Talk:St. Elmo (1914 film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Elmo (1914 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a review shortly. Wizardman 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wee note from another silent film writer: I am working on the Thanhouser production from 1910 and contrary to the article - it did receive plenty of recognition. However, the citation used at the end of the sentence should be attributed to Fidler's careless omission than anything else. After all, there were two film productions (one American and the other British) produced in 1923 and Fidler states there was only one. As a result, I'd caution against using Fidler as a fitting source for the film details. Fidler also seems to gloss over the lower vaudeville productions and scenarios, but that's an unrelated issue here. Also, this film was likely destroyed in the 1937 Fox vault fire. It took out most of Fox's pre-1935 films. You will want to highlight this fire as the most likely reason why the film was lost. I won't be able to do the Vitagraph production for awhile, but I'll create the Thanhouser production so you can take the sources and material to help here as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would certainly welcome information on the Thanhouser production, and will amend accordingly. I'll see if I can scrape up anything better to say about the Vitagraph production other than Fidler's failure to mention it. As for the likely fate of the film, I'm quite familiar with the 1937 Fox vault fire; the next silent film article in my pipeline almost certainly ended up there, and, indeed, turning that redlink blue is on my to-do list as well. But I'm not aware of a source that confirms whether Fox retained the Balboa films it had distributed on contract after that arrangement ended, or whether they were returned to Balboa (or simply destroyed). Jura & Bardin is by far the most detailed treatment of Balboa in the modern era, and it's pretty silent about what actually happened to Balboa's prints, other than to say that nearly all of them are gone now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• I've restructured that section somewhat, and cut the problematic reference to Fidler. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• The plot feels rather condensed even for a 6-reel piece. Granted, it's a lost film so it can't be watched to fill in any gaps, but is there more to it? The Thanhouser version (see below) has a pretty sizable synopsis, so perhaps there is one out there that can be used (which could be added without it being a copyright issue).

• Let me take a run through the sources and see what I can find. I agree that this plot summary isn't really adequate for a feature-length film (six reels of silent being somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes, probably, although reel-to-time is an ugly argument I'm happy to perennially avoid!). This one took some liberties with the original novel's plot, but I think I've got enough sources to cobble at least something more together here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wizardman, I think I've done what I can here. Normally, Motography is pretty good about providing plot summaries, but they didn't both with this film for some reason. I've put together what I can from Moving Picture World, Motion Picture News, and the 2007 history of Balboa films. I'll be the first to admit the plot is still obviously incomplete (Motion Picture News mentions a "clever child introduced toward the end", but your guess is as good as mine how that's part of the plot; no sources I've been able to locate give any more detail), but unfortunately that's sometimes unavoidable with lost films. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• A nitpicky thing, but Jossey doesn't seem to be worth a redlink from what I'm seeing, since this was his only film; I'd remove it.

• Probably true. Delinked. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Augusta Jane Evans domestic novel St. Elmo was" Add apostrophe for the name.

• Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Linking the Thanhouser version of the film would be helpful, since we now have an article as of yesterday (I wish I had Chris's article writing speed).

• Linked. And redlinked the Vitagraph one also, since I expect that will exist sooner or later. Also, I'll share in the envy of his editing speed; even when I've got my sources pre-determined and all at hand, it takes me weeks to put an article together, and longer if I have to go a-hunting! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold and pass when the above is fixed. Just found a few tiny things. Wizardman 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. If that's all that can be found for a plot summary then it'll do, since I understand that it's unavoidable in this situation. As such I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your time and assistance. I'll be continuing the effort to find more and better sources for this one as I dig deeper into my silent film project this year, but I fear this one is always going to be a bit more spare than I'd prefer. Not even going to try for FAC here; with the directorial dispute alone, I don't think I can satisfy the comprehensiveness standard. But I'm happy enough to see it with the green icon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)