FILM FILM - University of Macau Library
FILM FILM - University of Macau Library FILM FILM - University of Macau Library
Introduction – From Sjöström to Seastrom 11 ignored in this connection either, as both in contemporary criticism and within film history, even the Hollywood films have generally been considered as Sjöström’s works. Before turning to the more general question on Sjöström’s shift from Sweden to Hollywood, however, a few words ought to be said on the source material available. This study, in spanning over (at least) two film cultures, including different languages, also contains a not inconsiderable linguistic issue, to which there will be reason to return on a more general level. As far as the matter of translation of Swedish scripts or secondary sources is concerned, if no published translation is available, they have been translated by the author. Secondary sources, though, are strikingly rare, except for some biographical records. Bengt Forslund in his dissertation on Victor Sjöström has provided the most thorough and insightful general overview of his life and work to date, including important facts and observations concerning the films from the Hollywood years. 9 It is inevitable that my book to a certain extent overlaps with his research. However, as his book was published in 1980, it does not include the latest rediscoveries of film material. My aim with this study also differs from Forslund’s, firstly in being more limited in its purpose: I deal only with the director’s Hollywood years, with his work in Sweden used as comparative background, and secondly by having another focus: the intersection between production culture and style, which I want to analyze in more detail. A number of articles, some recent, have dealt with one or another of Sjöström’s American films within different contexts. 10 Only a few studies adopt a wider perspective, most notably Graham Petrie’s solid book Hollywood Destinies. 11 These will all be discussed further in relevant contexts. Except for the films preserved as a whole or in part, there are generally two other kinds of primary sources. Firstly, there is rich and varied published material, mostly from the press: reviews, reports, debates. The status of such source material within film studies is somewhat ambiguous: sometimes, it is considered to be of limited value because of the standardization and dominating templates of film criticism, which not always allow for differentiation in a given historical situation or within a corpus of films. These objections may be valid if the material is used for the purpose of film analysis. In contextualising or framing the films, however, with emphasis on their surrounding discourses both on the films themselves and the production systems, the objections lose their relevance and the templates instead become important clues in the description of how different ways of looking at cinema are confronted during the actual period. 12 The example of Sjöström particularly underlines the importance of the press as a cultural institution, active in the ongoing process of interpreting individual films as well as the cinema institution itself. Thus, the press contributes to the regulation of cinema, both of production in the past and of our historical
12 Transition and Transformation understanding of its development. Criticism, in Sabine Hake’s words, “was a weapon in the struggle for cultural dominance, it was a product of modern consumer culture, it was a form of political and intellectual resistance”. 13 Following Janet Staiger in Interpreting Films, I will also attempt to treat discourses that figure in the press as “significant historical reading strategies”. 14 Secondly, a variety of unpublished sources exist, including company contracts, film scripts, and private diary notes and letters. As for company contracts or scripts, they are rarely controversial as sources if their authenticity is confirmed. A few words should be said on the relation between script or scenario and cutting continuity script. While the former is the manuscript on which shooting is based, the latter is the cutter’s compilation once shooting and cutting is over, in which you can follow the visual transitions from scene to scene. The cutting continuity script thus offers, even in cases when the films are lost, a good overview of how they were made and what they might have looked like. 15 Another possible source is offered by the Daily Production Report, a kind of highly formalized log book, where all details concerning the production are listed: which actors were on set, when shooting started, reasons for any delay, retakes, and so on. This kind of report offers invaluable insight into the working processes of a production. Other kinds of unpublished source materials, however, have been at times regarded with the sort of scepticism that arises in regard to film journalism, the feeling being that the views found in these sources are tainted by their subjective character and hidden intentions, which are difficult to measure. Here, though, the same principle is valid. In the present analysis of discourses and production systems even a personal view is of interest, not so much because of its supposed objectivity or exactitude but because of its way of illustrating how the difference in production systems between Europe and the United States might be interpreted. The basic structure of the study is chronological, starting with a general chapter on Sjöström as a director in Sweden, as well as the discourses surrounding his status as a national or international director, and the general debate on such issues. The next chapter deals with Sjöström’s transfer to Hollywood and the ways that this change of production culture might possibly be dealt with and interpreted, but in particular also with his first American film, Name the Man (1924). Although some parts of this film are missing, it has been preserved to such a large extent that it is possible to regard it as a complete film. This analysis is followed by a chapter dealing with He Who Gets Slapped (1924), a film that has been preserved in its entirety. However, the chronology is then partly abandoned, as the fourth and fifth chapters deal with Sjöström’s most famous preserved films, the two collaborations with Lillian Gish: The Scarlet Letter (1927) and The Wind (1928). In all these analyses, the central aim of the study is the analysis of the change of production cultures from Sweden to Hollywood, in
