At It Again (1912) Keystone

Anything and everything silent photoplay!
User avatar
Kitty
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm

At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by Kitty » Mon May 01, 2017 5:55 pm

This one was too interesting not to share. It's the story-form of a currently lost film called At It Again. The cast of characters include Mack Sennett (Sack Mennett), Fred Mace (Myred Face), and Mabel Normand (Mrs. Smith). Ford Sterling played the police chief. As you already knew, this was a Keystone short. It was made in 1912, and it is Sherlock Holmes type--bumbling style. If you have a few minutes, take the time to read this. It's very clever, I thought. Notice the misspelling of Sennett's name in the cast list, and the odd spelling of the word 'clue' (clew).
http://archive.org/stream/motionpicture ... 7/mode/2up
You trying to tell me you didn't hear that shriek? That was something trying to get out of its premature grave, and I don't want to be here when it does. - Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

User avatar
donnie
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:28 am

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by donnie » Tue May 02, 2017 1:43 pm

This was interesting reading, tho I had to keep looking up words: peachblow, tyro, tonneau...—and notice I learned a new spelling, too. :) (Wonder why we reverted back to "though"?)

I can only imagine how Ford Sterling would have hammed up the police chief part. That would have been fun to see.

The amount of detail in the plot and description here surprised me, as a lot of this wouldn't have made it into the 1912 Keystone short, which would almost certainly have been a one-reeler. I guess the writer took the basic plot and padded it out for the magazine?

User avatar
Kitty
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by Kitty » Tue May 02, 2017 2:12 pm

donnie wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 1:43 pm
and notice I learned a new spelling, too. :) (Wonder why we reverted back to "though"?)
It's funny you mention it, because I've learned to completely ignore it. In a previous issue, they brought attention to it and some other shortened words, and said how much quicker it is to abbreviate words like that. Save ink, perhaps?
donnie wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 1:43 pm
I can only imagine how Ford Sterling would have hammed up the police chief part. That would have been fun to see.
Yes, I was very disappointed to see that this was lost. I really wanted to watch it.
donnie wrote:
Tue May 02, 2017 1:43 pm
The amount of detail in the plot and description here surprised me, as a lot of this wouldn't have made it into the 1912 Keystone short, which would almost certainly have been a one-reeler. I guess the writer took the basic plot and padded it out for the magazine?
Yes, the whole magazine is based on this. They put produced photoplays into novelized form. Some are pages and pages long; I only read the ones that seem interesting. Maybe some day I shall read them all. Most likely. :)
You trying to tell me you didn't hear that shriek? That was something trying to get out of its premature grave, and I don't want to be here when it does. - Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

User avatar
donnie
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:28 am

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by donnie » Tue May 02, 2017 4:05 pm

Here is a screenshot of the 1912 shorts I have in iTunes. If you happen to notice any of them novelized, I'd like to read it. A lot of them are Edisons or Biographs.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-05-02 at 4.01.35 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-05-02 at 4.01.35 PM.png (133.33 KiB) Viewed 284 times

User avatar
Kitty
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by Kitty » Tue May 02, 2017 4:08 pm

Some of those are definitely there. I'll find them for you!
You trying to tell me you didn't hear that shriek? That was something trying to get out of its premature grave, and I don't want to be here when it does. - Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

User avatar
donnie
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:28 am

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by donnie » Tue May 02, 2017 4:29 pm

Great!!

User avatar
Kitty
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by Kitty » Wed May 03, 2017 2:53 pm

I knew that saving all the tables of contents pages of these magazines would come in handy! :geek:

Here are the three that the magazine does have:
The Lesser Evil http://archive.org/stream/motionpicture ... 7/mode/2up
The Passer-by http://archive.org/stream/motionpicture ... 2/mode/2up
From the Submerged http://archive.org/stream/motionpicture ... 9/mode/2up

I couldn't find a regular length Strong Arm Squad of the Future short - is that the 1 minute long satirical film animated with cardboard cutouts? It's very odd isn't it? :lol:

Going through your list, I think there are a few errors in the year.
I could not find a Call of the City from 1912, but there is a Call of the City from 1915.
I believe also that Death's Marathon and On to Washington are from 1913.
Oh, and "Userer's" Grip is misspelled. It should be "Usurer's". :D

There are others films that I have posted that were not on your list, but have a novelized form, such as Darling of the C.S.A and A Vitagraph Romance. Some full length films have also been novelized such as From the Manger to the Cross and The Mills of the Gods. Would you be interested in reading those? Maybe I should add the link to the magazine when I come across one?

This magazine started in Feb 1911, and I'd be glad to re-check if there are others novelized that still exist. Let me know if you'd be interested.
You trying to tell me you didn't hear that shriek? That was something trying to get out of its premature grave, and I don't want to be here when it does. - Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

User avatar
donnie
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:28 am

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by donnie » Wed May 03, 2017 3:32 pm

Thanks, Kitty!

Yes, Strong Arm Squad is the one with the cutouts—kind of an anti-suffrage thing—and yes, rather bizarre. Regarding the year, I have noticed a lot of discrepancies of those kinds in films of this era—a film being listed as 1909 in one source, 1910 in another, etc. I'm not sure if that is due to an error somewhere along the line, or if it reflects the difference between the making and the release—or in some cases, it could be a re-release.

I would love to see the one for The Mills of the Gods. I've seen a still from that one. It starred Linda Arvidson (wife of D.W.) and Arthur Johnson.

User avatar
Kitty
Posts: 2430
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by Kitty » Wed May 03, 2017 4:30 pm

Here is The Mills of the Gods. http://archive.org/stream/motionpicture ... 1/mode/2up

It's on youtube, but I don't think it's in full. It's in Dutch, too.

There was some mention in the magazine a few months back about people writing in with their opinion which they liked best: reading it before seeing the film, reading it after seeing the film, or both, to solidify the understanding of the stories.

Which do you think you'd prefer? My preference would be reading it after. I think reading it before would spoil too much for me.
You trying to tell me you didn't hear that shriek? That was something trying to get out of its premature grave, and I don't want to be here when it does. - Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

User avatar
donnie
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:28 am

Re: At It Again (1912) Keystone

Post by donnie » Wed May 03, 2017 9:03 pm

Wow, I didn't know Mills was extant! I thought it was probably a lost film. I've been interested in seeing films with Linda Arvidson ever since I read the book by her, and they seem to be rather hard to find. The book is online, and I think I may have sent you the link to it some time ago—can't remember exactly. Anyway here it is. https://archive.org/details/whenmovieswereyo00arvi
There's a still from Mills after p. 118.
Kitty wrote:
Wed May 03, 2017 4:30 pm
Which do you think you'd prefer? My preference would be reading it after. I think reading it before would spoil too much for me.
That's an interesting question. I really don't know. It often seems that with modern movies based on a book, the movie is usually a disappointment if you've read the book first. So based on that, I suppose I would agree I'd like to read it after. The lack of detail in the film might be a disappointment. But then on the other hand, it might be fun to see what you've read "come to life" on the screen.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest