TCM's Studio Mogul documentary

[Dana]

Exactly my point. I've watched many Pickford films but not seen this one. Comparing it to the Minter films I have seen it ranks about average and there are certainly better Minter films than this Pickford effort.
But where does POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL fit in to the Pickford pantheon? Good, average, or weak?

[FrankFay]

I'd say better than average. It's one of her best "Little girl" roles but I found the script pretty heavy handed, and the fantasy elements quite unsubtle. That is probably pretty typical of the period, if it had been made a few years later it would have probably been more fluid and sophisticated. I wouldn't rank it as high as STELLA MARIS

I enjoyed Mary's battle with her nasty little playmate (that other girl was excellent) and her shifting of emotions from woe to delight as she examined her boy's clothes (Pockets!....COOL!) and the best line: "I'm Gwendoline......and I'm a BOY"

[kndy]

If you enjoy "TCM: Moguls & Movie Stars", please let me know as I'm having a contest giveaway for a T-shirt for the show right now. To participate, you can visit our contest page here: http://bit.ly/aBhSb3 (Deadline: November 28)

[Gagman 66]

Chapter 3 looks pretty disappointing. Based on the preview site set up. it appears that it is going to start with the Arbuckle trial! UHG! Will mention a few not that hard to see films, and next skips to Garbo! Again, an hour just doesn't cut it!

I sure hope they don't represent Clara Bow as the female counter part to Rudolph Valentino? That is a bizarre comparison and doesn't fit the time-line at all.

[Gagman 66]

Sheesh, episode three kind of Cherry picked a few familiar names, and said nothing about anyone else. I realize they only have an hour, but this was easily the poorest entry in the series so far.

[Harold Aherne]

The best word for this chapter, I believe, is "vapid". It employs some of the usual clichés to describe the 20s and much of the clichéd stock music that represents more what people assume 20s jazz music sounds like than what it actually does. The Night Cry is about the only film clip that could be called unexpected, and only a few of the narrated insights provide any information that members of this board are likely to find new (as with the 10s chapter, I enjoyed Richard Roberts' contribution a great deal).

Much of the 20s chapter seems like a recycled collage of material from Hollywood, MGM: When the Lion Roars and so many other documentaries. But what makes it quite distinct from Hollywood and almost all of Brownlow's work is its lack of emotional involvement: business, money and stars as commodities are the overriding theme, even though none could have happened without some emotional investment on the part of the audience. Yet the chapter moves so quickly from star to mogul and back again that someone entirely new to this era of film could not be expected to fill in the ellipses with their own knowledge of the stars' work.

One can only complain so much about this or that star who was excluded; probably you could compile a pretty fair list of stars who received little or no attention in Hollywood as well. To speak metaphorically, the problem isn't so much in which carvings were included, it may be in the quality of wood. Still, if even a few "average" TCM viewers are encouraged by the documentary to learn more, it will have done most of its work.

-Harold

[Gagman 66]

Almost nothing was said about John Gilbert, other than passing him off as Garbo's love toy. No mention of THE BIG PARADE at all, and they did not even speak to Jack's daughter. I won't go on about the lack of any reference to the Talmadge's and Colleen Moore, but it's even more disappointing since Warner's owns the rights to most of Colleen's surviving films.

[FrankFay]

Documentaries like this usually only cover the few stars the average person can name off the top of their head- Garbo Yes, Talmadge No. They're more like a refresher course than an instruction.

[Gagman 66]

Most of the Clara Bow footage looked dismal. I have much better copies of those films than I saw featured. Especially, MANTRAP. Now why is that?

[boblipton]

I haven't looked at this episode yet, but I was struck by the same issue with the recent documentary YOO HOO MRS. GOLDBERG; film clips included Chaplin's THE IMMIGRANT, actively awful clips..... not just from 16 mm, but poorly maintained.

While there might have been licensing issues, I think it much more likely that this is a sop to how a lot of people think these films should look: nth-generation Super Eight prints with plenty of scratches and patches, projected, of course, with the motor whining and the shutter clicking and, of course, a dropneedle score featuring 'Billy Goat Stomp'.

Sigh.

