nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. Literary Writers and Filmmaking Practices in Silent Cinema

verfasst von : Annie Nissen

Erschienen in: Authors and Adaptation

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter investigates literary writers’ relationships with film in the 1920s prior to the arrival of synchronised sound and it investigates how the film industry displayed an ambivalent attitude towards popular writers, first courting, and then discarding them. Highlighting the expectations versus the realities that literary authors faced writing for film and the antagonism towards them from the industry, it discusses American and British film industries’ advertisements to promote their writers’ programmes, along with the variable experiences of writers’ engagements, including discourses on writing for film by authors such as Elinor Glyn and Somerset Maugham. The complex relationship between authors and film in this period is further examined via the case study of J.M. Barrie and his proposed screenplay for the 1924 film adaptation of Peter Pan, which challenges the prevalent notion that literary writers were clinging to words without regard for film conventions and technologies. This chapter also traces how the rise of medium specificity in film theory resulted in a devaluation of the written word within film, limiting the contribution that literary writers wanted to make to film as an art form, thereby creating a more favourable position for the conventional industry film writer.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Adaptation, Ownership and the Emergence of Narrative Film

Nächstes Kapitel Literary Writers and Early Sound Film: Experimental Writing

Unfortunately, only this production image remains from the lost film, showing Barrie flanked by Shaw, G.K. Chesterton, William Archer, and Lord Howard de Walden, who are all in cowboy costumes. The photograph appears in Chesterton’s Autobiography, where he recounts the experience, along with another film sequence written by Barrie, where he and Shaw appeared—Rosy Rapture (1914), filmed at the Duke of York Theatre (1936, 237–41). Barrie also wrote and filmed an adaptation of Macbeth for charity, entitled The Real Thing at Last, parodying Herbert Beerbohm Tree and D.W. Griffith’s American adaptation of 1916 (R.D.S. Jack 2001).

The company, Minerva Film (initially British Comedy Films, Ltd.), was formed in 1920, by, among others, Leslie Howard, Adrian Brunel, and A.A. Milne. It folded later in the same year, with Brunel blaming the American industry’s hold over British cinemas. Everyone involved lost money, including Wells, one of the biggest shareholders, who, according to Brunel, would probably not have noticed the £250 he had lost (1949, 57–64).

Part of one of the preliminary manifestos of the society states: “The Film Society has been founded in the belief that there are in this country a large number of people who regard the cinema with the liveliest interest, and who would welcome an opportunity seldom afforded the general public of witnessing films of intrinsic merit, whether new or old” (qtd. in Brunel 1949, 112–13). For the Society’s agenda and impact on British film culture in the 1920s, see Jamie Sexton (2002) and Jen Samson (1986). Both Wells and Shaw remained members until the society disbanded in 1939.

Martin Meisel attests that in the nineteenth century and before, both picture and drama influenced the style and structure of the novel (1983, 52). Scholars would later acknowledge similar dynamics in film.

Meisel points out that early film was “the age that danced on the grave of the nineteenth-century narrative pictorial style,” as it “perfected the means for implementing a more perfect union between narrative and picture” (1983, 436).

Gledhill discusses the significance of “story” to the cultural poetics of British filmmaking from 1918–28 (2003, 151–77).

This essay was originally published in The North American Review (May 1921). Maugham admits that he had only busied himself with film for a matter of weeks (after having been hired by Paramount), but had “already learnt a good deal” and would only like to “jot down his first impressions” (181).

It is notable that in many critical discourses no distinction is being made between this early endeavour and the second surge of writers to Hollywood in the thirties and early forties. Kamilla Elliott argues with regard to Hollywood’s wider failure to infuse literary talent into screenwriting that the blame is placed depending on which “side of the interdisciplinary fence one sits” (2003, 85–6). See: Richard Fine (1985, 43–70); Tom Stempel (1988, 52–4); Steven Maras (2009, 163–6).

Low points out that writing about film art was gaining in importance in this period, in the general press, industry how-to guides, in books on film criticism and the emergence of more “ambitious” film theory works (1971, 20–1). The notion that film needed to move away from literary frameworks was also being expressed in theoretical writing, discussed further in this chapter.

