1921/2021 Forum Watchfest

[Kitty]

Responses to Responses to Little Lord Fauntleroy.

► Show Spoiler

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me about the Hans Brinker! I had forgotten about that. I will be interested to see your comments on the LLF movie and how it compares to the book—still have some unanswered questions.

I'm watching the film now, so fire away! I really loved this book, and am so far enjoying the movie, so I'm excited to talk about it more.

Edit: Just finished it.

► Show Spoiler

When this watchfest first started, I immediately saved everything so I wouldn't run into the issue of it being off youtube before I could watch it. I tell you this to rub in your faces the fact that I got to watch this with the nice soundtrack that was on the original youtube video.

First, while reading the book, I did not picture Lord Fauntleroy's hair the way it is shown on the screen, though that may just be because I pictured him the way I wanted to picture him. I pictured him as a little short haired blonde boy with curly sweeps. Fact is, I totally forgot that the artwork of his person portrays him with bologna curls, though, if I'm not mistaken, I do not think his hair is supposed to be quite so long as Mary's is here. Second, do you realize that Cedric is supposed to be like seven years old? The slumping shoulders to make her look shorter doesn't help (or maybe this is how they think little boys run around, with hunched shoulders and mean faces?).

Watching this movie, I realized that when I read, more often than not I picture characters as animated cartoon-like people. I wonder why that is? Do you do this when you read? Or do you picture real people in your mind's eye? I guess it does depend on the type of story or book. If it's a more stuffy read, I think I imagine real people, but if it's a fun and light-hearted read like Fauntleroy, I picture them as cartoons.

The grandfather, the Earl of Dorincourt, is almost exactly how I pictured him, and the grocer is spot on. The applewoman is perfect, too. I love how the conversations that he has with the grocer and with the applewoman are exactly what they talk about in the book.

Mary is not really portraying the bright innocence of Lord Faunterloy that is described in the book, but the storyline does! Notice that the very first thing he thinks of when he comes into lots of money is his friends. I knew it was coming, but it still made me cry.

I don't remember Cedric's mother reacting that way when told she would be staying in a separate cottage. In fact, I think that this conversation was had with Cedric when he asked about her.

That dog was a bad actor! The dog of an old limper would definitely not be running in front of him as he walked! Bad doggy!

You know, I think that we have fallen into a rut in storymaking. It seems that there has to always be a good guy and a bad guy, heaven vs. hell, happy vs. sad. I think that's what makes this story so wonderful to me, that everyone is good to the core, though the Earl has to give it time to develop and surface.

Dearest's cottage is much larger than I thought it would be, though I guess I should have realized how big it might be; even a small cottage to an Earl must be much bigger than I would imagine.

The proudness of a grandfather toward his grandson is something really pure. I love the quick way that the Earl changes with Cedric in the house. The fact that he now not only wants an heir, but desperately wants it to be Cedric is so sweet.

Maybe it's because of the time that has passed since I read the book, but I don't remember a scene where he takes a poor family into the castle. I don't recall any of this scene at all! I don't think this actually happened in the book, but the children that he brings home are just adorable! Edit: I just skimmed back through the book, and it turns out that it was Dearest who saw how bad it was in the Earl's court, and got the child to do something about it. Come to think of it, no one's character was developed very well compared to the book. In the book, Dearest is portrayed as a really kind, sweet woman who is never idle, and Cedric always wants to help people. The old grandfather gradually realizes how terrible he has been and changes for the good, but it's written in a touching way.

It's a shame that they left out the part where they go to church for the first time; I really liked that part of the book, though a small part.

Not sure if this loose tooth thing happened in the book, either. Edit: I tried to look for something about a loose tooth, and found nothing.

So, a little earlier in the story, (not shown in the movie) the bootblack goes on about his brother's wife running away with their small son, never to be heard from again, and how she was a nasty woman who swore at and beat her husband. A story was related that one time she threw a plate and it scarred the child on the chin. Dick recognizes her in the photo in the paper, and another article mentioned that the new Lady Fauntleroy's son has a scar on his chin.

It's hard to imagine why they left that crucial information out of the film, as it would have been very easy to portray.

Overall, I liked the film, but I think I'd recommend it more to someone who already read the book.

[donnie]

I guess my main questions were (and this is toward the end, so you may want to finish watching first):

► Show Spoiler

What's going on the threats of bigamy charges and the signing of the papers? I suppose they're trying to call her bluff, but I don't understand exactly what they are doing there. (I.e., if she's an out-and-out imposter, how was it she committed bigamy?)

Also, the title card, "They were opera singers in Milan...." Who is they? The imposter and the Earl's son? Surely he wasn't an opera singer?[/i]

One other comment: those were bodacious leaps on the part of Cedric in the fight, weren't they? Worthy of Doug Fairbanks himself.

[Kitty]

Please read above my full review. Here are your answers to your questions.

► Show Spoiler

What's going on the threats of bigamy charges and the signing of the papers? I suppose they're trying to call her bluff, but I don't understand exactly what they are doing there. (I.e., if she's an out-and-out imposter, how was it she committed bigamy?)

Remember the random chubby guy who is yelling at her calling her Minna? That is her husband and the boy's father. It is not explained at all in the film, and is very ridiculous that it's not. The whole Dick recognizing her thing and them going to England to expose her is kind of a crucial point in the story, and they totally neglect to explain any of it.

Also, the title card, "They were opera singers in Milan...." Who is they? The imposter and the Earl's son? Surely he wasn't an opera singer?[/i]

Again, it's a head-scratcher that they would even bother mentioning this, since it would seem totally random. I can't find it in the book, but I think it was a vague reference to someone else who tried to pull one over on the Earl, though that amounted to nothing at all.

One other comment: those were bodacious leaps on the part of Cedric in the fight, weren't they? Worthy of Doug Fairbanks himself.

Funny you mention that, because that fight never even happened in the book, and the nasty lady's son isn't even a jerk. He's just a bewildered dimwitted boy who's along for the ride, sitting on a chair nervously. It seems for all the action they inserted in the story, they could have taken that time to explain the more important parts of the story. I recommend you reading the book. It's a simple read, and I think you will enjoy it. https://gutenberg.org/files/479/479-h/479-h.htm

[donnie]

Responses to Review of Little Lord Fauntleroy.

► Show Spoiler

Thanks for the detailed review! That helps me understand a lot. And also for the answers to my question. I was right, then, that they maybe assumed the viewer was familiar with the story. You know how easily I get confused plotwise and miss things, so I wasn’t sure.. But that was my impression, that some bits of critical information were missing.

Watching this movie, I realized that when I read, more often than not I picture characters as animated cartoon-like people. I wonder why that is? Do you do this when you read? Or do you picture real people in your mind's eye? I guess it does depend on the type of story or book. If it's a more stuffy read, I think I imagine real people, but if it's a fun and light-hearted read like Fauntleroy, I picture them as cartoons.

No! I’ve never imagined characters as animated. That sounds pretty neat! I picture actual persons, but I usually have only a vague concept of what the character looks like; though, strangely, if I later see the character in a film, I instantly know whether the person does or does not "look right" in regard to my conception. So maybe subconsciously I have more an exact idea, after all.

You know, I think that we have fallen into a rut in storymaking. It seems that there has to always be a good guy and a bad guy, heaven vs. hell, happy vs. sad. I think that's what makes this story so wonderful to me, that everyone is good to the core, though the Earl has to give it time to develop and surface.

I think you’re exactly right. Real people are never totally good or totally bad, but always a complex mixture. The best stories show that.

Dearest's cottage is much larger than I thought it would be, though I guess I should have realized how big it might be; even a small cottage to an Earl must be much bigger than I would imagine.

Yes, that was one fancy gate cottage!

Come to think of it, no one's character was developed very well compared to the book. In the book, Dearest is portrayed as a really kind, sweet woman who is never idle, and Cedric always wants to help people. The old grandfather gradually realizes how terrible he has been and changes for the good, but it's written in a touching way.

Not surprising—that’s almost always the case, it seems.