Bob

[Gagman 66]

Bob,

Where can I get a recording of BILLY GOAT STOMP? Not sure I have ever heard that before? Also I'm in desperate straits for a a file with THE CAMEL WALK. I need it for a project I am working on. Any assitence would be appreciated. Thanks.

[boblipton]

Billy Goat Stomp is. at least my track, from a Jelly Roll Morton compilation set issued in England in 2006. It seems to still be available from Amazon.co.uk. Here's a link to it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Record ... 100&sr=1-3

Bob

[BankofAmericasSweetheart]

This series is a little frustrating because I feel like the topic "moguls and movie stars" is too broad for one hour a decade. Like another person said, they could have just focused something specific. My take is make it where the silent era is a whole year season 1 series. and then the following year have a whole series focus on the 30s and 40s. Then year 3, have the series get into the 50s..

The thing is, you can't put a decade in an hour without feeling like an hour long trailer of a little bit of chaplin, Keaton and a little dash of clara bow, and all of a sudden sound came in. Please, it's not only a disappointment, I take offense to the series skipping over important people and not giving enough time for others.

What a shame interviewing so many great people and getting nothing new from them. These wonderful family members wont be here forever and to me its a waste of potential golden information they could have got from people about personal stories.

[Gagman 66]

Actually, the episodes seem to be running about 70 Minutes each rather than an hour. But overall they are just touching on a scant few things. This is far from A History of Hollywood. That title is a misnomer in my estimation.

Good Heavens, Harold's own Granddaughter got it wrong! It was called the Laugh 'O Graph not the Laugh O' Meter! I couldn't believe that one. I spotted the blunder immediately!

[Wm. Charles Morrow]

I won't go on about the lack of any reference to the Talmadge's and Colleen Moore, but it's even more disappointing since Warner's owns the rights to most of Colleen's surviving films.

Adding insult to injury, on top of ignoring Colleen Moore they attributed the popularity of bobbed hair to Louise Brooks.

[MattBarry]

I was going to post a little "defense" of this series, not that it needs defending, and not to suggest that it isn't without its flaws. I've been keeping up with the episodes so far, and would agree that they offer nothing to anyone who has spent any serious time researching the period. A major difference is that, unlike Brownlow and Gill's "Hollywood", the filmmakers do not convey their passion for the subject matter (at least I didn't get a sense of this at all, whereas its unmistakable in Brownlow's work).

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, though, if a series like this can spark interest in silent film for just one viewer, it will have served its purpose. It's good to see TCM attempting a longer format series. As others have said, though, I just wish they could have devoted more time to each period. If ever there would be a place for a series like that, it's TCM.

TCM has done a great job in making names like Cary Grant and Gene Kelly household names again. As their target audience seems to have shifted toward younger and younger viewers, who you can't automatically assume know who John Gilbert is, a series like this provides a good "gateway" into exploring the more serious and thorough silent film scholarship, most of it written by the experts like Birchard and Koszarski who worked on this series.

I've heard from several "non-experts" already how much they're enjoying this series and how interesting they find it, so while it may not be presenting anything most of us here have never heard before, I feel like it's serving a good purpose for what it is.

[rudyfan]

I've heard from several "non-experts" already how much they're enjoying this series and how interesting they find it, so while it may not be presenting anything most of us here have never heard before, I feel like it's serving a good purpose for what it is.

In small defense to TCM and the producers, they're doing 80 years of history in 7 hours. Okay, that's all I am defending. As Matt points out, I'm coming to the table here with plenty of knowledge on my own and years of viewing under my belt. All that being said, I do have my complaints and Iknow you will all groan with the obvious first kvetch about Episode 3

I admire Jeanine Basinger as an author and an educator at Wellsley, that said I was extremely disspointed in the comments on camera with regard to Valentino. To say that Valentino was "bumming around" and came to film and Hollywood with absolutely no talent is patently false. As a Valentino fan I do recognize he was not the greatest actor to appear on the silver sheet. That said, he came to Hollywood and The Four Horsemen loaded with talent and qualities that came to life and shined on screen. It's sad that a documentary such as this will leave this impression on viewers not familiar with Valentino. He suffered more for the choice of material he was presented with and also rose and fell to the level and quality of direction and material.

