TCM's Studio Mogul documentary

[MattBarry]

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 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

At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting my earlier praise for the enthusiasm the series might inspire in younger viewers, I agree with all your points here, Bob.

The errors that you point are are all too common in the "good enough" culture that currently passes for film history (and, I would have to believe, other histories as well). It doesn't matter to such people if the facts are "bent" a little to fit the overall "thesis" of the series (such as the Mayer-Garbo example you cite).

I'v come to expect such errors as part and parcel of mainstream film historiography, which is why I sometimes question whether or not series like this do more harm than good. I have to believe that if it inspires people to go out and seek out a forum like this, to connect with experts, and to do their own research, it's worth it. But to the average viewer for whom this program will probably be their only exposure to the history it's dealing with, I shudder to think of the unforgivable omissions and errors that they will be exposed to.

I've argued before that the real danger with all of these programs is the bias toward Warners-owned titles, because it constitutes a very real re-writing of film history. I understand the realities of why this has to be, which is still unfortunate.

[Dan Oliver]

I love and continue to study film history, but this series is just not holding my attention at all. I think I'm done.

[Frederica]

I'v come to expect such errors as part and parcel of mainstream film historiography, which is why I sometimes question whether or not series like this do more harm than good. I have to believe that if it inspires people to go out and seek out a forum like this, to connect with experts, and to do their own research, it's worth it. But to the average viewer for whom this program will probably be their only exposure to the history it's dealing with, I shudder to think of the unforgivable omissions and errors that they will be exposed to.

I haven't seen the series yet, so I'm not really qualified to comment on specifics, but the back and forth on this is interesting. Given that they are covering such a lot of history in a few hours the presentation would need to be severely elided. That doesn't mean you cut good information and leave bad.

I guess it depends on whether you land in the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" camp or not. I don't think a little knowledge is, that can be repaired. A little disinformation, though, is a disaster.

I've argued before that the real danger with all of these programs is the bias toward Warners-owned titles, because it constitutes a very real re-writing of film history. I understand the realities of why this has to be, which is still unfortunate.

You can at least partially offset that bias by stating upfront that it is a bias, and explaining why you're doing it the way you're doing it.

[Chris Snowden]

I was fairly impressed with the first episode, covering the 1890s. But it's been slipping since then, and the third episode wasn't really very good at all.

Its mission is to tell us about the moguls and the stars. It comes up short on both.

You can't really discuss the moguls without getting into the business of movies in those days, but that's an area the documentary avoids. We're left with nothing but photos of smiling executives, and the information that they were Jewish and building a new industry. The documentary never gets much deeper than that, and every twenty minutes it pulls our attention away from clips of movie stars to remind us that the studio heads were Jewish immigrants, building a new industry.

Thematically that's just as redundant as the curious sequence in Episode 2, in which Bob Balaban tells us about early theaters not having air conditioning: it's the very same sequence we'd just seen in Episode 1.

As far as the stars go, we get little or nothing about key performers like Norma Talmadge, Wallace Reid, Janet Gaynor and Tom Mix. But the sins here aren't just of omission. The episode on the 1910s spends more time on Mabel Normand than on Lillian Gish, and with apologies to Marilyn Slater, Mabel just didn't compare in terms of influence or popularity (nor was she "bosomy," as we're told). The following episode then throws her under the bus, creating the impression that her early death was all about booze and drugs, never mentioning the tuberculosis that was actually the cause.

Most of the stars are reduced to caricatures. Roscoe Arbuckle is introduced to us, not as a popular and creative star, but as the subject of a scandal. Erich von Stroheim also gets some attention, but mostly for bombing out with a movie that cost Gloria Swanson a lot of money. Cecil B. DeMille was a guy who made movies about orgies. He spent a lot of money on one set in Egypt. This is a documentary?

The interview subjects often do more harm than good, and there are just too many of them. Gore Vidal exhibits no real understanding at all about 1920s cinema, so why do we get so much of him? Because he's a famous novelist? Another talking head in the third episode announces that in the movie business, art and commerce were incompatible. (Oh really?)

I'll watch the episode about the 1930s, just to see the clips. After that, I think I'm done with this.

[azjazzman]

I was fairly impressed with the first episode, covering the 1890s. But it's been slipping since then, and the third episode wasn't really very good at all.

Its mission is to tell us about the moguls and the stars. It comes up short on both.

