With the movie makersStearns, Myron M. (Myron Morris)
General
With the movie makers
Stearns, Myron M. (Myron Morris)
Motion pictures -- Juvenile literature
“Humoresque,” made by Cosmopolitan Productions, and distributed by
Paramount, may fairly be classed as a “better picture.” It was also a
popular picture. The returns on the film ran to tremendous figures—said
to be well over a million dollars. It told the story of a Jewish boy,
the idol of his mother’s heart, who gave up his opportunities to become
a great violinist to enlist when the United States entered the War.
People really wanted to see flesh-and-blood characters on the screen,
instead of just noble heroes and beautiful heroines. Dug and Henry and
I—and likely you, too,—enjoyed the little boy and the little girl and
the big little family where on birthdays there “came a meanness” into
the house.
“Humoresque” made a big step towards the “better pictures” day that is
coming, by showing such queer things as the real-life little slum girl
finding a dead cat in an ash-barrel and loving it—because the producers
made a big profit on the film.
Wherever better pictures make money, other producers will imitate them;
again, that’s where it is for you and Henry and Dug and the rest of
us to keep away from poor films and find and pay admission to those we
really like.
Another picture: “Broken Blossoms.” That was a tragic story of a little
girl of the London slums who was befriended by a Chinaman after her
brutal father had given her a terrible beating. It ended with almost
as many deaths as Hamlet, but it was so beautiful, artistically, that
American critics hailed it as the most wonderful movie ever made.
Now, tragedy is never very popular in America. We like to have our
stories end at a pleasant turn of the road—an engagement, or a wedding,
or a successful culmination of the search for treasure, or what you
will,—instead of stopping only when the people of our story finally
die, or quarrel, or give up the search for the gold. And because
“Broken Blossoms” did not have this popular appeal—the happy ending—Mr.
Griffith, who made it, had to take it and exploit and exhibit it
himself, in order to secure a hearing—or a “seeing”—for it.
This was the result: The picture was hailed as so wonderful that
millions went to see it, because of its reputation. Of those millions,
hundreds of thousands, perhaps, were not able to like it, because
it was so tragic. Other movie producers, watching the result,
noticed this, so that although the picture helped the movies along
artistically, it didn’t convert other producers to that sort of
effort. “People don’t want that sort of stuff,” they said in too many
instances. “Look at ‘Broken Blossoms,’—they really don’t want better
pictures.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account