The Top Ten

[Chris Snowden]

Yep, it's a special heartbreak-free edition of the Silent Movie Blog, consisting entirely of my top ten "Top Ten" lists, featuring:


* The top ten stars of 1918
* Ten things you couldn't show in Maryland
* A hundred critics name the ten greatest silents (up to 1925)
And... Louella Parsons keeps the boss happy


The link is below!

[Mike Gebert]

Wow, I'm impressed that you found a "top ten of all time" list that early where they actually listed what they were. I found a report of one in Photoplay circa 1922 where they mentioned the top 3 (The Miracle Man, Broken Blossoms and The Kid) in passing but never actually gave the whole list. Likewise, Variety would do a "showmen say what the best movies of all time are" article every once in a while but again, never quantify it (though I remember that Cavalcade's reputation stayed extremely high even into the 1950s; possibly not being able to see it actually helped in that case).

[Chris Snowden]

Wow, I'm impressed that you found a "top ten of all time" list that early where they actually listed what they were.

The tastiest list that I didn't use was one naming the top reasons for projection-booth fires. Unfortunately there were only five or six items on it, they were all boringly technical and "smoking in the booth" wasn't among them.

[Richard M Roberts]

Yep, it's a special heartbreak-free edition of the Silent Movie Blog, consisting entirely of my top ten "Top Ten" lists, featuring:


* The top ten stars of 1918
* Ten things you couldn't show in Maryland
* A hundred critics name the ten greatest silents (up to 1925)
And... Louella Parsons keeps the boss happy


The link is below!

Trying to figure out what would constitute "proper" exhibition of feminine underwear or "decorous" dancing in Maryland. Come to think of it, I've always considered it "decorous " for ladies to dance in their underwear.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Gagman 66]

Hmmm, The Top 10 Silver Screen beauties of 1925 poll? Well, my own list of Top 10 Silent Screen lovelies has very few of the same people. And this list is at least a year old. I have re-thought some of it. But here is the initial list from earlier this year, and my early comments from another forum. See what you think.

Err, not meaning to be critical, but those were awful photos of some of the ladies by the way who made the 1925 poll. Especially Florence Vidor, who is very lovely in THE JACK KNIFE-MAN, and DOOMSDAY. How come she looks so much older in THE MARRIGE CIRCLE? I agree with the choice of Corinne Griffith, but that was a dreadful photo too. I have some Stunners of Corinne.

Lately, I have been thinking that almost no one looked any better than Renee Adoree did to me. And I have some amazing photos to present that case. She did not make my top 10, but I brought her up in the equation. Also Colleen Moore, and Laura La Plante are about as cute as they come. Anyway, Here was my original Top 10.

(From last March or so, taken from about November 2007):

"I posted the following list in another thread on a different forum several months ago. I was always going to post it here but I never did.

Well, last night I had some E-mails that brought the subject to mind again. Now I am ready to hear people vent at me over my selections! Here is a recap of the Top 10 names that I chose, and my initial response. Some people agreed with the list while others did not.

A glaring omission from the group is the name of Mary Duncan! After seeing what remains of Frank Borzage's THE RIVER (1928), I might even be tempted to rate her in the Top 3 or 4? Maybe even Number 1! But Duncan did not look quite the same in F. W. Murna's CITY GIRL, had to check and make sure it was the same lady???

Gagman's Patented Hubba-Hubba Rating's Scale:

TOP TEN SILENT SCREEN BEAUTIES LIST:

1. Corinne Griffith
2. Dorothy Janis
3. Jacqueline Logan
4. Olive Thomas
5. Delores Costello
6. Marceline Day
7. Mary Philbin
8. Esther Ralston
9. Camilla Horn
10. Vilma Banky

While they did not make this list, I still like Janet Gaynor, Colleen Moore, Laura La Plante, Lillian Gish, and Jobyna Ralston very much. All of them were exceedingly darling little things! So were Mary Pickford, Clara Bow, Bessie Love, and numerous others. Renee Adoree was perhaps not quite as dainty, but She is still one of my very favorites. Ditto for Eleanor Boardman, Phyllis Haver, Bebe Daniels and so on!

I had tinkered with this list several times before submitting anything. I figured that the final result may raise a few eyebrows? I actually had Marion Davies listed in the top 7 or so at one point. Unfortunately, I had to drop Laura La Plante, and Jobyna Ralston from the Top 10 as well.

Here is a short list of the other Actresses that I was considering. Among those not previously noted, Honorable Mention went to the following:

Marion Nixon, Virginia Lee Corbin, Anita Page, Mary Nolan, Jane Daly, Patsy Ruth Miller, Greta Garbo, Vera Reynolds Dorothy Sebastian, Dorothy Gish, Getrude Olmsted, Mary Miles Minter, Madge Bellamy, Louise Brooks, Olive Bordon, June Collyer, Greta Nissen, Olga Baclanova, Alice White, Mary Brian, Jetta Goudal, Jeanne Eagels, Kathryn McGuire, Ruth Roland, Evelyn Brent, Madeleine Herlott, Mary Astor, Delores Del Rio, Barbara Kent, Betty Compson, Gloria Swanson, Norma Shearer, Edith Jehanne, and on, and on, and on! Wow! A whole lot of really good looking ladies to be sure I would say!


http://goldenageofhollywood.ning.com/profile/TheGiant

http://silent-and-classic-european.ning ... e/TheGiant

http://vintagelifenetwork.ning.com/profile/TheGiant

[Mike Gebert]

Could you unbold that? I find it very hard to read when the entire thing is telling me that it's the important part...

[Gagman 66]

Mike,

OK, I have un-bolded the post.

[Richard M Roberts]

A glaring omission from the group is the name of Mary Duncan!

It is not a glaring omission, Mary Duncan didn't make the list because she hadn't yet made a film in 1925.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[FrankFay]

Gagman's Patented Hubba-Hubba Rating's Scale:

TOP TEN SILENT SCREEN BEAUTIES LIST:

1. Corinne Griffith
2. Dorothy Janis
3. Jacqueline Logan
4. Olive Thomas
5. Delores Costello
6. Marceline Day
7. Mary Philbin
8. Esther Ralston
9. Camilla Horn
10. Vilma Banky

While they did not make this list, I still like Janet Gaynor, Colleen Moore, Laura La Plante, Lillian Gish, and Jobyna Ralston very much. All of them were exceedingly darling little things! So were Mary Pickford, Clara Bow, Bessie Love, and numerous others. Renee Adoree was perhaps not quite as dainty, but She is still one of my very favorites. Ditto for Eleanor Boardman, Phyllis Haver, Bebe Daniels and so on!

I had tinkered with this list several times before submitting anything. I figured that the final result may raise a few eyebrows? I actually had Marion Davies listed in the top 7 or so at one point. Unfortunately, I had to drop Laura La Plante, and Jobyna Ralston from the Top 10 as well.

Here is a short list of the other Actresses that I was considering. Among those not previously noted, Honorable Mention went to the following:

Marion Nixon, Virginia Lee Corbin, Anita Page, Mary Nolan, Jane Daly, Patsy Ruth Miller, Greta Garbo, Vera Reynolds Dorothy Sebastian, Dorothy Gish, Getrude Olmsted, Mary Miles Minter, Madge Bellamy, Louise Brooks, Olive Bordon, June Collyer, Greta Nissen, Olga Baclanova, Alice White, Mary Brian, Jetta Goudal, Jeanne Eagels, Kathryn McGuire, Ruth Roland, Evelyn Brent, Madeleine Herlott, Mary Astor, Delores Del Rio, Barbara Kent, Betty Compson, Gloria Swanson, Norma Shearer, Edith Jehanne, and on, and on, and on! Wow! A whole lot of really good looking ladies to be sure I would say!

