Some thoughts on Brownlow and Gill's "Hollywood"

[MattBarry]

I re-watched the entire Brownlow & Gill series, "Hollywood", over the last week, and was really struck again by what a valuable historical record it is of the individuals who lived and worked in Hollywood during the 1910s and 20s.

Needless to say, the documentary is pretty much the bench-mark by which all other film documentaries are measured, even though it only deals with Hollywood in the silent era. I can't begin to fathom the amount of time spent on shooting interviews, compiling clip footage, and shaping all that material into 13 episodes.

It would be impossible to record those kinds of first-hand accounts today, since the last of the silent stars are now gone. What's really amazing, and what really emphasizes that this documentary was made just in the knick of time, is how many of the interviewees passed away between the time their interviews were shot in 1976, and the time the series finally aired in 1980. These interviews are really the backbone of the series, and the personal stories and anecdotes shared by the stars and directors are what will forever set this series apart from other attempts at documenting Hollywood's silent era.

My favorite episode is unquestionably Episode Two: In the Beginning, especially the segment in which Agnes de Mille recalls her first visit to Hollywood in its early days. Episode 8: "Out West" is also hugely entertaining and interesting, especially since it shows how inextricably linked Hollywood was with the "wild west". "A Trick of the Light" is fascinating in how it describes the working methods of silent era cinematographers. "Hazard of the Game" is a thrilling episode detailing the dangers faced by stunt man in the pre-union days, and also a sad reminder of how quickly things could get out of control (such as the filming of "The Trail of '98", in which several stunt men were lost in a terrible accident on a river). One of the most important episodes is "Single Beds and Double Standards", which details the scandals that threatened to tear the film community apart in the early 20s.

The series must have had an important impact in the proper presentation of silent films-proper projection speed, good quality clips, with superb scores by Carl Davis. Interestingly, all the clips are presented in black and white, with no tinting or toning, a decision I've never fully understood.

That said, there are a few flaws with the documentary that I noticed more strongly watching it this time around.

Occasionally, it feels like Brownlow spends too much time on certain subjects, while rushing through others entirely too quickly. Brownlow has since produced whole documentaries on Griffith, DeMille, and the major silent clowns, all of which go into more detail than he was able to provide here.

The episode on DeMille and Stroheim is one of my least favorite, as it seems to paint them as caricatures of themselves, almost more like their characters in "Sunset Blvd." than examining the real-life artists. Stroheim, in particular, is represented by film clips in which he plays an over-the-top caricature of himself. DeMille is at least seen in a staged newsreel-style clip of him directing "The Crusades".

Some episodes feel stretched a little thin, especially ones like "Swanson and Valentino" and "Star Treatment".

First-time viewers should be aware of some of the outright exaggerations in some of the interviews as well, such as Hal Roach's story about the crew destroying the wrong house in "Big Business". Of course, these little anecdotes are a big part of the charm of these interviews.

One thing I feel the series could have addressed was the widespread geography of silent film production. I understand that they chose to focus on Hollywood, but it might have been interesting to briefly examine the large numbers of films made in Fort Lee and Astoria throughout the 1920s.

I also found myself wishing that they had taken a more chronological approach to some of the material. Episode Two does a great job of looking at the "early days" of Hollywood, but all too often I felt that Brownlow and Gill lump too much of the silent period together. Perhaps one episode could have been devoted to the establishing of the big studios, particularly MGM in the 1920s, and the changes that took place in production as a result.

I realize that these criticisms are mere nitpicking in the bigger picture, though. Brownlow and Gill attempted a documentary on film that no one else has come close to equaling. It is a remarkable record of the time and place, and has surely been responsible for introducing many people to the world of silent film (including myself).

[gjohnson]

If the filmmakers had taken all of your suggestions to heart they would of ended up with a film longer than the NY phone book.

Gary J.

[Chris Snowden]

The only flaw in HOLLYWOOD that ever bothers me is the interview footage. Adela Rogers St. Johns weighs in on anything and everything, and she's just not reliable at all. Like Hal Roach, she was more interested in telling entertaining stories than in telling the facts.

There's a memorable clip of Viola Dana getting misty as she recalls the death of her boyfriend Ormer Lockyear. Anthony Slide says this was more like a performance than testimony. Sounds mean, but he knew her.

When Jackie Coogan tells us stories about things that happened when he was 5 or 6 years old, how trustworthy is that? Or Eleanor Boardman, telling us about the Gilbert-Garbo wedding that was supposed to come off... the one that no one's been able to find corroborating evidence for (and in fact M-G-M's records show that Garbo was working that day). Is she right? Wrong? Telling a story? Lying? Who knows?

[MattBarry]

The only flaw in HOLLYWOOD that ever bothers me is the interview footage. Adela Rogers St. Johns weighs in on anything and everything, and she's just not reliable at all. Like Hal Roach, she was more interested in telling entertaining stories than in telling the facts.

There's a memorable clip of Viola Dana getting misty as she recalls the death of her boyfriend Ormer Lockyear. Anthony Slide says this was more like a performance than testimony. Sounds mean, but he knew her.

When Jackie Coogan tells us stories about things that happened when he was 5 or 6 years old, how trustworthy is that? Or Eleanor Boardman, telling us about the Gilbert-Garbo wedding that was supposed to come off... the one that no one's been able to find corroborating evidence for (and in fact M-G-M's records show that Garbo was working that day). Is she right? Wrong? Telling a story? Lying? Who knows?

This is the point that I have some problems with. I am glad to have these interviews, and many of them provide invaluable insights into what it was really like to be there. At the same time, the unreliability of some of the interviewees may make it difficult for future generations, even farther removed from the silent era than ourselves, to get a really clear picture of the facts.

[MattBarry]

If the filmmakers had taken all of your suggestions to heart they would of ended up with a film longer than the NY phone book.

Gary J.

I don't know...there are a number of later episodes that I felt really re-tread points that had already been made earlier in the series. The transition from East Coast to West Coast filmmaking could have easily made a fascinating episode all on its own.

[Frederica]

The only flaw in HOLLYWOOD that ever bothers me is the interview footage. Adela Rogers St. Johns weighs in on anything and everything, and she's just not reliable at all. Like Hal Roach, she was more interested in telling entertaining stories than in telling the facts.

Don't get me started on St. Johns. (But if you ever get a chance, do get Eve Golden started. She does the best Adela Rogers St. Johns imitation ever. Drop dead funny.) And it's astonishing that the little stories st. Johns told in her Hollywood interviews have become the sole source of information on...well, many issues, but I'm mainly concerned with her piffle on the Arbuckle case. No, Joe Schenck did not want to hire her father to defend Arbuckle. No, Wakefield Hospital was not known to simply everyone as an abortion mill. Actually a good rule of thumb is if St. Johns said it, discard it immediately.

Hey! That works for Minta Durfee, too.

Hollywood has flaws as history, the main being overreliance on anecdotal evidence. But if you define Hollywood as cultural anthropology, which I do, it really has no peer. Whether this stuff is true or not, it's still an invaluable visual record of the legend of silent film.

Fred

[MattBarry]

The only flaw in HOLLYWOOD that ever bothers me is the interview footage. Adela Rogers St. Johns weighs in on anything and everything, and she's just not reliable at all. Like Hal Roach, she was more interested in telling entertaining stories than in telling the facts.

Don't get me started on St. Johns. (But if you ever get a chance, do get Eve Golden started. She does the best Adela Rogers St. Johns imitation ever. Drop dead funny.) And it's astonishing that the little stories st. Johns told in her Hollywood interviews have become the sole source of information on...well, many issues, but I'm mainly concerned with her piffle on the Arbuckle case. No, Joe Schenck did not want to hire her father to defend Arbuckle. No, Wakefield Hospital was not known to simply everyone as an abortion mill. Actually a good rule of thumb is if St. Johns said it, discard it immediately.

Hey! That works for Minta Durfee, too.

Hollywood has flaws as history, the main being overreliance on anecdotal evidence. But if you define Hollywood as cultural anthropology, which I do, it really has no peer. Whether this stuff is true or not, it's still an invaluable visual record of the legend of silent film.

Fred

There is also some doubt about St. Johns' story about D.W. Griffith coming down to the newsroom that she worked in and "passing the hat" to collect money to pay his extras and dayplayer crew members for "The Birth of a Nation".

I can't imagine that there would be any venue for a documentary like this today. TCM would be the only possible choice, and even they are increasingly interested in one-hour (or less) fluff pieces. Fortunately, they've managed to help produce some of Brownlow's recent documentaries, but none of these are anywhere nearly as thorough (or long) as "Hollywood". Sadly, American PBS stations would probably have no interest in doing a film documentary series like this, unless it was a Ken Burns project (now *there's* a scary thought).

[Frederica]

There is also some doubt about St. Johns' story about D.W. Griffith coming down to the newsroom that she worked in and "passing the hat" to collect money to pay his extras and dayplayer crew members for "The Birth of a Nation".

Are you being ironic? Can't tell...no irony emoticon..."some" doubt??!! And do I have $8 million in a Nigerian bank account for you!

I can't imagine that there would be any venue for a documentary like this today. TCM would be the only possible choice, and even they are increasingly interested in one-hour (or less) fluff pieces. Fortunately, they've managed to help produce some of Brownlow's recent documentaries, but none of these are anywhere nearly as thorough (or long) as "Hollywood". Sadly, American PBS stations would probably have no interest in doing a film documentary series like this, unless it was a Ken Burns project (now *there's* a scary thought).

What's wrong with Ken Burns?

Fred

[MattBarry]

There is also some doubt about St. Johns' story about D.W. Griffith coming down to the newsroom that she worked in and "passing the hat" to collect money to pay his extras and dayplayer crew members for "The Birth of a Nation".

Are you being ironic? Can't tell...no irony emoticon..."some" doubt??!! And do I have $8 million in a Nigerian bank account for you!

Well, I'll just say that I *strongly* *strongly* doubted the story.

I can't imagine that there would be any venue for a documentary like this today. TCM would be the only possible choice, and even they are increasingly interested in one-hour (or less) fluff pieces. Fortunately, they've managed to help produce some of Brownlow's recent documentaries, but none of these are anywhere nearly as thorough (or long) as "Hollywood". Sadly, American PBS stations would probably have no interest in doing a film documentary series like this, unless it was a Ken Burns project (now *there's* a scary thought).

What's wrong with Ken Burns?

Fred

I know Burns has a big following, but of his documentaries that I've seen ("Baseball", "The Civil War" and "Jazz"), he doesn't seem to have the same kind of passion for his subjects as Brownlow does. He admitted, for instance, that prior to making the "Jazz" series, he only had a couple of jazz records in his collection, and relied heavily on the input of Wynton Marsalis. I don't expect a documentary filmmaker to be a complete, life-long authority on every subject they tackle, of course, but his documentaries lack the passion for their subject that Brownlow exhibits in all his work (the only exceptions being his recent pieces commissioned by TCM for DVD special features; namely, "Buster Keaton-So Funny it Hurt" and "I'm King Kong: The Life of Merian C. Cooper").

I would also say that, like some of Brownlow's recent work, there are themes that Burns often returns to in his work that sometimes stray too far from the subject of the documentary. For Burns, this tends to be race relations in America. For Brownlow, it tends to be European political history leading up to World War II. Beginning around (roughly) "Cinema Europe", Brownlow sometimes has focused an inordinate amount of time on this. In both "Universal Horror" and "Lon Chaney: A Thousand Faces", he goes in to quite a lot of detail on World War I, and how the veterans who experienced that horror first hand saw those horrors reflected in the bizarre and horrific films of Tod Browning, Lon Chaney and others. The most prominent example is "The Tramp and the Dictator", in which he attempts to draw parallels between Chaplin and Hitler-except, there really aren't any, outside of a few superficial coincidences.

[Mike Gebert]

Actually, what I heard Brownlow had no real personal interest in was Universal Horror; he didn't grow up on those movies and thus didn't share the love for/fascination with them that others have. His thesis, in addition to likely reflecting his own interests in history, follows David Skal's (superb) The Monster Show in analyzing the horror genre as a reaction to World War I.

[Frederica]

What's wrong with Ken Burns?

Fred

I know Burns has a big following, but of his documentaries that I've seen ("Baseball", "The Civil War" and "Jazz"), he doesn't seem to have the same kind of passion for his subjects as Brownlow does. He admitted, for instance, that prior to making the "Jazz" series, he only had a couple of jazz records in his collection, and relied heavily on the input of Wynton Marsalis. I don't expect a documentary filmmaker to be a complete, life-long authority on every subject they tackle, of course, but his documentaries lack the passion for their subject that Brownlow exhibits in all his work (the only exceptions being his recent pieces commissioned by TCM for DVD special features; namely, "Buster Keaton-So Funny it Hurt" and "I'm King Kong: The Life of Merian C. Cooper").

He may have lacked passion, but he also lacked Adela Rogers St. Johns! Let's agree to disagree, here, because I think Burns' The Civil War is one of the most remarkable, informative, and moving documentaries I've ever seen.

Fred

[MattBarry]

Actually, what I heard Brownlow had no real personal interest in was Universal Horror; he didn't grow up on those movies and thus didn't share the love for/fascination with them that others have. His thesis, in addition to likely reflecting his own interests in history, follows David Skal's (superb) The Monster Show in analyzing the horror genre as a reaction to World War I.

I believe "Universal Horror" was the first he made for Turner Classic Movies. His documentaries are always a notch above (and always can be counted on to use rare material for clips). I'll try to find a copy of "The Monster Show". It's an interesting thesis, and it's easy to see why Brownlow was interested in exploring it further, given his interest.

Incidentally, I don't mean to suggest that a documentary filmmaker shouldn't examine a subject from a standpoint that they find personally interesting. But in the case of Burns (what I've seen of his work, at least), and on occasion Brownlow's work as well, those interests can come to dominate the subject to the point where it becomes distracting.

[Mike Gebert]

The Civil War is great, Baseball was twice as long as it needed to be, Jazz is intermittently quite good but... so white.

If you've seen any of them, you need to see this.

[Jim Reid]

He may have lacked passion, but he also lacked Adela Rogers St. Johns! Let's agree to disagree, here, because I think Burns' The Civil War is one of the most remarkable, informative, and moving documentaries I've ever seen.

Ditto for Baseball

[Chris Snowden]

His thesis, in addition to likely reflecting his own interests in history, follows David Skal's (superb) The Monster Show in analyzing the horror genre as a reaction to World War I.

Skal didn't get that thesis from Adela Rogers St. Johns, did he? Because Grand Guignol and expressionism predated WWI by a good stretch. Horror stories were all over the pulp market in the years after WWI, but so were science fiction and fantasy stories, all written largely by the same writers and published by the same publishers. And all of these genres had 19th-century and turn-of-the-century precedents (Poe, Stevenson, Verne, Baum, Wells, etc. etc.).

[Frederica]

The Civil War is great, Baseball was twice as long as it needed to be, Jazz is intermittently quite good but... so white.

If you've seen any of them, you need to see this.

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jDfSqtG2E4

Fred

[radiotelefonia]

Hollywood is probably my favorite of all film documentaries. I vividly remember when it originally aired in Argentina during 1980.

It is more of an accomplishment than his later Cinema Europa, which was quite too short.

Jazz is not my thing although I have been frequently restoring some of its most obscure recordings ever. I don't care about baseball, nor about a film dealing with the greatest of sports athletes: Maradona (... not so great, though).

Fortunately, nobody is going to produce a good documentary on tango; I despise almost everything done about it from the eighties to the present.

[Mike Gebert]

Skal didn't get that thesis from Adela Rogers St. Johns, did he? Because Grand Guignol and expressionism predated WWI by a good stretch. Horror stories were all over the pulp market in the years after WWI, but so were science fiction and fantasy stories, all written largely by the same writers and published by the same publishers. And all of these genres had 19th-century and turn-of-the-century precedents (Poe, Stevenson, Verne, Baum, Wells, etc. etc.).

Well, he talks about all that, but his particular point has to do with mutilation and plastic surgery and assorted other consequences of WWI figuring prominently in the films of Browning and Chaney, Whale, etc. I mean, nobody made a movie about a guy who has his arms cut off to make himself more attractive to the woman he loves before 1914; and they didn't make one after 1941, either. The Unknown, to the extent it's imaginable at all, was only imaginable in the 1920s.

It's a very fine book, well worth reading.

[Helen]

It is a remarkable record of the time and place, and has surely been responsible for introducing many people to the world of silent film (including myself).

The documentary and A Parade's Gone By together were my introduction to silent films. I had only seen one or two silents before I read Parade and it almost singlehandedly created my interest in the cinema. I saw the docu not long after so it was my first time seeing the great films and stars. It was really the film clips that were most important to my experience - they made me want to see the films for myself. While the docu has the flaws of omission and distortion that others have pointed out, it hasn't been bettered as a primer to that era of film history.

[rollot24]

It was really the film clips that were most important to my experience - they made me want to see the films for myself. While the docu has the flaws of omission and distortion that others have pointed out, it hasn't been bettered as a primer to that era of film history.

I completely agree. I watched it again recently, start to finish with very few breaks, and it was the clips and the context of the clips that really got to me. Becasue I hadn't seen the series since the 80's I found simply watching it deeply nostalgic. James Mason's narration, not to mention Carl Davis' score, help make it work so well. Seeing the talking heads and who they were is just as important, if not more, than what they actually say.

[Frederica]

I completely agree. I watched it again recently, start to finish with very few breaks, and it was the clips and the context of the clips that really got to me. Becasue I hadn't seen the series since the 80's I found simply watching it deeply nostalgic. James Mason's narration, not to mention Carl Davis' score, help make it work so well. Seeing the talking heads and who they were is just as important, if not more, than what they actually say.

Yes, I think many of us were introduced to silent film through Hollywood. Getting all those people on film (and in the nick of time) was a monumental and invaluable task. There are others who did yeoman work in that regard, too, David Shepard, William Everson, etc. Hollywood is really fun to watch and infectious in its blatant love for silent film; whatever flaws it has are honest ones.

Fred

[silentfilm]

There's also a gorgeous coffe-table book that goes along with the series. It is mostly beatutiful large-format photos.

Bruce (who has yet to see Hollywood)

[Frederica]

There's also a gorgeous coffe-table book that goes along with the series. It is mostly beatutiful large-format photos.

Bruce (who has yet to see Hollywood)

BRUCE!!

Fred

[Danny Burk]

Funny that this discussion came up when it did. I'd been meaning to watch the series again for years (literally) and finally dug it out last week. I've been watching 1 or 2 episodes each evening and it's just as good as I remembered. Whereas I was originally so impressed by the rarity of many of the clips, such as MARE NOSTRUM and others, most of the films are now easily seen thanks to DVD and TCM. Watching it again, I'm now more impressed by the quantity and quality of folks lovingly gathered in one place, as it were. So many that today seem part of a vanished world, but here they were, most definitely part of the present day...and with color and sound, of all things! What an invaluable record it is, and what a shame that it hasn't been properly released on DVD for more to enjoy.

[MattBarry]

Funny that this discussion came up when it did. I'd been meaning to watch the series again for years (literally) and finally dug it out last week. I've been watching 1 or 2 episodes each evening and it's just as good as I remembered. Whereas I was originally so impressed by the rarity of many of the clips, such as MARE NOSTRUM and others, most of the films are now easily seen thanks to DVD and TCM. Watching it again, I'm now more impressed by the quantity and quality of folks lovingly gathered in one place, as it were. So many that today seem part of a vanished world, but here they were, most definitely part of the present day...and with color and sound, of all things! What an invaluable record it is, and what a shame that it hasn't been properly released on DVD for more to enjoy.

Regarding the interviews, it's also somewhat hard to imagine that many of the stars at the time (1976) were a good 10-15 years younger than the surviving stars of the 1940s-50s are today.