You can't really discuss the moguls without getting into the business of movies in those days, but that's an area the documentary avoids. We're left with nothing but photos of smiling executives, and the information that they were Jewish and building a new industry. The documentary never gets much deeper than that, and every twenty minutes it pulls our attention away from clips of movie stars to remind us that the studio heads were Jewish immigrants, building a new industry.

Thematically that's just as redundant as the curious sequence in Episode 2, in which Bob Balaban tells us about early theaters not having air conditioning: it's the very same sequence we'd just seen in Episode 1.

As far as the stars go, we get little or nothing about key performers like Norma Talmadge, Wallace Reid, Janet Gaynor and Tom Mix. But the sins here aren't just of omission. The episode on the 1910s spends more time on Mabel Normand than on Lillian Gish, and with apologies to Marilyn Slater, Mabel just didn't compare in terms of influence or popularity (nor was she "bosomy," as we're told). The following episode then throws her under the bus, creating the impression that her early death was all about booze and drugs, never mentioning the tuberculosis that was actually the cause.

Most of the stars are reduced to caricatures. Roscoe Arbuckle is introduced to us, not as a popular and creative star, but as the subject of a scandal. Erich von Stroheim also gets some attention, but mostly for bombing out with a movie that cost Gloria Swanson a lot of money. Cecil B. DeMille was a guy who made movies about orgies. He spent a lot of money on one set in Egypt. This is a documentary?

The interview subjects often do more harm than good, and there are just too many of them. Gore Vidal exhibits no real understanding at all about 1920s cinema, so why do we get so much of him? Because he's a famous novelist? Another talking head in the third episode announces that in the movie business, art and commerce were incompatible. (Oh really?)

I'll watch the episode about the 1930s, just to see the clips. After that, I think I'm done with this.

Well said, muchacho. I think part of the problem is that this doc simply isn't sufficiently focused and the producers never really had a clear vision of what it wanted to be.

When I saw the roundtable discussion with the glorious Cari Beauchamp and the guy that is the producer of the series, I instantly realized where the problem is. The producer is simply in way over his head.

When we hold up Kevin Brownlow produced docs as the gold standard, it's important to realize that not only is Kevin a first rate film historian, but also a first rate filmmaker and editor. How many people are there out there that can say that?

I also had head-shaking dismay over David Stenn's comment about the basic incompatibility of art and commerce. The whole history of motion pictures is a case study of how the two can co-exist pretty well.

[Gagman 66]

I was really distressed with chapter 3 in particular, because it just skipped around back and forth all over the place. Basically it lacks a central context. Where was the point of emphasis? I didn't see one. It's not the films, or the Stars, not really even the Moguls, because details about them is rather sparse.

What's more how can one not be disappointed that they never even spoke to Leatrice Gilbert Fountain. Who knows, It might have been the last chance that they had to get her thoughts on camera? So a tragically wasted opportunity in my eyes.

It's interesting that there has been no mention of First National Pictures in the series whatsoever. That would have definitely demanded a word about Colleen Moore since she was married to John McCormick. Ditto for Norma Talmadge having been married to the powerful Joseph Schenck.

[greta de groat]

I also found the series quite unfocused, especially episode 3. If it's
supposed to be about the moguls, i want it to be about the moguls! They keep digressing by trying to cram some of the popular names in and (often
inaccurately) describing them. Seems like in a documentary about
moguls, the story about Valentino would be his struggles with Zukor and
his strike. Seems like the significance of Pickford, Fairbanks, and
Chaplin would be how they became moguls themselves and how that worked out, not the usual film history 101 litany of star personalities. I
don't think Anita Loos should have made the cut at all. I can't imagine this getting any better with future episodes.

I too was shocked by Jeanine Basinger's comments on Rudolph Valentino, i thought she knew better than that.

As for the Talmadges, i did spot Norma a couple of times in the clips, at least one with Constance, but they were never identified. I'll be curious to see if they can manage to talk next week about the merger of 20th Century and Fox without mentioning Joe Schenck. They did mention his brother, though. I was amused by the sudden mention at the end of "MGM Boss Nick Schenck"--i could imagine viewers wondering who the heck that was since up to that time it looked like the MGM boss was Mayer, or at least Marcus Lowe if you were listening carefully.

I'll watch up to the Bioff scandal, and then i think i'll be done with it.

greta

[Gagman 66]

What a joke! Chapter 4 was a Clunker. Virtually unwatchable.When this series was first announced I was hoping that something really spectacular was in the works. While the series started out with allot of promise, boy has it really gone downhill since than. I believe that the opportunity was there for something truly special to take shape and sadly this has fallen far short of any sort of greatness in my estimation. The editing is extremely choppy, and it seems to be getting steadily worse with each succeeding episode. Extending this to at least 10 chapters would have definitely been a good idea.They are trying to cram to much into an hour and not doing a very good job of it.

[LouieD]

What a joke! Chapter 4 was a Clunker.

Yeah, not even one El Brendel mention

[Ray Faiola]

I think it's interesting that even in 2010 they're still using 16mm dupe footage from ONE FOOT IN HEAVEN featuring Fredric March walking down the nickelodian aisle and sitting down watching Bill Hart in "The Silent Man".

[westegg]

One redeeming thing though about this series is that someone finally had the good sense to interview Carla Laemmle.

[Jack Theakston]

One redeeming thing though about this series is that someone finally had the good sense to interview Carla Laemmle.

Researchers have been interviewing Ms. Laemmle for years. It's not like her take on these things hasn't be covered numerous times in the past.

[westegg]

It's the first time I've seen her interviewed on camera; she's a natural for TCM!

[Jack Theakston]

Check out the video interview David Skal did on the Milestone DVD of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA with her. Quite comprehensive.

[Daniel Eagan]

Carla is also in Universal Horror, The Road to Dracula, and many other documentaries.

I agree she's a great interview.

[drednm]

so is this series going to be available on DVD?

[rudyfan]

so is this series going to be available on DVD?

I'll wager the answer is yes.

[MattBarry]

so is this series going to be available on DVD?

I'll wager the answer is yes.

The sad part of all this is that when I heard Kevin Brownlow speak a couple weeks ago during a screening of two of his documentaries, he mentioned he hasn't been asked to contribute any documentaries to TCM in nearly five years.

I thought the ones he made within the one-hour timeframe of TCM's limitations were still a strong cut above the average ones they show from time to time.

I'm growing less patient with the "Moguls and Movie Stars" series from what I've seen. At the risk of sounding like I'm suggesting everything has already been said on this subject that there is to say (which I most definitely do not believe), I still can't help wondering just why we needed this series, or if we need it at all? It seems it would be far more productive to just run "Hollywood" in its entirety. That series turned many, many people (myself included) on to silent film. I know "Moguls and Movie Stars" covers more ground, but it says absolutely nothing in its segments on silent film that has not been said many times before.

[Gagman 66]

MattBarry,

So the 2005 Garbo Documentary was the last thing that Kevin did for TCM?


I agree I would have much rather have seen a re-Mastetred HOLLYWOOD. What does Kevin have to say about the possibility of ever getting the Photoplay WINGS or THE WEDDING MARCH on TCM?

[Rick Lanham]

MattBarry,

What does Kevin have to say about the possibility of ever getting the Photoplay WINGS or THE WEDDING MARCH on TCM?

Don't know if it's the Photoplay, but a 139 minute version of WINGS is listed in prime time on February 6th --

http://www.tcm.com/schedule/month/?eid=&oid=2/1/2011

Rick

[LouieD]

MattBarry,

What does Kevin have to say about the possibility of ever getting the Photoplay WINGS or THE WEDDING MARCH on TCM?

Don't know if it's the Photoplay, but a 139 minute version of WINGS is listed in prime time on February 6th --

http://www.tcm.com/schedule/month/?eid=&oid=2/1/2011

Rick

Woo-Hoo!!! El Brendel!!!!

[silentstar5]

I was the ONLY dissenter on Facebook's TCM page from a list of many comments concerning this series. I did get a thank you from 2 people for suggesting Brownlow's Hollywood and Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood. A minor victory. My goal was to let them know that steak is available while they are currently served a diet of hamburger.

[BankofAmericasSweetheart]

I was the ONLY dissenter on Facebook's TCM page from a list of many comments concerning this series. I did get a thank you from 2 people for suggesting Brownlow's Hollywood and Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood. A minor victory. My goal was to let them know that steak is available while they are currently served a diet of hamburger.

What gets me is they said they spent like 3 years making this series? I mean, you'd think with all that time they could have made it much more worthwhile. They dont spend enough time on anything in particular and there doesn't seem to be any sense of organization. I'm having trouble understanding their thesis.

It's disappointing to see a documentary that could have been very nicely developed turn into a set of flashcards.

