Quintessential early cinema.

[pinkandbluefilms]

A film historian speculated that the reason Chaplin was 'almost' alone among the silent superstars to survive sound was because he was one of the few who realized it was a different art form.

Bunuel once said 'Cinema, in the right hands, was a beautifully dangerous art form'.

Indeed it's possibly the most progressive and youngest art form.

At the dawn of cinema, the rules had not been set. There were no pre-conceived notions on what was and was not 'film', hence there was probably even more experimentation (albeit sometimes unintentional, as in Feuillade) than there is currently (in a era weaned on unimaginative television).
Below is a biased list for quintessential early cinema.

1. D.W. Griffith's "Way down East" & "Intolerance". The latter, his needed penance for the equally great "Birth of a Nation",  was certainly more innovative, but both of these are more satisfying cinematic experiences. East has some of the most lush acting from both Lillian Gish (never more beautiful than she is here)  and Richard Barthelmess. The blizzard finale is one of the most breathtaking of climaxes (filmed in a real storm and without stunt doubles). Emotionally rich and paced like a Tarkovsky film, it resonates that descrip; 'Sculpting in Time'. In regards to "Intolerance"; comparatively,
De Mille was hack in similar materials.  Grffith was easily the most ambitious and brilliant of early filmmakers.

2. Charles Chaplin's " City Lights" and "Easy Street". In these two, 'everything' worked just right. I would place "The Kid" right behind these two and Coogan puts every child actor since to shame.

3. Buster Keaton's "Playhouse", "Frozen North" and "Sherlock, jr". Keaton played almost all of the characters in "Playhouse", including a monkey! "Jr" set a story which has repeated many times, including Allan's "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (and Keaton did it with far more innovation and without overstaying his welcome. Keaton really was America's first avant-gardist.

4. Dreyer's 'The Passion of Joan of Arc". This, not "Citizen Kane" is the greatest film of all time. Falconetti gave a performance which so drained her, she never did another film. The expressionistic camera work gives ever filthy detail, right down to sweat, tears and dirt under the nails. All of Dreyer's films have Rembrandt-like quality and this is no exception. We even get to experience a young Artaud, before madness and rectal cancer. This is where one should begin with Dreyer, and move onto "Day of Wrath"(never more Rembrandtesque than here) ,"Ordet" , "Vampyr" and the unfairly maligned 'Gertrud".

5. G.W. Pabst's 'Pandora's Box" with Louise Brook more than justifying the rabid cult following she has had since (and still has). Gorgeously sleazy and atmospheric. It may not have Berg's music, but he would have, without a doubt, felt this was a kindred spirit. Move straight ahead to Pabst's and Brook's second collaboration  "Diary of a Lost Girl" (foolishly she abandoned Pabst for a Hollywood career which not surprisingly fell flat) . Diary is not quite the equal of Lulu, but both the acting and direction are visual story telling at it's richest (Brooks does so subtly where lesser actors would be tempted to go over the top).

6.  Avant-Garde-Experimental Cinema of the 1920s and 1930s. Features shorts form such legendary artists such as Man Ray, Duchamp, and Hans Richter. Ultimately this collection proves that really, the only shock value still left, is an aesthetic one. One should also grab up "Landmarks of Early Cinema" with shorts from Edison, Lumeiere and, of course Melies (who did more with bizarre and imaginative sets than the whole of CGI studios).

7.  Luis Bunuel's "L' Age d' Or" . I think it holds up better than "Un Chein Andalou" and actually caused a bigger riot. Of course, Bunuel did both with Salvador Dali, who later claimed he did most of the work. The work that came after from both artists proves Dali to be the phony he was. Both films bear Bunuel's mark and Dali never again approached anything near this level.  Hitchcock, Lang and (surprisingly John Ford) all cited Bunuel as their favorite director. Welles claimed Bunuel was actually the most religious of filmmakers. Agreed. He and Hitchcock certainly did some Jesuit inspired bonding.

