Cinemas vs. "La Roue"

[ToinenTarina]

As a film student I've recently been trying to work my way through a large number of pre-talkie films in order of production to get a better idea of how film-making techniques developed. I was also interested in what audience expectations for each film might have been, given that they would only have seen stuff made beforehand and wouldn't know what was round the corner.

It was very interesting how variable the length and pacing of films are. Humorous stuff like "One Week" or "The Oyster Princess" rattle through, with tight editing which even modern viewers shouldn't find slow. However, serious dramas like "Way Down East" or "The President" tend to demand more commitment.

With all this in mind I then got to Gance's "La Roue", and was slightly shocked to see a 4.5 hour running time! Apparently even some people on Nitrateville found it hard going (in that thread about having to have a drink to get through films)! However, I was pleasantly surprised to find it very watchable. The cinematography is good, the characters are interesting, it doesn't feel like a chore.

This got me wondering why, and I think it's this: because I'm watching these films as recordings, if a film is very long I can work my way through it as I would work my way through a novel, digesting things a few chapters at a time. "La Roue" feels very literary, it seems like someone has put a book on screen (not just a precis but the whole book), so perhaps that's why it seems to suit the stop-and-start method of watching it?

Despite my enjoyment I would not want to watch "La Roue" in the cinema, it would be like buying a book and then having to read it all the way through in the bookshop, it just doesn't seem to suit that method of viewing it. So, perhaps the cinema isn't always the best place to watch a film, even if it was originally made for it? (It's not like Gance had much of a choice at the time.)

And perhaps Gance would have been better served by modern formats like Netflix etc? (Certainly the nine hour cut of "La Roue" sounds more viable on some form of internet or DVD release, lots of people watch extended cut versions at home instead of a shorter cinema version.)

[entredeuxguerres]

...This got me wondering why, and I think it's this: because I'm watching these films as recordings, if a film is very long I can work my way through it as I would work my way through a novel, digesting things a few chapters at a time. "La Roue" feels very literary, it seems like someone has put a book on screen (not just a precis but the whole book), so perhaps that's why it seems to suit the stop-and-start method of watching it?...

That's been the BBC's wise & practical method for adapting such long novels as Mill on the Floss & Middlemarch for TV presentation. I mention those two because I have them on DVD, but I certainly don't try to watch them at one sitting--two hours at a time (drink included) is enough for me. I wish TCM had broadcast La Roue in the same way; then, perhaps, my distaste for it would not be so great. However, even if it had been subdivided into "chapters," Gance was, as a creator, very far from being another Mary Ann Evans.

[Jeff Rapsis]

Interesting questions. A coupla three thoughts...

Keep in mind that pretty much all cinema of the silent era was intended to be seen by an audience in a theater. The pacing, the structure, the emotional line, the comedy pay-offs—all of it was gauged for large audience reaction. And that's a very different experience than watching a film at home alone, or maybe with just your dog or parakeet.

Time and time again, a film that I found slow and creaky on my own snaps right back to life when shown as intended: in a theater and with an audience. For me, a good example is one you mentioned: Griffith's 'Way Down East.' Watched alone, it leaves you wondering how anyone could buy the simplistic plot, the corn-pone humor, the moralizing tone of the intertitles.

But when we ran it to a packed theater with live music, the audience was with it all the way, hooting and hollering and applauding the twists and turns even before Lillian Gish got onto that ice floe for the rip-roaring climax. Turns out Griffith, a veteran stage melodrama director, really knew what he was doing when it comes to laying out a story for a big audience.

Shown as intended, the film still works today because human nature is still human nature, after all. And I think an underplayed aspect of Griffith's contribution to cinema was his sense of how to construct a story that grabs an audience and doesn't let go. So to really understand the power of any given silent—masterpiece or program filler—you need to run it in front of an audience.

That's not always possible, I know. But I think this is a really, really important thing to keep in mind if you're interested in how filmmaking techniques developed during the silent era. It was all about the shared experience and how to move a theater audience, not an individual viewer. And it was all about the cumulative effect of a movie experienced all at one time.

