forgetthetalkies-blog - Tumblr blog

forgetthetalkies-blog · 8 years

Photo

http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/35

To avoid any issues I would like to say I am only speaking for myself (not representing anyone or anything) and the following is my opinion of course. There's been a lot of cute articles on the lack of women in film today and how 'back then' women were more involved in film. Blog superstar @nitratediva wrote of this on twitter, only to have someone mansplain to her women were only in film because of World War 1. She mansplained right back why he was wrong and got 40,000 notes on tumblr. Silent film (right up to talkies, 1929/1930) started with the 'cast offs' (GLBT, women, immigrants, etc) and of course these people proved to be wonderful. Sure there were some old white men in the mix (Griffith, DeMille). But for the majority of the silent film period women were the top stars. Mary Pickford was only challenged in popularity with the arrival of Chaplin. Chaplin of course was trained by Mabel Normand. The top screenwriters from 1915 to about 1930 were: Frances Marion (Pickford's writer), June Mathis (Valentino's writer), Anita Loos (wrote for Biograph) and Jeanie Macpherson (Demille's screenwriter). Women directed too. Mary Pickford directed several of her films but for whatever reason didn't publicize it. She, Gloria Swanson and Mabel Normand all produced. In fact it would be rare for you to pick a female star in that area that didn't do more than act (Natacha Rambova was a set designer and costumer, Barbara LaMarr managed to write and produced while binge drinking.) I know I'm leaving out names, and there are more I don't know. Today film is perhaps the most hostile its ever been to women. Sure Lillian Gish went from lover to wife for her same aged male co-stars, but at the same time Marilyn Monroe fought and won production rights. Now if a woman does anything other than act its 'cute' and 'ugh pretentious bitch'. I had one great mansplainer tell me Madonna's then husband (Guy Ritchie)'s films didn't do well because 'women didn't get them'. Men shoot down any idea about a woman in film that isn't naggy bitch or sex bomb. Women aren't allowed to be 3 dimensional. Women are being terrorized online today. But 80 year old men make the laws so they don't see any problem. A woman is told she'll be killed (Gamergate anyone) and the cops brush her off. But if a man gets a threat like that boy do they call in the big guns! Boy have I been called a mouthy woman before but yes these two issues collide. Women today can't edit Wikipedia because the men will berate them til they quit (that is if they dare identify as a woman). Women can't do STEM because they're discouraged from a young age and treated hostile if they somehow keep at it. Before film in the US our country was basically akin to Saudi Arabia when it came to women...today its doing everything in its power to go back. There's a lot of male dominated fields (because women have been edged out) but man film and film history is one that really irks me. This week has been a big so-there to women. A man who makes $770,000 tells a 97 year old woman she doesn't need help from his organization. Then when he's called out he writes a little mean girl email slandering her and lying about her and her family. To me basic human decency would prevent any of that, but apparently this fellow has none. As we fought for her healthcare I started getting numerous contacts from women telling me about their harassment in the silent film field. This has happened before though I can't remember the event. Why do a bunch of women, 25-65 have horror stories to tell? Men dominate the film history field. And do not mistake me there are some WONDERFUL men out there who I count as friends, and many I count as idols (David Stenn has done great work for example, though I do not know him.) But then there's that crusty contingent who don't want dames anywhere near their work. I've heard these men say they'd rather the films be destroyed then shown to the outer world. Anyone who supports these men and their work are despicable. Its slowly crumbling away, but I feel its shameful some of these types hide behind the apron skirts of something bigger than them. Anyone who discounts the young film historians and fans, and especially women in those worlds...is missing out. What really inspired me to write this was Million Dollar Man's constant invocation of Mary Pickford to defend his crass decisions. I do not know Mary and never will, she's dead. I am not a relative (this is a pen name) but I am a massive fan. You know how I found out about Mary (and got into silent film in the process?) It was 2006 and I was enjoying the Orlando Public Library. After reading a great book on female rock stars I decided I'd really like to read on an inspiring business woman, particularly if she was artistic. I had to try a few combinations but I believe it was under 'female business executive' that I found The Woman Who Made Hollywood. I had thought film pretentious and sexist, and I had a vague notion of the 50s and stuff. But I had never realized the most successful person in film for more than 30 years was a woman. It blew my mind. Mary Pickford was many things. She was a great actress, producer, director and all around business woman. She was fiercely protective of her family and those she loved, and her cohorts. She never said anything negative about other women and film and always made small gestures to show she supported them. Mary was the crux and founder of the Motion Picture Foundation and later home. She was driven in all things and she wanted film people to know they were taken care of, if a rainy day came she had prepared for all of them. In 1921 when the fund debuted, Baby Peggy stood next to her. Mary Pickford also hated wasteful executives. While she had men on her boards, she did not cede all power to them, especially not automatically. If she knew there were men make almost a millionaire dollars a year each, but denying the people they were supposed to help...she'd be furious. I guess we women will have to take care of our own since no one else will. And we silent film fans must take care of our own as well. Ron Hutchinson has been instrumental in bringing Baby Peggy's plight to light. You know...we only have one silent film star left. One. For years I'd have to qualify that with 'silent film star who didn't star in talkies' because of Mickey Rooney, who was fighting his own horrible battles. No seriously...we have ONE. I was devastated when Anita Page died in 2008 because it really underscored we had lost our last adult in silent film, at least one who was very heavily involved. And soon after more and more affiliated people passed on. I can't even find a list of surviving roughly affiliated people...Diana is it. You know, Diana dedicated years of her life to others. She made sure the history of her father and his friends (cowboy extras) was told, that Jackie Coogan's story was told, and many more. She lost an entire childhood to the hungry public. And yet she still volunteered for the MPTF in the 30s even though her family was in very dire straights. Every elderly person should have decent care, and very sadly I know that is rarely the case (the home my great grandmother spent her last years in should be closed down its so awful...and yet all the bitching in the world did nothing.) This woman has given us so much, how dare somebody say she doesn't deserve basic human dignity? Frankly I get outraged when I know a deceased star has been treated poorly (George Ullman, the lost ashes of Marie Prevost, etc); good lord am I boiling at seeing a living person treated so badly!!! While I'm glad we've all stepped up and spread the word and raised some hell, I kinda wish this attention had been paid years ago. No matter what we did we could barely get notice for A Star for Baby Peggy. Now today we're mentioned in the Guardian (thanks guys!) A star or an honorary Oscar mean nothing next to basic healthcare, but if we can secure that for Diana I'd like to see us show her how much she has meant to us. You go a majority of your life being told your lost childhood was for nothing because silent film is stupid and gone. Then when you are vaguely remembered its not for you or your film work but for helping others (that's fine but still). Silent film stars rarely got Hollywood Walk of Fame stars (beyond the initial installation) and even rarer got Oscars (can anyone name one past 1990 that got one?) Anita Page was not invited to the Oscars and not even mentioned in the in memorial despite being the last living attendant of the first Oscars ceremony. In contrast Aaliyah got one (she was great but not Anita Page.) If nothing changes Diana won't make the cut when the time comes either. To pin a figure on how many people were stars in the silent era would be hard...especially if it included everything above extra work. To be the last living one! I encourage anyone who reads this to help honor Diana. And hopefully maybe, change will come in relation to how women are treated in these affairs.

