Volume I: Narrative History

Chapter 5 (1912): Westward Ho

In the meantime, Charles J. Hite had decided to expand the possibilities of film making, and on Sunday, December 15th he dispatched a company of players by rail to California and personally went to the Pennsylvania Station in New York City to see them off. Journeying westward were Florence LaBadie, William Russell, William Garwood, Jean Darnell, Riley Chamberlin, and Fred Vroom, under the direction of Lucius Henderson, accompanied by cameraman Arthur A. Cadwell. Some 22 people made the trip from New Rochelle in December 1912, to be joined by others the following month.

Carl Louis Gregory had been sent to California earlier to scout for a studio site and had leased premises formerly used by Carl Laemmle's IMP company at 651 Fairview Place in the Brooklyn Heights section of Los Angeles. Gregory was to remain in California well into 1913, acting both as a photographer and as a director. Thanhouser would take advantage of the winter's warmth and sunshine in Los Angeles, a sharp contrast to the leaden winter skies of New Rochelle, to form what was intended to be a permanent West Coast studio.

The Motion Picture Story Magazine Note reported:

Flo LaBadie liked the idea of wintering in Los Angeles, but she feared homesickness so she asked her mother along. Mother went. With Florence LaBadie they rented a pretty little cottage near the Thanhouser studio. But fancy Father LaBadie - he has a large Harlem flat on his hands and no one to keep house! Marguerite Snow and James Cruze both prefer New Rochelle to Los Angeles. Each had the chance to join the Thanhouser stock at the latter place, and declined with thanks. Which speaks well for the town that's 45 minutes from Broadway.

By the end of 1910, California was a popular location for motion picture production, and a number of companies had located there, either setting up permanent studios, or, in the case of Biograph, leaving the East after Christmas and spending the next several months there. Vitagraph players had a similar annual pilgrimage. Patents Company members as well as Independents produced numerous films on the West Coast, and by December 1912 the film industry in California was in a strong expansion phase.

In contrast to New Rochelle in the months from December through March, California offered warm, pleasant weather with plenty of sunshine, ideal for taking outdoor scenes. Within a short distance of Los Angeles a wide variety of scenery unduplicated in the New York City area could be found, including cactus-studded desert, snow-capped mountains, and rocky coastal areas. It would not be long until entire villages were devoted to film-making, including Inceville (in the present day Santa Monica) and, in 1915, Carl Laemmle's Universal City complex.

New York was still the center of the motion picture industry, and Fort Lee, across the Hudson River by ferryboat, was entering its period of greatest growth. Although none could predict it, film making in the East had just a few more really good years ahead. To Edwin Thanhouser what was happening in Fort Lee or Hollywood didn't make a great deal of difference. The motion picture industry was behind him, and while he planned to visit a few European studios to see what was going on, more important was sightseeing and simply having a good time. He had earned the opportunity to enjoy himself at leisure.

Lloyd Lonergan, who suffered from osteoporosis and who had broken his leg, was laid up for the month of December but hoped to be back at his desk by the first of the year. Instead of writing scenarios at his home in New York City and visiting the studio only occasionally, he resolved to move with his wife to New Rochelle, which he accomplished in January 1913.

With Edwin Thanhouser and his family in Europe, Charles J. Hite made all of the decisions at the studio. The more he became involved in the producing end of films, the better he liked it. Early in December he applied for a life membership in the Screen Club.

Among other news, it was reported Note that Roy Aitken was busy in London managing the Western Import Company, Ltd., distributor of films of Mutual affiliates. "The press in England does not attack pictures," he told a reporter; a reference to the war against the so-called "evils" of motion pictures still being waged in the United States by The New York Sun and numerous other large city newspapers, who felt that movies were a threat to their existence. A British trade magazine, The Bioscope, Note reported on the state of affairs at the London agency: "Dropping in at the Western Import Company's offices the other day, we found Mr. Mainwaring more than usually busy. 'Thanhousers are selling like hot cakes,' we were informed, and really the consistently fine work turned out by this company merits the favour in which their films are held. Lucile proved a rare winner, and the latest subjects Undine (released February 8th), Romeo and Juliet (released March 8th), and The Star of Bethlehem (released March 15th), are all top-liners, in the real meaning of the word."

In late December The Morning Telegraph, New York City's most enlightened newspaper from the viewpoint of motion picture coverage, had just completed its popularity contest for screen players. The winner was Martha Russell Note of Essanay, with 208,748 votes, followed by Lillian Walker of Vitagraph with 144,724 votes and Florence LaBadie of Thanhouser with 114,882. Next was Mary Fuller of Edison with 60,858, followed by Gertrude Robinson of Reliance with 35,422, and Kathlyn Williams of Selig, who claimed 31,538. Among other Thanhouser players, far down the list, were Mignon Anderson at 11,262, Marguerite Snow at 4,807, and Francis A. Newburgh at 2,329. Votes were received from all over the United States.

