Thursday, 24 July 2025

Coming soon... Anna May Wong: The Art of Reinvention, BFI September & October

 

Just a quick note to make sure you’re all aware of what promises to be one of the finest silent seasons at the BFI in years this autumn! Anna May Wong was a unique presence in early Hollywood and the season includes some of her earliest appearances when her screen presence was as undeniable as the studio’s inability to turn her into a fully-fledged star. Her best films were – mostly – made in Europe and those are here too along with her talkies most of which I haven’t seen so, if you’re looking for me in September and October I shall mostly be gazing at the screen on the Southbank as Anna’s legend glows brighter! 


Quoting the press release:

“This season celebrates Anna May Wong’s transnational life and career, as well as her collaborations with and inspiration for Asian diasporic communities. From silent cinema to multiple-language talkies, vaudeville to television, Hollywood to Europe and beyond, Wong constantly reinvented herself, even when being routinely typecast in roles and narratives confined by racist and sexist stereotypes and taboos.


The illustrated discussion INTRODUCTION TO ANNA MAY WONG’S REINVENTIONS on 8 September, led by season curator Xin Peng and featuring Wong’s niece Anna Wong, author Katie Gee Salisbury and film historian Pamela Hutchinson, will consider Wong’s key roles and films, discuss her life and career, and reflect on her legacy. The event will be followed by a book signing of Salisbury’s Not Your China Doll: The Wild and Shimmering Life of Anna May Wong.”

 



Films screening will include:

Drifting (Tod Browning, 1923), restored by the George Eastman Museum

Peter Pan (Herbert Brenon, 1924), restored by the George Eastman Museum

The Toll of the Sea (Chester M. Franklin, 1922)

The Thief of Bagdad (Raoul Walsh, 1924)

Song (Richard Eichberg, 1928), restored by Filmmuseum Düsseldorf

Pavement Butterfly (Richard Eichberg, 1929), restored in 4K by Deutsches Filminstitut & Filmmuseum

Piccadilly (Ewald André Dupont, 1929), restored by the BFI National Archive with support from Simon and Harley Hessel

Hai Tang (Richard Eichberg, Walter Summers, Jean Kemm, 1930)

Daughter of the Dragon (Lloyd Corrigan, 1931) on a restored 35mm print courtesy of the UCLA Film & Television Archive

Shanghai Express (Josef von Sternberg, 1932)

Java Head (J. Walter Ruben, 1934)

Dangerous to Know (Robert Florey, 1938)

Daughter of Shanghai (Robert Florey, 1937)

Lady from Chunking (William Nigh, 1942)

Portrait in Black (Michael Gordon, 1960) 

Flower Drum Song (Henry Koster, 1961)



“A key scholar lecture ‘A YELLOW SPOT ON THE SILVER SCREEN’ - ANNA MAY WONG’S PERFORMATIVE PLEASURE on 2 October will see Professor Yiman Wang reanimate Wong’s legacy and delve into her performative pleasure to advance a method of enjoying the actor’s paradoxical agency as a tragedienne and a comedienne.


Presented in partnership with the Department of Film Studies, King's College London, and Cambridge Film & Screen, the event will be followed by a signing of Wang’s book To be an Actress: Labor and Performance in Anna May Wong’s Cross-Media World.”

 

Watch out for further details on the BFI’s website!

 

One for the Clive Brook fans...

 

Sunday, 13 July 2025

Gimme Some Truth* … Hypocrites (1915), Woman with a Movie Camera, BFI with Caroline Cassin


"Everyone told me that ...plays, aiming at anything like a moral, would never pay... Hypocrites was my first chance to prove that I was right."

Lois Weber from a Moving Picture Weekly interview in July 1915.

 

By 1915 Lois Weber was reaching a peak of popularity that would see her as one of the highest paid directors in Hollywood and also rival to DW Griffith for prestige. They were also both “Banned in Boston” but for completely different reasons one for her art the other for his racism (as clearly articulated at the time). But, as Anfield’s finest, Caroline Cassin, film programmer and MC at Women & Cocaine, pointed out in her introduction, Lois has been largely left out of cinema’s history books even as her competitor continues with more respect than he deserves.

 

Caroline quoted screen writer Clara Berringer in 1919 saying that no other industry has given women such an opportunity as the motion pictures had and it’s still an astounding statistic that more women were working in the first 20 years of the American film industry than are working now – and in more senior positions. Lois Weber made 40 feature films and 95 shorts in a 26-year career which compares well with Griffith’s 33 features and Cecil B DeMille’s 70 over his lengthy career. But this also means that she made almost as many features as Greta Gerwig (four), Katherine Bigelow (ten), Clair Denis and Chantal Akerman (14 each).

 

The problem is now and not then and, as Caroline said, looking back can be the most radical action especially in a world in which the progression of rights and equality is no longer a given. By 1920 California had given women the vote ahead of almost everyone else, women had the minimum wage and outnumbered men in LA but at the same time, the business of filmmaking was being consolidated into male-dominated consortia and accountants were getting an ever firmer grip on the means of creative production.

 

Blessed are the Marketers...

Weber had always been commercially successful and this film returned $133,000 at the box office1 against a budget of $18,000 - a return on investment rarely found in today’s multiplex-driven portfolios in which even micro-management of from concept to edit does not guarantee success. In 1915, Griffith and Weber both had the final say throughout (which leaves him with no excuses and her with an extraordinary body of work tackling social and moral issues. If Shoes was about poverty, Where Are My Children family planning, then Hypocrites is about Weber’s view of Christian morality… and basically the way we live our rotten lives.

 

The moral underswell of the film is so much rooted in contemporary Christian belief that it is slightly obscure to modern viewers, especially those, like me, who skipped Sunday school and let himself down in O Level RE – I mean how can you go from 90%+ in mocks to a Grade C?! Anyway… the film’s publicity makes the aims clear, quoting from a “special report” from the National Board of Censorship: “This allegorical satire hits at the foibles and immoralities of modern society and asks for a recognition of the truth in all things…” This serious piece of “artistically-handled” symbolism only reveals itself if we understand the strict moral Christian teachings that were supposed to underpin American society the – actual – truth being now as then that the more these are trumpeted in church the more they are contradicted by the behaviours or ordinary citizens and, of course, by those in power.


So, whilst we might not all be fundamentalists we can certainly agree on the mass hypocrisy. We can also recognise Weber’s bravery in picking a fight with the immoral majority, especially given their role in distributing the film. Let he or she who is without sin or sense of perspective, cast the first stone…

 

Readers of this blog...

Hypocrites begins its twisty narrative in a small-town church in which an earnest priest (Courtenay Foote) is trying his upmost to connect with his mostly complacent parishioners. Weber’s camera focuses on groups in the audience, a bored businessman here, a distractedly faint-hearted family there and many caught up in everyday concerns who are just going through the motions, attending church as a social obligation whilst they think of better things to do. The preacher despairs of truly reaching them, the wandering attention of his own choir being aptly demonstrated by his discovery of a Sunday scandal-sheet featuring a story on Why the Truth has Startled Paris. This is a painting from 1914 by Adolphe Faugerson and is not Weber’s only illusion to classical art and literature in the film.

 

Truth is naked in the illustration in the paper… as she will be throughout as portrayed by Margaret Edwards, former winner of a body beautiful competition - "the most perfectly formed girl on the stage..." - who reveals pretty much all in misty double exposure… with Weber deploying a flesh-coloured bodysuit according to Stamp, to protect most of her modesty.

 

“I want to take exception to your statement that The Hypocrites was produced to attract by reason of the nude woman… I hoped that the picture would act as a moral force. The nude woman is too delicately carried through to act otherwise.”

Lois Weber, New York Mail, 23rd January 1915


Myrtle Stedman wants to follow Courtenay Foote

Exhausted the priest falls asleep and starts to dream of his struggle, finding himself attempting to lead his parishioners up a steep hillside. Few follow, and as the people cannot make the journey to find the truth the priest asks for the Truth to come to them and the two descend into a story within the dream in which he is Gabriel the Ascetic, sculpting a statue of Truth which nearly blinds even his fellow monks once it is revealed to the public there is mayhem.