#Hala Pickford #Mary Pickford #Baby Peggy #Diana Serra Cary #silent film #Nitrate Diva #feminism #Anita Page #Oscars #AMPAS #MPTF #Walk of Fame #elder care #Frances Marion #Anita Loos #June Mathis

3 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Lady Gaga is a Rudolph Valentino fan!

Lady Gaga looking chic in an oversized black coat while out in New York City.

What we really wanna know is what is Gaga reading… The book is Affairs Valentino - A Special Edition by Evelyn Zumaya and its available now.

#Rudolph Valentino #Lady Gaga #silent film #pop #Evelyn Zumaya #Affairs Valentino

3 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/34

I rarely venture over to 'classic' film, preferring to stay where its comfy and silent. But a lot of people in classic Hollywood have their silent ties (Bette Davis idolized Mary Pickford, Carole Lombard made some silent shorts, Jean Harlow also had a few small bits.) Some were 'transitioner' stars equally popular in silents and talkies (Gloria Swanson, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, Chaplin, etc).

Then there's the classic stars with smaller ties. Loretta Young was one. Her first film role (aged 3) in The Primrose Ring which starred Mae Murray. Mae had Loretta and her sister live with her for a time, buying them clothes and helping with their schooling. She had wanted to adopt Loretta but Young's mother refused. Loretta worked her way through and eventually became prominent with a co-starring role in Laugh, Clown, Laugh (1928). But most would know her either from her classic work or her 50s TV Show.

Everything I had read about her annoyed me to no end. When I came to silents in 2006 her daughter Judy Lewis was still alive and said to be very nice. The narrative went as such: Loretta was super Catholic and also a hypocrite: she had an unmarried affair with Clark Gable which resulted in the birth of Judy...a birth she had to Barbara LaMarr her way into explaining her new baby (it was quite brilliant really.)

Judy's ears looked like Clark's and Loretta had them pinned when she was a child to quell rumors, rumors that flowed from Judy's birth through adulthood. Everyone BUT Judy knew who her father was: kids at school teased her, and upon being asked to marry her boyfriend she stated she couldn't, she knew nothing of herself. He said he knew everything about her, including that Clark Gable was her father. This was said to lead to a confrontation with her mother who Judy in so much words, said she got up, vomited, and stated Judy was a walking abomination. Judy had only known seen Clark twice and by the time the truth was told he had died.

Judy had published her autobiography in 1994. This narrative became 'the' narrative. Poor Clark, he probably had no choice in not knowing his daughter! And boo mean ol Loretta...she was such a religious nut she lied to her daughter and jumped through hoops to hide her 'sin'.

Yesterday film historian Anne Helen Petersen published an article on Judy's parentage. The article was so explosive it became one of the top articles of the day where it was published. Classic film fans all sat back and said 'woah...that was awful.' In one fell swoop fans who had thought nothing more of Clark Gable than 'handsome and stuff' and Loretta as 'religious hypocritical harpy' had amended their views.

You should really read the article because its says more than I ever could (and it is just SO very well done.) But in short it has Loretta's son and his wife stating Loretta realized in the late 90s Judy's conception was via date rape...i.e. she had not been some hypocritical harpy...she had refused consent and Clark had insisted. And from that lives and legacies were drastically altered.

The level headed fans out there are saying 'I had her all wrong' and noting while they can enjoy Gable's work, there is no excuse for his action. Indeed its a tightrope, one most public people dare not try to walk. Tumblr has many feminist blogs calling for the heads of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, to the point even liking a film of theirs is unacceptable (for the record: I have never seen anything by either of them). And many are having trouble deciding what to do with the work of Bill Cosby, who's drugging rapes of over 40 women blew these stories up into the public consciousness in the first place (I have seen Cosby's work and I always hated it, since the 90s. So annoying. So not a problem for me.)

And then there's the Chaplin boys (Charlie definitely had a thing for 16 year olds, Sydney Chaplin was said to have some problems of his own in that area). Love Charlie, don't condone his actions in that area. He was wrong and everything around the situation was wrong. But he was still a great filmmaker.

Back to Loretta. There was nothing about her that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. She was pretty and passable in her films, and she was good to Mae Murray when her life became harder. But I get uneasy around religious stars who double down on the subject (I don't care if they're religious, I care if they get preachy and judgmental.) Loretta definitely did as Petersen covers, after the date rape she became even more fierce in her public statements, at one point stating she would never put herself in that kind of 'situation' (the statement basically reads like whores get what they deserve is molested/raped.) In the scenario you are religious and have a child out of wedlock, then hide her parentage and call her a walking abomination well...you are a religious nut and unlikable in my viewpoint.

BUT the new information flips the script completely. Loretta made the statement about 'situations' after it had already happened to her, it was clearly a part of self blaming. To call Judy an abomination still isn't right (without the info it still is cruel to an adult to hear) but it makes sense why she felt that way.

I feel like my eyes have been opened. Usually when big old star stuff breaks I'm usually up in it (not making the news, but I'm up on it, I know research is being done). I can't recall the last time some big classic/silent star news broke and I literally had no idea about it. I am blown away. She was blamed all these years and it was just so wrong. She made wrong choices (like not telling Judy after her realization) but it makes sense why she made them (you were date raped in 1935 and don't find a word for it til 1998? Not shocking you didn't handle it perfectly.)

While I felt strongly about this story today, I wasn't intending to say anything about it beyond small comments. But the continued narrative of 'welllll how do we know?' happened a few too many times. I'm a big news buff, I read everything daily. I've been seeing comments to that effect over Cosby since 2013...which disturbs me because I did read about it in 2013 and apparently (like the rest of the public) forgot about it til the big break last year. Won't be forgetting it now. But boy...is that narrative exhausting.

Rape, a primarily female problem (THOUGH NOT ONLY) is the one crime that is hardest to prove and most often questioned. There's a tweet going round that says oh you want receipts/time stamps and such when 40+ women say someone drugged and raped them, but one sentence by a man and OH NOW WE GET IT? Then the type of people still wanting to defend their skepticism say 'oh well women lie and stuff, fake allegations ruin lives.' True, but they happen no more often in rape then any other crime statistically.

Frankly in my experience (not with rape thank God) people will believe anything fake a man says to ruin a woman, but nothing a woman says no matter how much proof. I and numerous other women have gone with screenshots and time stamps of harassment to police stations to find ourselves brushed off and looked at like we're silly and hysterical. A man does it and everything is done for his benefit (I know one man harassed in the same manner by an ex went in with less than I did, the cop listened to him sincerely, took him seriously, and even deployed the fake we have proof method and called the woman up to get it to stop. Could have been done for me or any other woman but nope, not even offered.) What's scary in America in the past and now is a woman's word is lesser, no matter how many pretty glosses people put over it to look like its not real (similar to the one black friend method to prove one is not racist.)

