A Million and One Nights by Terry Ramsaye -- accuracy?

[WaverBoy]

So I just got this book as a gift from a friend, which I hadn't heard of before (I know, for shame), and was wondering if any Nitratevillains had any insights as to how accurate/reliable it is. Thoughts?

[Frederica]

So I just got this book as a gift from a friend, which I hadn't heard of before (I know, for shame), and was wondering if any Nitratevillains had any insights as to how accurate/reliable it is. Thoughts?

I asked this same question several years ago, here's the thread:
http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?t=71" target="_blank" target="_blank

[Michael O'Regan]

I've been toying with getting a copy of this.
Fred, in the other post you say that in parts the writing "gets too technical"? Did you mean actual technicalities of movie-making or as in facts'n'figures technical?

[Frederica]

I've been toying with getting a copy of this.
Fred, in the other post you say that in parts the writing "gets too technical"? Did you mean actual technicalities of movie-making or as in facts'n'figures technical?

The technicalities of movie-making--discussions of mechanical things with doojiggies and thingummies, which don't work well unless they're foozled. The business end I find fascinating, unless there are sand charts.

[Jack Theakston]

One of these days, I'd love to do a video visually explaining what all the bells and whistles (of which there were actually not that many) of that time were all about. The history of motion pictures is somewhat controlled by the constantly changing technology that goes with it. It's really fascinating stuff.

[Turpinutz]

Good question, WaverBoy.
I have always thought this book was very correct, having been pretty much written at the time.
Ramsaye also had much assistance in its preparation, and I believe he knew what he was writing about.
For years I had only volume one until finding a reprint of volume two which I haven't read yet.

It would be interesting to see what the critics and industry thought of it back in the day.

SteveR

[Rob Farr]

I think he really is all about making the case for the movies as an American invention. Those upstart Lumiere Brothers get but a passing mention. Ramsaye felt that their primary contribution had to do with roughly standardizing shooting speed.

[barafan]

Rob Farr said:Those upstart Lumiere brothers get but a passing mention.

But Ramsaye certainly had a soft spot for old Colonel Latham; the whole struggle of Latham and his sons and the "Loop" run like a leitmotif through a large part of the book.

I've been meaning to re-read AMAON. I bought a one-volume omnibus from http://www.alibris.com" target="_blank for less than $10, as I remember, and enjoyed it immensely.

[Frederica]

Good question, WaverBoy.
I have always thought this book was very correct, having been pretty much written at the time.
Ramsaye also had much assistance in its preparation, and I believe he knew what he was writing about.
For years I had only volume one until finding a reprint of volume two which I haven't read yet.

It would be interesting to see what the critics and industry thought of it back in the day.

SteveR

Steve, from the occasional mention I've seen of Ramsaye in contemporary reportage, I think he was very well respected, at least by those doing the reporting. I have to assume that his industry contacts felt the same way. As I said in the original query, he occasionally get snarky and points at something he thinks is BS, but he doesn't dish. He's rather like Grace Kingsley of the LA Times in that way.

I would like to read a criticism/review/whatever of Ramsaye that discusses the errors and puts the book into perspective--I think a careful analysis would only make the book more valuable as a source. Errors or no, it really is required reading, I'm rather embarrassed that it took me so long to get to it.

[Frederica]

One of these days, I'd love to do a video visually explaining what all the bells and whistles (of which there were actually not that many) of that time were all about. The history of motion pictures is somewhat controlled by the constantly changing technology that goes with it. It's really fascinating stuff.

I cannot begin to express how welcome (and useful) such a critter would be.

[missdupont]

Okay, so I did some checking of reviews and such today, and most critics gave great reviews to the book. Ramsaye was a publicity man for Mutual in 1917 and then director of publicity for the Rialto/Rivoli Theatres through 1919. Back in 1923, "The New York Times" reported that he had written "The Romantic History of the Motion Picture," and he cut together a program on the history of film which showed at the Selwyn Theatre that year.

Evelyn Gerstein in the November 28, 1926 "New York Times" says, "It is a vitriolic saga, alert, diffuse and pungent. Ramsaye is neither an esthete (sic) nor a stylist. He is the wise-cracking, sentimental, undeluded child of Hollywood. His style is caustic and rough-hewn, stuffed with windy metaphors and the jargon of the studios. His energy is colossal. There is nothing in fact or figure or in the strayings of these picaresque adventures who created among them an industry and an art that has escaped him. The book was originally intended as a series of articles for Photoplay...that probably accounts for the looseness of the structure, the jerkiness of its continuity. But it is always alive, the narrative of a man "in the know" in whom everything that interests him is relevant."