Earlier collaborations with authors had existed, but were less marketed and publicised. Collaborations with individual authors had been announced in the 1910s: for example, Pathé had secured rights to works by Rudyard Kipling in 1915, with the stipulation that Kipling would write the scenarios. By 1921, only one film had appeared; Without Benefit of Clergy was based on an 1891 story (Leibfried 2000, 10). A letter dated February 1922 from Kipling to Pathé shows his insistence on authorial control over a production: “but the final judgment must, of course, rest with me” (2004, 109; emphasis in original). Janet Staiger points out that the “eminent author” idea pre-dated Goldwyn by a decade, as Edison had already advertised the signing of writers, including Rex Beach, in 1909, and that shortly prior to this, French Gaumont had announced collaborations with French dramatists (1988, 100–1).

Figure 5.4 shows some of the authors that were signed to Paramount Pictures: Sir Gilbert Parker, Samuel Mervin, Elinor Glyn, James A.B. Scherer, Rita Weiman, Henry Arthur Jones, Cosmo Hamilton, George Pattullo, W. Somerset Maugham. Avery Hopwood, Edward Knoblock with Jesse L. Lasky featured in the centre.

American and Canadian authors signed by Paramount include Sir Gilbert Parker, Thompson Buchanan, Avery Hopwood, Edward Sheldon, Samuel Merwin, Harvey J. O’Higgins, and George Pattullo.

Goldwyn had similarly promoted the idea of literary authors achieving more popularity through film than elsewhere, stating that, “[n]ever was an art or an industry so keyed to high accomplishment as is the motion picture today” (The Moving Picture World 41.2).

Maugham’s own Hollywood venture was considered a disaster. His one script, for which he was paid $15,000 commission, was never filmed. Selina Hastings points to the irony of Maugham’s failure to master the technique of film writing, considering that during his lifetime he was to have more of his literary works adapted to film than any other writer in the English language—her count being 98 adaptations to film and television, with Doyle, his nearest rival, counting 93 adaptations (2009, 267–8).

Glyn’s multifaceted cross-media practices in both Hollywood and Britain are explored by Barnett and Weedon (2014). Amongst others, Glyn experienced copyright issues and took legal action against a spoof version of her 1907 novel Three Weeks in 1915, which was dismissed on grounds of the immoral tendencies of her book. Barnett and Weedon argue that this experience led her to become more engaged with film making, so that others would not profit from her work (64–5). In her essay on Glyn as “Hollywood Labourer,” Anne Morey (2006) discusses how Glyn relinquished some control over her scriptwriting in return for more authority in other areas of production.

Glyn is often cited along with other female writers such as Anita Loos, Frances Marion, Frederica Sagor Maas, and Thea von Harbou as having made significant contributions to the screen and writing for it. Scholars estimate that during the 1910s, 1920s, and early 1930s, one-fourth of the screenwriters were women, with a steady shift towards male writers developing in the 1920s (J. Madison Davis 2014, 32–5). Lizzie Francke (1994) discusses the importance and contributions of women scriptwriters in Hollywood during this early period.

“[I]t has become the custom of authors to collaborate with the continuity writer and frequently with the director during the filming of the scenes” (The Moving Picture World, 23 April 1921, 61.1: 827).

Denis Gifford locates the earliest recorded scriptwriting credit in Britain in 1903, given to Cecil Hepworth for his adaptation of Alice in Wonderland (2016, 672), with very little credit given thereafter until the 1910s, followed by a marked increase in crediting in 1915 and again in 1920 (Macdonald 2011, 46).

As seen in Chap. 3, collaborative writing also occurred in theatres. The 1888 playwriting manual by A. Dramatist advised that other writers could be engaged: for example, one “to write songs” and another “to write him a love scene” (1888, 95).

Originality rather than adaptation was required from these writers, as in the film writing manuals discussed in Chap. 4.

The Educational Department within the Corporation sent a questionnaire, as a “novel test of the two essentials—creative imagination and dramatic insight,” to potential writers. This was returned with a report, free of charge and obligation.

Stoll Pictures bought the rights to God’s Good Man (1919), based on Corelli’s 1904 novel, and Innocent (1921), her 1914 novel.

Despite selling the film rights, Wells generally kept his distance from their productions during the silent film years, which included a 1921 adaptation of Kipps (1905), directed by Harold Shaw for Stoll. Similar to G.B. Shaw, his participation with film, and writing, took on new forms with the arrival of synchronised sound (see Chap. 6).

Other authors included Edgar Wallace, A.E.W. Mason, Geoffrey Farnol, Baroness Orczy, and Ethel M. Dell, among others.

For example, when Wells’s first major film contract was announced in The Times in January 1914, the article, entitled “Mr Wells and the Cinematograph,” expressed the hope that Wells would now “construct stories especially for cinematograph production,” as a patriotic means of boosting the British film industry (6). This was not immediately the case, and there were many delays in adapting Wells’s novels until Stoll appeared, also due to the war and high production costs.

Whereas Stoll films focused on recent and contemporary works, other companies chose historical fiction for adaptation. For example, the Ideal Film Company specialised in Victorian novels by Dickens, Thackeray, Disraeli, and Eliot, amongst others (see Low 1971, 119).

The company had reportedly lost £200,000 over its seven-year span and, as it was folding, an attempt was made to sell the rights to “Fifty-Three Books by Famous Authors” (Smith 2012, 59).

See Low (1971, 97–106) for the establishment and outcome of the Act; Robert Murphy (1986, 47–69) discusses the government’s actions and industry outcomes in view of American competition.

Low suggests that many books of criticism adopted a tone of hearty condescension, and were at pains to avoid a “highbrow appearance” by being too “stuffy or serious,” while still claiming that cinema was an art (see 1971, 21). Here, Balázs’s writing resembles the grandeur of the film industry’s advertisements, as it attempted to convince the public of the importance of film.

Writing in 1928, E. Elliott opined that, at present, science exploring the “motion picture’s field of expression” was more important for film than art: “All the developments so far have come through minds either scientific or supremely logical. The artists and sophists always arrive later at their own convenience, to refine what has already been wrought in the rough, in the same way that gas and electric light are laid on after the colonist has uncomfortably marked the trail” (133). Writing against the charges of film being mechanical, Elliott further questioned, “Is not literature mechanical in its means and technique? […] So cannot the cinema art flourish on, among other things, the mechanical improvements of the camera and its employment? (73). The dynamic of film as both a scientific and aesthetic medium is recognised here by Elliott.

Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan also point out that modernist writers such as Woolf, “productively engaged with the cinema by absorbing cinematic devices in their writing” (2010, 42). Notions regarding aestheticism in fiction and the art of writing were expressed by Woolf in other articles and essays: for example, “Is Fiction an Art?” (New York Herald Tribune, 26 Oct. 1927), reprinted and revised shortly after to “The Art of Fiction” (Nation and Athenaeum, 12 Nov. 1927) (reprinted in Woolf 1966, 51). Laura Marcus discusses Woolf’s relationship to film and its influence (2007, 99–178). Vera Nünning (2017) explores Woolf’s theories of aestheticism through her numerous essays on the subject and contextualises these in view of her ideas regarding modernist modes of writing and literature.

Griffiths had made this claim in 1922. Eisenstein’s essay, written in 1944, focuses on film in the 1910s and 1920s. Balázs had also referred to Dickens’s “visual imagination,” crediting his work with having “the inner structure of the substance of film,” yet he argued that the very quality that makes a work appear suitable for adaptation renders it not so, as it would have to be “painted anew.” He suggested that Dickens would have to do this, thus showing support for medium specificity and author intent as the presiding aesthetic principles for good aesthetics and aesthetic interpretation (24). Another nineteenth-century writer cited as aesthetic influence by Eisenstein is Emile Zola (see Williams 2005).

Rick Altman argues that, even though Eisenstein’s writing serves as an important strain of criticism stressing the direct link between film and novel, he was not the first to recognise this, nor was the link as direct as scholars have suggested, as Eisenstein also points to the importance of theatrical texts in setting the pattern for cinema. Altman, however, also points out that Eisenstein failed to acknowledge the influence of the theatrical intermediary in early adaptations of novels, despite the obvious debt that early cinema owes to theatrical adaptations of novels (1996, 145–7).

Münsterberg, for instance, noted in his seminal work of 1916 that it was “always possible to mix arts,” although these experimentations no longer result in “pure” art (31).

Griffith’s point recalls Wilkie Collins’s contention that the decline of nineteenth-century theatre was due to adaptation and the devaluation and paucity of original playwriting (Chap. 3).