The closest one can prove rape (short of witnesses/film) now is being tested as soon as possible afterword. Ideally this would be done in a hospital in the form of a rape kit, which is usually done by uncaring nurses and is very invasive. Many women don't want to go through it after such a traumatic experience. Many more people (estimated to be 80% in many parts of the US) know they will be questioned, not likely believed and even if they get past all this conviction rates are low...so they don't even report it. I've known at least 3 people who have been date raped, and not one of them reported it for those exact reasons. And yet those same people cry years afterwards when talking about it.

And then there's the fun fact that in many places if you do report it, do get a rape kit done in a timely manner, do 'all the right things'...your kit might not even be tested for decades.

So given Loretta did not even think she had been date raped until she knew that was a thing 60 some years later, how do you expect it to be proven?

Rape kits include documenting evidence (clothes/sheets), DNA swabs (mouth/anus/vagina/nails) and a comb to get fibers. Fibers and DNA would have been irrelevant in 1935. And the bonus fun to date rape is even if this is all done a man could say 'well yeah we had sex but it was consensual'. Date rape, almost always, boils down to he/she said unless you have some kind of recording. The Cosby women (had they immediately gotten the kit done) may have had the drug found, but not only not guaranteed but there would be a very limited window on it. And it'd have to be women from the 90s or later...they wouldn't be able to prove much back in the 80s DNA/fibers/drugging wise.

So when a woman remembers something 5/10/15/60 years ago...there's no proof left unless the man admits it (like Cosby kinda sorta did)...because apparently a woman's word is not good enough.

Given the literal impossibility of 'proving' this really happened let's look at what was to be gained by it? Loretta did not realize it until 1998, she had never admitted Judy was Clark's daughter to the public or basically anyone short of her children. Upon the realization she made the decision not to tell Judy, or the public. She didn't think anything was to be gained by it. When she did agree to tell the fact Judy was Clark's, she insisted it was done after her death, and she still did not reveal the key detail. Judy died in 2011 not knowing the truth, bitter to the end (rightfully so).

Loretta's son and daughter in law were unsure about to ever speak up on the matter or not. Loretta Young and Clark Gable are still both popular in the classic film world, but find me an average 20 something that knows much about them (MAYBE Gone with the Wind...maybe.) If Petersen had printed this story and it simply confirmed the known narrative, it wouldn't have blown up the Hairpin and Buzzfeed.

Flipping the narrative to 'men over women' look at Tony Curtis. He lived until 2010 and had realized how popular Marilyn Monroe had become. In the 80s he said kissing her was like kissing Hitler. Shortly before his death he had changed it to 'oh she was so hot and sweet and we totally boned' then went out on the note of 'oh when she was pregnant and miscarried...totes my baby.' AND PEOPLE BELIEVED HIM. In all likelihood the first take was likely the truest (he was annoyed with her lateness and resented her, they weren't friends let alone lovers.)

Loretta didn't want the date rape to come out, it was part of her 'fixing' of the narrative. She could have went out exploiting that if she wanted to, or simply wanted it to be known with her posthumous biography. She decided against it. Her son and daughter in law kept her wishes, until seeing date rape come into the national conversation, and they felt it was important to speak up about.

People never hesitate to judge a suspect in a murder or disappearance, calling for the blood of the accused. Elizabeth Smart's parents were 'suspected' of 'killing' her even though it turned out she was alive and they had done nothing. A few Dateline episodes in you'll see how fast everyone jumps to judgment, even when in the end it turns out they were wrong...and the accusers are slow (if ever) to admit they were wrong. There are people who have gone through trials and been convicted (and even spent most of their lives in jail) only for DNA to exonerate them. Why is it we're so quick to ask for blood when there is no DNA/film evidence against someone disappearance/murder adjacent...but we insist on that and more to believe someone has been raped? Even when the person makes no effort to gain from the rape (financially or notoriety wise) or goes out of their way to keep quiet about it (like Loretta)? You would not be hard pressed to find people blaming anonymous victims for saying rape (Kobe Bryant's victim) or even denying evidence when a victim is still anonymous (Steubenville)? You'll note eventually the victims were outed, in the Bryant case it was done by the defense lawyer.

This topic as a woman makes my blood boil. I shouldn't have to have this conversation, it should have died out with people giving Mary Pickford the side eye for being a woman executive. But here we are.

I feel shamed that we never looked further at this story. That I took it on face value. Its all very sad isn't it? Gable is going in the same box as Chaplin, the 'enjoy the work but don't condone their private actions'. I have liked him well enough, and I have found him charming in his roles though I've never watched something because he was in it. I find the story of him and Carole Lombard sad. But much like Roman Polanski (his wife and baby being murdered a few years before he raped a 13 year old) that doesn't make his actions okay or excusable. They were wrong. Enjoy the films if you like but don't excuse this action or do anything to victim blame it. I can't imagine there's anyone out there so taken with Clark Gable that this will rock their world like Cosby did to a bunch of 80s kids. Its probably more like Valentino and his reckless behavior in 1925/26 (drunk driving, as far as is currently known consensual whoring). It was wrong, no excuse.

As for Loretta I hope it gives a new light to her personality, choices and films. I also hope it afford more understanding to Judy who many wrote off as 'too bitter' over what had happened to her. I wonder what she would think if she were alive. I hope if Loretta were alive she'd see many people do believe her and they understand why she did what she did now. I’d like to add on the Buzzfeed article Linda Lewis (daughter in law) responded to some questions and I think they are very important to share. When asked why they chose Anne Helen Petersen (who criticized the old known narrative years ago) she replied, “Yes, I had read it (previous article) & Anne linked her earlier article in this one. We were working with Vanity Fair magazine a couple of years ago when I ran across that Hairpin article & have to say it along with many others like it served as a partial catalyst for us to share this story. To be honest with you, I've read the same rehashed LY stories, with glaring errors, regurgitated many times. We felt it was time to clear up some misconceptions. Because Anne has written extensively on Classic Hollywood & has an academic background, we felt she would understand the context of that time & place and she was familiar with the "players". She worked diligently researching this story, We are grateful to Anne & to Buzzfeed for tackling such sensitive material, it takes courage! Thanks so much.” When another person criticized their choice to tell the story despite Loretta’s choice of keeping it secret, Linda replied, “Perhaps you're right..., it wasn't easy to share it & I probably wouldn't have if it were not for the current state of affairs, things don't seem to be getting better for women in these situations. If you take the time to read a few blogs, you will see what a beating LY's reputation takes. As Steve mentions above, even Anne's Hairpin article, LY is called a hypocrite, selfish, its so denigrating. Many false things are written about her & then lifted and printed again. She was a philanthropist, a loving daughter, sister, mother wife and friend and an all around remarkable woman, I feel she deserves better....”