The release schedule for the last full week of December 1912, as listed in The New York Dramatic Mirror on December 18th, did not yet reflect the great changes wrought by the withdrawal of Mutual from the Film Supply Company:

PATENTS COMPANY FILMS:

Monday: Biograph, Kalem (2 reels), Lubin, Pathé Weekly, Selig, Vitagraph

Tuesday: Cin-es, C.G.P.C., Edison, Essanay, Lubin, Selig, Vitagraph

Wednesday: Eclipse, Edison, Essanay, Kalem, Pathé, Selig, Vitagraph

Thursday: Biograph, Essanay, Lubin, Méliès, Pathé, Selig, Vitagraph

Friday: C.G.P.C., Edison, Essanay, Kalem, Lubin, Selig, Vitagraph

Saturday: Cin-es, Edison, Essanay, Kalem, Lubin, Pathé, Vitagraph Note

FILM SUPPLY COMPANY FILMS:

Sunday: Majestic, Thanhouser

Monday: American, Itala, Comet

Tuesday: Gaumont, Majestic, Thanhouser (3 reels; The Star of Bethlehem)

Wednesday: Gaumont, Reliance, Solax

Thursday: American, Gaumont, Punch

Friday: Lux, Solax, Thanhouser Note

Saturday: American, Gaumont, Great Northern, Reliance, Comet

MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION FILMS:

Monday: Keystone

Wednesday: Broncho

Friday: Kay-Bee

UNIVERSAL COMPANY FILMS:

Sunday: Rex, Crystal, Eclair

Monday: IMP, Nestor, Champion

Tuesday: Gem, Bison, Eclair

Wednesday: Frontier, Nestor, Powers

Thursday: IMP, Rex, Eclair

Friday: Victor, Nestor, Powers

Saturday: IMP, Bison, Milano

In addition to the preceding there were numerous small production companies who could not gain a niche on a standard program or whose output was occasional, who distributed their products on a states rights basis or sold the films outright to exchanges.

As 1912 drew to a conclusion the film industry in America was healthy. However, as usual, distribution was a problem area, and while the overcrowded Patents Company program seemed to maintain its consistency, elsewhere there was continual bickering and dissention. The film business was extremely competitive, and it was difficult for the Independents to band together for a common cause. One firm's success was sometimes seen enviously as another's loss. However, most companies were doing very well financially.

The star system was gaining a firm foothold, and the year 1912 saw millions of picture postcards distributed with the portraits of popular players, as well as a sharp gain in circulation for the leading fan publication, The Motion Picture Story Magazine. The 5,000 fans who attended a motion picture fair in New York City on the preceding November 14th, with 2,000 more waiting outside because there was no room left, presaged a national obsession with motion pictures and the personal lives of those who acted in them. While in 1912 the best known players were in most instances ordinary people whose addresses could be found in city directories and who considered working at a motion picture studio simply a means of employment, albeit a very enjoyable one, within a few years many leading players would consider themselves to be gods and goddesses personified, would have their public images carefully groomed, and would be inaccessible to the general public.

With record revenues pouring into their coffers, aggressive firms in the industry set out to increase their production on two fronts: more releases and films of greater length. Whereas in 1910, when Thanhouser made its debut, the one-reel film was standard and, indeed, no Independent company had ever released a film of greater length, by 1911 two- and three-reel films made by various companies, particularly those of the Patents group, were becoming commonplace, and by 1912 there were many such releases. Still, the one-reeler was dominant, and to many observers the larger multiple-reel productions were but a passing fancy. Comedy, it was stated over and over again, would never be successfully produced in a film of more than one reel in length, and even in 1912, numerous comedies, particularly of the slapstick variety, were done two to a single reel. Certainly the great dramatic works of Shakespeare, for example, would be best depicted on multiple reels, but then the public might eventually tire of such, and revert to one-reelers. At least that was one popular theory. The future was not at all clear, and only time would tell if the public wanted its entertainment only in small doses, one reel at a time.

Personalities such as Edwin Thanhouser, Carl Laemmle, Pat A. Powers, and others would continue to be important, but, increasingly, film production was becoming an affair of the board room, with participation measured in the number of stock certificates owned. Unfortunately, it was now true that many major owners of studios - and at the Thanhouser Film Corporation, Crawford Livingston and Wilbert E. Shallenberger were examples - did not know the difference between a Cooper-Hewitt lamp and a telephone pole. The bottom line on the year-end financial statement was all that mattered. While in 1912 the Thanhouser expenditure of $8,000 for a single film, The Star of Bethlehem, made exciting news, within a few years an expenditure of ten times that amount wouldn't raise an eyebrow.