This dialogue, taken in connection with other phases of my association

with Maeterlinck, persuades me that this creator of reverent prose and

mystic drama is afflicted with the same economic fixation--I borrow the

term from psychoanalysis--which manifests itself so often among those

whom some art has enriched. Screen stars and actresses, comedians and

tragedians, singers and writers--often in thinking over those whom

I have met I have been struck by the number who would be capable of

instructing Benjamin Franklin in the ways of thrift.

I remember that once I asked a man who had long been associated with

Ben Turpin, the widely known cross-eyed comedian, what sort of chap

Turpin really was.

“Well,” said he laughingly, “he’s this sort of a chap. He makes a lot

of money and he keeps almost as much. He has an unpretentious little

home manned with not more than one servant, and in the home there is

a suite of parlour furniture. It’s gilt, I think--anyway it’s quite

showy, and the Turpins are very much concerned over its welfare. They

keep it covered up except when somebody calls, and even then they’re

not reckless. For they say that when the door-bell rings some one

always peeps out of the window to see who is there. If it’s a stranger,

off come the furniture-coverings. But if it’s a friend, the insurance

is kept on.”

This amusing story is always linked in my mind with the one which Will

Rogers is fond of telling on Chaplin. “A girl went riding up in the

Hollywood mountains,” says he, “and was thrown and lost for two days.

When it was thought they weren’t going to find her, Charlie offered a

reward of a thousand dollars in all the papers. It looked at that time,

mind you, as if they weren’t going to find her. But they did. So the

people that found her offered five hundred of the thousand to anybody

that would find Charlie.”

For me one of the most amazing revelations regarding M. Maeterlinck

concerns his indifference to music. It was in this country and while

he was with the Goldwyn Company that he heard for the first time a

rendition of the opera “Pelléas et Mélisande.” One of my publicity men

sat near him in his box at this performance, and he reported that from

the large placid face those ethereal strains which Debussy wove about

his own play drew not a sign of response. It was quite evident that the

Belgian author perhaps considered Dr. Johnson somewhat too broad-minded

when he said that music was a sound more agreeable than other noises.

When I was in England several years after the formation of the Goldwyn

Company I made a memorable call upon another playwright whose pen moves

in a different tempo from that of Maeterlinck. I had long been an

admirer of Mr. Bernard Shaw and, in spite of the fact that the quality

of his plays rather repudiates the suggestion of screen adaptation, I

was interested in conducting the experiment.

Mr. and Mrs. Shaw entertained me at their London apartment with much

brilliant talk and the inevitable tea. The playwright’s wife, a very

cordial hostess indeed, is one of those fresh-coloured, vigorous

types of womanhood which you meet at every turn of Hyde Park. She was

deeply engrossed that day in the Irish question, and her sympathies

were brought into relief by a call from Sir Horace Plunkett, then just

returned from a visit to the United States.

I recall that during the course of the talk Mrs. Shaw told a story of

an Irish lad sentenced to be hanged in the Tower for his revolutionary

activities. Before his execution they came to him and promised that if

he would give the authorities information regarding certain leaders

in the movement his life would be spared. To this the lad, only about

eighteen years of age, replied, “Gentlemen, you are wasting your time

and mine.”

Mrs. Shaw quoted this speech with great fire. “How,” she concluded,

“can you conquer a people with a spirit like that?”

When we drifted away from the Irish situation Mr. Shaw and I had a

chance for a talk about motion-pictures. To my surprise I learned

then that he was a picture enthusiast. He told me that there were two

people whose films he never missed--Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford.

Regarding the former, he was especially enthusiastic. I found, in fact,

that he was as familiar with Chaplin’s work as am I myself.

The affectionate courtesy displayed toward each other by the playwright

and his wife is bound to impress any one familiar with some of Shaw’s

iconoclastic utterances upon the domestic situation. Certainly the

atmosphere surprised me. The pair did not address each other as

“Father” and “Mother,” but, aside from this failure, they seemed to be

as tolerant and contented and settled as a hardware merchant of Topeka

and his wife.

Toward the latter part of the afternoon I saw Mr. Shaw look frequently

at his wrist-watch. Ultimately he mentioned that he was due to deliver

a lecture that evening.

“And have you decided yet what you are going to speak about?” queried

Mrs. Shaw when at last her husband rose to depart for this engagement.

“Not yet,” he retorted; “I dare say I shall decide on the platform.”

I always think of Mr. Shaw as he looked when he made this reply. His

eyes, which are, I think, the clearest and most living blue I ever saw,

so sparkled with merry perversity, his figure was so erect and spare

and vigorous--there was so much spring in both face and physique--that

he seemed to me--this man past middle age--the very embodiment of

electric youth.

I suppose that he had that same expression of merry perversity when

on the following day he told a newspaper reporter who called upon him

to learn the outcome of his conversation with me, “Everything is all

right. There is only one difference between Mr. Goldwyn and me. Whereas

he is after art I am after money.”

Whatever the explanation, Mr. Shaw never came to America, nor did he

do any work for the Goldwyn Company. I was no more fortunate in the

result of my call upon Mr. H. G. Wells. He, like Mr. Shaw, had me at

his home in London for tea. Here, however, the conversation focussed,

not upon Ireland, but upon India, a direction determined by the fact

that a young East-Indian was calling upon the author that afternoon.

The foreigner was very earnest in his expressions of admiration for

Mr. Wells’s “Outlines of History,” and it was indeed a privilege

to me, who had just read this presentment of history, to hear such

first-hand comments by both the author and a representative of that

mellow civilisation which Mr. Wells has compared so favourably with our

Western achievements.

During the course of this conversation the Indian told the author that

no other English writer held so high a place in his country as the one

occupied by Mr. Wells. Although the latter must have spent many hours

of his life in listening to similar tributes, he responded to it as

gratefully as if this were a fresh experience.

When we came to talk of pictures I suggested to Mr. Wells that he visit

California and write some stories for our company.

“Oh,” said he, “I should like to come, for I know I should enjoy the

California sunshine and meeting Charlie Chaplin. The only trouble with

me is that I never could write on order. I haven’t been able to do it

for magazines or publishers and I should certainly fail abjectly when

it came to doing it for the screen.”

I thereupon urged him to come to California as my guest, look over the

situation. But, although I assured him that such a visit would leave

him perfectly free to decide whether or not he cared to enter the

picture lists, Mr. Wells did not accept my invitation.

As I left his home that day I remembered suddenly that twenty-five

years before, I, who had just been entertained by the most celebrated

of the younger English novelists, had wandered without home and

without money through these very London streets. There was no

self-congratulation in that swift contrast of present and future, but

there was a deep wonder at the mysterious flux of life.

Another feeling dominated this wonder. It was my gratitude to the work

which has so shaped and coloured my destiny. To motion-pictures I owe

all the wide range of contacts which have made up to me for a boyhood

handicapped by so many unfavourable circumstances. To it I owe also

the greatest blessing which can befall any one of us--an impersonal

interest so vivid and compelling that it survives any personal grief or

maladjustment.

Almost every one who has been connected with picture-production

understands the fascination which it exerts. I always think, indeed, of

the answer which Charlie Chaplin once made to somebody who asked him

what he most wanted from the future.

“More life,” said Chaplin promptly. “Whether it comes through pictures

or not--more life.” And then he added half sadly, “Still I can’t think

of myself out of pictures. Whatever I do, I find myself wondering,

‘Now, will that be good for my work or not?’”

Although, in comparison with this great creative artist, my own sphere

is so humble, my understanding of this one dominating interest is

sufficiently complete to justify me in applying his words to myself.

Like Chaplin, I can not think of myself out of pictures. For to do that

would be to turn my back on the far horizon which has always called me

to it.

In the ten years since I entered that little Broadway motion-picture

theatre with its static Western drama, its player-piano, and its

far-flung peanut-shells, giant changes have taken place. Then

film-production attracted few men and women of real intellectual

capacity. To-day we see a former member of the United States Cabinet

presiding over its destinies. Then the motion-picture theatre was as

sporadic as it was stunted and disfigured. To-day the smallest hamlet

puts up its first motion-picture theatre at the same time that it

erects its first church, and in the larger communities costly edifices

have followed in the wake of the costly picture. Eight years ago the

twenty thousand dollars which the Lasky Company expended upon “Carmen”

was considered a vast sum. To-day the Goldwyn Company is investing

nearly a million in its production of “Ben Hur.”

With the development of our industry has come a corresponding

development in the life of the country. Motion-pictures are, in truth,

the magic travelling carpet on which those in the most remote village

may fly to distant lands, to other ages, to realms of romance hitherto

denied them. No other agency, not even the automobile, has combated so

successfully the isolation of the rural communities. When I think of

the glow which pictures have brought to so many lustreless lives all

through the world, I am tempted, indeed, to overlook all the defects of

the industry and to dwell only upon its perfections.

Yet defects there certainly are. Undoubtedly the ten years to come

will do much to remove them. My own faith in the next decade is a firm

one, and to this new era of expansion I wish to dedicate whatever of

ability, whatever of judgment I have gained from the experiences set

down in these chapters.

THE END

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a

predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they

were not changed.

Some simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation

marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left

unbalanced.

Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs

and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support

hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to

the corresponding illustrations.

Behind the Screen · 第 12 / 12 段