#Loretta Young #Judy Lewis #Clark Gable #Buzzfeed #Anne Helen Petersen #Hairpin #date rape #rape #feminism #Cosby #Bill Cosby #Roman Polanski #Woody Allen #silent film #classic hollywood #scandal #religion #girl power #womens rights

4 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Happy Birthday to a handsome devil who has had way too much influence on my life: Rudolph Valentino! Born May 6th, 1895 Rudy would become the first real great sex symbol in modern pop culture (he wasn't the first ever but he was the best.) Straight women and gay men drool over him but nobody remembers he actually was very serious about film. He also was REALLY funny. He only got to show that side a few times: All Night (1918), Monsieur Beaucaire (which is fantastic) and bits of The Eagle. Let's call it like it is: he was basically the 1920s Jon Hamm.

You probably don't really know what his life was like as the myth swallowed him up. If you want to know his real story Affairs Valentino exists. Be warned its not all roses and sexy lust...he had hard times. But its not all a sob story...the stuff he did do was incredible (before Rudy Italians were 'not white', and 'non whites' couldn't play normal leads in big film...he broke that down.)

So a little fun for today

Things Rudy didn't do first:

Sex symbols before Rudy in film: Francis X Bushman, Harold Lockwood, Wallace Reid Non white sex symbols cast in morally complicated roles before Rudy: Sessue Hayakawa Film celeb deaths that caused an uproar before Rudy: John Bunny, Olive Thomas, Wallace Reid

Things Rudy did do first:

Played white or straight roles without his race coming into it (All Night) Lobbied for artistic control in front of the public (his one man strike) Got into a bigamy scandal despite just doing what others did Tried to break away from just being sexy, wanted his films to have adventure and fun Douglas Fairbanks wanted to be Rudy and Rudy wanted to be Doug

Films to see

All Night (it is stilted by its age, but its fun) Monsieur Beaucaire Four Horsemen Son of the Sheik

Films to skip: The Sheik (its creaky and poorly directed) Isle of Love (unless you're drinking/high) Young Rajah (there's not more than 10 seconds left of it anyway)

Things to do to celebrate his bday and life

Buy Affairs Valentino (it'll ship eventually) Buy Ullman's Memoir Buy All That Glitters for the dishy drama (okay I did publish this one) Listen to some Rudy songs

3 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/3

Sunday TCM did a comedy day. Kicking off with Jean Harlow's Bombshell it ended that night with several short comedies. Sennett, Chaplin, Arbuckle, Lloyd and of course Mabel Normand. As TCM so rarely runs silent shorts (outside of the occasional birthday nod) this was quite a treat. And it seems to have been a hit with social media aglow about it. I haven't seen everything that still exists yet (I'm still many Chaplin shorts behind) but I have seen about half of these before. And while my whole 2015 so far has been everything Mabel Normand, it was nice to sit and watch these shorts on something besides youtube. But boy did it get me thinking (and when I get to thinking my Roseanne Barr comes out so forgive the grammar.)

I missed the intros because TCM doesn't seem to have the ability to corroborate short times with DVRs (this happened last year too) but I'm told it was Chaplin heavy. As a Chaplinite there is nothing wrong with that, but the fact they didn't have much to say about the only female comic featured that night is kinda sad. Mabel should get an entire intro without once using the word 'scandals' or 'cocaine' (she was loosely affiliated with a few scandals, she never did cocaine but Stevie Nicks has solidified that in pop culture's mind.)

The period drama Mad Men is ending soon. I'm a big fan. And the past few episodes have dealt with the RANK sexism in 1970. TV critics and liberal writers have been pointing out the sadly obvious: what's going on to the women on a show currently set in 1970, isn't far removed from what's going on now in 2015. Women still have every choice questioned and critiqued, women are still held back, women rights are a favorite to do away with by teabaggers...it never ends. And if you're not a woman you may not be 'getting' it (a favorite thing I learned in the past week: men...gay and straight, seem to have no clue what beach waves are. They don't even know what being a woman is like except in the broadest sense. I think most women would know what rogaine or Old Spice is.) I mention this because while being a woman in the US in 2015 is eerily akin to living in a third world country, its even WORSE in all things film. Women can't crack 15% heading films today, most studios haven't had more than 1 or 2 women direct a film in the past few years (NBC wins with 5 amongst its affiliates). White men in charge of painting a cultural picture look for more white men and nothing ever changes. A really haunting LA Weekly piece covers how women producers and directors are given dirty looks for even SPEAKING at meetings about their OWN films. Did you know a woman produced and co-wrote Brokeback Mountain? I didn't til I read that, and I loved that movie when it came out.

If it is that bad today in 2015 take a guess how good it is in film history studies. A bunch of old pudgy white men looking for their own matinee idols that they think represents them (i.e. male comedians and male Western stars.) One need only look at a Cinecon lineup to get the picture. The one year they premiered a newly found Mary Pickford film they couldn't even spell check the flyer (2009). Only about 2 films out of 20 or so in the lineup had anything to do with women. A favorite excuse here is 'well women aren't as funny/talented/interesting' depending what is being discussed. That is...pardon...fucking bullshit. Mary Pickford is the only star who ever rivaled Charlie Chaplin in popularity (money and fame wise...and if you want to be real pedantic rivaled Harold Lloyd money wise). "Well she was a creepy little girl crying Pollyanna...Victorians ya know?" Umm...there aren't enough curse words in my vocab to explain how angry that line makes me. Mary did have sappy films, and she did play the girl in the curls, but she also did COMEDY. And she did it well. She was equally skilled at drama and comedy...sometimes in one film. MUCH LIKE CHAPLIN. Once my sister and I were watching "Little Annie Rooney". My dad (who would probably enjoy a good Cinecon lineup) was in and out of the room. He caught the opening with Mary whupping boys butts and all its comedy. Kinda chuckled. He's gone a bit and returns (spoilers) when she finds out that her dad is dead after setting up his birthday surprise. We're close to bawling and my father is eerily quiet. "I thought this was supposed to be a comedy?" It clearly had unnerved him. To me that contrast is on par with The Kid (Jackie and Charlie breaking windows for business; his baby is taken away from him) or even The Gold Rush (Charlie as a chicken, the bitch mean girls stand him up and break his heart.) Of course there's a good set of old men who write Charlie off too. You'll occasionally find someone who swears ONLY Chaplin or ONLY Keaton was funny and the rivals weren't. Well one woman shouldn't have to stand up for woman kind even though these types always want it to be one (and if one fails once then ALL WOMEN ARE UNTALENTED). And that's the thing: Mary wasn't the only female comedian. Mabel wasn't the only other one. Marie Prevost, Dot Farley, Louise Fazenda, etc. Thelma Todd was actually a comedian. But these type of old fugs don't even bother...these women only count if it has something to do with the big male line up: Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, Larry awful Semon, and hell don't forget Harry Iowan Langdon. If you have to throw in Semon or Langdon before Fazenda or Normand then you're reaching.

Film history is finally coming around...younger people are getting involved, more women are blogging. But the old guard will have to be dead and gone before we get Louise Fazenda shorts on her birthday instead of Harold Lloyd shorts on his (or in addition to.) And while I've been brusque let me state I find redemption in the upper half of the list. Everyone worships The General but its not really a comedy...it is a good movie, it is a technical masterpiece, but not really a comedy. My favorite Keaton is "Our Hospitality"...I almost peed myself laughing at it. Harold Lloyd is comedy with adventure thrown in...I really like the 3-4 features of his I've seen...and the handful of shorts too. In fact Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton all have excellent shorts. Laurel and Hardy (in my humble opinion...I know right?) didn't come into their own until Semon died. I've seen some awful dull ass shorts of theirs (together and alone) shown time and again, while funny women stuff never is. And have you noticed how Arbuckle keeps getting left off these greats list? He should be above Lloyd at the least. And for the record: I don't buy into the lies about him. Of course women always have to apologize, we have to account for and pat the male ego when expressing a true opinion. I shouldn't have even had to include that paragraph above though all the statements are true. You know if there was a REAL honest to God women too list the top 3 would become at least the top 6: Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Mabel Normand, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Fatty Arbuckle. Of course all those sexist olds are composing their emails in hotmail right now (I always get a few) but let's move on with the slate cleared: Keystones and Mabel Normand. I mentioned on tumblr the issues with Keystones (they're stilted because they are so young, they have their own language someone in 2015 doesn't get, etc). While everyone thinks of them as exaggerated they are clearly missing out on all the elements at play. Take one TCM ran last night:Barney Oldfield's Race for a Life (1913). Ford Sterling plays the honest to God mustache twisting villain. He might as well be a cartoon it is so broad. Mabel rebuffs his advances and he ties her to a train track in retaliation (man if only the phrase nobody cares about your boner had been invented! On the same note: Mabel was one of the rare comedians allowed to play pretty...like pretty girls couldn't be funny.) For every eyebrow raise and mustache twirl Sterling does, Mabel is cute and natural. Nothing is broad in her actions. Even flailing on the railroad tracks seems like what you'd probably really do if you were in such a scenario. She doesn't Gish her way into lightness either: when Sterling ties her down she hits his foot with a hammer he forgot to pick up. She's only in the scenario because at least 4 guys tied her down and she kicked and screamed the whole time. Women were fainting on screen well into 1922 when the drama picked up and things got 'too intense'. Mabel doesn't faint when ganged up on...she's got no time for that.

On His Wedding Day (1913) Mabel is basically making a small cameo. The A plot has Ford Sterling trying to marry Dot Farley (who is excellent) but sneezing powder puts them out. In the B plot a dorky Mack Sennett is trying to flirt with the uninterested Mabel who has little time for this. In Keystone antics, Sterling eventually sees the two and declares Mabel an upgrade and tries to hit on her. She slaps him a bit and puts up a fight until there's a faint off (which isn't Gish like, its actually quite funny.) In the end Mack pays some big guys to beat Ford up and it ends well enough.

Finally in Mabel appearances there's The Speed Kings (1913). Ford Sterling plays Mabel's daddy, he wants her to marry Earl Cooper, but she wants Teddy Tetzlaff. A race is held and as her dad tries to make her sit and stay put Mabel slaps him, rans off whenever she has a chance, and keeps encouraging Teddy to win. Arbuckle appears at a point as a masher and he and Mabel have quite the tiff (which is hilarious) and then Sterling and him fight. In the end all is well but Mabel at no point does anything she doesn't want to do.

In fact the fight with Arbuckle was rough and tumble. Again the rare time a pretty girl was allowed to do so. In the next film (Rounders) Arbuckle and Chaplin are beat by hen pecking wives. While Mary Pickford and Mabel Normand's characters rarely put up with bullshit, they were almost universally the only ones who could go punch for punch with a man on screen. Compare this with say The Rounders (1914) which has Chaplin and Arbuckle playing wealthy drunks married to shrews who try to keep them in line (Minta Durfee plays Arbuckle's wife.) Its actually one of my favorite early shorts and Chaplin and Arbuckle are excellent together as literal fall down drunks. There's not a ton of plot (after being henpecked they pick their wives purses and go to a club where they proceed to fall asleep in the middle of things, then leave and go to sleep in a canoe with the wives in pursuit) but all the bits of 'business' are great. I wouldn't call it 'broad' as in Keystone broad acting, but both are much more stagy than their later stuff (it is 1914 after all, Chaplin's 26th film.) Its no Sterling mustache twirl but its not as natural as Mabel's appearances (again Mabel was more seasoned than either legend was at this moment in time.) Mabel, much like Marilyn Monroe, seemed born for film. Arbuckle, Chaplin and Pickford all had vaudeville careers, but she didn't. In fact in 1923 when she starred in The Little Mouse, the play got pretty timid reviews. It was roundly agreed she didn't have the voice for stage (pre microphones) or the acting skills for it as stage and film acting are very different. On stage (especially in 1923) you had to be broad enough for the box and the rafters to see your every emotion. This greatly contrasted with film acting where that looked cartoon-y and one had to be natural. Before Lee Strasberg, Marilyn Monroe trained with an acting teacher named Constance Collier (who trained many film actors and died soon after training with Monroe). Of Marilyn she stated: "She has a flickering intelligence....it's so fragile and subtle it can only be caught on camera." She also stated on film acting, "What really counts in film acting is that rare moment - just a flickering when through the eyes you get a glimpse of the real meaning of the character. It is not technique or professionalism, just truth. Garbo had it. Monroe had it." Obviously I'm not saying there was a planned great character depth to some character in a 1913 Keystone that was so unnamed it usually just went by 'Mabel'. But in and of itself this really does speak of Mabel's acting style. There was no great character written, usually the Keystone cast was let loose with a vague plot and cast, but the fact she could turn THAT into something so touching says quite a lot. And she did it when film was so little it couldn't even walk.

