TCM's Studio Mogul documentary

Decotodd · Post by **Decotodd** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:09 pm

I really enjoyed the first 2 episodes, and missed the '20s one. But based on the 30s episode last week I think I'm done. Trying to cram too much into an hour without any coherence or focus. By now the clips are too familiar to all but the newbie ("Jazz Singer" Garbo talks, etc.) Also, we've seen the topics in the 30s episode covered far more successfullly and cohesively when given separate documentaries on one topic -- the "Dawn of Sound", the WB gangster pics, the Universal Horror documentaries, "Pre-Code Women" etc.

There's just too much to cover to do in an hour. The result is too much of too little.

coopsgirl · Post by **coopsgirl** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:20 pm

Like most everybody else here after watching Brownlow’s Hollywood, this pales in comparison. I can imagine that classic film newbies are enjoying it and that’s good but I was hoping for something better. I really think it was just too ambitious to cover the 1890s-1960s in seven hours. Hollywood is 13 episodes I believe and that is just to cover the silent era. You could probably have spent seven hours on the 30s and 40s alone.

After last night’s episode I don’t think I’ll watch anymore. I got half way through it and gave up and watched some episodes of Police Squad instead (RIP Leslie Nielsen). The only reason I even started to watch it was I figured they would talk a bit about Sergeant York since this was the ep covering the 40s and it seemed like it was going to have a strong war movie theme going by the title: Warriors and Peacemakers. Maybe they talked about it in the second half but I doubt it as they covered the lead up to the war at the beginning.

I know I’m very biased about Gary Cooper (he was awesome!) but there’s no reason that film shouldn’t have gotten a mention. It was the highest grossing film of 1941and was very influential in drumming up patriotic fervor in the months prior to the U.S. joining the war. It was even briefly pulled from theaters as some members of Congress were against it as propaganda. It’s the story of a pacifist warrior (hey that fits with the episode’s title!) with plenty of drama on screen and off and it was a huge hit with the leading actor winning an Oscar for his performance– why wasn’t it even mentioned?! Of course they spent plenty of time on Citizen Kane and Casablanca. I guess you can’t make a Hollywood documentary without mentioning those two, I’m pretty sure that’s a law or something

. Once they got to John Wayne I couldn’t take it anymore so to preserve my sanity I stopped watching.

It feels good to vent. I hope people new to classic movies will enjoy it and want to dig deeper and learn more because there were so many wonderful actors and films made during those years and I’m glad TCM presents so many of them, even if the doc falls a little short.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:32 pm

(Snit on)

I finally saw the first three episodes of this series and won't be bothering with the rest of it. The high points of criticism have already been discussed here. It's unfocused, as has been mentioned, and it doesn't really provide a good History 101 framework allowing further exploration by the interested newbie.

It doesn't cover much of the business of show business and what it does discuss is strange and distorted. Where in the hell are Joe and Nick Schenck? How do you talk about studio moguls and not talk about Joe and Nick Schenck? They've talked about L.B. Mayer extensively, but they haven't yet mentioned that Mayer was an employee of the real moguls, Loew and Schenck--a well-paid one to be sure, but an employee. Why not even a small aside describing the relationship between production/distribution/exhibition, and making it clear that exhibition is the dog, and production the tail? and in a related note, how about that lengthy and expensive Federal antitrust suit against Paramount and the legal decisions that allowed the creation of the vertically integrated studio system? You don't have to go into great depth, but they should be mentioned. At least in passing.

I would have traded Gore Vidal for Douglas Gomery in a heartbeat.

I will see Donna her justified annoyance at the Bad Valentino Info with the Bad Info quoted here: "An ambitious District Attorney indicted Arbuckle." That really is an unique moment in American jurisprudence. DA's don't indict and never have. Grand Juries indict.

Even if you can't give detailed information, you don't have to give incorrect information.

(Snit over)

Harlett O'Dowd · Post by **Harlett O'Dowd** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:54 pm

This is depressing.

I think there *is* a good doc to be made on the moguls. The good folks at TCM might even have enough material on hand to make a decent 7-10 hour doc on the moguls, but they spend so much time running down rabbit holes that have been explored time and time and time and time and time again that we're not even left with The Liveliest Art - the miniseries.

What is so depressing is that, after this, I sincerely doubt anyone will ever get a doc on the moguls ever green-lighted.

What a wasted opportunity.

Watching this reminds me of Jon Stewart's (not so) recent rant about the 24-hr news cycle in which he comapares telejournalists to the dog from UP.

Link for those who care:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/09/squirre ... hobia.html

Big Silent Fan · Post by **Big Silent Fan** » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:16 pm

I've watched the first four so far, and I think it's been exactly as advertized; a story about the birth of the American Film Industry.

This was never intended to be compared to "Hollywood," which was the story of the evolution of motion pictures. Part four even focused on the different forms of 'sex in the cinema' and they were not always just about lust. It was interesting to learn more about Lois Weber's work.

Sure, they haven't covered everything that some here already know from years of research, but to my mind (someone who has only a basic usderstanding of how this all came to be), the first half of the series was worth watching and most likely, worth watching again.

