Paimann’s Filmlisten

Let us move away from all this star-laden stuff, and get back to the nuts and bolts of silent film research. I don’t know how many English-speaking researchers will know about Paimann’s Filmlisten. It was an Austrian film review journal, which ran 1916-1956 (founded by Franz Paimann), listing all new film releases with synopsis and credit details for films shown in Austria. Clearly, it will be known to German and Austrian researchers, but a quick Google search found no English language references.

The reason for mentioning here is that there is an index to the entire run, made available online by the Vienna Bibliothek. It arranges all the films by original release title, followed by Austrian release title, date, and reference number for the issue of Paimann’s Filmlisten. Here’s a section from the letter B, to give you an idea of what’s there:

Biarritz und seine Umgebung 1922-105, Nr. 331
Bibel, Die 1925-45
Biberpelz, Der 1929-105
Bibi la purée (Francsfälscher) 1926-91
Bid to love – Gaby, das Königsliebchen (Der Autoprinz) 1927-137
Biene Maja und ihre Abenteuer, Die 1926-81
Biene und ihre Zucht, Die 1918/19-57, Nr.131
Big adventures (Der kleine Landstreicher) 1923-39, Nr. 360
Big City, The (Das unsichtbare New-York) 1928-94
Big Dan – Entfesselte Leidenschaft (Eine verhängnisvolle Nacht) 1926-1
Big Killing, The (Riff und Raff als Scharfschützen) 1929-89
Big Parade, The (Die Parade des Todes) 1926-173
Big Pond – La grande mare (Über’n großen Teich) 1931-63
Big timber – Der Kampf im Urwald (Urwaldriesen) 1925-120
Big Trail, The (Die große Fahrt) 1931-39, 69

There are no digitised copies of the reviews, alas, nor any credits, but as a check list of titles and evidence of their distribution it’s an invaluable resource – all the more invaluable for those with access to the journal itself (the Austrian Film Archive has a set) It appears to go up to 1931 so far, so ideal for investigating silents.

Update (August 2016)

The indexes to Paimann’s Filmlisten are no longer avaiable on the Vienna Bibliothek site, and cannot be traced via the Internet Archive. However, a digitised run of the Filmlisten itself is available via the European Film Gateway, http://www.europeanfilmgateway.eu/de/content/filmarchiv-austria-paimann%E2%80%99s-film-lists

The Ground Beneath Her Feet

Alan Rickman and Mike Figgis

Salman Rushdie’s 1999 novel The Ground Beneath Her Feet has been turned by composer Victoria Borisova-Ollas into a multimedia semi-opera, which premiered at the Manchester International Festival on June 29th. The multi-layered, fabulist blending of the Orpheus and Euridyce myth with the tale two Bombay rock stars involves the Hallé orchestra, electric guitars, readings by Alan Rickman, and – the reason for its notice here – a silent film directed by Mike Figgis, who has also directed the stage production.

Figgis’ half-hour film echoes the action, as indicated in this extract from a Guardian article:

Figgis is putting together a combination of still images and brief snatches of action – a “tableau vivant” is how he describes it to me in between takes at the small studio in Battersea, London, where he is filming over four days, working with a small budget and revelling in it. “I enjoy the fact that you’re very clear about what your limitations are and they’re not negotiable,” he says. “You can’t suddenly stop traffic or get extras. I woke up this morning and thought, ‘I wonder if they’re going to get enough denim farmwear together [for a scene set in the American midwest]. I remembered I had two denim work jackets and some cowboy neckerchiefs, so I brought them in.”

Figgis is anxious not to produce images that overpower the music (“I have to behave – and I am, I really am,” he says), and he does not intend to tell the story literally. Instead, he will provide filmic allusions that echo both story and score. “The book uses magic realism,” he says. “Fables dovetail and parallel each other. Film should try and function in the same way. But it needs to be very simple. It can’t be doing the sort of fireworks that would take the audience out of the music. It’s an interesting reversal. I’m a composer, too, so I do film scores. The function of the film score is to support the image. This is the opposite: the imagery is to support the music.”

An intriguing reversal indeed, to have a silent film acompanying a score (actually it happens a lot, but is promoted the other way round). However, I’ve found frustratingly little to describe the actual content of the film, nor any news as yet of any other performances. There are reviews to read in The Guardian and The Times, though they make little reference to the film.

Slapstick

lukeandco.jpg

Things may be a little quieter from The Bioscope for the next few days, as I’ve broken a bone in my thumb, and typing has become rather slow process.