There are some hurdles to getting people to even know Mabel. There's no good biography of her, websites are newer, shorts on youtube are scratchy and not always presented the way they looked in 1913. A lot of her features are lost and of the ones that have been found only 3 have found their way out of the vaults...and they too aren't always full or restored (the only one so far to be restored: The Extra Girl.) Mabel had a lot of hindrances by the time these features were made and they won't outrank (in sheer terms of a film) any Chaplin or Pickford's from the same era. Mickey might, but its waiting for restoration. And maybe she does have a film that would that is either lost or in the vault. So to get to understand the genius of Mabel Normand we're asking people to jump through a lot of hurdles. The younger, hipper film bloggers rarely even venture to silents, let alone want to walk through 10 hurdles to seeing the fricken film correctly. But these same people seem to understand that Mabel was special and an incredible actress and comedian even if its harder to access. Mabel was such a cool woman. She fought against her TB, she was so absurdly pretty, she supposedly had the mouth of a sailor. She was sincere and kind, I don't think I've ever found one person who said she was mean or even cruel at any point. The anecdotes about Mabel are usually about how she went out of her way to be kind, like helping Miriam Cooper on her first day of acting after someone tricked her into overdoing her makeup. That flicker, that fragile...man that was so her. Of silent stars its rare to imagine them modern. I don't mean in acting or making them over (I'm convinced Mary would be popular today if the world went that way). I mean in looking modern even though it was 1910 or 1920 or whatever. To me its a short list: Miriam Cooper, Louise Brooks, Clara Bow, Rudolph Valentino and of course Mabel Normand. There she is in Edwardian clothes with the ringlet style of Mary Pickford/Lillian Gish...but she's stunning and fresh. She's honestly one of the few women I think a slight tweak to the clothes would make her look as fashionable now as then (I want the dress from Speed Kings NOW.) Bitch Flicks just released an article saying a lot of what I've been saying lately. I'm glad. Maybe we in film and pop culture history finally will talk a little more about Mabel Normand.

#Mabel Normand #Charlie Chaplin #silent film #Buster Keaton #Harold Lloyd #Harry Langdon #Larry Semon #silent comedy #women in film #female directors #girl power

9 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

For so many years Rudolph Valentino was painted as a guy who couldn't act and was maybe too light in the loafers and did nothing of great importance. He was also (the story goes) the first celebrity to die young and leave such a lasting impact. Someone in 1950 as well as 1990 would hear his name and go 'great lover' and 'lady and black'. Of course so much of the above IS not true. John Bunny was the first film star celeb death, though nobody remembered him 10 years later. Olive Thomas was the first beautiful, young and unexpected film death (if you must have a male star next is Wally Reid.) Rudy was portrayed as the great lover but he wasn't a bad actor...everything Marilyn Monroe fought for years later he also fought for (creative control, not being typecast, etc.) The gay thing started in the 60s and soon became 'fact' through the grapevine. It was always played with the logic that 'oh he was gay, BUT HOW SHAMEFUL he didn't admit it when he played the great lover, oh he was awful...' Even more interestingly this logic overshadowed an actual gay latin lover (Ramon Novarro.) Rudy's continued star ensured he'd get the occasional book release. As film history found its footing he had a slew of bios through the 70s and 80s, all pretty poorly done (one was done by a UFO enthusiast who never had, or would write another biography.) The best was Emily Leider's because it actually used notes and citations...but poor ones. So the myth became fact...that first paragraph was all anyone would know even the most devout film fan. Then Evelyn Zumaya happened. She had been working on her opus Affairs Valentino, since I was 8. But we came to the threshold at the same time (around the start of the Rudolph Valentino Society) and I was in awe of her work. She spent 15 years on it at that point, now she has spent 19. The Rudolph Valentino Society (which I run) published the first version of Affairs Valentino in 2011. It caused a hell storm. We'd both been harassed over saying Rudy was straight (neither of us seen it as the only thing to say, but it was the most persistent issue) and not perfect...I remember one fan read AV (as I call it) and told me they came away impressed with the scope of the book, but it left them a little sad. They didn't hate Valentino, but they now seen he had been a human. A man so built up to be a God over the years had foibles and flaws (like drunk driving with numerous one night stands after his divorce began). He wasn't a bad person, but he wasn't a God...he wasn't perfect. To me it stripped away the myth and helped me get to the essence of what Valentino was...something I strive for in all my research. I still dream of the day we may get to the 'essence' of Mary Pickford who also built up her own myths. I don't get what 'drove' her outside of the obvious fear of poverty. I get it about Rudy now. Some awful weirdos said I wrote Evelyn's book or parts of it or was claiming that. I never claimed it and I never wrote a word. I did edit the first version and format it, but none of it is my actual research. I'm not that good, I wish I was. If I took credit for it I'd be a dick. Its not my research, but I wish man I wish! Anyway Evelyn (after much pressure and dramatics...I can't discuss it right now but she can and has) took back her publishing rights in 2011 and the last versions have all been hers. I'm proud to have had a small moment in it, if any. Since our time Zumaya has published another version of AV (2014), AV in Italian, Ullman's memoirs, and a companion guide. She is beyond prolific. She has rewritten Rudy's story with facts and tireless research. A lot of people like to take the big stories away from her research (the likelihood that Jean was Rudy's son, that Rudy was not gay and in fact a bit of a manwhore) but they miss the picture...they miss the forest for the trees if you will. That stuff is in there but its not hundreds of pages on repeat. I haven't actually read the new version yet (it just shipped today) but the version we did had stories about how Rudy and Natacha were like little kids undermining George (they were all roughly around the same age, but George had to be the responsible one as it was his job.) And of course the 'Country Gentlemen' story which I won't spoil here. I think my overall favorite line was Rudy seeing his brother off for the final time (Alberto would reach Italy and have to come right back as Rudy died in the interim). As he waved he told George 'I hope I never see that bastard again'. A well written book (fiction OR non fiction) will move you (and in non fiction it will do it with the facts). Few books had me crying by the end...but AV did. Because for the first time it told how Rudy's final days were. It was heart wrenching. I'd like to link below and please share this post. I make no money here, I haven't spoken to Zumaya in awhile, but I admire GOOD writing and research. I am my own person and I have my own thoughts. I strongly recommend all these books: Affairs Valentino (3rd edition, there's a slight delay in shipping as it keeps selling out, it contains new info the previous editions did not have): Amazon US George Ullman’s Memoirs (1927 and his unreleased 1970 one. If the name means nothing to you then you need to get your Valentino facts updated): Amazon US Affairs Valentino Companion Guide (ALL the court docs and such, which were missing until Zumaya found them): Amazon US Infancy of Myth (not by Zumaya, but a book on Rudy’s childhood with rare pics): Amazon US

#Rudolph Valentino #silent film #George Ullman #Natacha Rambova #Evelyn Zumaya #Affairs Valentino

3 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

On ordering the new version of Affairs Valentino (which has even MORE new info): www.amazon.com/AFFAIRS-VALENTINO-Special-EVELYN-ZUMAYA/dp/8890706392/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430000168&sr=8-1&keywords=affairs+valentino+evelyn+zumaya

I ordered on the 11th and it finally shipped today. Someone else I know also got theirs today. My belief? Amazon is running out of stock. So order it now and it'll come, just might take a minute. Some of you guys may know I published the original book in 2011 to much controversy. While I published it I never wrote a word...I WISH I was this talented! This book rewrites all we know of Rudolph Valentino and backs up every claim.