I've already got a copy of the "Hollywood" series. This is mostly new information for me. I know very little about the later times, which will be covered in the last three episodes.

greta de groat · Post by **greta de groat** » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:24 am

Frederica wrote: Where in the hell are Joe and Nick Schenck? How do you talk about studio moguls and not talk about Joe and Nick Schenck?

They finally mentioned Joe Schenck in episode 4, as i had expected, only in connection with the Bioff scandal. Of course he had turned up in episodes 2 and 3 and earlier in episode 4 in photos. So if you've got a good eye for faces you might have been wondering by that time who this person was next to Doug Fairbanks, next to Adolph Zukor, next to Darrell Zanuck.

I thought there was on outside possibility he might get mentioned in connection with the merger of 20th Century and Fox, but that story got missed entirely--one minute Zanuck was at Warners, and next episode he was at 20th Century Fox, William Fox having vanished after his car accident.

My curiosity having been satisfied, episode 4 was the last for me.

greta

westegg · Post by **westegg** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:05 am

Only skimmed through the '40s episode, and unless I'm mistaken and missed it, where's Abbott & Costello and the Andrews Sisters?! Leaving them out is heresy!

Silent film fan · Post by **Silent film fan** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:38 am

You would think someone like TCM would take the time to do the research that a documentary of this type deserves. I'd expect shoddy research from others, but from this network it's a major disappointment.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:15 pm

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:This is depressing.

I think there *is* a good doc to be made on the moguls. The good folks at TCM might even have enough material on hand to make a decent 7-10 hour doc on the moguls, but they spend so much time running down rabbit holes that have been explored time and time and time and time and time again that we're not even left with The Liveliest Art - the miniseries.

What is so depressing is that, after this, I sincerely doubt anyone will ever get a doc on the moguls ever green-lighted.

What a wasted opportunity.

If you are interested in docs on the moguls, I would suggest the individual docs made on Thalberg, Hughes, Goldwyn, Selznick, Warner Brothers, etc. They are much more thorough.

Harlett O'Dowd · Post by **Harlett O'Dowd** » Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:47 pm

azjazzman wrote:
Harlett O'Dowd wrote:This is depressing.

I think there *is* a good doc to be made on the moguls. The good folks at TCM might even have enough material on hand to make a decent 7-10 hour doc on the moguls, but they spend so much time running down rabbit holes that have been explored time and time and time and time and time again that we're not even left with The Liveliest Art - the miniseries.

What is so depressing is that, after this, I sincerely doubt anyone will ever get a doc on the moguls ever green-lighted.

What a wasted opportunity.

If you are interested in docs on the moguls, I would suggest the individual docs made on Thalberg, Hughes, Goldwyn, Selznick, Warner Brothers, etc. They are much more thorough.

Yes, I've seen of these and they are quite good. I was specifically interested on telling the story of Hollywood mostly/exclusively from the mogul angle and showing the interaction between them.

And while it was mentioned earlier in this thread, it probably bears repeating:

However disappointing this series is, TCM has run some great, rare films as tie-ins. For The Viking alone, the series is worth it.

westegg · Post by **westegg** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:02 pm

So, explain tonight why a photo of cabaret entertainers Sandler & Young stood in for the American International execs Arkoff and Nicholson?

Lokke Heiss · Post by **Lokke Heiss** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:18 pm

I will see Donna her justified annoyance at the Bad Valentino Info with the Bad Info quoted here: "An ambitious District Attorney indicted Arbuckle." That really is an unique moment in American jurisprudence. DA's don't indict and never have. Grand Juries indict.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the DoN, how often does a grand jury refuse to indict someone that the D.A. brings up charges against?

To paraphrase the old saying, it's not the D.A. or the Grand Jury. It's the ham sandwich.

azjazzman · Post by **azjazzman** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:44 pm

Lokke Heiss wrote:
I will see Donna her justified annoyance at the Bad Valentino Info with the Bad Info quoted here: "An ambitious District Attorney indicted Arbuckle." That really is an unique moment in American jurisprudence. DA's don't indict and never have. Grand Juries indict.

The mistakes made in the voice over narration are not near as annoying as the gaffes made by people who really should know better - like Jeanne Basinger and Richard Roberts. I guess they just don't make film historians like they used to.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:21 pm

Lokke Heiss wrote:
I will see Donna her justified annoyance at the Bad Valentino Info with the Bad Info quoted here: "An ambitious District Attorney indicted Arbuckle." That really is an unique moment in American jurisprudence. DA's don't indict and never have. Grand Juries indict.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the DoN, how often does a grand jury refuse to indict someone that the D.A. brings up charges against?

To paraphrase the old saying, it's not the D.A. or the Grand Jury. It's the ham sandwich.

You are aware of the old trope, obviously! But in this case, the Grand Jury had already announced they'd investigate the case before Arbuckle was even charged. And then they reduced the DA's charge from murder to manslaughter. So no ham sandwich for you, fella. You're looking at egg salad.

daveboz · Post by **daveboz** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:09 am

westegg wrote:So, explain tonight why a photo of cabaret entertainers Sandler & Young stood in for the American International execs Arkoff and Nicholson?

