From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Subject: Re: The first movie star (was: Leeper Screws the Pooch on CHAPLIN)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:14:23 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies

In article <1993Jan21.191430.11359@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
(Peter Reiher) wrote:

> As someone else pointed out, the name I was searcing for was Florence
> Lawrence, and she was the first real movie star.  Pickford did not lag
> her by much, and was stolen from Biograph by IMP in much the same way.
> (She was known, at Biograph, as "Little Mary", not "The Biograph Girl".
> Florence Lawrence was the original Biograph Girl.  After her departure,
> I believe Biograph chose another "girl".)  But Lawrence was first.

We were discussing stars of Chaplin's level.  "Superstars."  Florence
Lawrence was not a superstar, and if Pickford 'lagged' (the
biography of Pickford does not seem to indicate that she lagged
behind anyone at the box office - and certainly by the
time Famous Lasky Players came into effect, she was without
doubt the largest superstar in film) it is because of where you
draw the line for "star."  Pickford was not the first woman
whose photograph was captured on film.  She was the first of
her kind.  No other woman had as much fame, power, or wealth in
Hollywood as she, throughout her entire film career.
 
> Note, also, that we are parochially discussing only American films.  In
> certain ways, the silent cinema of some European countries, notably
> France and Italy, was more developed, at this stage of cinema's history.

More developed "artistically" - perhaps.  More developed as an
industry?  Perhaps not.  The American movie stars were "the" movie
stars.  Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo made a few films overseas,
but they became Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo only after making
films for Hollywood.  Pickford and Fairbanks made no films overseas,
and it didn't stop England, France, Germany, and Sweden from going
bannanas when the couple went on a honeymoon tour.  And Marlene
Dietrich's childhood idol (Potten, I believe was her name) was
described as "Germany's Mary Pickford" by German film critics,
testimony to Pickford's influence and to the influence of the
American film industry in general.  Germany had an very sophisticated
film industry (which supplied a huge amount of talent for Hollywood),
and yet they often described themselves in terms of Hollywood.
 
> >She was in on the beginning with D.W Griffith.  By
> >the late Teens, she was making ten thousand dollars a week at Lasky's
> >Players.  There was no other actress of remotely comparable fame 
> >until Gloria Swanson and, of course, Gee Gee.
> 
> Depending on how you want to define "remotely comparable fame", this
> statement is either incorrect because Gloria Swanson wasn't nearly as famous
> as Pickford (which is certainly the case), or incorrect because there were 
> other actress before Swanson who were just as famous as Swanson.

Yeah, yeah.  Swanson had more than enough fame to go around, and
she was very typical of the "glamour queen" movie star.  And perhaps
more people know who Swanson is today than Pickford (and I 
suspect fewer people have heard of Bow or Normand than either
one).  You conveniently ignored Gee Gee.  Garbo was unique, and 
uniquely famous - and she remains famous today.  Perhaps uniqueness
is a good measure of a star.  Pickford was remarkably unique.  She
played "America's Sweetheart" where 'many' stars played 'wicked women.'
Garbo started out playing 'wicked women' - but soon got to play
anything she wanted, mostly exotic European aristocrats with 
psychological disorders...