{"id":2674,"date":"2008-08-29T10:50:30","date_gmt":"2008-08-29T15:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=2674"},"modified":"2019-06-29T06:04:48","modified_gmt":"2019-06-29T11:04:48","slug":"lucky-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2008\/08\/29\/lucky-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Lucky ’13"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Mysterious X<\/em> (1913).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Each film is interlocked with so many other films. You can’t get away. Whatever you do now that you think is new was already done in 1913. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Martin Scorsese, quoted in Scorsese by Ebert<\/a><\/em> (University of Chicago Press, 2008), 219.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

Most historical events don\u2019t abide by clocks and calendars. Seldom does a trend begin neatly on one date and end, full stop, on another. Changes have vague origins and diffuse destinies. When Kristin and I, along with others, argued for 1917<\/a> as the best point to date the consolidation of the Hollywood style of storytelling, we realized that it\u2019s a useful approximation but not as exact as a Tokyo subway timetable.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s just as hard to argue that a year constitutes a meaningful unit in itself. Who expects anything but tax laws to change drastically at midnight on 31 December? Yet evidently our minds need benchmarks. Film historians, while being aware that trends are slippery and dating is approximate, have long spotlighted certain years as particularly significant.<\/p>\n

Take 1939, which has become a sort of emblem of the peak achievements of Hollywood\u2019s Golden Age. We had Gone with the Wind<\/em>, The Wizard of Oz, Only Angels Have Wings<\/em>, Stagecoach<\/em>, Gunga Din<\/em>, Wuthering Heights<\/em>, Dark Victory<\/em>, Young Mr. Lincoln<\/em>, Beau Geste,<\/em> Mr. Smith Goes to Washington<\/em>, Ninotchka<\/em>, The Roaring \u201820s<\/em>, and Destry Rides Again<\/em>. I\u2019d watch any of those, except Gone with the Wind<\/em>, right now\u2014something I find it hard to say about most Hollywood movies I\u2019ve seen in 2008.<\/p>\n

Another strong year is 1960, with La Dolce Vita<\/em>, L\u2019Avventura<\/em>, Rocco and His Brothers<\/em>, The Apartment<\/em>, Elmer Gantry<\/em>, Spartacus<\/em>, Psycho<\/em>, Exodus<\/em>, The Magnificent Seven<\/em>, Shadows<\/em>, Late Autumn<\/em> (Ozu), and The Bad Sleep Well<\/em> (Kurosawa). Arguably, 1960 was owned by the French, who gave us Breathless<\/em>, Shoot the Piano Player<\/em>, Paris nous appartient<\/em>, Les Bonnes femmes<\/em>, Le Trou<\/em> (Becker), Moi un noir<\/span><\/em> (Rouch)<\/span>, and Letter from Siberia<\/span><\/em> (Marker)<\/span>. (See Postscript.)<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s go back still further. Researchers sometimes split the silent-film period in two, with the first stretch, usually called \u201cearly cinema,\u201d running up to 1915 or so. (1) The second phase then runs roughly from 1915 to 1928. (2) So for many historians the year 1915 functions as a tacit pivot-point, and it is remembered not only for The Birth of a Nation<\/em> but also for Regeneration<\/em>, The Tramp<\/em>, Kindling, The Cheat<\/em>, Les Vampires<\/em>, Daydreams<\/em> (Yevgenii Bauer), and several William S. Hart films. But another year holds a special place in the minds of silent film aficionados.<\/p>\n

Over a decade ago, the annual Days of the Silent Cinema festival (Il Giornate del cinema muto<\/a>), took 1913<\/a> as its focus. (3) It was an extraordinary year. Denmark produced Atlantis<\/a><\/em> (August Blom) and The Mysterious X<\/a><\/em> (Benjamin Christensen). From France we had L\u2019Enfant de Paris<\/a><\/em> (Leonce Perret), Germinal<\/em> (Albert Capellani), and Louis Feuillade\u2019s Fantomas<\/a><\/em> series. Germany gave us Urban Gad\u2019s Engelein<\/em> and Filmprimadonna<\/em> and Franz Hofer\u2019s obsessively symmetrical The Black Ball<\/em>. The staggering set of Italy\u2019s Love Everlasting<\/em> (Ma l\u2019amor mio non muore!<\/em>, Mario Caserini) was matched by the breadth of Enrico Guazzoni\u2019s Quo vadis?<\/em> In Russia Bauer released Twilight of a Woman\u2019s Soul<\/a><\/em>. American audiences saw Traffic in Souls<\/a><\/em> (George Loane Tucker) and Death’s Marathon<\/em><\/a> and\u00a0The Mothering Heart<\/a><\/em>, from a guy named Griffith. Several historians would argue that 1913 marked the first major achievements of film as an artform.<\/p>\n

Two outstanding films of that annus mirabilis<\/em> have recently been issued on US DVD. One is a striking accomplishment, the other a flat-out masterpiece. Both discs belong in the collections of everyone who\u2019s serious about cinema.<\/p>\n

Your call is important to us<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A wife and her baby are alone in an isolated house when a tramp breaks in. As the wife tries to keep the invader at bay, her husband happens to telephone and learn what\u2019s happening. He scrambles to return home. He steals an idle car, and its owner, accompanied by police, race after him. We cut rapidly between the besieged mother and the husband\u2019s frantic drive, as he is in turn pursued. Just as the tramp is about to attack the wife, the husband bursts in, followed by the police. The family is saved.<\/p>\n

This is the story of the 1913 one-reel film, Suspense<\/em><\/strong>, co-directed by Lois Weber and Phillips Smalley. If the plot sounds familiar, it\u2019s probably because you know that one of D. W. Griffith\u2019s most famous films, The Lonely Villa<\/em> (1909) tells the same basic tale.There are still earlier versions, including one, The Physician of the Castle<\/em> (Le M\u00e9d\u00e9cin du chateau<\/em>, 1908), which may have inspired Griffith. The ultimate source seems to be a 1902 play by Andr\u00e9 de Lord, Au t\u00e9l\u00e9phone<\/em> (translated here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

So Weber and Smalley are reviving an old idea. Their task is to make it fresh. How they do so has been studied in depth by Charlie Keil in his book Early American Cinema in Transition: Story, Style, and Filmmaking, 1907-1913<\/em><\/a>.I can\u2019t match Keil\u2019s subtlety, and it\u2019s better that you see the film first, so I\u2019ll drop only some hints, pointers, and comments.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re inclined to say that The Lonely Villa<\/em> influenced Suspense<\/em>. But maybe we can capture the situation in a more illuminating way. The art historian E. H. Gombrich has suggested that we can often trace the relationship between artworks in terms of schema and revision<\/em>. (4) A schema<\/strong> is a pattern that we find in an artwork, one that a later artist can borrow. Most often, later artists copy the schema straightforwardly. This is the usual way we think of influence. But instead of replicating the schema, the next artist can revise<\/strong> it. She can elaborate on it, strip it to its essence, drop parts and add others, whatever\u2014in order to achieve new purposes or evoke fresh responses.<\/p>\n

In The Lonely Villa<\/em>, Griffith uses crosscutting to build suspense. He cuts among the thuggish vagrants trying to break in, the wife and daughters trying to hold them off, and the father learning by phone of the situation and then plunging after them with a policeman. The obvious pattern here is the principle of alternation between different lines of action, all taking place at the same time and converging in a last-minute rescue.<\/p>\n

So Smalley and Weber inherit the crosscutting schema, but they go beyond simply copying it. They find ways to revise it, some quite surprising. These revisions aim to create more tension and to dynamize the situation.<\/p>\n