8. Fritz Lang's "Metropolis".Everything written is true here. I do miss the Georgio Moroder scored and color tinted version though.

9. F.W. Marnau's "Nosferatu" . Dracula is tame comparatively and the aptly named Schreck still manages to send slimy shivers down one's spine. The pacing, like Paul Wegener's "The Golem" can be trying for contemporary audiences. The '79 Herzog remake stands with Marnau's original (well, the German language version. Avoid the English language one). Appropriately, little is actually known about the elusive Schreck.

10. Paul Leni's 'The Man Who Laughs" with Veidt's performance being so influential to be the source of inspiration for Bob Kane's Joker. Mary (Phantom of the Opera) Philbin co-stars.  Loaded with period atmosphere, but Hugo's downer holds true for the film as well. Leni's films are not readily available, but worth the search.

11. Robert Wiene's " Cabinet of Dr. Caligari " is every bit the expressionist nightmare it's reputation has garnered.

12. Lon Chaney and Tod Browning. Possibly the most unnaturally natural collaboration in all of film history. "Where East is East', "Blackbird", "Unholy Three", "Road to Mandalay", "London After midnight" and their greatest collaborations; "West of Zanzibar' and "The Unknown" reveal a unique bonding between a director and actor who really identified with one another (Herzog and Kinski shared something similar). Chaney's two big non-Browning films "Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Phantom of the Opera" are, of course essential and the former has a performance that ranks with the best work of Chaplin. Browning never was able to replace Chaney, but of course he still managed to leave several masterpieces or near masterpieces. The horror genre never had as great an actor (and this, possibly because he was only nominally a 'horror' actor).

 13. William Beaudine's "Sparrows" with Mary Pickford, as hard as it is to believe from one shot Beaudine and Pickford. This is a unique film, heavily influenced by the German Expressionist rage of the time, but stands on it's own. Poignant, haunting, and impossible to forget.

14. The forgotten films of Charlie Bowers. He has been a recent re-discovery and deservedly so. Man Ray, Bunuel, Breton all adored him. Why wouldn't they adore a metal-eating bird, the inventor of the no slip banana peel and unbreakable eggs which hatch Model T Fords?

15. The serials of Louis Feuillade. This unintentional surrealist (the best type of surrealism, just ask any Ed Wood lover, Glen or Glend is indeed a masterpiece of unintentional surrealism from that unique auteur ). Feuillade lived in the suburbs and considered film work simply a job. Still, he managed to leave us "Les Vampires", "Judex" and "Fantomas" (which they simply have to release). I never would have imagined a silent serial to be subversive, nightmarish, fantasy entertainment, but these are all that and much more.

*special note to the early shorts of Harry Langdon (the Pee Wee Herman of his day, who ruined it for himself when he demanded creative control) and the silent (and surreal) Felix the cat cartoons.

[peter johnson]

Surprisingly, I've seen a lot of these, but have never heard of the others --

Re.  Melies.  I once created and performed a Theremin score to "The Conquest of The Pole"(1912), for a symposium of Arctic scientists.  I got some real good sparkly sounds going for the Zodiac sequence, & got a great reverberating roar going for the ice monster.  Great fun!

Boulder, Colorado, shows silent films on the very very large screen at Chataqua every summer, so I've seen "Pandora's Box" and "Sparrows" with live orchestral accompaniment.

There's that funny "taste" thing again:  Personally, I found George Moroder's disco soundtrack to "Metropolis" to be annoying as all hell.  In college, we referred to him as "Georgie Murderer", for what he did to the film.  You speak of Berg -- Berg would be a good soundtrack for that.  Or Brian Eno.

I tried "Passion of Joan of Arc", and maybe it was a mood thing, but it didn't hold me the way I thought it would.  I've seen "Vampyr" several times now, but that one sort of escapes me as well.  Maybe I'm just not a Dreyer person, just as I'm not a Pasolini person.

