LAZY COMMENTARY ON TCM'S SILENT SUNDAY NIGHTS?

[Ed Hulse]

I remember Ben Mankiewicz coming to the Virginia Film Festival to introduce a program of Chaplin shorts. He didn't talk about a single film! He gave some background about the Chaplin/Purviance relationship (stuff anybody can find on Wikipedia), left the stage and never returned to talk about the films or take questions. On TCM, he is a font of misinformation about the silent era. Pathetic.

I've worked with Ben several times at the Lone Pine Film Festival, most recently in 2018. We've each taken turns participating in panel discussions the other moderated and on one occasion did a Siskel-Ebert intro to one of the Festival's prime-time films. He's actually quite knowledgable, but the scope of his knowledge is limited. One year I moderated a Hollywood-dynasty panel with Ben, Bill Wellman Jr., and Dan Ford (John's grandson). Ben fielded questions drawing upon a store of Mankiewicz-family knowledge I'd describe as just short of encyclopedic. Of course, you'd expect him to be familiar with the history of his kinfolk. But he also was fluidly conversant with the periods in which Herman and Joe worked.

For the most part Lone Pine film history is linked with Westerns, and while that genre is not Ben's strong suit, he prepared for our panels and during them frequently consulted a notebook he kept in his lap. His questions were generally well thought out, although when the discussion turned to John Wayne, like most of his political persuasion Ben seemed disproportionately concerned with the Duke's lack of military service during World War II.

He's a good guy and more knowledgable than some give him credit for. But, yes, to a great deal his standups are dependent upon the quality of material he's getting from staff writers.

[Zool]

I certainly expect more accuracy from a university professor. While I am not all that surprised at what struck me as male bashing, I'll avoid heading any further into the realm of politics here. Call me disappointed and somewhat annoyed -- I think Wikipedia does a much better job on this topic than she did.

Let this be a lesson; a graduate degree does not automatically mean "intelligent." In my field I know a lot of morons with Masters degrees, and even a chosen few with doctorates; whack jobs who run the show. One would think that someone who is a university professor would be thorough in the delivery of their information, but that is too high of an expectation.

Even if Ms. Stewart didn't write the following...
"These scandals included the rape and murder of actress Virginia Rappé, and the unsolved murder of Mabel Normand’s close friend, director William Desmond Taylor..." She said it as if it were true. Completely irresponsible. Leave it to university professors to spread misinformation to the ignorant masses just waiting to gobble it up.

Some evil hag claimed "rape" and that's what led to Fatty's arrest and three subsequent trials. But that doesn't mean it was true! What we know for sure is that Ms. Rappe died days later of a ruptured bladder and peritonitis. Didn't the latter kill Valentino? Let me guess, he was "raped and murdered" too?

[Trueblood]

I probably will regret saying anything...particularly after the venom of the last posting. This discussion has certainly turned a bit into a TCM-bashing thread. To me, TCM is still a treasure, not-withstanding occasional factual mistakes in introductions to movies. I miss Robert Osborne, too. He was so good at interviewing actors. But, I can’t swear his introductions to silents and other films were any freer from errors or misleading statements than those of Dr. Stewart or any of the other current hosts—all of whom I appreciate. I don’t find Jacqueline Stewart at all wooden. I enjoy her Sunday night introductions. She treated the work of Oscar Micheaux with seriousness and with not a trace of the belittling tone evidenced recently on another Nitrateville thread. Eddie Muller is dynamite. Alicia Malone is infectious. Her discussions with Mark Cousins introducing the important WOMEN MAKE FILM documentary were wonderful. She and Dr. Stewart have co-introduced several films—a very nice thing. Eddie and Alicia have co-introduced a film or two on Noir Alley. Ben Mankiewicz has an irreverent sense of humor I enjoy. Dave Karger I’ve had the least experience with, but he seems genial and well-informed. The current slate of five hosts—three men and two women—has more variety and “representativeness” than the days when Robert and Ben introduced nearly everything. Even after all these years, I still find nice surprises in the TCM monthly schedule—in spite of the weakly functioning website. There is still much room for improvement at TCM. I don’t, however, blame the problems on the new hosts. For me, TCM HD is still why I’m willing to pay so much each month to Comcast.

David

[Zool]

The copy isn't inaccurate. When you're writing a line or two it is hard to capture nuance of a very complex situation.