The obvious option, at least to us today, would be to use more shots than Griffith does; we think that increasing the cutting pace builds up excitement. Interestingly, however, Suspense<\/em> uses only a couple of more shots than The Lonely Villa<\/em> within a comparable running time. (5) We usually expect that American films become more rapidly cut as the 1910s go on, but this isn\u2019t the case here. Shortly, I\u2019ll suggest why.<\/p>\n

Smalley and Weber recast Griffith\u2019s parallel editing in several ways. For instance, The Lonely Villa<\/em> prolongs the phone conversation between husband and wife, building suspense through the husband\u2019s instruction to use his revolver on the thugs. Suspense<\/em>, by contrast, doesn\u2019t dwell on the telephone conversation but devotes more time (and shots) to the chase along the highway. That\u2019s because Weber and Smalley have complicated the chase by having the husband pursued by the irate motorist and the police, something that doesn\u2019t happen in the Griffith film.<\/p>\n

Just as important, Smalley and Weber revise the crosscutting schema through framings that are quite bold for 1913. For example, Griffith\u2019s tramps break into the house in long shot, and they move laterally across the frame.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But Weber and Smalley\u2019s tramp sneaks steadily up the stairs, into a menacing extreme close-up.<\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/p>\n

Elsewhere, Suspense<\/em> gives us close views of the wife and of the door as the tramp breaks in. There are oblique angles on the back door of the house, and virtually Hitchcockian point-of-view shots when the wife sees the tramp breaking in and he looks straight up at her.<\/p>\n

What struck me most forcibly on watching the film again was the way in which Weber and Smalley\u2019s daring framings serve as equivalents for parallel editing. In effect, they revise the crosscutting schema by putting several actions into a single frame. The most evident, and the most famous, instances are the triangulated split-screen shots. They cram together three lines of action: the wife on the phone, the husband on the phone, and the tramp\u2019s efforts to break into the house (here, finding the key under the mat). (6)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Split-screen effects like this were common enough in early cinema, especially for rendering telephone conversations. Eileen Bowser points out that the three-frame division was one variant, with a landscape separating the two callers. (7) Her example is from College Chums<\/em> (1907).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But my sense is that in early cinema the split-screen effect was used principally for exposition or comedy, not for suspense. Smalley and Weber have made this framing substitute for crosscutting: instead of giving us three shots, we get one, showing the plot advancing along different lines of action. These splintered frames function much like Brian De Palma\u2019s multiple-frame imagery in Sisters<\/em>, Blow-Out<\/em>, and other films. There’s also the nice touch of the conical lampshade over the husband’s head, providing a fulcrum for the composition.<\/p>\n

Earlier in the film, instead of crosscutting between the tramp outside and the wife indoors, Suspense<\/em> gives us both in the same shot, with the tramp peeking in behind her.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A more ingenious revision of the crosscutting schema comes during the shots on the road. Instead of cutting between the father in the stolen car and the police pursuing him, Suspense<\/em> packs them into the same frame. This is done not only in long shot but also in striking depth compositions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Flashiest of all are the shots showing the pursuers reflected in the rear-view mirror of the father\u2019s car as he races ahead of them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Again, a single framing has done duty for two shots, one of the father looking back and another showing the cops coming closer to him. By compressing several lines of action into a single frame, our 1913 film doesn\u2019t need to use significantly more shots than the 1909 one.<\/p>\n

These are just a few of the imaginative ways in which Weber and Smalley have recast their standard situation. I could have considered as well the unobtrusive use of the knife as a multi-purpose prop, the echoed shots of mirrors, and the shrewd employment of repetitions in the intertitles.<\/p>\n

It would take an early-cinema specialist like Keil to trace out all the connections between Suspense<\/em> and other films of its era. One among many would be the fact that Griffith wasn\u2019t exactly standing still between 1909, the year of The Lonely Villa<\/em>, and 1913. For instance, his Battle at Elderbush Gulch<\/em>, made about the same time as Suspense<\/em> (though released in 1914), displays far more rapid cutting than Weber and Smalley attempt. Griffith also employed a swelling advance to the foreground, like that of the tramp shot I showed above, in The Musketeers of Pig Alley<\/em> (1912).<\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/p>\n

