Previous document

Next document

gri_2003_m_46_b06_f04_012

Transcribers

  1. 71789080 - jesseytucker
  2. WINNER - 72103752 - Preacher357
  3. 72657726 - Infinicorn
  4. 72662811 - Zooniverse2017
  5. 73336008 - saffyre13
  6. 73712707 - the3esses

71789080 - jesseytucker

There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film.
The few series that linger today, such as Leon Errol and Joe Mc-
Doakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are
either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the
cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was
established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think
in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story
was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chaplin
and the Keystone cops.
Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers
again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal run-
ning time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them
up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjar), nor by adding
a wierd causal structure to a vivid plotless original (The
Killers), but bo containing several stories under one roof. The
portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics
of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be
made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played
by mere convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with
the studios. Although many actors are employed the making of sev-
eral short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and
shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expres-
sive powers of teh genre as such and ask the question--can several
distinct stories add up to something more than that many separate
stories? When we read a book of short stories there is no such
feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of
stories, usually joined by one device or another. It is this link-

WINNER - 72103752 - Preacher357

There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film.
The few series that linger today, such as Leon Errol and Joe Mc-Doakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are
either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the
cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was
established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think
in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story
was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chaplin
and the Keystone Cops.
Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers
again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal run-
ning time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them
up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjaro), nor by adding
a wierd causal structure to a vivid plotless original (The
Killers), but by containing several stories under one roof. The
portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics
of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be
made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played
by more convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with
the studios. Although many actors are employed, the making of sev-
eral short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and
shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expres-
sive powers of the genre as such and ask the question - can several
distinct stories add up to something more than that many separate
stories? When we read a book of short stories there is no such
feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of
stories, usually joined by one device or another. It is this link-

72657726 - Infinicorn

1
There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film.
The few series that linger today, such as Leon Errol and Joe Mc-
Doakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are
either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the
cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was
established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think
in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story
was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chaplin
and the Keystone cops.
Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers
again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal run-
ning time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them
up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjaro), nor by adding
a weird casual structure to a vivid plotless original (The
Killers), but by containing several stories under one roof. The
portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics
of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be
made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played
by more convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with
the studios. Although many actors are employed the making of sev-
eral short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and
shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expres-
sive power of the genre as such and ask the question - can several
distinct stories add up to something more than that many separate
stories? When we read a book of short stories there is no such
feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of
stories, usually joined by one device or another. It is this link-

72662811 - Zooniverse2017

1
There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film.
The few series that linger today, such as Leon Erroll and Joe Mc-
Doakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are
either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the
cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was
established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think
in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story
was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chapling
and the Keystone cops.
Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers
again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal run-
ning time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them
up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjaro), nor by adding
a weird causal structure to a vivid plotless original (The
Killers), but by containing several stories under one roof. The
portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics
of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be
made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played
by more convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with
the studios. Although many actors are employed the making of sev-
eral short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and
shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expres-
sive powers of the genre as such and ask the question - can several
distinct stories add up to something more than that many separate
stories? When we read a book of short stories there is no such
feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of
stories, usually joined by one device or another. It is this link

73336008 - saffyre13

There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film.
The few series that linger today, such as Leon Errol and Joe Me-
Doakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are
either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the
cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was
established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think
in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story
was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chaplin
and the Keystone cops.

Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers
again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal run-
ning time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them
up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjaro), nor by adding
a weird causal structure to a vivid plotless original (The
Killers), but by containing several stories under on roof. The
portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics
of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be
made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played
by mere convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with
the studios. Although many actors are employed the making of sev-
eral short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and
shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expres-
sive powers of the genre as such and ask the question - can several
distinct stories add up to something more than that many separate
stories? When we read a book of short stories there is no such
feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of
stories, usually joined by one device of another. It is this link-

73712707 - the3esses

There is no audience for the one- or two-reel fictional film. The few series that linger today, such as Leon Errol and Joe McDoakes, are clumsy and primitive. One- and two-reelers today are either documentaries or cartoons. Formerly short films were the cinematic equivalent of the short story in which one situation was established and, it might be explored. It was the custom to think in series, however, so that the compact identity of the short story was blurred by the continuity of favorite characters, say Chaplin and the Keystone cops.
Recently short stories have caught the attention of producers again and an effort has been made to fit them to the normal running time (90-100 minutes) of feature films, not by blowing them up to epic proportions (The Snows of Kilimanjaro), nor by adding a wierd causal structure to a vivid plotless original (The Killers), but by containing several stories inder one roof. The portmanteau film, as it is sometimes called, has characteristics of its own which might repay analysis. It should, perhaps, be made clear at the outset, that I am well aware of the role played by mere convenience in the popularity of this kind of film with the studios. Although many actors are employed the making of several short pieces may represent a total economy of studio-space and shooting schedules. Here it is my purpose to consider the expressive powers of the genre as such ? When we read a book of short stories there is no such feeling as the book can be read spasmodically and in any order.
Once in the cinema, however, we are faced with a fixed number of stories, usually joined by one device or another. It is this link-

Previous document

Next document