[MattBarry]

Funny that this discussion came up when it did. I'd been meaning to watch the series again for years (literally) and finally dug it out last week. I've been watching 1 or 2 episodes each evening and it's just as good as I remembered. Whereas I was originally so impressed by the rarity of many of the clips, such as MARE NOSTRUM and others, most of the films are now easily seen thanks to DVD and TCM. Watching it again, I'm now more impressed by the quantity and quality of folks lovingly gathered in one place, as it were. So many that today seem part of a vanished world, but here they were, most definitely part of the present day...and with color and sound, of all things! What an invaluable record it is, and what a shame that it hasn't been properly released on DVD for more to enjoy.

The quality of the presentation of the clips is definitely one of the big advantages of the series. I would assume that, for most TV viewers, this was the first time they'd seen silent films shown at a correct speed and in superb print quality (although the Paul Killiam editions of a number of silent classics were shown on PBS stations in the early 70s).

[rudyfan]

Bruce (who has yet to see Hollywood)

.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Danny Burk]

Regarding the interviews, it's also somewhat hard to imagine that many of the stars at the time (1976) were a good 10-15 years younger than the surviving stars of the 1940s-50s are today.

I had to keep reminding myself that the last silents were less than 50 years old at that time. Watching, say, Allan Dwan discuss ROBIN HOOD, it seemed hard to believe that first-hand experience was being given in a contemporary setting. I suppose it wouldn't seem odd if the interviews were vintage and in b&w (e.g. Kinescopes), but what's there still seems as if it had just been filmed. I'm sure that part of this is because I remember watching the series when it was new, and it doesn't seem long ago......geez, where did 28 years go??

[greta de groat]

I spent my high school years watching old movies, and am now shocked to realize that the movies that were new at that time are now at the same remove in time as the old movies were when i watched them. Where does 35 years go! I still think Kirk Douglas is a young man.

You may be on to something when you note that the interviews didn't seem old because they were in color (as opposed to b&w kinescope). Maybe that's why the old films seemed old then (though i did have a black and white tv) Or it may have been more a factor that none of it was in my personal memory--everything before the early 60s is old because i can't remember it. So by 1935 silents must have seemed ancient to a young person who hadn't seen them and definitely different to someone who had. But when you haven't seen something in a awhile it does look funny. William de Mille expressed shock at seeing his brother's Carmen in the late 30s, and in Garbo and the Nightwatchman someone rips a reissue of The Joyless Street. Frederica just expressed shock at seeing The Forsythe Saga again. I was shocked to see how crude Dark Shadows looked by the 1990s. But it didn't take me long to fall into it again (and i loved the Forsythe Saga when i saw it for the first time in the 80s, fishtail eyeliner and big hair and all).

I wonder, can young people see fashion changes as accurately from the last 40 years as i can for the period up to about 1970? After that i've completely lost my eye for dating fashion. Is it because fashion is more eclectic or is it just that since i remember all these clothes that they are mixed up in my mind (and still in my closet)

greta

[MattBarry]

Regarding the interviews, it's also somewhat hard to imagine that many of the stars at the time (1976) were a good 10-15 years younger than the surviving stars of the 1940s-50s are today.

I had to keep reminding myself that the last silents were less than 50 years old at that time. Watching, say, Allan Dwan discuss ROBIN HOOD, it seemed hard to believe that first-hand experience was being given in a contemporary setting. I suppose it wouldn't seem odd if the interviews were vintage and in b&w (e.g. Kinescopes), but what's there still seems as if it had just been filmed. I'm sure that part of this is because I remember watching the series when it was new, and it doesn't seem long ago......geez, where did 28 years go??

The fact, too, that many silent stars (especially actresses) began acting at such a young age guaranteed that there were plenty of full-fledged adult stars to interview, not just people who had done bit parts as children, or who were born at the end of the silent era. For instance, as recently as 1999, stars like Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Charles "Buddy" Rogers and Loretta Young (who'd starred opposite Chaney in "Laugh Clown Laugh" among other silents) were still with us. Aside from a couple of the child actors, I can't think of any "adult" silent stars who are still with us now.