For Conservative Movie Lovers: King Vidor, Wallace Beery and ‘The Champ’ Part 4
by Leo GrinToward the end of the filming of The Wizard of Oz (1939), the picture’s director, Victor Fleming, was suddenly called away to salvage another production that was careening off-track at the studio, Gone with the Wind. The “Oz” portions of the movie, filmed in spectacular Technicolor, were already finished. But the “Kansas” sequences bookending the picture — including the all-important scene showing Judy Garland singing “Over the Rainbow” on her Depression-era farm — had yet to be shot.
The studio heads called in a oft-used master craftsman named King Vidor to handle the job, and he proceeded in a few weeks to capture on celluloid some of our culture’s most beloved images.
Who was this “King Vidor”? If you’re a modern conservative movie lover with some smattering of knowledge about classic Hollywood, you may have heard that strange name without really knowing or caring about its import. It sounds vaguely European — perhaps even fake? — and hardly evokes the same smile of recognition as Ford, Hitchcock, Hawks, Wilder. It seems to belong more with names like Curtiz, Lubitsch, Cocteau, Kurosawa — foreign-sounding, arty-farty names, ones only a geeky film aficionado could love.
And yet Vidor (you pronounce it “VEE-door,” not “VEYE-door”) was no foreigner at all. Texas born and bred, he was a champion of the little guy, the average Joe. His Christianity (he was raised a Christian Scientist), optimism, and Americanism infuse all his work. A craftsman, an innovator, an auteur, he had one of the longest careers of any director. If you have always treasured those sepia-toned Wizard of Oz sequences, and would like to find more stuff like it, do yourself a favor and hunt down Vidor’s The Champ (1931), a film that shares many of the same qualities with his later work on Oz.
Growing up as a middle-class kid in Galveston, Texas, King Vidor (1894-1982) didn’t fall in love with cinema right away. He was born just at the time that movies began being projected for audiences, and as a kid he would occasionally frequent the local Nickelodeons (so named because they cost a nickel to get in) and see the very first silent films. He was far from impressed. “When I was a young kid in Texas at the beginning of the century, I used to hate movies,” he explained decades later. “I hated their phoniness, their fakeness, the makeup which used to mask the actor’s expressions, their dreadful unreal acting with overdone pantomime gestures. People find them laughable today. I found them laughable then.”
All of that changed when, as a teenager, he became a ticket taker and backup projectionist at one of the theaters in Galveston. With nothing else to do, he found himself watching the films over and over. “I saw that two-reel Ben-Hur (1907), made in Italy [sic], twenty-one times each day or one hundred and forty-seven times in its week’s run. The men who made it never sat through it as often.” Studying the pantomime, the acting, the lighting, the camerawork, Vidor began to see the possibilities and power of this nascent art form. One thing he noticed right away: “The better the technique of the director, the fewer the subtitles.”
When a neighborhood kid hatched a plan to build a functional movie camera out of “an old projection machine and cigar boxes,” Vidor jumped at the chance to join in the experiment. They worked like kiddie mad scientists on their project, then bought a hundred feet of unexposed negative and used it to capture the spectacular destruction of a bathhouse near the Galveston seawall during a raging storm. With the help of some adults they sold the film as a newsreel to a distributor, and it got a lot of play around Southern Texas. “The day that hurricane struck,” Vidor said, “the course of my future was settled.”
He continued making newsreels throughout high school and selling them to distributors, ever trying to expand his prospects and break into a real job as a director of honest-to-God movies. It seemed that every day came further confirmation that cinema was growing into a great art form with a power to be reckoned with. Once, while watching a Western in a North Texas theater, Vidor watched in shock as a cowboy in the audience suddenly drew his pistol and began shooting at the screen! “He had come to town for a Saturday night’s spree,” Vidor recalled, “but when he saw the hero was about to be hung unjustly for cattle rustling, he couldn’t sit there with his six-shooter without doing something. The film did not stop, nor did they arrest the shooting cowboy. I suppose the three bullet holes were later patched, the manager having decided the less said about the incident the safer.” Movies, Vidor believed, were quickly becoming, “as vital to everyone’s life as milk and bread. You grew up with it. It affected your character, your dress, your lovemaking, your courage.” It was an industry of dreams and illusion and humanity that he wanted to be a part of.
