Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Taylorology Issue 52
*****************************************************************************
* T A Y L O R O L O G Y *
* A Continuing Exploration of the Life and Death of William Desmond Taylor *
* *
* Issue 52 -- April 1997 Editor: Bruce Long bruce@asu.edu *
* TAYLOROLOGY may be freely distributed *
*****************************************************************************
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE:
William Desmond Taylor's Words:
Some Articles Written by Taylor
Some Comments Attributed to Taylor
*****************************************************************************
What is TAYLOROLOGY?
TAYLOROLOGY is a newsletter focusing on the life and death of William Desmond
Taylor, a top Paramount film director in early Hollywood who was shot to
death on February 1, 1922. His unsolved murder was one of Hollywood's major
scandals. This newsletter will deal with: (a) The facts of Taylor's life;
(b) The facts and rumors of Taylor's murder; (c) The impact of the Taylor
murder on Hollywood and the nation; (d) Taylor's associates and the Hollywood
silent film industry in which Taylor worked. Primary emphasis will be given
toward reprinting, referencing and analyzing source material, and sifting it
for accuracy.
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
William Desmond Taylor's Words:
Some Articles Written by Taylor
The articles "written by" William Desmond Taylor may have been actually
written by either his personal publicity agent or the studio publicity agent.
At the time of his death in 1922, his personal publicity agent was Ted Taylor
(unrelated to William Desmond Taylor), and the studio publicity agent was
Barrett Kiesling. However, William Desmond Taylor was literate, articulate
and fully capable of expressing himself in writing, a factor which
undoubtedly contributed strongly to the three times he was elected to the
presidency of the Motion Picture Directors' Association. So he may indeed
have personally authored some or all of the short articles bearing his name.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
January 1915
William D. Taylor
MOTION PICTURE
I entered the pictures as a sort of compromise. I had made several
attempts to get away from the stage, and my last venture had been along the
lines of mining, when the annoying persistent call of the stage came again,
and, as I did not fancy the small and stuffy dressing rooms and the continual
study, I came to the Coast and deliberately tried to get into the Motion
Picture game. There was that about the Kay-Bee camp which appealed, being
near the ocean and the delightful scenery, so I applied and got a position
with that company and had a taste of the delights of acting in the open. From
now on it's the movies for me, and isn't it curious that the companies I have
worked with have been near the sea? At the Vitagraph, where I played Captain
Alvarez, in the thrilling photodrama of that name, and other parts, we were
at Santa Monica, and now I am at Long Beach, directing and acting with the
Balboa Company. So I can still get my ride, woo nature, with her ever-
changing scenes, and go in for my swim and enjoy the strong sea air.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 19, 1916
William D. Taylor
MOTOGRAPHY
The Future of the Photoplay
The manufacturers who pay the most attention to the story and the
direction of that story are the ones who will reap both the artistic and
financial benefits in the future; of that I am convinced. A marvelous
difference has come over the photoplay world since I first put on grease
paint for my initial picture appearance. In those days the stories were
either written by one of the people connected with the studio, not
necessarily a staff writer, or accepted from one of the hundreds submitted.
In every case the story had to be revamped and entirely rewritten. If a
company paid twenty-five dollars for a photoplay it felt it was being robbed
and prices of from five to fifteen dollars were regarded as standard.
The photoplay writer is coming into his own more every month. Famous
writers have entered the field, dramatists of experience, newspaper men of
promise, short story writers, and large prices are being paid for the rights
to novels and plays. This is the middle era and the day is coming when
writers will work for the screen productions alone; that is, they will write
entirely original stories of merit and, what is more, the stories will have
to possess merit or they will not be accepted. I doubt very much whether
there will be any staff writers in the future, although men who can plot and
originate will probably receive retaining fees or be tied up for a term of
years to one company.
I also believe that the day of the conscientious and capable producer
has arrived. The man with dramatic instinct who either has artistic and
literary attainments in addition to his knowledge of the drama or who has the
sense to attach to his person capable men who can supply that knowledge; this
is the man who will be more and more in demand.
Commercialism must always enter into the question, side by side with the
artistic and dramatic end of the business. By commercialism I do not mean
racing through a production to get it on the market within the shortest
possible time! This I think is bad commercialism, the short road to the end.
To make a good picture, time is required for preparation and for rehearsals,
but when once a picture is on the way there is no necessity for delays; they
only interfere with the concentrated thought which must be given a
production. Here is where the business end of picture making should step in
with economy of time and more or less method of procedure. I have known
artists who deliberately kept everyone waiting, who have subordinated their
work for their private pleasures, but the time has already passed when such
things can be; if an actor delays the business of his employer he has no
place in filmland and his own importance is of no importance to the men who
pay him his salary.
I am a firm believer in the future of the industry and it is on a better
basis now than at any time in its short history. One thing has happened and
is still happening which must please all who have their hearts in this
future. There is a process of elimination going on; so-called actors and
actresses who have but their good looks to uphold them, and careless workers,
are going by the board. On the other hand, people of real merit are getting
recognition.
The speaking stage has been a great factor in this improvement. Artists
of pronounced ability have been attracted by necessity or choice to the
pictures and many of them will remain. Of course there have been "stars" who
have been engaged for their names alone and who have not had the necessary
qualifications for screen work, but even these have had a good effect. They
have heightened the ambitions of the screen artists and made them think a lot
and they have attracted audiences by the magic of their names who would not
otherwise have been cajoled into a motion picture theater. I do not hesitate
to say that many of the speaking stage artists who have adopted the screen as
the medium of their work have come to stay and have improved conditions
generally. I refer to those who are physically suited of course--the Farnums,
Douglas Fairbanks, Geraldine Farrar and many others.
There are numerous artists of the screen who hold their own right along
and will continue to do so and they are the men and women who have worked for
their positions and have studied and thought. Quite a majority of these have
had previous speaking stage experience, especially in stock, which, after
all, is the best school for screen actors. I refer to the better stock
companies, of course.
I contend that the director is the hardest worked man in the business.
I also think that the director ought to be the hardest worked man. A
conscientious producer assumes that much. A producer gets but little time
during the day to think, and to make good pictures he must use his gray
matter a lot and if he cannot do it during the days he must use it of
evenings and nights. The following day's work must be outlined and the action
studied out carefully to get the best results in the shortest time (that
commercial end must be kept always in view).
During the day he has enough to think about in forwarding the progress
of the photoplay, in seeing that the sets and properties are correct, in a
hundred and one things. Your average director has a very earnest and serious
outlook on life and he gets puckers around the eyes and tell-tale lines on
his forehead and there are times when he has to go away for a short time and
rest, for it is the only time he can get the necessary recreation.
Once and for all, those who believe that the director's life is an easy
one should try it. On the other hand it is absorbing and fascinating in the
extreme and I for one would not do anything else even if the opportunity
offered. Take my present position; I find that the men at the back of me are
only too willing to do all in their power to help their directors and to
listen to them at all times. They are just as interested in the artistic side
of the production as they are in the financial side and so it is with many
other studios. It is a privilege to be a producer and even if the work is
very, very hard there are compensations--such as the making of a picture
which is well received and which may do some good--compensations which make
up for all the worry and the nose-to-the-grindstone side of the game.
The call is out for good producers and for good stories and those who
can fill the want need not worry about the compensation. There are very many
who can fill the bill but where there is a demand there the supply will come
and there are potential photoplay authors and directors coming along steadily
and forcing the old-timers to keep pace with the march of progress and with
new innovations and ideas.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
May 15, 1920
William D. Taylor
LOS ANGELES RECORD
Famous Director Tells How He Cures Actors of Acting
"Curing actors of acting!" Yes, we have to do that occasionally in
moving pictures. Usually this occurs with the old-time players, steeped in
the ancient oratorical style of the eighties.
Don't misunderstand me in this. In the days when the voice, not action,
was the piece de resistance of the theater, oratorical effects were quite
apropos.
In the films, however, we have a different problem. There is no talking
and everything must be interpreted to the audience through actions.
Therefore, we must eliminate every move that does not count for something in
an interpretative sense. Oratorical gestures are the first to go. While they
punctuate a speech excellently, they are practically without use in a moving
picture.
The oratorical style broke up a speech by walks back and forth across
the stage. These usually had value only for emphasis. As action to carry the
plot forward, they meant nothing of value.
Salvini, Booth, Irving, wonderful actors of their period, would have to
readjust themselves were they alive and considering a film engagement. Heart-
gripping on the stage, their oratorical powers would fail to register in a
screen play. The lowliest "movie" extra man or woman could give them valuable
pointers on this new art which to them, undoubtedly, would appear a strange
and weird affair.