One week in London, I watched 2 different shorts and one feature film of Keaton's each day for an entire week.  You can see Arbuckle and a young Stan Laurel (sans Hardy) in a number of the shorts.  "The Camaraman" blew me away as much as "Sherlock Jr." did.  Keaton did so many cool films, and yet it seems the only one that gets shown repeatedly is "The General", which I find much weaker than things like "Steamboat Bill Jr.".  More of his stuff should be more widely known.

Glad you mention Harry Langdon, but surprised you didn't mention Harold Lloyd -- I even like "The Sins of Harold Diddlebock".  Lloyd had star-power and a screen presence even when doing the silliest things.

Never heard of Charlie Bowers, but I have to seek him out now --thanks!

Ever see Edison's "Frankenstein"?  That thing is one of the stranges bits of movie-making I've ever seen, if we're speaking of Surrealism --

I even like the "pop" films of the silent era:  I was thrilled when I finally got to see Rudolph Valentino's "The Shiek" for the first time!  It really ain't all that bad --

peter johnson/denny crane

[RCMerchant]

William K. Everson included  SPARROWS in his CLASSICS of the HORROR FILM book. I would agree. The Spec O'Donnel charecter is a real scumbag.  And  Gustav Von Seyffertiz deserves more recognition for his many villian roles .Has his film the WIZARD (1927) ever been found? 

Paul Weagner ...in many ways the first horror film star....the GOLEM films....and the MAGICIAN.

And the Mabuse films are favorites of mine,personally. I enjoy MABUSE,the GAMBLER  and the KING of CRIME more than METROPOLIS !!!

And gotta agree with Peter/Denny on Harold Llyod...he was my favorite as a kid. On Sunday morn on channel 8 here in SW Michigan they had Harold Llyod films...after that they had some kinda show with a guy named Efron something...DAM! can't remeber his name now....he wore a cape! Marshall! Marshall Efron!

The Keystone Cops were classic.

William Hart.

Emil Jannings.

Cnrad Veidt.

And yes...even an exploitation and horror geek like myself finds the BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN to be a classic and unforgettable movie experiance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euG1y0KtP_Q
	Small | Large

[pinkandbluefilms]

Would love to hear your score someday.

I agree on Eno as well, but Berg would be a natural.

I like Pasolini as well as Dreyer (who I rank with Tarkovsky), but they are acquired tastes (but, once acquired... Could say the same of Luigi Nono's music. Took me a dozen exposures -or more- to really dig into his work, but once I did, I now rank him among the highest, especially his late work).

In regards to Keaton, you're brave in saying out loud that it pales in comparison to many of the shorts, but I am with you 100 percent (that is often the case with many of the silent and early sound comedians-Keaton, Laurel and Hardy; their features were nowhere near as compact or as effective, on the whole. Chaplin & Fields were exceptions).
But yes, I should have mentioned Lloyd as well as Arbuckle. I like 'Sin' as well and feel it was unfairly ostracized.

I have seen Edison's "Frankenstein' Indeed , a surreal brew.

In regards to Valentino; You should 'Son of Sheik" and 'The Eagle" as they are, IMO, the best.  His iconic position can seem inexplicably curious when first viewing his films. By today' standards he certainly does not seem at all masculine or anything remotely what we think of from a phallic symbol, but his films are enjoyable hokum.

Too, one should really experience Fairbanks,the fun is contagious.

On the flip side of that, still waiting for Turner to release Stroheim's "Greed" and that director could be a whole day of discussion alone.  Another dvd must release would be Abel Gance's 'Napolean" (and for that matter, his Beethoven. If one thought 'Immortal Beloved' took liberties... It has to be seen to be believed). I saw Napolean in Chicago back in the 80's with the orchestral accompaniment and on triptych screen. The late Gene Siskel sat a few seats down from me, so it was quite an experience altogether.  

Do seek out Bowers, you will no be disappointed!

peace

Surprisingly, I've seen a lot of these, but have never heard of the others --

Re.  Melies.  I once created and performed a Theremin score to "The Conquest of The Pole"(1912), for a symposium of Arctic scientists.  I got some real good sparkly sounds going for the Zodiac sequence, & got a great reverberating roar going for the ice monster.  Great fun!

Boulder, Colorado, shows silent films on the very very large screen at Chataqua every summer, so I've seen "Pandora's Box" and "Sparrows" with live orchestral accompaniment.

There's that funny "taste" thing again:  Personally, I found George Moroder's disco soundtrack to "Metropolis" to be annoying as all hell.  In college, we referred to him as "Georgie Murderer", for what he did to the film.  You speak of Berg -- Berg would be a good soundtrack for that.  Or Brian Eno.

I tried "Passion of Joan of Arc", and maybe it was a mood thing, but it didn't hold me the way I thought it would.  I've seen "Vampyr" several times now, but that one sort of escapes me as well.  Maybe I'm just not a Dreyer person, just as I'm not a Pasolini person.

One week in London, I watched 2 different shorts and one feature film of Keaton's each day for an entire week.  You can see Arbuckle and a young Stan Laurel (sans Hardy) in a number of the shorts.  "The Camaraman" blew me away as much as "Sherlock Jr." did.  Keaton did so many cool films, and yet it seems the only one that gets shown repeatedly is "The General", which I find much weaker than things like "Steamboat Bill Jr.".  More of his stuff should be more widely known.

Glad you mention Harry Langdon, but surprised you didn't mention Harold Lloyd -- I even like "The Sins of Harold Diddlebock".  Lloyd had star-power and a screen presence even when doing the silliest things.

Never heard of Charlie Bowers, but I have to seek him out now --thanks!

Ever see Edison's "Frankenstein"?  That thing is one of the stranges bits of movie-making I've ever seen, if we're speaking of Surrealism --

I even like the "pop" films of the silent era:  I was thrilled when I finally got to see Rudolph Valentino's "The Shiek" for the first time!  It really ain't all that bad --

peter johnson/denny crane

[pinkandbluefilms]

God, I forgot all about Everson. He was an endless source of valuable information years ago. I mess his presence in the world.

William S. Hart was amazing!!!

Hart was to westerns what Chaplin was to pathos comedy and what Chaney was to pathos horror. I have seen  only about a half dozen of films (and saw all of those, except his swan song 'Tumbleweeds courtesy Sinister Cinema).

I do think a topic of silent and thirties westerns would be very interesting (I can't recall the title of one very strange western with a villainous and totally despicable Oliver Hardy killing and raping just about everyone in the cast!).

The Mabuse films set the standard, to be certain and the later Lang-less Mabuse films fell way flat, predictably.

There;s certainly nothing wrong with having an equal love of great art films and great schlock. The two are related, a bit like avant garde art and outsider art really.
But, it's commendable you can  say that. All too often, the two camps tend to war on each other, although I usually find art film lovers being more open to camp/horror/etc than the general horror fan is to art film. There are a few films which have bridged the gap even (Perhaps, Spider Baby and Carnival of Souls, definitely 'Daughter of Horror').

William K. Everson included  SPARROWS in his CLASSICS of the HORROR FILM book. I would agree. The Spec O'Donnel charecter is a real scumbag.  And  Gustav Von Seyffertiz deserves more recognition for his many villian roles .Has his film the WIZARD (1927) ever been found? 

Paul Weagner ...in many ways the first horror film star....the GOLEM films....and the MAGICIAN.

And the Mabuse films are favorites of mine,personally. I enjoy MABUSE,the GAMBLER  and the KING of CRIME more than METROPOLIS !!!

And gotta agree with Peter/Denny on Harold Llyod...he was my favorite as a kid. On Sunday morn on channel 8 here in SW Michigan they had Harold Llyod films...after that they had some kinda show with a guy named Efron something...DAM! can't remeber his name now....he wore a cape! Marshall! Marshall Efron!

The Keystone Cops were classic.

