Taming of the Shrew (United Artists) (1929)

Plant These Features in Your Local Newspapers “Taming of the Shrew” Changes for Films But Slight as Compared with Past Revisions Lacy, Garrick and Coquelin Took Great Liberties in Staging Shakespearean Comedy; Pickford and Fairbanks Version Faithful to Original. Star’s Film Activities As Nothing Beside Civic Concerns Shakespeare in motion pictures. Surely a matter for specula¬ tion! From two widely divergent quarters comes the echo of the questions that Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks must answer—and have answered. Lovers of Shakespeare ask, “Will it be Shakespeare? The regular movie-goer asks, “Will it be entertainment? The answer to both questions is, “Yes.” “Taming of the Shrew,” the talking picture version of which comes to the.Theatre on ..... has been good entertainment for three centuries. It is such a rol¬ licking, straightforward, human story that it could not fail to entertain. The real problem was in translating it into terms of the motion picture while retaining the flavor and spirit of Shakes peare. __ The editors of the Pickford-Fair- banks organization realized that cer¬ tain arbitrary requirements of the screen might possibly clash with the no less rigid orthodoxy of Shakes¬ pearean tradition. In this respect there could be no compromise. The production must be screen material and it must be Shakespeare. Straight into the channels of re¬ search they plunged, finding that every version of Taming of the Shrew,” from Lacy to Booth, differed according to the interpretations of the adapter. Lacy, Garrick, the French star, Coquelin, played “Taming of the Shrew,” according to their own fancy, never hesitating to revise or delete the original when the whim arises. The degree of departure was in no case conservative, changes run¬ ning from the injection of foreign dialogue to the manhandling of plot and sequence. If Garrick omitted In¬ duction and underplot and even went so far as to change the title to “Catherine and Petruchio,” it was because he refused to recognize the liberty taken by Lacy in providing Petruchio with a Scotch servant in place of Grumio, but deliberately took more liberties in his own. The lives of ffefc*S*ehariged versions were by no mean's ephemeral. In fact, all survived revivals of the original as lkte as 1847 and even occupied a place on the American stage until Daly produced his version in 1887. The first major problem faced by the motion picture was bringing the play down to normal running time. Garrick had shown the way, having also been confronted with a time problem. Unquestionably “pruning was necessary and justifiable. But whereas Garrick cut and slashed at will, with no regard for the feelings of Shakespearean savants, it was the plan of Miss Pickford and Mr. Fair¬ banks to revise only where necessary. The right of revision was further encouraged by such authorities as Leland Powers, and by the distin¬ guished French actor, Coquelin. In the case of the former a good ex¬ ample is drawn by a comparison of the first act with that of the original. The Leland Powers version contains, by actual count, 1857 words in the first act. The first act of the original contains 4309. Leland Powers assumes an author¬ ity for an inexcusably radical move. He reduced his cast to six major characters (without the Induction) as compared to the fourteen original. Following the lead of such prede cessors, Miss Pickford and Mn Fair¬ banks approached the “Shrew with the feeling that even a screen version need not go to such lengths as cer¬ tain stage adaptations. They had the right to revise, but the ideal interpre¬ tation of “Taming of the Shrew” must be one that could be shown as a motion picture in one and one-half hours and still retain the spirit, sparkle and atmosphere of the ong inal Shakespeare. Could it be a pres entation which was steeped in the traditions of the theatre, so scholarly as to appear like a ghost in regal robes-splendid in clothing but en- tirely devoid of the flesh and blood of humanness? No. It must be a dra¬ matic tapestry, woven in fine en¬ semble with all the threads provided by Shakespeare himself, the scope of the motion picture camera, and the sound-recording apparatus. To Director Sam Taylor, a grad uate of Fordham University, was as¬ signed the task of adapting the orig¬ inal to the needs of the screen. Back of him, and sitting in judgment from their -respective viewpoints, were Thomas Patton, the noted Shakes pearean authority, John Craig, i member of the original Daly com pany, Constance Collier, one of Lon¬ don’s favorite Shakespearean ac¬ tresses, and, of course, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. Deciding that although it was nec¬ essary to eliminate some of the char¬ acters, the Leland Powers version DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS. CO-STAR t "TAMING OF THE. SHREW' 3 —One Col. Fairbanks Star Scene Head {Mat 05c; Cut 30c) MARY PICKFORD QUALIFIES AS THE BUSIEST WOMAN IN AMERICA went beyond all bounds in his ruth¬ less deletion of picturesque back¬ ground players and in so doing de¬ stroyed the color and atmosphere hich is as much Shakespeare in spirit as is his dialogue. For this same reason, Coquelin’s version was discarded bodily. It was not Shakes¬ peare in any fundamental attribute. They could not agree either with Gar¬ rick or with Powers in eliminating entirely the romance between Hor- tensio and Bianca. Then came consideration of the Banquet scene. They saw that a tre¬ mendous loss of color would be the result of following Garrick and Han- ford-James in omitting it and here again sacrifice Shakespearean flavor. They saw in the wedding scene an opportunity to utilize to the fullest extent the magnificent scope and sweep of the motion picture camera. For three centuries it has been one of the comedy highlights of the play, even though it was but a word pic¬ ture, and this because of the limita¬ tions of the stage. How wonderful to let the audience actually see the de¬ lightful scene, enjoy the clowning of Petruchio and the storming of the vexatious Kate during the weddiog! This is done in the motion picture. Instead of having Gremio inform Grumio how Petruchio carried on in front of the wedding guests, stamped Katherine’s foot, and neatly frightened the priest to death, the entire scene is brought to the screen, gorgeous in background and spark¬ ling with humor. At every opportunity, Miss Pick¬ ford and Mr. Fairbanks followed the iginal play, sacrificing lengthy dialogue only where authority sanc¬ tioned, and then only if necessary, thus retaining Shakespeare and augmenting the limited scope of stage versions with the almost limitless range of the motion picture. Here, then, is Shakespeare brought to tire screen for the first time, and without offense to any of the tradi¬ tions that inhere in the great Bard. But this is not all, for a new art form brings an added beauty to the rhythmic speeches and paints gorgeous background against which his characters move and speak. The full resources of the camera have been employed to bring to this human story of fifteenth century Italy a setting that removes it from the plane of mere stage illusion. It is, in effect, the glorious, colorful and actual city of Padua. “The real reward of success,” said a certain Captain of Industry,” is the satisfaction of taking part in things that interest us outside of business; to be active in the service of higher aims than personal profit.” If this be true it would partially explain the activities of Mary Pick¬ ford. Few men in the world, and Drobably no women, have interests so road and diversified outside of their vocations. Mary Pickford works as a screen actress from eight to fifteen weeks out of a year. This, the world con¬ siders her career. They see the result of this effort on the screens of the universe. What of the other thirty- five or forty weeks so much less spec¬ tacular, but adding perhaps as much more to the sum of the world’s pleasure? Contrary to general belief, her business affairs command but little of her personal attention. She has the normal feminine distaste for them, and delegates as much detail as pos¬ sible to a very able Scotch executive. Of course, she is President of her own two companies, the Pickford Corporation and Mary Pickford Company, as well as on the board of United Artists. Despite the fact that she has always been an active, dominant figure in the latter organi zation of which she is really the “mother,” these offices absorb but a fraction of her time, and do not even ggest the far reaching efforts that occupy her off the scree. To understand the character of her outside interests, one must know at least something of Mary Pickford, the woman, as opposed to Mary Pickford, the actress. The dominating characteristic of Mary Pickford is an overweening sense of duty; it is almost a fetish with her. Her whole life substantiates thin conclusion. Naturally, therefore, we find the bulk of her outside ac¬ tivities concerned with duties toward people or things. Civic duties, patriotic duties, and duties towards certain idealisms, are strongly in evi¬ dence in the list. In the discharge of these duties we find her very earnest¬ ly and seriously going about the business of doing them well. It has been her policy, during her entire career, never to associate herself in any way—even to allowing the use of her name—with any project unless she has a specific and emphatic in¬ terest in it. Very seldom does she identify herself with anything in which she does not take a very active part. MARV PICKFORD, CO-STAR of TAMING OF THE SHREW " 2 —One Col. Pickford Star Scene Head (Mat 05c; Cut 3Qc) 12 —Two Col. Pickford Caricatures (Mat 10c; Cut 50c) and it was published in their leading magazine, Architect and Engineer. She writes and, speaks on City Planning continuously, and the pre¬ supposition that a motion picture ac¬ tress cannot know very much about is shattered time and again. One til known Civil Engineer wrote. One wee, lone woman