Edwin Schallert in the November 28, 1926 "Los Angeles Times" also gives it a rave review. "Terry Ramsaye, a former newspaper man, and identified in various capacities with the films, has written it, and without a question it is the most complete historical volume on the cinema and its development...It is the fruit of more than five years' effort and research...The history as a whole is singularly revealing...Already more history has been written. But for the once this will suffice, because it is undoubtedly the most authoritative, the cleverest and most sympathetic commentary on a young-old art-industry yet written."

[Jack Theakston]

Interesting to see that Ramsaye attempted a "history of movies" show several years before J. Stuart Blackton's MARCH OF THE MOVIES (1933.) I wonder what he included as part of the show.

There are a number of versions of the latter, since both Blackton and the receiver of the copyright continued to tinker with it. I was lucky enough to see a nitrate of the original, long version, now at UCLA.

[gentlemanfarmer]

One of these days, I'd love to do a video visually explaining what all the bells and whistles (of which there were actually not that many) of that time were all about. The history of motion pictures is somewhat controlled by the constantly changing technology that goes with it. It's really fascinating stuff.

I agree, this would be most helpful for those of us new to Silent (relatively) and under informed/overwhelmed by some of the technical aspects.

Please think about doing this!

[missdupont]

This film history event was a program put together by the Teleview Corporation, which had been showing stereoscopic films at the Selwyn for the past week. The first half of the program featured part of the Teleview program, with images in "the third dimension" per the article. Ramsaye edited/compiled the program for the second half, going back "in titles to 1880, when the motion picture was born in Thomas Edison the Kinescope. Five years later, largely through the efforts of Woodville Latham, Thomas Armat and Augustin Lumiere, the cinema came out of its box and was projected on the screen." The rest of the program consisted of showing Biograph footage of the McKinley inauguration, "The Great Train Robbery," "The Lonely Villa," shorts from 1903-1912 were shown that pictured Mary Pickford, John Bunny, King Baggot, and others, excerpts from "Quo Vadis," excerpts from one of Charlie Chaplin's first comedies, made in 1913, and shots from "The Birth of a Nation." They moved into color and showed "Kilauea's Lake of Fire" and "The Glorious Adventure," both by the Prizma Company. Then selections of current outstanding cinematography, with clips from "Broken Blossoms", "When Knighthood Was in Flower," and "The Prisoner of Zenda." The "New York Times" thoughtfully writes about each film in how they expressively held the interest of their audiences in their day and showed technological and story advancements along the way.

[Jack Theakston]

Interesting! I'm quite familiar with the Teleview shows, which were the brainchild of Laurens Hammond (inventor of the Hammond organ), but didn't realize that Ramsaye's shows were connected.

Hammond's Teleview system was a frame-sequential 3D system that used hand-held viewers with electronically-synchronized shutters in them. The program that was shown was a group of shorts and a feature, M.A.R.S., which was later released flat as RADIO-MANIA.

An excellent look at the Hammond device can be read at the late Dan Symmes' site here: http://3dmovingpictures.com/chopper.html" target="_blank

[Frederica]

Hammond's Teleview system was a frame-sequential 3D system that used hand-held viewers with electronically-synchronized shutters in them. The program that was shown was a group of shorts and a feature, M.A.R.S., which was later released flat as RADIO-MANIA.

...(foozled)...

[Jack Theakston]

It works like this... we know in 3D there are two separate views ("eyes") which represent the left eye and the right eye. With Hammond's system, via shutters in the projectors that were carefully timed, the images would flash the appropriate frames of each "eye" on the screen LEFT-RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT.



The viewers had shutters in them that were timed with the shutters in the projectors, so when the left eye was being flashed on the screen, the half of the shutter that covered your right eye came down, thus blocking your right eye from seeing the left eye image on screen, and vice versa when the right eye image was on screen. It was done so fast that persistence of vision takes over, and you don't notice that the images are being alternated, and voila, 3D.

[Frederica]

It works like this... we know in 3D there are two separate views ("eyes") which represent the left eye and the right eye. With Hammond's system, via shutters in the projectors that were carefully timed, the images would flash the appropriate frames of each "eye" on the screen LEFT-RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT.



The viewers had shutters in them that were timed with the shutters in the projectors, so when the left eye was being flashed on the screen, the half of the shutter that covered your right eye came down, thus blocking your right eye from seeing the left eye image on screen, and vice versa when the right eye image was on screen. It was done so fast that persistence of vision takes over, and you don't notice that the images are being alternated, and voila, 3D.

When you say "3D" are you referring to the way people normally see, or to the modern film process that often produces images I have trouble seeing? I wear monovision contacts; my right eye is corrected for close vision, the left for distance. My brain processes that correction as normal vision, unless I have one eye covered, and then depth perception goes to hell. I think that somehow affects the way I process (or don't process) 3D film.

This discussion belongs under a separate header, I think.