From what I've seen, if a silent film "clicks" in a theater, even today, a kind of hypnotic state of communion is created between the movie and the audience. The idea of interrupting that for other activities and then getting back to it later, like reading a long novel, is alien to the art. (One big exception: the silent era's serialized dramas, which were designed to be interrupted and thus get you back to the theater for next week's thrilling chapter.)

And I believe this "need to watch all at once" extends to some of the really long films such as those from Gance. I saw Kevin Brownlow's reconstructed 'Napoleon' (1927) at the Paramount Theater in Oakland, Calif. in 2012, and it lasted from 1 p.m. to after 10 p.m. Yes, we had three intermissions, including a two-hour dinner break. But the cumulative effect of the film shown all at once, and the shared audience experience, was truly overwhelming.

The more I experience of silent film, the more I see how it really was a product of its time and conditions and how its audience and its creators knew it. And one of its lasting values is that as a body of work, it demonstrates the value of the shared audience experience in a way that transcends its era. As we constantly move forward into new ways and technologies, we can still learn from the pioneers.

So just as you wouldn't expect to go to a Broadway musical, and then leave at intermission, and then come back a week later to catch Act Two, I do think a lot of the special and lasting value of silent film is minimized if it's broken into chunks or taken too far out of the conditions for which it was made. Just keep that in mind in an age where people sometimes first experience great early cinema in ten-minute chunks in YouTube, where it can't help but seem ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with the "on demand" model that today's filmmakers can employ, if they want. What a boon for creativity! And there's no law against getting to know silent film that way, too—in fact, we live in a golden age of film availability for home viewing.

But to really understand why people first fell in love with the movies, it's necessary to see them as they were intended: with live music, on the big screen, and with an audience.

[entredeuxguerres]

...Time and time again, a film that I found slow and creaky on my own snaps right back to life when shown as intended: in a theater and with an audience. For me, a good example is one you mentioned: Griffith's 'Way Down East.' Watched alone, it leaves you wondering how anyone could buy the simplistic plot, the corn-pone humor, the moralizing tone of the intertitles. ...

Only way I've ever watched this one is on home-video in the company of my canines. Even under those "disadvantageous" circumstances, I found it far more enjoyable than La Roue, though, to be sure, I wouldn't rate it a "favorite." What saves it, luckily, from the deadening effect of Griffith's corn-pone humor & moralizing is the delightful villainy & malice of Lowell Sherman.

But how was La Roue originally received by the general public (not a select opening-night audience) when presented with all the advantages of live music, etc.? Was it a hit?

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

The bit about reading a whole book in a bookshop reminds me of a tale I heard of a chap who went into a local shop several times in order to read a book without the inconvenience of actually paying for it. After a few such sessions, the (understandably) furious proprietor snatched the book away, upon which it promptly disintegrated, scattering pages around the shop. Not an advisable practice, unless the book is a Beatrix Potter or a 'Janet and John'...

[earlytalkiebuffRob]

Re this cinema / TV discussion, I recall when our local rep cinema played SHOAH (1985) over two evenings. Though valuable, the film perhaps did not benefit from this method of presentation. Each evening they showed two parts of the film, roughly 120m -150m a go. By the second part, the audience was thinner, and it wouldn't have surprised me if others (like me) did not return for the other two parts. Unquestionably sincere, and with a worthwhile purpose, what I saw of SHOAH was simply too much to take in in one evening, fatigue entering early. It may well have worked better on television in more and shorter parts (perhaps 50m - 70m) which could have been more manageable.

[greta de groat]

I did watch La Roue over a period of several days and it didn't help.

greta

[Mitch Farish]

Griffith's 'Way Down East.' Watched alone, leaves you wondering how anyone could buy the simplistic plot, the corn-pone humor, the moralizing tone of the intertitles.

