Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

So you want to discuss silent drama, science fiction, horror, noir, mystery and other NON-COMEDY films? Look no further, this is the place.
Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

Postby Richard M Roberts » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:46 am

ORCHIDS AND ERMINE

It can be quite entertaining to watch feminist revisionism try to fit silent stars like Marion Davies (sleeping with a millionaire who made her a star) or Louise Brooks (slept with practically everyone and having every opportunity handed to her on a silver platter while blowing practically every one of then with a stupidity quite difficult to make look like independent rebellion) into whatever modern beliefs of true womanhood is the flavor of the month, yet neglecting the likes of Colleen Moore, who was not only a bigger star than either of the above mentioned ever were, but was most likely one of the smartest, most independent, and maybe even nicest of the whole bunch, getting out of the game when the going was good and making herself damn rich in the process. Somehow Colleen Moore, who created the image of the ideal “flapper” independent model female of the 1920’s in her starring film FLAMING YOUTH, managed to be a far more responsible and grounded person in real life. Moore was also frankly a far better actress than either Davies or Brooks, adept at both comedy and drama. Unfortunately a number of her major films are currently missing or unavailable for appraisal, and perhaps it’s time to give another airing to one fine sample that used to be one of her more available works and has found itself in a bit of neglect over the last few years,

ORCHIDS AND ERMINE is a finely-crafted Colleen Moore comedy, produced by her then-husband John McCormick for First National, directed by Al Santell, with subtitles by the title-writer extraordinaire Ralph Spence, scripter of top comedic epithets and doctor of troubled productions anon (All bad little pictures go to Ralph Spence). Moore is supported by a strong cast, including Jack Mulhall, Sam Hardy, Gwen Lee, Hedda Hopper, and making his film debut as a lecherous midget ( a part he sort-of grew into in real life), a four year-old Mickey Rooney.

Colleen plays “Pink” Watson, who decides to find herself a millionaire, but ends up a telephone operator at the Ritz Hotel after some disconcerting experiences dating the “faux-riche’”. Of course, it is then she meets up with the genuine article in the shy and retiring Richard Tabor (Mulhall) who has his butler (Hardy) pretend to be him in order to escape gold diggers and the press en masse’. Mistaken identities in place, amusing misadventures ensue, and it’s all held together by Moore with her usual winsome personality. If she was the flapper incarnate, at least she was a sensible flapper, one that folks in Indiana might like to meet.

Perhaps that’s why Colleen Moore has been more recently ignored by modern day film historians, she was too nice and too smart, marrying several stockbrokers, having a good business head and dying happy and rich is not a sexy Hollywood tale. Mental issues, substance abuse and bad life decisions make more palatable film history (then again, look at some of the historians!). Colleen had her quirks (she never did give up that hairdo), but she did allright thanks, even being on the ball enough to abandoning her film career when talkies proved a washout for her. She became a major stockholder in Merrill Lynch, built the most expensive and elaborate dollhouse ever imagined (more sensible than spending lots more dough on say, San Simeon) and showing up from time to time at showings of her silent films. Despite some serious gaps in her surviving filmography, what exists shows well what the fuss was about at the time, an intelligent, attractive, and capable actress, no classic beauty, but darn interesting to watch in general.



RICHARD M ROBERTS

Gary Johnson
Cugine
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:15 am
Location: Sonoma, CA
Contact:

Re: Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

Postby Gary Johnson » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:37 pm

Whenever I hear of any silent performer no longer getting their due from modern film writers or being neglected, I always attribute it to one reason and one reason only -- not enough extant films available. You have to be seen to be talked about.

As for Miss Moore I am in complete agreement. I have yet to come across any of her starring features where she does not totally charm and captivate me (until the sound era, that is, when she seemed to had lost her pluck). I read many reviewers who complain that her silent films are always the same 'Cinderella' story retold. And yet they are so well made that they keep me entertained -- even when they are manipulating me.

Bruce Calvert
Associate
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:26 pm
Location: Plano, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

Postby Bruce Calvert » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:14 pm

Is the surviving version of Orchids and Ermine mostly complete, or is it a cut-down Kodascope version?

Richard M Roberts
Godfather
Posts: 2895
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

Postby Richard M Roberts » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:10 am

Bruce Calvert wrote:Is the surviving version of Orchids and Ermine mostly complete, or is it a cut-down Kodascope version?



The British Film Institute has a print from nitrate material that barely runs seven reels, but it is missing about half a reel from the original release length due to decomp and perhaps the British release being slightly shorter. This print is rarely seen however, and most circulating prints are a Kodascope cutdown that really has all the highlights and you don't miss the other reel and a half. Only the OCD completists will whine about it.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

Louie Despres
Associate
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Cinevent Past Notes: ORCHIDS AND ERMINE (1927)

Postby Louie Despres » Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:16 am

I'll agree with that. I've seen it twice and I can't tell anything is missing.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests