in their small worlds just because they dress like homeless people.
Whatever the case I find it too funny that I'm too spicy for Cinecon on the basis of just being young and wearing a flower in my hair. I may be mouthy but I have limited my personal attacks to Kenneth Anger and other such evil (Katzenberg for one), and a wide reaching joke about shut ins which does not specifically reference any one person (just the general mean clique-y old people crowd). Sometimes I do not agree with a persons work or take on something but its not like I'm judging them based on clothing or just 'being' there (and I can say only twice have I met a silent film related person and walked away disgusted with them; needless to say it was a few rogue psycho Rudy fans in disguise).
I also want to add this hostility and critcism is not common to silent screenings. Several times at The Silent Movie Theatre I've struck up conversations with people of various ages and both genders and these people have been very nice (and usually someone nearby will jump in as well). Cupcake line alone I've told the story of Mabel Normand 3 times over! One night me and the gent behind me and the gent in front of me (both had to be near 40...possibly a little older) had a wonderful conversation about film history. People are always very complimentary and nice at these screenings. The same aforementioned 'gaudy flower' was complimented several times at the Douglas Fairbanks screening earlier this year at AMPAS. I could go on and on...but let me say I have NEVER IN MY LIFE been to a silent screening where anyone glared at me, let alone for just getting my parking validated!
To round this all up here before I start sounding like Grampa Simpson myself, this old clique-y attitude is perhaps the worst part of Cinecon. Is this Cinecon's fault? Maybe...kind of...kind of not. Obviously no festival can make people act the way they act. But then when such a clique has been cultivated and become ingrained within the ranks of an organization well...it doesnt bode well. The refusal to try and open the doors to newbies makes them a shade guiltier...if new blood were drawn in the clique would eventually have to get over itself. Maybe that's why they don't want new blood.
Finally the biggest problem with Cinecon is I don't think it knows what it wants to be anymore. In the 70s it was the pinnacle of silent film festivals...with such attendees as Lillian Gish. But it hasn't changed and it hasn't decided where its going with its programming since then. Are they showing just rarities? Are they trying to entertain? They don't know. I don't think these days they even know with what genre or era they are going for...it seems for many years it has been early talkies (30s/40s eras) though now its segueing into bad 40s and 50s films of various genres. The few films I caught snippets of other than the ones I mentioned just screamed one thing to me: old guy humor. These seem to be the films my father or Grandpa would watch on TCM and have a laugh at and a fantasy ride in while flipping between ball games. That speaks well to the crowd they are courting now, but its a very limited pool. And frankly for such an illustrious festival to fall to THAT...well I find that very sad. It's like watching Kiki on rerun...so very wrong for so very many reasons.
As for my own festival, and my own silent film work, I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing and much to their surprise its already miles ahead of what these old cliques think it is. I can just see them at Rudy Fest now...branding the belly dancers as loose bimbo whores with attitudes for showing their belly buttons and performing before a film that includes a rape.
Silent film is a beautiful art. These films, and these stars, are still very relevant. Put on "Son of the Sheik" or "Sparrows" or "City Lights" for a youngin and they will enjoy these films. I didn't just pull this theory out of my behind or base it on myself. I've seen it time and time again. And frankly I find this elitist attitude sickening and I will have nothing to do with it.
Good thing I'm an arrogant ill mannered spicy youngin.
With each and every passing update I'm quite sure Katzenberg is the devil. For anyone not familiar with some left over money from her Liberty Bonds tour Mary Pickford spearheaded the Motion Picture Fund creation in the 1920s. During the 1940s money was raised by actors of all types (volunteering and donating their salaries from radio shows was a popular form) to create a retirement home and hospital for these actors. The motto 'taking care of our own'.
The hospital was created, and in short now a bunch of douchebags who probably got swindled by Madoff want to close the hospital and boot out the elderly patients because they are too lazy and cheap to raise funds for it (also there is some very questionable accounting and spending on their part, click here for the low down.) Saving the Lives of Our Own is still fighting the battle, and they sent out this email today. For simplicities sake I'm going to just reprint it but seriously...signing a petition takes 2 seconds. When you consider how many silent film actors supported and needed this home well...there is no reason for you to NOT sign:
Dear Friends -
Things have heated up to a fever pitch in our battle to save not only the Residents of the Motion Picture and Television Fund Long Term Care Center, but also the future of Motion Picture and Television Healthcare.
Before I go into a lengthy explanation of recent events, you need not read any further than this, if you want to do something to help keep the Long Term Care facility open:
2. Call the MPTF at 818-876-1900 and ask for Dr. Tillman or Ken Scherer. Insist they refrain from closing the home and forcing ts elderly residents out. Ask for Rabbi Rosenberg's extension and urge him to follow the moral imperative of his faith and stop the unnecessary deaths that we believe are resulting from these unnecessary transfers. Tell him he should be a voice for the families who are against this, and not for the corporate mindspeak of those who sign his paycheck.
3. Call Dreamworks Studios at 818 695 5000 and tell MPTF Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg the same thing.
---
Last week in a sadistic show of balls and bravado, Dr. Nate Neumann along with a security thug traveled the hallways of the LTC reminding Residents that they were moving out. Our Residents are made of stout stuff, and as lesser elders would be terrified, the overwhelming sentiment was one of 'F You' and 'Hell no, we won't go!'. As it turns out, their admonitions reached the ears of our attorneys, and I believe that any communications between staff and Residents that fall outside of their healthcare needs will be routed to the firm of Girardi + Keese.
Speaking of legal, this has been posted on the website of www.savingthelivesofourown.org :
Despite the recent letter from David Tillman telling you that long-term care will close, which has been the Fund's position since January 2009, there is no obligation to cooperate with MPTF's attempts to force you to move out 'voluntarily' or for you to vacate your home.
As you know, our lawyers told MPTF's lawyers that any contact regarding the moving of plaintiffs/Residents is to take place through Girardi & Keese. Remember, you are not to be frightened or intimidated into moving out. If you are contacted directly by any MPTF employee about moving, or should you have additional questions, we suggest you contact legal@savingthelivesofourown.org or speak with Jim O’Callahan's office at Girardi & Keese, 213-977-0211 immediately.
For those Residents who are now interested in joining the litigation, please contact us while there is still the opportunity to have your rights respected and protected. Send an e-mail to: legal@savingthelivesofourown.org and your inquiry will be answered. Make sure you specify who your family member or loved one is at the MPTF facility.
To all concerned, we continue to work closely with the lawyers on a daily basis. Diligent efforts are underway to secure our goals. We remain very optimistic.
Be sure to tune into Tom Girardi's radio show CHAMPIONS OF JUSTICE Airing every Saturday at 5:00 pm on KRLA 870 AM.!
www.girardikeese.net
---
When you frighten and intimidate elderly people, the term 'sadistic' comes to mind along with other adjectives and characterizations that have no place being attributed to care givers. It's gotten that bad friends.
We need your support more than ever. Please urge your facebook friends to join our group, more importantly - to sign our petition. I'll save you the scroll up:
www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keepthemptfhomeopen
---
We are planning a huge rally in the near future. Stay tuned for details.
Thank you so much for your efforts. You are saving lives.
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."