If they had the balls they could have done it like this:

THE HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD CINEMA

Season 1: The Birth of Cinema: 1878-1929
episodes in the season: 10 episodes

Season 2: The Golden Age of Hollywood: 1929-1950
episodes in the season: 10 episodes

Season 3: Collapse of Studio System & Rise of New Hollywood: 1950-1970
episodes in the season: 10 episodes

Season 4: The Future of Hollywood: 1970-beyond
episodes in the season: 10 episodes


IN other words, they should have made it a series not a documentary. I mean that would have been really awesome and it would have had enough room to discuss each era accurately and open up more debates and offer some conclusions of their own about each time period. They could have profiled films, moguls, filmmakers, performers and auteurs in more detail. They could do episodes on international cinema as well and incorporate that into the american realm. I mean they could have made it a very big thing! TCM call me up if you want to get this project up and running ;)

[kndy]

Anyone catch Robert Osborne's interview with the director of these episodes. He must have read your messages (or possibly many others share the same sentiment on the TCM message boards) because he asked him point blank of why more wasn't featured.

[Gene Zonarich]

I think that even within the limitations of the one hour per week format, it could have been much stronger and more entertaining for both the scholar and the casual fan. And I thought that part one was a good start, and was surprised that they gave the 1889-1907 era a full episode, before getting to Griffith, Pickford, Hollywood, DeMille, and so on. But to me it seemed to go off the rails in the next two episodes with cringe-worthy moments, sloppy research, tired clichés, awful quality (and anachronistic) film clips, and downright bizarre commentary by some interviewees (Basinger and Vidal notably).

(The most insightful comment of the series so far? Scott Eyman when he stated that contrary to popular history, sound film didn't arise out of silent film, but was a hybrid creation.)

Of course I expected a healthy dose of political correctness from TCM, But it cheapened the program by having the "racism-in-film expert" Bogle tell me that Birth of A Nation was a "racist masterpiece" (his words) without the program also offering an explanation or at least a theory of how it was that Griffith had gotten to that point of racism after making 400 short films in which he showed sensitivity to issues of race, gender and religion. To me, that makes a more compelling program than bluntly ending the discussion of "Birth" with the label, "racist masterpiece.".

Any project three years in the making should have produced something above the rehashed myths, tired clichés and errors found in this series. As an example, this is how I would have ended episode one or begun episode two, and set the stage for the rest of the series:

The story of Carl Laemmle and the first "movie star," Florence Lawrence: a tale of phony obituaries, well-timed press releases and the luring of the most popular (the unnamed "Biograph Girl") actor from the most successful studio (Biograph, a member of the Edison "trust") by the man who was the most visible and vocal of the anti-trust independent producers (Laemmle with IMP). It wouldn't have been a cliché (except maybe to a few jaded film scholars), it would have interested the knowledgeable fan, and it would have entertained the casual viewer while making a statement about the nature of the budding film industry and American popular culture. It would have been a neat introduction to the theme of Moguls and Movie Stars. Yes, it's 20/20 hindsight, but with the resources available today -- to fans, scholars, filmmakers and television producers alike -- it shouldn't have to be.

[Bob Birchard]

It's going to be awhile before I forget the name, Samuel Goldfish!

He considered it a step up from his birth name- Shmuel Goldfarb.

That's Gelbfleisch, not Goldfarb.

[boblipton]

I thought it was Gelbfisz , Bob, allowing for eccentricities of transliteration. 'Gelbfleisz' would be "Goldmeat" while "Gelbfisz" is, literally "Goldfish".

Bob

[Arndt]

A. Scott Berg's "GOLDWYN" gives the name as Gelbfisz. I greatly enjoyed the book.

[Bob Birchard]

A. Scott Berg's "GOLDWYN" gives the name as Gelbfisz. I greatly enjoyed the book.

My bad. And very rusty Deutch, but certainly NOT Goldfarb

[Titano]

Honestly, as someone who always cringes at the ommisons of "documentaries" (and have been edited on them myself), I can certainly forgive the TCM series.

Editors look for interesting stories and new angles. That's what makes their products distinct from others.

I mean really - could anyone expect three hours of deserved inclusions on episodes that cover a DECADE in an hour?

If it was ME, I would take a totally new approach - full minute clips of a few films with a lot of discussion of the filmmaking techniques that were novel - skipping the "all inclusive" idea.