 

The scene involving the public unveiling is a great set piece from Weber, her camera panning round a circle of assorted rich and poor, the royal family, soldiers, drunkards, working girls and the innocent. They are made up of the same faces from the church all deaf to the truth with the exception of a young girl, a woman who has fallen too far and a nun who loves Gabriel the man not the monk...

 

We see a lot more Truth as the narrative moves through the ages until Gabriel brings her to the modern world in order to hold her mirror up to scenes of politics, high society, relationships, and family. All are found to be flawed with the family facing the death of a child through their overindulgence. Weber’s composition is so strong and in one remarkable sequence, The Mote in the Eye, the camera focuses on the eye of Myrtle Stedman to show Gabriel's face: she wants to do the right thing but her feelings for him overwhelm her moral decision. It's a great bit of composition and if you look hard enough you can see the cameraman's hand whirring the camera's handle round.

 

Fashionable fibs...

Lois makes sure we get the point, again and again... and Courtenay Foote convincingly holds the hope and despair of the pious whilst Myrtle Stedman is also convincing as the woman with the Ascetic in her eyes, Adele Farrington covers a range of roles with assurance and Dixie Carr makes for a mournful Magdalene. Of course, Miss Edwards deserves a special mention for great posturing and Lois is right, her appearances do not present in a salacious way: what the viewer sees is what they wants to see and a decade before Hitchcock, Weber was making voyeurs of her audience.

 

Naturally there was naked controversy and in spite of scrupulous efforts to ensure that religious and secular authority were won over by the moral message Ohio banned the film and the Mayor of Boston reputedly asked for Truth to be painted over - so that the whole truth was less revealed? Nevertheless, Hypocrites was a smash and Mr de Mille was no doubt taking notes about classicism and fleshy displays.

 

The film opened on 20th January 1915 at the Longacre Theatre in New York with an actor dressed as a monk providing a live prologue... this was serious and very popular, stuff. The New York Times called it "daring and artistic" whilst the Evening Telegram went so far as to say it was "...the most remarkable film ever seen". Margaret Edwards even appeared at the Los Angeles opening, dancing between the screenings - it was an event.

 

Can you see the cameraman?

As it established Weber’s reputation – securing her “authorial signature” as Stamp puts it– it was also “a meditation on her own enterprise” with Paul D. Young2 saying that Hypocrites “embraces its own constructedness, the better to elevate the filmmaker to the status of an artist.” So, as Weber later said, it was she as well as Truth that was holding a mirror of truth that her audience might see themselves. Surely a more worthwhile endeavour than re-telling the alternative facts about the formation of the KKK?

 

Weber remains a vital historical figure for such revelations about the emerging motivations of “art-house” filmmakers as well as what her successes show of the appetite of audiences to be challenged. America’s first homegrown woman film director needed to pay her way in this business and for a good while she did just that, the story of Lois Weber is one of ground-breaking success and it’s that vibrant career which still informs the period and should be celebrated just as we did tonight!


Two Weber shorts were also screened, Fine Feathers (1912) and the immaculate Suspense (1913) which fits together so many advanced cinematic technique that Griffith fans really do need to give their heads a proper wobble!

 

The film was screened as part of the Woman with a Movie Camera strand and more details can be found on the BFI website.


More classical allusion... Rodin or earlier?

 


1. As per Shelley Stamp in Lois Weber in Early Hollywood, (2015) University of California Press – the definitive text on the filmmaker’s work and recommended reading as is Anthony Slide’s Lois Weber: The Director Who Lost Her Way in History (1996), Greenwood.

2. Yours Sincerely, Lois Weber: Hypocrites and the Passionate Recognition of Authorship, Cinema Journal 55, no.1 (2015) as quoted by Shelley Stamp in the above! 