Here, Smalley and Weber seem to have replicated a schema that was believed to ratchet up tension, the so-called looming effect.<\/p>\n

The very title of the film exhibits self-consciousness about its artistic purpose. By 1913, it seems, American filmmakers were confident enough in their skills to announce their aims. We want<\/em>, the title seems to say, to arouse you, to make you wait, hanging there, for the resolution. We know how to tell a twelve-minute story cinematically.<\/em> The film seems uncannily to anticipate all those one-word titles that Hitchcock invoked to unsettle us–Suspicion<\/em>, Spellbound<\/em>, Psycho<\/em>, Frenzy<\/em>. As in a Hitchcock movie, the fact that we are pretty certain how Suspense<\/em> will turn out doesn\u2019t seem to dissipate our anxiety. (For more on this paradox of suspense, see this entry<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Tunnel vision<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It was during the Pordenone 1913 season that the full brilliance of Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s Ingeborg Holm<\/em> hit me. I had seen the film a couple of times before and found it deeply moving in its restrained treatment of a poignant situation. The film traces the dissolution of a family. Sven Holm is doing a brisk retail business, but his health problems, along with a thieving clerk, plunge the family into poverty. When Holm dies, his wife Ingeborg must take the children into the poorhouse, and from there they are boarded out to foster families. Her plight worsens over the years, and its sorrowful depths are revealed when her son, now grown, returns to visit her.<\/p>\n

Ingeborg Holm<\/em> has long been recognized as a milestone in European film, not least for its effect on improving Sweden\u2019s treatment of the poor. (8) The acting style is muted and delicate, with no mugging or arm-waving. For long periods, the main actors turn from the audience. (9) Just as impressive are the poised compositions, sustained in unhurried long takes. These give what is essentially a bourgeois tragedy a kind of majestic relentlessness. Watching, I remembered what Dreyer had admired in Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s Ingmar\u2019s Sons<\/em> (1918):<\/p>\n

The film people here at home shook their heads because Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m had really a boldness to let his farmers walk heavily and soberly as farmers do. Yes, they used up an eternity to come from one end of the room to the other.<\/strong> (10)<\/p>\n

But sitting in the Cinema Verdi in 1993, I spotted yet another level of artistry. Knowing the story of Ingeborg Holm<\/em>, I was able to watch the shots unfold. I could study how\u00a0Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u00a0was unobtrusively moving characters so that they became shifting centers of interest. Although he didn\u2019t cut in to close-ups, he harmonized his actors\u2019 movements so that at one point you noticed Ingeborg, at another her husband. Performers spread themselves across the frame, arrayed themselves in depth, turned from or toward the camera. Most subtly of all, one actor might mask another one, driving our attention to other parts of the frame. Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m could sustain this intricate play of blocking and revealing for minutes on end.<\/p>\n

My favorite example of this tactic is the three-minute passage showing Ingeborg\u2019s daughter and son taken away by new mothers. You can read the whole discussion on pp. 191-195 in On the History of Film Style<\/em> (1997), but here is an excerpt, with stills intercalated. (These stills, grabbed from the DVD, lack a little on the left. The film has been printed and reprinted so many times, and now fitted to the TV monitor, that it has lost some information along that edge.)<\/p>\n

Ingeborg\u2019s entry with her children from the rear doorway establishes the trajectory that will be followed during the scene, as foster mothers come in and take away the children. (Again, the scene is built around movements toward and away from the camera.) In a brilliant stroke, Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m immediately plants the young son in the foreground, back to us. The boy will stand there immobile for this first phase of the scene, occasionally serving to block the superintendent.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Ingeborg buries her face in her daughter\u2019s shoulder at the precise moment the foster mother enters from the rear left. She passes behind Ingeborg, and as she is momentarily blocked, the superintendent twitches into visibility, handing the woman a document to sign.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