So, to mark my falling over and crashing into a glass-fronted picture, from which I have learned that pratfalls hurt in real life, here’s a short item on slapstick.

First of all, a slapstick was a jointed piece of wood used in harlequinades and minstrel acts to make a slapping noise. If you are in a UK educational institution or library, you can see one in use in an 1899 film of seaside entertainers E. Williams and his Merry Men at Rhyl, filmed by Arthur Cheetham and available from Screenonline.

For slapstick comedians themselves, start off with David B. Pearson’s excellent Silent-Movies.org site, which incorporates several web sites on silent comedy stars, one of which is Slapstick. This has MP4 movie files of Charlies Chaplin, Fatty Arbuckle, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Mabel Normand, Harry Langdon, and Max Linder. They are clips, not complete films, but they capture the artistry of falling with style perfectly.

Or look further at the individuals by visiting www.busterkeaton.com, Arbucklemania, Harold Lloyd, Madcap Mabel, The Harry Langdon Society or Chaplin.

On the latter, check out the Chapliniana web site, about the festival of all things Chaplin which is currently running in Bologna. The site looks great, but is only in Italian. Or check out the very helpful Charlie Chaplin UK DVD and Video Guide.

Or, if you are in the US, check out Kino range of slapstick DVDs including the encyclopedic Slaptick Symposium DVD collection – 1264 minutes of Oliver Hardy, Stan Laurel, Charley Chase and Harold Lloyd.

And, of course, between 19-22 July, at Arlington, Virginia, there’s the Slapsticon festival, with Laurel and Hardy, Harry Langdon, Harold Lloyd Larry Semon, Mabel Normand, Leon Errol, Ford Sterling, Fatty Arbuckle, Billy Bevan, Monty Banks, Max Davidson, Charley Chase, Lupino Lane, Ben Turpin, Wallace Beery…

And, thinking laterally about these things, here’s some recipes for making custard pie.

Why not read Simon Louvish’s, Keystone: The Life and Clowns of Mack Sennett, about the cinema’s prime producer of comic mayhem.

Finally, plenty of people visit this site loking for dates of Paul Merton’s Silent Clowns shows this autumn, and the main post on this is updated as I find new tour dates. Merton’s book, Silent Comedy, will be published in October.

Anyone spot the self-referential gag in the picture?

Stand up, Norma

Norma Talmadge

Browsing through Project Gutenberg, I have found a great many short or incidental references to silent movies which might never otherwise be found by researchers.

An example is Roving East and Roving West, a 1921 collection of essays by E.V. Lucas. Edward Verrall Lucas (1868-1938) was an over-prolific essayist, with an easy style and a view on practically everything. He was an interested observer of the rise of motion pictures in the early years of the twentieth century, but by 1921, he had grown cynical at the numbing qualities of popular cinema and the medium’s failure (in his eyes) to live up to the promise of the documentary account of Cherry Kearton’s African films or Herbert Ponting’s Antarctic films. The simple response to Lucas would be that a cinema that only showed us visits to the jungle or the South Pole would soon lose its appeal, and he lapses too easily into criticising a mass audience for its simple pleasures. Nevertheless, the whole Norma Talmadge sequence can still make us squirm. The essay is called ‘The Movies’:

We have our cinema theatres in England in some abundance, but the cinema is not yet in the blood here as in America. In America picture-palaces are palaces indeed – with gold and marble, and mural decorations, built to seat thousands – and every newspaper has its cinema page, where the activities of the movie stars in their courses are chronicled every morning. Moreover, America is the home of the industry; and rightly so, for it has, I should say, been abundantly proved that Americans are the only people who really understand both cinema acting and cinema
production. Italy, France and England make a few pictures, but their efforts are half-hearted: not only because acting for the film is a new and separate art, but because atmospheric conditions are better in America than in Europe.

It was in Chicago that I had my only opportunity of seeing cinema stars in the flesh. The rain falling, as it seems to do there with no more effort or fatigue to itself than in Manchester, I had, one afternoon, to change my outdoor plans and take refuge at the matinee of a musical comedy called “Sometime,” with Frank Tinney in the leading part. Tinney, I may say, during his engagement in London some years ago, became so great a favourite that one performer has been flourishing on an imitation of him ever since. The play had been in progress only for few minutes when Frank, in his capacity as a theatre doorkeeper, presented by his manager with a tip. A dialogue, which to the trained ear was obviously more or less an improvisation, then followed:

Manager: “What will you do with that dollar, Frank?”

Frank: “I shall go to the movies. I always go to the movies when there’s a Norma Talmadge picture. Ask me why I always go to the movies when there’s a Norma Talmadge picture.”

Manager: “Why do you always go to the movies when there’s a Norma Talmadge picture, Frank?”

Frank: “I go because, I go because she’s my favourite actress. (Applause.) Ask me why Norma Talmadge is my favourite actress.”

Manager: “Why is Norma Talmadge your favourite actress, Frank?”

Frank: “Norma Talmadge is my favourite actress because she is always saving her honour. I’ve seen her saving it seventeen times. (To the audience) You like Norma Talmadge, don’t you?” (Applause from the audience.)

Frank: “Then wouldn’t you like to see her as she really is? (To a lady sitting with friends in a box.) Stand up, Norma, and let the audience see you.”

Here a slim lady with a tense, eager, pale face and a mass of hair stood up and bowed. Immense enthusiasm.

Frank: “That’s Norma Talmadge. You do like saving your honour, don’t you, Norma? And now (to the audience) wouldn’t you like to see Norma’s little sister, Constance? (More applause.) Stand up, Constance, and let the audience see you.”

Here another slim lady bowed her acknowledgments and the play was permitted to proceed.

What America is going to do with the cinema remains to be seen, but I, for one, deplore the modern tendency of novelists to be lured by American money to write for it. If the cinema wants stories from novelists let it take them from the printed books. One has but to reflect upon what might have happened had the cinema been invented a hundred years ago, to realise my disturbance of mind. With Mr. Lasky’s millions to tempt them Dickens would have written “David Copperfield” and Thackeray “Vanity Fair,” not for their publishers and as an endowment to millions of grateful readers in perpetuity, but as plots for the immediate necessity of the film, with a transitory life of a few months in dark rooms. Of what new “David Copperfields” and “Vanity Fairs” the cinema is to rob us we shall not know; but I hold that the novelist who can write a living book is a traitor to his art and conscience if he prefers the easy money of the film. Readers are to be considered before the frequenters of Picture Palaces. His privilege is to beguile and amuse and refresh through the ages: not to snatch momentary triumphs and disappear.

The evidence of the moment is more on the side of the pessimist than the optimist. I found in America no trace of interest in such valuable records as the Kearton pictures of African jungle life or the Ponting records of the Arctic [sic] Zone. For the moment the whole energy of the
gigantic cinema industry seemed to be directed towards the filming human stories and the completest beguilement, without the faintest infusion of instruction or idealism, of the many-headed mob. In short, to provide “dope.” Whether so much “dope” is desirable, is the question to be answered. That poor human nature needs a certain amount, is beyond doubt. But so much? And do we all need it, or at any rate deserve it? is another question. Sometimes indeed I wonder whether those of us who have our full share of senses ought to go to the cinema at all. It may be that its true purpose is to be the dramatist of the deaf.

What great novels were lost because writers were lured by the easy money of Hollywood? What a ridiculous accusation. Why not ask what great films were made because bright minds were put to working on the medium made for the times, sparing readers from sub-Dickensian epic novels. The movies have given us much to be thankful for.

Remaking The Lodger

It just been announced that a remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1927 classic silent The Lodger is planned. Alas, it’s not been remade as a silent, nor is it being set in a fog-bound London. This time round, director David Ondaatje is setting the film in modern-day Los Angeles, and making The Avenger (originally played by Ivor Novello) a copycat killer (originally Jack the Ripper, maybe). Oh well.

More information from The Guardian.

All you need to know about the cinematograph

Pathe Cinematograph

The latest publication on the shelves of The Bioscope Library is Bernard C. Jones, The Cinematograph Book, published in 1915.

This is one of the classic guides to the practicalities of motion pictures in the silent era. It aimed at clarity with usefulness, and achieved it. The chapters cover the history of the ‘invention’ of motion pictures, the operation of a camera and projection equipment, developing and printing films, cinema screens, what to do in case of fire, cleaning and preparing films, producing trick films, and making films for the home. It also has a special section on natural colour cinematograph pictures, focussing on Kinemacolor. Finally there is a guide to the relevant acts and regulations (as they related to the UK). It’s all you needed to know. Once again, it comes from the Internet Archive.

Sessue Hayakawa

Sessue Hayakawa

http://www.amazon.co.uk

There’s a new book out on one of the most intriguing of silent film stars, Sessue Hayakawa. Daisuke Miyao’s Sessue Hayakawa: Silent Cinema and Transnational Stardom (Duke University Press) tells the history of the Japanese actor who rose to fame in Hollywood in the silent era, ultimately gaining lasting fame for his role as the camp commander in The Bridge on the River Kwai.