Great selection, but I'd move Jetta Goudal farther up the list. One of my favorite Cinefest memories is leaving a showing of "Fighting Love" (Goudal with Victor Varconi) and standing with a teary woman in the elevator. She explained: "She was so beautiful".

Also- Cleo Ridgely has GOT to be on the list. I've only seen her in "The Golden Chance" but she's breathtaking.

[Penfold]

The top ten stars of 1918....whither Chaplin???

[Gagman 66]

Richard,

No, no, my list is not for 1925 like the Photo-play one. I take into account the entire Silent Era. So Mary Duncan could have made the top 10. Even deciding on a Top 20 would not be easy. I would still be leaving some worthy ladies out of the equation. Previously, some people concured with my selections, while others did not.

Frank,

I have only seen Jetta Goudal, in THE ROAD TO YESTERDAY, WHITE GOLD, and THE CARDBOARD LOVER. In the latter, I thought she was very beautiful. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any good photos of the lady to speak of. Most are quite disappointing, and do not do her justice. So if you have some please post them.

In ROAD TO YESTERDAY I perfer Vera Reynolds, to Goudal. But then in FLESH AND THE DEVIL I kind of perfer little Barbara Kent to Garbo, so I don't always agree with popular opinion. Barbara is certainly very lovely in LONESOME. What about my own Top 10 list though?

[Chris Snowden]

The top ten stars of 1918....whither Chaplin???

Two thoughts on that.

For one thing, the readership of magazines like Motion Picture skewed heavily female, and didn't really represent the movie-going audience as a whole. Poll results from these magazines tend not to favor the stars of slapstick comedies and westerns. If I could ever find a movie star poll in the cheesecake-heavy Film Fun, or even in Police Gazette, I'm sure the results would be equally skewed in the opposite direction.

The other thought is that, in the feature-length era, short subjects were regarded as throwaway entertainment, and only features were taken very seriously. People who felt that two-reel comedies didn't "count" wouldn't consider those stars as being in the same league as the stars appearing exclusively in features.

I guess I'm out on a limb with this theory, but I think it's reflected in contemporary theater ads in newspapers, which nearly always trumpet the feature on the program (even when it's a ho-hum programmer), and the accompanying shorts get perfunctory mentions at best.

[Frederica]

The top ten stars of 1918....whither Chaplin???

Two thoughts on that.

For one thing, the readership of magazines like Motion Picture skewed heavily female, and didn't really represent the movie-going audience as a whole. Poll results from these magazines tend not to favor the stars of slapstick comedies and westerns. If I could ever find a movie star poll in the cheesecake-heavy Film Fun, or even in Police Gazette, I'm sure the results would be equally skewed in the opposite direction.

The other thought is that, in the feature-length era, short subjects were regarded as throwaway entertainment, and only features were taken very seriously. People who felt that two-reel comedies didn't "count" wouldn't consider those stars as being in the same league as the stars appearing exclusively in features.

I guess I'm out on a limb with this theory, but I think it's reflected in contemporary theater ads in newspapers, which nearly always trumpet the feature on the program (even when it's a ho-hum programmer), and the accompanying shorts get perfunctory mentions at best.

I've noticed the same trend in contemporary ads. Subtext (and sometimes just plain text) in newspaper articles reflects a dismissive--or hierarchal, I guess--attitude toward short comedy. It was perceived as vulgar, as were its practitioners and its audience. The drammer was considered more high-toned and refeened.

Hmm. I'd love to see those nonexistent Top 10 lists from Police Gazette. Has anyone ever done any statistical work on attendance breakdown by gender for silent films as a whole rather than for particular genres?

Fred

[Chris Snowden]

I've noticed the same trend in contemporary ads. Subtext (and sometimes just plain text) in newspaper articles reflects a dismissive--or hierarchal, I guess--attitude toward short comedy.

Another clue is that theaters paid a much higher rental for a feature than for almost any short subject, suggesting that's where their priorities lay. And when the economy got tight in the early 1930s, many theaters ditched short subjects altogether in favor of a cheap second feature.

In 1928, Hal Roach was pushing the idea of special theaters that would run nothing but variety programs of short subjects. The following year, William Fox proposed theaters running nothing but newsreels. Neither idea caught on.

Personally, I love short subjects, but I don't think the industry took them as seriously as we film buffs do today.

Has anyone ever done any statistical work on attendance breakdown by gender for silent films as a whole rather than for particular genres?

I think Richard Koszarski's An Evening's Entertainment has some interesting stats on that, but I don't have my copy here...

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I've noticed the same trend in contemporary ads. Subtext (and sometimes just plain text) in newspaper articles reflects a dismissive--or hierarchal, I guess--attitude toward short comedy. It was perceived as vulgar, as were its practitioners and its audience. The drammer was considered more high-toned and refeened.


Fred

The entertainment world still thought in terms of vaudeville and so film programmers and the people who wrote copy *and* the people who attended continued to think in terms of billing hierarchy. As a result, Chris' list doesn't surprise me in the least.

By the late teens two-reelers were already considered second class citizens - which is why Chaplin, Keaton, Langdon et al graduated to features as soon as their clout would allow them.

This really remained a constant into the 50s and some oldtimers never really thought outside that box. I have footage of Ed Sullivan introducing Nannette Fabray in 1948 or so. He catches himself before he calls her a "star" and changes it to "starlett."

Billing always trumped quality.

To throw this into a different direction, I seem to recall that some early talkie Mickey Mouse cartoons and, IIRC, The Three Little Pigs proved a bigger BO draw than some of the fetaures they supported. Presumably it was this increased audience pull that prompted Disney to gamble on the Snow White feature. Are there any tales of any two-reel comedies (Chaplin, Keaton, et al) outperforming features and, if this occurred, can a case be made that this performance success led to the graduation of these comedians to features (if not giving the performer the idea, at least the economic backup to make his case to the money men)?

[Penfold]

The hierarchy thing is understood.....but I'm still surprised that Chaplin's name hadn't broken through; by 1918 there were the Liberty Bond rallies over there, the toy marketing had started, the $600,000 salary...and United Artists was not very far away. There had even been a craze for toothbrush moustaches amongst the (British, at least) officer class in the trenches of WW1.....

[rollot24]

To throw this into a different direction, I seem to recall that some early talkie Mickey Mouse cartoons and, IIRC, The Three Little Pigs proved a bigger BO draw than some of the fetaures they supported. Presumably it was this increased audience pull that prompted Disney to gamble on the Snow White feature.

In the 1980's Disney rereleased FANTASIA with Micheal Jackson's THRILLER as a short subject. I remember stories of crowds paying full price, seeing the short and then leaving.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

The hierarchy thing is understood.....but I'm still surprised that Chaplin's name hadn't broken through; by 1918 there were the Liberty Bond rallies over there, the toy marketing had started, the $600,000 salary...and United Artists was not very far away. There had even been a craze for toothbrush moustaches amongst the (British, at least) officer class in the trenches of WW1.....

The History Channel showed some still extant WWI tunnels (Arras?) that showed an image if Chaplin carved into the rock.

I don't dispute that he was astonishingly popular - but I can understand how an american magazine's readership in 1917 would not (yet) consider him a star.

[Richard M Roberts]

The top ten stars of 1918....whither Chaplin???

Two thoughts on that.

For one thing, the readership of magazines like Motion Picture skewed heavily female, and didn't really represent the movie-going audience as a whole. Poll results from these magazines tend not to favor the stars of slapstick comedies and westerns. If I could ever find a movie star poll in the cheesecake-heavy Film Fun, or even in Police Gazette, I'm sure the results would be equally skewed in the opposite direction.

