1921: The Battle of the Babbies

Today, the Scottish novelist and playwright Sir J.M. (James Matthew) Barrie is best remembered as the author of Peter Pan, but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century he was wildly popular for all of his works. Upcoming publications were anticipated with the same enthusiasm as the Harry Potter stories are today. Beloved for his melodramatic romances laced with quaintness and fantasy, The Little Minister was not Barrie’s first published work, but it was his first big success. Published as a novel in Great Britain in 1891 and debuted as a play in 1897, the tale quickly crossed the Atlantic and into the hands of American readers. The Little Minister has not withstood the test of time as well as Peter Pan, but for twenty years after its first appearance, The Little Minister was performed hundreds of times in theaters both grand and local, across the pond in the U. S. And while literary critics sneered at the whimsy and droll of Barrie’s writing, audiences loved it.
Colloquialisms such as “Life is a long lesson in humility” and “Temper [is] a weapon that we hold by the blade” were quotes from The Little Minister that readers memorized and embraced as their own personal adages. Another favorite was “The life of every man is a diary in which he means to write one story, and writes another, and his humblest hour is when he compares the volume as it is with what he vowed to make it.”
While the novelization of The Little Minister takes place over a period of ten months, the play timeline is but a day and a night. Set in a small Scottish village, much of the drama contains doses of local flavor and language. But American Anglophiles adored both the romanticism of the Scottish village setting, along with the quaintness of the fanciful tale.
The play was first filmed in 1913 and again in 1915. However, the simultaneous filming in 1921 of The Little Minister by two major Hollywood studios was an uncommon occurrence, indeed. It was just as rare then as it is today.
Most actors resent competition between roles, such as the "best performance" categories in the Academy Awards. This is understandable; one nominee’s role is generally unlike another. To compare one actor’s interpretation of a Shakespearan character to a portrayal of a famous athlete to a performance of a dancing singer in a musical to a fictional protagonist in a dramatic role is like apples to peanuts to pork chops to angel food cake. To be precise, they are not at all the same, defy resemblance, and make for an illogical contest.
As a rule, when two different actors take on roles that are literally of the same character and the productions are completed within weeks or months of each other, distributors have generally taken the tactic of pushing back the date of the film completed last. This is mainly to avoid each canceling out the other by offering too (two) much of a good thing. An example of this is the recent depiction of the same character in two separate films; that of the late Truman Capote. Albeit, the portrayals are offered in two very different screenplays about the author’s life. In 2005’s Capote, the title role was performed by Philip Seymour Hoffman and based on the Gerald Clarke biography of the same title. Have You Heard? is derived from George Plimpton’s collection of interviews in Truman Capote: In Which Various Friends, Enemies, Acquaintances and Detractors Recall His Turbulent Career (Nan A. Talese, 1997). Little wonder that the release of the latter was pushed back after Hoffman won a Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Capote. Another case in point is of the modern film adaptations of Choderlos de Laclos’ classic novel Les Liasons Dangereuses; 1988’s Dangerous Liaisons and the following year’s interpretation, Valmont. While the first is well known, very few people have ever heard of the second. It is as if one canceled out the other by their being released too soon in the public memory. This is a predictable outcome, and no one in the film industry would want to make such a foolish move, as the chances for failure are 50/50 and those odds are too high to gamble. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find another example in which two films, inspired by the same novel or play, have been produced and released at exactly the same time, as in the case of the Paramount and Vitagraph releases in 1921 of The Little Minister.
And if Paramount and Vitagraph were doing it for publicity, they certainly succeeded. The Paramount version of The Little Minister with Betty Compson starring as the female lead was released one week prior to the Vitagraph adaptation featuring Alice Calhoun, which premiered on January 8, 1922. Newspaper and fanzine articles about the films, comparing and contrasting each of the performances, sets, costumes, editing and subtitles, etc., ran for months after the movie’s debuts. Audience anticipation and expectations were high, and the rivalry was on to see which version was “the best”. Opinions were exchanged and argued over. But since both films sold a similar amount of tickets, neither company suffered any financial losses by daring to use this approach. Theater advertisements in the newspapers made it clear which version was being shown on their silver screen, such as The New York Times listings for “This Week’s Films” :
RIVOLI – “The Little Minister,” directed by Penrhyn Stanlaws, with Betty Compson in the leading role, adapted from Sir James M. Barries’s novel and play by Elfrid Bingham, supervised by Thompson Buchanan, a Paramount picture; “Chums,” a comedy, with Baby Peggy.
PLAZA – Today, “The Little Minister,” with Alice Calhoun, the Vitagraph version of Barrie’s novel and play; …Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, “Little Lord Fauntelroy,” with Mary Pickford.

In initial reviews, critics agreed nearly unanimously that Vitagraph’s James Morrison was perfectly cast as the title character; it was a role the consummate actor was born to play. Reviewers also, more often than not, preferred Alice Calhoun’s performance of Lady Babbie over Betty Compson’s. In the January 22, 1922 issue of The Stevens Point Journal (Wisconsin) the national “Harrison Reports” comparison of the two films was run:
The Vitagraph version is the better of the two. The Vitagraph picture has been produced with more care; its supporting cast has been selected more intelligently, its atmosphere is truer to life, it is better acted, and its continuity is smoother.…
…As to the leading players, the ones in the Vitagraph version are by far the superior. Miss Calhoun is a more refined actress. As a gypsy, she acts the part; as a lady, she looks and acts every bit of it and is better adapted to the role. Miss Compson, the heroine in the Paramount version, on the other hand, is altogether miscast. As to the leading man, James Morrison, the hero in the Vitagraph version, is a real life little minister, is sympathetic and succeeds in making the spectator feel his emotions; while George Hackathorne, the Gavin of the Paramount version, is miscast.

Promotional ads by Vitagraph read “Don’t be fooled”, insinuating that the Vitagraph version was more preferred than the Paramount offering. So confident was Vitagraph in their production that the stakes were upped even more. As part of their publicity for the film, Vitagraph offered a prize of $100 to anyone who could prove that the Paramount production was superior to the Alice Calhoun vehicle.
To her credit, Betty Compson was most certainly a fine and talented actress who appeared in 121 films over the span of her career. At the period of time when both the Paramount and Vitagraph versions of The Little Minister were filmed, both Betty and Alice lived in similar familial circumstances, each residing with their mothers in Hollywood bungalows. Their rise to stardom, their versatile talents, and their wholesome lifestyles are other similarities.
Nor is there any evidence that Alice Calhoun and Betty Compson had any hard feelings about the rivalry created by their respective employers; both artists were simply pawns in a publicity stunt perpetrated by the movie machine. And no one, including the critics, panned Betty’s performance as Lady Barbara/Babbie, either. In fact, she received high praise for her performance. One reviewer called it “her best work” and described her as “perfectly romantic” in the role. Modern day critics, such as AMG’s Janiss Garza personally preferred Compson’s Babbie to Calhoun’s. Although it should be noted that Vitagraph’s The Little Minister is classified as a “lost” film, so it is doubtful that Garza ever actually viewed Alice Calhoun’s role.
Alice herself always felt that the part of Lady Barbara/Babbie was the best role she performed in her career. It was always one of her own favorite films, and one of the few that the humble performer didn’t mind viewing herself . It is most unfortunate that no known copies exist today.
But ultimately, the final word on the “battle of the Babbies” rivalry would be put to rest when the opinion of the author of The Little Minister and creator of Babbie was rendered. It wasn’t until 1925 that he voiced his choice. In the May 17 edition of the Los Angeles Times, it was reported that Sir James Barrie called Alice Calhoun “the ideal Babbie of the screen.”
- (c) Susann Disbro Gilbert 21 Jan 2010

References:
The New York Times pg. 65, December 25, 1921.
The Stevens Point Daily Journal (Wisconsin) January 28, 1922.
…called by Sir James Barrie “the ideal Babbie of the screen”…Los Angeles Times, California May 17, 1925
Author’s note: There is no record of anyone actually claiming the prize of $100 offered by Vitagraph. “Lost” meaning that there are no known public or archived copies.

Final Note:
This is a excerpt from a chapter in "Alice in Hollywoodland: The Life and Times of Silent Screen Actress Alice Calhoun" by Susann Desborough. I chose to put this up on the blog in the hopes of getting some feedback and constructive criticism. One of the issues my editor has with it is that I discuss and compare this unusual circumstance with modern film. I personally found it interesting and more informative, but I'm curious to know what you think. Please share your opinions with me.

Web Site is Back Up!

While still in the embryonic stages, I've managed to get the official Alice Calhoun website back onto the World Wide Web. Please bookmark it and check back frequently as I continue adding to it: http://alicecalhoun.net

Out With the Old, In With the New?

Random thought:

This week’s topic includes two points of views regarding the change from “silent” to “sound” film. The first is from a TCM feature Cecil B. DeMille - American Epic directed by Kevin Brownlow

“…The moment sound came in, everyone threw the technique of silent pictures away…swept the stage clean, swept everybody who had been working in silent pictures away and brought in from the stage people who were used to reading lines.