[Kitty]

I saw a picture of Rudy and his crazy eyes a little while ago, and I realized that there's an emoji for that!

---- ----

By the way, I forgot to include my link to my book review of Fauntleroy. Since you already know the story, you can read it now!

https://blog.silentphotoplay.com/2021/0 ... fauntleroy

[donnie]

I saw a picture of Rudy and his crazy eyes a little while ago, and I realized that there's an emoji for that!

---- ----

Dang, missed opportunity. Well, maybe next time.

By the way, I forgot to include my link to my book review of Fauntleroy. Since you already know the story, you can read it now!

https://blog.silentphotoplay.com/2021/0 ... fauntleroy

Thanks! That's a nice review. And the cover and spine are indeed beautiful—I'm glad you included those.

One detail I'm curious about—was the cottage Dearest stayed in actually small in the book, as opposed to the luxuriant gate house affair in the film?

[Kitty]

One detail I'm curious about—was the cottage Dearest stayed in actually small in the book, as opposed to the luxuriant gate house affair in the film?

I don't think it was a shack, but I pictured it as a cute little cottage, fit for a couple, maybe.

[donnie]

I just finished The Conquering Power. This is one you don't want to miss!

► Show Spoiler

The old good Valentino is back. To me, this one is as good as The Sheik is bad—none of the crazy-eyed shenanigans here, but a fine performance of depth in a very poignant and endearing role.

Alice Terry was extremely good in this, as well. Some of today’s viewers might find her a shade too melodramatic at times—but I thought she brought real intensity and appeal to the role. And such a beautiful and expressive face.... She also had good chemistry with Valentino. All of the characters were good, including the not-very-likable ones. In The Sheik, I did not particularly care about the characters; I cared deeply about them here.

Parenthetical Fun Fact: The script for this film, as well as Four Horseman, was by June Mathis, who wrote most of Valentino's best films, according to one reviewer. According to that review, the script of The Sheik was by Monte Katterjohn, who got assigned to the project after June decided the story was too stupid for her to want to bother with. And now I'll stop dissing The Sheik. Probably.

Back to this film, the story itself was very engaging, not surprisingly, coming from Balzac. And when I saw that this was directed by Rex Ingram, I expected a good film, and sure enough… I think this director brought out the best in Valentino, and in Alice Terry. The look of the film and the lighting was masterful, as well.

Two of my favorite scenes: where Eugenie finds Charles asleep in the chair, covers his arms tenderly, and finds the unfinished letter to Annette. And the powerful and very well-done scene of Pere Grandet’s final descent into madness and death. That gold creature…!

I loved the ending, also (and the score, by the way, which was excellent throughout, was particularly good there). It was very touching that she would go back to the special bench after the engagement arrangement—and then look who had the same idea…. One little quibble: I didn't like the idea that years went by before they "found" each other—so much time happiness and time together lost....

To end, a couple of random thoughts:

1. Now, this marriage to a first cousin. Hmm. Did that bother you? It did me a little, although I understand that was common in Europe. It didn’t seem to bother Charles or Eugenie at all. Just the same, it was a good to find Eugenie wasn’t a biological daughter (though I think the reason for introducing that fact probably had more to do with establishing that her step-father had cheated her out of her inheritance).

Two questions: Would the marriage of first cousins not have bothered an American audience of that time? And plot wise, did Eugenie—and Charles—ever learn that they were not, in fact, cousins?

2. One title near the beginning struck me, the one about how audiences did not like “costume plays,” but preferred stories with a contemporary setting. I thought that was very interesting, and a little surprising. And one reason I thought it interesting is that that’s how I feel.

For some reason, I’ve always preferred silent films set in the era in which they were filmed (generally, at least) rather than back in a historical period. I’m not sure why that is—or why that in itself should make a difference—but apparently I had some company in that! Of course, a historical setting doesn’t keep me from enjoying a film (see Orphans of the Storm), but if given a choice, I’m always more interested in a contemporary setting.

[donnie]

I just finished The Conquering Power. This is one you don't want to miss!

