It’s late winter, two weeks until spring, and prime time for the flu. I almost squeaked through the season but caught a bug just recently myself. While there has been a lot of worry about swine (or H1N1) flu, in addition to the “seasonal” flu, the one I seem to have contracted is known as a norovirus and/or other “unknown enteric” version. My eldest daughter was suffering with this at the same time I was, although I doubt we contaminated each other because we live four hours apart these days. However, an interesting factor about both of our illnesses was that when we compared symptoms, we also realized that each of us had a pet who was ailing from cold-like symptoms; in my case, my cat; in hers, her dog. We joked about having “feline flu” vs. “canine flu”, but it was easy to laugh about it today because we have both recovered.
It is a fact, however, that the flu can be very serious. I was hospitalized about 20 years ago when I became so ill I was dehydrated and needed serious medical attention. And even if a case of the flu doesn’t require a trip to the emergency room or an appointment with your family physician, we all know that it certainly does require rest, lots of water, and time - enough time that work and daily life are interrupted for a few days to a week in order to recover.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in addition to those suffering from seasonal flu, there were also 64,355 cases of H1N1 nationally over this past flu season (which begins Week 40 each year). On average, 36,000 Americans die annually from the seasonal flu. This past year, there were an additional 3,900 who died from the H1N1 virus, and 450 of those were children. This is very serious, and scary. The H1N1 virus has claimed enough lives recently to get our attention, and thank goodness a preventive vaccine exists for those most at risk, for both types of flu. What mainly differentiates H1N1 from seasonal flu is that those most at risk from serious complications are the youngest generation, as opposed to the weak, infirm and elderly who are the normal victims of seasonal flu. But this is not the first time in recent history that an influenza virus has attacked the healthiest and most hearty among us.
The worst flu epidemic the nation has ever known occurred in 1917. The Spanish Flu was first reported in March at a Kansas army hospital. It seemed innocuous at first, with complaints of sore throats, chills, fever and general malaise. But within one week, over 500 men in the same camp had been quarantined. The virus then took off like wildfire, spreading throughout other army barracks and onto naval ships. The degree of severity of the virus became much more serious as young men began suddenly dying by the hundreds. The civilian population became alarmed that it would spread off of military bases and into the general public. Their fears were legitimate. Reports of influenza cases came from Philadelphia, Boston and Washington, D.C. In one single day, 851 persons died in New York City alone. As the strength of the virus spread, victims were succumbing within hours of first exhibiting symptoms. Even more alarming, while the morbidity of flu usually affects children and the elderly, this illness took its toll mainly on young adults, aged 20 to 40. Rumors spread that the Germans had unleashed germs in crowded public places, as a biological warfare tactic of World War I. The crime rate in Chicago dropped significantly – even the hoodlums were too ill to work. Those on the West Coast began to fear for their lives. That fear came true, when San Franciscans began to succumb. Even when the end of World War I came on November 11th, many of those who had danced for joy in the city streets wore face masks for fear of contracting germs. But the preventions did not inhibit the spread of illness as the massive gatherings during parades and celebrations brought on still another wave of the flu.
The statistics were staggering. Millions continued to become infected over the winter, and thousands died. Everyone knew someone who had lost their life to the illness. Overall, more people had perished, worldwide, of the Spanish Flu in one year, than in the four years that the Bubonic Plague had raged through Europe centuries before. More people died world wide than had been killed in the world war. By the time it had run its course, 275,000 Americans had succumbed, or 28% of the entire population of the country. Never before and not since has the world suffered a comparable medical disaster on such a massive scale.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Birth of Hollywood
Today, the name “Hollywood” signifies that magical place where, for the price of a ticket or twenty-four hour rental, fantasies become seemingly real and we can pack up our troubles and let life’s harsh realities slip away for an hour or two. But in the early days of movies, that state of mind was referred to as “The Shadowlands.” The suburb of Hollywoodland (the “land” was later dropped) had not yet been developed, so the world-famous hilltop sign with the giant letters in Los Angeles county didn’t exist until later in the 1920’s.
Most of the early motion picture studios were located on the east coast of the United States. By 1920, however, the move was on to the west coast for various reasons. Fair weather and varied terrain were highly desirable reasons to relocate the studios in California; but there was also another important influence: money.
A leading innovator of motion picture film inventions was Thomas Edison, and his laboratories were located on the east coast in New Jersey. The further away from Edison’s Menlo Park, New Jersey headquarters meant the more difficult it would be to have to pay royalties for copyright use of Edison’s inventions. While the modern age of as we recognize it was starting - with telephones, packaged foods, airplanes, motor cars and such becoming an ordinary part of life - most communication was still via telegraph and rail, so a lawsuit filed against a party located 3,000 miles away was much more difficult to pursue. The studios knew that and exploited the distance for their onw profits.
But California was hardly the only place where motion picture studios were popping up on every corner, and films were being churned out and potential stars were being groomed to emote and dance. Before World War I, there were huge numbers of movies made all over Europe, and in Russia and Asia, too. For the most part, they were considered to be superior to those produced in the United States. These reasons included exciting avant-garde cinematography techniques, sophisticated plot treatments, and exotic and talented actors.
What made America suddenly become the leader in motion pictures was that not only the first, but also the second World War were fought overseas, and not on U.S. soil. These were insurmountable setbacks to the foreign film business. So California gained more than a decade total in steadily growing and developing as the world leader of the movie industry, while all the others rebuilt and recovered. Almost seventy years later, no other nation has come close to overtaking Los Angeles, California as the motion picture capital of the world.
Thus, the one-two-three punch of temperate climate, dirty business practices, and two overseas wars combined to favor the west coast as the universally-recognized heart of entertainment that is Hollywood. U.S.A.
Most of the early motion picture studios were located on the east coast of the United States. By 1920, however, the move was on to the west coast for various reasons. Fair weather and varied terrain were highly desirable reasons to relocate the studios in California; but there was also another important influence: money.
A leading innovator of motion picture film inventions was Thomas Edison, and his laboratories were located on the east coast in New Jersey. The further away from Edison’s Menlo Park, New Jersey headquarters meant the more difficult it would be to have to pay royalties for copyright use of Edison’s inventions. While the modern age of as we recognize it was starting - with telephones, packaged foods, airplanes, motor cars and such becoming an ordinary part of life - most communication was still via telegraph and rail, so a lawsuit filed against a party located 3,000 miles away was much more difficult to pursue. The studios knew that and exploited the distance for their onw profits.
But California was hardly the only place where motion picture studios were popping up on every corner, and films were being churned out and potential stars were being groomed to emote and dance. Before World War I, there were huge numbers of movies made all over Europe, and in Russia and Asia, too. For the most part, they were considered to be superior to those produced in the United States. These reasons included exciting avant-garde cinematography techniques, sophisticated plot treatments, and exotic and talented actors.
What made America suddenly become the leader in motion pictures was that not only the first, but also the second World War were fought overseas, and not on U.S. soil. These were insurmountable setbacks to the foreign film business. So California gained more than a decade total in steadily growing and developing as the world leader of the movie industry, while all the others rebuilt and recovered. Almost seventy years later, no other nation has come close to overtaking Los Angeles, California as the motion picture capital of the world.
Thus, the one-two-three punch of temperate climate, dirty business practices, and two overseas wars combined to favor the west coast as the universally-recognized heart of entertainment that is Hollywood. U.S.A.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Web Site is Back Up!
Monday, December 28, 2009
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
Certainly some food for thought to reflect on during the last week of the year. ~ SDG
Friday, December 11, 2009
"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.
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.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)