Quartet (1981): by Megumi Banse, Tessa N Freeland, Morgan M Heinsoo, Zack Lehman, and Michael E Schmidt

Introduction:

It is evident that James Ivory conducted an incredible amount of independent research to appropriately adapt the book to film. This has shed light on the amount of work required to create a film that aligns with the author’s original intent while still making it a unique project for the director. Adapting a book to a movie is quite different than writing an original screenplay; a certain amount of work must be conducted to study and then successfully stay true to the book’s tone. James Ivory did plenty of independent research before he made executive decisions on production, promotion, and editing.  Jean Rhys had a great influence on every aspect of the film and this can be seen in the documents that we found within the archive.

 

Synopsis:

Quartet was filmed in 1981, directed by James Ivory and produced by Ismail Merchant.  The film focuses on the lives of four people living in 1920’s Paris.  The main character is Marya Zelli and her husband Stefan.  When Stefan is sent to jail Marya is taken in by H.J. and Lois Heidler.  H.J. and Marya enter into a sexual relationship which she sees no way to escape from and eventually falling in love with H.J.  Ultimately Marya is able to break away from the Heidlers but Stefan also leaves her.

 

Michael E Schmidt

My research focused on Jean Rhys, writer of the original novel. Upon poring over some personal items and life accounts, I began to notice some striking parallels between Quartet and Jean’s actual life. I then consulted a biography of Rhys, written by Diana Athill, which was present in the same folder. Within the biography, Athill informs readers of Rhys’s troublesome life; she was a victim of racism, poor love affairs, and a constant struggle for money. Rhys managed to escape some of this suffering through writing. Athill states that Rhys “discovered that she could purge her misery by writing a full account of this affair in what she thought of as a diary…For Jean Rhys writing was always to be a way of ordering disorder and mastering pain.”

It is interesting to see what was more of a therapeutic writing exercise become a prospect for a modern film. Rhys herself did not even know that this would become a book itself. In her personal account of her affair with Mr. Ford – the affair that Quartet is based off – Rhys states that “when after a long struggle Quartet stopped being a record of facts and became a book with a start, a middle and an end, where the characters acted sometimes independently of me and without my will.” The whole account follows quite an uncomfortable relationship when Jean falls on hard times; her husband is arrested and he is ‘invited’ to stay  with a rich couple, where manipulation – including the promiscuous type – occurs. This is almost the movie verbatim, and Ivory does a stellar job of creating a sense of uncomfortable helplessness for Marya.

Because I read these documents before viewing the film, I was able to watch with a certain level of familiarity otherwise unachievable. It is evident that these items had an effect on the production of the film as opposed to Ivory only reading the book itself.

 

Tessa N Freeland

I focused on the creation of the film narrative and the writing of the script.  The collection contained several versions of the story from the original book to the treatments and then a script.  I chose to look at the original book that the filmmakers made notes in, a treatment, synopsis and a version of the final script so that I could trace the changes in the story.  Their plans for the script changed drastically from the first version to the filmed version.  Inside the book were notes on the pages and underlined passages.  The passages that were underlined contained details and scenes that were necessary for telling the story.   The treatment was short and to the point, written to grab attention and sell the idea of the film.  The synopsis provides a better view of the story than any of the other materials. This document seemed like a guide for the writing of the actual script.  It went into detail of important scenes and had pieces of the dialogue that they really wanted in the film.  The script was similar to the synopsis and showed much more of the relationships between all the character’s as well more inner monologue from Marya.

I felt a disconnect between these documents and the film, some heavy revising must have happened after the script that I found as much of it is different.  This gives me the idea that the writers had trouble keeping the story short while also giving enough of each character to gain the sympathy of the audience.  These documents depicted more of a biography for Marya than just a chronicle of her time with the Heidlers.  The script includes scenes of Marya with her family and shows how she could have fallen in love with H.J. at all.

 

Zack Lehman

I looked primarily into the cast and the casting process during preproduction.  I found the casting list with all the information for the actors listed. There were three folders full of call sheets. Most of them were in semi good condition with minimal notes, however towards the end I ran across a very used call sheet for a large scale scene, more than likely from one of the party scenes. On the back were written many different phone numbers and notes in different colors of ink. From my looking into it my guess would be that the numbers are for extras in the scene. I also came across a small informal list of people auditioning for a role in the movie.  Initially I thought it was for one position but I think that it is a general list as it lists Bill Nighy with a note that he can speak a bit of french and has a great accent along with a mystery candidate for “the young man”.

I also briefly went through the main four actors careers to see their overall acting at the time and where they went after that. Alan Bates played the role of HJ Heidler. In his early career, he mostly did television roles being nominated for many roles during this time. After his role in Quartet he had more television roles and television movies, but he had considerably less acclaim. Maggie Smith, who played Lois Heidler, has had acclaim for most of her career including a nomination for best actress and an award for best actress for Quartet. Isabelle Adjani, played Marya Zelli, starting in the 70’s she won much acclaim for her leading role of The Story of Adele Hugo. From there she has starred in Nosferatu, Possession, and of course Quartet. In 81, when Quartet was shown in the Cannes film festival she won best actress for Quartet and Possession in the same year. Anthony Higgins was an english actor who had little fame until ‘81 where he not only starred in Quartet but also had a minor role in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Jean Rhys, Author of Quartet

Poster for the film

Morgan M Heinsoo

I looked at a few items dealing with the promotion of Quartet.  I found an interview conducted through letters between James Ivory and Michel Maingois that developed into the released interview in the press book for the film.  Maingois first mailed Ivory the questions, Ivory answered the ones he liked, then Maingois edited his answers to work for the book.

In the interview Ivory addresses the book to movie comparison and says that he is glad Jean Rhys is not around to see the movie because he knew she was very particular about her writing style (this statement was cut from the final released version).  When asked about how the film relates to modern culture, Ivory states that it reflects the “self-indulgence and egotism” of modern times, and also says that it’s hard for a modern audience to recognize “moral shading”.  Ivory comments on literary influences for the film and that he chose Isabelle Adjani for Marya because even though she is not French, she seems so perfect for the part.  He also comments about how much he enjoyed working with a French crew and getting to know the city of Paris better.

       Ivory refused to answer questions that did not directly deal with Quartet.  He also refused a question about the fact that this is an unusually hopeless work when considering the previous films in Ivory’s career.  Ivory wrote to Maingois that he hoped the interview would be edited well to avoid irritating the critics, or “directing their divine intelligences down a path” (Letter to Michel Maingois).

       The promotional book for the film had the completed form of this interview which was edited down from eight questions and answers to four.  The book also included cast information, a synopsis, articles on the book and author of Quartet, and other information one would expect (Promotional Book).

 

Megumi Banse

I focused on the subtitles which covers production and distribution fields. As a bilingual film, the subtitles play an important role in the film. I found two documents that approach the subtitles. Two documents are the letters from Ivory sent to the producer and distributor about subtitles. To see these papers, I would say Ivory was particular about subtitles. One letter is to Lyric International, the other production that Merchant Ivory Productions shared the credit and earnings with. Ivory asks the production to correct some of the subtitles. He wrote the instructions of the correction in detail and tells the exact footage the subtitles are in. He asks them to move the subtitles forward or backward, to split or add the subtitles, and to cut the frame. His explanation of why he is so particular about these corrections appeared in the letter too. He says “It’s most annoying to see subtitles on the screen before the characters have actually spoken.” “12 frames are falling over…and it seems awkward.” “THE PRINT IS PROBABLY DAMAGED…IF THE NEGATIVE IS DAMAGED…DAMN IT AND HELL!” His becoming emotional shows that he really cared about the audience and how these subtitles are shown in the theater.

The other letter is from Ivory to New World Picture, one of the distributors in the U.S. He explained and introduced the French dialogs that are seen in the film which are three categories. The greetings are in the first category, having no bearing on the plot and used for atmospheric purposes. Second are the long passages between two French people, having no bearing on the plot and for avoiding sounding crude, flat, or obvious. The exchanges, having a direct bearing on the plot or giving essential information are in the third category. There were two versions of the film and the French dialogs were subtitled or dubbed according to the categories. For the original version (English-French), every category except the first one was subtitled. For the dubbed version, the first category was left as it was, the second category was subtitled, and the third was dubbed. In the letter he wrote instructions on which dialogs are to be subtitled (meaning not so important) and which are to be dubbed (meaning essential).

Usually, the subtitle isn’t the work of the production. However for Quartet, he organized every work around subtitles. He cared about their words, placement, importance, and appearance. I’m impressed that Ivory realized the significance of the subtitles and organized from the production to the distribution field.

 

Conclusion:

Through our research we found that the original author of the novel had influence on each part of the film from the treatment to the cast and where the film would eventually be advertised.  We also found that the film differed greatly from the novel and much of the first versions of the script.  But the film still remained a faithful telling of the story of Jean Rhys’ life and told an intriguing story.  The film was well casted and helped the actors with it’s success.  James Ivory put a huge amount of time and effort into this film, focusing on every last detail to make sure it was the best it could be, even in a different language.  All the parts come together to form a beautiful and tragic story.

Work Cited

Athill, Diana. Jean Rhys Biography. Box 19, Folder 13, Coll#283. James Ivory Papers, Quartet. Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene OR. 9 May 2014.

English Screenplay for Quartet.  Box 17, Folder 5, Coll#283.  Quartet-Screenplay, James Ivory Papers.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  10 May 2014.

Film Treatment.  Box 17, Folder 3, Coll#283.  Quartet-Treatment-Origins, James Ivory Papers.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  10 May 2014.

Ivory, James.  Ivory’s notes in the Quartet novel.  Box 17, Folder 1, Coll#283.  Quartet-Treatment-Books, James Ivory Papers.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  10 May 2014.

Letter to James Ivory from Michel Maingois.  Box 19, Folder 8, Coll#283.   James Ivory Papers, Quartet.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  9 May 2014.

Letter to Lyric International. Box 17, Folder 8, Coll#283. James Ivory Papers, Quartet. University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 12 May 2014

Letter to Michel Maingois from James Ivory.  Box 19, Folder 8, Coll#283.   James Ivory Papers, Quartet.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  9 May 2014.

Letter to New World Pictures. Box 17, Folder 12, Coll#283. James Ivory Papers, Quartet. University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 12 May 2014

Promotional Book for Quartet.  Box 19, Folder 1, Coll#283.   James Ivory Papers, Quartet.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  9 May 2014

Quartet Synopsis.  Box 17, Folder 3, Coll#283.  Quartet-Treatment-Origins, James Ivory Papers.  University of Oregon Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.  10 May 2014.

Rhys, Jean. L’Affaire Ford. Box 19, Folder 13, Coll#283. James Ivory Papers, Quartet. Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene OR. 9 May 2014.

Savages (1972)–by Conner Beckwith, Robert Giesen, Nate Kristoff, and Victor Rojo

Savages (1972)–by Conner Beckwith, Robert Giesen, Nate Kristoff, and Victor Rojo

Introduction

Through looking through the archival records of Savages provided in the special collections, our group was better able to understand the production, promotion, and exhibition of the film. The two boxes of documents provided offered everything from scripts to miscellaneous checks written to fund the movie. The documents collectively represent the combination of inspiration and vision. When James Ivory first set his eyes on the Neo-Georgian mansion set in Scarborough New York he knew he needed to make a film there. With the help of George Trow and Michael O’Donoghue, that vision became a reality. All of the documents within the collection shed light on the production and events leading up to the making of Savages.