- Page 1 and 2: FILM CULTURE IN TRANSITION Transiti
- Page 4 and 5: Transition and Transformation Victo
- Page 6 and 7: Contents Acknowledgements 7 Introdu
- Page 8 and 9: Acknowledgements This book traces i
- Page 10 and 11: Introduction - From Sjöström to S
- Page 14 and 15: Introduction - From Sjöström to S
- Page 16: Introduction - From Sjöström to S
- Page 19 and 20: 18 Transition and Transformation Ge
- Page 21 and 22: 20 Transition and Transformation fi
- Page 23 and 24: 22 Transition and Transformation in
- Page 25 and 26: 24 Transition and Transformation In
- Page 27 and 28: 26 Transition and Transformation ho
- Page 29 and 30: 28 Transition and Transformation ti
- Page 31 and 32: 30 Transition and Transformation an
- Page 33 and 34: 32 Transition and Transformation ye
- Page 35 and 36: 34 Transition and Transformation Ho
- Page 37 and 38: 36 Transition and Transformation Fi
- Page 39 and 40: 38 Transition and Transformation St
- Page 41 and 42: 40 Transition and Transformation he
- Page 44 and 45: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
- Page 46 and 47: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
- Page 48 and 49: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
- Page 50 and 51: Traces of the Narrator If Sjöströ
- Page 52 and 53: tempt to include a dimension which
- Page 54 and 55: tions constructs with its spectator
- Page 56 and 57: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
- Page 58 and 59: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
- Page 60 and 61: From Scientist to Clown - He Who Ge
12 Transition and Transformation<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> its development. Criticism, in Sabine Hake’s words, “was a<br />
weapon in the struggle for cultural dominance, it was a product <strong>of</strong> modern consumer<br />
culture, it was a form <strong>of</strong> political and intellectual resistance”. 13 Following<br />
Janet Staiger in Interpreting Films, I will also attempt to treat discourses that<br />
figure in the press as “significant historical reading strategies”. 14<br />
Secondly, a variety <strong>of</strong> unpublished sources exist, including company contracts,<br />
film scripts, and private diary notes and letters. As for company contracts<br />
or scripts, they are rarely controversial as sources if their authenticity is confirmed.<br />
A few words should be said on the relation between script or scenario<br />
and cutting continuity script. While the former is the manuscript on which<br />
shooting is based, the latter is the cutter’s compilation once shooting and cutting<br />
is over, in which you can follow the visual transitions from scene to scene. The<br />
cutting continuity script thus <strong>of</strong>fers, even in cases when the films are lost, a<br />
good overview <strong>of</strong> how they were made and what they might have looked<br />
like. 15 Another possible source is <strong>of</strong>fered by the Daily Production Report, a<br />
kind <strong>of</strong> highly formalized log book, where all details concerning the production<br />
are listed: which actors were on set, when shooting started, reasons for any delay,<br />
retakes, and so on. This kind <strong>of</strong> report <strong>of</strong>fers invaluable insight into the<br />
working processes <strong>of</strong> a production. Other kinds <strong>of</strong> unpublished source materials,<br />
however, have been at times regarded with the sort <strong>of</strong> scepticism that arises<br />
in regard to film journalism, the feeling being that the views found in these<br />
sources are tainted by their subjective character and hidden intentions, which<br />
are difficult to measure. Here, though, the same principle is valid. In the present<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> discourses and production systems even a personal view is <strong>of</strong> interest,<br />
not so much because <strong>of</strong> its supposed objectivity or exactitude but because <strong>of</strong><br />
its way <strong>of</strong> illustrating how the difference in production systems between Europe<br />
and the United States might be interpreted.<br />
The basic structure <strong>of</strong> the study is chronological, starting with a general chapter<br />
on Sjöström as a director in Sweden, as well as the discourses surrounding<br />
his status as a national or international director, and the general debate on such<br />
issues. The next chapter deals with Sjöström’s transfer to Hollywood and the<br />
ways that this change <strong>of</strong> production culture might possibly be dealt with and<br />
interpreted, but in particular also with his first American film, Name the Man<br />
(1924). Although some parts <strong>of</strong> this film are missing, it has been preserved to<br />
such a large extent that it is possible to regard it as a complete film. This analysis<br />
is followed by a chapter dealing with He Who Gets Slapped (1924), a film<br />
that has been preserved in its entirety. However, the chronology is then partly<br />
abandoned, as the fourth and fifth chapters deal with Sjöström’s most famous<br />
preserved films, the two collaborations with Lillian Gish: The Scarlet Letter<br />
(1927) and The Wind (1928). In all these analyses, the central aim <strong>of</strong> the study is<br />
the analysis <strong>of</strong> the change <strong>of</strong> production cultures from Sweden to Hollywood, in
Change language