After hearing the news of Anita Page's death on Saturday at the age of 98, I started reading up on her in my old movie books. One of the first books I went to was Classics of the Silent Screen, published in 1959 and written by Joe Franklin, yes, that Joe Franklin. According to his Wikipedia entry, "Franklin has an encyclopedic knowledge of the music, musicians and singers, the Broadway stage shows, the films and entertainment stars of the first half of the 20th Century... he is an acknowledged authority on silent film..." I believe it, and Classics of the Silent Film is one of the most enjoyable movie anthology books out there. I picked it up from a used book store one day long ago and have returned to it for entertainment and information time and again.
But one of the striking things about reading a movie book written in the fifties and before (I've got a few older ones too) is how apparent it is that the movies being written about were not readily available for viewing. Sure we've all told stories of how we'd stay up late to watch a classic movie on the late show in the days before cable and video hit the scene but that's nothing compared to the fifties and before when, in many cases, if one didn't see the movie in the theater, one didn't see the movie, period.
This struck me again reading Franklin's entry on Our Dancing Daughters from 1928, which starred Joan Crawford, John Mack Brown, Dorothy Sebastian and of course, Anita Page. Franklin writes a brief couple of paragraphs on the "Jazz Age" films of the twenties acknowledging It with Clara Bow as the most famous but declaring Our Dancing Daughters to be "the best of the lot." Yes, the best of the "Jazz Age" films of the twenties! Easily. And then this: "Quite frankly, I can't recall too much of the plot of Our Dancing Daughters."
Like I said, it's a very entertaining book.
I suspect Franklin may have wished to jog his memory on the plot of Our Dancing Daughters but simply couldn't without writing MGM and requesting a print for rental at a steep price (and 
this is before even dealing with renting or acquiring the proper projection equipment). For just a two page entry (and most of those two pages are filled with pictures; the ones you see here, scanned from the book) it probably didn't seem worth it. And Franklin being Franklin, he decided to be forthright and admit most of it was now lost in the fog of time.
How much of early movie history was written this way with critics and historians recalling a movie from years ago with no opportunity to see it again except by replaying it in their head? How many movies were overstated because the memory was too strong while others fell down the memory hole because they were lost in the shuffle of the critics everyday life? I'm thankful to the Joe Franklin's of the world for taking it upon themselves to be the story tellers and torch bearers of early film history. The ones who remembered the greats of the silent period, wrote it down and retold the stories until technology finally made it possible for all of us to enjoy them. But I'm a little wary as well. How much of the praise heaped upon little known or lost films from the twenties and thirties is accurate? Lord knows, I've had many a movie I thought was great 
only to revisit it ten years later and be bowled over by my newfound indifference. If I was to write a book now about the movies I saw in my teens without the opportunity to see them again before writing, I can't imagine how uninformed the results would be. At the same time it's certainly possible to view a film, forget many details, yet still recall the general greatness of the film. The overall experience isn't lost, even if some of the details are.
Still, I'm glad we have such a treasure of older films at our fingertips now especially since there aren't many Joe Franklins left in the world to be our experts on silent film. I'm happy that we don't have to rely on memory if we don't want to. But sometimes it's nice, with a certain treasured childhood or adolescent favorite, to let it linger in the head rather than bespoil the nostalgia with a fresh viewing complete with world-weary cynical eyes. To close out on that point I go back to Franklin who finishes up his short piece on Our Dancing Daughters with this passage:
I can remember Joan's Charleston - more than one, in fact - champagne glasses flowing, wild, frenzied parties in huge mansions the like of which, probably never existed outside of M-G-M's stages, scores of balloons floating heaven-wards, and endless short skirts swaying in fast-paced rhythm to the jazz bands. And that, after all, is how most of us remember the 20's - or like to think we do.
18 comments:
Nice post, and choice of quotes to end it on.
I shudder to imagine having to write something on a film I've seen a year previously, much less twenty.
Could it be possible that folks like Franklin had a better-developed eye and memory because they had to, because there was no other choice?
I'm preaching to the choir here about older films not being available on DVD. Too bad the companies don't recognize that there is an audience, albeit a fraction of those seeing the blockbuster of the week. Still, they should be able to make their money back and even realize profit just from the manufacturing of the DVDs as the films themselves have often already paid for themselves at the time of their theatrical release.
By the way, I use to watch Joe Franklin when I lived in the NYC area. I even had some friends in a punk rock band from Denver appear on his show.
Rick, I was thinking that too. I was thinking about how treasured a great movie must have been knowing it couldn't be revisited wherever one wished.
Peter, I've seen Our Dancing Daughters a couple of times on TCM but I didn't know it wasn't available on DVD. A company like Criterion should create an offshoot where they release large amounts of old titles that don't necessarily get the full glitz digital clean up but for now, at least get out there to be seen.
I never lived in New York but we had New York stations (like WOR) and I grew up familiar with Franklin so I was surprised to find out he had written a book on the silents. I knew he knew his showbiz but I didn't know just how much he knows the movies.
This reminds me a bit of my recent contribution to Natsukashi. I swear, I can't even remember the titles of films I saw years ago.
I simply do not know enough about this era of film to contribute to the conversation. I need to speed things up. I'll make a point to watch Vampyr this weekend (not really related to this post in any way other than general time period, but whatever...).
Marilyn, I see films again occasionally where it takes to about the one hour point until I finally realize, "Wait, I've seen this before! That's funny, I'd completely forgotten." Someone like Joe didn't have the option to go back and re-watch before writing his book so I admire just how informative and entertaining he makes his book regardless.
But Bill, it's not about any particular era but about how movies fall down the personal memory hole which surely you have experience with. Nonetheless, I look forward to your review of Vampyr.
Well, yeah, I guess so. I just take note of the era, and the names I don't recognize, and I freeze. Sorry, just one of my personal neuroses getting in the way again.
How much of early movie history was written this way with critics and historians recalling a movie from years ago with no opportunity to see it again except by replaying it in their head?
Almost all of it, unless you were William K. Everson. In 2008, we've really lost touch with the value of film societies in decades past and of course Everson ran one of the best, in New York City. Lots of my movie history books are riddled with inaccuracies but I only mind when a movie is dumped on by dint of a cursory overview that proves nothing else than that the critic hasn't seen the movie in question. I recently picked up an old Denis Gifford paperback about sci-fi films and, while entertaining, he is guilty of slamming a movie (however drolly) due to its logline rather than its relative merits.
Of course, nowadays we have greater access to those old classics... but fewer people care. So, which is worse?
Funny you mention Everson. I was going to but didn't in my post. He is listed as Franklin's researcher for the book. Both were around thirty at the time.
And I didn't explore this topic too deeply but I too find it kind of funny how many innaccuracies I find in old film boooks, from Greer Garson giving a one hour acceptance speech to character's names and plotlines. Then there's the constant trivia mistakes ("Ben-Hur is the first remake to win Best Picture", which it wasn't, Mutiny on the Bounty was, but someone wrote that early on and everyone else just followed suit) and old Hollywood Urban Legend passed off as truth.
Ah, Joe Franklin. One of my fondest memories was scrounging around an old paper store in Chelsea one day and there was Joe, hairpiece all over the place, He looked like he had just rolled out of bed. It was quite a show as he bargained, and that's putting it nicely, with the shopkeeper for a lower price. It was like seeing my own private production of 'Saturday Night Live.'
It was quite a show as he bargained, and that's putting it nicely, with the shopkeeper for a lower price.
That's sounds like a perfectly Joe Franklin thing to do somehow. I envy you. I would've paid money to see that little real-life skit.
One of my fondest memories was scrounging around an old paper store in Chelsea
Oh God, I think I remember that place!
I wish I knew it. I know Brooklyn because that's where my friends lived, on Clinton Ave by the Navy Yard. Anyone ever run into Joe Franklin there?
I used to live on St. John's Place, near Grand Army Plaza.
I'm just sayin'.
Hey, that's not too far away. Were you one of the original Lords of Flatbush?
The interesting thing is that all this nostalgia used to be a regional flavor in the culture. The movies were national culture when they were new, but the rediscovery was totally limited to the east coast - largely New York.
I think Ioe's broadcast coverage had a lot to do with that - that and the film societies. I don't even know that anyone dared do this kind of thing in SoCal until Leonard Maltin began showing and writing.
The old stuff surely does have a national audience - there's certainly an international one. But if you're in the industry, it probably also has associations, let's be honest, to a lot of squirrely and unglamorous New Yorkers who used to be the only audience. That perception might be hard to overcome.
Post a Comment