None of us had previously seen the film so we didn’t quite know what to expect. Needless to say the alternative plot left us with mixed reviews of the movie. By combining our viewing experience with the archival documents it was easier to understand the premise of the film. By depicting the tribe’s ascendance to civilized lifestyle, Ivory offers a critique on the rise and fall of civilization. By elaborating on the novel, Exterminating Angels written by Luis Bunuel, Ivory was able to use Savages as an outlet for his auteur film-making style.

As a group we were able to collaborate and come to the conclusion that Savages offers an auteur critique of civilization. The primary theme of cultural metamorphosis is at the forefront of the film and was the primary impression we were left with after concluding our research.

Savages Synopsis (James Ivory 1972)

Savages is a film based upon a profound cultural metamorphosis regarding human life. The film begins by depicting a primitive tribe of aboriginals termed the “mud people.” Savages starts with the tribe rummaging through the forest performing a ritual sacrifice when they encounter a croquet ball rolling through the forest. The tribe follows the croquet ball to a deserted Westchester estate where they encounter a variety of civilized materialistic goods. There, the tribe begins to become civilized and assumes the stereotypical roles and dress of people at a weekend party. Then follows the adaptation and portrayal of a civilized upper-class behavioral gathering. At last, the party gathers in the yard to play a battle of croquet, where they lead themselves back into the forest to devolve back into their original status as a primitive tribe.

Conner Beckwith

Robert and I teamed up and found a letter written by James Ivory that recounted some of the inspiration and other factors that led to the creation of Savages. One of the more instrumental parts of the production process was the house that Ivory found in Scarborough, NY. In the document, he goes in-depth into how great he thinks the house is and how he needed to make a movie there. Ivory explains in the document that the storyline came from a book called Exterminating Angels by Luis Bunuel where a civilized group of people slowly devolves into a primitive tribe. For the film, Ivory chose to do the opposite, but it was essentially the same idea. After reading through the letter, it shed light on the creation of storyline. This film was somewhat unusual because they didn’t use their typical writer, Ruth Jhabvala, and instead chose to collaborate with George Trow and Michael O’Donoghue. George Trow was from the New Yorker and contributed heavily to the writing and came up with the premise of the weekend party. Michael O’Donoghue was from National Lampoon and came up with the idea of the croquet ball luring the tribe to the house. The house itself served as most of the inspiration for the movie and Ivory described it as a “time capsule”. After it had been abandoned in the 30’s, everything had been left behind and Ivory mentioned he felt somewhat disturbed at opening the house up and having them clean up some of the mementos. The document itself was very insightful and helped with the understanding of the production process as a whole.

Robert Giesen

My archival findings consisted of a personal account of Mr. Ivory’s production ideas and processes related to the making of the film. Due to the film’s unconventional plot, Mr. Ivory’s personal account of how certain themes came to fruition enabled our group to better understand the story being told. Mr. Ivory explains a variety of detailed reasoning for where the film was shot and how certain themes developed. With these findings I was able to better interpret Mr. Ivory’s ideology about film making, as well as the film makers’ collaboration and analysis of a specific shot setting.

Mr. Ivory’s introduction about the film starts with him describing how he accidentally discovered the estate where the majority of the film was shot. “My accidental discovery of Beechwood, a neo-Georgian mansion in Scarborough, New York, led to the making of “Savages”- I couldn’t have described what sort of a film I wanted to shoot in it. There was something unearthly in the ambiance of Beechwood, something poetic, which made it unlike other houses of the kind I’d seen in America” (Ivory). Due to the mansion’s unique makeup, Mr. Ivory describes walking through the house as “more of a lesson on a society which has now completely disappeared” (Ivory). This description helps explain Mr. Ivory’s attempt to portray a serious theme he describes as “the rise and fall of civilization” (Ivory). His attempt to encompass such a serious theme was based upon him depicting a primitive tribe discovering this estate. He depicted the tribe becoming enthralled with the estate’s material goods and resources, then eventually reverting back to the primitive tribe’s lifestyle of the past. Lastly, Mr. Ivory described how certain ideas and shot settings came about in collaboration with George Trow and Michael O’Donoghue. He states that O’Donoghue “thought up the device of the fateful croquet ball,” and Trow “firmly set the story within the confines of a weekend party” (Ivory, 3).

Nate Kristoff

The archival piece that I found was an old newspaper’s movie section. This movie section had showtimes for movies such as The Godfather and the movie was being advertised next to the showtimes for The Godfather. This must have had a positive impact on ticket sales for Savages because of how popular The Godfather was. In 1972, The Godfather accounted for nearly 10% of box office ticket sales. People had to look in the newspaper if they wanted to know what time a movie was playing, so whenever somebody went to look at showtimes for The Godfather, they also saw an advertisement for Savages. The style of the advertisement was very interesting to me also. The ad contained a picture of some sort of abstract serpentine creature. Just like the movie itself, the image is somewhat hard to figure out. Although you wouldn’t know what the movie is about just by looking at the ad in the paper, this particular newspaper had a brief review and synopsis of the movie. This review was very helpful to me when I watched the movie. Since the plot-line of the movie is somewhat confusing and hard to follow, it was very helpful having some sort of idea of what I would be watching. The jumpy nature of the film made it hard to follow if you didn’t know what you were getting into. Overall, I think this ad was very effective and did a good job of preparing the viewers for what they were going to see.

Victor Rojo

The artifacts that I found in the collection varied in categories, which gave me a unique background for the film outside of the plot itself. First, I found a clipping from a French fashion magazine containing an illustration of two women in lavish dresses. Upon further examination, this clipping appears to have been used as an inspiration or reference point for the costume design of the gowns adorned by the female party attendees. Although not an exact replica, it is fairly evident that this clipping was a direct reference for the costume designers to fashion costumes for the actresses.

The next items refer to promotion of the film as well as exhibition. I found both an invitation to a screening of Savages at the Baronet Theater in Ashbury Park, New Jersey (which unfortunately has been demolished since 2010) and a specialized program intended for a screening at the same theater. Coincidentally, the events listed on the invitation and on the program have conflicting dates, which means that either two separate events occurred at the Baronet Theater, or the original date was postponed. Either way, I appreciated the amount of care Merchant-Ivory Productions appeared to have given for their screenings, as the screening of this film had its own program for the event as well as a special champagne supper following the screening.

Finally, the last artifact I found was a review by Paine Knickerbocker of San Francisco Chronicle. In the review, Knickerbocker refers to Savages as an audacious, unusual film, however, he continued to praise the film for its originality and creativity. Upon further research, it seems as though this was the general opinion of this film–mixed. Many others cite it as an interesting approach to explaining the rise and fall of civilization, but most felt that the film fell short in terms of storytelling.

Conclusion

In summary, Savages had a very unique voice in regards to narrating the rise and fall of civilization. What started out as the discovery of a treasure trove of historic artifacts in a beautiful mansion estate eventually became a story of lesser evolved humans transitioning into esteemed aristocrats and then back again. James Ivory’s depiction of these events can no doubt be considered that of an auteur. He demonstrated a distinguished style for this film which differed from his previous work. For example, this film was shot in three phases which were blatantly exemplified via color filters. The primal, tribal scenes in the beginning were shot in black and white, the tribe’s discovery of the mansion was shot with a sepia filter, and their evolution into socialites was filmed in color. It is obvious Ivory wanted to emulate a dichotomy that existed between tribal primitives and highly evolved, upper-class socialites.

In addition, the tribal scenes (as well as the degeneration scenes where the aristocrats began reverting) had male and female German narration. Although without subtitles, this was an interesting contribution to the film. After further research, we discovered that the German narration was supposed to be indicative of a natural documentary. This addition made for an interesting motif, however our group thought that, without subtitles, it was hard to follow and seemed unnecessary.

Overall, our group thought Savages was strangely bizarre, yet we commend it for its creativity and auteurism. Although the plot was simplistic in theory, it was driven by the identities the characters had developed after evolving. Though some films are successful in character-driven storytelling, the plot for Savages was relatively absent and the characters’ dialogue was somewhat disconnected.

Fun fact:The song “Stepping on a Spaniel”, which played during the party scene, was written specifically for Savages by Joe Raposo, who is most notable for writing songs for Sesame Street.

Works Cited and Further Reading

Ivory, James. “Savages: About The Film.” James Ivory Papers. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives. University of Oregon Libraries. Eugene, OR. Folder 3, Box 7.

Movie Section. James Ivory Papers. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives. University of Oregon Libraries. Eugene, OR. Box 7.

The James Ivory Papers. Box 8, Folders 1, 5, and 9. Collection 283. Special Collections University Archive, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Accessed May 5, 2014.

The Remains of the Day (1993): by Emily Cowell, Jeremy Dahm, Sam Craham, Addison Duffy and Andrew Schmidt

Introduction (“The Remains of the Day”) – By Emily Cowell, Jeremy Dahm, Sam Craham, Addison Duffy and Andrew Schmidt

For the James Ivory film assignment, our group researched the 1993 film, The Remains of the Day, starring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson. Through the generosity of James Ivory, we were able to have the opportunity to look through boxes of primary source documents regarding this Merchant Ivory film. From letters to blueprints, reviewing each of these documents allowed us to have more insight into the production, promotion, and exhibition of the film than we could ever think of.

Though The Remains of the Day was one of the largest productions that Merchant Ivory worked on, there was no cost spared for the attention to detail. Filmed using five different historical locations over three months, Ivory made sure to do justice to Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel. Relishing in its lavish setting in 1930s England, the character driven plot explores relationships and internal battles in an engaging and ultimately devastating manner. Nominated for 8 Academy Awards and running against films such as Schindler’s List, The Remains of the Day was one of Merchant-Ivory’s most acclaimed films.

Many of the items in the special collections regarding The Remains of the Day we found had to do with its production. Among the boxes there were many of Ivory’s notes on the setting of the film, different versions of scripts, detailed call sheets, letters, and almost anything else regarding the film imaginable. This showed our group exactly how much work went into a production of this scale and in what manner Merchant Ivory Production decided to explore its themes. Overall, we came to realize that above all else, Merchant Ivory has a marvelous penchant for detail, and that each item in the special collections reinforced this fact.

 

Synopsis – The Remains of the Day (1993 James Ivory)

Our story begins post-WWII England following our main character Mr. Stevens (Anthony Hopkins). Mr. Stevens is head butler of Darlington hall where he works now for an American Senator by the name of Lewis (Christopher Reeve). Stevens requests of Lewis that he allow Mr. Stevens to take a trip to the sea for the purpose of meeting Ms. Kenton (Emma Thompson) the previous housekeeper of Darlington hall whom Mr. Stevens was close with. During her letter narration to Mr. Stevens, the film flashes back to the late 1930s, when Ms. Kenton just arrived at the hall. Mr. Stevens is head butler to Lord Darlington, a well-meaning but naive British Lord. Supporting Germany out of their depression post-WWI, Darlington unknowingly was duped into funding the Nazi regime that began WWII. Mr. Stevens, loyal and concerned with the utmost dignity of being a professional butler, he does anything Lord Darlington asks of him with no question. Void of emotion and opinion, Mr. Stevens is but a hollow shell of a man, only concerned with eliminating distractions and working out staff issues. Ms. Kenton was fascinated with Mr. Stevens because of this fact and showed signs of attraction to him yet their relationship would never manifest. Lord Darlington years later dies an embittered man and only then does Mr. Stevens come to the realization of how misplaces his loyalty might have been all of those years. Flash back to the beginning of our story in which Mr. Stevens is trying to amend the relationship between him and Ms. Kenton, only to find it is too late and that his own dignity of being a butler would be the only thing he has left. His over concern with discipline and dignity left him without happiness and love.

