TCM's Studio Mogul documentary

[Michael F. Blake]

Okay, I have sat through two episodes.

Wish I could say I enjoy it. It isn't bad, but it isn't, IMHO, involving. Actually, I am finding it kinda boring.

While watching it, my wife asked if Kevin Brownlow produced it. I told her no. "I didn't think so," she replied. "His stuff is more interesting."

Maybe I am a bit bias, but I truly think a documentary series of this scope NEEDS someone like Kevin Brownlow & Patrick Stansbury.

[Gagman 66]

Michael,

I have enjoyed the first two episodes, but have found it rather limited. I expect the limitations to escalate in Chapter 3. One hour for each episode is just not enough. They should have expanded to 90 minutes. The Main-title theme is great, and it gives me chills. One thing I have definitely noticed is that we are not always seeing the best quality print material of every film. In-fact many of the prints look rather Sub-par and I know much bettwer elements exist. That is pretty disappointing. Now what was that about re-mastering Thames HOLLYWOOD being such an issue? They certainly didn't re-master allot of stuff for this. So I don't get it?

I wonder if Stars such as The Talmadge Sisters, Corinne Griffith, and especially of concern to me Colleen Moore will even get a mention in Chapter 3? I'll bet that they don't. Looks like they will talk about Valentino, Fairbanks, Chaney, Swanson, Harold Lloyd, Clara Bow, Ronald Colman, Keaton, John Gilbert, and maybe Marion Davies?

I mean no one was any bigger than the Talmadge's during the first half of the 20's, so how could you fail to mention them? And Norma was even Wed to a Mogul. Why is Colleen Moore always slighted by TCM??? very frustrating.

[barafan]

Well, it's not bad. It could be worse. But I think, considering that it's a TCM production that had been in the works for 3 years, it should have been better. The 60 minute running time is definitely a handicap.

I like the main title, too, but twice now I've looked in the credits for the composer and haven't seen a name. Am I blind, or has TCM not listed it?

[rudyfan]

Well, I am trying to be optimistic about it. A lot of ground to be covered in 7 hours of running time. I agree a 90 minute episode would have allowed some breathing room. As it is, I feel like this is film history 101, the Cliff Notes version.

Only two episodes in and I feel the editing and the narritive flow to be rather choppy and a little irritating. The episode last night was supposed to cover 1907-1920. The jump from Birth of Nation and Intolerence to 1920 was pretty abrupt. A lot of history is being left out and a lot of what is being touched on is just a quick skim adn then on to the next point.

The clips used have been pretty good, but I do see plenty of recycling of material to illustrate point A also being used to illustrate point X, Y, or Z.

Episode three will probably raise hackles, it's going to cover the golden age of silent film and in 60 minutes there is a lot of ground to cover in that short span.

I'm also enjoying some of the interviews, it's great to see Cari Beauchamp and Bob Birchard in the mix as well as Anthony Slide and Richard Kozarski.

I'm grateful for TCM to produce a new series. I'm not going to weigh in fully until I see the whole shebang. I have to confess to feeling some disapointment. I've been spoiled by the excellent work of Photoplay and Brownlow/Gill/Stanbury, that's a tough bar to reach for anyone. So far, the bar has not been reached.

[boblipton]

I find it decent, if rather standard in the light of some of the documentaries we've seen produced.


Bob

[Christopher Jacobs]

The problem with the Moguls documentary for most of the people on NitrateVille, is that most of us already know most of what they discuss, so it's just a chance to see a few new (or old) film clips and get a few more anecdotes or updated historical information.

For the average TCM viewer, and for pretty much anybody off the street (such as my intro to film students), every single thing they say and every single photo and film clip is absolutely new, stunning, and revelatory (you mean, they, like, had movies in the 1890s?? And women directors? And special effects?? Who'd'a' thunk?). Like the late lamented "Hollywood" series, this makes an ideal introduction to the era for people who know nothing about it or have only a vague idea that BIRTH OF A NATION was the first movie, wasn't it, or was it THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY? And then to get a chance to see complete films that they talk about right away after the documentary is only icing on the cake for the silent movie newbie. (and what a beautiful transfer and wonderfully reorchestrated score they had on THE BIRTH OF A NATION last night! -- I'd never seen the Thames edition before) I really hope the series comes out on DVD, perhaps boxed with a set of the full-length features TCM is running along with it. It certainly would be a must-buy addition to any film studies school library. (Now, can we ever hope for a full hi-def restoration and Blu-ray of THE BIRTH OF A NATION? Perhaps Eureka's Masters of Cinema series would tackle it.)