William Hart.

Emil Jannings.

Cnrad Veidt.

And yes...even an exploitation and horror geek like myself finds the BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN to be a classic and unforgettable movie experiance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euG1y0KtP_Q

[Allhallowsday]

God, I forgot all about Everson. He was an endless source of valuable information years ago. I mess his presence in the world.

William S. Hart was amazing!!!

Hart was to westerns what Chaplin was to pathos comedy and what Chaney was to pathos horror. I have seen  only about a half dozen of films (and saw all of those, except his swan song 'Tumbleweeds courtesy Sinister Cinema).

I do think a topic of silent and thirties westerns would be very interesting (I can't recall the title of one very strange western with a villainous and totally despicable Oliver Hardy killing and raping just about everyone in the cast!).

The Mabuse films set the standard, to be certain and the later Lang-less Mabuse films fell way flat, predictably.

There;s certainly nothing wrong with having an equal love of great art films and great schlock. The two are related, a bit like avant garde art and outsider art really.
But, it's commendable you can  say that. All too often, the two camps tend to war on each other, although I usually find art film lovers being more open to camp/horror/etc than the general horror fan is to art film. There are a few films which have bridged the gap even (Perhaps, Spider Baby and Carnival of Souls, definitely 'Daughter of Horror').

Don't forget LES YEUX SANS VISAGE (1960) or VAMPYR (1932) or maybe LA BELLE ET LA BETE (1946) (but I don't think SPIDER BABY is all that artful).  You mightn't possibly be metropolisforever...?
Your knowledge and dedication to film, particularly early film, is impressive; if you start the thread, they will come.     We all here love bad films, and good films, and great films.  And how many hours have we all, collectively say, dedicated to worthless muck, absolute dreck...?  Inordinate!   

[dean]

LA BELLE ET LA BETE is a great film.  Filmed during the war, in places where there were nearby bombing whilst on production.  And a great surrealist telling of 'The Beauty and the Beast'.  Also one of the more faithful adaptations from what I understand. 

Personally I'm a big fan of all early the surrealist works, and german expressionist films, alongside those mentioned below.

Films like Metropolis, Nosferatu, Freaks and Un Chien Andalou are high on my regular viewing lists.  Melies is fun, as is the early monster films like Frankenstien, Dracula etc.

Some of the early musicals are a treat, like Footlight Parade, 42nd Street and The Gold Diggers of 1933

Birth of a Nation, whether or not you enjoy the film and it's ethics, is quite quintessential early cinema.  That thing is freakin' epic.

Some early films that I want to see, in order of year, but haven't yet:

Les Vampires [1915]

Intolerance [1916]

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari [1919]

Dr Mabuse [1922]

Haxan [1923] which sounds insane: a vague documentary about devil possession and withcraft.  All the photos I've seen make it look really interesting.

Triumph of the Will: again sounds like something that you should just watch for the history alone.

Wow, I've got some hunting/watching to do.

[Trevor]

As far as African cinema goes, there's a school of thought that maintains that African cinema started in 1965 with the Ousmane Sembene films. That school failed. Grade Fs all the way. Miserably so.          

The African cinema as we know it began in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1895 when films were screened for the first time on the African continent and our cinema started producing films in 1910.

The oldest surviving African film is Harold Shaw's De Voortrekkers which can be translated as The Pathfinders or The Trailblazers and was released in 1916.

[pinkandbluefilms]

I don't know that I would call Spiderbaby artful either, but it's appeal to the art crowd is it's (most likely) unintentional quirky originality. Considering that nothing else Jack Hill has made has even come close having the tone 'Baby' has, I would say it's purely accidental, which is appealing.
One critic wrote it was as if Lynch had somehow made an Addams family movie. overstated probably, but that works.

No, I would not forget at all you examples. 

