Tag Archives: turner classic movies

FANCHON THE CRICKET (1915)–Restoration by the Mary Pickford Foundation and the Cinémathèque Française

fanchon-02

When we speak of “lost films,” we never mean really lost. The significance of that phrase is to say that no copies are known to have been preserved in any archive , museum, or collection–and thus, the film in question hasn’t been seen publicly since around the time of its release. Lost films have been known to turn up in garage sales, warehouses, and even underground on construction sites.

Every now and then, a researcher or a museum curator gets the call of a lifetime, from an everyday citizen who, for example, might have been cleaning out his attic when he found a film reel that he thought might be worth something and upon inspection, the curator discovers that it’s a lost Buster Keaton film. Or a scene that was cut from the known version of an existing movie. This is an archivist’s dream, and news of the discovery frequently spreads like wildfire through the film world.

The Mary Pickford Foundation came across such a dream discovery in 2012, when they learned that a copy of Fanchon the Cricket, which Mary Pickford herself always thought was lost, actually existed at the Cinémathèque Française. Collaborating over the course of 6 years with the Cinémathèque, the British Film Institute (which held an incomplete nitrate print) and the Immagine Ritrovata in Bologna, Italy, the MPF has brought the 1915 film back to the public.

dc2224ru8aaoh4q

And what a beautiful restoration it is. The Immagine Ritrovata was responsible for the physical portions of the restoration, photochemically bringing the film up to standard, then scanning it onto 4K high definition. The painstaking work that went into Fanchon the Cricket at the Immagine Ritrovata is visible–it’s one of the most beautifully restored versions of a 1910s-era movie that I’ve ever seen. The print is clear, devoid of distracting cuts or water damage, and it has a “nitrate look” to it–with the shine and confidence that a nitrate print projects.

The film itself is quite interesting to watch, an adaptation of the novel by George Sand, with the scenario written by Frances Marion and director James Kirkwood. Mary Pickford shows her true versatility as an actress in the role of Fanchon, a wild child who later grows up and proves herself to be a strong woman with a conscience, refusing to marry a boy unless his father asks her and showing the town what it means to love. It’s pretty standard fare, plot-wise, for 1915, but Pickford plays both sides of Fanchon with great skill and nuance, with subtle facial expressions that show her to be an immensely gifted actress. The movie is notable for being the only one to feature all three Pickford siblings–Mary’s sister, Lottie, plays Madelon, the lover of the lead male character, and her brother Jack appears as a bully.

pickford_ccp_figx_wfp-mar051

Mary Pickford with her best friend, co-writer of Fanchon the Cricket Frances Marion.

The Mary Pickford Foundation commissioned a new score for the movie by Julian Ducatenzeiler and Adam Gladbach, and the foundation’s resident scholar, Cari Beauchamp, wrote the liner notes for the release. The notes provide fascinating backstories on Pickford as well as the personalities behind the camera. Beauchamp is the pre-eminent expert on Frances Marion, who was also Mary Pickford’s best friend, and wrote Without Lying Down: Frances Marion and the Powerful Women of Early Hollywood, a book that has become required reading for anyone learning about this era of filmmaking. The liner notes are exquisitely accompanied by behind-the-scenes photos provided by the Mary Pickford Foundation and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

It is a stunning achievement, and I highly recommend this release to anyone interested in Mary Pickford, early Hollywood, or the process of restoring a film made more than 100 years ago. The DVD and BluRay combination can be purchased here at Flicker Alley, or here on Amazon.

Thank you to the Mary Pickford Foundation, the BFI, the Cinémathèque Française, and l’Immagine Ritrovata for making this film possible.

Advertisements

Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Olivia de Havilland Case

Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 6.44.05 PM

I received confirmation this morning from Olivia de Havilland’s counsel, Suzelle Smith, that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of Havilland v FX, Olivia de Havilland’s petition to the court to allow her case against FX to go to trial.

It is a disappointing decision, but de Havilland has fought an enormous battle, persevering until the very last recourse. That type of persistence is a quality that she has always had–and clearly continues to have at the age of 102. May we all learn from her, and may we all be so fortunate as to live to see the day when we can act on her example.