During the signing, when the woman is briefly obscured, the superintendent shifts position again and Ingeborg lifts her face once more. Then Ingeborg and her daughter move slightly leftward as the foster mother comes forward.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This phase of the scene concludes with the departure of the daughter and the embrace of Ingeborg and her son in the foreground, once more concealing the superintendent.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Granted, I picked one of the film’s most exactingly staged scenes, but there are several other examples. Consider the climax, when the adult son comes to visit Ingeborg: the camera position and staging ask us to recall the scene I’ve just mentioned. Or take a look at the handling of the space behind the counter in the various scenes in the Holms’ shop. One instance surmounts this section.<\/p>\n

This choreography is hard to catch on the fly: by the time you notice a change, what prepared for it has gone. To understand the overall dynamic, we must reverse-engineer the effects, moving backward from the result to the conditions. As I studied the film, it became clear that creating shifting centers of interest was basic to the scenes\u2019 effects. All the finesse of acting, both solo and ensemble, would come to little if we weren\u2019t primed to watch the most important area of the shot. Directors of the 1910s became supremely skilful in guiding our eye from one major story point to another within the fixed frame.<\/p>\n

Some of the tactics of guiding our attention could be borrowed from other arts. Painting and theatre supplied certain schemas, like placing an item in the center of the picture format and turning faces toward the viewer. But some tactics for directing our eye relied on capacities that were as \u201cspecifically cinematic\u201d as cutting was argued to be. Theatre is staged for many sightlines, but cinema is staged for a single one, that of the camera lens. That fact allowed directors to organize the unfolding action in depth, prompting the viewer to notice things at many distances from the camera.<\/p>\n

It also allowed a precise blocking and revealing of information that would not work on the stage. In a live theatre performance, the slight shifts we detect in the Ingeborg Holm<\/em> scene would be apparent to only very few viewers; people sitting in other vantage points wouldn\u2019t see them. For another example of this phenomenon, go elsewhere on this blogsite<\/a>.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a more basic explanation of what\u2019s going on. Cinematic space is a result of optical perspective, like the space of classic painting. The actors may seem to be standing in a cubical space, but in fact they move within a tipped-over pyramid, with the tip resting at the camera lens. They work inside a ground area that\u2019s the shape of a slice of pie. Here\u2019s a reminder from The Black Ball<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When there are figures close to the camera, as here, they fill up more of the frame, indicating that the field of view has narrowed. Filmmakers of the 1910s had discussed this property of their \u201ccinematic stage,\u201d so as researchers we can confirm that the control of position and timing we observe on screen results from the firm intentions of the makers. They might have echoed Uccello, the Renaissance artist who bent over his drawings late at night and exclaimed: \u201cHow sweet a thing is this perspective!\u201d<\/p>\n

Suddenly the tableau tradition made sense to me. Directors had to organize both the two-dimensional composition and the tapering three-dimensional playing space in front of the camera. The purpose was to create ever-changing centers of interest, laterally and in depth, flowing along with the key moments in the unfolding action.<\/p>\n

By studying the same tactics in Feuillade, Bauer, and others, I found that these principles offered a fruitful way to understand much of what was happening in the films of the tableau era. The dynamic of schema and repetition\/revision was at work as well, since I found earlier, more rudimentary uses of these principles; these were then refined during the 1910s. Moreover, the idea helped me generalize beyond that era and analyze later directors, including Mizoguchi Kenji and Hou Hsiao-hsien, who also used staging to shape the viewer\u2019s experience. The results can be found in On the History of Film Style<\/em> and Figures Traced in Light<\/em>. Those books largely owe their existence to that flash of awareness kindled by Ingeborg Holm<\/em>. (11)<\/p>\n