 

Emily Cowell

When looking through the James Ivory papers regarding the 1993 film, The Remains of the Day, I became fascinated with the details regarding production. The first item that drew my eye was a collection of call sheets for each day of filming. It was at first extremely interesting how every minute detail of the day was planned to the minute, but after looking over each of the sheets I made many small discoveries that explored the relationship that the crew members had with one another. One such piece was toward the end of the call sheets on sheet No. 54 in the unit notes. It read, “Gengis would like to thank all of the crew (except Stuart) for the wonderful experience he has had”. It is the little things like this that show the camaraderie and personality of the people working on the film.

Another item that I found had to do with the narration scripts. This document was interesting because not only does it act like a call sheet, outlining times and scenes to do, but it has the script for recording on it as well. On it, there are also edits from the original printed lines, changing some words here and there. It was created in order for the actors to read which narration lines need to be recorded, but its context becomes more clear when relating it to what lies around it in the folder. This is because the previous sets of documents were many drafts of the same narration lines, some typed out, some written, and some typed with heavy edits. This goes to show that the screen writing isn’t really ever done until the scenes are actually recorded.

The third item was a letter from Richard Robbins, who worked on 10 Merchant/Ivory films, to James Ivory about a duet, which although did not make it into the film, was extremely fun to look at. Though it was in an envelope labeled ‘Urgent’ the actual letter was actually quite informal, handwritten on Norfolk Hotel notepaper, and talked about singing drunkenly 3:00am. This is important to note, as it really shows the relationship between the different members working on films.

 

Jeremy Dahm

The vast amount of information and personal items for The Remains of the Day provided for us in special collections made choosing a topic very difficult. However, after watching the film I became quite interested in the location that it was filmed. The lavish and extravagant setting was rich, but tasteful and it really was very stunning. This made me dive into the folders about locations. These folders were full of postcards and publications on various locations that were to be scouted for the film. All in all, 5 different houses (more like mansions) made up Darlington Hall. A really interesting blueprint of Darlington Hall was included in one of the folders. It showed the different rooms used from each house all put together to form Darlington Hall. This is a very important aspect to the setting because it is important to have your bearings as you are walking around a house that does not really exist. In the film, the character could be going from the kitchen, which is located in “House A”, to the billiards room, which is located in “House C”. The ability to visualize the layout of this “sandwiched” house is imperative, and yet not something that I ever thought about.

Another interesting item that I found in the folder was a document listing the vastly numerous changes that had to happen to each room in order for it to successfully portray the time period in which the movie takes place. A lot of money and hard work goes into those minute details, and is again something that I never really considered. These changes ranged from covering light fixtures to replacing radiator grates to reconditioning a fireplace to make it useable. There are also detailed maps of where all the original furniture, art, etc. was placed in the room so that they could return it to the exact position as when they first walked into the estate.

There was so much information packed into these folders, and I am truly amazed by how much stuff James Ivory saves. However, I am thankful because it allowed us to all get some really incredible insight to how the production/promotion/distribution of a film works.

Sam Graham

While going through the boxes I came across an article. The article was called “A Merchant Ivory Treatment.” In the article I came across a quote by Ismail Merchant where he stated, “James was very precise. He was looking for a classical house whose personality inhabited every scene. We treated its selection as we would that of a major star.” This quote made it evident that the setting in this movie was a character itself. While watching the film it is clear how much effort was put into perfecting each location. The movie opens with two cars going down a twisting road that then opens up to a magnificent stately home. Instantly the location is the first thing noticed. Finding the perfect location was more difficult than it seemed in the film. Merchant and Ivory toured western England’s stately homes. They couldn’t find the right singular home, but they found perfection in certain aspects of every home. So they did a technique called sandwiching, which means stringing together rooms from several locations to make one location in the film. This stringing together allowed Ivory to create a perfect character in the setting. He picked Dyrham Park for exterior shots, Corsham Court for its art galleries, Badminton House for the kitchen, butlers pantry, and servants bedrooms, and finally Powderham Castle for their plush staterooms.  They were between houses so much that Ivory was quoted saying, “Sometimes you wake up in the morning and can’t remember where you are.” Ivory was very passionate about making sure the location and setting were perfect emulations of an English estate of the 1930’s. “If we’re working in a period, I owe it to the audience to make them feel they’re being transported to that place and time without any distractions. That means when I look through the camera, I want to see the 1930’s,” Ivory stated. In The Remains of the Day, the location of Darlington Hall becomes a character in itself. It helps establish the film’s tone, historical and cultural context, and serves as a backdrop to the character’s psychological state of mind.

 

Addison Duffy

One thing I found in the James Ivory Papers was a small book titled “Reminder List of Eligible Releases” and in it, there was a list of all the films released that year that qualified under award rules that year for an Oscar and with it, was a letter stating that there was a ballot attached, along with a description of all the different rules when voting. The voting process requires you to choose a top choice and alternate choices. I was drawn to this document for a few reasons. One, because it was fascinating to see the other films that had come out that same year, ones that a lot of us know today such as Shindlers List and Jurassic Park. I also found this document remarkable because it shows that there is a very tight community inside the film industry. James Ivory had his film listed in the booklet and yet he was given a ballot for the directing award and was asked to vote.