Vivace has put out some really good Valentino books lately. I have no involvement with these but they are wonderful and i encourage real fans to buy them. It changes everything we know of Rudy. These are on European Amazon and US Amazon:

George Ullman's Memoirs (1927 and his unreleased 1970 one): http://www.amazon.com/The-S-George-Ullman-Memoir/dp/8890706368/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1S2BF5ZJDCNF6PJ707BT

Affairs Valentino Companion Guide (ALL the court docs and such, which were missing until Zumaya found them): http://www.amazon.com/Evelyn-Zumayas-Affairs-Valentino-Companion/dp/8890706341/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1YA78Z780RHRBQTHWJR4

Infancy of Myth (not by Zumaya, but a book on Rudy's childhood w rare pics): http://www.amazon.com/Infancy-Myth-Rudolphs-Valentino-Childhood/dp/8890706384/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430000987&sr=1-4&keywords=rudolph+valentino

#Rudolph Valentino #silent film #latin lover #George Ullman #Natacha Rambova #film history #revolution #Evelyn Zumaya #Vivace Edizioni #Affairs Valentino

2 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Diana Serra Cary (aka Baby Peggy, the last living silent film star) is nominated for the Gish Prize. Please help us campaign for her here and please spread the word!

#Baby Peggy #Diana Serra Cary #silent film #Lillian Gish #Dorothy Gish #Gish Prize #film #silent film star #author #girl power

7 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Singing Silent Stars: Anna May Wong, Mae Murray, Clara Bow, Marie Prevost, Gloria Swanson and more! http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/30

#singing #musical numbers #silent movie stars #hollywood #clara bow #anna may wong #mae murray #marie prevost #Charlie Chaplin #gloria swanson

6 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Video

youtube

Anna May Wong in a musical number

#Anna May Wong

0 notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Video

youtube

Anna May Wong in Daughter of the Dragon

#Daughter of the Dragon #Anna May Wong

1 note · View note

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Marie Prevost: More Than a Tragic Muse http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/29

#Marie Prevost #silent film #talkies #hollywood babylon #hollywood

26 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 9 years

Photo

Colorized photos by Tom Maroudas at https://www.facebook.com/HollywoodInColor he also has an ebay store where he sells prints, including the Anna May Wong one.

Top to bottom: *Anna May Wong in Daughter of the Dragon

*Carol Lombard circa 1932

*Clara Bow in Hoopla

*Jean Harlow in Red Dust

*Jean Harlow in Dinner at Eight

#anna may wong #jean harlow #carol lombard #clara bow #1932 #hoopla #daughter of the dragon #red dust #dinner at eight #Tom Maroudas #Hollywood in Color #classic hollywood #classic film #colorization

6 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 10 years

Text

Talkie Myth: Silent film stars did not have funny voices/accents

http://halapickford.com/talkie-myth-why-some-transitioned-and/

For a playlist of silent film stars talking: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWFp6BgFm107ys-aHzZ2QbMeNh3BfE0cU

For the newbies joining us the short answer is no silent star really lost their job due to the talkies, The Artist kind of blunders this. If George Valentin failed because he had a french accent, explain Maurice Chevalier to me (who made some of his most famous US talkies between 1928 and 1934).

There seems to be what I call a ‘talkie myth’. Whenever you hear of any silent star the line ‘well they weren’t suitable for talkies’ is usually tacked on. According to kids these days the thought process goes, “If they were so popular they would have transitioned if they didn’t have a weird accent or something”. Actually in fairness that thought process has gone on since the 40s with “Singin in the Rain”.

I’ve heard this line tacked on to everyone, even where it just does not apply. Some have even put it on Mary Pickford (a Canadian with a perfect little girly voice, to match her little girl roles), yet not on Charlie Chaplin (who’s classy British accent didn’t exactly match the tramp he created). Most people never complained about Charlie until the re-release of ‘The Gold Rush’ with his narrative added on in the 40s. People wondered why ‘he hired this classy British guy to talk over the film’. Nough said.

Ladies:

*Anna May Wong *Norma Talmadge *Clara Bow *Gloria Swanson *Theda Bara *Nita Naldi *Vilma Banky *Mary Pickford *Louise Brooks

Gents:

*Lon Chaney Sr. *John Gilbert *Karl Dane *Rudolph Valentino *Douglas Fairbanks

(the youtube also has Fatty Arbuckle, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Evelyn Preer, Mae Murray and more!)

#silent film #talkies #silent film voices #mae murray #clara bow #john gilbert #norma talmadge #mary pickford #charlie chaplin #classic film #harold lloyd #buster keaton #Evelyn Preer

8 notes · View notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 10 years

Text

How do classic films get to YOU the viewer?

http://forgetthetalkies.com/blogs/post/28

So how does an old film get to you the viewer? 1) Has to exist or be found in an archive Which is hard because if it is lost these archives are mostly unlabelled/mislabeled and these films are on a film stock that can decompose. Without money they can not sort/label these films and they can not put them on safety stock ensuring they still exist in the future. History has proven these places are so underfunded many 'lost' films are in these archives just waiting (or if not lost, better quality/new perspective shots). Places that do this work: EYE, MOMA, LOC, UCLA, BFI, New Zealand Film Archive 2) Restoration While this is optional it is optimal. For a classic film this ensures the audio/music is the proper volume and syncs up, and can be understood easily (no 'noise' cluttering up the background from deterioration). In the case of color (as in films shot in color, not colorizing black and white films) it makes sure the color is sharp and not faded, is true to the way it was shot, and in some cases this would require restoring the color completely (ex: Sally). It also means sometimes color bits are found (as in either all the color is missing or only certain parts were shot in color) and are placed back where they belonged (Ben Hur). For silent film outside of color issues (yes that exists) it assures the picture is clear, decomposed bits are replaced or minimal, missing/non English title cards are replaced/put into English and are legible, a competent music score is put with the film to ensure its enjoyable (unlike the cheap circus 1 min track put with Lil Annie Rooney on a bootleg). Tinting was used quite a big in silent film and so its ensuring tinting is restored properly. Basically they have to make sure all known bits line up and are accounted for, music cues (if original) are placed back, and proper tinting is restored. A properly restored silent film can be honest HD. Places that do this: Vitaphone Varieties, Milestone, Image, Kino, Photoplay 3) Distribution This means the film actually leaves the archive, so legalities have to be covered for any film in copyright, all contracts for work must be in order (your musician/restorer gets their own copyright and credit for their respective work.) If anyone who has a right to some element of this film in copyright objects, it can't be released. From this point deals for DVD/Blu-ray release and streaming take place and are arranged. While rare sometimes it also means back to the theaters (Beyond the Rocks did that, Gone with the Wind constantly does that.) Places that do this: Any combo of archives and companies ex: Milestone and the Mary Pickford Foundation. Warner and their Archive, FOX and Kino, etc. 4) Broadcast Broadcast is another set of negotiations, royalties and rights. Sometimes a film will be all the way through (the theater, DVD release, streaming and TCM) or sometimes the rights to broadcast can't be reached and it exists but doesn't hit TCM forever....or ever (Annie Laurie has never run on the channel.) TCM has their own interests and rules of course, as does GET. However they do ensure a very wide swath of people see X film and its a very desirable thing to do. Places that do this: TCM, GETTv, rarely AMC, occasionally KTLA, PBS, etc. I hope with this post your average film fan will understand what goes into making their beloved old film reach their eyes. Its also why yes TCM is important, but when there's no reason to be upset we really need to direct our attention to funding archives. Because if the archives continue being underfunded, there won't be very many films to run on TCM. TCM is not in danger, but these films are. I think we are very lucky we live in an era where if I want to watch Mary Pickford, Carole Lombard, Marilyn Monroe, Faye Dunaway or Meryl Streep I CAN. A lot of Carole's films are under some copyright issues (separate companies own the rights) but they get broadcast. Marilyn's films are completely accessible, and most of Mary's post 1918 films are available (and her useless foundation could put the rest out but are more interested in sniffing the money instead of using it.) Faye and Meryl will never have to worry as their films are safe and secure and easy to obtain. Its an era where I can put most of Mabel's films on youtube, and if the interest was there her restored features could easily be released. Its an era where I can hear all my beloved silent film stars speak and see Veronica Lake in Flesh Feast. I'm not an 'old' (though I'm getting there, FINALLY). I don't remember what life was like pre VHS because I didn't live it. But I can appreciate it. When I was a kid we bombarded any channel that ran The Critic, hell I can even recite to you which ones in which years (last one: Comedy Central, 3-4am, 2002?) I know what it was like to not have everything easily available. We're lucky to have what we do now, but we'll be even luckier if we can put our voices and money to the 'to come'. There is little reason archives could not stream or release many public domain films, pending they have the funding. I dream of a world where every archive has every film categorized, labeled and on safety stock....and while that may be greedy I will be even greedier: and once they've done that, you can easily pay a fee and see any of these films in your own home. I may be 75 by the time its done, but I look foreword to it. So please, let's take this moment we're all paying attention to, AND GIVE THESE ARCHIVES MONEY!

#silent film #classic film #film preservation #film history #Warner Archives #TCM #Gettv

0 notes

forgetthetalkies-blog · 10 years

Text

If you love classic film, please spread this around

Why do you all love TCM so much? We probably all have similar reasons: they are the ones to give the widest audience to rare classic/silent films, they make us feel like we belong, they are a pinnacle of our classic/silent film community. They've run stuff I enjoyed but never thought/was able to seek out like Alice White comedies. Hell if they ran "Song of Love" (1929) I'd pee my pants and keep it on my DVR for life (they haven't...so wink wink TCM). But film fans, please direct your outrage/anger/protest and most importantly MONEY at where it is needed: film funding. Film archives are perpetually underfunded, that's why we keep finding 'lost' films....like the New Zealand load a few years ago. Almost 200 films known as 'lost' were found in a New Zealand archive, just hanging out. But these archives (every country every one) are very underfunded....a majority of films are just in blank or mislabeled tins. Archives are constantly finding 'lost' films they have that are simply nitrate. For the casual film fan let me explain this: nitrate is explosive, its why so many films are lost. It also decomposes. It was used while into the classic era and while far less films of those are lost, who knows what great print we're missing. If you like silents/care about film overall: underfunded archives mean we're losing these films as the clock ticks by. If you're a classic film fan who could care less about silents: it means your favorite stars first appearances are being lost, that your film could look really good if restored. Let me lay this out: film archives/restorers need money, lots of it. Its so many issues its not even simple: finding films, putting films on safety stock, restoring films and most importantly: making restored films available. Or just making films available. For example Nothing Sacred with Carole Lombard was restored in the 90s, but due to legal stuff and money this version (which is said to be snazzy) is rarely seen, not even on TCM. TCM would benefit from this as well. Last year an enterprising film fan started a kickstarter to free Marion Davies silent movie "Enchantment" from the archives. Nothing had been previously available. He made that goal and we all got a nice tinted film with a good score. TCM is last I knew planning on broadcasting it in a few months. How was this person rewarded for their work and initiative? One of those bootleg asshole companies stole it and is releasing it this month with not even a credit to him (while the film is public domain any tinting/restoration/music is under copyright. Never mind it is soooo morally wrong in this case.) Do you like documentaries that run on TCM? Have you noticed minus one or two examples they all predate 2008? That's because those documentary companies/filmmakers have been unable to raise the funding let alone get their films to TCM. We could even restore color where it has been lost (many early musicals had color segments that are now lost. Example: 1929's Sally). A Gloria Swanson sound disc for "What a Widow" (a lost 1931 film) exist...why can't we hear it (doing this article I found someone put a few songs up...so once again its bootleg or nothing)? Funding for release and legals and such. The Vitaphone project trudges on...they've found a lot of lost color footage recently...why are you not giving them money/attention? If this stuff angers you then I urge you to take your pitchforks and abandon the pointless petition to save a network that is not endanger and I beg of you to take your Occupy Wall Street attitude and apply it where it would actually make a difference. Start a kickstarter to free a film, start a donation campaign for an archive that means so much to you, PLEASE DO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL. Because TCM will still be here, but these films will not be. If you're poor: tweet/campaign/blog/fb/youtube about these places and lost/locked up/partial films you'd like to see. If someone raised as much hell as they did about this TCM thing in regards to funding UCLA well...they'd be fully funded. If you're not poor/have $5 to give: srsly, donate it to any of these worthy places below. Most if not all of these places are reliable and certified non profit, which may mean any donation can be a tax write off (check on each specific page to be sure.) I have done my best to link to the easiest way to donate possible. National Film Preservation Foundation (founded by the US government, works with LOC, etc): https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1397805 UCLA Film Preservation (you can enter any amount to donate though they do strongly urge high amounts, I don't think they'd turn their nose up at $5, chose Film preservation archive if you which to donate directly to preserving their films and kinescopes): https://giving.ucla.edu/Standard/NetDonate.aspx?SiteNum=274 Eastman House: http://www.eastmanhouse.org/get-involved/support_BBform.php BFI (from here you can select preservation): https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/Online/default.asp?doWork::WScontent::loadArticle=Load&BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::article_id=24BDAF5E-F84D-4A8B-BA6D-7DD89536907E MOMA (this seems to be general, you could request it is directed to the film preservation center): https://www.moma.org/support/support_the_museum/donate_online Netherlands Film Archive (this is a higher donation amount): https://www.eyefilm.nl/en/support-eye/ueye-fund The Vitaphone Project (not tax deductible) part of paypal, email paypal donation to [email protected] or go to the bottom of this page: http://www.vitaphoneproject.com/ (donations over $50 get various CD gifts as listed there).

#film preservation #TCM #Save TCM #restoration #film restoration #film history #1920s #1930s #1940s #1950s #1960s

9 notes · View notes