As a viewer and a bit of a film snob, the series is poorly edited and put together in a rather shoddy manner. When (to me) they cannot get the period they are talking about matched with the footage they are showing, that's pure laziness. To highlight various things, such as the Arbuckle case, and present the same old same old shoddy story telling in 90 seconds or less, why bother with it? This is a "Cliff Notes" Hollywood history and not a very good one at that.

They left out huge portions of why Goldwyn's studio failed in the silent era, and that would have taken 90 seconds to talk about and since they had Scott Berg on camera (excellent biographer of Goldwyn) it could have been wrapped up nicely. To mention June Mathis primiarily because of her belief in spiritualism and not her influence and power from 1918 to 1924 is sad. Of course, no mention was made of Dorothy Arzner, either. The holes in this series are like huge black holes where things are not even glossed over, they're ignored altogether.

In any case, as a film fan I have to recognize who this is marketed to, the general audience with no background or interest in Hollywood history. As a film fan, I'm sad that this was done in such a shoddy fashion. It does not bode well for the next episodes which will jump from 1927 to the 1960s and end of the mogul era. Too much ground to cover in 7 hours time.

On a positive note, if this series awakens some interest in viewers, as Brownlow/Gill Hollywood did for me, than it will have been a good investment.

[George O'Brien]

Donna, what do you make of Ms. Basinger's remark that Rudy was a petty thief?

It's ironic to me that with each episode it gets less and less interesting, when the movies and the industry itself was growing more and more interesting.

There was no mention of Fox, or Ford or Murnau, beyond one cliched sentence about Sunrise, and then to further illustrate the episode as TCM has been doing, it shows two Fox films, one by Murnau and one by Ford.

[rudyfan]

Donna, what do you make of Ms. Basinger's remark that Rudy was a petty thief?

Patently false. I was quite surprised at Basinger's comments. Not that I have the scholarly chops of Basinger, but I do wish the producers had contacted me about Valentino. I could have given them 90 interesting seconds on his life, career and legacy. My fifteen seconds of fame are lost to me now.

[George O'Brien]

Well, I am sure that you know more about Valentino than she does.

The "knocking around" Hollywood remark rubbed me the wrong way, too. I'm no Rudy scholar but he had had leads in "Eyes of Youth" with Clara Kimball Young, and "Out of Luck" with Dorothy Gish, both in 1919.

Dorothy lobbied Mr.Griffith to give Rudy the lead in "Scarlet Days" (1919), but Griffith deemed him "too foreign looking" and gave it to Barthelmess instead.

That's hardly "knocking around". Basinger comes across very condescending about Valentino, and that petty thief remark is way out of line.

PS
I see the actual remark was "bumming around". So Valentino was a bum and a thief. I have never heard anyone else say that. H.L. Mencken who had never seen him on the screen and actually hated movies, thought Valentino one of the few gentlemen he had ever met.

[Daniel Eagan]

Not that I have the scholarly chops of Basinger...

If by scholarly chops you mean force-feeding your students and the reading public superficial, watered-down surveys of personalities, genres and movements; reaching cheap, unwarranted conclusions about them; and delivering all with magesterial condescension -- then you are better off without them.

[silentstar5]

I do not think TCM is known for creating great documentaries on film history. Their strength is presenting great prints of vintage films commercial free that would otherwise not see the light of day on tv. Our standards for them are high particularly since they are the only game in town. We Nitratevillians are the niche market customer within their general niche market. I knew this series would upset our group in terms of the content. It has been 30 years since Kevin Brownlow set the bar so incredibly high for film history series documentaries so there was bound to be comparison. He created thirteen fifty minute segments to cover approximately 30 years of film history. TCM tries to cover twice as much in half the time with this series. Yes, a Cliff notes approach was inevitable but if it at least encourages people to learn more then so be it. The glass is always more than half full with TCM.
Now to the subject of the “talking heads”. Take action against those who spread miss-information. Take them to task for what they say or write when we know it to be unsubstantiated. Jeanine Basinger is a good example. The sh*t hit the fan before the episode featuring Valentino even aired concerning her comments about him. If she is is offensive we have options as a consumer. We can start by not buying her books. Send a letter to her at Wesleyan University (address on their website) and send emails or letters to TCM expressing our displeasure.
Did anyone else notice the error on the TCM website Studio Map of Hollywood? Go to the Hal Roach Studio and check out their Principle Stars list. Harry Langdon is identified as Stan Laurel in and image of “Laurel & Hardy”. At least they identified Oliver Hardy correctly. This error has been on the website for at least a few days. Doesn’t say much for TCM research skills.