From the email this morning: “One day someone else who is wronged for the sake of Hollywood profits will have the courage to stand on the shoulders of Miss de Havilland and fight for the right to defend a good name and legacy against intentional, unconsented exploitation and falsehoods. Miss de Havilland hopes she will live to see the day when such justice is done.”

I want to thank all of you for following this case, and my coverage of it. It has been a true learning experience to do this kind of work, and to examine meticulously the inner workings of a lawsuit of this caliber has been an enormous privilege. While this outcome isn’t what we had hoped, the response to this case in the record number of letters sent to the courtrooms has proven that Olivia de Havilland continues to be loved and supported by people all over the world.

On behalf of myself, everyone involved in the case, all the newspaper and magazine outlets devotedly following the case since the beginning, Olivia de Havilland’s counsel, and everyone who has rooted for truth in media–thank you.

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 9.13.44 PM

Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Take Up Olivia de Havilland Case Today

pubphoto1

Hello readers, just a very quick update for those following the Olivia de Havilland case. Today, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether or not they will take up her petition. If you would like to follow the case on the SCOTUS blog, here is the link to the petition page. I will update as more information becomes available.

For more information on what this petition is about, to fill in those new to the blog, here is a list of my full coverage on the case.

I will be following the page throughout the day to provide updates as they come in.

Thanks for reading, and for following this fascinating piece of legislation.

UPDATE: No order was released today on the Olivia de Havilland case–there will be additional orders released on Monday, January 7 and perhaps some on Tuesday.

Searching for Mary Poppins in 2018

 

marypoppinsScreen Shot 2018-12-27 at 9.33.35 AM

When I first heard that there would be another Mary Poppins movie made in 2018, I wasn’t sure what to think. Being a lifelong devotee of the original film, I was hard-pressed to imagine anyone who could fill the gigantic shoes of Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, or if anyone even had the right to try. Early mumblings in the classic film community about Mary Poppins Returns were skeptical, cautious. Some said they wouldn’t see it. Some said they were willing to give it a chance, but held low expectations.

I always fell somewhat into the second camp. I brightened to hear that Lin-Manuel Miranda would be playing the Bert character (perfect casting, I felt), but I remained on my guard. I was convinced that remaking Mary Poppins at all was a futile effort.

I went to see the film yesterday afternoon at the lovely Landmark Shattuck in Berkeley. I went in with an open and curious mind, looking forward to seeing how the filmmakers and actors handled the seemingly insurmountable task of a Mary Poppins remake. But immediately, I understood what this movie is about. Mary Poppins Returns is not a remake at all–but rather a piece of much-needed escapism for 2018 audiences, in a world that desperately needs it.

Movies have always served the social needs of their time. In moments of national crisis, they have served to allay fears, provide comfort, or commiserate with worries. Frequently, the messages were subtle. In 1944, at the height of World War II, Meet Me In St. Louis brought wartime viewers back to 1903 St. Louis, when things were easier, life was slower, and there was no war. Though the film takes place 40 years prior, the message was clear. “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” was really for the soldiers, and the American people as a whole.

Mary Poppins was released in 1964, as the United States faced dire challenges. With the Vietnam War heating up, the Civil Rights Movement at its peak, Russia and the United States facing off and John F. Kennedy recently assassinated, adults and children needed to be taken away from their circumstances. Mary Poppins‘ fantastical escape into 1910 London and a land of chalk drawings, cartoons, and magical nannies provided just that opportunity.

So it is, too, with Mary Poppins Returns. On most days, we are pummeled with the stress of a neverending news cycle, and the realities of a world that frequently feels like it’s crumbling beneath our feet. A retreat into escapist entertainment is very much in line with the cinematic and cultural history of the United States, and very necessary.

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 9.25.04 AM

In 1964, the merging of cartoon and real-life characters was a state-of-the-art production process. Though not a new technology, it was a difficult one, imperfect and rarely used, and emblematic of a large budget production. Reviews upon its release commended the mixing of live action and animation as “immense,” and the Los Angeles Times critic Philip K. Scheuer noted that Disney had been trying to perfect the process for the past 40 years, and dared to shoot 400 Mary Poppins scenes using it.