*John Winston Ono Lennon


Friday, 11 July 2025

Pen-Ultima Thule – The Edge of the World (1937 cut), Birkbeck College


“Edge of the World was entirely saved for me by the editor (Derek Twist) … I mean, Flaherty with no story – at least I had the semblance of a story – took about six months to cut Man of Aran, and then it wasn’t any good…”

Michael Powell, Powell, Pressburger and Others (1978) BFI


The last few decades have seen a bonanza of different mixes, demos and alternate cuts of the output of the most familiar musicians from The Beatles and The Stones to even JS Bach, Erik Satie and Taylor Swift (not together…). Each new variation fascinates and paints a picture of the artists on route to their eventual well-known statements, the elements of Strawberry Fields Forever are interesting because they sound so different to the magical mix created by George Martin and his “Boys” and they show how decisions were reached in search of the perfected final version.



So it is with film, with a boom in “Limited Editions” featuring different cuts of even the most esoteric of films. Getting to see a different version of a classic film some of us have seen dozens of times is pretty rare though and to see Michael Powell’s first major “personal” cinematic statement in a form not seen since its original release in 1937 is not only rare it’s almost certainly unique and it happened again on screen right here on 8th July 2025 in Birkbeck Institute for the Moving Image Cinema a lifetime after it was last seen in this form.


How there came to be a copy of this Mark I release of the film is a story of its own and owes everything to conversations between passionate cineastes one of whom, Bob Geoghegan, Director of the Archive Film Agency and a man of many parts, knew he had a copy of the film safely stored on 35mm nitrate but not the exact age. SO it was that investigation revealed it to be a print from the year of release and one that was different from that we know in significant ways. He duly created a digital transfer from these materials for projection at this event.


Inspired by the evacuation of the Island of St Kilda a few years before, The Edge of the World has been recently restored by the BFI and I’d last seen this at Bologna in 2023 but this was something else entirely as Christopher Bird explained in his introduction to a room full of the very people you’d usually find in Il Cinema Ritrovato, some who’d come a long way for this rarity. Chris had scrupulously prepared a shot-by-shot comparison video for four key moments from the films, showing us three before revealing the fourth a very important moment from the ending shot which I won’t spoil.


Technically, Michael Powell is a much better filmmaker than Robert J Flaherty...


The video ran the two versions side by side and it was easy to see the gaps in the restored version against the fuller shots on this 1937 version. For whatever reason – and this is where the historians come in and dig deeper than the primary evidence – Powell re-edited the film in the 1940s no doubt when he had more success and clout behind him so that the version we have been watching all of lives is what he wanted us to watch some eight (?) years after it was first released. As he said in the quote at the top, Derek Twist brought this production home with Powell struggling with a limited budget and, after St Kilda’s owner refused, a last-minute change of location to the island of Foula across the North Sea to Shetland.


In general, the newly-revealed film showed more of the reaction shots to discussions between the main characters filling out the narrative and engaging us with more of the wonderful locals who we would see again when Master of Ceremonies, Professor Ian Christie, screened Return to the Edge of the World a BBC-funded documentary returning Powell, John Laurie and Grant Sutherland back to the remains of the society they filmed amongst. It’s a wonderful film and Laurie is full of mischief with a mystical twinkle greeting every islander who’s name he feigns to have remembered. A special time for both.


I’ve written about this film a number of times before on here but every viewing only makes it more impressive – not least because of the three or so “new” minutes but also the achievement of Powell’s team in making of the film was an epic adventure in itself. "200,000 feet on Foula" was Powell's original title for his book on the making of the film and references the immense amount of footage shot… thanks be to Mr Twist again!



Powell and drama-documentarist Robert Flaherty did not get on and their methods were so different with the Englishman choosing to use actual actors for his depiction of disappearing cultures. In the end the skill of the story making as well as the players and crew win the day for Foula. EOTW is about as political as Powell gets as he highlights the failure of government to support the islanders as they drown their dogs and cut their losses in the saddest of circumstances. I wonder what happened to the folk of St Kilda, Rachel Johnson, the last of the native St Kildans, died in April 2016 at the age of 93, having been evacuated at the age of eight… what stories did she and other tell of their traumatic changes? Powell caught the dramatic truth better than his rival over on the Irish Aran.