► Show Spoiler

The old good Valentino is back. To me, this one is as good as The Sheik is bad—none of the crazy-eyed shenanigans here, but a fine performance of depth in a very poignant and endearing role.

Alice Terry was extremely good in this, as well. Some of today’s viewers might find her a shade too melodramatic at times—but I thought she brought real intensity and appeal to the role. And such a radiantly beautiful and expressive face.... She also had good chemistry with Valentino. All of the characters were good, including the not-very-likable ones. In The Sheik, I did not particularly care about the characters; I cared deeply about them here.

Parenthetical Fun Fact: The script for this film, as well as Four Horseman, was by June Mathis, who wrote most of Valentino's best films, according to one reviewer. According to that review, the script of The Sheik was by Monte Katterjohn, who got assigned to the project after June decided the story was too stupid for her to want to bother with. And now I'll stop dissing The Sheik. Probably.

Back to this film, the story itself was very engaging, not surprisingly, being based on Balzac. And when I saw that this was directed by Rex Ingram, I expected a good film, and sure enough… I think this director brought out the best in Valentino, and in Alice Terry. The look of the film—the framing and lighting of the scenes, the use of closeups—was masterful.

Two of my favorite scenes: where Eugenie finds Charles asleep in the chair, covers his arms tenderly, and finds the unfinished letter to Annette. And the powerful and very well-done scene of Pere Grandet’s final descent into madness and death. That gold creature…!

I loved the ending, also (and the score, by the way, which was excellent throughout, was particularly good there). It was very touching that she would go back to the special bench after the engagement arrangement—and then look who had the same idea…. One little quibble: I didn't like the idea that years went by before they "found" each other—so much time happiness and time together lost....

To end, a couple of random thoughts:

1. Now, this love affair between first cousins. Hmm. Did that bother you? I thought it a little odd, although I understand that was common in Europe. It didn’t seem to bother Charles or Eugenie at all. Just the same, it was a good to find Eugenie wasn’t a biological daughter (though I think the reason for introducing that fact probably had more to do with establishing that her step-father had cheated her out of her inheritance). Question: Plot wise, did Eugenie—and Charles—ever learn that they were not, in fact, cousins?

2. One title near the beginning struck me, the one about how audiences did not like “costume plays,” but preferred stories with a contemporary setting. I thought that was very interesting, and a little surprising. And one reason I thought it interesting is that that’s how I feel.

For some reason, I’ve always preferred silent films set in the era in which they were filmed (generally, at least) rather than back in a historical period. I’m not sure why that is—or why that in itself should make a difference—but apparently I had some company in that! Of course, a historical setting doesn’t keep me from enjoying a film (see Orphans of the Storm), but if given a choice, I’m always more interested in a contemporary setting.

[donnie]

I went ahead and finished up with the Linder film. Here are my thoughts on Seven Years Bad Luck:

► Show Spoiler

The plot here is really just an underlying idea used as a basis for a stream of Linder gags which I thought ranged from mildly amusing all the way up to really funny. Max Linder really was an endearing and talented comic actor. I can see shades of Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd all in him, to a certain extent, but he does have his own distinctive comic personality—much of which has to do with his eyes ---- ---- .

Two of my favorite gags: the evolution of the palm reading into the dance; and Max’s hiding behind the other man routine at the train station. The itchy prisoner was funny, too. And the poodle in the vase. (That poodle was a good little actor! I used to have a miniature poodle just like that and this one reminded me of her.) The mirror routine, though clever, might have gone on a wee bit long. And the ending was totally nonsensical, of course, but in this movie it didn’t really seem that untoward.

And speaking of animals, how about Linder’s chumminess with that lioness? Wasn’t that a little dangerous??

All in all, a pretty good hour’s entertainment. As to the score, It would have been great to have something tailored to the action, but this collection of peppy ragtime-type tunes did nicely, just the same, and was fun to listen to. Nice print, also.

A final observation—I thought the women’s clothing and hairstyles were interesting. They seemed (especially the hairstyles) to be a curious transitional look between the styles of the teens and the bobbed look of the later ’20’s. Some of them were pretty attractive, I thought.