NitrateVille.com

What are some good books on the early talkie period up to '34ish?

Michael O'Regan wrote:What are some good books on the early talkie period up to '34ish?

Mick LaSalle's two books, Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Precode Hollywood and Dangerous Men: Pre-Code Hollywood and the Birth of the Modern Man are both very good. Even if you don't like Norma Shearer, and I don't.

For eye candy and delicious writing, Mark Viera's Sin in Soft Focus is an excellent book.

Not a book on Hollywood, but if you want a book that gives you the FEEL of living in a pre-Code world, I strongly recommend Val Lewton's No Bed of her Own, written about those awful years of 31 and 32.
His feel for the time and the language seems spot on to me:

"Are you hungry?" Barbie asked.

“Hungry enough to eat a bear,” Rose laughed.

“Ever been hungry enough to kill a bear?”

“No, I guess not."

“Then you don’t know what I’m talking about. Don’t go hungry,” Barbie advised. “It’s not worth it. I can put you in a way of making a little money. Not too hard work, either, and no whoring -"

Yes, Sin in Soft Focus is especially fun. I have just started Thomas Doherty's Pre-Code Hollywood from 1999- seems exceptionally well researched but does use academic jargon now and then. Doesn't bother me so far, but thought I would mention that for those who are allergic.

There's also THE SPEED OF SOUND, which talks about the transition into the sound era.

Looks like my reading list just got longer!

Thanks.

I second Frederica - there's also a documentary based on 'Complicated Women' which is good, but basically a summary of the book. If you pick up any book on Hollywood censorship there's also bound to be a chapter or two on pre-Codes.

If you're interested in the silent-to-sound changeover, Alexander Walker's 'The Shattered Silents' is my favourite source.

Brooksie wrote: If you're interested in the silent-to-sound changeover, Alexander Walker's 'The Shattered Silents' is my favourite source.

I have read that book and found it to be quite informative. The transition to sound took longer and was more diffused at first that what it is commonly believed today. Very interesting read.

LongRider wrote:

Brooksie wrote: If you're interested in the silent-to-sound changeover, Alexander Walker's 'The Shattered Silents' is my favourite source.

I have read that book and found it to be quite informative. The transition to sound took longer and was more diffused at first that what it is commonly believed today. Very interesting read.

Some of the stories written at the time of transition in the trades are pretty fascinating. I'd read stories that Clara Bow's voice would blow tubes in the amplifier and how Janet Gaynor had some trouble passing early voice tests. And a jaw-dropping one on Raymond Griffith's voice recording well. All sorts of technical articles in ways of recording, silencing cameras, etc. I think the technicians and the snake-oil salesmen were the only ones having fun in the transition. I mean every few months would bring a new movement absolutely guaranteed to silence your Bell & Howell 2709 or Mitchell enough not to need a blimp! You can tell how well they worked by how (ahem) quickly those blimps disappeared.

mndean wrote:I'd read stories that Clara Bow's voice would blow tubes in the amplifier and how Janet Gaynor had some trouble passing early voice tests. And a jaw-dropping one on Raymond Griffith's voice recording well.

99.9% of them all BS. If there isn't a memo or documentation from the film studio, I don't believe it.

LouieD wrote:

mndean wrote:I'd read stories that Clara Bow's voice would blow tubes in the amplifier and how Janet Gaynor had some trouble passing early voice tests. And a jaw-dropping one on Raymond Griffith's voice recording well.

99.9% of them all BS. If there isn't a memo or documentation from the film studio, I don't believe it.

I'm a cynic when I read anything published from Hollywood, so neither did I believe most of the items, but that's what they printed at the time (the sexual connotations in the Bow item are a dead giveaway, the motives behind the Griffith item are a bit murkier to me). Only the Janet Gaynor item do I semi-believe and that's because she sounds a lot like a relative to Alvin Chipmunk in Sunnyside Up.

mndean wrote: Only the Janet Gaynor item do I semi-believe and that's because she sounds a lot like a relative to Alvin Chipmunk in Sunnyside Up.

Loving "I'm a Dreamer," I hate to admit the truth of this, but it's hard to deny. I'd like to believe it's the result of primitive recording technology, but on the other hand, Sharon Lynn sounds terriffic. (And what ever happened to that little confection? Have never seen her before or since.)

entredeuxguerres wrote: Loving "I'm a Dreamer," I hate to admit the truth of this, but it's hard to deny. I'd like to believe it's the result of primitive recording technology, but on the other hand, Sharon Lynn sounds terriffic. (And what ever happened to that little confection? Have never seen her before or since.)

I'm a fan also! A bunch of her early work no longer exists but probably her most accessible role is in Laurel & Hardy's "Way Out West" (1937).

LouieD wrote:

mndean wrote:I'd read stories that Clara Bow's voice would blow tubes in the amplifier and how Janet Gaynor had some trouble passing early voice tests. And a jaw-dropping one on Raymond Griffith's voice recording well.

99.9% of them all BS. If there isn't a memo or documentation from the film studio, I don't believe it.

I agree, and it works both ways, too. I've always been suspicious about those early reports that Norma Shearer's voice recorded perfectly. Watching 'Hollywood Revue of 1929' makes that hard to believe.

By contrast, every time I hear Clara Bow in a talkie, I'm more baffled about all those reports of a nasal Brooklyn accent.

This is just another reason that those early talkies should be made more available. Nowadays, how many people have actually seen 'His Glorious Night' in full, and yet how many continue to confidently assert the unsuitability of Gilbert's voice? I do love to bust a myth, but without the material in wide circulation, it's not easy.

Brooksie wrote: I've always been suspicious about those early reports that Norma Shearer's voice recorded perfectly. Watching 'Hollywood Revue of 1929' makes that hard to believe.

Of those "early reports," I'm quite ignorant, but ran her "Juliet" by again to refresh my memory--does sound somewhat strained, relative to that lovely, light, musical tone I expect, but is it a distortion attributible to the recording itself? Gilbert's voice likewise sounded abnormally harsh & raspy. That marvelous tinkling laughter of hers, like a well-tuned wind-chime in a light breeze, seems approximately normal. The most seemingly natural recording of her (beautiful) voice I've heard occurs in "Jackie Cooper's Birthday Party," an MGM short, though even there, no doubt, she isn't forgetting to "play her part."

"Norma Shearer is reputed to have the finest speaking voice on the screen" is a line that appeared verbatim in so many of the Australian reviews for 'The Last of Mrs Cheyney' that it leads me to suspect that it was lifted from a studio release.

It could be that early sound technique was amiss in 'Hollywood Revue', but given that the sound recordist was her brother, Douglas Shearer, I'll bet that every effort was made to produce a high quality recording (which, in fact, might make the Romeo and Juliet scene a handy litmus test against the claims that Gilbert's voice was somehow altered, either deliberately or mistakenly, in 'His Glorious Night'). To me, it sounds like the simple effects of nervousness, which has probably affected anyone who has had to do public speaking. Your throat goes dry, your chest constricts, and out comes a breathy, raspy voice.

The fact that her first sound film, 'A Lady of Chance', contained dialogue, but none from Norma herself, makes me think that rather than being a natural, she worked quite hard to obtain a good vocal tone.

Brooksie wrote:

LouieD wrote:

mndean wrote:I'd read stories that Clara Bow's voice would blow tubes in the amplifier and how Janet Gaynor had some trouble passing early voice tests. And a jaw-dropping one on Raymond Griffith's voice recording well.

99.9% of them all BS. If there isn't a memo or documentation from the film studio, I don't believe it.

I agree, and it works both ways, too. I've always been suspicious about those early reports that Norma Shearer's voice recorded perfectly. Watching 'Hollywood Revue of 1929' makes that hard to believe.

By contrast, every time I hear Clara Bow in a talkie, I'm more baffled about all those reports of a nasal Brooklyn accent.

It's rare for me to hear any Brooklyn in Bow, but I have heard traces of it in No Limit and one other talkie that escapes me. I don't believe the reports on Shearer, either. I think more than a few actors learned to speak for the microphone by flattening regional accents and keeping their voices within a certain pitch range. I hate to think how many actors may have taken up or increased smoking to help their vocal resonance.

So curious the (alledged) anxiety over Clara's voice, as also that of Norma Talmadge--& then along comes someone like Alice White, who revels in her patois! Or consider Marjorie White: by her speech, "obviously" born & bred somewhere between the Bronx & the Jersey Shore--until you find she actually hails from Winnipeg! Speech therapy for a dramatic actress like Norma makes some sense (by straining one can just make out here & there a faint touch of Brooklynese in New York Nights), but none at all for such a comic cut-up as Clara.

entredeuxguerres wrote:So curious the (alledged) anxiety over Clara's voice, as also that of Norma Talmadge--& then along comes someone like Alice White, who revels in her patois! Or consider Marjorie White: by her speech, "obviously" born & bred somewhere between the Bronx & the Jersey Shore--until you find she actually hails from Winnipeg! Speech therapy for a dramatic actress like Norma makes some sense (by straining one can just make out here & there a faint touch of Brooklynese in New York Nights), but none at all for such a comic cut-up as Clara.

Yeah, if Bow had a voice coach, Clara could've shot the fool and no jury would convict her. I find her at her worst when she's supposed to be serious and is speaking to the camera with no other actors in the scene. She has a halting diction at times that bothers me. In The Wild Party, Clara wasn't even the worst, Marceline Day seemed to me to have the hardest time delivering lines well.

So as not to pick on women, I'll add that Gary Cooper did something similar in Only The Brave with the "she prefers pansies" joke. He halts and just drops that punch line in the dirt, and it's not even bad-funny.

LaSalle and Viera's books are okay -- heck, I love Sin in Soft-Focus just for the pictures -- but they indulge in too much gratuitous hand-wringing over the coming of the Breen code, and to this reader, that undercuts their credibility.

Thomas Doherty's Pre-Code Hollywood is more straightforward and less lachrymose, plus he has a rather dry sense of humor. He also covers a few genres that LaSalle and Viera's books don't (e.g., documentaries).

All of those suggestions look excellent and I'm looking forward to reading them all at some point. However, many if not all seem to dwell on the content of the films - sex, crime, the whole censorship issue, etc. - I am more interested in the industry during this period. Is there anything around on this aspect? Walker's book sounds good, but is there anything else in this vein?

Michael O'Regan wrote:All of those suggestions look excellent and I'm looking forward to reading them all at some point. However, many if not all seem to dwell on the content of the films - sex, crime, the whole censorship issue, etc. - I am more interested in the industry during this period. Is there anything around on this aspect? Walker's book sounds good, but is there anything else in this vein?

As I recall it, there's a fair amount of industry talk in Complicated Women. His thesis is basically that, not only were movies sanitized after the Code clampdown, but the role of women in Hollywood, in front of and behind the camera, were severely reduced and restricted, as well.

Michael O'Regan wrote:All of those suggestions look excellent and I'm looking forward to reading them all at some point. However, many if not all seem to dwell on the content of the films - sex, crime, the whole censorship issue, etc. - I am more interested in the industry during this period. Is there anything around on this aspect? Walker's book sounds good, but is there anything else in this vein?

I highly recommend the article "More Sinned Against than Sinning: The Fabrications of Pre-Code Cinema" by Richard Maltby, found here: http://sensesofcinema.com/2003/feature- ... de_cinema/

I think this might be just what you're looking for, for starters. It cuts to the meat of the era and the business practices that really drove the industry to censor itself: The industry agreed to more rigorous censorship of movie content as a matter of public relations, in order to detract from the more serious regulation of its monopolistic trade practices, its control of production, distribution, and exhibition.

This article led me to the book The World According to Hollywood by Ruth Vasey, which I've only just started reading. It addresses the bigger picture of American movies in the global marketplace (between the two world wars) and how Hollywood controlled the content of its films in order to reach the widest (world-wide) audience possible. Here's a better description of the book than I can give: http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0161.htm

Vasey's book was preceded by an article "Foreign Parts: Hollywood's Global Distribution and the Representation of Ethnicity" which is available through JSTOR (if you have access to academic databases), and is included as a chapter in the book Movie Censorship and American Culture - most of the chapter is available in a Google book preview here: http://tinyurl.com/c54by2n

Nancy

I still think La Salle's take on Women Pre Vs. Post code is codswallop.

antoniod wrote:I still think La Salle's take on Women Pre Vs. Post code is codswallop.

In what sense? I am no great fan of La Salle's, but after seeing a couple thousand precode-era films, it sure looks to me that women's roles in film and careers in Hollywood (in front of and behind the camera) after the code became enforced were more circumscribed.

mndean wrote:

antoniod wrote:I still think La Salle's take on Women Pre Vs. Post code is codswallop.

In what sense? I am no great fan of La Salle's, but after seeing a couple thousand precode-era films, it sure looks to me that women's roles in film and careers in Hollywood (in front of and behind the camera) after the code became enforced were more circumscribed.

Your point about the change also taking place behind the scenes is a good one. In the mid 30s there were whole articles about how scandalous (or groundbreaking, depending on the journalist) the likes of Joan Blondell and Helen Twelvetrees were - not because of their films, but because they had dared to have babies and then return to work.

It's just that I remember a lot of Pre-Code films that ended with the Woman giving up her career, and Post-Code films (By 1939, anyway), where the Woman still had the career at the fade-out. And were there any Pre-Code equivilants of the "Great Woman" biographies (Madame Curie, Sister Kenny, etc.) of the 40s? I seem to remember Women's behind-the-scenes roles began to evaporate at the beginning of the big studio era. I realize that Women's place in American society didn't change significantly until the 70s, but would It have happened sooner without the Code? I mean, people in the 30s also READ!