An additional document I found was a packet of casting sheets. The casting notes were what I was expecting but also not what I expected in the way that the notes were mostly about looks, not acting style.

Lastly, I found a document with edits from James Ivory and it was very telling of how the film was made. James Ivory was filming Mr. And Mrs. Bridge and an actor on set, Remak Ramsay gave the book Remains of the Day to James after he read it because he thought that James would be interested. After the first page James said he was hooked and knew he wanted to make it into a film. He wanted to make it into a film but he learned that it had already been optioned to Harold Pinter who was adapting it into a screenplay for Mike Nichols. Nichols was already slated to film a different movie at the time and realized he didn’t have the time. James Ivory got wind of this and went through his agent to get in touch with Nichols. They decided they could trust Ivory. James believes that Nichols felt this way because Howards End had just come out, which was a successful Merchant Ivory film. When Nichols was on the project he was already in talks with Hopkins and Thompson who had also read the book and used they agents to get in touch with Nichols about auditioning for parts. James said the script that Harold had written was a bit too dark and “Pinteresque” (meaning too much of a Pinter sounding script) so he ended up taking Harold out of the equation because it did not feel like a Merchant Ivory Film.

 

Andrew Schmidt

After watching the film, The Remains of the Day, I was fascinated with the last scene of the film involving Mr. Stevens and Senator Lewis catch a bird that has accidentally found its way in through the chimney. They let the bird go and Mr. Stevens watches it fly away into the distance. I felt this scene was important in the sense that it brought about closure to Mr. Stevens’ choices of figuratively sacrificing his life to be a butler, losing the one he loved to the wind. Going into the Ivory Special Collections I knew I wanted to focus specifically on the adaptation from the book to the screenplay. Reading Ivory’s copy of The Remains of the Day by Kazou Ishiguro, I found that there was no such scene in the end of the book, in fact much of the ending in the film was very different from how the book itself ends. This fact was indeed interesting and I wanted to dive deeper into understanding where the inspiration for this scene came from and why their screenplay writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala as well as James Ivory had such intensions to change it. I stumbeled upon a folder titled “dispute between Hopkins and Ivory concerning the last scene” and I was immediately intrigued. First, I found a letter written from Anthony Hopkins to Ismail Merchant and James Ivory explaining that he deeply regrets and strongly disagrees with  Ruth’s ending, and the fact that it almost has no continuity with the ending of the book. He would rather that they use the origional screenplay writer’s (Harold Pinter) ending because it is so in line with the conclusion of the novel. Hopkins states, “to change the end so drastically will only diminish the story and take away from the energy of the film.” Ivory however disagrees with Hopkins in which he writes back with a reply that he does not believe it is a good idea to end a film with two characters speaking in rather abstract terms where one of the characters is not even introduced or has had any relevance to the story. Ivory makes the comparison of how Darlington dies at the end of his life and asks Hopkins (almost rhetorically) if they should leave Stevens to the same fate of “simply to totter off and die?” Ivory believed there should be a chance of redemption for Stevens in that at least he could keep his dignity in being butler for the remainder of his days. Hopkins eventually agreed with his logic and believed it was an acceptable adaptation and thus the film’s final scene was born rather than the books melancholic ending.

 

Conclusion:

The James Ivory papers that were provided to us so generously by Ivory through the university are an invaluable way to get an inside scoop on the film industry. The vast library of documents and personal mementos gave both a business view, and a look into the relationships that form while filming. Whether we were flipping through auditions or scouring over production notes, there was never a moment where the information was lacking.

Through our scouring and attention to detail, we were able to truly discover Mr. Ivory’s penchant for detail. Even though The Remains of the Day was a large scale production, the biggest that Ivory had ever attempted, it is easy to see that Ivory did not sacrifice his attention to detail. Whether it was the cast, the score, the location, or the set, all choices made fit into the film perfectly. You are able to see this through his detailed blueprints and layouts, his extensive list for mise-en-scene and set construction, and through his personal notes and letters on the score.

All in all, James Ivory did not let the challenge of creating a Hollywood blockbuster get in between him and his attention for minute details. In fact, The Remains of the Day just may have been his most beautifully executed story of his career. The lavish, extravagant, and quite stunning locations used paired up with great characters and the perfect execution of creating this world in a different time period all contributed to the success of the film. Through this film James Ivory showed that no tiny detail would be sacrificed due to the scope of making a blockbuster film.

Works Cited:

Hopkins, Anthony. “Merchant Ivory MIP NY.” Letter to Ismail Merchant and James Ivory. 14 Aug. 1992. MS. 14 Alexander Place, London. Box 4, Folder 7, James Ivory papers in special collections research center, University of Oregon libraries, 1501 Kincaid street, Eugene OR 97403. 12 May 2014

Ivory, James. The Remains of the Day location notes. Box 42, Folder 3. Coll. 283 James Ivory Papers. Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 13 May 2014.

Ivory, James. The Remains of the Day budget notes. Box 42, Folder 9B. Coll. 283 James Ivory Papers. Library Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 13 May 2014.

Ivory, James. A Merchant Ivory Treatment. June 1993. Box 45, Folder 8. University of Oregon Special Collections & Archives, University of Oregon Libraries,        Eugene, OR. 7 May 2014.