Hey, I watched this alone and was completely mesmerized. The wonderful performance of lovely Lillian helped, as did the great music of The Mont Alto ensemble. As for the humor, I didn't find it as objectionable as the grotesque stuff I see in many of John Ford's films.

I agree with you, Greta. Cutting up La Roue into small bits could never get me to like it.

[Salty Dog]

For what it's worth, a number of the longer European silent films, for example Mabuse the Gambler, were actually designed to be shown over more than one night. Not sure if La Roue is in that category. I have not got around to seeing it yet, though I do have a copy, so I cannot comment on the quality of that film.

[Robert Israel Music]

But how was La Roue originally received by the general public (not a select opening-night audience) when presented with all the advantages of live music, etc.? Was it a hit?

Admittedly, Abel Gance’s style of directing will not be to everyone’s taste, and despite his own self-image of being the Victor Hugo of Cinema, this is decidedly a debatable argument.

Personally, I am very fond of LA ROUE (otherwise, I would have found it all but impossible to compose more than four hours of original music for the Flicker Alley/Film Preservation Associates/Lobster Films release), however, it is far from a perfect film. Is it a great film? In other words, does it possess qualities in which the viewer may find a feeling of superior film making and storytelling in every scene? No, I don’t believe that this is the case, however, there is indisputable greatness in the film, and there are categorically moments of genius throughout this production: the opening of the film tells us that a single moment can derail our lives in an unpredictable fashion–that decisions we make determine the course of our lives, and that even the best of intentions may lead to tragic results; Sisif’s attempted suicide and murder of his daughter, as he pilots his beloved engine towards Paris–which is a phenomenal piece of direction and editing, no matter the motivation of the lead character’s narcissistic self-absorption; the exciting editing of the barroom brawl between Sisif and Jacobin–it is not just another perfunctory fight scene; the rapid editing that defines Elie’s life flashing before his eyes during a literal cliffhanging moment; the remarkably stark cinematography of Sisif’s pilgrimage across a glacier on the anniversary of a tragic event; the Villager’s dance up Mont Blanc on the first day of Winter.

One may argue that the audience of today simply does not have the patience to tolerate a film of this kind these days, but when this film was premiered, it was presented in three consecutive Thursday evenings at the Paris Opera house. Each evening ran at either two or more hours, and each Thursday night the presentation was sold out with people lining up hours before the program would begin. On the final evening, after the film had ended, the audience erupted into an applause that lasted well over ten minutes. The theater manager had to come onto the stage to announce (and I paraphrase) that “Mr. Gance is so overwhelmed, and is unable to utter any words; therefore, we will run the last reel as an encore.” Thus, the audience got to see the final reel once again and apparently were deeply moved and decidedly pleased, even having just viewed this reel.

Was the film a “hit” in its day? Does that really matter so much? When Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 was given its premiere, a critic wrote about the performance, “Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 is 71 minutes long–it is 71 minutes too long.” From my point of view, this is irrelevant, and how audiences responded in 1923 should be taken with a grain of salt when compared with audience reaction of our times. It was a different time and tastes were rather different from what our own public expects and enjoys in movie theaters. Having said this, one may consider the following as a kind of thought: it is a good thing to know how a public responded to something from many years ago, and it is also good to recognize how a public in our own times might respond to something these days–but it is far more important to understand how and why it is that we, as an individual, respond to a film when we view it. It is much too easy to say, “It’s boring; it’s too long; it’s too preachy; it’s too pretentious; it’s slow…” That kind of reaction often sounds too reminiscent of the one when a person bites into a hamburger and says, “I don’t like it!” The follow-up question being, “Why not?” The answer may possibly be, “I just don’t like it.” It is a reaction without any deep thought behind it–there is no room for discussion, and not that you would want to discuss why a hamburger may not be to your liking, but much too often are works by highly gifted individuals relegated to the reaction, “I don’t like it” category.

I have read criticisms of this film, (criticisms from even highly experienced and well developed intellects), but their assessments of various sequences were absolutely incorrect. What does it mean? I suppose that it means some of us prefer chocolate to vanilla, and others dislike both entirely. Is anyone wrong for feeling this way? No, I do not think so.

I admire Abel Gance’s LA ROUE, and I do believe that there are many great and beautiful things in his film, that there are moments of genius and heartfelt emotion, and that there are virtuoso technical and intellectual sequences throughout this film. If one finds this film boring, or hopeless, or dull, or invalid, well…this is a valid reaction to Gance’s sincere work.

I usually read classic literature. I do enjoy biographies (I just read one on Anton Rubinstein, and have been reading Newman’s biography on Richard Wagner), and shorter ghost stories (Edgar Allan Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, Joseph Sheridan LeFanu, M.R. James, Algernon Blackwood), but when I read a novel, I do go for the gusto: MOBY DICK, THE IDIOT, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, LES MISERABLES, ANNA KARENINA. I love to take the time necessary to absorb and to become deeply involved in these works, and I do make a daily commitment of time to this endeavor. This is NOT the kind of stuff people would prefer to enjoy when reading these days, as it requires a great deal of concentration and a huge commitment of time. Hence, isn’t it possible that our leanings towards cinema is also relative in some regard. (I should doubt that many folks have made it to the end of my posting/ramblings).

Thank you for your time.

Robert Israel

[Big Silent Fan]

As a film student I've recently been trying to work my way through a large number of pre-talkie films in order of production to get a better idea of how film-making techniques developed.
With all this in mind I then got to Gance's "La Roue"...I was pleasantly surprised to find it very watchable. The cinematography is good, the characters are interesting, it doesn't feel like a chore.
This got me wondering why, and I think it's this: because I'm watching these films as recordings, if a film is very long I can work my way through it as I would work my way through a novel, digesting things a few chapters at a time. "La Roue" feels very literary, it seems like someone has put a book on screen (not just a precis but the whole book), so perhaps that's why it seems to suit the stop-and-start method of watching it?
Despite my enjoyment I would not want to watch "La Roue" in the cinema, it would be like buying a book and then having to read it all the way through in the bookshop, it just doesn't seem to suit that method of viewing it

I think you'll see from my comments that we didn't have the same experience.

Confusion and disbelief describes my reaction when TCM first broadcasted this. I still have the 16 pages of hand written notes I made, describing all the details that made little or no sense to me. Films must have a literary value for me to enjoy them. "La Roue" was not an enjoyable experience.
The Kipling quotes and the unusual pencil drawing depicting a woman tied to a horizontal wheel (with an executioner standing above her), only added to the confusion I experienced. Kipling's books were done with pencil drawings but I've never been able to find where this image came from. It's seen inside the cabin high up in the mountain near the last part of the story.
Developing the perfect violin in the middle of a train yard seems far too incredible for anyone to accept.

After I studied the film in detail, I invited others to engage in a spirited discussion via e-mail about the merits of this 'Highly Regarded' film. No one replied.
Should anyone, liking this film, want to discuss it in great detail, one of us will likely have a change of opinion. I have been persuaded by others in the past.

Private message me if you'd like to discuss this from beginning to end.

[greta de groat]

Ok, i know i've been vocal and flippant about the film, i'll be serious now--though i don't really want to discuss this from beginning to end.

I agree that there are many scenes of interest--i remembered all the ones which Robert Israel enumerated. And the rapid cutting is extraordinary. It's just that for me there wasn't enough plot or interesting enough characters to support all those hours of film. I had in fact first seen this in a drastically cut down version on a bad video dub. At that length, it seemed choppy but quite interesting, and i looked forward to seeing the longer cut. I was disappointed that the longer cut didn't appear to have much more plot, it just seemed like hours of close-ups of Severin-Mars suffering. After the first hour i realized that this was going to be a major slog for me, but i was determined to make it all the way through, though it did take a few nights.

