Prominent english actors in pictures

Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, Bain News Service Wikimedia Commons
Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, Bain News Service Wikimedia Commons

English actors of rank have not yet figured upon the cinematograph films so well and so frequently as have those of other countries. This is being gradually changed, however, and there is no reason why such distinguished members of the British stage as Arthur Bouchier, Sir George Alexander, Martin Harvey, Forbes Robertson, Fred Terry, Robt. Loraine, Violet Vanburgh, Ellen Terry, Lena Ashwell and Julia Neilson should not become as popular with cinematograph audiences as they are with those who visit the ordinary theaters.

I hear in this connection that Sir Herbert Tree’s production of  “Macbeth” is about to be  filmed for the cinematograph and that the fee to be paid is $20,000. Sir Herbert’s “Henry VIII” has been on the cinematograph for some time. The fee seems enormous, but it must be remembered that all the scenery and fittings have to be transported to a daylight theater specially’built for this business.
(The Moving Picture World, 6 April 1912)

Maurice Costello, of the Vitagraph Company

New York 1912. It’s rather easy to get about Brooklyn (so the inhabitants said), and I made three little journeys to the home of Maurice Costello, with the same result: “Not in.” The druggist on the corner seemed to be full of misinformation about him, but it was not until I was warming up in a nearby garage that  I got a direct clue. His hobby is automobiling. I was told, and he keeps his machine looking like an instalment piano.

As I neared his house, now grown quite familiar, from its outer side, the humgrounds, and as I entered it, I found the auto, with hood off, and engine complacently running. But Look where I could, no owner could I find.

“Can it be, I thought, “that he’s such a bug that the chatter of his engine puts him to sleep? – I’ve known such extreme cases.”

I was about to walk out when a pair of woodman’s shoes slid out from the rear axle, and wiggled violently. These were followed by a length of overalls. “That’s it! I knew it. He does sleep under it, ” my thoughts went on, and then an arm with a spanner wrench and a tousled head of hair followed, making for the open.

“Beg pardon, ” I shouted, as he sat staring at me. “Can you tell me where Mr. Costello is?”

The woolen undershirt and shock of hair came up slowly even with mine.

“He was under there some time ago.” the mechanic said, pointing to the car; “must have got lost something.”

Then his identity slowly dawned upon me.

When he had shut off the nerve.racking noise, and I had made my business plain to him, he smiled like a schoolboy. “Have a chair,” he said. “No? Oh, there aren’t any, I see. Well, climb up in the car, and let’s have our little say.”

“To begin with,” he said, “I’ve been reading your writeups in The Motion Picture Story Magazine, and cannot qualify on a lot of your pet questions; so let’s get them out of the way. I have never gone to college, haven’t any favorite flower, never did anything heroic, and know all my neighbors.”

“Thanks,” I interposed, “that’s very clear, but I’m afraid it isn’t interesting. But since you like the categorical method, suppose we commence.”

Q. Have you a nickname?

A. Yes, known everywhere as “Dimples.”

Q. It isn’t necessary to ask you how you came by this?

A. No, I was born with it.

Q. Where were you born, and when?

A. In Pittsburg, and I wasn’t old enough to remember the date, at that time.

Q. What nationality are your parents?

A. There is a good deal of misunderstanding on this point, but not on their part, for my mother is Irish, and father, Spanish-Irish.

Q. What interests you most?

A. Loving Dolores and Helen Costello.

Q. Then you are married?

At this rude question, the infernal motor started uo again, and was like to have shook me from my perch. In the interests of a lot of my young lady friends I kept the question balanced on the tip of my tongue, and when the racket subsided, put it again.

A. “I suppose I’ll save your inquiry man a lot of bother,” he said, laughingly, “if I told you, but my answer is, ‘Guess.’