The other thought is that, in the feature-length era, short subjects were regarded as throwaway entertainment, and only features were taken very seriously. People who felt that two-reel comedies didn't "count" wouldn't consider those stars as being in the same league as the stars appearing exclusively in features.

I guess I'm out on a limb with this theory, but I think it's reflected in contemporary theater ads in newspapers, which nearly always trumpet the feature on the program (even when it's a ho-hum programmer), and the accompanying shorts get perfunctory mentions at best.

Well, yes and no, the real reason that Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd got into features was because their two-reel comedies were being used to prop up lesser features by exhibitors and the only wa they could get better rentals was to make longer films. I've seen a number of ads from the late teens/early 20's where a Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton, Arbuckle and even Larry Semon short is in fact billed over the main feature and in larger space.

I think shorts became thought of as more second-class citizens to the feature in the late 20's but even then, it was the high demand for short comedy material by exhibitors that caused a real glut on the market for it. What one sees advertising wise in the late 20's is less for specific shorts, but you will see cutlines like "Latest Our Gang Comedy" or "Lloyd Hamilton playing here" above the listed feature, and much more prominence for them in the smaller towns than in the big cities. It was the small town and neighborhood houses that kept comedies, serials, and B-westerns in demand.

Of course in Hollywood Hirearchy, the Big Studios stars looked down upon the "vulgar" comedians, and thank God for it. Thats why they were left alone to do their work and made so much classic material and a pretty darn good living. Sort of like the way film academics look down their noses at it today, leaving we who love it to have our fun in a delightedly unpretentious manner.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Well, yes and no, the real reason that Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd got into features was because their two-reel comedies were being used to prop up lesser features by exhibitors and the only wa they could get better rentals was to make longer films. I've seen a number of ads from the late teens/early 20's where a Chaplin, Lloyd, Keaton, Arbuckle and even Larry Semon short is in fact billed over the main feature and in larger space.

Interesting! Do you notice any pattern to this activity (a similar window of time between when an comedian's short was top-billed and the time he started making *only* features / did this occur in certain markets and not so much in others, etc.) Have you ever come across a short top-billed over what today would be considered an *A* picture?

I think shorts became thought of as more second-class citizens to the feature in the late 20's but even then, it was the high demand for short comedy material by exhibitors that caused a real glut on the market for it. What one sees advertising wise in the late 20's is less for specific shorts, but you will see cutlines like "Latest Our Gang Comedy" or "Lloyd Hamilton playing here" above the listed feature, and much more prominence for them in the smaller towns than in the big cities. It was the small town and neighborhood houses that kept comedies, serials, and B-westerns in demand.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

I've noticed similar billing for Disney cartoons in the early 30s. Title and content weren't important for audiences, only the promise of more laughs from a familiar - and thankfully reliable - source.

I suspect it also cut down on advertising costs - once you made the generic "latest Our gang Comedy" you just had to plop that into the next week's ad and not alter content.

[Jim Reid]

Laurel & Hardy's short films were often billed over the features in the early 30s.

[Richard M Roberts]

Interesting! Do you notice any pattern to this activity (a similar window of time between when an comedian's short was top-billed and the time he started making *only* features / did this occur in certain markets and not so much in others, etc.) Have you ever come across a short top-billed over what today would be considered an *A* picture?

I'd never really considered a pattern in relation to this, but in thinking about it and looking at the material in my files, it did seem to denote approximately a two year stretch from seeing the ads top-billing a comics pictures and their going into features. I've seen top-billed ads for Chaplin's SHOULDER ARMS, Keaton's HARD LUCK, Lloyd's I DO, and Semon's THE SAWMILL, and they're all about two-years away from the release of the comics first features.

I'm not sure that indicates anything, except contractual obligation being met for delivering shorts the next following year, then another year to set up and make their first features before delivering them, and adding another year in Chaplins case for his usual slow-pokiness in making anything.


RICHARD M ROBERTS