Christie and co also presented us with some fabulous extras including Smith (1939) a public information film promoting a charity helping ex-servicemen, The Embankment Fellowship Centre, which was once lost not just to film archives but also film history. This was introduced by the remarkable Mark Fuller who’d actually found the only remaining copy by tracking down the charity - now called The Ex-Service Fellowship Centres - who revealed that they not only have materials about the project but also a copy of the film! They are now called Veterans Aid and the film is available to view on their website.


We also saw the poignant, An Airman's Letter to His Mother (1941) which is so revealing of the times in which Powell made films and the nature of lived experience during wartime.


My thanks to the following:

  • Christopher Bird
  • Ian Christie
  • Mark Fuller
  • Bob Geoghegan

And also the audience of some of the most cinematically curious people in the country and, indeed, in the town!

The next event at the BIMI is Voices from the Chorus presented by Ian and Robert Denning. Full details are available on the Birkbeck website.




Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Lazybones (1925), Kennington Bioscope with John Sweeney

 

Dave Glass’ introduction included a visual essay starting with William Fox (of whom more later at the KB) which then focused on an overview of the director of tonight’s main feature, Frank Borzage with a reminder of his chief elements of style, his longevity and quality. He made four features in 1925 starting with perhaps Norma Talmadge’s finest performance and finest film, The Lady and ending up with Lazybones (1922) – an outstanding year commercially as well as artistically.

 

The title may indicate a romantic comedy with some predictable turns of fate to enable the titular character, Steve Tuttle (Buck Jones) redemption as a hard-working, hero and yet the film is so much more than that and is an a-typical romance in which the main character’s laziness is a more existential challenge to his self-awareness. When the need arises, he is decisive and quick to action, but he is faulted by an unwillingness to challenge his heart even as he often does the right thing and has moral courage. Borzage – and Frances Marion’s script – enable our full sympathy but there’s something unsaid, un-done and unfulfilled which at the last is revealed as a very smart piece of filmmaking.

 

Mr Glass covered the arrival of Herr Murnau at Fox where he was sent to encourage and review other director’s to add more Germanic nuance to their work but seemingly he spent as much time watching Borzage at work as advising him, the results of this cross-continental pollination are there for all to see in the combinations of Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor with a bit of George O’Brien and a bit more of the splendid Mary Duncan (City Girl and The River being two of the greatest films about love made by each director or any human).

 

Buster Jones... how's he gonna to get the day's work done?

Buster Jones is a handsome chap albeit no Charles Farrell I hear my wife – and a number of others –cry, but he’s got his charms and here is conveys “Lazy” in ways that belie his casting in so many westerns. He’s a careful ploy by Borzage, playing against type and in ways which the audience really can’t pin down. Bones is indeed lazy and he gets caught napping even by the local fish quick enough to leap off the line after waking the somnambulant fisherman, insists that his ragged roof doesn’t need fixing as it’s not raining and asks his Mom (Edythe Chapman) to remind him to fix their wonky gate: “that darn gate!” says everyone who passes through it today, tomorrow and for years to come.

 

Jones looks like one of life’s easy winners and yet here he presents as a man preparing himself for disappointment by prevarication: why look life square in the eye when you can just sleep it off. Borzage makes sure his audience isn’t lulled into the dream by wrong-footing us and heaping humiliations on Steve, and us, as time and again he’s caught napping. It’s enough to drive Erich von Stroheim out of the theatre in floods of tears.

 

We are waiting for something to happen, something to reveal the hero within as good defeats evil in a world in which bad men do not profit for being rotten bullies by being promoted. Turns out that it’s that American Dream we used to hear about.

 

Zasu Pitts and Jane Novak

It begins with Frank’s gentle routines being disturbed by the arrival of his sweetheart Agnes Fanning (Jane Novak) and her fearsome mother (Emily Fitzroy). The two ride in by tandem and Mrs Fanning’s stiff-backed posture lets you know to expect the worst… She cannot disguise her disgust at Steve and certainly doesn’t want his relationship with Agnes to develop. Steve manages to get his jalopy running and momentarily impresses before it blows up, he tells Agnes he has plans and whilst in a more typical film there would be a hidden secret to rescue his fortune here you cannot be so sure.

 

Mrs Fanning much prefers the local “Beau Brummel”, Elmer Ballister (William Bailey) who she has lined up for her elder daughter Ruth (Zasu Pitts); he’s a real go-getter and full of it. She writes to Ruth telling her to return from her teaching post and prepare herself for wedlock. But Ruth has been rather busy away from home having married a sailor and born his child only to be rapidly widowed following his death at sea. She returns home with her child convinced that no one will believe that she has ever been married and in a moment of desperation, throws herself into the fast-running waters on the edge of town. Now we see how fast Lazybones can move if he wants to as, hearing her cries he wakes from his slumber-fishing to dive in and save her.

 

Safely on the riverbank, Ruth tells all and Steve agrees an unlikely plan to save her reputation by looking after her baby daughter until she has the strength to confess all to her mother. He returns home with the baby spinning the tale of finding her abandoned and spurred on by Elmer’s callous disdain, announces that he will adopt. Ruth is safe for the moment but when she finally tells her mother the old harridan refuses to listen or believe taking a stick to her terrified daughter in a genuinely shocking moment. Mrs Fanning may well be the wicked witch of the mid-West but a shadow of shame hangs momentarily across Emily Fitzroy’s brow before she grits her teeth in cruel resolve.

 

Steve finds a baby

Ruth cannot take her baby back and Steve realises that he’s in for the long haul. Agnes cannot face this with the inevitable implications concerning the child’s true father, and she tells poor Steve that she will never speak to him again… her final card played to her lasting regret. Events move forward to 1915 with Kit now a young girl (played by Virginia Marshall) who is still regarded with suspicion by the locals. Agnes sees her trying to befriend a local child only for the mother to pull her away whilst Steve tells his adopted daughter that it’s all his fault for being lazy.

 

War comes and Steve listlessly enlists only to find himself an accidental hero after he sleeps through the order to advance and ends up capturing a German squadron from the rear. He returns to a hero’s welcome and to find Kit all grown up and looking mighty pretty (Madge Bellamy). Kit is in love with one Dick Ritchie (Leslie Fenton) who has even fixed that darn gate. Richie proposes but Steve also realises that he has feelings for his young ward…OK, that’s a bit from left field but it’s not the only surprise as events play out in a very European way…


Lazybones packs an accumulation of little punches that leave your thoughts provoked long after the film has stopped playing. It is an intelligent film from Mr Borzage and one that stands the test of time with a message that nothing should be taken for granted in a world of false formalities. Zasu Pitts is a vital counter to the easy-going, she’s a remarkable performer with a uniquely-unsettling way here wilting in front of our very eyes as the woman with her life ruined by the need to keep up her mother’s appearances. Emily Fitzroy is also good as her sister Ruth whose heartbreak is slower burning but none the less real.

 

Madge Bellamy and Buck Jones

Don’t be lazy, make real choices and don’t sleep on the job of life. Borzage’s woke agenda still speaks powerfully.

 

All of this was added extra force by the immaculate improvisations of John Sweeney on the piano as he matched the subtle turmoil on scream meeting every triumph and disaster with carefully conceived flourishes melding with the action in that uncanny way he does, holding us rapt in the space between the thoughts and expressions.

 

The plan unravells in The House of Flickers

A seemingly more straightforward task was provided in his accompaniment of the evening’s first film, The House of Flickers (1925) a short directed by Benjamin Stoloff and starring James Parrott who, as I’m sure you all know, was the brother of the even more famous Charles Joseph Parrott also known as Charlie Chase. It’s a fast-moving comedy about a man trying to sell his picture house only for a cheeky chimp to mess up the nitrate in the projection booth. It features lots of guest players and none more famous that the primate, name of Josephine, who would later steal the limelight from Buster Keaton in The Cameraman. Also featured is The Wonder Dog Pal as Pete the Pup who gives a performance of nuanced dexterity as you would expect.

 

The Kennington Bioscope has never shied away from working with animals or, indeed, children should the need arise.