In 2018, we have long since moved on. Computer animation is the norm now–we have seen the rise of Pixar, of Avatar, and other processes that try to make moviegoing seem as true to life as possible. Mary Poppins Returns goes the other way. Using a similar cel animation process combined with live action that was advanced and awe-inspiring in 1964, director Rob Marshall has created an air of nostalgia and simplicity. The effect is that the audience is thrown back to a time when moviemaking didn’t have to feel true to life, when suspension of disbelief was valued over meticulous true-to-life detail. And for many of us, that means a throwback to our childhood moviegoing experiences–evoking memories of the cel-animated Disney movies that defined the studio through the 1990s and early 2000s. Worries are tossed to the wind, and the audience is engulfed by pure fantasy.

null

In these trying times, we as a society would do well to learn once again how to appreciate escapist entertainment such as the kind Mary Poppins, and Mary Poppins Returns offers. It is a cultural necessity in our efforts to deal with daily life, and a panacea that this troubled world dearly needs.

How Popcorn Saved the Movies

 

Vintage-H-H-x22Gloria-Jeanx22-Popcorn-full-1-2048_10.10-81-l-e2dbbe-ffffff

Apologies for the delayed post, readers. Holidays and other necessities of living have gotten in the way of a timely posting since the California wildfires of early November. We’re still recovering as a state but the good news is that we’ve had some rain, the smoke has cleared, and the fires have been put out. Thanks to everyone for your beautiful comments and concern.

In other news, I went to see Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma this evening at the lovely Landmark Shattuck in Berkeley (if you haven’t seen Roma, please rush out. It’s a breathtaking achievement, and takes much influence from prior cinematic movements–I may make a post about this later.) As I waited for the film to start, my mind wandered as I ate my box of popcorn. I ruminated on the origins of popcorn as a movie theater snack, and how it came to be. The story is actually quite an interesting one, with roots in the political and social history of the United States.

Popcorn was a popular street food at fairs and carnivals going back to the 1800s. It was a cheap, tasty treat, a luxury that people from any social class could afford. This, along with its messiness and noise, made it particularly loathsome to those in the burgeoning movie theater business. When the first movie theaters were built, the managers directed their advertising and aesthetic to the highbrow, theatergoing clientele. As the movies were silent and intertitles were used to convey speech, audience members had to be literate, which made movies most accessible to members of the educated upper classes. Patrons dressed in their best clothes, carpets were rolled out in the theater foyer and the audience was expected to be on its best behavior, just as they would be at any other theater. Any distraction such as munching or snacks spilled on the floor was unacceptable, and as such, there was no popcorn or any other food sold in the theater, nor was anything allowed in.

embassy_entrance-1930-l

The Embassy Theatre in Seattle, WA shows Greta Garbo’s first talkie, Anna Christie, 1930

Then sound came to the movies. In the years between 1927 and 1929, between the release of The Jazz Singer and the time when sound became industry standard, the movie business went through upheavals in just about every department. Hand cranked cameras had to be replaced with synchronized sound devices. Actors with vocal problems lost their careers. Theaters had to convert their auditoriums to be conducive to sound. And because the need for intertitles disappeared, the movies began to attract a different, less literate, more common crowd. That crowd would frequently show up at the door with a bag of popcorn, which had to be checked along with coats and hats.

The coming of sound happened to coincide with the first signs of the Great Depression. The combination of rising costs due to theater renovations for sound, and a stock market that was starting to spin out of control, was a death knell for many small town theaters. All over the country, theaters closed their doors due to their financial inability to make the changes needed to stay in business.

6b9a368fc3a48f10b21ce6dddce8dd99

The Cabrillo Theatre in San Diego, CA

However, people still flocked to the movies. The common man needed to escape from the world of breadlines and unemployment, and for a few cents he could do just that at a movie theater. Some particularly clever theater owners saw a way to keep the doors open for those needing entertainment. They tossed aside their hesitancy to allow snacks, and began to allow outdoor popcorn vendors to pay for space inside the theater, getting customers in the door to see a movie and bringing in the extra fees brought by the vendors. Eventually, theaters began to sell popcorn themselves. Using the extra money from popcorn sales, theaters were able to satisfy their clientele and survive the Depression. Other theaters caught on and began selling popcorn, saving themselves from the brink of closure. Eventually they added concession stands that included candy and drinks, and their profits skyrocketed.