Newly married, Vidor rode out to California at nineteen and ended up in San Francisco with twenty cents left in his pocket. They survived with typical Vidor-ian ingenuity, by taking empty, discarded boxes from grocery stores and scraping out the crumbs of oatmeal, Shredded wheat, and corn meal found within until they had enough for a meal. Eventually they scrounged together enough money to take a steamship to Los Angeles, where they did their best to weasel their way into the budding Hollywood film industry.
Vidor’s pretty wife became a $10 a week actress, while Vidor himself wrote dozens of scripts, photographed newsreels and travelogues, and worked any odd studio jobs that presented themselves. His breakthrough came with The Turn in the Road (1919), a film he financed from money begged from a consortium of dentists. Shot for $9,000, he found a distributor to take a chance on it, and it made $365,000 in its run. With that notch in his belt he could finally get studio jobs, and at twenty-three he was a young up-and-coming director. (his wife, Florence Vidor, became a famous silent screen actress, and they would eventually divorce for all of the usual Hollywood reasons).
Always pushing the envelope and remembering the unrealistic movies of his youth, Vidor experimented and innovated in his films. He used bright lights to smooth out the wrinkles on actresses faces, and got them laughing off-camera before a scene to capture a bit of that authentic glow of humor on film. He began timing shots to classical music, building up the editing of scenes into what felt like a musical crescendo, calling his technique “silent music.” He would sometimes even make his actors march or walk to the pace of a metronome, and the effect was almost subliminal, but haunting.
At a time when most films were suffused with fantasy and spectacle, Vidor grew to appreciate human stories that carried with them what might be called American realism. There were seldom villains in his movies — he relied instead on the trials and tribulations of real life for his drama. “War, wheat, and steel,” was his way of summarizing his interests, meaning life on the streets of middle-to-lower class America.
The Big Parade (1925), a World War I film presenting for the first time the perspective of mud-soaked grunts and GIs, became the most profitable silent film ever made (had there been any Academy Awards back then, it would have won a pile of them). Another Vidor film, The Crowd (1928), was an experimental masterpiece about ordinary people making their way through the small triumphs and tragedies of American big-city life, and garnered nominations for Best Picture and Best Director at the very first Academy Awards.
With the coming of sound, Vidor didn’t suffer the career setbacks that actors like Wallace Beery did, but he did discover that he needed to make some serious adjustments to his filmmaking style, not all of them welcome:
Silent pictures were treasured as an art form, and when talking pictures came in, most of the silent film directors regretted the change, the transition, because there was a certain technique that was very much akin to music. A silent film was never seen without music, without an orchestra. . . .We believed in the articulate powers of pantomime; we felt the things we were doing were bigger than words.
[In talking films] words reduced the actions, the emotions, the story we were trying to tell. It was like using words at the ballet. It made specific what we wanted to keep general. We could no longer appeal simultaneously to all audiences, the various levels of age and intelligence and sophistication. People were no longer free to fill in their own words. . .
It was a time of quiet despair to those of us brought up to love the lucidity of silence.
He also bemoaned the fact that all of the wonderful (and today still very modern-looking and influential) camera movements for silent pictures like The Big Parade and The Crowd were now all but impossible in the sound era, as the cameras now had to be housed in soundproofed rooms or covered with bulky soundproofed housings.
These were the problems facing him as an artist when, in 1931, he got the chance to direct The Champ.
Next Saturday in For Conservative Movie Lovers, we conclude our look at The Champ with some stories about how Vidor worked behind-the-scenes with Wallace Beery and Jackie Cooper, along with a look at the movie’s appeal both in 1931 and in 2010.
Previous posts in the series “King Vidor, Wallace Beery and The Champ“
FURTHER READING and VIEWING
Watch eighty-five-year-old King Vidor receive his honorary Oscar at the 51st Academy Awards on April 9, 1979.
The Big Parade (1925), directed by King Vidor: You can watch this silent film triumph in its entirety on YouTube. Part One starts here.
Hollywood Series — A Celebration of American Silent Film: King Vidor is a featured interviewee in this wonderful series by film historian Ken Brownlow. Many of the episodes are on YouTube, and I specifically recommend the first part of “The Pioneers” for an education about the true power and popularity of silent films in that era, how they were every bit as impressive to them as Star Wars and Avatar are to us.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
30 Comments
King Vidor – NORTHWEST PASSAGE!!! What a film! Rogers Rangers led by Spencer Tracy in Colonial America with Walter Brennan and Robert Young in tow vs insane Indian tribes and the rugged countryside with no food for hungry soldiers ("I'll eat your head, too, Rogers!") and filmed in glorious Technicolor in 1940.
Them, in retirement age, searching for the truth about the infamous Hollywood murder of silent film director William Desmond Taylor. Incredible!
What a great back story post on someone who, as you point out, does not have the name recognition he deserves. Thanks!
Another bit of trivia about King Vidor – as a small child he also witnessed the horrific destruction of Galveston by a hurricane which struck the city dead-on, in September 1900. One very vivid recollection of his was that the day before the hurricane hit, it seemed like the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the lagoon between Galveston and the mainland seemed to heap up – as if the city itself was at the bottom of a shallow bowl.
"Wizard of Oz" is #1 movie all-time.
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is #2.
SomeDame says:
"One of the best books about the silent era is A CAST OF KILLERS based on Vidor's private papers."
A CAST OF KILLERS by Sidney D. Kirkpatrick was fun to read, but according to a group that's been studying the William Desmond Taylor murder for decades, it's chock full of errors, contradictions, and fanciful details (over 175 in all) that make its "I know who did it!" conclusion rather dubious. Check out the website TAYLOROLOGY for more details, especially #65 of their online journal:
http://www.taylorology.com/
Supposedly the twentieth anniversary edition of the book goes a long way toward eliminating or qualifying these errors, so if anyone wants to read it, seek out that specific printing.
I didn't realize that he was so influential in the sound era, too – always just associated him with silent movies – BH has helped me become really interested in movies – and their technological aspects.
I was watching the Big Country again last night (I am on a Jean Simmons roll), and suddenly had the epiphany that camera angle and the light, screenwriting, has as much to do between greatness and mediocrity as the actual acting.
In my Jean Simmons search while web surfing, I came across this gold mine of a site:
It was the *hunt* for the truth that I found to be the more compelling reading vs the facts claimed by Vidor or Kirkpatrick. Vidor was on his own here in a pre-internet world. All he had was his intellect and all his direct connections to Silent Hollywood.
L. B. "Oscar" Mayer,
Agreed. It was a wonderful read, and all-too-often we forget how difficult research was in the pre-Internet years, not to mention copy editing and spell-checking.
Lots of people act high and mighty because Google allows them to painlessly chortle about errors in some old-timer's research. But they fail to allow for the many lonely hours that the old-timer spent in libraries poring through news clippings and microfiche, combing through archives like the Vidor papers, taking reams of handwritten notes on-the-fly, and then later putting everything together and having it go through the hellish publishing gauntlet (where, in my experience, overworked and careless editors and copy-setters tend to introduce all sorts of needless errors into text). It's an imperfect process fraught with unreliable sources, and so to get a book like that out at all is a triumph.
Vidor is hardly an obscure director. He directed, among many other films of course, The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, which I trust millions of conservatives of all ages have seen by now.
It was on TCM a while ago and I forgot to DVR it. Therefore, I haven't seen it yet, but have read the book, and loved it.
"It seems to belong more with names like Curtiz, Lubitsch, Cocteau, Kurosawa — foreign-sounding, arty-farty names, ones only a geeky film aficionado could love."
Yeah, what crap did those hacks ever churn out?? Their stuff could NEVER appeal to a broad audience!
Mr. Grin,
This series of articles has been most enjoyable. Thank you.
Your writing led me to check out Frances Marion's memoir 'Off With Their Heads'.
It's a great read. I'm so glad to have been led to it. Soon I'll see The Champ.
Today's explanations (from King Vidor and yourself) about how sound changed filmmaking are fascinating.
This is great educational stuff for a movie lover.
I recall reading years ago about King Vidor's great use of visual rhythms and tempo in a short film called
'Our Daily Bread'. I remember just a brief bit of it. Now I'll watch it again. Apparently, it can be viewed online thru the Netflix 'Instant Watch' deal, in a collection of short films titled 'Films of the Great Depression'.
Thanks again Mr. Grin. Looking forward to your future contributions here.
One of the best books about the silent era is "A Cast of Killers" based on Vidor's private papers. It details his investigation of the William Desmond Taylor murder case in 1922. Very entertaining. Vidor was a very special man and deserves more recognition than he has gotten in recent years.
I was about to say he must have been there for the Great Storm – what a thing to live through!!
Very well said. I, too, thought Vidor did a remarkable job of tracking down witnesses and pouring over court records, etc. 40 years after the events took place. I have read the other books on the subject of Taylor's murder as well as much of the court testimony and believe Vidor's assumption of Charlotte Shelby's guilt is well substantiated. The court records on Shelby and her older daughter are priceless – a mixture of comedy and tragedy that you just can't write.
For those interested…"The Champ"…TCM…This coming Wednesday, February 3. Set your DVR:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=12500
And thanks again Leo for another fine series.
I just wanted to thank you again for this series — am learning so much about what were just names flashing on the screen, and am also learning more in depth about those few in the golden times whose work I'd seen and enjoyed.
That comment he made about the "lucidity of silence" is so striking. The first example that comes to mind is not an American film: "Cabiria" (1914), directed by Giovanni Pastrone. It's best known perhaps for containing the first dolly shot (a fact which also highlights what Vidor said about the need for soundproof camera enclosures during the early talkie era) and its Maciste character being the first film representation of the stock character who eventually became known, on this side of the Atlantic, as Hercules in the 'good' old Italian sword-and-sandal film era; but I was impressed by the quality of the film and its direction, especially for that time, and the way the tale (which wanders all over the place and has as many holes in it as a fisherman's net does) grips you. It's really enjoyable today.
On thinking about it, sound would have dated it too much; it would have been off-putting. In fact, after a while you even ignore the title cards (which become quite bad: apparently Pastrone had quite a problem with their production) and let the visual tale carry you along. It does.
King Vidor was right on spot with that.
In what universe is Kurosawa either obscure or a director that only a geeky film type could love. Oh, that's right, he and his films weren't in English. My bad. I forgot who this website caters to.
Thanks for the head's-up, Jimmy. Maybe the scheduling flunkies at TCM read BH. . . .
And while the internet has made research easier, one needs to be more careful than ever about what one reads and believes on line. I have a few areas of deep knowledge and I often see misinformation on line. Multiply that by thousands and the question becomes – who do you believe?
Max Fischer Players asks:
"In what universe is Kurosawa either obscure or a director that only a geeky film type could love?"
Go to your local strip mall and ask a dozen people at random what their favorite Kurosawa movie is, and their puzzled looks will be your answer. Big Hollywood's Robert Avrech memorably posted on a heartfelt variant of this phenomenon here:
http://tinyurl.com/c6yfmn
To geeky film types like you and me, the name "Kurosawa" looms large in our cinematic dreamscapes. To most everyone else in the world, it's at most the vaguely recognizable name of some foreign guy (director? painter? writer? who cares. . . . ) whom they are supposed to like so that snobs don't rudely snicker things at them like, "I forgot who this website caters to."
Those are the people I'm writing this series for, and I'll be introducing them to the foreign gents in my own time and way. By the end, if they've followed along and watched the films, I trust they won't consider them arty-farty at all, but will have learned to revere them and their pictures.
movie lovah,
Glad you liked the Marion volume. That reminds me, I was negligent this week in not recommending the books King Vidor himself wrote, A TREE IS A TREE (his autobiography) and KING VIDOR ON FILMMAKING. Among much else, both contain lots of information about his use of music to time scenes in silent films for specific effects.
Next week we'll get into the actual production of THE CHAMP from Vidor's point of view, and see how he discovered that there were many things about sound that facilitated the making of better pictures.
maatkare,
Girl, you know it's true. Hardcore film geeks like us excepted (and we're far less numerous than we appear to be when congregating at Internet watering holes like BH, or in person at Hollywood haunts like The American Cinematheque), those names don't mean a thing to the average filmgoer aside from sounding foreign and thus, by extension, most likely arty-farty. Mike Myers got laughs from his old SNL "Sprockets" routines for a reason.
If I asked, say, my Mom or Dad what their favorite Ford or Hitchcock movie is, they'd have an answer and know exactly who I was talking about. If I asked them what their favorite Curtiz movie was, I'd get a blank stare until I started rattling off titles (some of which they in fact own on DVD). With the others even titles wouldn't help, and any attempt to explain would just end with them bored and wondering when I was going to shut up so they could start watching the copy of CRANK 2 they just picked up at the local Redbox.
One of my primary goals with this series is to ease general readers into a working knowledge of these obscure (not to you, but to them) names and their importance. Acknowledging the bitter truth about the name recognition of some of my favorite directors is a part of that. But there is a method to my madness — note how I used THE WIZARD OF OZ, which has spectacular name recognition, as a gateway drug to King Vidor and THE CHAMP, which do not, much as I'd like for them to.
Bill,
Thanks so much for that link. You're right — what a goldmine. If I start missing deadlines at Big Hollywood in the coming weeks, I'm blaming you.
Angles, lighting, sound, screenwriting, acting — there are as many roads to greatness in movie-making as there are in painting, music, literature or any other art. It all matters.
See, the thing is, I dispute that it's only snobs or geeks who know that stuff now. My funky parents were the ones to intro me to classic film 30 years ago when it was hard to see stuff, but now those director's work has been on basic tv for years, let alone steady rotation on TCM and cable. I really do feel basic film knowledge since the video store/cable era has gotten a lot broader. And for a film site where people continually bemoan how great movies were in the 'good old days,' I suspect the basic knowledge here is even greater.
maatkare says:
"I dispute that it's only snobs or geeks who know that stuff now."
We could have a lot of fun attempting a "You're a Film Geek if. . ." questionnaire to separate the geeks from the armchair TCM enthusiasts. If you took a cross-section of people off a busy city street, I'm sure a (fairly low but not-insignificant) number of people could answer affirmatively to having seen THE FOUNTAINHEAD or THE SEVEN SAMURAI. Whether they knew anything about the directors is a different matter entirely. Anyone who hears a name like "Vidor" or "Kurosawa" and can off the top of their head name five films from the canons of each would qualify as a film geek in my book.
So how many of those people are out there? If you went outside and start asking people, "I'm doing a poll. What are your favorite King Vidor films?" what kind of answers do you think you'd get? Gathered together, would the people who've heard of Vidor at all equal even 1% of the total population?
Snobs are much easier to identify. People aren't snobs because they know stuff, but because they rub other people's faces in it (like "Max Fischer Players" below musing that he "forgot who this website caters to," i.e. knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing conservatives).
maatkare also says:
"I really do feel basic film knowledge since the video store/cable era has gotten a lot broader. And for a film site where people continually bemoan how great movies were in the 'good old days,' I suspect the basic knowledge here is even greater."
You would think so. But I glumly note that last week when Young Ben posted his thermonuclear Top Ten Directors thumb-sucker, only ONE PERSON out of hundreds asked, "No Vidor?" (I assume the poster meant King and not Charles).
I agree that the combination of Netflix/TCM/IMDb/Wikipedia has resulted in a more cinema-savvy populace, but any such gains need to be kept in perspective. A few months back, I quoted Ford biographer Joseph McBride's shock that numerous cinema teachers and Hollywood insiders he queried had no idea who John Ford was. I myself went to the Aero Theater in Santa Monica last week to see their double feature of FORT APACHE and SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, and there were maybe 60-70 people in attendance — this in a city of nearly TEN MILLION, a city that is considered the film capital of the world, a city supposedly filled with film geeks and snobs of all kinds.
A fair number of people (a couple thousand?) will have walked away from my article happy that they now "know" King Vidor. But I fear that the number who go on to watch his movies will be far lower. Heck, many people under thirty I know have never seen RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, much less THE CHAMP.
Technology might eventually go a long way towards rectifying this. When THE CHAMP gets re-released in virtual-reality 3-D, and completely realistic Wallace Beery and Little Jackie Cooper avatars are being cast in new movies, perceptions will change. Someday we'll have to explain to children that their favorite actor isn't new at all, but actually a simulacrum of a long-dead real person. It's gonna get real weird.
Q.E.D.! Beautifully written!
maatkare,
I'm interested to hear how your "funky parents" lured you into an appreciation of classic movies, and especially how they squared their admiration for the films with the monolithic monochromaticism of the "good old days."
Basic history lessons…judicious screening choices. Not that hard, really. You can watch "Birth of A Nation" and recognize its brilliance even though it's pretty repugnant. Our code word for the racism of the past was "ignorance," as in, "people were much more ignorant back then."
Since when was King Vidor ever obscure? He's one of the very first American directors one learns about when one studies film (or at least did in the 1970s), as his influence stretches from the silent era into the mid-1950s. He was always considered up there with John Ford and Howard Hawks as a great American director, even though the auteur theorists (a specious theory at that) might not have liked him much and been dismissive. He was nominated five times for a Best Director Oscar, the first time in 1929 and the last in 1957. He finally got an honorary award in 1979, a generation after he should have been so honored. This is a very good piece, and I enjoyed it, but I don't know if you could classify King Vidor as a "conservative." His movies "Hallelujah!" (1929), an all-black musical that brought him his second Oscar nod, and "Our Daily Bread" (1934) were considered progressive in their time, the latter downright communistic. King Vidor was a great director and a fascinating man, who directed movies from 1913 through 1959 (with one last film in 1980). For some reason, the Martin Scorseses of the world, with their love of B-pictures, like to privilege mediocrities like Alan Dwan over him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.