==============

That was HILARIOUS!

But then, Sandler & Young usually are (were).

Jim Roots · Post by **Jim Roots** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:28 am

azjazzman wrote: The mistakes made in the voice over narration are not near as annoying as the gaffes made by people who really should know better - like Jeanne Basinger and Richard Roberts. I guess they just don't make film historians like they used to.

Richard Roberts made a mistake?

I'm gonna need some convincing on this...

Jim

Lokke Heiss · Post by **Lokke Heiss** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:53 am

You are aware of the old trope, obviously! But in this case, the Grand Jury had already announced they'd investigate the case before Arbuckle was even charged. And then they reduced the DA's charge from murder to manslaughter. So no ham sandwich for you, fella. You're looking at egg salad.

Doesn't the D.A. have the power to convene (or dismiss) the jury? In your note, you sort of slid over that point, as if the GJ just existed as a free entity, looking for just causes. So while the GJ technically is the organ doing the indicting, almost always it serves at the D.A.s pleasure, (acting as a restraining function in that the D.A.'s M.O. is more transparent by this process). In other words, egg salad may not be a ham sandwich, but it's still a felony.

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:56 am

The length of service of a grand jury may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but nowadays in New York a grand jury sits for a fixed term and acts to indict someone. Usually this is done by the DA or an assistant coming by and saying "We've got enough to go on, but we need your permission to charge him."

A Grand jury does not convict, so the burden of proof is lower. Given that it is, like most juries, drawn from the general population with no clear idea of the law, most grand juries can be led around by the nose and, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, will indict a ham sandwich. But sometimes a grand jury will take its duty seriously, do its job properly and this leads to complaints by the DA that they are a runaway jury that ignores the law -- especially given that jury nullification is quite lawful but never mentioned in court.

One case of a runaway jury occurred in Upstate New York a few years ago when a jury found someone not guilty of murder. After the DA had raged, someone asked a juror. "They never produced any evidence of a corpse."

Bob

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:17 pm

Lokke Heiss wrote:
You are aware of the old trope, obviously! But in this case, the Grand Jury had already announced they'd investigate the case before Arbuckle was even charged. And then they reduced the DA's charge from murder to manslaughter. So no ham sandwich for you, fella. You're looking at egg salad.
Doesn't the D.A. have the power to convene (or dismiss) the jury? In your note, you sort of slid over that point, as if the GJ just existed as a free entity, looking for just causes. So while the GJ technically is the organ doing the indicting, almost always it serves at the D.A.s pleasure, (acting as a restraining function in that the D.A.'s M.O. is more transparent by this process). In other words, egg salad may not be a ham sandwich, but it's still a felony.

It does exist as a free entity, as does (or did) the Coroner's Office, at least in California. The GJ has the power to convene itself, since it has a investigative function. Here's the relevant quote for this particular case:

"The County Grand Jury is to start an investigation Monday night into Miss Rappe's death and Arbuckle's interest in it," Harry Kelly, secretary of the jury said today (September 10, 1921). So many women's clubs and private individuals interested in the moral welfare of the city have demanded an investigation that I will present their demands to the jury. The District Attorney, who is at present out of the city, will be advised of the circumstances when he returns and he will handle the matter in front of the Grand Jury."

The most interesting thing about this statement is that it was made before Arbuckle was arrested, actually before he'd even arrived back in SF to talk to the police.

murnaumagic · Post by **murnaumagic** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:56 pm

Living in Berlin, Germany, I dot have the opportunity to get TCM. As I am working on a book on movie mogul William Fox, I wonder if or what the series has to tell about him. Could anyone tell me, please.
Thank you very much.
Tom

boblipton · Post by **boblipton** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:52 pm

He tried to take over MGM, got into a car crash and wound up in trouble, Also he invented 'Grandeur.' That's about it.

Bob

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:38 pm

I wonder if going be extensive interview of mogul descendants in box set if they ever released on DVD

I hear they going release on DVD they don't when YET that what TCM Forum poster once said

fwtep · Post by **fwtep** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:41 pm

Now I know what it must have been like to receive a telegram.

Big Silent Fan · Post by **Big Silent Fan** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:07 am

The business end of the film industry may not be high on my list of interesting things, but watching this series has given me more than a casual exposure to the success and hardships that came and went with the times.
The series was not intended to talk about films, yet the films were highlighted to show how the business evolved and changed with time.

I found the entire series very worthwhile.

Harlett O'Dowd · Post by **Harlett O'Dowd** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:53 am

murnaumagic wrote:Living in Berlin, Germany, I dot have the opportunity to get TCM. As I am working on a book on movie mogul William Fox, I wonder if or what the series has to tell about him. Could anyone tell me, please.
Thank you very much.
Tom

The materials on the Murnau/Borzage/Fox set covers everything that's in the TCM doc - and in more depth.