--Christopher Jacobs
http://hpr1.com/film
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs
http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Old ... BluRay.htm

[LouieD]

I agree with Chris. I remember getting turned on to the "Hollywood" series when I didn't know much about silents at all. I think this doc. series is really not for the hardcore movie nut, just for the normal viewer who may not know everything about the history.

[barafan]

I'm pretty certain Moguls & Movie Stars will come out on DVD, as they show it (or, at least, something packaged very like it) when they highlight the "Live Like A Mogul" contest that's running with the program.

[Micromegas]

OK Can anyone tell me what are some of the clips? Is there possibly a list somewhere? (I no longer get TCM).

Steve

[Gagman 66]

Hey, don't forget the TCM premier of the new Milestone version of Pickford's POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL tomorrow night is part of the festival. THE HOODLUM later in the month during the AMPAS showcase. I have never seen either film. Incidentally, how do I get my Avatar back???

[Danny Burk]

Hey, don't forget the TCM premier of the new Milestone version of Pickford's POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL tomorrow night is part of the festival. THE HOODLUM later in the month during the AMPAS showcase. I have never seen either film. Incidentally, how do I get my Avatar back???

Did you delete it and change your mind, or did it disappear on its own? I've just checked your profile and it's not showing up there. If you have a copy on your computer, you can upload it again.

[Jim Reid]

Mine disappeared also and I haven't been able to get it to take when I try to put it back.

[Scoundrel]

Can anyone tell If the clips featuring Richard Roberts were shown at the correct frame rate...?

[Gagman 66]

Danny, Jim,

No, I did not delete it. I tried to upload something different. Wouldn't go through, and in the process the one that I had vanished as well. This was a couple weeks ago already. No luck adding a new one either. All I get is an erroer message of some sort.

[Danny Burk]

Danny, Jim,

No, I did not delete it. I tried to upload something different. Wouldn't go through, and in the process the one that I had vanished as well. This was a couple weeks ago already. No luck adding a new one either. All I get is an erroer message of some sort.

OK, I'll send a pm to both of you with my email address....send me your avatars and I'll try uploading them from this end.

[Gagman 66]

Danny,

I believe you made me these Avatars about a year ago when I was having trouble? Didn't you? A Gilbert, Jack and Eleanor, One Renee Adoree, and Colleen Moore? The Colleen despite being really tiny reads as being to big. I know it would have worked last year, and I used the same thing on SSO. That board is just like this one. Makes no sense.

[Danny Burk]

Danny,

I believe you made me these Avatars about a year ago when I was having trouble? Didn't you? A Gilbert, Jack and Eleanor, One Renee Adoree, and Colleen Moore? The Colleen despite being really tiny reads as being to big. I know it would have worked last year, and I used the same thing on SSO. That board is just like this one. Makes no sense.

I made you the Gilbert one that you normally use, but I don't remember the others. I don't have a copy of it. If you don't have the small avatar file, send me the large photo again and I'll make a new one.

[Gagman 66]

I just sent the other Avartars that you made, along with whole bunch of colorized photos. Hopefully, they will all go through and you will have them shortly. Thanks again for your help. Much appreciated.

[Big Silent Fan]

Keeping in mind that this series is about the people who developed the Motion Picture Business and not so much the pictures themselves, I found it interesting to learn many details of the origins of the Moguls. It's going to be awhile before I forget the name, Samuel Goldfish!

Hope I'm as interested in the remaining parts as I was in these first two.

[Danny Burk]

It's going to be awhile before I forget the name, Samuel Goldfish!

It would have given a completely different flavor if the other halves of Goldfish and Selwyn had been combined: Selfish Pictures!

[Gagman 66]

Danny,

Thanks much for getting my Avatar which you prepared to start with to upload. It is much appreciated. Although, I think I can come up with a better photo.