The 1940s confirmed popcorn as the ultimate movie snack. World War II saw a decrease in the amount of candy and drinks that could be sold, due to the strict war era rationing requirements on sugar. Because of this, theaters heavily pushed popcorn as the snack to buy, and it has stuck ever since. Now, it is an absolute necessity. Due to the complex web of distributors and studios that go into bringing a film to your local theater, none of the money from ticket sales actually goes to your theater. The theater only earns money through the sale of concessions, of which popcorn is still the biggest sell.

So next time you go to the movies, be sure to get a bag of popcorn, support your theater, and remember this history as you eat!

California Fires Are Burning Hollywood History

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 3.06.38 PM

Image of the Woolsey Fire in Los Angeles, courtesy of ABC7 New York

As I write this post, I’m looking out the window into a haze of smoke, blowing down to the Bay Area from the Camp Fire in Chico. California is fighting several severe wildfires right now, and as of this writing, the entire city of Malibu is evacuated, we have over a dozen dead, and more who have lost everything. The fires this year and over the past few years have been devastating and tragic, and the smell of smoke in the air has become all too familiar.

And now, the fires are threatening Hollywood history at both ends of California.

Yesterday, I was sad to learn that the Western Town at Agoura Hills’ Paramount Ranch has burned in the Woolsey Fire. Purchased by Paramount in 1927, the Paramount Ranch has been used continuously as an outdoor movie set for 90 years. It has served as the filming location for The Sign of the Cross (1932), Sullivan’s Travels (1942), and Morocco (1930), and the Western Town was famously the set of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman between 1993 and 1998, as well as the current show Westworld.

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 2.55.13 PM

A tweet from the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area states: “We are sorry to share the news that the has burned Western Town at in Agoura. We do not have any details or photos, but it is our understanding that the structures have burned. This area is an active part of the incident and we cannot access it.”

Farther north, in Chico, the Camp Fire is threatening Bidwell Park, the location that served as Sherwood Forest in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). As of right now, the park is safe, but the fire remains unpredictable.

In the absence of a proper Sherwood Forest in the area around Los Angeles, Warner Bros decided to move production of The Adventures of Robin Hood up to Chico, a town in far northern California near Mt. Shasta. Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland spent many hours in lower Bidwell Park (the park is divided into an upper and a lower section), the area chosen to serve as the legendary forest where Robin Hood woos Maid Marian.

One of the wonderful things about the classic Hollywood community of yesteryear was their ability to rally and come together when times were tough for any of them. They were all there for each other–donating time, money, and resources to their fellow industry workers as needed. Right now, times are tough for the communities that have given us our movies. If you are able to help financially, volunteer, send supplies, or simply keep the communities in your thoughts, I know it would be much appreciated and a gesture very much in the spirit of classic Hollywood. Here is how you can help:

CAMP FIRE

Hannah Darden for the Sacramento Bee outlines what is needed. Here are some places she suggests:

WOOLSEY FIRE

From Danny Clemens of ABC7 in Los Angeles:

Thank you for helping to keep our classic Hollywood heritage alive, and the people and animals who live in those communities safe.

Olivia de Havilland Case Will be Filed With Supreme Court Within the Next Week

olivia11

Hello dear readers, the month of September seemed to whiz by so quickly that Backlots went without an update. But here we are at the beginning of October and I’m here to report that we have movement on the Olivia de Havilland case. De Havilland’s lawyer, Suzelle Smith, has informed me that the petition will be filed with the Supreme Court in the next 7 days–probably Friday or Monday.

The reason for the delay (the petition was originally to be filed in September) is the fact that the Supreme Court asks for 40 copies of the brief and the appendix, all bound. This is a massive undertaking, and Smith is working diligently to meet the demands of submitting to the highest court in the country.

This naturally segues into the elephant in the room–if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, what will this mean for de Havilland’s case? The main takeaway is that Kavanaugh has tended to lean on the side of corporate interests. Not only is FX a big and powerful company, but it has the backing, financial and otherwise, of other big and powerful companies. De Havilland’s case is one of a private citizen versus staggering amounts of corporate money. Based on Kavanaugh’s judicial record on corporations alone (and not even taking into account the other issues that may factor into his decision-making), Kavanaugh would tip the scales against de Havilland, should the Supreme Court decide to take the case.

I will keep you posted as I hear more from Suzelle Smith, and I will update with what seem to be Olivia’s chances with the court after the final Senate vote on Kavanaugh.

Talk to you soon!