The Moving Picture Weekly (1916-1917)

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.

■THE MOVING PICTURE WEEKLY ■9 lition of capital punishment, "The Celebrated Stielow Case" shows not only t^e danger of the conviction of the innocent, but the punishment thereby not only of the person convicted, but of his entire family as well. The humanitarian aspect of the case is the one which first interested Miss Loeb in the trial of Stielow, and she among others became convina^d that the evidence which had been brought against Stielow was not of such a conclusive character as to prove absolutely that he was guilty of murder. Her efforts to establish his innocence, however, proved futile, and her own opinion that a monumental injustice was being done to him rested on grounds which were none too secure. At least, they have failed 'to present definite legal arguments such as would influence conclusively a court of law. The case, however, so interested her and a number of other persons, including several well-known women lawyers, that they several times obtained new trials by presenting evidence not heretofore available. Finally, it was decided to try the agency of filming the circumstances of the case, and, after six separate and individual reprieves, it is quite possible that the wonderfully effective work which has been done by Miss Weber in presenting this case may act as a further stay, or gain acquittal for poor Stielow. In the selection of her cast Miss Weber was particularly fortunate. Without any intention to picture actual personalities in the case, she has been so successful in selecting types of the grade of society in which all of the principals in the case moved that she has added verity and authority to the picturization which could scarcely have been obtained by the use of actors alone, for the large proportion of the persons selected to portray the roles in this drama are not widely known as photoplayers. It is just here that Miss Weber's particular effectiveness as a director is shown to the best advantage. She is at her best when she has a cast which she can absolutely mould to her hand and purpose, and in this instance the homely characters have been represented with fidelity and care such as very few other directors could possibly have brought to it. In Stielow himself. Miss Weber was very fortunate. The role is played by Charles De Mora, and it is one which is particularly diflScult to play, inasmuch as it is that of a slow-witted honest-appearing foreigner, comprehending little of what is said to him in English, but giving the appearance of dog-like honesty, though in a clumsy and lumbering sort of way. The manner in which slie has caused this man to realize the helpless horror of his situation is one of the strongest points of realism in the picture. The role of his brother-in-law, also a half-wit, though inclined to be more cunning than Stielow, is admirably portrayed, as are the roles of the housekeeper, Stielow's wife, and the many detectives and lawyers who are concerned in the case. "The Celebrated Stielow Case" will be presented for the first time in New York City in about three weeks, probably at the Broadway Theatre, for a run, and is confidently expected to excite country-wide interest. The following extract of an editorial review of the case that appeared in the New York Globe of October 26, can be quoted as the actual story of the film, "Stielow, a farmhand of defective intelligence, lived with his wife and three children in a house across the road from his employer, Charles Phelps. One morning on his doorstep was found the dead body of Margaret Wollcott, housekeeper for Phelps. In the kitchen of his house Phelps was found, still living, but unconscious. Both victims had been shot with a .22-calibre weapon, and in addition the man had been struck down with a broom handle. "The first report of the tragedy was spread early in the morning, when Stielow came running to the nearby house of Jenkins, a nephew of Phelps, with the news. Jenkins went immediately to the scene of the crime, and found the bodies in the positions described. Going upstairs, Jenkins testified he found a bureau drawer ransacked, and that a wallet, supposed to contain several hundred dollars, was missing. When questioned Stielow said he had not been out of his house during the night— that he thought he heard some one call 'Charley,' but that he did not respond because his wife was ill and he did not wish to disturb her. "Stielow denied that he possessed a weapon. Later a .22-calibre secreted weapon was traced to him, and he then said it was hid when he found he was suspected — that he feared he would be arrested, with his wife sick. The wallet was never traced. Nor was it shown, although the most careful search was made, that Stielow had money. Later, through the activities of a private detective named Newton, Stielow was arrested and with him (Continued on page 21) News is brought to the suffering wife.