Ivory, James. “MIP Merchant Ivory Productions.” Letter to Anthony Hopkins. 15 Aug. 1992. MS. 250 West 57th Street, Suite 1913A, New York City, New York. Box 4, Folder 7. James Ivory papers in special collections research center, University of Oregon libraries, 1501 Kincaid street, Eugene OR 97403. 17 April 2014

Production-Casting Pages. Box 42, Folder 12. James Ivory papers. Coll 283, Special Collections &      University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. May 7^th, 2014

Promotion-Academy Awards. Box 45, Folder 1. James Ivory papers. Coll 283, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. May 7^th, 2014

Promotion-Video-Casting Pages. Box 42, Folder 5. James Ivory papers. Coll 283, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. May 7^th, 2014

The Remains of the Day call sheet No. 54. November 1993. Box 43, Folder 7. University of Oregon Special Collections & Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 7 May 2014.

Further Readings:

Ishiguro, Kazuo. The remains of the day. New York: Knopf :, 1989. Print.

“Ismail Merchant: In Memory.” Roger Ebert. Web. 16 May 2014.

“The Remains of the Day.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 17 May 2014.

“Special Features.” The Remains of the Day. Dir. James Ivory. Columbia , 1993. DVD

“The Workdwide Guide to Movie Locations.”Webmaster, nd. Web. 16 May 2014.

Maurice (1987) By: Caleb Feist, Spencer Parker, Claire Haines, Jessica Chen, Sierra Sobel-Smith

Introduction (“Maurice”) – by Caleb Feist, Claire Haines, Spencer Parker, Sierra Sobel-Smith, Jessica Chen.

James Ivory and Ismail Merchant produced many works that stood firm in the face of social repression, creating work that was both inspiring and controversial to viewers. Maurice, a 1987 film centered on the ever controversial topic of homosexual love, was exactly that- both inspiring and controversial. Through our research, we discovered that though the film was well-received by critics in many aspects, its scenes featuring homosexual love acts offered mixed reviews, making some feel uncomfortable. Unfortunately, this is still a problem that society at large faces, making this film both socially relevant at the time it was created and it continues to resonate with viewers on that very same premise.

Maurice the film was created after a novel of the same name, written by E.M. Forster. Maurice the novel was written in 1914, but not published until 1971, after Forster’s death. At the time it was written, homosexuality in Great Britain was outlawed, as portrayed in the film. In our research, we found that due to homosexuality’s profound controversy in society delayed the publishing of Forster’s book for so long. The setting of the film embodies that of the novel, making the taboo nature of homosexuality even more realistic. However, as we discussed in our presentation, though pre-WWI Great Britain viewed homosexuality in such negative light, how much progress had been made by the time the film was released in 1987? It is safe to say that though progress had been made, reviews suggest that by no stretch of the imagination had a revolution occurred.

Maurice’s brilliance comes not only in its relevance to social issues that stand the test of time, but in its cinematography, its production, and its writing. Below are our findings from the Ivory Papers archives at the University of Oregon Special Collections Library. We hope you enjoy what we have dug up on this fantastic film.

Synopsis – Maurice, 1987, James Ivory – Caleb Feist

Maurice is a 1987 film directed by James Ivory and produced by Ismail Merchant and Paul Bradley. Maurice is a British romance film centering on the theme of homosexual love. Maurice takes place primarily at the University of Cambridge pre World War I. The time and place of this film is of large importance due to how homosexuality was perceived during this time. In Great Britain, homosexuality was outlawed at this time, forcing lovers Clive (Hugh Grant) and Maurice (James Wilby) into compromising situations. Clive initially stuns Maurice with his proclamation of his love, which is later reciprocated by Maurice only to ultimately be shunned by Clive in favor of a life of marriage and politics. Maurice eventually finds true love in the form of Clive’s gamekeeper, Alec Scudder (Rupert Graves), choosing to live in open rebellion to society’s perception of homosexuality.

 

EARLY PRODUCTION

SPENCER PARKER

For my part of this project I focused on the early production of Maurice, namely the development of the screenplay. I found three items that applied to this topic: the first draft of the script which included an introduction written by Ivory, a short letter from Ivory to Kit Hesketh-Harvey, and ten pages of notes detailing the process of completing the screenplay which were handwritten by Ivory on stationary from a hotel in Paris.

Introduction to the first draft of the script

In this introduction to the script Ivory writes about the publication history of Forster’s novel Maurice and his feelings on how to translate the novel to film. He explains that the writing of the script began soon before the major success of A Room with a View, another film based on a novel by Forster, and says that what attracted him to the novel was “Forster’s typically rich depiction of people in the grip of powerful feelings they do not understand, straight-jacketed by conventional (and sometimes hypocritical) social pressures to conform.” He also mentions his reasons for deciding to write the script as a series of flashbacks, a technique that is not featured in the novel or the completed film. He thought that “an audience will accept more readily Maurice’s youthful transformation presented within a flashback, than if we meet him for the first time as an undergraduate. Something more impressionistic seems called for.”

Letter to co-screenwriter Kit Hesketh-Harvey

A short letter to Kit Hesketh-Harvey reveals Ivory’s growing concern with the nonlinear structure of the first drafts of the screenplay. In it he informs Hesketh-Harvey that he will be rearranging some of the flashback scenes with the intent of making them slightly more chronological.

Notes on the screenplay

These ten pages of notes clarify the screenwriting process of Ivory and Hesketh-Harvey. The script was apparently rushed to completion in early 1986 around the time of the showing of A Room with a View at the Venice Film Festival, just six weeks before the shooting of Maurice was scheduled to begin. Hesketh-Harvey wrote the bookends of the story, namely the prologue, the scenes in Cambridge, Pendersleigh and the closing scenes, while Ivory wrote the middle scenes of the film which he named “Maurice in Hell,” from the point Maurice is shunned by Clive through his hypnotherapy and demanding career, ending with his first sexual encounter with Alec. After compiling their respective parts, Ivory gave the script to Jhabvala to edit. She didn’t like the book or the completed film calling them “sub-Forster and sub-Ivory”. She didn’t believe a platonic relationship could last between two men like Clive and Maurice for three years nor did she think Clive’s breakdown was believable. Her editing led to various other revisions, adding some scenes from the novel and cutting other scenes from the first draft. After shooting the film and attempting to edit it, Ivory realized the nonlinear structure was a mistake, saying the flashbacks were too long and that “when you emerged from [them] you did not know where you were”. He says that he eventually decided to edit the film in chronological order in keeping with the structure of the book. With that, he offers his thoughts on the release of the film at the Venice Film Festival and explains the accolades it got there.

