Wid's weekly (1923)

PI_~' _ ^ — da l&StfJlk u^r SATURDAY r f^j NOVEMBER 24, 1923 _ rj T== ^^-WEEKLY . IU— that Universal had managed to not only pull the story threads together, but had also se¬ cured someone capable of writing titles in plain English, that got over everything neces¬ sary, without pulling you out of the picture by the constant use of too much language. The re-editing of this most important production points very clearly a thing which I have talked about for years and years. I have always contended that the cutting and titling of any film is a task which should not be undertaken by those who made it, without capable outside assistance. It is the most nat¬ ural thing in the world for people who have been too close to a big film to entirely lose their perspective on it. I have personally sat in on the reconstruc¬ tion of many big films. I sat in on all the final cuttings of “The Miracle Man,” and worded all the titles of that production. I never have dreamed that I might, in any way, approach the genius of the late George Loane Tucker as a director, but Mr. Tucker realized always the advantage of having the associa¬ tion of an understanding mind when it came to the work of cutting and titling. As a matter of fact, my first association with Mr. Tucker, which became almost immediately afterwards an equal partnership, developed through his having come into my office in the Times Build¬ ing in New York many years ago to ask me to help him in the editing of some productions which he had made in England. One of these was “The Manxman.” I was never more in earnest in my life than when I registered a most emphatic opin¬ ion that the Hunchback of Notre Dame was very much in need of editing. Lon Chaney and Perly Poore Sheehan were both associated with Mr. Tucker and myself while Mr. Tucker was producing. Both of these boys, and A\7 al¬ lace Worsley, the director, are great friends of mine. I have always been very friendly with the Universal organization, particularly with Mr. Laemmle and R. H. Cochrane. I was delighted when I heard that they had decided to re-edit this film. I was more than delighted as I saw reel after reel roll across the screen and realized that enough attention had been given to this big subject to get it over right. As the Hunchback now runs, it is a great drama, dominated by Lon Chaney’s marvelous characterization. Some people have wondered whether this characterization was too grue¬ some. The best answer I can give to that is to remind them that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was always gruesome. Certainly Lon Chaney, as the Hunchback, will win the sympathy of every member of any audience. That is an achievement. Despite the horrible appearance of this character you become so thoroughly in sympathy with him that you forget entirely that you are watching an actor and think only of the character. This film has been improved to such an extent that it would be impossible to estimate the value added. The story runs smoothly now, with good tempo, and the conflicting dra¬ matic elements register their contrasting val¬ ues effectively without allowing the interest to sag or die. Of course, the spectacular values of the Hunchback have always been tremendous. It is truly a big film. There is only one point of prime importance that I feel could have been better handled in the cutting, and that is the sequence where Norman Kerry starts to call out the garrison and begins his ride to the rescue of Notre Dame. The fact that these guards are on the way to the rescue takes quite a lot away from the value of the Hunchback’s single handed defense of the Cathedral. The change in the titles alone made a tre¬ mendous difference in the smoothness of this offering. The alterations made in the few com¬ edy spots helped materially. Some folks won¬ der why I point out little things that are wrong with pictures sometimes. The reason is that a little bit of business or a glaring in¬ consistency of plot structure frequently mars an entire reel that follows, and there is noth¬ ing that hurts a film more than a number of bad comedy spots that miss fire completely. I am certainly glad that the Hunchback has been re-edited and titled. I understand that several well known film men worked on this production in New York, and I know that Mr. Chaney made a special trip to the East to help in this work. You can figure this as a wonderful special, worthy of all the exploita¬ tion backing that you can devise. It is now a genuine achievement in screen visualization.