Additionally, Anne Hiebert Alton points out that Barrie had refused to publish the play text even after the release of the novel, only publishing it in 1928, by which time the original three-act play had extended to five acts (2011, 47). Alton discusses the variations between the versions and their social and cultural circumstances, including reviews of both play and novel, and images and illustrations from performances and publications. The legal circumstances of Peter Pan raise further questions regarding authorial control amidst social, cultural, and legal complexities, critically addressed by Catherine Seville in “Peter Pan’s Rights” (2004).

Barrie’s position as authoritative author of Peter Pan could also be questioned on these grounds, as the work was shaped by audience, reader, and performer input. During its numerous runs, Barrie attended rehearsals and occasionally added dialogue improvised by one of the performing boys, additional acts, and, after requests from concerned parents, made fairy dust essential to the ability to fly (see Seville 2004, 134). This is reminiscent of nineteenth-century serial fiction, where authors had time to change their published work in response to reader feedback.

His letters show that he received an offer for the film rights in 1912 for £2000 in advance royalties (although he declined, it struck him that other works could be offered instead). In 1918, he had been offered an advance sum of £20,000, but declined again without explanation (“P. Pan film I’m not having done at present”) (1947, 60–1). The differences in monetary value over that short period signal the growing interest, as well as the rise of the pecuniary remuneration for literary film rights.

Although 1921 is commonly cited, Seville gives the date as 1919. She states that Barrie received $100,000 on signing the agreement and a further $100,000 before the release, which needed Barrie’s written permission during his lifetime. Paramount’s motion picture rights, later reassigned to Disney, caused tension when Barrie bequeathed his copyright to Great Ormond Street Hospital (2004, 136–7).

Andrew Birkin estimates that Barrie lived to see 14 adaptations (Birkin 2003, 259). For example, by the British Neptune Film Company, who had filmed Rosy Rapture, as well as What Every Woman Knows (1908/1917) and The Little Minister (1891/1915), for which Barrie is also credited with writing the screenplay. Others include Cecil B. DeMille’s 1919 film Male and Female based on The Admirable Crichton (1902). Perhaps motivating the title change, Denis Mackail finds that the film was more publicised through DeMille’s name than Barrie’s. Although Mackail records that Barrie had no involvement and “was pretty well disgusted by what he eventually saw” (1941, 554), Barrie’s letters show that he thought the scenario “very well done,” suggesting, among others, a few alterations to the intertitles as well as expressing interest in seeing the picture being made (1947, 61). My research suggests that literary critics and biographers often present literary authors as being much more hostile to film and film adaptations of their work than the authors themselves express.

The film was released with only Willis Goldbeck credited as the screenwriter and Herbert Brenon as director and producer. The opening title card credits Barrie as the author: “Adolph Zukor and Jesse L. Lasky present J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan A Herbert Brenon Production”. The subsequent title card credits Willis Goldbeck for the screenplay. Before the start of the narrative, “A Note” is printed across two title cards “On the Acting of a Fairy Play,” signed at the bottom by “J.M. Barrie,” implicitly signalling his authorial approval of this adaptation. His authorship is further valorised by nominating the film a “play.”

Unlike the now lost screenplay, both the film and Barrie’s version were preserved: the proposed scenario can be found in Maria Tatar’s edited and annotated Centennial Edition of Peter Pan (2011, 275–320). Barrie’s script has been studied predominantly in relation to the author and to adaptations of his work, rather than as a mode of experimental writing across media. See R.D.S. Jack 1991; Bruce Hanson 2011; and Casie Hermansson 2016.

For example, Barrie’s biographer Mackail, reiterates the author’s disappointment with the film, stating that, “it was the wrong kind of success” making him revert to detachment, not even going to see the “the talking picture of The Little Minister ten years after that” (1941, 555). Mackail claims that this adaptation experience caused Barrie’s prior fascination with the medium to vanish. Whether this notion is valid is difficult to ascertain; other works of Barrie’s were still adapted during his lifetime and he is also credited for the film treatment of the 1936 adaptation of Shakespeare’s As You Like It—though his exact involvement with it remains uncertain.

Debates surrounding the differences between stage and film acting were prevalent during this time. Linda Fitzsimmons and Sarah Street’s edited collection (2000) looks at modes of screen performances between 1890 and 1920 and their theatrical influences.