Hayakawa was born in Japan in 1889, where he became a stage actor. He moved to the USA aged 19, then went back to Japan to form an acting troupe which toured America in 1913. Film producer Thomas Ince gave him a contract. He was an immediate success in titles such as Typhoon (1914) and Cecil B. De Mille’s subtly sadistic The Cheat (1915). His wife Tsuru Aoki often co-starred alongside him. He left America in 1922, eventually settling in France, making occasional films. He died in 1973, having received an Oscar nomination for Kwai.

Miyao’s book focusses on the Japanese racial identity in American film, and how Hayakawa’s great appeal (he had a strong female following) was a mixture of the vogue for the refinements of ‘Japonisme’ and crude fears of a ‘yellow peril’. It’s an important history.

Shakespeare in the Canyon

I’ve been doing some research recently on films of Shakespeare’s plays in 1916, the tercentenary of his death, when there was great interest in his work, inevitably, and the film industry responded with a number of films of the plays.

However, while working on this I came across an intriguing story which is worth telling. To mark the tercentenary, the Hollywood Businessmen’s Club decided to put on a spectacular stage production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, with the co-operation of the nearby film industry, which had moved into the area only a few years earlier. The production was put on at Beachwood Canyon, in the Hollywood Hills, in a natural amphitheatre (not what would become the Hollywood Bowl, but not far from it), on Friday 19 May 1916. It featured a cast of 5,000, who performed before an audience of 40,000. Stage properties were provided by D.W. Griffith, Jesse Lasky, Thomas Ince, Mack Sennett and the universal Film Corporation, and the production featured gladiatorial combats, exotic dances, and a re-enactment of the Battle of Philippi which commenced half a mile down the canyon before working its way up to the stage.

But what is really eye-catching is the cast. Here they all are, with a few names that are still familiar (Fairbanks, Murray, Power), some that were once familiar (Hopper, Roberts, Farnum) and the remainder assorted Hollywood locals who were familiar only to their nearest and dearest:

Julius Caesar ………. Theodore Roberts
Marcus Brutus ………. Tyrone Power
Marc Antony ……….. Frank Keenan
Cassius ………. William Farnum
Casca ………. DeWolf Hopper
Young Cato ………. Douglas Fairbanks
Octavius Caesar ………. Charles Gunn
Cicero ………. Hal Wilson
Decius Brutus ………. H.B. Carpenter
Trebonius ………. Mark Fenton
Lucilius ………. Tully Marshall
Metellus Cimber ………. Cecil Lionel
Cinna ………. T.H. Gibson-Gowland
Flavius ………. Wilbur Higby
Marullus ………. Gilmore Hammond
Artemidorus ………. Harry W. Schumm
Soothsayer ………. Carl Stockdale
Calpurnia ………. Constance Crawley
Barbaric Dancer ………. Mae Murray
Cinna, a poet ………. Seymour Hastings
Titinius ……….. T.E. Duncan
Messala ………. T.D. Crittenden
Lucius ………. Capitola Holmes
Varro ………. N.A. Kessler
Pindarus ………. George Berengere
Publius ………. C.H. Geldert
Popilius Lena ………. Howard Foster
First Citizen ………. Arthur Maude
2nd Citizen ………. Ernest Shield
3rd Citizen ……….. Robert Anderson
4th Citizen ………. Clara Turner
5th Citizen ………. Samuel Searle
Slave to Caesar ………. Ralph Benzies
Slave to Antony ………. Robert Lawler
High Priest ………. M. Luiz
High Priestess ………. Florence Amy Donaldson
Portia ………. Sarah Truax
Cleopatra ………. Grace Lord

The director was Raymond Wells (presumably the film director of that name), and the assistant directors were Ernest Shield, Captain Louis R. Ball, Ralph Benzies, Mark Fenton, Nicolas Kessler, Robert Lawler, Mrs L.R. Ball, Miss Marjorie Riley, Miss Clara Turner, C.A. Bradshaw. These are some other credits that survive:

Scenic artists ………. A.J. Lapworth, W.H. Blackburn
Choreography ………. Marjorie Riley
Musical director ………. Wilbur W. Campbell (with musical selections from Delibes, Luigini, Tchaikovsky and others)

Students from Hollywood and Fairfax High Schools also featured in the crowd scenes. Assorted local figures were responsible for the organisational side of things. It was all done for the Actor’s Equity Association and made a net profit of $2,500. A follow-up indoor production then took place on 5 June 1916, at the Majestic Theatre, Los Angeles, supported financially by Griffith and Sennett.

What a show this must have been. Alas, I’ve not come across any photographs, and I’ve not yet gone looking for any reviews. It’s certainly a story worth pursuing for someone. Most of the above information I got from Ernest O. Palmer’s History of Hollywood (1938), plus an article by Catherine Parsons Smith in the journal American Music on the history of the Hollywood Bowl.

Just for the record, these are the Shakespeare films made in 1916:

THE REAL THING AT LAST (GB 1916 d. L.C. MacBean p.c. British Actors)
MACBETH (France 1916 p.c. Eclair)
MACBETH (USA 1916 d. John Emerson p.c. Triangle-Reliance)
MASTER SHAKESPEARE, STROLLING PLAYER (USA 1916 d. Frederic Sullivan p.c. Thanhouser)
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE (GB 1916 d. Walter West p.c. Broadwest)
ROMEO AND JULIET (USA 1916 d. John W. Noble p.c. Metro)
ROMEO AND JULIET (USA 1916 d. J. Gordon Edwards p.c. Fox)
KING LEAR (USA 1916 d. Ernest Warde p.c. Thanhouser)
Also a 1913 MACBETH (GB/Germany d. Ludwig Landmann p.c. Film-Industrie) was re-issued in America in 1916.

Early Discourses on Colour and Cinema

Early Discourses on Colour and Cinema

I have just stumbled across a really excellent thesis on the history, function and meaning of early motion picture colour processes, especially Kinemacolor. It’s written (in English) by Eirik Frisvold Hanssen, of Stockholm University, and is entitled Early Discourses on Colour and Cinema: Origins, Functions, Meanings. It is an historical and theoretical examination of motion picture colour processes 1909-1935, and in particular it focusses upon Kinemacolor, the colour system invented in 1906 by George Albert Smith and sold to the world by the ebullient Charles Urban. It was first exhibited in May 1908, given the name Kinemacolor in 1909, and for five or six years it was the sensation of film exhibitions worldwide, until it was brought down by a court case and then rival colour systems, such as Technicolor.

Hanssen’s thesis contextualises Kinemacolor within a broader history and analysis of colour, while remaining very sound on the purely technological side of things. Its centrepiece is a detailed study of the 1912 Kinemacolor catalogue and its representation of the idea of colour. The thesis can be downloaded as a PDF (1.47MB), or Hanssen’s book based on the thesis is available from Coronet Books, or it can be ordered via the US book site Barnes & Noble. It’s an exceptional piece of work – aimed at the specialist, but wise in the way it shows how important it is to view motion picture colour within a wider, historiographical undcerstanding of colour.

Kinemacolor has a perennial fascination, and there should be more activity coming up, given the centenary next year, and a recently-announced research project by the University of Bristol into Kinemacolor and Technicolor. As always, The Bioscope will keep you informed.

Diverting Time

The Egyptian Hall

Courtesy of Maney Publishing, publishers of The London Journal, I am able to publish a PDF of my new essay, ‘Diverting Time: London’s Cinemas and their Audiences, 1906-1914’. Between 1906 and 1914, there were over 1,000 venues exhibiting film in London. They attracted a vast new, largely working class, audience, drawn to an entertainment which was cheap, conveniently located, placed no social obligations on those wishing to attend, and which was open at a time that suited them. The essay examines the rapid growth of the first cinemas in London and the impact that they had on audiences, particularly in terms of the value they offered, not simply economically but in terms of time spent.

The essay gets its title from Montagu Pyke, cinema chain owner, occasional rogue, and author of a fascinating pamphlet on the potential of cinema, Focussing the Universe (1910), in which he writes:

The Cinematograph provides innocent amusement, evokes wholesome laughter, tends to take people out of themselves, if only for a moment, and to forget those wearisome worries which frequently appal so many people faced with the continual struggle for existence. It forms in fact – I like the word – a diversion. It is in some respects what old Izaak Walton claimed angling to be: An employment for idle time which is then not idly spent, a rest to the mind, a cheerer of the spirits, a diverter of sadness, a calmer of unquiet thoughts, a moderator of passions, a procurer of contentedness.

Did anyone ever write a truer set of words to describe the appeal of cinema?

The essay is just one output from a research project into the film business in London before the First World War which was hosted at Birkbeck, University of London. Another output online, to which the essay refers in details, is the London Project Database of London film businesses and cinemas to 1914. More will follow, in due course.