The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

is The Educational Screen :i glimpse of Babylon, a portion of the slum tragedy of 1916, the continuity might have been planned in somewhat the manner of Zoe Aiken's "The Vary- ing Shore." A prologue, introducing the general idea of each tale and the similarity of the idea through all ages; then the first narrative in toto, fol- lowed in succession by the other three, each finished and connected if neces- sary by leaders that re-emphasized the first general prologue. An epilogue of the same general nature might then have closed the film, leaving in the mind of the audience a coherent four- part presentation of a great and fun- damental idea manifesting itself in the lives of four different civilizations. As it was not even the sincerity of Mae Marsh could overcome the jump from the hosts of Cyrus and his flam- ing night attack to the hanging of an innocent citizen and a governor's mad race to get there in time with the par- don. I venture to say that nothing could have saved the absurdity of In- tolerance in this respect. It was a glaring proof to me that we can not straddle the centuries with an analog- ous tale of love strung on a rocking cradle. Long practice in the ways of the silent drama and a respect for the old underlying principles of dramatic narration before we make a habit of departing from them! For, though our medium be visual, the essential ele- ments of dramatic climax in which unity of time and action count tremen- dously, are the same. Therefore, be- fore we say "Good-bye Mr. Aris- totle!" let Intolerance in its Baby- lonian reels be an indication of the matchless epic quality of the screen in —to quote Mrs. Gerould—"its great spaces, with horsemen riding, men ly- ing in ambush; the specks in the dis- tance growing; flight and pursuit; the crowd, and contrast",—these matters properly used. But let Intolerance, in its whole effect, be a warning against an utter disregard for the unity of time. This second type of spectacle film may justly present periods of time, but it must present them as com- pleted units, not in a patched cycle of sections of each. As to the first type of spectacle film that adheres to a single period and is epic, not in its perspective of time but in its perspective of space, its numbers of people, its large effects, the lately released Theodora offers a contrast to the two Griffith examples. Poor exe- cution ruined its epic qualities, and for no decent reason. Theodora had no handicap of leaping across centuries, yet it lost its unity amid the three or four narratives of different groups of its characters, depending only on Theodora's presence in each to tie the film together. Very much like the four-period proposition of Intoler- ance, these narratives were presented on the installment plan. First two general leaders of an excellent nature to reflect the epic perspective of beg- gars and kings of another age in their ventures for love and romance; then the characters of a narrative and a bit of the action; then the characters of