"Annabelle Lee" (1921) By William J. Scully

[Ferdinand Von Galitzien]

In past and recent silent history, there were bold longhaired youngsters who had the nerve to adapt to the silent screen great oeuvres of literature; a very complicated matter this, to try to capture the essence and spirit of such classics in a free or faithful adaptation. Such attempts inevitably give rise to controversy about literature and film versions, a fruitless discussion, ja wohl!.

“Annabelle Lee” (1921) directed by Herr William J. Scully is an excellent example of what this Herr Graf is talking about.

Educated youngsters know that the film title of the picture coincides with the famous eponymous Herr Edgar Allan Poe’s poem, a mere coincidence this because any resemblance of Herr Scully’s film adaptation to Herr Poe’s original poem is purely coincidental.

Herr Scully quotes Herr Poe’s first verses from the poem leading the audience to expect the evocative, romantic and gloomy atmosphere of Poe’s poem but, on the contrary, the picture is done in a modernistic, conservative and traditional style.

But let’s forget for a moment the distinguished literary background of the story and turn to the film itself: The movie tells the tale of a girl from a good family, Frau Annabelle, who is in love with a young fisherman, Herr David, from a working class family. Obviously Frau Annabelle’s father disapproves of such a relationship but promises the young fellow that if he keeps apart from his beloved for one year and then still feels the same, the couple may marry. Frau Annabelle agrees to wait.

The eternal song…, boy meets girl, social classes differences, wealth and poverty… if you add to this the search for a sunken legacy that belonged to Herr David’s father, a mutiny afterwards and a long time on a solitary island in the middle of nowhere, well, then you even can add to the film more literary references ( Herr Shakespeare, Herr Stevenson), making the film a kind of hodgepodge of unoriginal ideas borrowed from here and there.

If it wasn’t for Herr Scully pretentiousness of taking advantage of Herr Poe’s poem ( a futile attempt at the expense of the Bostonian writer ), the film even could work as an interesting romantic story, emphasizing especially those scenes showing Frau Annabelle’s waiting in vain at the seacoast, but due to its lofty ambition, the movie fails badly in its artistic purposes and does a disservice to the literary masterpiece with which it has nothing in common.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count has to go to his kingdom by the sea.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien
http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com" target="_blank

[Richard M Roberts]

Here we really see the total ridiculousness of labeling a film "by" the Director. "ANNABELLE LEE "by" William J. Scully? Oh please, the Author of the poem is indeed Edgar Allen Poe, the script for this film is by Arthur Brilliant, who is probably the one who had the "Brilliant" idea to modernize the story in the first place, and to put William J. Scully, who spent most of his career as an asststant director and only had his name as director on three films is stretching the concept of the "Auteur" about as far as one can go. Please stop this silly-ass pretense immediately.


RICHARD M ROBERTS (by Mr. and Mrs. Roberts)

[momsne]

According to IMDb, American Motion Picture Corporation produced just one feature movie and "Annabelle Lee" is the one. So American has a 100% survival rate for the silent movies it made.

[silentmovies742]

Here we really see the total ridiculousness of labeling a film "by" the Director. "ANNABELLE LEE "by" William J. Scully? Oh please, the Author of the poem is indeed Edgar Allen Poe, the script for this film is by Arthur Brilliant, who is probably the one who had the "Brilliant" idea to modernize the story in the first place, and to put William J. Scully, who spent most of his career as an asststant director and only had his name as director on three films is stretching the concept of the "Auteur" about as far as one can go. Please stop this silly-ass pretense immediately.


RICHARD M ROBERTS (by Mr. and Mrs. Roberts)

Long before the "auteur" theory came along, the director had begun to be thought of as the main driving force behind the film - hence the fact that the DGA required that the director's name be last in the opening credits and to have a screen by itself. Yes, there are reasons to think otherwise, and those arguments might be substantial, but the chances of anyone feeling the need to change the idea of a film being associated with its director in order to identify it is unlikely after 80 years of the practice.

[Richard M Roberts]

Long before the "auteur" theory came along, the director had begun to be thought of as the main driving force behind the film - hence the fact that the DGA required that the director's name be last in the opening credits and to have a screen by itself. Yes, there are reasons to think otherwise, and those arguments might be substantial, but the chances of anyone feeling the need to change the idea of a film being associated with its director in order to identify it is unlikely after 80 years of the practice.