I think people often forget that the hosts are not writing all of their introductions. They're the personalities and there is a writing staff behind the scenes. With that being said, I want to like Jacqueline Stewart but I find her to be a stiff host who seems wholly unsure of herself. Her eyebrows are always stretched way up on her forehead and she moves her hands in such a practiced, wooden way that it distracts me from listening to what she is saying.

Your take is interesting. She has an undergrad and PhD in English. She basically studied English for another eight to 10 years after high school. Someone who does that should really be able to blow you away with their command of the language and use of words, but this is apparently not the case. I personally don't find her stiff. To me, she seems personable and nice, but that's about it. More is definitely needed if you're going to be hosting film introductions on tv.

[Salty Dog]

As I said, I find Eddie Muller to be the best of the current hosts on TCM, but I would actually rate Jacqueline Stewart second. I'd rather see an introduction from her than the others. I have never been a fan of Ben Mankiewicz, and I find Alicia Munroe and Dave Karger even worse.

[GishFan]

Brownlow, of course, showed how this topic should be handled in the Hollywood documentary.

[Dave Pitts]

I'm taking the minority stand here. I like Jacqueline, particularly when she introduces a foreign-made silent. She packs a lot of esoteric detail into her 2 or 3 minute intro. She's businesslike, but I like that when there's a compressed bit of time for a speaker. I think she truly loves silent cinema and in no sense got her second choice at TCM.
I'll concede that the Arbuckle remark that led to the OP was a misstep, but nobody scores 100.

[Little Caesar]

If I were the head of TCM, I would give pink slips to all of the hosts. When the channel started in 1994, the need for a genial, knowledgeable host was understandable. Since the internet was in its infancy, it was not readily available to most of the public and as such a few words of context were apropos. However, it is now 2021. If you really need that brief context, IMDB, Wikipedia, and Google are all a click away. The need for the hosts isn't there anymore. Frankly, I'd rather see the money spent on the hosts' salaries and the filming of their intros be instead reinvested into the channel for movie rentals and perhaps scoring more silents. I'd gladly trade the intros for a slate of premieres from the Universal, Paramount, and Fox/Disney libraries.

As often quoted in mafia movies, this is business, not personal. The hosts seem to be nice people, but they're as relevant as floppy discs.

[milefilms]

Anyone who has trouble with Jacqueline Stewart has a problem with me. I have sat on boards with her, attended her lectures, sat with her at movies, shared meals together, and have talked to many of her students. She is a knowledgeable film fan, a brilliant academic, an incredibly hard worker, and a good friend to all. She has been an incredible influence on a generation of amazing students who respect and admire her.

I adore Kevin Brownlow and I have been his friend, his publicist, and his distributor, but there are dozens of mistakes in his writings and blanks in his cinematic knowledge that I know he looks forward to correcting.

Nobody is born Kevin Brownlow or Bill Everson or Leonard Maltin or Robert Osborne. They evolved into the cinematic elders that we love and respect. And if you disagreed with them or found them in error, they were thankful for the discussion and the corrections. People forget that most of our beloved television hosts in history were originally stiff, faltering, error-prone, and certainly not the people who they became after gaining experience. People grow into that job.

I hope you'll all get to know Jacqueline. She's a pleasure to know and if you disagree with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to have that discussion with you as well.

[Mitch Farish]

I'm sure all of the hosts have broad knowledge of the history of cinema. And yes, Robert Osborne made plenty of mistakes. I'm assuming TCM hired the others because they had something special to contribute and could add value to the presentations, but no one except Muller shows depth of knowledge or passion for the films. He's the only one of the hosts I'll record just to hear his comments no matter what the movie is. The others give me the impression they're sleepwalking through their roles and doing the absolute minimum required. At the very least they should stop dumbing down their segments and check the facts.

[Trueblood]

Anyone who has trouble with Jacqueline Stewart has a problem with me. I have sat on boards with her, attended her lectures, sat with her at movies, shared meals together, and have talked to many of her students. She is a knowledgeable film fan, a brilliant academic, an incredibly hard worker, and a good friend to all. She has been an incredible influence on a generation of amazing students who respect and admire her.

I adore Kevin Brownlow and I have been his friend, his publicist, and his distributor, but there are dozens of mistakes in his writings and blanks in his cinematic knowledge that I know he looks forward to correcting.