I'm glad i saw it, because there is a lot about it that is worth seeing. But it also seemed to me an overblown, self-indulgent mess by someone who really didn't have the discipline to edit himself. At half the length i think it would have been a better film. But that's my taste and not necessarily your taste. It's one of those films that you may not know if you'll love it or hate it until you give it a try. Just be sure to block out enough time.

greta

[entredeuxguerres]

...Thank you for your time.

Robert Israel

Thank you for your time...though in the last analysis, as you suggested, we're brought to that inexplicable preference for one flavor over another, or as Shylock explained his own predilections,

"Some men there are love not a gaping pig;
Some, that are mad if they behold a cat;
And others, when the bagpipe sings i' the nose,
Cannot contain their urine: for affection
Masters our passion, sways it to the mood
Of what it likes or loathes."

I have a feeling that viewing this film at the Palais Garnier would have enhanced my appreciation for it immeasurably. (Especially with such a memorable experience spread out over three days.)

"Victor Hugo of Cinema" is an epithet I've not heard; it's a good deal more flattering than the one I might have suspected he fancied, "Napoleon..."

(Nobody ever mentions the (one) Gance I love passionately: Louise.)

[entredeuxguerres]

...It's just that for me there wasn't enough plot or interesting enough characters to support all those hours of film...greta

My assessment in a nutshell.

[Ann Harding]

To answer the initial question whether La Roue was a success or not, here is what I found in K. Brownlow's Napoleon - Abel Gance's Classic Film. The premiere of La Roue in December 1922 was a public success. They had to replay the last reel as an encore. But, the film being 36 reels, it needed to be shown in episodes. Many exhibitors refused it. Pathé asked for 12-reel cut. It was therefore not such a financial success...

[Big Silent Fan]

To answer the initial question whether La Roue was a success or not, here is what I found in K. Brownlow's Napoleon - Abel Gance's Classic Film. The premiere of La Roue in December 1922 was a public success. They had to replay the last reel as an encore. But, the film being 36 reels, it needed to be shown in episodes. Many exhibitors refused it. Pathé asked for 12-reel cut. It was therefore not such a financial success...

There's no argument that this film was loved by many when it was released and also down through the years. One quote I remember is, "There's Cinema before "La Roue" and then there's Cinema after "La Roue." To many, the film was revolutionary.

I simply don't agree.

[Ann Harding]

"There's Cinema before "La Roue" and then there's Cinema after "La Roue."

Jean Cocteau said that. The film was also revered and studied by countless Russian filmmakers of the time and inspired their own filmmaking.

[greta de groat]

Louise is the one i'm still waiting anxiously to see! I did finally catch the Beethoven film last year and rather liked it, though it was a bit disjointed. Again, some scenes were really great. And of course Napoleon is wonderful, especially in a proper venue with orchestra. I thought the subplot with Anabella was one subplot too many, but overall, Napoleon had enough narrative and enough characters to support that gigantic canvas.

Gance is always worth watching, whether you end up thinking the film was artistically a success or not, there is always at least something interesting in it. Even if you hate it, it will be memorable.

greta

[entredeuxguerres]

..And of course Napoleon is wonderful, especially in a proper venue with orchestra. I thought the subplot with Anabella was one subplot too many, but overall, Napoleon had enough narrative and enough characters to support that gigantic canvas.

Gance is always worth watching, whether you end up thinking the film was artistically a success or not, there is always at least something interesting in it. Even if you hate it, it will be memorable.

greta

Altogether too memorable for me is the indelible image of the young Corsican's eagle crammed into a canary's cage; surely there was some less grotesque means of conveying the same symbolism.

I'd like to see his Beethoven, though I've never been able to stay with any of these "great composer" biopics longer than half an hour before the hokiness element drove me away. But I have a greater longing to see La Dame aux Camélias (1934), which has got to be an improvement over the H'wood version merely by virtue of not having Robt. Taylor in it.

[greta de groat]

I think Beethoven is another that people will love or hate. Most of it is a fairly normal film but there are occasional surreal sequences that stick out. The scene of his growing deafness is quite wonderful. I found the opening sequence moving, but it is very strange and doesn't make narrative sense, so i could see that as being off-putting.

