jppu

Maybe it was the stage where her star would have shown the brightest. I say that because as it was shot on video tape, this episode has a theater feel to it and Inger Stevens is the "grande dame" of this short play.

As a former actor/director myself (not on any big scale or even small), I can tell that this young lady clearly did her homework on this part and she took advantage of the wonderful words and character she was given to create, I suspect, in a very short amount of time. Each motivation was strongly chosen and came from deep within her. I like Inger Stevens because she's raw and she's real. I don't see that too much with today's stars (as opposed to actors).

In defense of the six episodes that were shot on video. I like them and I wish they did more (but certainly not all)! I like to intimate, live TV/theater, daytime soap opera feel that black and white video tape gives. For this particular episode, it was totally appropriate to shoot this on video. I think it made it even creepier. Twilight Zone was partially about experimentation with this new medium of TV and I, for one, am glad they did.

First of all, I cannot believe I am making the first ever comment on this title. I just saw this remarkable adaption of the classic novel on line in a fairly okay kinescope.

Secondly, I've seen a lot of Fitzgerald adaptions over the years. Some go back decades while others are pretty recent. This version of TITN is by far the best that I've seen. The production values are great for a 55 year old live television production. I feel like the playwright actually read and UNDERSTOOD the novel he was adapting and that he actually had a clue who Scott F. was as an artist was getting at with this book. Some people don't have any idea about Scott F. Re: Any Great Gatzby adaption.

The music used for this production was simply beautiful, the sound design of the sea gave it just enough atmosphere.

So we have a great script and great production. It was all executed by marvelous direction. I felt like I was in a Broadway theater seeing something really spectacular in a very quiet intimate way. And i was. I was in NYC in 1955 at a great premier.

It was great to see Mercedes Mc. in a lead role for once, which was too rare indeed. In many ways, it could be the role of her entire career. She proved herself a leading lady. The breakdown scenes were entirely believable and heartbreaking.

James Daily matched her with his easy going manner and style reminiscent of James Garner or David Jansen. You will not catch Mr. Daily acting as he is totally in the moment and engaged by Ms. McCambridge.

I hope a restored edition would be available one day. Here is the essence of not only the best of early live television, but one that would do F. Scott Fitzgerald proud.

If I was an English teacher, even in spite of the video limitations, I might consider showing it in class if I was teaching this novel. Yes, it's that powerful!!!

The print I have of this movie has no musical score. So I just found an internet music station that plays only piano and harps and it worked well enough. I do wish the Pickford foundation would get their hands on a copy and do this version justice with orchestrations and a cleaner print than I have, which is actually pretty good considering it's almost 100 years old, and release it along side the superior 1922 version. Although it certainly is not as good as the remake, it has a lot of merit in its own right.

Firstly, we have to remember that Griffith was in the planning stages of filming Birth of a Nation. Edwin S. Porter is no Griffith and he basically treated the film as if he were filming a stage play but on location. Tess would have been the perfect vehicle for Griffith to experiment with film and editing techniques. Griffith is a wonderful storyteller of the greatest warmth and emotion (True Heart Susie, Broken Blossoms) and Tess would have been a great story for him to tell in his own unique style. Of course, if Griffith has filmed Tess in 1914-5, we wouldn't have Beaudiline's (sp?) flawless 1922 version. Porter's direction leaves one cold.

What Porter does do well is film on location. He's at his best outdoors and not working with actors. His style is almost docudrama and that approach may work for some stories. For this one, especially compared to Beaudiline's emotionally charged version, it was an unfortunate director's choice especially compared to Mary's over the top performance. She is having the best of times chewing the scenery and is works brilliantly for Tess.

This version of the film is all Mary from the first to last frame. She was talented enough to realize that she was not working with Griffith or DeMille as a director. Therefore she over compensates and leaves her competent but not great co-stars in the dust as well as Porter himself. But it's the little things she does as an actress that makes her extraordinary. The way she plays her father's homecoming by inching up his arms was a great choice and gives a really nice touch. Who can play white trash with more fervor, innocence and passion than Mary Pickford. Even in her lesser films, she awesome to watch.

If you are casual silent movie or Mary Pickford fan, then this film probably is not for you. But if you believe in the artistry of either Mary Pickford or silent films, then go for this one!