Nobody is born Kevin Brownlow or Bill Everson or Leonard Maltin or Robert Osborne. They evolved into the cinematic elders that we love and respect. And if you disagreed with them or found them in error, they were thankful for the discussion and the corrections. People forget that most of our beloved television hosts in history were originally stiff, faltering, error-prone, and certainly not the people who they became after gaining experience. People grow into that job.

I hope you'll all get to know Jacqueline. She's a pleasure to know and if you disagree with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to have that discussion with you as well.

Thank you, Dennis, for you knowledge and humanity in your comments above. As usual, you've put the TCM host debate into a much lovelier place. David

[maliejandra]

If I were the head of TCM, I would give pink slips to all of the hosts.... The need for the hosts isn't there anymore. Frankly, I'd rather see the money spent on the hosts' salaries and the filming of their intros be instead reinvested into the channel for movie rentals and perhaps scoring more silents. I'd gladly trade the intros for a slate of premieres from the Universal, Paramount, and Fox/Disney libraries.

I'd love them to bring back the Young Film Composers competition for the silent film selections, and yes, seeing some films from other studios would be nice, but I think discarding their hosts would be like cutting off an arm. The channel is also a brand, and those hosts are the face of the brand. I've heard interviews with Mankiewicz describing the TCM Cruises and the Festival and how they're treated as much like celebrities as the guests from the classic era. Many of you might not be enthusiastic about them, but that doesn't mean you're the majority.

Nobody is born Kevin Brownlow or Bill Everson or Leonard Maltin or Robert Osborne. They evolved into the cinematic elders that we love and respect. And if you disagreed with them or found them in error, they were thankful for the discussion and the corrections. People forget that most of our beloved television hosts in history were originally stiff, faltering, error-prone, and certainly not the people who they became after gaining experience. People grow into that job.

I completely agree with this. As long as these hosts have some interest in classic movies and aren't just there because they're a pretty face, which I believe is the case with all of them, then the channel is in good hands.

[Jim Roots]

I completely agree with this. As long as these hosts have some interest in classic movies and aren't just there because they're a pretty face, which I believe is the case with all of them, then the channel is in good hands.

So you're saying none of them are pretty??!

Jim

[Harlett O'Dowd]

If I were the head of TCM, I would give pink slips to all of the hosts. When the channel started in 1994, the need for a genial, knowledgeable host was understandable. Since the internet was in its infancy, it was not readily available to most of the public and as such a few words of context were apropos. However, it is now 2021. If you really need that brief context, IMDB, Wikipedia, and Google are all a click away. The need for the hosts isn't there anymore. Frankly, I'd rather see the money spent on the hosts' salaries and the filming of their intros be instead reinvested into the channel for movie rentals and perhaps scoring more silents. I'd gladly trade the intros for a slate of premieres from the Universal, Paramount, and Fox/Disney libraries.

As often quoted in mafia movies, this is business, not personal. The hosts seem to be nice people, but they're as relevant as floppy discs.

I think the mission of TCM is much as it was when it started 25+ years ago - introduce our great film heritage to newbies first, and welcome back fans of long standing second. It's hard for, well, us, to revisit these films for the tenth time only to hear variations-on-a-theme intros without rolling one's eyes, but remember, a sizable chunk of the audience is seeing and hearing this for the first time.

As others have have pointed out, the hosts seem to be most interesting when they are introducing films that fire their imaginations. Eddie may have the easiest time of all the TCM hosts because he has carved such a specific niche for himself. I doubt I would be bowled over by his introduction of WHEN THE BOYS MEET THE GIRLS.

That said, much as I understand the need/desire to print the legend, when dealing with, shall we say, more standard fare like Arbuckle and Normand, I do wish the TCM writers could find a more interesting (or at least factual) way in, especially when it appears that the hosts are less likely to flex their muscles to ensure things are done right when introducing something that is not near and dear their their hearts.

[Mitch Farish]

Welcoming newbies is fine. But I don't think that's an excuse for constantly going for the low-hanging fruit. Jacqueline Stewart's intro to "Them" was about how '50s SciFi films channeled the public's anxieties about the nuclear age. Well, "Duhhh." All of the hosts presumably can say more than that. If it's true they're only reading copy written for them, then there really is no reason to have academics as hosts. I want them to put their research skills to work and dig a little for things that both the newbies and well-informed viewers might not be aware of. I thought that was their job. Maybe I'm wrong.

[maliejandra]

I completely agree with this. As long as these hosts have some interest in classic movies and aren't just there because they're a pretty face, which I believe is the case with all of them, then the channel is in good hands.

So you're saying none of them are pretty??!

Jim

No, obviously they're all pretty. I'm saying they are more than that.

[Jim Roots]

Welcoming newbies is fine. But I don't think that's an excuse for constantly going for the low-hanging fruit. Jacqueline Stewart's intro to "Them" was about how '50s SciFi films channeled the public's anxieties about the nuclear age. Well, "Duhhh." All of the hosts presumably can say more than that. If it's true they're only reading copy written for them, then there really is no reason to have academics as hosts. I want them to put their research skills to work and dig a little for things that both the newbies and well-informed viewers might not be aware of. I thought that was their job. Maybe I'm wrong.

That's a good point, Mitch. Why bother having academics if you're not even going to let them write their own stuff and share their presumably formidable expertise?

Jim

[Little Caesar]

I'd love them to bring back the Young Film Composers competition for the silent film selections, and yes, seeing some films from other studios would be nice, but I think discarding their hosts would be like cutting off an arm. The channel is also a brand, and those hosts are the face of the brand. I've heard interviews with Mankiewicz describing the TCM Cruises and the Festival and how they're treated as much like celebrities as the guests from the classic era. Many of you might not be enthusiastic about them, but that doesn't mean you're the majority.
because they're a pretty face, which I believe is the case with all of them, then the channel is in good hands.

Yes, I've encountered a few of these TCM "brand" fans, and I guess this is one of those "whatever floats your boat" matters. It's similar to those Criterion loyalists who will buy anything and everything with that capital C on it - even if it's a film that they despise (yes, I've seen that happen). Personally, I don't think that the films really need to be propped up by television hosts. Half to two-thirds of the films are already presented sans host, and they stand on their own just fine.

I think the mission of TCM is much as it was when it started 25+ years ago - introduce our great film heritage to newbies first, and welcome back fans of long standing second. It's hard for, well, us, to revisit these films for the tenth time only to hear variations-on-a-theme intros without rolling one's eyes, but remember, a sizable chunk of the audience is seeing and hearing this for the first time.

As others have have pointed out, the hosts seem to be most interesting when they are introducing films that fire their imaginations. Eddie may have the easiest time of all the TCM hosts because he has carved such a specific niche for himself. I doubt I would be bowled over by his introduction of WHEN THE BOYS MEET THE GIRLS.

That said, much as I understand the need/desire to print the legend, when dealing with, shall we say, more standard fare like Arbuckle and Normand, I do wish the TCM writers could find a more interesting (or at least factual) way in, especially when it appears that the hosts are less likely to flex their muscles to ensure things are done right when introducing something that is not near and dear their their hearts.

I do understand the desire to reach out to newbies, but I question if that is being effectively done if the content of the introductions is on the level of the IMDB trivia section. You do bring up an interesting point though about the engagement of the hosts. Instead of having them film these short intros to a large number of films, give each of them one time slot a week to introduce films of their own choosing. Have them write their own intros and outros and give them the time necessary to develop their thoughts. Eddie Muller is already afforded this luxury for the weekly noir selection, and most of us would likely agree that his work there is a cut above the rest. Let the rest of the hosts have similar time slots. Jacqueline Stewart, in particular, would likely benefit from this type of treatment for the Sunday night silent film as she would have more opportunities to draw from her experience and scholarship. I think both the grizzled film buff and newbie would benefit more from these type of intros as opposed to these two to three minute intros where not much can be covered.

Given the choice between the hosts and a slate of hard to see movies, I'd pick the latter option every time. However, given the corporate culture, I would be naïve to think the money saved from firing the hosts would be expended on other endeavors for the channel so to quote Gilbert and Sullivan "But at present I'm afraid I am as mad as any hatter, so I'll keep 'em to myself, for my opinion doesn't matter!".

[buskeat]

Anyone who has trouble with Jacqueline Stewart has a problem with me. I have sat on boards with her, attended her lectures, sat with her at movies, shared meals together, and have talked to many of her students. She is a knowledgeable film fan, a brilliant academic, an incredibly hard worker, and a good friend to all. She has been an incredible influence on a generation of amazing students who respect and admire her.

I adore Kevin Brownlow and I have been his friend, his publicist, and his distributor, but there are dozens of mistakes in his writings and blanks in his cinematic knowledge that I know he looks forward to correcting.

Nobody is born Kevin Brownlow or Bill Everson or Leonard Maltin or Robert Osborne. They evolved into the cinematic elders that we love and respect. And if you disagreed with them or found them in error, they were thankful for the discussion and the corrections. People forget that most of our beloved television hosts in history were originally stiff, faltering, error-prone, and certainly not the people who they became after gaining experience. People grow into that job.

I hope you'll all get to know Jacqueline. She's a pleasure to know and if you disagree with her, I'm sure she'll be glad to have that discussion with you as well.

I remember seeing Robert Osborne for the first time on the new TCM in 1994 and scoffed, “Well, HE’S no Bob Dorian!”

I think all this hand-wringing over the TCM hosts is harmful, counter-productive and pointless. When I had cable I always fast-forwarded through the introductions anyway, because I never thought they were for me. Here I am with my shelves of film history books, how can it be for me? What matters ultimately is that people watch the movies. It’s only going to be a decade or two before they won’t be available for new viewers to discover at ALL.

[Mitch Farish]

Actually, I was thrilled that Silent Sundays was getting its own host who would do for Silents what Eddie Muller does for Noir. At least I wouldn't have to hear Ben Mankiewicz incorrectly say time after time how the silent era ended with The Jazz Singer in 1927, or how very few silent stars made the transition to sound. Since Silent Sundays is dedicated to one sort of film, as Noir Alley is, I thought it was a perfect opportunity to enlarge on the usual standard three minute spiel. I guess I was expecting too much.

As for being "pretty," let's not kid ourselves. All of these hosts are very telegenic, which I do believe is their main (not their only) qualification. I remember in college, the professor who gave the most fascinating and energetic lectures was short, fat, and had an atrocious comb-over. But he did a fantastic job of presenting and discussing Cat People at the Virginia Film Festival one year. I'm sure he had lectures to prepare for the fall semester, and articles and books he was writing, but he wanted to talk about Cat People because it would be fun. He would never make the cut as a host on TCM. And Kevin Brownlow's ears and age would certainly disqualify him.

[Jim Roots]

I hope you folks realize I was teasing about "pretty faces". No offence was intended.

The best movie host Canada ever produced was Elwy Yost: short, fat, bespectacled, bald, and not pretty. The best movie interviewer was Brian Linehan: short, fey, with a bad long haircut, an enormous wart on the camera side of his face, and not pretty.

If you want good movie hosts in Canada, I guess, you gotta go ugly. That certainly explains why I'm not on TV.

Handsome Jim

[milefilms]

I was on Elwy's show back in 1986 or so -- he was good-looking in a grandfatherly way. Kind of reminded me of Jim Card. You can actually see my horrifying performance at https://vimeo.com/263240529. I would not have been good TCM material and I certainly made mistakes!

[silentfilm]

We have to remember that while Ms. Stewart may be knowledgeable about film history, she may not be into slapstick comedy as much as many of us are. And not everybody knows that Arbuckle fans feel that it is respectable to call him Roscoe instead of "Fatty".

As an example, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about film history, but studio musicals are not my area of expertise. At a socially-distanced screening of White Christmas last year by our Dallas Classic Movie group, I was stunned when one of our members said it was hard to watch because of dancer Vera Ellen's anorexia. I had seen the film several times and had no idea of her condition.

[Brooksie]

I'd take that with a grain of salt in any case. It's a rumor that's been going around for years, but anorexia nervosa was not even a formally recognised disorder until the 1980s.

That's not to say she didn't suffer from it - plenty of people did, and no doubt it was more common amongst people in the public eye - but it makes it harder to accept people so confidently asserting it as fact.

[Smari1989]

Regarding Arbuckle's name again, I guess I just wish that people would at least use Roscoe first, before possibly adding his nickname. Once Arbuckle left Keystone, there appears to have been a conscious attempt to distance him from the nickname, as it started to get added in brackets in the opening credits to his Comique films. "Fatty" was the name of his character in the Keystone films and is therefore fair to use when referring to him onscreen in those films (although I try to use Roscoe even then), but when talking about him offscreen, we should try to get in the habit of using his actual and preferred name, IMO. (This is just a general observation, not directed at anyone here or any of TCM's hosts; I haven't seen the introduction which started this discussion in the first place. And obviously, not everyone who knows Arbuckle will be aware just how much he disliked his nickname.)