You might enjoy Lucrèce Borgia, which is a fairly normal film except for a surprising amount of gratuitous nudity. The guy playing Cesare Borgia is truly repulsive.

greta

[Ann Harding]

Louise is the one i'm still waiting anxiously to see!

I have seen that one. Louise is a reduced version of Charpentier's opera made with the composer's agreement. What makes it interesting watching (and listening) is the fact that three great opera singers of the time are in the cast: Georges Thill, André Pernet and Grace Moore.
Greta, the film is available on DVD in the US from Bel Canto Society.

[entredeuxguerres]

Louise is the one i'm still waiting anxiously to see!

I have seen that one. Louise is a reduced version of Charpentier's opera made with the composer's agreement. What makes it interesting watching (and listening) is the fact that three great opera singers of the time are in the cast: Georges Thill, André Pernet and Grace Moore.
Greta, the film is available on DVD in the US from Bel Canto Society.

And with Charpentier's personal selection of Grace Moore to play this much coveted role. André Pernet is a riveting actor, without even considering his magnificent voice, though one would have to be rather generous to say quite the same about Thill...but no complaint can be made against his superb voice. (While working as a journalist early in his career, Graham Greene distinguished himself in his review of this picture by writing what is acknowledged to be one of the most ignorant reviews of an operatic production ever to be set in type.)

Pretty much the same abridgement is available on the Nimbus Records "Prima Voce" series, this performance having been recorded in 1935 with Ninon Vallin replacing Moore--it took up eight 12" 78s when originally released!

[greta de groat]

Thanks for the tip, i'll look for that. I rather wish he's cast Ninon Vallin rather than Moore, whose voice and acting i dislike, but i still want to see it anyway, if only for the magnificent Thill.

greta

[TheyHadFaces]

Any chance he made La Roue so long because he was going through his wife's illness and death during the making of it? Like it was a diversion from his misery? Or was it always planned to be that long?

[entredeuxguerres]

Any chance he made La Roue so long because he was going through his wife's illness and death during the making of it? Like it was a diversion from his misery? Or was it always planned to be that long?

"Misery loves company," perhaps you mean: yes, that might explain its length.

[ToinenTarina]

...when I read a novel, I do go for the gusto: MOBY DICK, THE IDIOT, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, LES MISERABLES, ANNA KARENINA. I love to take the time necessary to absorb and to become deeply involved in these works, and I do make a daily commitment of time to this endeavor. This is NOT the kind of stuff people would prefer to enjoy when reading these days, as it requires a great deal of concentration and a huge commitment of time. Hence, isn’t it possible that our leanings towards cinema is also relative in some regard. (I should doubt that many folks have made it to the end of my posting/ramblings).

Yes, this is definitely what I was thinking about while watching the film, it needs commitment. That's not to say that commitment will automatically make you enjoy the film, many may come away disappointed even if they have given it their full attention. However, those that do enjoy La Roue will probably do so by watching the characters develop in greater and more human detail than, say, a typical D.W. Griffith film.

To answer the initial question whether La Roue was a success or not, here is what I found in K. Brownlow's Napoleon - Abel Gance's Classic Film. The premiere of La Roue in December 1922 was a public success. They had to replay the last reel as an encore. But, the film being 36 reels, it needed to be shown in episodes. Many exhibitors refused it. Pathé asked for 12-reel cut. It was therefore not such a financial success...

That's fascinating, both that the audience of the time appreciated it and that the exhibitors didn't. It does seem to imply that the "format" of the time (i.e. the cinema/theatre industry) was more of an obstacle than the content.

[wich2]

>got to be an improvement over the H'wood version merely by virtue of not having Robt. Taylor in it<

But it would lose a great deal by not having Garbo's transcendant performance. And as Armand is something of a callow pretty boy in the play, I think Taylor is actually not bad.

-Craig