Wrongo Boopsie, this stupid idea of saying something like "ANNABELLE LEE by William J. Scully" is a relatively new one, used mostly by pretentious European-types and their American wannabes. You quote me chapter and verse out of any contemporary trade publication or advertising material from the period when these films were made using this sort of classification and maybe I'll be impressed. The DGA may have gotten their way here through good old nasty bargaining, but it is not even the norm in the rest of the world, hence when you see Brit TV shows, this sort of classification indicates the writer of the script and it comes right after the opening title!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[Rodney]

Using "by" bothers me very little; and I have no problem at all with "directed by," which Von Galitzien was clearly implying. It's a useful distinguisher, since according to the review, this is definitely not "Annabelle Lee by Edgar Allen Poe." I don't see how it's any worse than distinguishing Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm by whether it has Mary Pickford, Marian Nixon, or Shirley Temple. Yes, we know other people worked on the project, no one said they didn't.

If it's the use of "by" instead of "directed by" that troubles you, while Ferdinand Von Galitzien writes well in English, being a German count it is not his first language, and I wouldn't jump all over him for subtleties of preposition choice. I appreciate his reviews, quirky as they are, since he clearly has a great love of old movies, and they are often my only way of hearing about films I have little hope of ever seeing.

And with some films (probably not this one) I consider it perfectly appropriate to use "by:" The Thief of Bagdad by Douglas Fairbanks, City Lights by Charlie Chaplin, Steamboat Willie by Walt Disney.

[Daniel Eagan]

"A film by [director's name]" or "A [director's name] film" is pretty common today, e.g., Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, Argo, etc. The title of Frank Capra's autobiography also refers to the practice. It may be quirky or eccentric to extend it back to silent films, but that's Galitzien's shtick.

I'm more upset with identifying Edgar Allan Poe as a Bostonian. Yes, he was born there, but he spent almost all of his life elsewhere. I prefer thinking of Poe as a New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore writer.

[Richard M Roberts]

Ah, but it wouldn't be THIEF OF BAGDAD "by" Douglas Fairbanks, on these terms it would be THIEF OF BAGDAD "by" Raoul Walsh, which may be fine by some Auteurists attitude, but becomes even sillier going a little farther the Filmography: DON Q, SON OF ZORRO by Donald Crisp, THE BLACK PIRATE by Albert Parker.........

And I already have seen STEAMBOAT BILL JR. by Charles Reisner and COLLEGE by James W. Horne attributions.

What Rodney in his usual cluelessness has actually done is maKe my point again rather succinctly as to why it is dead silly to attribute the Director as if he is the Author of the film, It is indeed meaningless corruption of the language. I would have no problem with DON Q, SON OF ZORRO, Directed by Donald Crisp, because though it places incorrect importance on Crisp's contributions to the film by only listing him in a priority position, it at least correctly indicates his role, and one could just as easily say DON Q, SON Of ZORRO starring Douglas Fairbanks, or DON Q, SON OF ZORRO, released by United Artists.


As for Frank Capra's "NAME ABOVE THE TITLE", the reason he made such a big deal about that is it was indeed a rarity to list the Director's name above the title in a stars position before he forced Harry Cohn to do it for him as a contractual ego boost to a very large ego, and it was as unfair and incorrect then as it is now as it has unfortunately become a contractual ego boost for many a two-bit director to see his credit as "A Film by Joe Schlobotnik" or "A Joe Schlobotnik Film" when he has neither written nor produced the film. Frank Capra's best films are written by Robert Riskin, who once dropped a ream of blank paper on Capra's desk and said "So let's see some of that Capra magic" in exact and brilliant response to just that "name above the title", and somebody else even more succinctly said that great buildings are known by the Architect, not the Carpenter.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[silentmovies742]

Hot damn. Now we all have to rethink Frenzy as by Anthony Shaffer and not Hitchcock. After all, nobody could identify it as Hitchcock film just by looking at the film itself.

[Richard M Roberts]

Hot damn. Now we all have to rethink Frenzy as by Anthony Shaffer and not Hitchcock. After all, nobody could identify it as Hitchcock film just by looking at the film itself.

Indeed, and what could an Edgar Award-Winning Mystery Writer like Anthony Shaffer (who wrote the play SLEUTH and the Screenplay to THE WICKER MAN ) possibly contribute to a film Directed by Alfred Hitchcock?

Yes, that Hitchcock magic is indeed magical, but it seems to be especially magical when they are films written by Thornton Wilder (SHADOW OF A DOUBT), Raymond Chandler (STRANGERS ON A TRAIN) or Robert Bloch (PSYCHO), and less so when their written by Whitfield Cook (STAGE FRIGHT), George Tabori and William Archibald (I CONFESS) or Jay Presson Allen (MARNIE). And since ol' Auteur Hitch had been muddling in the late sixties with less-than-stellar outings like TORN CURTAIN and TOPAZ, and suddenly, FRENZY was hailed as " a return to the old Hitchcock" (in other words, actually good), hmmm, how could a script by a first-class Mystery Writer like Anthony Shaffer possibly have anything to do with that?

But again, you actually miss my point, you can actually say, FRENZY, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, or FRENZY, written by Anthony Shaffer, and you'd be correct, or even be really correct and mention them both (God Forbid, life is too complicated!), but FRENZY "by" Alfred Hitchcock is indeed incorrect. Sorry if using too many words overcomes you.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

[silentmovies742]

Hot damn. Now we all have to rethink Frenzy as by Anthony Shaffer and not Hitchcock. After all, nobody could identify it as Hitchcock film just by looking at the film itself.

Indeed, and what could an Edgar Award-Winning Mystery Writer like Anthony Shaffer (who wrote the play SLEUTH and the Screenplay to THE WICKER MAN ) possibly contribute to a film Directed by Alfred Hitchcock?

Yes, that Hitchcock magic is indeed magical, but it seems to be especially magical when they are films written by Thornton Wilder (SHADOW OF A DOUBT), Raymond Chandler (STRANGERS ON A TRAIN) or Robert Bloch (PSYCHO), and less so when their written by Whitfield Cook (STAGE FRIGHT), George Tabori and William Archibald (I CONFESS) or Jay Presson Allen (MARNIE). And since ol' Auteur Hitch had been muddling in the late sixties with less-than-stellar outings like TORN CURTAIN and TOPAZ, and suddenly, FRENZY was hailed as " a return to the old Hitchcock" (in other words, actually good), hmmm, how could a script by a first-class Mystery Writer like Anthony Shaffer possibly have anything to do with that?

But again, you actually miss my point, you can actually say, FRENZY, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, or FRENZY, written by Anthony Shaffer, and you'd be correct, or even be really correct and mention them both (God Forbid, life is too complicated!), but FRENZY "by" Alfred Hitchcock is indeed incorrect. Sorry if using too many words overcomes you.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

The only thing that overcomes anything with regards to your posts in this topic is your rudeness.

[R Michael Pyle]

The only thing that overcomes anything with regards to your posts in this topic is your rudeness.

Frankly, I'd like to have coffee and donuts with Richard - as long as he's buying - after all, I'm Scottish. At least the food stays hot, even when it's cold outside. The only thing that might bother me is that he'd hold back telling me there's no Santa Claus...

[Richard M Roberts]

The only thing that overcomes anything with regards to your posts in this topic is your rudeness.

Frankly, I'd like to have coffee and donuts with Richard - as long as he's buying - after all, I'm Scottish. At least the food stays hot, even when it's cold outside. The only thing that might bother me is that he'd hold back telling me there's no Santa Claus...

There ain't no Santa Claus as far as the chances of me ever buying you coffee and donuts are concerned Pyle, and the intimations of my expressing baloon-floating oxygen by anyone on this Group is laughable. The emanations from Nitrateville could melt Glaciers.


RICHARD M ROBERTS (and we heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight, a Merry Christmas to Most and to some a good night.)

[FrankFay]

Yep, Richard Roberts is being his usual self. Tomorrow is Christmas, so here comes Krampus.

Honestly Richard, you're blowing up a little tiny matter into a bog argument - your day obviously isn't complete unless you piss someone off.

(as if my opinion of you would possibly be of the least interest to you)

[Richard M Roberts]

Yep, Richard Roberts is being his usual self. Tomorrow is Christmas, so here comes Krampus.

Honestly Richard, you're blowing up a little tiny matter into a bog argument - your day obviously isn't complete unless you piss someone off.

And as usual, you're taking it all oh, so seriously........

(as if my opinion of you would possibly be of the least interest to you)

It doesn't, but a Merry Christmas to You as well.......


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[R Michael Pyle]

There ain't no Santa Claus as far as the chances of me ever buying you coffee and donuts are concerned Pyle, and the intimations of my expressing baloon-floating oxygen by anyone on this Group is laughable. The emanations from Nitrateville could melt Glaciers.


RICHARD M ROBERTS (and we heard him exclaim as he drove out of sight, a Merry Christmas to Most and to some a good night.)

Love that word, 'emanations'... good Late Latin root. You must have been reading the Vulgate lately...

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

According to IMDb, American Motion Picture Corporation produced just one feature movie and "Annabelle Lee" is the one. So American has a 100% survival rate for the silent movies it made.

The upload I watched of ANNABELLE LEE seemed to be missing scenes with the central characters as children, if IMDb is to be trusted. If this is so, does it exist in complete form.

And I noticed that the discussion seemed to go off on an auteur theory tangent with few folk commenting on whether or not they liked the film aside from its 'unfaithfulness' to Poe. It would be fairer to describe it as 'influenced by' or 'suggested by' the poem.