Along with ' BETE' , I would probably add "Blood of a poet" and "Orphee' of course.
Franju's was masterful mix of pure art and pure horror and there's never been another film quite like it.
In addition to 'Vampyr", which was finally given a decent restoration, I would add Dreyer's "Day of Wrath".
Michael Reeve's "Witchfinder General" and "The Sorcerers" (which has, lamentably, NEVER been released in any format) are  further examples of films that had something uniquely quirky and original, perhaps beautifully somewhere between artfilm and schlock (it's unfortunate Reeve's heroin habit took him away so quick. His would have been an interesting career).
peace

Don't forget LES YEUX SANS VISAGE (1960) or VAMPYR (1932) or maybe LA BELLE ET LA BETE (1946) (but I don't think SPIDER BABY is all that artful).  You mightn't possibly be metropolisforever...?
Your knowledge and dedication to film, particularly early film, is impressive; if you start the thread, they will come.     We all here love bad films, and good films, and great films.  And how many hours have we all, collectively say, dedicated to worthless muck, absolute dreck...?  Inordinate!   
[/quote]

[pinkandbluefilms]

Haxan is insane. Find it, find it now.
peace

LA BELLE ET LA BETE is a great film.  Filmed during the war, in places where there were nearby bombing whilst on production.  And a great surrealist telling of 'The Beauty and the Beast'.  Also one of the more faithful adaptations from what I understand. 

Personally I'm a big fan of all early the surrealist works, and german expressionist films, alongside those mentioned below.

Films like Metropolis, Nosferatu, Freaks and Un Chien Andalou are high on my regular viewing lists.  Melies is fun, as is the early monster films like Frankenstien, Dracula etc.

Some of the early musicals are a treat, like Footlight Parade, 42nd Street and The Gold Diggers of 1933

Birth of a Nation, whether or not you enjoy the film and it's ethics, is quite quintessential early cinema.  That thing is freakin' epic.

Some early films that I want to see, in order of year, but haven't yet:

Les Vampires [1915]

Intolerance [1916]

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari [1919]

Dr Mabuse [1922]

Haxan [1923] which sounds insane: a vague documentary about devil possession and withcraft.  All the photos I've seen make it look really interesting.

Triumph of the Will: again sounds like something that you should just watch for the history alone.

Wow, I've got some hunting/watching to do.

[Allhallowsday]

Haxan [1923] which sounds insane: a vague documentary about devil possession and withcraft.  All the photos I've seen make it look really interesting.
Triumph of the Will: again sounds like something that you should just watch for the history alone.

HAXAN is very cool and interesting. 

I just gave a DVD copy of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL to my brother for his birthday.  It's definitely a must see for any student of film. 

[peter johnson]

Has anyone on this thread ever seen Stroheim's "Wedding March"?  I've read more than one critic call it "the best silent film ever made", but then go into no real detail as to why this should be so.

I have not seen it yet, and somehow keep missing it/watching other films instead.  Pinkandblue, how about you?

peter johnson/denny crane

[pinkandbluefilms]

I would not call it the greatest, but it's in the top ten.

One of the things that makes this (truncated) film so remarkable is it's very stylized representation of Vienna. It's by turns; stagy and hyper realistic, and that may take dispensing with pre-conceived notions of film aesthetics.

It's also a downer (although it is not lacking in humor)  and Stroheim loads the details in such pronounced mannerisms, your eye really has to absorb all those fine visuals,which are essential to this (and all of Stroheim's films). It pacing is static, so if that's something one is not accustomed to or (in most cases) does not want to be accustomed to, I would not recommend it.

The film is a morality play about marrying for money, position, rather than love, and it's replete with symbolism (an animated skeletal hand replaces a human hand at the keyboard of piano, playing "The Wedding March'. Apple blossoms figure in heavily, symbolizing the fading away of the relationship. A marriage is bargained for and arranged by two inebriated fathers, hiding under a table, etc).

Stroheim himself plays the romantic male lead, which may be a little disconcerting to audiences used to chiseled types.  He's also wildly eccentric and has an aloof coolness compared to contemporary lead actors. Zasu Pitts has a surprisingly small but powerful role and Fay Wray, is the female lead (she's 'ok', but pales next to Pitts).

