Titans: The Rise of Hollywood

This series fulfilled it's purpose -an overall view into the studio heads who created Hollywood. And it did that by putting the true life events front and center, not the serie's sets, the wardrobe, and characters' acting skills.

My husband, who is not a film buff, was totally intrigued, especially by the genius and skills of Mary Pickford. Besides mastering acting, writing and producing, Mary managed United Artists studios, too. Fascinating woman.

There were four Warner brothers, not three. Co-founder Albert is nowhere to be found or even mentioned. It's as if he didn't exist. Albert Warner headed all of Warner Bros. Distribution in New York with my grandfather Samuel Schneider (who was vice president and treasurer on the board). Albert and Sam were the first of the brothers to get into the movie business, before Harry and Jack joined them. A major mistake in this series.

United Artists was founded by four movie icons, not three. In addition to Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and Charlie Chaplin, all shown in the series, they entirely left out D. W. Griffith. His career, impact, and legacy are completely gone. No "Birth of a Nation" or "Intolerance." None of his legendary work with Lillian Gish (who is also conspicuously absent). But to spend a good amount of time on the forming of United Artists and not even mention Griffith's name isn't just an error, it's revisionist history. It's just plain wrong.

The budget is low, except apparently for purchasing cartons of cigarettes. The younger actor playing Adolph Zukor was never without a cigarette in any shot or scene. EVER. It went beyond a chain-smoking vice or character trait into completely distracting and amateurish, like a bad joke or exaggerated nervous tick.

I appreciate the effort, and it's a story worth telling, so I'm glad this series exists. Many fascinating people, tales, and details are presented, but with some huge, glaring errors (mentioned above), it makes me doubt and question the truth in all of it.

I always enjoy learning about the early days of Hollywood. And I'll have to admit I did learn a few things I didn't know. But I'm taking it all with a grain of salt. Things like... United Artist was formed by 3 principals? Pickford, Chaplin, Fairbanks? What about D. W. Griffith? Zukor, Lasky but no mention of C. B DeMille? I'm left thinking the producers did this because... they couldn't afford any more actors. How many shots of actors walking down a path, actors talking at a table, Zukor lighting another cigarette. Good grief he would have been dead at 25 given how many times he's seen lighting up. As I say, I have enjoyed it but I do cringe every time I see the same set, an actor walking down a path and "thinking", actors at a table talking, the same shot of the narrator "Zukor" . Can't we vary that shot just a little? Oh well I guess that's the way they made films in the "early" days.

We thought we knew a lot about the origins of movies, having watched the 13-episode series "Hollywood" narrated by James Mason. But each episode of "Titans", especially those covering the 1890s to mid-1910s, had us saying "I never knew that." By focusing on the business perspective--innovators who had a feeling that motion pictures could be big, but struggled to figure out how--the series explains how and why the innovations happened.

The docudrama is narrated as oral history by an older Adolf Zukor. The dynamics between the competitors/collaborators are often fascinating. The final episode or two, covering the end of the silent era, get bogged down by details about corporate wheeling and dealing, which can be hard to follow. Nevertheless, the earlier portions more than make up for it.

As a life long cinephile I will watch anything related to the history of the movies.

For the most part, I enjoyed this, particularly the stuff with Carl Lemmle and Universal, but to not mention D. W. Griffith even once, (not even as of the four creators of United Artist) is just weird. Not to mention paring down the Warner Brothers from 4 to only 3.

I'm also not sure how "Tess of the Storm Country" (1922) could ever be considered the first feature film, when "Les Miserables", "Cabiria", and of Course, "Birth of A Nation" (1915) all precede it by many years.

But overall there is more good than bad and still worth a watch for film buffs.