[MattBarry]

I do not think TCM is known for creating great documentaries on film history. Their strength is presenting great prints of vintage films commercial free that would otherwise not see the light of day on tv. Our standards for them are high particularly since they are the only game in town. We Nitratevillians are the niche market customer within their general niche market. I knew this series would upset our group in terms of the content. It has been 30 years since Kevin Brownlow set the bar so incredibly high for film history series documentaries so there was bound to be comparison. He created thirteen fifty minute segments to cover approximately 30 years of film history. TCM tries to cover twice as much in half the time with this series. Yes, a Cliff notes approach was inevitable but if it at least encourages people to learn more then so be it. The glass is always more than half full with TCM.
Now to the subject of the “talking heads”. Take action against those who spread miss-information. Take them to task for what they say or write when we know it to be unsubstantiated. Jeanine Basinger is a good example. The sh*t hit the fan before the episode featuring Valentino even aired concerning her comments about him. If she is is offensive we have options as a consumer. We can start by not buying her books. Send a letter to her at Wesleyan University (address on their website) and send emails or letters to TCM expressing our displeasure.
Did anyone else notice the error on the TCM website Studio Map of Hollywood? Go to the Hal Roach Studio and check out their Principle Stars list. Harry Langdon is identified as Stan Laurel in and image of “Laurel & Hardy”. At least they identified Oliver Hardy correctly. This error has been on the website for at least a few days. Doesn’t say much for TCM research skills.

This raises a question though that has been on my mind lately. It's safe to say that TCM's documentaries have definitely become "film history-lite", which is fine given the fact that they're trying to appeal to as a wide a market as you possibly can when dealing with "classic movies".

That said, where will those of us looking for something more turn? It's been a long time since PBS aired anything approaching the depth of Brownlow and Gill's work. It's frustrating, because while TCM has made Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart back into household names with repeated screenings of their most popular movies, the quality of their documentaries is overall too basic to be of value beyond introducing people to this stuff (which, as I stressed in my earlier post, is not nothing).

[Harold Aherne]

This raises a question though that has been on my mind lately. It's safe to say that TCM's documentaries have definitely become "film history-lite", which is fine given the fact that they're trying to appeal to as a wide a market as you possibly can when dealing with "classic movies".

That said, where will those of us looking for something more turn? It's been a long time since PBS aired anything approaching the depth of Brownlow and Gill's work. It's frustrating, because while TCM has made Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart back into household names with repeated screenings of their most popular movies, the quality of their documentaries is overall too basic to be of value beyond introducing people to this stuff (which, as I stressed in my earlier post, is not nothing).

I recall that a number of TCM's documentaries over the years have been pretty good, but I'm not sure whether it's because they *were* genuinely informative or simply because I was less knowledgeable back then. I liked "The Race to Save 100 Years" and "Busby Berkeley: Through the Roof" very much and "Glorious Technicolor" was also fine (even if it was rather dismissive of 2-colour Tech). Many of their star interviews have been worthwhile--I recall Jane Powell, Ann Miller, and Betty Hutton's sessions as candid and emotionally revealing. I don't know offhand if it's aired on TCM, but the 2007 Vitaphone documentary was also a fine and informative piece (and it included rare Phonofilm and Theodore Case footage). And of course, the 2004 DeMille docs achieved breadth and depth in their coverage of the man.

We've reached a point (as I implied in the future-of-silents thread) where we can rhetorically ask "if TCM doesn't do it, who will?". Critiques of the channel that sound too harsh will often be rebutted by evidence that they do the best they can, they have to reach a broader demographic than Milton Sills and Pauline Starke fans, they can't afford the rights to everything--and it's all true. But constructive feedback is also necessary to ensure that TCM *does* continue to reach those of its viewers with tastes other than the most mainstream.