[gjohnson]

Sorry to intrude on this Avatar thread but this series is only a primer and I'm wondering why did they bother? They could of just as well ran all of the Schickel-type documentaries made from the 1970's onward that are in their library. I'm not trying to be snide but this industry is too vast and fascinating to once again boil it down to "....and then Mary Pickford appeared on the scene....and then Charlie Chaplin appeared on the scene....and then D.W. Griffith took to drink...."

For me the one saving grace to watching grade school documentaries is with rarely seen footage but so far there's been nothing rare here to see. Move along...it's just standard Melies, Porter and Griffith. No one else exists in 1906. The other thing that bugs me is time displacement concerning clips. During the 35 seconds that they spend with Sennett's Keystones they are showing clips from Sennett Paramounts from the 20's. That's either ignorance or laziness.

Many consider Brownlow's HOLLYWOOD to be a primer for them at the time, having never seen a silent film before, but it was also captivating, intriguing, awe-inspiring and very emotional. I realize that is a high bar to follow so maybe filmmakers shouldn't try to encapsulate a century in 7 hours.

Something might get missed....

Gary J.

[FrankFay]

It's going to be awhile before I forget the name, Samuel Goldfish!

He considered it a step up from his birth name- Shmuel Goldfarb.

[Gagman 66]

The series is brutally condensed. Chapter 3 in particular promises to be a real hodgepodge, and allot of it will probably be about the coming of sound. Not much on the art of the Silent film at it's greatest during the 20's at all. I'm curious to see just who does and doesn't get a mention?

[Kevin2]

Only having seven episodes to cover film from its beginning to the end of the studio era and into the independents in the 60s, I'm surprised and happy that they have paid as much attention to the silents as they have. Plus, surrounding the original airing of each episode, TCM has programed good and unusual representations from the era discussed in the documentary. Maybe the documentary plus all of the prime time silents will create more fans.

[gjohnson]

Yes. The best thing about this series are the supplementary films that follow each showing.

And as I dwell on this a bit more the filmmakers could had created a truly original look on Hollywood history if they had minimized the stars and concentrated entirely on the moguls themselves. Dirt poor immigrants with the vision and foresight in helping to create a new art form juxtaposed with the legendary tales of crass and boorish behavior The dual nature of being praised and maligned in alternative breathes sounds quite fun.

hhmmm......I gotta go. I have to go work on a new idea.

Gary J.

[sepiatone]

Kevin raised a bar that will probably never be toppled for his Hollywood series. He got to know and interviewed many actual silent film personalities. It's sort of like Walter Lord interviewing 50 or more actual Titanic survivors in the 1950s for his book A NIGHT TO REMEMBER. Lord's book can never be bested by future Titanic books. The same with Kevin's body of film history work for nearly everyone interviewed for Hollywood has passed on including wonderful narrator James Mason.

[rudyfan]

I just ran into the TCM guys (obvious from the t-shirts and the trucks with the TCM logo on them) across the street.

The TCM exhibit will be in Two Embarcadero Center November 11th and 12th. The exhibit will be *outside* because the space reserved for the exhibit was not large enough to house it.

If you are downtown, come on over and take a look see. I'll be checking it out both days. Must remember to bring camera tomorrow.

[Dana]

I doubt I'll bother to watch the third episode. The supposed "golden age" has never intrigued me anyway but I'd tune in if I felt there would be something unique. The first two episodes covered the material much as it was taught in the 1970's with a new helping of political correctness. I certainly wish that the time spent interviewing the wealthy off-springs of the moguls had been used for deeper research.
I agree with those who have commented that the best part of the series are the films presented after. Very interesting to finally see THE SQUAW MAN and my first look at POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL confirmed for me that Mary Miles Minter was at least as good an actor as Pickford. Oops, I went and said it. I'll probably burn in cinema-dogma hell!

[Brooksie]

I agree with those who have commented that the best part of the series are the films presented after. Very interesting to finally see THE SQUAW MAN and my first look at POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL confirmed for me that Mary Miles Minter was at least as good an actor as Pickford. Oops, I went and said it. I'll probably burn in cinema-dogma hell!

Erm ... MMM must have been doing a superb impersonation of Pickford, because that IS Pickford in `Poor Little Rich Girl' !!!