Another thing. Stage practice is to learn set lines and interpret them.
In the studio the actor is told the situation. He must think it out for
himself and put in the words to fit. Of course the words do not register on
the screen to any large degree, but the players find talking the parts an aid
to effective action.
This system gives the actor's own personality and ideas free reign as
contrasted to the circumscribed limitation he is given when it is necessary
to stay within the bounds of certain written words.
I know it has been said of the movies that the actors are mere
automatons, told to do this and that, with no thinking volition on their
part.
Perhaps there have been isolated instances of this, but I believe I am
speaking for a majority of the profession when I state that the consensus of
opinion is against such a plan.
Humanness in pictures! How can we secure it unless the actor is made to
feel that he is a real human being with ideas? No one can really seem truly
natural when treated as a mechanical doll, worked by unseen strings.
Personally I explain every scene to my players, show them the sequence
of the action. Then they "walk through" a rehearsal, illustrating their ideas
of how the scene should go. Then it's "Camera!" and they film the parts
according to their own ideas. When the picture is completed I feel I have a
living, human element, not the portrayal of unhuman automatons.
The human element of motion pictures; the new and simple art of the
films--this is the deathless feature that will make the screen live always.
The voice and face of an actor may die but his human qualities will be a
heritage to posterity.
Heart appeal is the great foundation for future days in motion pictures.
Living people, their joys and sorrows, always touch a responsive chord. The
producers who remember that, are building for themselves a house everlasting.
Those who attempt cheap, tawdry, indecently suggestive effects, or transitory
thrills, are building in the sands.
Simplicity, purity and humanness are the great cornerstones of the
screen. By them and with them will the silver sheet reach its greatest stage
of usefulness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 10, 1920
William D. Taylor
EXHIBITORS' TRADE REVIEW
William D. Taylor, Realart Director of Big Specials,
Now Has Chance to "Go The Limit"
At last I have obtained my ambition! My new contract with Realart gives
me the opportunity of years to produce pictures with no thought but
perfection. Plenty of time, plenty of money and splendid stories--at last I
can "go the limit" and bring out the fine, delicate, enduring things
impossible in the days when an inexorable release schedule bade me make eight
or ten productions each year.
I have always held that a poor story is a waste of time. You can't make
a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I KNOW--for a regiment of grey hairs
testifies to past unpleasant experiences.
On the other hand, however, the possibilities of really good narrative
carry endless fascination to a man who imagines. A story that will help
people, lift them out of the humdrum of daily life and for an hour or two
bring them happiness and new thoughts to make their existence more
pleasurable--such a tale is worth all that is paid for it and deserves every
attention that time and money can lavish in its preparation for the screen.
And Realart has given me such stories. In succession I am making for the
organization "The Soul of Youth" from a gripping story of boy life by Julia
Crawford Ivers; The Furnace by "Pan" and "The Witching Hour," the great
Augustus Thomas stage success.
I have just finished "The Soul of Youth." Watching its growth in the
projection room during the cutting and titling I have felt a flow of
thankfulness to Realart for their splendid policy of allowing me unlimited
time and money for my productions. It is the first play under the new
contract and I feel that it shows the approach to technical perfection which
is possible only when the director is neither hurried nor forced to eliminate
desirable effects because his company does not care to stand the expense.
My first three pictures will present the struggles and conquest of the
human soul under different conditions of modern life. "The Soul of Youth"
takes the boy of the streets, of the reform school, of the jail and
illustrates the thesis that kindness, sympathy and education will cause
the latent seed of character to blossom and flower in the full beauty of a
high-charactered American citizen.
A wonderful cast aided me in the delineation of this intriguing story.
Lewis Sargent played "The Boy." Exhibitors will remember him in Huckleberry
Finn.
For the part of the Juvenile Court judge we secured no less famous a
personage than Judge Ben Lindsey himself. Judge Lindsey illustrates
wonderfully the methods that have brought him world-wide fame. He came from
Denver especially to assume this role.
Lila Lee, Willie Collier Jr., Sylvia Ashton and Grace Morse also did
splendid work.
At the present moment I am working on "The Furnace," the startling story
by "Pan," the English author.
Let me say here that I am afire with enthusiasm concerning "The
Furnace." It is the greatest story I have ever been given and one that
presents a challenge to the very best directorial talent I possess. Again it
is a story of soul growth, this time of a woman who has everything she wants,
save the love of her husband. This she has sacrificed through a foolish
misunderstanding of the kind that so often causes trouble when class feeling
and social conventions bar the way to true happiness.
The scenes are laid in London, Monte Carlo and aboard ship. The story
calls for beautiful settings and gorgeous costumes. We are giving it
everything called for. Nothing is to be left undone to present properly what
all who have read the story consider one of the most vital human documents of
the decade.
It will be an exceptionally expensive picture. Our original estimates
were for half a million, but now it appears that the cost will run well over
$700,000. Two remarkable sets alone cost what the average man would consider
a fortune. One reproduced the interior of a beautiful English cathedral; the
other showed the splendors of a gay Monte Carlo hotel.
Again I picked my cast with extreme care. Jerome Patrick, famous
broadway leading man and Agnes Ayres portray the leading roles. They are
supported by such well-known people as Milton Sills, Betty Francisco, Helen
Dunbar, Theodore Roberts and Lucien Littlefield.
I hope my readers will pardon me for running on so about "The Furnace"
but again I want to assure them of my absolute sincerity when I say that it
is the greatest story my experience has ever encompassed.
"The Witching Hour" by Augustus Thomas is yet in the future. Every one
knows of this powerful play. For years I craved the opportunity of presenting
it in pictures. To tell this longing to Realart was like rubbing the magic
lamp of Aladdin. Presto!--and it was within my hands.
I have a number of plays and stories equally wonderful under
consideration, but to date have not definitely decided upon the order in
which I will use them. I feel, however, that they will prove pleasing to the
trade.
Realart Pictures Corporation demonstrated its faith in me when it met my
request for the conditions necessary for photoplay perfection. In return I
wish to express my gratitude in an outpouring of personal mental effort to an
extent that will make William D. Taylor Productions even more desirable
entertainments than they have ever been in the past.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 29, 1920
William D. Taylor
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
How Best to Use Novels for Films
Follow the book as far as possible within limitations!
Briefly, that is my idea of the correct procedure in transforming a
notable story for screen use. The author's original situations are so
necessary in preserving the best beauties of the plot; the period, the
costumes, everything concerned with the story have been fitted together with
such artistry, usually, that to make material changes is to destroy much of
the tale's appeal.
When it becomes necessary to make alterations they should be simple and
of a sort that will enhance dramatic values without destroying story beauty.
Increase of drama is the one thing that justifies a change--for of course we
are preparing a story to be acted rather than read. The points of attack are
radically different.
I believe, however, that in many cases it is advisable to sacrifice
dramatic scenes if to create them is to spoil some of the original author's
most beautiful conceptions. Take "Huckleberry Finn," for instance. I could
have made it dramatic, I could have made it a romantic love story. From a
plot point of view, by changing the period, introducing new characters, etc.,
it would have been possible to create a much stronger photoplay, technically
speaking. But it would not have been "Huckleberry Finn"! The characteristic
and gentle humor of Mark Twain is so wrapped up in every situation of the
story and the old-fashioned atmosphere is so essential that to have changed
any portion of it materially would have been indeed a sacrilege.
"Get the sense of the story." Yes, of course, but the "sense" is so
frequently in close marriage to the author's original ideas that to make
radical changes is a mistake. You are making a photoplay of a story--not
creating an entirely new entity. The novel, the photoplay and the stage drama
are three entirely different methods of expression, I grant you that. But
they are relations, and rather close relations. The same life-blood runs
through all three. You can't radically change a fine work of fiction without
destroying much of its beauty--no matter whether your recreation be intended
for stage or screen.
Above all one must be sure to fix accurately on the screen the true
philosophy of the story. That is the author's greatest gift to humanity and
it must not suffer loss in any way.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 19, 1920
William D. Taylor
NEW YORK TELEGRAPH
William D. Taylor Voices His Ideas
The recognition by authors of two fundamental truths regarding motion
pictures means that 1921 will be the year of the big writer.
The first truth is that the screen is the greatest publicity medium
existent.
The second truth is that to write for the screen one must know the idiom
of the screen.