I think an original doc on Kay Francis and/or Norma Shearer would be most welcome--those are two actresses who've *really* been rehabilitated by TCM. Film history books of the 60s-80s often dismissed them as mediocre actresses who made women's pictures and declined after 1940. Yet both of them have quite a number of fans among younger film buffs who watched them and loved them before encountering any negative opinions.

William Haines also awaits a good documentary. AMC was clearly the wrong choice; since almost all of his important films were made at MGM (and earlier at Goldwyn), doing a Haines doc outside of Turner auspices is almost pointless.

I think TCM still has huge potential--its recent film festival was an immense success--and we can hope that TCM will use its suasion among its loyal viewers to continue to promote lesser-known stars, directors and films.

-Harold

[MattBarry]

This raises a question though that has been on my mind lately. It's safe to say that TCM's documentaries have definitely become "film history-lite", which is fine given the fact that they're trying to appeal to as a wide a market as you possibly can when dealing with "classic movies".

That said, where will those of us looking for something more turn? It's been a long time since PBS aired anything approaching the depth of Brownlow and Gill's work. It's frustrating, because while TCM has made Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart back into household names with repeated screenings of their most popular movies, the quality of their documentaries is overall too basic to be of value beyond introducing people to this stuff (which, as I stressed in my earlier post, is not nothing).

I recall that a number of TCM's documentaries over the years have been pretty good, but I'm not sure whether it's because they *were* genuinely informative or simply because I was less knowledgeable back then. I liked "The Race to Save 100 Years" and "Busby Berkeley: Through the Roof" very much and "Glorious Technicolor" was also fine (even if it was rather dismissive of 2-colour Tech). Many of their star interviews have been worthwhile--I recall Jane Powell, Ann Miller, and Betty Hutton's sessions as candid and emotionally revealing. I don't know offhand if it's aired on TCM, but the 2007 Vitaphone documentary was also a fine and informative piece (and it included rare Phonofilm and Theodore Case footage). And of course, the 2004 DeMille docs achieved breadth and depth in their coverage of the man.

We've reached a point (as I implied in the future-of-silents thread) where we can rhetorically ask "if TCM doesn't do it, who will?". Critiques of the channel that sound too harsh will often be rebutted by evidence that they do the best they can, they have to reach a broader demographic than Milton Sills and Pauline Starke fans, they can't afford the rights to everything--and it's all true. But constructive feedback is also necessary to ensure that TCM *does* continue to reach those of its viewers with tastes other than the most mainstream.

I think an original doc on Kay Francis and/or Norma Shearer would be most welcome--those are two actresses who've *really* been rehabilitated by TCM. Film history books of the 60s-80s often dismissed them as mediocre actresses who made women's pictures and declined after 1940. Yet both of them have quite a number of fans among younger film buffs who watched them and loved them before encountering any negative opinions.

William Haines also awaits a good documentary. AMC was clearly the wrong choice; since almost all of his important films were made at MGM (and earlier at Goldwyn), doing a Haines doc outside of Turner auspices is almost pointless.

I think TCM still has huge potential--its recent film festival was an immense success--and we can hope that TCM will use its suasion among its loyal viewers to continue to promote lesser-known stars, directors and films.

-Harold

I don't recall the Berkeley doc, but both "The Race to Save 100 Years" and "Glorious Technicolor" were top-notch. Also the DeMille was a Brownlow doc (his best in recent years, IMO), which accounts for its high quality.

I think you're on to something that these documentaries seem less impressive as we become more knowledgeable. I was ten years old (!) when TCM first went on the air, and was just so happy to be able to see the actual movies and stars that I'd read about in books like "Immortals of the Screen". They've definitely shifted their focus a bit, especially in the last ten years or so, toward a broader spectrum of American cinema, especially in regards to showing some of the landmark works of the 60s and 70s, which I think is definitely a good thing (it's come a long way from their ads with Bill Cosby assuring audiences that you "wouldn't hear any bad words" on TCM!)

In attempting to cover a sampling of the whole of cinema, though, the lesser-remembered silent stars definitely get the short shrift.

I don't want to sound like I'm contradicting my earlier defense of "Moguls and Movie Stars" as a good introduction, but the lack of attention to research is problematic, to put it mildly. There's obviously a difference between "basic" or "introductory level" research, and just flat-out inaccurate research. The latter is unforgivable, and really risks the credibility (and the value) of such a program at all.

[Brooksie]

I think an original doc on Kay Francis and/or Norma Shearer would be most welcome--those are two actresses who've *really* been rehabilitated by TCM. Film history books of the 60s-80s often dismissed them as mediocre actresses who made women's pictures and declined after 1940.

They did a decent documentary a few years back based around Mick Lasalle's book on the Pre-Codes, `Complicated Women'. Like the book, the documentary is mainly about Norma and the myths that grew up around her persona. I haven't seen it for a while, but I'm pretty sure Kay got a look in too.

[azjazzman]

Actually, the episodes seem to be running about 70 Minutes each rather than an hour.

Actually, each of the first three episodes has clocked in at right at 1 Hour. Including Osborne's intros and outros.

[Jim Gettys]

I clocked episodes 2 & 3 at exactly 60:25 each, without Osborne's framing comments.

Jim Gettys

[spadeneal]

The problem with the Moguls documentary for most of the people on NitrateVille, is that most of us already know most of what they discuss, so it's just a chance to see a few new (or old) film clips and get a few more anecdotes or updated historical information.

For the average TCM viewer, and for pretty much anybody off the street (such as my intro to film students), every single thing they say and every single photo and film clip is absolutely new, stunning, and revelatory (you mean, they, like, had movies in the 1890s?? And women directors? And special effects?? Who'd'a' thunk?). Like the late lamented "Hollywood" series, this makes an ideal introduction to the era for people who know nothing about it or have only a vague idea that BIRTH OF A NATION was the first movie, wasn't it, or was it THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY?

Indeed, I am glad to see TCM make this contribution to education, despite its shortcomings. I have only seen the "Peepshow Pioneers" episode, and naturally I am not crazy about the omission of David Horsley, William N. Selig or Charles Urban from the story, although as they were not penniless immigrants from abroad they do not fit this particular arc; in Urban's case, he was not primarily an American film maker but he was American. They never mentioned American Mutoscope and Biograph by name, nor did they mention that's where Dickson went, though they spent some considerable time with Dickson in terms of the early technological developments at Edison. The Kinetoscope fad did fade, but it seems at least in America the popularity of The Mutoscope was helping keep that company alive at least until the arrival of D. W. Griffith. I thought the short section on the Griffith Biographs was nicely done.

Extracting something from roughly the first century of film history that can run in just 7 hours is going to automatically result in omissions that are not going to make expert viewers like ourselves happy. Nevertheless, were I teaching a film class, I wouldn't mind using this. Its strongest point, I think, is the attention paid to front office people like William Fox, Carl Laemmle et al who in the past had short lip service paid to their contribution in film histories as their like was seen as obstructive to the progress of film as art. From an industry standpoint that's not a sustainable view, but the histories by and large were not written by people that were concerned about film as an economic force. Moguls is at least good enough to cover major historic points to the extent where I could cover the rest in teaching; it is not so bad as if I were presenting a course on the history of Jazz and would not feel compelled to use Ken Burns' Jazz because it is so full of problems. That would put me in the unenviable position of having to answer an administrator's question of "Why aren't you using the set? It was an expensive set and we bought it for the Jazz course, so why aren't you using it?"

spadeneal

[boblipton]

I think most of us understand the omissions and the biases towards Warners, MGM and RKO -- those are, after all, what TCM has to sell, so it's an understandable bias and the story arc they have chosen -- poor Jewish immigrants make and shape the American dream -- is an understandable story with a good deal of truth in it, certainly enough to make a simplified version of the immensely complicated reality -- a sort of 1894 AND ALL THAT view of film history. And I certainly enjoy the look at 19th century technology to place the movies in a context.

What annoys some of us is the surfeit of ridiculous errors -- Louis B. Mayer did not go after Garbo, he went after Stiller, and Garbo was part of the package. Valentino was not a petty thief on the fringes when FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE made him a superstar. And so forth.

No one expected this to be a great documentary. There is, alas, only one Brownlow. However, I wish that they had made a documentary that had me saying less "How could they have gotten that wrong" and more "It's more complicated than that."

Bob