Cinema and Community: Progressivism, Exhibition, and Film Culture in Chicago, 1907-1917

2. Progressivism and Early Feature Films: Textuality, Oversight, Uplift

two Progressivism and Early Feature Films Textuality, Oversight, Uplift Although Progressivism was a cultural and social movement, many of its features also structured film form and narrative. Warren Susman has detailed how Progressivism shaped an aesthetic and cultural climate based on transformation, abundance, and new forms of communication, but other key features shaped American film practice.1 I examine some of these here, exploring how such Progressive tendencies as uplift, self-awareness, and oversight marked early features’ formal and narrative properties. Although many of these characteristics mark shorter films, I focus on early American features (1913–17). It would be impossible to survey all forms of cinema from 1907 to 1917, ten years that span significant and unprecedented changes. I chose early feature films as they are a transitional and a far from stable form that clearly evinced Progressivism’s broader ethos of trying to integrate modernity’s more disruptive aspects into something more cohesive— both textually and institutionally. This integration had significant limitations , however. The star system, the era’s celebrity culture, and the success of superfeatures reveal that the feature film did not solely lend itself to efficient rationalization but opened up possibilities for different kinds of address. Progressivism and Early Feature Films 51 Early features are often mischaracterized, as I discuss below. Exploring them within their institutional context and that of Progressivism reveals their distinctive textual features. Despite borrowing elements from one-reelers, they had formal and narrative characteristics infrequently seen in post–World War I films. These features were not completely self-contained, nor were they designed to foster a spectatorial regime centered purely on an illusory individuality; instead, they actively engaged with other films, promotions, forms of amusements, and cultural trends. Features did not solely fuel the growth in inner-city picture palaces, elevate cinema’s cultural standing, or produce a spectator who was largely a product of its textual effects as is often claimed.2 Furthermore, these complex transformations were not necessarily integrated : the move to larger theaters and the rise of the star system were somewhat unrelated developments that responded to other Progressive Era trends. As I point out in chapter 4, features did not play as well in downtown first-run theaters. Additionally, stars and features were often alternative, competing attractions, especially before 1915. Jennifer Bean, Ben Brewster, and Ben Singer are among those who have demonstrated that features did not displace short programs but instead added to this diverse cinema’s range—much like television several decades later, this was a medium that did not rely on a single form.3 The very term feature film evokes this diversity, initially referring not to a longer film but a featured attraction, like a vaudeville headliner.4 As Michael Quinn observes, it required the presence of other films or amusements, as the term “was not associated exclusively, or even primarily , with any particular production trend, but instead with differentiation ” (my emphasis).5 The different categories of feature film production /distribution discussed here foreground this diversity, which was also evidenced at a formal level, particularly through motion pictures’ use of multiple diegesis. Multiple diegesis included prologues and epilogues ; the juxtaposition of different temporalities, fantasies, and allegorical scenes; as well as portmanteau films containing several different stories. While Intolerance (D. W. Griffith, Triangle-Wark, 1916) is the most famous, it had several predecessors, including Griffith’s earlier effort, Home, Sweet Home (Majestic-Reliance, 1914), which again juxtaposed several separate story worlds. Almost by definition, multiple diegesis films are not classical or closed texts. Many tended toward alle- chapter 2 52 gory, another popular period trend that showcased film as art. Allegory was particularly associated with films that aspired to national cinema, producing a style that evoked the monumentality of the American enterprise . Still, early features had their own distinguishing characteristics, although these were obviously not found in all films. The period’s very limited rate of film survival complicates analysis, as does the loss of many of its most important films like The Battle Cry of Peace (J. Stuart Blackton, Vitagraph VLSE, 1915); Cleopatra (J. Gordon Edwards, Fox Film Corporation, 1917); Daughter of the Gods (Herbert Brenon, Fox Film Corporation, 1916); and Neptune’s Daughter (Herbert Brenon, Universal, 1914). Many extant films are missing footage, entire reels, or only survive in abridged versions intended for 1920s home viewing. But the rate of feature production was so high—around one thousand films a year...