Beside technical factors, there were also financial ones to consider.

Opinions on the use of titles differed widely: Woolf derided them, as did Shaw, who nominated them a “vulgar and silly” feature (1925, 61). Balázs begrudgingly accepted them if used effectively to further film drama and not merely as “literary titles” (1924, 74); E. Elliott shared his view that titles should not be a purely literary form (1928, 80–1). Griffith viewed the issue more pragmatically in terms of saving film stock by using titles, although he also advocated using them effectively to further dramatic narrative (Motion Picture Magazine, July 1926). More recently, Gregory Robinson, in his history of “Writing on the Silent Screen” (2012), discusses the dynamic of image and text in silent film adaptation, arguing that experiments with the written word developed the unique character of silent cinema.

Brian McFarlane observes, “how much use is made of the written word in the silent adaptation. Even more than most silent films, those adapted from literary sources were likely to feel the need for verbal assistance in narrative clarification. I refer to the use of both inter-titles and diegetic writing. The way the former are used suggests uncertainty about what their best function might be” (1986, 125; emphasis in original).

See Chap. 6.

After it was re-discovered in the 1950s, it was given a new musical score with a full orchestra (Hanson 2011, 150–1).

Griffith, in his 1924 predictions for film, stated that there were going to be “three principal figures in the production of a picture play—the author first, the director and music composer occupying an identical position in importance” (73: 66). While this hierarchy does not hold in film today, in Griffith’s own day, the view that the author superseded all other filmmakers acknowledged the importance of screenwriting and screenwriters in creating a film and the legacy of literature in establishing creative authority for narrative art, even art without many words. As we have seen, this authority becomes complex and contested in films that adapt literature, especially canonical literature.

The existence of Barrie’s scenario appears not to have been common knowledge at that time.

This view precludes the writer from also being the director, which was often the case with the period’s most celebrated directors, such as Griffith and Eisenstein, as well as Vsevolod Pudovkin, whose work as both filmmaker and theoretician is cited less frequently than Eisenstein’s is. In contrast to Balázs, Pudovkin’s view, expressed in “The Film Script” (1926), was that writers needed to move into the direction of the director, providing “material that approaches the ideal form,” with everything being “precisely calculated” in advance (35). The function of the script was often debated during this period (see Price 2013, 111–9).

Altman, Rick. 1996. Dickens. Griffith, and Film Theory Today. In Silent Film, ed. Richard Abel, 145–162. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Alton, Anne Hiebert. 2011. Peter Pan. Ed. J.M. Barrie. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Balázs, Béla. 1924 [1930]. Early Film Theory: Visible Man and The Spirit of Film. Ed. Erica Carter. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010.

Barnett, Vincent L., and Alexis Weedon. 2014. Elinor Glyn as Novelist, Moviemaker, Glamour Icon and Businesswoman. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

Barrie, James M. 1947. Letters of James M. Barrie. Ed. Viola Meynell. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Barrie, James M. 2011. Scenario For a Proposed Film of Peter Pan. In The Annotated Peter Pan: The Centennial Edition, ed. Maria Tatar, 275–320. New York: Norton & Company.

Betts, Ernest. 1973. The Film Business: A History of British Cinema, 1896–1972. London: Allen & Unwin.

Birkin, Andrew. 2003. J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys: The Real Story Behind Peter Pan. 1979. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brunel, Adrian. 1949. Nice Work: The Story of Thirty Years in British Film Production. London: Forbes Robertson.

Cartmell, Deborah, and Imelda Whelehan, eds. 2010. Screen Adaptation: Impure Cinema. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. 1936. Autobiography. London: Hutchinson.

Davis, J. Madison. 2014. Machine to Screen: The Evolution Toward Story, 1895–1928. In Screenwriting: Behind the Silver Screen, ed. Andrew Horton and Julian Hoxter, 11–35. London: I.B. Tauris.

Dramatist, A. 1888. Playwriting: A Handbook for Would-Be Dramatic Authors. London: The Stage Office.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1929. A Dialectic Approach to Film Form. In Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. 1949. Ed. and trans. Jay Leyda, 45–63. San Diego: Harcourt Publishing, 1969.

———. 1944 [1969]. Dickens, Griffith, and the Film Today. In Film Form: Essays in Film Theory. 195–256. San Diego: Harcourt Publishing.

Elliott, Eric. 1928. Anatomy of Motion Picture Art. Territet, Switzerland: Pool.

Elliott, Kamilla. 2003. Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, Richard. 1985. Hollywood and the Profession of Authorship, 1928–1940. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.

Fitzsimmons, Linda, and Sarah Street, eds. 2000. Moving Performance: British Stage and Screen, 1890s–1920s. Wiltshire: Flick Books.

Francke, Lizzie. 1994. Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood. London: British Film Institute.

Gifford, Denis. 2016. British Film Catalogue: Fiction Film Vol. 1: 1895–1994. 1973. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Gledhill, Christine. 2003. Reframing British Cinema, 1918–1928: Between Restraint and Passion. London: BFI Publishing.

Glyn, Elinor. 1937. Romantic Adventure: Being the Autobiography of Elinor Glyn. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Goldwyn, Samuel. 1923. Behind the Screen. New York: George H. Doran.

Griffith, D.W. 3 May 1924. The Movies 100 Years From Now. Collier’s 73.

———. 2012. Interviews. Ed. Anthony Slide. Mississippi: University of Mississippi Press.

Hamilton, Ian. 1990. Writers in Hollywood 1915–1951. New York: Harper & Row.

Hanson, Bruce K. 2011. Peter Pan on Stage and Screen, 1904–2010. 2nd ed. London: McFarland.

Hardy, Thomas. 1987. The Collected Letters of Thomas Hardy. Vol. 6: 1920–1925. Ed. Richard Little Purdy and Michael Millgate. Oxford: Clarendon, Press.

Hastings, Selina. 2009. The Secret Lives of Somerset Maugham. London: John Murray.

Hermansson, Casie. 2016. A Study of Film Adaptations of James Barrie’s Story Peter Pan. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Jack, R.D.S. 1991. The Road to the Never Land: A Reassessment of J.M. Barrie’s Dramatic Art. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

———. 2001. From Drama to Silent Film: The Case of Sir James Barrie. International Journal of Scottish Theatre 2 (2).

King, Norman. 1996. The Sound of Silents. In Silent Film, ed. Richard Abel, 31–44. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kipling, Rudyard. 2004. The Letters of Rudyard Kipling. Ed. Thomas Pinney. Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Koszarski, Richard. 1994. An Evening’s Entertainment: The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915–1928. Berkeley: University of California Press. History of the American Cinema 3.

Leibfried, Philip. 2000. Rudyard Kipling and Sir Henry Rider Haggard on Screen, Stage, Radio and Television. Jefferson: McFarland & Company.

Lindsay, Vachel. 1915 [2000]. The Art of the Moving Picture. New York: Modern Library.

Low, Rachael. 1971. The History of the British Film, 1918–1929. Vol. 4. London: Allen & Unwin.

Macdonald, Ian W. 2011. Screenwriting in Britain 1895–1929. In Analysing the Screenplay, ed. Jill Nelmes, 44–67. Abingdon: Routledge.

———. 2014. The Struggle for the Silents: The British Screenwriter from 1910 to 1930. Journal of Media Practice 8 (2): 115–128.CrossRef

Mackail, Denis. 1941. The Story of J.M.B. Surrey: The Windmill Press.

Maras, Steven. 2009. Screenwriting: History, Theory and Practice. London: Wallflower Press.

Marcus, Laura. 2007. The Tenth Muse: Writing About Cinema in the Modernist Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Marsh, Joss. 2009. Dickensian ‘Dissolving Views’: The Magic Lantern, Visual Story-Telling, and the Victorian Technological Imagination. Comparative Critical. Studies 6 (3): 333–346.CrossRef

Maugham, Somerset W. 1972. On Writing for the Film. 1921. Authors on Film. Ed. Harry. M. Geduld, 181–187. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McFarlane, Brian. 1986. A Literary Cinema? British Films and British Novels. In All Our Yesterdays: 90 Years of British Cinema, ed. Charles Barr, 120–142. London: British Film Institute.

Meisel, Martin. 1983. Realizations: Narratives, Pictorial and Theatrical Arts in Nineteenth-Century England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Morey, Anne. 2006. Elinor Glyn as Hollywood Labourer. Film History 18 (2): 110–118.CrossRef

Moving Picture Age. 3 March 1920. Eminent Authors Pictures Advertisement. 3.3: 28.