We can\u2019t reconstruct Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s stylistic development with much confidence. (12) His first directed film, The Gardener<\/em> (Tr\u00e4dg\u00e4rdsm\u00e4staren<\/em>, 1912) survives, but I saw it before I knew how to watch 1910s movies in this way, so I can\u2019t comment on it. Of the twenty-six films he made from 1912 to 1917, nearly all have been lost. Apart from Ingeborg<\/em>, I have managed to see Havsagamar<\/em> (The Sea Vultures<\/em>, 1916). This retains aspects of the tableau tradition, but virtually no scenes display the intricate staging of his 1913 masterpiece.<\/p>\n

In the late 1910s, judging by the films we have, Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m seems to have moved quickly toward continuity editing in the American vein<\/a>. (13) The Girl from Stormycroft<\/em> (T\u00f6sen fr\u00e4n Stormyrtorpet<\/em>, 1917) contains extended passages of analytical editing, and the scenes display a freedom of camera setup one seldom sees in European cinema of the period.\u00a0Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m clearly understands the principles of continuity down to the smallest detail. For instance, he not only uses the frame-edge cut (the cut that lets a character exit one shot and enter another, as the body crosses the frameline); he accelerates it. Our heroine leaves the kitchen, and in the shot\u2019s final frame she hits the right edge. Another director would have had her exit the frame entirely and held the kitchen shot a little longer, to give her time to get to the next room. But Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m simply cuts to her already in another room, completing her trajectory.<\/p>\n

\"\" <\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m presumes that the constant pace of her approach and the vector of her movement will smooth the shot-change. It does, but few directors of that day would had such confidence that our mind would create continuity of motion.<\/p>\n

During this summer\u2019s archive viewing<\/a>, I spent some time studying Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s cutting in The Girl from Stormycroft<\/em> and subsequent films. I may offer some more thoughts later. For now I\u2019ll just say that in these early years we seldom encounter such a versatile director, one who mastered the tableau tradition and then moved, with apparently little effort, to nuanced continuity editing. More generally, examining his technique isn\u2019t a dry exercise. We never lose by studying craftsmanship. Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s films succeed because his style carefully guides our moment-by-moment apprehension of the heart-rending stories he has chosen to tell.<\/p>\n

Have I convinced you to surrender your credit-card number? Suspense<\/em> is available in a dazzling Flicker Alley collection, Saved from the Flames<\/em><\/a>, compiled from the French series Retour de flame<\/em><\/a>. Ingeborg Holm<\/em> comes with a tinted print of the estimable Terje Vigen<\/em> (A Man There Was<\/em>) on a DVD from Kino<\/a>. The latter disc includes vibrant scores from Donald Sosin and David Drazin.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

(1) For the purposes of the outstanding Encyclopedia of Early Cinema<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 2005), the editor Richard Abel considers that the early cinema constitutes the period from film\u2019s invention ca. 1894 to the mid-1910s.<\/p>\n

(2) Silent films were still made into the 1930s, notably in Russia and Japan\u2014a situation that shows the rough-and-ready quality of period divisions.<\/p>\n

(3) For an informative series of articles around the 1913 theme, see Griffithiana<\/em> no. 50 (May 1994).<\/p>\n

(4) Gombrich proposes these ideas at various points in Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation<\/a><\/em>, new ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). The book is a milestone in twentieth-century humanistic inquiry.<\/p>\n

(5) The Lonely Villa <\/em>(1909) has, in the version I\u2019ve seen, 54 shots in a 750-foot reel (that is, about twelve and a half minutes at 16 frames per second). Suspense<\/em> has nearly the same number of shots, 56, in about the same running time.<\/p>\n

(6) Sharp-eyed readers will recognize one of these shots as Fig. 5.82 in Film Art: An Introduction<\/em>, 8th<\/sup> ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), 187.<\/p>\n

(7) Eileen Bowser, The Transformation of Cinema 1907-1915<\/a><\/em>, vol. 2 of History of the American Cinema<\/em> (New York: Scribners, 1990), 65.<\/p>\n