stood up among a large gathering of public- spirited Angelenos and proceeded to tell them what was the matter.” It is not irrelevant to mention here that Mary Pickford’s speeches and signed articles are without benefit of ghost writers, press agents or literary doubles of any kind. This alone adds greatly to her working hours. She is at present serving on the award committee for the fountain de¬ sign to be placed in Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles. This is a part of the City Beautiful movement in which the Los Angeles Planning Commission is interested. On an average of twice a month she is invited by various cities to ally herself with a zoning or beautifica¬ tion plan, and these committees seri¬ ously ask her advice on practical de¬ tail. While she is unable to take an active part in all bf them, she never fails to write at great length and give the benefit of the very extensive re¬ search on the subject of city planning that she has fostered. She is a member of both the Los Angeles and the Beverly Hills Cham¬ ber of Commerde. She belongs tc the Business and Professional Worn- Clubs, and the Beverly Hills Women’s Club, as well as to the Los Angeles Assistance League. She is on the Board of Directors of the Hollywood Studio Club, which is associated with the Y. W. C. A. in providing a home, under sympathetic chaperonage, fo t young girls with¬ out family. As patroness of the Repertory Theatre, she finds time to lend a very practical support by sponsoring spe¬ cial performances and otherwise. One of her major activities is the Presidency of the Motion Picture Re¬ lief Fund. A great deal of time and effort are demanded by this office, and it is generally conceded in Holly¬ wood that hers is the guiding in¬ fluence of this organization. She has recently accepted the in¬ vitation tendered her by the Univer¬ sity of Southern California to become President of the proposed Cinemata Museum and Library linked with a new part of a curriculum that em¬ braces training in the fundamentals of film production. The ramifications of her less known activities are countless. We find among other things that she is Vice-President of the Maryland Anti- Vivisection Society; that she has been itudying two foreign languages and is contemplating a third; that so studiously has she gone into period furniture and antiques that local au¬ thorities submit mooted questions to her for settlement; that she appeared in court recently to protest against the industrialization of a zone which she and other citizens had dreams of becoming a second Riviera and her grasp of the situation was so thor¬ ough that the newspapers featured her testimony as the turning point in the case and one paper commented editorially that “ . . . the overwhelm¬ ing force of her arguments illustrates the danger of opposing Idealism ,in Action” ; that the twelve children who are weekly guests at the Hollywood Symphony Orchestra travel to and from the Bowl in a bus furnished by her. This latter is not charity. She would be the last to sanction any mention of her charities, but it merely emphasizes the variety of her interests. GET UP A BOOK MARK WITH THIS ESPECIALLY PREPARED COPY “An old Italian tale of Love and mirth; How pretty Katherine that was a Shrew, Dismay’d all suitors till she met with one .... Who shamed her into meekness Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s Great Comedy and Some Actors Who Have Played in It! Reading suggested by the CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY A NEW KATHERINE AND PETRUCHIO Talmey—Doug and Mary Her passion for trees and city beautification led her to accept a place on the Real Estate, Parks, City and County Planning Committee of the Los Angeles Chamber of Com¬ merce and also on the Citizens Com¬ mittee of Parks, Playgrounds and Beaches. Many of her suggestions have been adopted on these commit¬ tees and it is evident that she is not a figurehead, since the local papers have more than once referred to the “Mary Pickford Plan” of this or that. In connection with this work she ap¬ peared before a chapter of the American Institute of Architects and delivered a speech which was hailed by the engineers as a most practical and amazing effort for a lay speaker, KATHERINE PETRUCHIO OF OTHER DAYS OF THE PAST Ellen Terry Terry—Story of my life Clara Morris Morris—Life on the stage Julia Marlowe Russell—Julia Marlowe Ada Rehan Izard—Heroines of the modern stage. Winter—The Wallet of time — Vol. 2 . PLOT, CHARACTERS AND STAGING Edwin Booth Winter—Booth as Petruchio, in “Shakespeare on the Stage” John Drew Drew—My years on the stage Otis Skinner Skinner—Footlights and Spot¬ lights Sir Herbert Beerbohn Tree Tree—Thoughts and after thoughts Jameson — Shakespeare’s heroines Mackenzie —The Woman in Shakes¬ peare’s plays MacLeod —Shakespeare Story Book Printed by the courtesy of the. Odell —Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving Wingate — Shakespear’s heroines on the stage Winter —Shakespeare on the stage .Press