I’m still guessing,

Q. Are you interested in politics?

A. Judging by my mail, I’m a leading suffragette.

Q. Do you ever personally appear before theater audiences?

A. Yes, to oblige personal friends, not otherwise.

Q. Have you ever been featured in the newspapers because of an heroic deed?

A. Certainly; I was arrested once for speeding my auto. Otherwise my heroic rôles more than satisfy me.

Q.  About how many parts have you played?

A. I should judge between four and five hundred.

Q. Can you name some Photoplays in which you think you were at your best?

A. Off-hand, I should say as Sidney Carton, in a “Tale of Two Cities,” and as St. Elmo, in the picture of that name. As Sidney Carton, the English press compared me very favorably with Martin Harvey, a creator of the rôle in regular drama.

“Tell me all about yourself, physically?” I asked.

“I am  five feet ten inches tall, and weigh one hundred and sixty pounds, tho this varies a little. In summer, we do a good deal of out-door work, and then I feel like a prince. In fact, the more I can get of life in the open, the better I like it; whether it be walking, swimming, motor-boating, or any out-door sport. Speaking of working out-of-doors, I had and experience last summer which called up all my physical fitness – and kept calling for more. We were making a picture  entitled, ‘On the Wings of Love,’ in which it was my duty to climb to the top of a thirty-foot windmill and rescue a woman supposedly in deadly peril. As a matter of fact, after I had climbed out on the frail wheel and taken her in my arms, the danger became very real, and not stage business. The iron pipe axle of the revolving wheel slowly bent, and tho I knew we were due for an ugly fall, I did not let go of her. We fell, all right – it seemed a mile. But we got off with a few nasty bruises. First time I’ve been a fallen hero.

“I am sorry to say that I am not musically gifted,” he continued; “dont sing or play, but I’m very fond of good music, and even poor music, if it’s well executed. And,” he added, “I think I like to hear the old engine singing smoothly better than anything else.

“It’s hard to give you my stage career in a few words, but I played, among others, with the Grand Opera Stock Company of Pittsburg, the Nashville, York, and Columbia Stock Companies, respectively, and here in Brooklyn with the Spooner Stock Company. Before coming to the Vitagraph Company – my only Motion Picture connection, by the way – I played in ‘Strong Heart’ with Maud Fealy.

“I would like to say that stage  art has changed very much in Motion Pictures in the past three years. Then, the principal object was to work out the plot – let the characters take care of themselves. As a result, they were all very much alike. Now that we have character parts, much more careful study is required; an ability to express the part distinctly, briefly, truly, and eloquently or with appeal. These things – and each part requires a different shading of them – I endeavor to do as well as I can; for if a man, or woman, does not take absolute and feeling interest in the work, it would show itself as poor to the most uncritical.

“I think I owe a good deal  of my success to criticism, and I feel that appreciation is hepful, too. But I want appreciation only after the sternest kind of effort – perfunctory applause does not interest me. My oldest friend, and director, Mr. Van Dyke Brooke, is, I am glad to say, my most severe critic. It was he that first showed me the possibilities of Motion Pictures, and since then we have always worked together. But I feel that his harshest criticism is his friendliest.

“What’s that? Cant use so much theory?” And here he brought the spanner down on the harmless bonnet with a thump. “Well, some day, I want to get it all down for you – an article on the Motion Picture from an actor’s standpoint. Something new, eh? I tell you, I feel a lot of things that haven’t been in print.”

(The Motion Picture Story Magazine, April 1912)

Jean Grémillon mars 1928

Jean Grémillon
Jean Grémillon

Jean Grémillon ne doit pas connaître le péché de médisance, car il est peu bavard. Est-ce amour de l’Art muet, prudence ou indifférence ?

­— Peut-être vais-je trop loin; Grémillon parle peu, mais il n’ignore pas l’ironie.

(On prétend que le grand amour est silencieux — je ne sais rien de la vie privée de M. Grémillon. En saurais-je quelque chose que je n’en pourrais rien dire…)

Quoi qu’il en soit, toutes les paroles que prononce M. Grémillon ne sont pas tendres.

Ne me disait-il point:

— Ce qui m’intéresse le plus dans l’effort cinégraphique contemporain, c’est son caractère éphémère. Avec le temps, la pellicule meurt. Ainsi, beaucoup d’erreurs rentrent-elles dans un oubli définitif…

— Comment êtes-vous venu au Cinema ?

— Le hasard m’y a amené en 1923. Mon premier film fut un documentaire sur la ville de Chartres. Depuis cette époque, d’autres hasards m’ont servi. Grâce a eux, j’ai pu apprendre, peu a peu, mon métier. Je viens de réaliser Maldone, qui est mon premier film d’inspiration dramatique.

— Pourriez-vous préciser la conception du Cinéma a laquelle vous êtes attaché, et m’indiquer ce que signifie selon vous l’expression : « Essence du Cinéma ».

— Je ne puis et ne voudrais le faire. En effet, je ne crois pas que personne soit actuellement en mesure de définir le contenu du mot Cinéma. Par ailleurs, je me défie des théories et plus encore des théoriciens.

— Sans doute, cette précaution est-elle concevable, devant l’invasion de toute une littérature cinégraphique qui n’est qu’un prétexte a jolies phrases. Mais je crains que vous n’établissiez une confusion entre l’écrivain qui n’est qu’un littérateur inutile, et l’esthéticien qui est un philosophe utile a la cause du Cinéma…

— Tout ce que je puis dire en matière d’esthétique cinégraphique, se borne a ceci: je crois qu’il n’y a dans tous les films contemporains aucun réel souci de construction — ce n’est pas de construction thématique que je veux parler — mais de cette « construction intérieure », de ce dynamisme du film, d’où naît l’impression d’une œuvre complète.

— Pour en terminer avec les questions d’ordre esthétique, je vous dirai aussi l’antipathie que j’éprouve, vis-a-vis des rapprochements que l’on a tenté de faire entre le cinéma et les autres arts. La comparaison la plus dangereuse a été établie entre le Cinéma et la Musique. On a parlé de Musique visuelle, de contrepoint visuel. Ces expressions sont pour moi privées de toute signification. Elles relèvent du jeu pervers des esthéticiens et il faut bien les leur laisser, puisque cela leur fait plaisir.

— Cette hostilité que vous manifestez vis-a-vis de l’esthétique, n’est sans doute qu’un cas fréquent. A savoir, l’hostilité de l’esprit créateur envers l’esprit critique…

Jean Grémillon sourit. Il est difficile de lire dans le regard de ces yeux clairs, dont la pupille seule est dense, et semble ne refléter qu’une indifférence polie a l’endroit des manifestations de l’agitation humaine. Cependant, voici qu’il s’anime. Aurais-je découvert le point faible du plus calme des hommes ?

— Que pensez-vous de l’état actuel du cinéma français.

— Il est très mauvais. A part un ou deux esprits clairvoyants, l’ensemble des cinéastes français ne s’attache qu’à l’étude de questions sans importance. De nombreux problèmes d’ordre économique et social se sont posés. Les conditions et l’organisation actuelle de l’exploitation sont déplorables et exigent un prompt renouvellement. On a fini par s’en apercevoir tout récemment, et l’on va tenter d’instaurer un nouveau régime, a la place du régime actuel agonisant. D’où le contingentement. Mon scepticisme reste assez grand a l’écart de toutes ces petites mesures; de tous ces remèdes de bonne femme… A dire le vrai, je crois que seule une action politique très énergique serait susceptible en créant un nouvel ordre social, de fournir aussi au cinéma un statut nouveau. Tant de modifications sont nécessaires qu’elles ne pourraient se produire que par un coup de force.

— Unissez-vous la cause du cinéma a celle d’un parti politique, et croyez-vous que pour le sauver, une opération chirurgicale aussi grave qu’une révolution, soit nécessaire?

— Je n’ai point dit cela, d’une manière aussi catégorique. Et ne m’interrogez pas sur des problèmes strictement politiques ! Le métier de cinéaste est déjà suffisamment compliqué.

— Je n’ai plus désormais, qu’à me rendre chez un historien pour lui poser ces questions indiscrètes auxquelles vous refusez de répondre, et qui le rempliront de joie…

Et puisque de coutume, vous n’êtes point bavard, il ne me reste, M. Grémillon qu’à vous remercier d’avoir dérogé quelque peu, en ma faveur, a cette règle si sage…..

François Mazeline (cinéa-ciné, 15 mars 1928)