“And they put the camera in a little glass box. You couldn’t pan it, you couldn’t move it, it was in glass…

“And I took the camera out of the glass room, and put it on the stage to try and bring [the art] back…and the sound engineer walked off.”

- Cecil B. DeMille

I love this quote; Mr. DeMille explains so much about what I often disliked about the first sound films. Much of the cinematic strides that had been made in the previous two decades were tossed off the sets and largely forgotten in the novelty of talkies. Even in early television, dialogue only took place when everyone was sitting around a table, for example (“speak into the flower pot, my dear; that’s where the microphone is”). In that media form, it wasn’t until Desi Arnez came along and insisted on utilizing three cameras. It also helped that Lucille Ball was a gifted comedienne, surrounded by a great supporting cast, but “I Love Lucy” reruns would not still be airing somewhere right now, if the camera work hadn’t been so good.

The second example is what I am focusing on this week, the last of ‘09. I’m writing about the frustration that Alice Calhoun felt toward the last few years of her career. She had already proven her acting chops with diversified roles in a number of very good films. But when Warner Brothers bought out Vitagraph Studios and included her contract with the sale , she was treated with disregard by the new production company and given mediocre roles in second-rate films. A number of notable directors wanted her in their films, but Warner Bros. refused to loan her out. Little wonder that she decided to walk away and give up her acting career. It certainly must have been a real heartache. Especially since she was only thirty-three years old when she came to that decision.

People come and go so fast in the revolving door of Hollywood. Techniques and talents are quickly forgotten. It’s remarkable…even if only for the reason that this art form - of cinema- is little more than a century old.

Certainly some food for thought to reflect on during the last week of the year. ~ SDG 12/28/09

"The Muses"

The Muses, in Greek mythology, poetry, and literature are the goddesses or spirits who inspire the creation of literature and the arts. I'd like to touch on that topic a little bit today. It is the Muses who keep me away from the tempting song of Sirens...Those devilish imps who call to me from across the lethargic waters, tempting me to their dangerous isle of quicksand called The Writers Block.

Somewhere in the front or back of any work of nonfiction is that section listing all of the people who have contributed to researching. The majority of these are folks who have either gone above and beyond the call of professional research duties, or others who have kindly given of their time and expertise with no personal agenda. I'm not going to list everyone that I am indebted to (this is neither the time nor have I the space), but did want to point out a few very important people that I am grateful to for their contributions thus far to my research into the life story of Alice Calhoun:

William M. Drew has authored countless articles, film reviews, and a number of books about classic film. He's an encyclopedic wealth of knowledge on the subject. I would estimate that he has provided me with 30+ articles and resources dealing with Alice Calhoun. He's been a wonderful mentor, and many the emails have flown back and forth between us, discussing theories and motivations regarding Alice's life and career.

Clan Coloquhuon, specifically in the persona of Tom Calhoun Hodges, has been an enthusiastic promoter for Alice. A display of photos, literature and showing of her remaining films is always featured at the Southeastern Scottish Games events that he and the rest of the Clan attend, keeping her memory alive for an audience that probably would never know about her otherwise.

So many, many others have assisted me in a wide variety of ways...My cousin, Carolyn Chopskie took photos while on a visit to California...Ken Robichaux of The Picture Show Man website regularly comes up great angles of film topics, acting techniques, research sources, etc., for me to consider delving into further...other writers, including Jessica Johnson of the Post & Courier; Victoria Mushoff of the Park West Palazzo blog (http://parkwestpalazzo.blogspot.com/); retired editor Hans J. Wollstein of the All Movie Guide; archivists from the University of Chicago, UCLA, Stanford University, Warner Brothers, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences....well, I'm sure that you're getting the idea! It doesn't just take a village, these folks are from all over the U.S., and some come from Europe and South America, too.

While I most certainly have neglected to mention many, I wanted to take the time to point out that no author is an island. Researching and writing are often thought to be a solo gig, but without the enthusiasm, encouragement, thoughts and ideas of so many others, my project would have never come so far.

So to all those that I mentioned, and to all the many others who will be listed in the final publication, I can't thank you enough for being my inspiration. It is YOU who are my Muses.

Photo Montage of "Angel Face"
The Immortal Alice Calhoun

The Flag: A Story Inspired By the Tradition of Betsy Ross (1927)

Color, Silent, 29:52
A patriotic and romantic silent film. 20 min.

Score added by Vivak Maddala in 2002.
Directed by Arthur Maude.
Stars Francis X. Bushman, Enid Bennett, Alice Calhoun, Johnnie Walker.