(8) For more background on the film, see Jan Olsson, \u201c\u2018Classical\u2019 vs. \u2018Pre-Classical\u2019: Ingeborg Holm<\/em> and Swedish Cinema in 1913,\u201d Griffithiana<\/em> no. 50 (May 1994), 113-123.<\/p>\n

(9) Kristin wrote about this technique in \u201cThe International Exploration of Cinematic Expressivity,\u201d in Film and the First World War<\/em>, ed. Karel Dibbets and Bert Hogenkamp (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1995), 65-85. She also discusses it in our Film History: An Introduction<\/em>, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 67.<\/p>\n

(10) Carl Dreyer, \u201cA Little on Film Style,\u201d Dreyer in Double Reflection<\/a><\/em>, ed. and trans. Donald Skoller (New York: Dutton, 1973), 133.<\/p>\n

(11) I was probably primed for this by lectures presented by Yuri Tsivian, who has long been studying mirrors in 1910s cinema and calculating how they revealed offscreen space.<\/p>\n

(12) Detailed information on Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s relation to the film industry in these years can be found in John Fullerton\u2019s epic Ph. D. thesis, The Development of a System of Representation in Swedish Film, 1912-1920<\/em> (University of East Anglia, 1994). See also Fullerton, \u201cContextualising the Innovation of Deep Staging in Swedish Film,\u201d Film and the First World War<\/a><\/em>, ed. Dibbets and Hogenkamp, 86-96.<\/p>\n

(13) Several people have analyzed Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s editing. Ben Brewster and Lea Jacobs\u2019 Theatre to Cinema: Stage Pictorialism and the Early Feature Film<\/a><\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 133-136 shows how cutting supports the acting in a crucial scene of Ingmar\u2019s Sons<\/em>. Tom Gunning\u2019s essay \u201c\u2018A Dangerous Pledge\u2019: Victor Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s Unknown Masterpiece, M\u00e4sterman<\/em>,\u201d in John Fullerton and Jan Olsson\u2019s anthology Nordic Explorations: Film before 1930<\/a><\/em>(Sydney: John Libbey, 1999), 204-231, argues that Sj\u00f6str\u00f6m\u2019s cutting gives his characters a degree of psychological opacity. Most recently, in an unpublished paper Jonah Horwitz discusses patterns of performance, composition, and editing in Terje Vigen<\/em> (1917).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Twilight of a Woman’s Soul<\/em> (1913).<\/p>\n

PS 31 August<\/strong>: Some corrections. David Cairns writes to point out that the triangle at the top of the frame in the Suspense<\/em> split-screen isn’t a lamp but simply the shade behind the father’s head, cropped by the masking. Wishful thinking on my part, I’m afraid. By the way, David has an intriguing movie giveaway going on his site<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Roland-Fran\u00e7ois Lack corrects dates on two of my Greatest French Hits from 1960: \u201cThe great Marker from that year is Description d\u2019un combat<\/em>, not Lettre de Sib\u00e9rie<\/em> (1958), and likewise Rouch\u2019s Moi un noir<\/em> is from 1958.\u201d Thanks to him and David. To my original list, I should probably have added Cocteau\u2019s Testament d\u2019Orph\u00e9e<\/em>, released in 1960.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Mysterious X (1913). Each film is interlocked with so many other films. You can’t get away. Whatever you do now that you think is new was already done in 1913. Martin Scorsese, quoted in Scorsese by Ebert (University of Chicago Press, 2008), 219. DB here: Most historical events don\u2019t abide by clocks and calendars. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[268,90,104,94,230,2,12,14,5,58,59,183],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1910s-cinema","category-directors-bauer","category-directors-griffith","category-directors-sjostrom","category-directors-weber","category-film-art","category-film-history","category-film-scholarship","category-film-technique","category-technique-editing","category-technique-staging","category-tableau-staging"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2674"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42268,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674\/revisions\/42268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}