Picture-Play Weekly (Apr-Oct 1915)

The Evolution of Motion Pictures By Robert Grau IT is often, in these dajs. a source of wonder that actors and stage folk generally were so reluctant, and so late ' to capitulate to the lure of the motion] picture art, yet few there are who fully ' comprehend that there was a lapse of '. nearly ten years between the advent of I the cinematograph , and what is now ■\ called the photo-play era. It took a i| full decade to discover that somewhere lurking amid the maze of scientific phenomena were the outlines of a new II art which was destined to create the greatest boon in the' history of public entertaining. One must understand that as recently as 1908, which was "the red-letter year ^ in motion-picture history, when the 1] two big groups of licensed and inde' pendent producers organized, the pro' ductivity of the screen was of so primiti\e a quality that the very first theater solely devoted to film had not yet been estaljlished, while as for stage folk, the few intrepid players who dared to seek conquest in the new field were as a rule men and women who defied the wrath 'jf the theatrical powers, who were I wont to threaten an embargo if the> — the players — would attempt to degrade themselves by posing before the cara i era. Yet it is a fact that not a few of the , great celebrities of yesterday and today not only bestowed of their genius for the screen fifteen years ago, but they did so without a penny of compensation, regarding the innovation as a splendid advertisement. 'Sla.y Irwin and John C. Rice posed for the Edison company in the late 'go's for probably one hundred and fifty feet of him. The subject was called "The Kiss." More money was made on this release I I than is made to-day on some of the ' biggest successes shown on Broadway. Xevertheless, both ]Miss Irwin and Mr. Rice made a half dozen trips to the Edison studio, then at Orange, Nev, Jersey, giving practically ten days of their valuable time, and _ expecting and receiving absolutely nothing for their services. Last year ^lav' Irwin was paid a small fortune by the Famous Players Com pany to appear in a picturized version of "Mrs. Black is Back," while -\Ir. Rice has just been engaged by the Lubin company for a prolonged period to be featured with ]Marie Dressier in special productions. It took fifteen years for this comedian to realize financially from the doubtful fame of being the very first actor to act before the camera. In the same year tiiat the Jrwin-Rice films were released all over t-.e v>orid. the late jMarshall P \\'ilder, who was one of the shrewdest and most provident of public entertainers, did not hesitate a moment when he was in\'ited to pose in his monologue, for which vaudeville managers were then paying him five hundred dollars a week. Wilder jumped at the chance, paying his own expenses, and asking not one cent for services that enriched film m;n all over the world for more than two years. But, like the other two stars mentioned here, Wilder sav; the Vv^ht a decade later, when he went to the Vitagraph company on a contract involving thousands of dollars, and at the time of his demise, a few months ago. Wilder W"as planning to invest a portion of his vast fortune to enter the producing field himself. It was when the "Imp"' brand of picture plays was first released from a studio in One Hundred and First Street that the real rush of actor folk began, though then — 1910 — the names of players were not even ad\-ertised. In that year ^^larj Pickford, Florence Laurence, Owen ]\Ioore, and King Baggot were just as clever as they are today, yet no one knew their names. If jNIiss Pickford was paid more than fifty dollars a week in that year it did not come in her pay envelope; now her weekl}' salary is forty times as much. There were about twoscore of men and women in the big studios in 1910 who represented then the very best in film productivity. It is only a truth to state that these twoscore still represent what the new art stands for. Here are their names: Arthur Johnson, Henrj\\'althall, Romaine Fielding, Charles Kent, G. I\I. Anderson, Mack Sennett, Edwin August, Thomas Ricketts, Carlyle Blackwell, King Baggot, Owen i\loore, Herbert Brenon, ]\Iary Pickford, Florence Turner, Florence Laurence, Marion Leonard, Lottie Btiscoe, Gene Gauntier, Alice Joyce, Edith Storey, Miriam Xesbitt, Octavia Handworth, Helen Gardner, Alay Hotely. T'.i'abel Xormand, Blanche Sweet, and some others, not one of whom has had anything to fear from the onrush of stage stars in the last two v'ears. The writer does not pretend to name all who helped to make the vogue of photo plays what it is to-day, but enough are here presented to convince the most skeptical th.at the players of those early days of the photo play came seriously to their work, content to blaze the trail for the gold-laden new era when, through advertising the actors, authors, and directors, salaries increased by leaps and bounds. Moreover, not in all filmdom may one to-da^^ point to two score of players who earn as much and achieve as much as do these survivors of the days of "the chase." The great directors, too, were then the same men — and not a few women — who now look on in complacenc}' at the newcomers, who owe th.eir present prosperitj to the "pioneers." Men like D.. W. Griffith, Sid Olcott, Otis Turner, Al Hoteling, and women directors like Lois Weber and Gene Gauntier had to originate. After them came directors who helped the camera man to his goal, such as the brothers Ince, Hobart Bonworth, J. Searle Dawley, and oth.ers who have contributed to the uplift. Xot the least factor in the amazing development of the photo play has been one of whom we hear altogether too little — namely, the camera man ; one of whom — William Bitzer — is entitled to figure conspicuously in any recital of progress in the motion-picture art and industry. It was Bitzer who, alone of the old Biograph staff, recognized the ability and influence of the master, D. ^\ . Griffith, and it was he. too, w'ho helped to make possible such productions as the epochal ''Birth cf a X'ation.''