Moving Picture World. 12 July 1919a. Announcing Eminent Authors’ Pictures. 41.2: np.

———. 5 July 1919b. How To Realize Better Pictures. 41.1: 66.

———. 23 April 1921. Goldwyn Prepares to Celebrate Second Anniversary of Founding of Eminent. Authors’ Corporation. 61.1: 827.

Münsterberg, Hugo. 1916. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study. New York: D. Appleton. and Company.

Murphy, Robert. 1986. Under the Shadow of Hollywood. In All Our Yesterdays: 90 Years of British Cinema, ed. Charles Barr, 47–71. London: British Film Institute.

New York Times. 29 December 1924. The Screen: A Delightful Picture. By Mordaunt Hall. New York. 11. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. July 2018.

Nünning, Vera. 2017. ‘A Theory of the Art of Writing’: Virginia Woolf’s Aesthetics from the Point of View of Her Critical Essays. English Studies 98 (8): 978–994.CrossRef

Photoplay. June 1921a. Greatest Authors of Europe and America Writing for Paramount. XX.1: 4.

———. June 1921b. Some of the Coming Paramount Pictures. XX.1: 4.

Price, Steven. 2010. The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2013. A History of the Screenplay. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Pudovkin, Vsevolod. 1926 [2006]. Film Script. In Vsevolod Pudovkin: Selected Essays, ed. Richard Taylor, 33–35. London: Seagull.

Robinson, Gregory. 2012. Writing on the Silent Screen. In A Companion to Literature, Film and Adaptation, ed. Deborah Cartmell, 33–51. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

Samson, Jen. 1986. The Film Society, 1925–1939. In All Our Yesterdays: 90 Years of British Cinema, ed. Charles Barr, 306–313. London: British Film Institute.

Schultheiss, John. 1971. The ‘Eastern’ Writer in Hollywood. Cinema Journal 11 (1): 13–47.CrossRef

Screenland. January 1922. Search for Creative Talent Nation-Wide. 3(5): 55.

Seville, Catherine. 2004. Peter Pan’s Rights: To Protect or Petrify? The Cambridge Quarterly 33 (2): 119–154.CrossRef

Sexton, Jamie. 2002. The Film Society and the Creation of an Alternative Film Culture in Britain in the 1920s. In Young And Innocent: The Cinema in Britain 1896–1930, ed. Andrew Higson, 291–305. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Shaw, George Bernard. 1925. Table-Talk of G.B.S.: Conversations on Things in General Between Bernard Shaw and His Biographer. Edited by Archibald Henderson. London: Chapman and Hall.

Slevin, James. 1912. On Picture-Play Writing: A Hand-Book of Workmanship. Cedar Grove, N.J.: Farmer Smith Incorporated.

Smith, Trevor. 2012. England’s Little Hollywood: The Story of Stoll Films. Yesterday’s Cinema.

Staiger, Janet. 1988. Part Two: The Hollywood Mode of Production to 1930. In The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960, ed. David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, 85–154. London: Routledge.

Stempel, Tom. 1988. Framework: A History of Screenwriting in the American Film. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.

Tatar, Maria, ed. 2011. The Annotated Peter Pan: The Centennial Edition. Edited by J.M. Barrie. New York: Norton & Company.

Times. 10 January 1914. Mr Wells and the Cinematograph. London. 40417: 6. The Times Digital Archive. Web. July 2018.

Vardac, Nicholas A. 1968. Stage to Screen: Theatrical Method from Garrick to Griffith. New York: B. Blom.

Williams, Tony. 2005. Eisenstein and Zola: Naturalism, Cinema, and Mythography. In Zola and Film: Essays in the Art of Adaptation, ed. Anna Gural-Migdal and Robert Singer, 27–44. London: McFarland.

Woolf, Virginia. 1926. The Cinema. The Nation and Athenaeum 39 (13): 381.

———. 1966 [1927]. The Art of Fiction. In Collected Essays, vol. 2. London: Hogarth Press.

Titel: Literary Writers and Filmmaking Practices in Silent Cinema
verfasst von: Annie Nissen
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: Authors and Adaptation
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46821-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-46822-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46822-3_5