Stoheim takes his shots at capitalism, religious mockery (a Corpus Christi procession in  a two strip technicolor tinted scene), decadence (which Stroheim brilliantly condemned and , paradoxically, wallowed in)  and paints the film broadly with vulnerability, an overwhelming sense of decay, and pathos.

Some critics feel Stroheim's layered details create a distraction from the emotional resonance in his films. I don't agree. Stroheim was the Kubrick of his time and, like that later master, Stroheim's films are about the dehumanization of man. Those details, acutely absorbed, enhance that overall feeling, adding an almost epic struggle onto something deceptively simplistic.

It's not escapism (Stroheim always used symbolism in the most artful, rather than entertaining, ways) and, again,  the surface story itself is fairly simplistic (the second half is lost, although it really doesn't feel like it. It was separated into two features and the latter half is forever gone) but this is visual story telling at it's most sublime  (it definitely stems from the silent film aesthetic. It would not have worked at all as a sound film) . 'Greed' may have been a more powerful film, but 'The Wedding March" is even more intensely poignant.

"The Wedding March" has a hypnotic feel and belongs to that Tarkovksy-penned "Sculpting in Time" school. It's one of those films where those elongated moments, where little seems to be actually happening, become increasingly mesmerizing upon repeated viewings.

If you seek it out, and by all means you should, watch it more than once, it will prove an even more enriching experience.

My two cents,
peace.

Alfred Eaker
Pink & Blue Films

Has anyone on this thread ever seen Stroheim's "Wedding March"?  I've read more than one critic call it "the best silent film ever made", but then go into no real detail as to why this should be so.

I have not seen it yet, and somehow keep missing it/watching other films instead.  Pinkandblue, how about you?

peter johnson/denny crane

[peter johnson]

It's amazing to me that so much of Stroheim goes missing --

I know the Arthur family in Williamsburg, Virginia, whose relative wrote "The Greed Book" back in the early 1970's(?), which is now out-of-print, wherein he tried to recompose the entire 6 or 8 hour -- depending on the source -- version of "Greed".  I know Zazu Pitts actually ends up pleasuring herself with the gold in a graphic fashion not intact in the truncated version.

No wonder poor Stroheim ended up burying chimpanzees for old ladies in Hollywood!  To lose so much of what he had created surely took its toll --

peter johnson/denny crane

[pinkandbluefilms]

It's actually even more amazing that Stroheim got any films made to begin with, let alone last as long as he did, being a maverick.

James Whale had the same problems and, ironically, it was the new Jewish owners of Universal that did him in for making an anti-fascist film (The Road Back-they did not want to upset the Germans or upset the German market. Hitler objected to the film and so they butchered it and it was the beginning of the end for  Whale).

Josef von Sternberg  is also horribly underestimated maverick auteur and desperately needs a revival.

Still waiting on TCM to release Greed on dvd. I won't hold my breath.

Did not know that about Pitt's pleasuring herself with gold though. Only Stroheim would have the guts to do that, but yes Hollywood destroyed him, as they mistreated their greatest artists like Welles, Chaplin, Clift to name a few.

Bunuel once said the ultimate insult would be to win an academy award (alas, he did, and showed up in a caricature wig and got his digs in without anyone even noticing his mockery) 

peace

It's amazing to me that so much of Stroheim goes missing --

I know the Arthur family in Williamsburg, Virginia, whose relative wrote "The Greed Book" back in the early 1970's(?), which is now out-of-print, wherein he tried to recompose the entire 6 or 8 hour -- depending on the source -- version of "Greed".  I know Zazu Pitts actually ends up pleasuring herself with the gold in a graphic fashion not intact in the truncated version.

No wonder poor Stroheim ended up burying chimpanzees for old ladies in Hollywood!  To lose so much of what he had created surely took its toll --

peter johnson/denny crane