For a long time now, book publishers and stage producers have bravely
disseminated the propaganda that the advertising received by the book and the
stage is a tremendous factor in the success of a photo-play taken from the
book or the stage. Not only did the author swallow this morsel of modern
mythology with a grateful gulp, but some of the canniest producers so far
fell in with it that they squandered fortunes on film rights to newsstand and
footlight successes.
Now the writer and the producer begin to appreciate that the impetus
given a photo-play by pre-advertising in book or play form is nothing to the
impetus given a book or play by pre-advertising in photo-play form. They
begin to understand that the screen advertises the newsstand and the
footlights far better than the newsstand and the footlights can advertise the
screen.
So the first truth is learned. Now for the second.
It has never been recorded that a publisher purchased an illiterate's
ravings "for the idea," and turned the idea over to a staff writer to develop
into a novel. Yet how many books and novels have been purchased by film
producers "for the idea," and turned over to studio staff writers for screen
development?
This procedure automatically supplied the author with a full-fledged
"buck" for passing. If the film "flivs" [fails] he simply points to the
success of his play or book.
As a matter of fact the average book or play contains only twenty per
cent of picture material. The other eighty per cent of the plot must be
discarded and rebuilt at the studio. I almost said "rebuilt at the factory,"
for under this system the product is no better than factor-made program
movies, 1915 model.
There is no reason why this missing eighty per cent of material should
not be supplied by the author himself, from his own prolific and original
sources. Intimate details of ordinary happenings, human incidents that have a
different twist in the author's mind, that have been embroidered from his
wealth of imagination, that gives his work its charm--there is no reason why
he shouldn't put these in the picture. The only reason possible is that he
doesn't know the idiom of the screen, the technique of the camera.
When a person sits down to write a book it is taken for granted that he
is conversant with the rudiments of English grammar and spelling, if not by
tuition, by intuition. No person, besides Daisy Ashford or a simplified
spelling crank, could conceivably publish a book written otherwise. Obviously
the purpose of a book is to be read and to be read it must be written in
language that can be understood.
Yet we have seen our friend, Mr. Author, cheerfully taking it for
granted that he need not write in the idiom of the screen, not even realizing
that there is such a thing as the idiom of the screen and that it has a
"grammar" known as technique, a "spelling" known as continuity.
Not any more does Mr. Author ignore these facts. He has seen the
parallel in the illiterate attempting a novel and the uncinematic attempting
a photo-play. And he is now seeking the studio to take kindergarten courses
under the director's guidance with the whirring of the Bell & Howell and the
glaring of the violet ray impressing technique and continuity and other
important things on his mind.
The presence of the great author and his knowledge of film
technicalities is not all that is necessary.
In the field of sports it is well known that an all-star team can often
be defeated by a group of average players drilled to perfect teamwork. Motion
pictures has used all the all-star team too long. A famous author who doesn't
know any too much about the screen, a successful scenario writer who doesn't
sympathize with the author's ideas; a director with a reputation to maintain;
a star, glorifying in a false deification, who "won't play" if her
individuality is not capitalized. Such a team may be all of stars, but it
doesn't always pull together.
First, the big author and the feature director confer before even an
outline of the story is on paper. Then the author furnishes the skeleton
story--his synopsis. He talks this over with the director and with the
continuity writer. They plan the photo-play in close cooperation. The
continuity writer becomes simply a technical expert to advise the author.
When the synopsis meets with technical approval, the author invests it with
dramatic bones and flesh for the screen. When it is ready, then if there are
parts worthy of stars they will be filled by stars; if there are not, they
are filled by the actors best fitted for them.
This method of picturization is as near perfection as it is possible to
conceive. Perhaps every one doesn't agree with me that it is. No matter--many
do.
This is the method Edward Knoblock is using on his first screen story.
He has already completed its skeleton. Julia Crawford Ivers and myself have
discussed its screen possibilities with him and he is now amplifying it. Then
Mrs. Ivers will translate it into continuity and when I produce it, following
"Sacred and Profane Love," Mr. Knoblock will study my production to learn the
limitations of the camera and other things that only actual participation in
studio work can teach. He will be in a position to write his next story with
a complete recognition of the screen's needs.
So it is with Cosmo Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton is the first noted author, to
my knowledge, both to confer with a director before writing his story, and to
realize the full power of film publicity. Mr. Hamilton was in Hollywood last
Spring during the filming of "Midsummer Madness" by William De Mille, and he
and I had long conferences then over the story he was blocking out for the
screen. The story is now completed and I will produce it in the near future.
Meanwhile Mr. Hamilton is making the story into a novel, and when the picture
is released he will publish his novel at the same time, thus reaping the
benefits of the film advertising.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 17, 1921
William D. Taylor
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
Emotion Defined by Play Producer
There is romance and drama in the lives of all of us.
Yet, outside of the fundamental emotions of love, parenthood, severe
illness and love quarrels--which every one experiences sooner or later--we do
not readily recognize the drama that we live. It is too close to be
appreciated.
Emotion is the simplest and most natural thing in the world.
Augustus Thomas, author of "The Witching Hour," which opens tomorrow at
Grauman's, once gave me this definition of emotion:
"Emotion is a volatile reaction to an attack on an instinct."
Just then the ash dropped from his cigar onto his vest and he flicked it
away with his thumb and forefinger.
"There," I told him, "is your volatile reaction to an attack on an
instinct."
"Yes," he smiled, "my instinct is cleanliness; it was violated by the
cigar ash, and the movement of my fingers was a mechanical reaction."
There you have the most natural action imaginable discussed in a complex
way.
People do recognize the dramatic when it is painted for them on the
screen, and that is a way in which the screen can help people to appreciate
the beauty and the romance that occurs before their eyes every day.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 23, 1921
EXHIBITORS' TRADE REVIEW
In its March 12th issue, Exhibitors Trade Review printed an article
about the visit of William A. Brady to Los Angeles which, it appears, was
incorrect in some of its details.
William D. Taylor, head of the Motion Picture Directors' Association on
the Coast, has sent a statement to this publication in which he points out
that Mr. Brady had nothing whatever to do with calling the meeting in
question and that there was no attempt to put over a new organization that
would have been part of the National Association of the Motion Picture
Industry.
Mr. Taylor says: "The meeting of February 28th was called personally by
me on behalf of the Motion Picture Directors' Association. At that time it
was not even known that Mr. Brady was coming to the Coast. We urged the
formation of a central committee of representatives from every motion picture
organization to unite against legislative menaces, especially as the two
national bodies were at variance.
"Under the name of the Affiliated Picture Interests, Inc., every man and
woman connected with exhibiting, distributing or producing motion pictures is
invited to join hands in defence of their livelihood. Its activities are not
confined strictly to state matters as it will prepare data and propaganda
aids to those fighting censorship and blue laws anywhere.
"Mr. Brady was invited to the first meeting as a courtesy in view of the
presence of exhibitor representatives. The stormy part of the session was
confined to a discussion between Mr. Brady and Glenn Harper, of the Motion
Picture Theatre Owners of Southern California. Mr. Harper and the exhibitors
finally withdrew and Mr. Brady followed. Later both returned and endorsed the
new organization.
"Mr. Harper is a valuable and active member of the three committees so
far appointed.
"Our organization is incorporated to fight all the menaces to the
industry including censorship and blue laws. There are over six hundred
members, including actors, directors, cinematographers, art and assistant
directors, scenario and publicity writers, artisans, producers, theatre
owners and managers, projectionists and the clergy. We aim to make the
membership six thousand. There is absolutely no connection between the
Affiliated Picture Interests and any other organization except the Allied
Amusement Industries, which is organizing in Northern California."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
October 1, 1921
William D. Taylor
LOS ANGELES RECORD
Why is a Motion Picture Director?
A thinker who is not afraid of work and who knows what he is doing--he,
I would say, is the type of the motion picture director of today.
We recall the pioneer director who left the studio in the morning with a
camera, $50 cash and an idea, and returned in the afternoon with a one-reel
drama. Some of the qualities of this versatile and highly ingenious genius of
the past are again in demand in a glorified combination of author-director-
producer today.
But one who has partaken of the waters of Lethe with the best farewell
wishes of all is that director, who like his megaphone, was little more than
a mouthpiece for the man behind him. His script was a blue print and he was a
construction foreman.
Today many of the most successful directors are actor graduates; or come
from the camera; or come from an assistant directorship. More and more it is
the thinker--no matter whether he begins as actor, author, assistant director
or cinematographer--who becomes the real director. Possibly it is because
this man in many instances combines an executive leadership with a hard-won
knowledge of what the public wants for entertainment, and a practical
experience of how to obtain that "what-the-public-wants."
More and more does the director tend to become a producer, arranging for
finances, making his own picture in his own way and at his own risk; making
pictures because he loves it, not because he can draw a good salary for
making them.
He is still boss of a producing unit and director of a cameraman and
players.
But he is becoming more and more an individualist, an interpreter of
ideas, a molder of opinion--a power parallel to the statesman and the editor.
In these tendencies the progress of the motion picture director may be
traced.
There is a growing honesty of purpose in motion picture direction today.
The mere striving for effect, the reign of hokum, has passed. No longer are
vital defects of story overlooked by public because the actors are excellent
or the photography is exquisite. Fine acting and beautiful photography are
integral parts of the art of pictures, but they are not its sole reason for
being.
Once upon a time one or more unusual scenes could carry a picture to
success. The public could ignore defects and concentrate on the heralded
novelty.
But that was the public of yesterday. There is a new public today just
as there is a new director. The public today is being surely recruited from
the classes of intellectual culture and artistic appreciation.
Novelties still have, and always will have, an audience. But novelty in
any art or industry must be followed by merit that endures and that is
continually surpassing itself.
As a novelty, motion pictures have reached their pinnacle.
Practically every effect effect and trick possible with a motion camera
has been featured. Every imaginable sort of lens legerdemain, mat
manipulation and multiple exposure has been experimented with. Every
discoverable combination of fades, tones and tints has been utilized. We have
tried animated titles, pictorial titles, no titles; we have played with back
lightings, overhead lightings and floor lightings; we have contrasted mercury
lights, arc lights and the sun itself; we have used art settings, realistic
settings, futuristic settings, naturalistic settings, and no settings.
We have tested on our palette every brush and every tube of color. Now
we're going to paint some pictures.
To be a genius requires work. The director today is not petting himself.
He works, works, works on his picture. Then he works on it some more. Then,
perhaps, he is ready to start actual production.
The hard work, in picture making as in other arts, is in preparation.
For a long time motion picture producers were too impatient. No sooner was a
story purchased than the scenario staff and director were got busy
simultaneously. The director got his script sheet by sheet and as he shot his
daily takes through the laboratory they were approximately edited and titled.
At the end of the four weeks, or the twenty days, or whatever the production
schedule was, the picture was given a final polishing and shot forth to a
rather indifferent world.
Today the motion picture is made before the camera is set up. Many times
the author consults with the director before he writes his story; at any rate
before he adapts it, if it has already been published. Then there are
conferences between continuity writer and director; between director and art
advisors, technical experts, and others.
When it is time for the camera to blink its sixteen-a-second eye, 75 per
cent of the hard work for the director is over; all he has to do is direct
his picture!
In this preparation the modern director has perhaps his most important
duty in the recognition and preservation of the philosophy of the author.
Emphasis has passed from mere plots and tricks to the ideas upon which all
literature is based. Almost every novel and short story has some idea that it
seeks to convey to, and impress upon its readers even although it is
primarily only fiction and ostensibly only for amusement.
Unless the director is picturizing a story of his own authorship, it is
incumbent on him to determine the ideas of the author and to interpret them
on the screen. This does not stifle the individuality of the director; rather
it reveals it. In interpretation the director can best show his genius. And
by the faithfulness and sincerity of that interpretation the director of
today is judged by the public, whether or not the public realizes that fact.
Preserving plot is a matter of mechanical diligence. Preserving ideas
calls for originality, knowledge, perceptiveness and genius. These are the
things the director of the present is developing in accordance with the
dictates of the great unseen power that is surely speeding the motion picture
on to its niche as an Art.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 1922
William D. Taylor
PHOTOPLAY
I am mighty fond of New York and could not get along without going there
at least once a year, for its artistic, dramatic and literary advantages, but
as a place to make pictures it certainly cannot compare with Los Angeles.
Honest and disinterested thought can produce no other conclusion. It takes
twice as long to make a picture in New York and therefore costs much more.
And even in an artistic product like pictures, the cost is one of the most
essential things to reckon with.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 3, 1921
William D. Taylor
CAMERA!
November 30, 1921
Miss Fanchon Royer,
Editor Camera,
Los Angeles, Calif.
Dear Miss Royer:
As the result of a spirited discussion held at the last meeting of the
Motion Picture Directors' Association, I have been instructed to write you
this letter.
The Motion Picture Directors' Association feels that it would be to the
material advantage of the industry if certain extravagant and unnecessary
phases of Motion Picture presentation were curtailed.
We mean specifically:
Atmospheric prologues,
Vaudeville numbers,
Expensive orchestras.
In almost all the larger cities of the United States first-run theatre
managers have gradually added theatrical features to their feature
entertainment until today in many instances the theatrical entertainment
overshadows the featured photodrama of the program. The condition is a
serious menace to any further advances in motion picture production.
In the first place it is subtly impressing a certain class of our public
with the thought that the play is not the thing but that the trimmings are.
In other words it is belittling the importance of the photoplay upon which
the entire industry has been built.
In the second place, added numbers often take up so much of the program
time that the feature picture is "raced" by the projectionist in order to
maintain a time-table schedule. This works grievous injustice alike to
audience and to author, director and players.
In the third place, this custom is increasing the cost of exhibition to
such a prohibitive figure that many exhibitors are forced out of business by
the loss they must sustain, and admission prices are increased to such extent
that we lose an important and intelligent--but economical--portion of our
public.
In the opinion of this association, whose members are dedicating their
lives to the betterment of motion pictures, the over-elaborate prologue is a
useless adjunct to the feature picture, often even destroying dramatic effect
and turning the climax to anti-climax; the place for vaudeville is in the
vaudeville house, and the greater portion of the picture-going public prefers
its motion picture comedy and drama "straight"; and while the musical
accompaniment is an invaluable part of picture presentation and is working
wonders in furthering musical culture in this country, expensive orchestras
are unnecessary and often in poor taste.
The Motion Picture Directors' Association believes that these theatrical
features have been brought to become such an important part in American
picture programs through a mistaken sense of showmanship and in some cases
more personal rivalry between managers. We believe that extravagant
presentation is futile because it does not increase the attractiveness of
motion pictures to the general public.
Sincerely yours,
Wm. D. Taylor, President,
Motion Picture Directors' Association
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Some Comments Attributed to Taylor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
September 25, 1915
MOTION PICTURE NEWS
William D. Taylor, director of the $20,000 prize photoplay, "The Diamond
From the Sky," recently handled 536 supernumeraries through fifty-two scenes
of picture-making in one day.
This performance is considered a record and is illustrative of the
untiring energy and great directive genius of the man, also of the responsive
organization with which he has surrounded himself.
"Organization is the key to 'big' picture production," Director Taylor
commented at the end of the tremendous day's work. "If a director organizes
well he will turn out good pictures. To do so, however, he must weigh well
his subordinates and co-workers. The camera is a most important element and
unless the director has the cooperation and confidence of his camera operator
all will not go well.
"In Homer Scott, 'the man behind the lens' in the production of "The
Diamond From the Sky," I believe there is invested more technique, more
knowledge, more artistry and more care than in any of the wonderful cameramen
with whom I have come in contact.
"Mr. Scott is abreast of every opportunity, full of ideas, and weighs
every situation with regard to both actors and background, with the result
that there is intense life in the countenances of the actors and the detail
of the sets are brought out with a vividness not seen frequently enough in
high class productions.
"It is well enough for a director to exert his skill and the actors
their ability, but if the camera does not 'get' all it should the work of
everyone is lost. There is no fear of that while Homer Scott turns the
crank."...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 1, 1919
NEW YORK TELEGRAPH
The Famous Players-Lasky Corporation will picturize Mark Twain's
immortal story, "Huckleberry Finn," in the form of a special production, with
a large cast of picked players. Work will be started at the Lasky studio,
Hollywood, in about two weeks under the direction of William D. Taylor, who
directed the Paramount picture, "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck and Tom," as well as
several productions in which Mary Pickford was starred for Artcraft.
About a year ago Mr. Taylor went across the Atlantic in mufti to enter
the British service. He expected to enter an officers' training camp but
found it would take eleven months to finish the course, so being impatient to
get to the fighting district, he enlisted as a "Tommy" in the Royal
Fusiliers. Then he was transferred to the Royal Army Service Corps and
commissioned lieutenant. He served in Flanders and was the second officer to
enter Lille after the Germans evacuated the city. He also reached Cologne and
other German points and spent some time in London before returning to this
country a few weeks ago. Aside from suffering from illness for some time, he
had plenty of interesting adventures, and looks splendid.
"Europe is motion picture mad," he declared, "particularly London, Italy
and some parts of France. I should say 90 per cent of the pictures shown are
American but I find that star names don't mean so much. They go to see the
picture and it must be a good one. They are pretty far behind in making
pictures there. Plenty of money but no equipment and the projection is bad in
the theatres generally. I had plenty of offers to stay there and direct but
preferred to return to Famous Players-Lasky."
Julia Crawford Ivers is writing the scenario of "Huckleberry Finn." It
should be explained, perhaps, that "Huck and Tom" was merely the second half
of the "Tom Sawyer" novel and that the new production is from the story,
"Huckleberry Finn." The incidents are entirely different from those embraced
in the first two pictures...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 22, 1919
NEW YORK TELEGRAPH
William D. Taylor, who recently returned from France and is now
producing "Huckleberry Finn," was asked whether the lapse of time had
affected his directing. He replied that it had exercised a good effect, and
had made him more determined and earnest than ever.
"There is a change in every man who was in France," he added, "and I
believe the change is all for the better. Shams and trivialities will not
annoy any of us again; there is a lack of patience with smallness."
Mr. Taylor is making good progress with his film.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
October 29, 1919
LOS ANGELES HERALD
Much has been said lately in a prophetic way concerning the future
location of the motion picture supply, which is now centered in Southern
California. That fact that some of the large producing concerns are erecting
studios in the neighborhood of New York has led some of the prophets to
assert that a hegira has set in eastward. This prediction is based on the
fact that improvements in the methods of artificial lighting have made it
possible to produce technical effects indoors that heretofore needed the
peculiar sunlight of California.
But, according to William D. Taylor, the noted Paramount director, who
is guiding Mary Miles Minter, there does not seem to be any prospect of
overcoming handicaps that tend to make movies costly when put together in the
east.
"I was almost three months making one picture in the east this summer
and autumn," said Mr. Taylor. "It was a film which would ordinarily have
taken from five to six weeks, and the delay was caused by the excessive
amount of rain. Exteriors which were absolutely essential just couldn't be
obtained, and while I enjoy the east and have a most happy time there when I
can loaf, give me California if I am working.
"The contrast to a director who has had the advantage of California's
brilliant sunshine and stable weather is almost impossible to imagine, and
for me there is absolutely no comparison as to the desirability of the west.
In the east, too, it is very difficult to get players. Most of the good
actors are tied up with the theaters and can only work on certain days, or
some mornings, and altogether production there is so delayed and uncertain
that for real, downright work I am most happy to be back on the coast again."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
November 22, 1919
LOS ANGELES EXPRESS
William Desmond Taylor, the director who was chosen by the Realart
corporation to direct Mary Miles Minter, takes sharp issue with a printed
opinion that he has been enjoined to "make another Mary Pickford" out of his
young professional ward.
"Nothing could be further from the truth," said Taylor, with a
pardonable asperity. "I would not undertake her direction under such a
commission. The last advice I would give a player would be to pattern after
somebody else. It is true that there are some so skillful and finished in
acting technique that their methods of achieving results may well be studied
by all actors. But as for advising one to put aside his or her natural ways
to copy mannerisms--never!
"The most desirable thing in screen acting is spontaneity. If you
persuade an actress to pattern her work after another you do as much to kill
spontaneity as if you tied her hand and foot. And there is nothing more
quickly transmitted by the camera than such a lack in a player. The motion
picture public has become a very exacting critic; it detects and spurns very
quickly everything that savors of artificiality. The best story will fall
flat if it is not evident that the players are moving of their own thoughts
and impulses.
"Now that the picture drama has come to be something more than a novelty
and we must give to it the same care that is devoted to stage presentations,
the screen artists must succeed or fail, sink or swim on his or her own
qualities and capacities. To think otherwise would be like expecting one
child to learn mathematics by merely copying sets of figures that another has
set down.
"No, the last thing I would attempt to do--the last that can be done--is
to try to make one aspiring artist a 'second' anybody. To try it would be
merely to make an automaton."
[Of course, nobody said that he was to make Minter into "another Mary
Pickford" in terms of acting mannerisms; he was hopefully to make Minter
into another Mary Pickford only in terms of screen popularity and success.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 13, 1919
LOS ANGELES EXPRESS
"Again I say that the west is the place for motion picture production
and that the east will never be able to compete in this regard with the
stable conditions of California and its immense superiorities in scenic and
other ways."
Thus did William Desmond Taylor, the Realart director, give forth an I-
told-you-so the other day with no little apparent satisfaction in having
called the turn.
"The coal strike that has come upon the east together with fiercely cold
weather, emphasizes but does not add any new truth to my recent statement
that the west is the place to make motion pictures and will always lead in
the field of endeavor," he continued.
"Both natural and artificial conditions combine to make it so. The
eastern studios are now in danger of a shortage of fuel that may greatly
curtail their production.
"And the shortage may not be remedied even in case the strike be
settled, so deficient are the transportation facilities.
"I recently showed upon my return to California that the making of a
picture that required three months' time in the east could have been
accomplished in California in five or six weeks.
"In that case it was the rainy and cloudy weather that proved the
obstacle.
"So now it is shown that both winter and summer anywhere in the east is
accompanied by hazard and high cost.
"Of course if the luxury can be afforded, a studio in the east as well
as the west may be desirable for use in certain emergencies; so may a studio
be in the south.
"But California will always lead in this activity because of its stable
weather, with the exception of the brief so-called rainy season, and its
great supply of oil for what fuel is needed in this semitropical climate will
always prevent such disastrous conditions as now threaten picture making in
the east.
"There are several other considerations, too, all of them helping to tip
the balance in favor of the west.
"Players are hard to get in the east, even around New York, which is the
dramatic center of America. There the large number of theaters have the first
call on the actors' services and picture making is looked upon as not a means
of livelihood but of earning additional income.
"Studio engagements are taken subject to previous stage engagements.
"No, if you want to make the best film features under the least
handicaps I am convinced you will always have to do it in the west.
"Many of the capitalists naturally desire to bring the artistic work
connected with picture making in close touch with the business end that is
necessarily centered at New York.
"But in spite of their strong desire to pull the studios and their work
in that direction the conditions are too strong for them, as the present
strike, coming so soon after the wartime fuel shortage, will probably
convince them."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 17, 1919
Henry L. Dougherty
LOS ANGELES EXPRESS
The public today wants pictures that reflect life as we see it and know
it in the cities or the country or in our own neighborhood.
In life there is comedy and in life there are serious moments. There is
also tragedy and there is drama.
Blend these into the picture as they are blended in our daily lives and
then you have a photoplay that is perfect.
Such is the recipe of William Desmond Taylor for a motion picture that
will measure up to the requirements of an exacting public. Mr. Taylor, as you
will recall, has been directing pictures for the Famous Players-Lasky Company
for a number of years. He went to war as a private in the English army and
was rapidly promoted until he was given a captaincy--was in the thickest of
the fighting in France and Flanders [sic]--and is now back in Los Angeles
directing our little Realart star, Mary Miles Minter.
I talked at length with Mr. Taylor yesterday, and what he said impressed
me so deeply that I am going to record here and now some of this
conversation, as follows:
"Three elements enter into the making of a perfect photoplay--story,
direction and star.
"The author of tomorrow is going to become one of our greatest factors
in picture creation.
"We must not be artificial. Sincerity must be the keynote in picture
production. Life must be mirrored on the screen as we know it in our own home
town. Characters should never be made to do the impossible, or the
improbable.
"I think we have reached the climax in big spectacles. The world is
demanding real stories, with true-to-life characterizations.
"I always insist on cutting and editing my own productions. Who knows
the action of the picture and the motives that actuate the characters better
than the person who directs the picture?
"An actor or actress who is self-conscious before the camera will never
make a screen success. Our public does not think of cameras when a picture is
being thrown on the screen. The audience sees only the living, human people
out there doing something. Do that something before the camera, just as you
would in the store, on the street or in your own home.
"Patience in any picture making takes rank with artistry, acting and
perfect photographic qualities. Mary Pickford is a shining example of all
these. Directors must also be patient.
"Give the public real, human pictures with hearts in them and life and
love and passion and pathos--yes, and comedy--and the public will rise up and
call you blessed."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 21, 1920
LOS ANGELES EXPRESS
"An item I have just been reading in the telegraphic columns of my
paper," said William D. Taylor, the Paramount director, "reminds me of what I
said a few months ago upon my return from the east. There never will be
another region to compare with California for advantages for motion picture
making.
"This item said that New York had just dug its way out from under a
blizzard after four days of work during which there had not been a ray of
sunshine. When I returned from my last period of directing pictures in the
east I told interviewers that I hoped no exigencies would compel me again to
put up with the difficulties I had gone through back there. The making of
scenes that took several weeks there could have been completed in California
in a few days. Now this is not only exasperating to the director but very
costly indeed to the business end of production.
"Above all other activities that I know of picture making must be kept
to schedule. Time is money in this work with special emphasis because
untoward delays pile up expense without results at an alarming rate, so heavy
is the item of 'labor cost' in film production, which does not cease once you
have taken up your work.
"It is all very well to say that improvement in interior lighting
methods removes the handicaps nature has put upon the eastern climate, but
even so you can't make many pictures without exteriors. A serious coal
shortage may check interior work or a protracted spell of 'weather' may halt
the taking of exterior scenes.
"The upshot of the whole matter will be that every well equipped company
will maintain studios both east and west. The east has some definite
advantages--chiefly of a commercial nature by reason of the close proximity
to the metropolitan market, but the west has so many more artistic and
technical advantages that it will always dominate the situation and lead in
output.
"Into the scale is being thrown the weight of preference on the part of
the stars, directors and actors. Most of them are settling down permanently
in elegant and costly homes in California. The delights of life in the Golden
State once tasted are never forgotten. Do you think these people will ever be
content to live under eastern conditions again? Well, hardly."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
June 27, 1920
Thomas W. Baily
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
William D. Taylor, who directed several successful pictures for Mary
Miles Minter and whose latest production, "Huckleberry Finn," won unstilted
praise from all parts of the country, dropped in on San Francisco last week
with a company of Famous Players-Lasky stars. He is working on a new film
that he says should be a hit.
Taylor sees great significance in the statement made by a New York
theatrical reviewer that John Barrymore has shown in his stage work
beneficial effects from his screen experience. Barrymore is playing in
Shakespeare's tragedy, "Richard III," in the East with sensational success.
The critic referred to declared that the actor showed a sureness, ease
in method and a repose that never characterized his work until recently.
"These virtues," said Taylor, "are sure to come from experience before
the camera. I know not only from observation, but as a former actor of the
stage, who realizes the handicaps under which the player of the footlights
labors. The fine thing about the screen, f
rom the actor's standpoint, is the
privilege it gives him of scrutinizing his own work. The things he is prone
to overdo, the little mannerisms that so greatly detract from his work, and
the nervous impulses that are apt to shade his acting are all spread out in
merciless array before his eye. It will take a lot of conceit out of any star
of the stage who has never been before the camera to undergo this experience.
The best of them have their faults and overwork their little tricks.
"A second benefit of camera experience comes from the privilege of
seeing how and where to stress one's points. No one can look at a film
revealing his work without being struck with the fact that he ought to have
done certain things differently to register the greatest success.
"All this benefit is denied to the stage players, who cannot see himself
as others see him, as he may do when he stands aloof and looks over his
shadow on the curtain. The best the actor of the spoken drama can do is to
judge his work by the effect on the audience. He cannot appraise himself and
learn how he could do even better.
"The technique of the stage and the screen are different, yet they have
much in common in the fundamentals of acting. The new things that have been
discovered as a result of the photoplay's advent have done much for the art
of the stage. All of the players that I have talked with agree on that. So
instead of being an injury to the older art, as its partisans used to fear,
the motion picture has been a positive benefit as this discerning critic of
Barrymore's histrionic progress has observed."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
September 27, 1920
LOS ANGELES RECORD
Los Angeles screendom paid sorrowful, impressive tribute to the memory
of its famous departed yesterday afternoon at a unique memorial service held
on one of the Brunton studio stages.
Stars and stage hands, producers and supers sat together on the big
stage in pews borrowed from the property department of the studios, and with
tear-dimmed eyes thrilled to remembrances of Robert Harron, Clarine Seymour,
Ormer Locklear and Olive Thomas, aroused by the address of William D. Taylor,
and the solemn harmonies of Grauman's symphony orchestra and the choir of St.
Paul's Pro-Cathedral.
Director Taylor was overcome by emotion as he finished the address in
which he extolled "sweet little Clarine Seymour, radiant with youth; gallant,
fearless Ormer Locklear; true-hearted Bobbie Harron; and generous, great-
hearted Ollie Thomas."...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
October 30, 1920
MOVING PICTURE WORLD
The most appreciable development in the motion picture industry has been
the growth towards stability and beauty in studio sets, according to William
D. Taylor, Realart producer. "The improvement along these lines has been a
physical change, easy for the public to grasp and understand. Its importance
became noticeable long before recognition of the more subtle betterments in
acting and screen technique," he said in a recent interview.
"Ten years ago I hesitated before going into motion pictures, because at
that time I considered the screen a cheap and tawdry form of art," he stated.
"This impression arose from the flimsy canvas settings which swayed with the
wind and the manifestly fake properties and other makeshifts. I believe my
opinion was reflected by the majority of Americans.
"When I became actively connected with the industry, however, I could
see its possibilities. To the public, the development of scenic beauty had
its effect first. The change from canvas to all wood sets spelled an
increase in quality. When this became evident, a better class of people
began to attend the cinema. Thus the picture clientele was developed to its
present high standard.
"When I look over the sets of 'The Witching Hour,' which I am doing for
Realart, I marvel that we could have progressed so far in such a few years.
It all seems so far distant from my first picture when the villain puts his
hand against the wall, making the whole house sway.
"When we give credit for the development of the movies, the technical
men must be remembered first of all. Surely 'as the sets have gone, so have
the pictures'."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
November 1, 1920
LOS ANGELES EXPRESS
Denunciation of the vampires of the screen and recommendation that
censorship of films and even scenarios be accomplished by replacing the
National Board of Censorship with a consulting board, as emphatically set
forth by R. C. Craven of Boston before the annual convention of the American
Humane Society at Omaha, met with a storm of criticism from prominent members
of the motion picture profession in Los Angeles today.
"Such a discussion of censorship might have been just 10 years ago, but
not now when the heads of the motion picture industry have been to every
effort to make films which entertain and yet instruct and are of moral
value," declared William D. Taylor, Realart special producer, in commenting
on Mr. Craven's address. "My own success is to me sufficient refutation of
the charge that the public is being led from the sweet, simple human interest
drama to vampires and plays which exploit individuals of doubtful
reputations."...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
December 1, 1920
Guy Price
LOS ANGELES HERALD
What do you--girls and boys and Mr. And Mrs. Public--what do you want
most to know about motion pictures?
Technical details of how they're made?
Intimate revelations about those who make 'em?
How to write scenarios?
Serious facts? Silly gossip? Solemn trivialities?
The question of what phase of motion pictures most interests the public
time and time again had been put to me, and so I hurled it directly at
William D. Taylor, the well-known director. Mr. Taylor long has been a
topnotcher in the motion picture industry--his productions for Paramount-
Artcraft and Realart have been big drawing cards--and therefore becomes an
authority in matters cinematic.
He had some tentative suggestions.
"How a star owes more to her cameraman than to her modiste and her
hairdresser! How to remove double chins (pro tempore) with a spotlight! How
skillful backlighting is more precious than a gallon of peroxide!"
I was hopeful.
"Can you give names? You've directed the Pickfords and Constance
Talmadge and Mary Miles Minter and a lot of others--tell how these things
apply in specific cases, and --"
"Sorry--afraid that would hardly be ethical. Like the doctor and
patient, you see. But without names--."
"Nope! It wouldn't do at all."
"How about the magic wand of the screen adapter--the translating to the
language of the motion picture a story written to be read in a hammock or
played behind the footlights? Would be all right for a trade journal,
perhaps. I could explain why titles are changed, who designs the settings and
how, what the qualifications are for a girl to go into pictures, why
censorship is not needed--"
"Been done--no one cares--they already know--propaganda--" and I paused
until Mr. Taylor should catch up with more suggestions.
"Well," he said, "I'll think it over--talk it over with my friends. On
the spur of the moment I don't think of any popular subject that hasn't
already been exploited pretty thoroughly."
Just then the 13-year-old daughter of one of the director's non-
professional acquaintances ran up. When in doubt ask a child!
"Agnes, what do you most want to know about the movies?" Mr. Taylor
addressed the youngster.
"Well you tell me, re-al-lee?"
"Yes."
"Oh-h-h! Well how old IS Mary Miles Minter? Why do Wally Reid and the
other nice men have to get married? Are Mary Pickford's curls real curls? Is
Charlie Chaplin jealous of Fatty Arbuckle? Why are Ben Turpin's awful eyes?
Who is Charlie Fuhr, and is it true he broke up Dorothy Dalton and Lew Cody?
Are those lions tame they use? Did you ever direct any lions?
"Doesn't your voice get fearfully hoarse? Do you know where Doug
Fairbanks is going to live after he leaves Beverly? When are Pauline
Frederick and Dick Ferris going to get married.--Y-know I heard that? When--"
Mr. Taylor faithfully answered as many questions as he could, wriggled
out of the rest and made his escape. Then turning to me, he asked, "What do
YOU think they want to know?" I considered the matter with brow gravely
corrugated for fully 30 seconds. Then I had an idea.
"Anybody been murdered in the movies lately? Got killed? No! Well,
there's always divorces and how about some inside stuff? Aw, I thought you
knew what was going on," I replied quizzically.
But we were getting nowhere.
The director motioned toward the studio refreshment stand. Arriving
there we ordered a soft drink (naturally) and when the youth in the white
coat had given Mr. Taylor the check (to my great disappointment and disgust),
he said to him:
"What about the movies interests you most, young man?"
He had some "fresh" repartee ready, but he saw Taylor was in earnest and
his sly leer straightened as he asked eagerly:
"Say, tell me what Neal Burns puts on his hair to keep it swell and
slick, will y'o?"
Later we were driving across Hollywood boulevard at Cahuenga and Taylor
interrogated the traffic officer.
"How can I get a job writing subtitles?" he said. "I saw one the other
night where a guy was arrested for assault with intent to kill and a police
judge sent him to the pen for 20 years. Police judge! No trial or nothing. I
can write better'n that.--All right, move ahead there!"
Next we tried a respected friend, a nice, married, middleaged woman, who
just dotes on opera and collects pedigrees of long-haired violinists.
"I wish you would tell me why Madame Nazimova does not make a picture of
the ballet Scheherezade? I think she's wonderful. Is it true that actresses
smoke only perfumed cigarettes? Hollywood is not really so awful a place, is
it? When will Charlie Chaplin film Hamlet? Does Harold Lloyd wear real
glasses, or are they merely frames? I love his curly hair. Did he and Bebe
Daniels have a fight?"
A telephone operator came next.
"Tell 'em the latest dirt," she suggested, her fingers flying about the
tangled mass of cord while she performed a sharp obligato of "Yes! Not in!
Line's busy! Hello! I'll see!"
"If there isn't any dirt make up some," she continued. "Tell 'em about
the dope fiends and the wild women and the carload of booze somebody brought
on from N'Yawk marked 'Fragile, Handle With Care--Cooper-Hewitt Tubes'--and
tell 'em the worst things you can imagine and they will like it."
So these are the things the public wants to know about. And how about
those hundreds of press agents who write stories about fan letters from Japan
and Madagascar and Sweden, and how someone almost got hurt doing a scene, and
how a make-up was so good it fooled the studio gatesman, and how someone has
a new canary bird, someone else a new Pekingese and someone else a new wife.
Knowing these things doesn't satiate the public's curiosity, it seems.
Mr. Taylor felt a trifle disgusted as the result of his questioning.
Morbid, silly, prying, impudent things people wanted to know. Were these the
only things about pictures that interested them?
"Does no one care about the history of 'The Great Redeemer,' the
psychology of 'The Witching Hour,' the humanity of 'Humoresque,' the drama of
'Way Down East'?" ruminated the director. "Is no one really interested in the
character of lovable Mary Pickford, the art of Billy Bitzer, the ideals of
Charley Chaplin, the scholarship of Julia Crawford Ivers?"
One man ought to know! I was not surprised when Taylor led me to an
exhibitor--the man who gets the picture from the maker and sells it to the
public, he whose silver dollars throb high or low with the pulse of public
appeal.
"Forget it!" exclaimed the film showman. "Sure, the public's curious.
The film public wants to know new things just the same as every one does.
That's what newspapers are for, and news reels and educational films. But
unless some star gets in a terrible scandal they don't really care one way or
the other.
"They are interested in the players for what they do on the screen. It's
the story they're after and the story's all they care about in the long run.
"You show 'em a story that makes the young fellers and their girls come
out afterward with their faces kinda shining, and the older folks laughing;
or maybe an old lady dabbing her powder puff around the eyes or an old gent
blowing his nose real hard--you do that and I want your picture every time"
"Make 'em cry; make 'em laugh; let 'em see people that remind them of
themselves--that are themselves. That's all they want, and don't forget it."
Mr. Taylor turned to me and I looked at him.
"What do people want most to know about the movies?" I put the question
for the last time.
"I dunno, do you?" he replied.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 9, 1921
LOS ANGELES RECORD
Film directors, officials and stars are jubilant over Judge Ben B.
Lindsey's spirited defense of motion pictures before antagonistic Denver
clergymen, it appears from the statement today of William D. Taylor, the
director.
Picture people were already in complete sympathy with the "jail before
betrayal" stand of the juvenile jurist. Judge Lindsey was a member of the
Hollywood colony last year while he was working with Taylor on a picture of
boy life. Taylor has just received a batch of clippings and the reiteration
from Lindsey of his statement that he "would rather rot" than violate a boy's
confidence.
"The success of Judge Lindsey's work is due to the unshaken belief of
his boys that what they tell that little man in confidence will not be
revealed--and it will not," said Taylor. "The judge is right. Certainly
should he fail a friend, as higher courts now command, his life work with
boys would be for naught."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 16, 1921
LOS ANGELES HERALD
In an effort to more closely bind the various branches of the motion
picture industry and looking toward a concerted campaign to work a betterment
of conditions, the Motion Picture Directors' association is taking the
initiative steps necessary to weld the interests of those associated with
film-making.
The movement is centered in Los Angeles, but has at heart the affairs of
all communities where pictures are made.
President-elect Wm. D. Taylor of the Directors' association has sent to
such societies as Motion Picture Producers' association, Motion Picture Art
Directors' association, Assistant Directors' association, American Society of
Cinematographers, Society of Illuminating Engineers, Screen Writers' Guild of
the Authors' league, Western Motion Picture Advertisers, Photoplayers' Equity
association, Los Angeles Film exchange, Theater Owners' association, Los
Angeles Theater association, Motion Picture Operators' union, Ethical Motion
Picture Society of America, and Girls' Studio club, the following letter:
"Gentlemen:
"The necessity of immediate and united action on the part of the motion
picture industry to defend itself against legislative menaces of censorship
and so-called 'Blue Laws' is recognized by every member of this industry.
"Our motion picture trade publications are urging united and unselfish
action of every one connected with producing, distributing and exhibiting of
motion pictures to defend this great industry against those who would weaken
and destroy it.
"It is regrettable to note at this time of peril that some factions are
quarreling with each other at a time when paid reformers, with millions of
dollars behind them, are preparing to come over the top from the opposite
trenches. It is imperative that any petty differences be forgotten until the
paid reformer is definitely defeated in his attempted assault on the screen.
"With the ambition simply to see 'something started' and not from any
desire to attempt to dictate or run the affairs of the industry, the Motion
Picture Directors' association urges the immediate organization of a central
committee of Western motion picture organizations the purpose of which is to
unite every phase of motion picture production, distribution and exhibition,
for the purpose of protecting ourselves from all enemies, and of furthering
our common interests. It is suggested that this committee be composed of one
representative from every existing recognized association, whose vital
interest is the welfare of motion pictures.
"Your organization is urged to name an official representative, who will
meet with one representative apiece from other organizations at the Los
Angeles Athletic club Monday, Feb. 28, at 8:30 p. m., to perfect and form
such a central committee. Kindly notify me at Lasky studio, as soon as
possible, the result of your action on this matter."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
March 1, 1921
Joseph Timmons
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
Representatives of fifteen branches of the motion picture industry, at
the meeting at the Los Angeles Athletic Club, formed an organization with the
single purpose of waging a campaign against censorship and such "blue laws"
as are directed against the motion picture business...
Mr. Taylor called the meeting to order by saying:
"You all know the crisis that confronts us. We are threatened with the
enactment of blue laws that would destroy the motion picture business. So
threatening is the situation that it is imperative that every interest unite
in opposition and that we present an unbroken front to the opposition. So we
have met here to form an organization that will embrace everybody concerned,
with the one end in view, to keep us alive.
"If the program mapped out by blue law advocates goes through we shall
be legislated out of existence. It will become impossible to make
pictures."...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 17, 1921
LOS ANGELES TIMES
"Motion pictures are in their occult age." William D. Taylor, producer
of "The Witching Hour," so stated in commenting upon the strikingly large
number of photoplays dealing with the un-material.
Incidentally he disclosed the fact that, "The Lifted Veil" ["Beyond"],
the first story written for motion pictures by Henry Arthur Jones, has a
theme based on the supernatural. Mr. Taylor will complete his production for
Paramount of the Jones story next week.
"Mysticism has a strong grip on popular fancy," said Mr. Taylor. There
are those who absorb with avidity every new idea in the subject, from the
ouija board on. Others believe strongly in some one phase. But all, total
scoffers included, are interested in what is said and done on the subject."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 15, 1921
LOS ANGELES HERALD
"A rumor is circulated in England that seven million English pounds
worth of films are lying idle in American vaults," writes William D. Taylor
investigating the film situation abroad. "Although I did not say so, I
believe that is a conservative figure at present, when features have been
costing $100,000 and $200,000 and two pictures approaching the million mark
are on hand.
"Motion pictures is the only industry in the world where fortunes can be
tied up for months in a few tin cans. It is difficult for the man in the
street to realize such a situation. The producer pays cash for story,
production costs, salaries--everything. He must wait three months, six
months, even a year for his returns even if the picture is released
immediately. It is the usual thing today, but it is a situation that will be
remedied to a great extent by the foresighted action of men like Jesse Lasky,
who is daring to cut production costs 25 per cent."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 21, 1921
LOS ANGELES HERALD
After an air flight from London, William D. Taylor was forced to abandon
his German trip at the last moment. After getting his passport vised, which
"took some arranging," he writes from the Hotel Meurice in Paris, the motion
picture director found that sleepers to Germany were booked three weeks
ahead, while he already had passage engaged on the Olympic from Cherbourg in
six days.
"I might fly as far as Strasbourg," he says, "but they can't tell me
when I can get on to Bellieu, so I am not going to take a chance."
However, he had ample opportunity to study the film situation in England
and in France, and he hints of much to divulge on his return.
He saw Donald Crisp and John Robertson and other friends at the Famous
Players-Lasky studio in London. Paul Powell and Mary O'Connor were on
location, he says, but they are to return to this country when their picture
is cut.
"Personally, I can't see where the British-made picture is going to pay
for some time to come," comments Mr. Taylor. "They cost too much."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 22, 1921
Grace Kingsley
LOS ANGELES TIMES
"All the pep that's being put into the film business abroad is being
injected by the Americans."
That was the remark of William D. Taylor, Lasky director, who has just
returned from a three months' tour of Europe, where he went to recuperate
following an operation here for appendicitis.
"I visited a few studios, and a few picture houses, and I found the
picture producers not only far behind the times, but not showing much
enterprise. Foreigners, however, do seem to appreciate American pep, and the
Americans are there with the spice all right, there's no doubt about that."
Mr. Taylor visited his old home in England, and he also journeyed
through Belgium, France and Switzerland. He served during the World War, and
was so tremendously interested in noting the manner in which European
countries are recovering following the world upheaval. He says they're
putting a brave face on everything, and are really showing immense powers of
come-back and enterprise in commercial lines.
The director's health is greatly improved from his trip, and he expects
to start work about August 8. The story he will do has not yet been selected,
but it is probable that it will be, either today or tomorrow, as he was
closeted all yesterday afternoon with Jesse Lasky, vice-president of Famous
Players-Lasky Co.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 7, 1921
LOS ANGELES TIMES
"The motion picture is the fifth wheel in European amusement life today.
There is no place for it. There are no picture houses."
So declared William D. Taylor, noted producer under the banner of
Paramount and the director-president of the Motion Picture Directors'
Association, Los Angeles lodge, following his return from Europe.
"In London not one picture-house has been built since the war. Because
of the scarcity of building material and of housing quarters, only dwellings
and necessary commercial structures are permitted. Undoubtedly, though,
restrictions against places of entertainment will soon be lifted.
"The presentation we are accustomed to in our first-run theatres does
not exist abroad. In most cases two five-reel features form the program, and
little or no attention is paid to prologues, vaudeville numbers or short
subjects.
"Four or five different houses will simultaneously offer the same
feature--and that an old one. The only picture less than eighteen months old
that I saw while in London was 'The Connecticut Yankee,' and Fox rented a
legitimate theater in order to show that. In Paris I noticed a year-old Bill
Hart.
"There are more picture houses in France than England. They are smaller,
but cater to more people.
"Motion picture exploitation simply does not exist. For example at
Worthing, a channel resort near Brighton, there were thousands of persons
with nothing to do but listen to the band on the esplanade or stroll up and
down and look at the sea. Nearly a mile back in the town was the one picture
show, almost deserted. A few townsfolk were wandering in when I passed.
A mile away thousands of bored, amusement-hungry potential customers were not
even informed of a theater's proximity.
"I would say the chief needs of Europe today are, decent houses,
presentation, pictures of merit, and greater cultivation of a picture public.
"Europe is not tired of amusement. Legitimate theaters are going strong.
If the screen is neglected abroad, the stage certainly is not. All the talent
we lavish on motion pictures is over there devoted to the playhouse.
"Parisian stage productions surpass American stage productions as far as
our films surpass theirs. Disregarding different standards of dramatic morals
their art effects are beautiful and their performances move with clocklike
precision.
"Both abroad and in this country the public has become hypercritical
toward screen entertainment.
"A few years ago a picture was either good or rotten. If it was good
everyone found something to praise in it, and even the reviewers agreed on
its merits. If it was rotten everyone admitted it, again even all the
reviewers.
"Now a constant diet of motion pictures has developed a cinema
sophisticated people. I sit in a theater and hear criticisms on every side.
What some people do not care for, others flock to see. The reviewers are not
wholly satisfied with any picture, nor apparently wholly dissatisfied with
any."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 19, 1921
LOS ANGELES HERALD
These sage remarks from the director-president of the Motion Picture
Directors' association, William Desmond Taylor, who recently returned from
abroad, where he made an extensive study of cinematic conditions:
"There have been a few questionable pictures since the war. This is due
to the moral decline that follows every great war. The pendulum is now
swinging far the other way. The worst of our pictures are clean compared to
the majority of pictures on the other side. You may be assured that what
French, Italian or German pictures reach our screens have been thoroughly
censored. Fully one-half of the original material has been deleted before the
picture is shown to an American audience."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
September 15, 1921
Joseph Timmons
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER
...in the public hearing before the public welfare committee of the City
Council on the censorship controversy...William D. Taylor, famous director
and president of the Directors' Association, said:
"I have listened with amazement to the charges of these ministers that
we are debauching the morals of the youth of this city. I know that the great
majority of directors are building plays that are clean. We have not been
cleaning house four years. We began a few months ago and we have cleaned
house with a vengeance. We have pledged ourselves not to put anything into
pictures that will hurt the morals of any youth."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February 19, 1922
OMAHA BEE
One of the last interviews that William Desmond Taylor, noted director,
permitted his press agent to send broadcast for publication dealt on a
"disease" called "Filmphobia."
Taylor stated that it possesses dangerous possibilities which might
easily wreck the future artistry of a director.
"Filmphobia," said Mr. Taylor, "comes on you after you have been
directing pictures for a year or more. Its manifestations are that you gage
everything by film standards; you lose your pleasure in other forms of art
for their own sake. A picture director suffering from 'filmphobia,' and I
speak from experience, reads a novel and sees in it only screen situations--
and misses the literary values. He sees a beautiful sunset--and immediately
feels for the 'blue glass' which would translate those lambent colors into
the grays, whites and black of the motion picture. The motion picture is a
hard taskmaster. It is very apt to engross you to the exclusion of all other
interests. When this happens you're suffering from 'filmphobia' and need a
change of scenery.
"To cure himself of actual or incipient 'filmphobia' and to renew his
contact with the other allied arts, every motion picture director should have
at least three months away from the studio every year. And more and more they
are doing it. Cecil B. De Mille is now in Europe; D. W. Griffith takes
appreciable time between each effort."
*****************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Back issues of Taylorology are available from the gopher server at
gopher.etext.org
in the directory Zines/Taylorology;
or on the Web at
http://www.angelfire.com/az/Taylorology
*****************************************************************************