Searching for America's past on the silver screen

Mount Pleasant residents keeping memories of movies, S.C. single-screen theaters alive through their Web sites

By Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Photo by Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

Susann Gilbert created this collage to inspire her research into a cousin, 1920s movie star Alice Calhoun.

Photo by Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

Calhoun, a silent-screen star, will be the subject of a book by the Mount Pleasant resident.

Photo by Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

Mark Tiedje (left) and John Coles started www.scmovietheatres.com, which features a history of single-screen movie theaters in the state, primarily to collect people's memories. The doors came from a former Charleston single-screen theater, the Gloria, now the Sottile Theatre, at King and George streets.

Photo by Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

John Coles of Mount Pleasant stands in the Paradise Theatre, a former mother-in-law suite he and Tiedje converted into a small, eight-seat movie theater complete with a cafe. The movie poster frame next to Coles was taken from the former single-screen theater on Sullivan's Island.

Photo by Jessica Johnson

The Post and Courier

Ken Robichaux, Picture Show Man Web site director of operations, plays 'The Sneeze,' the first movie ever copyrighted.

On the web

-- scmovietheatres.com.

-- alicecalhoun.net.

-- pictureshowman.com.

What if you could watch a 1920s video of your grandmother or other relative and see the way she was, but at 25?

Susann Gilbert can, almost. One of her relatives lives on in silent films, and her voice is in some clips.

Tracing her family roots, Gilbert found some interesting sparks in hunks of tedious research. But a member of her family tree who especially caught her attention was a first cousin of her grandfather: actress Alice Calhoun. Naturally, Gilbert, a former performer, was interested in learning more about the silent star born in 1900. But she couldn't find much. "In Hollywood, people come and go. People get very forgotten," Gilbert said.

When the Mount Pleasant resident searched for information on the Web, she kept finding the same biography repeated on different sites and with mistakes, including eight different birth dates.

To set the story straight, Gilbert launched her own Web site to tell her relative's story.

The site is part of a larger movement to preserve America's 20th-century film and theater history here in the Lowcountry. Gilbert and three other Mount Pleasant residents maintain Web sites dedicated to the history of motion pictures and the state's single-screen theaters.

If our family trees tell us who we are, then maybe films tell us what America was. You can see how people dressed, how they lived and what they thought was funny, Gilbert said.

"If you want to understand the 20th century, study the movie theater," said John Coles, who maintains www.scmovietheatres.com with Mark Tiedje.

What the railroad was to the 19th century, the movie theater was to the 20th century. The railroad, the men said, united the country physically. The movie theater unified the country culturally and socially. A trip to the movie theater in the early days included news reels, cartoons and coming attractions in addition to the feature-length film.

After the movie, you grabbed a soda and talked about what you saw, Tiedje said.

The men have been studying the state's single-screen theaters because it limits the scope of their research to a specific period. The state's first theaters built for movies opened in 1915. In 1930, there were 200 single-screen theaters in South Carolina. Many towns, no matter how small, had one. Tiedje and Coles likened it to bringing the Internet to town. Cottageville, barely a bend in the road, with a gas station and maybe a nursery, opened a single-screen in 1941.

The men have been collecting people's theater memories via the Web site www.scmovietheatres.com. But they also traveled the state and others to gather information. During their travels, Tiedje and Coles often stuck out in the smallest towns. They were met with, "Who are you?" until the men said that they'd come to learn about the town's old theater.

"People open up, they share their personal stories once you ask them about their memories," Coles said.

The most common South Carolina story involves the excitement after hearing that a live Tarzan star would come to the theater. Everyone thought it would be Johnny Weissmuller. Instead, they were greeted by "Cheetah" the chimpanzee. Everyone thought it was the real Cheetah, Tiedje said, but it was a chimpanzee rented out by a Florence man.

By the 1980s, most single-screen theaters had disappeared. Twin and triple screens opened in the 1970s and 1980s, changing the way people saw films.

"Movie theaters in the 20th century are more representative of the American culture," Coles said. "I don't think the movie theaters represent anything today."

Tiedje said, "The movies still do."

Ken Robichaux, The Picture Show Man Web site director of operations, said films of the 20th and 21st centuries are a reflection of society's tastes because they are so commercial.

He limits the information on his Web site to the 20th century from the beginnings of film to the 1960s, about the time Hollywood's studio structure and its golden age had ended.

The history of motion pictures gives a general view of the 20th century. It includes entertainment, dance, technology, patent law, censorship, the rise of unions, social values — Robichaux's list goes on.

"It encompasses everything, and because of that, it's endlessly fascinating," Robichaux said.

Reach Jessica Johnson at 937-5921 or jjohnson@postandcourier.com.