SIERRA SOBEL-SMITH

Casting

In the production of Maurice I focused on the cast and the main actors on the list. The film Maurice has several well-known actors featured, however most of those actors were still starting off in their careers and, therefore, had something to risk in doing this film. The main ideas of homosexual love in the film were very controversial during the 1980s and could, potential, have hurt some of the actor’s careers in the industry. James Ivory and Ismail Merchant therefore had to put together a cast of individuals who were not afraid to take on this challenge of portraying an idea that was widely provocative for the time and that’s just what they did. The main characters in film are Maurice, who is played by James Wilby (from Howard’s End and Handful of Dust), and Clive, who is played by Hugh Grant (from About a Boy and Notting Hill). Both actors noted in a review, that was found in the archives, that while they were not gay themselves they had no qualms with playing gay characters and relished the idea of taking on highly debated roles. Both Wilby and Grant were still very young in their film careers and had a lot to gamble in deciding to take on this story. However, on the other side there were several other very well-known actors of the 1980s that also took part in telling moving story. Denholm Elliot known from films like India Jones and A Room with a View played Doctor Barry. Rupert Graves from such films as V for Vendetta and The Madness of King George plays Alec Scudder, another homosexual character. Other notable actors in the film include: Ben Kindsley (from Schinder’s List), Judy Parfit (from Ever After and Girl with a Pearl Earring), and Patrick Godfrey (from Ever After and A Room with a View). All the actors in the film were comfortable with the idea of homosexuality and not afraid to be labeled in association with the ideas the film represented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECEPTION

CLAIRE HAINES:

Before the news articles and magazine spotlights hit the general public, all the film critics are given a chance to view the film before its theatrically released. After the screening the film critics are recorded with their reactions on the film. For Maurice, PR firm Steve Seifer’s Association Inc. recorded the various critics from different magazines and newspapers, each sharing their immediate response following the screening. Some of the audience members in attendance are well known film critics, while others are from well known magazines, such Playboy, People, and Cosmopolitan.

The items found in the archives are of reactions by noted audience members, neatly typed in a fax to a Ira, probably the head of Public Relations for the film. The copies look like faxes that date in August of 1987, one month before the theatrical release of the film. The reviews are varied, with different complaints about the film, and each sharing their own experience of the film. However many enjoyed the film, but couldn’t help compare the film to A Room with a View. Several of the negative comments included about its length, not as lush of a production as its predecessor, some parts of the film were slow. Although there are some complaints about casting, character development, and plot discrepancies left from the book, the film generally had a positive review, mainly for the beauty of the aesthetics over anything else.

Noted in the reviews are the “shocking” images that create a response from the audience. From Joe Gelmis of Newsday is quoted in the PR Report, “…‘It was a brilliant film, Merchant Ivory is in a class by itself, but it will be a hard sell to say the least. A great piece of moviemaking: literate, sensitive, well made.’ He also discussed the culturally conditioned ‘nerve response’ which kicks in no matter how much you enjoy the film, i.e. the gut response to seeing two men making love.” Gelmis points out the still taboo picture of two gay men making love during a scene in a movie, which to this day is still rarely seen. In another article found in the archives, the film is put in the same category as My Beautiful Laundrette which deals with the similar issues and similar aesthetic appeals, just very different time periods. But if one can see the similarities between these two films set decades apart, then one would know that homosexuality can still be a subject that creates “gut responses” from audiences.

 

JESSICA CHEN:

Film reviews not only contain information pertaining to a critic’s thoughts or opinion, but can also offer great insight towards more detailed factual information and ideals. While browsing through the film reviews, I was able to deduce a great amount of information regarding historical context of was happening during the release period of the film around 1986, what was happening when the novel was first written around 1914, key scenes, character thoughts and motives, some inside scoop on James Ivory’s interaction with making the film, Forester’s background and perspective on why he might have choose to write it and not publish it. The archival information that I found most interesting is related to the author of Maurice, E. M. Forester, and James Ivory’s motives and interaction during the making the film. In Forester’s youth, pre-WW1, homosexuality was punishable by crime. Maurice is a semi-autobiographical article that remained unpublished for 60 years – mostly due to the fact that Forster would be jailed and disgrace his family. Those who choose to be openly homosexual faced prison and were usually stripped away from corporate jobs and/or high pay occupations. Forester was a homosexual and remained celibate until late 30’s in 1916 – which further reinforces the secrecy of homosexual love reflected in Maurice. It was imperative that Forester created a happy love ending as his attempt to liberate sexual freedom. Maurice became one of the top films among the year. Mike McGrady from New York Newsday remarks, “If we are not yet ready to accept films like Maurice, it is not the fault of the filmmakers… The clearest measure of the films success, finally, that it’s sexual orientation matters less and less.” The fact that the film received very well goes to show the changing perspectives of homosexuality during the release of the film. Being gay and vocalizing it is relatively open subject and behavior today. James Ivory says, “Despite all the legal situations and sexual revolutions from the 20’s on, people go through the same kinds of hell – they have to sort it out for themselves. I know people in the world and terrified they’ll be found out and lose their jobs. And so they lead a double life – in New York of all places.

Conclusion

Film reviews provided an abundance of information that outlined the changing attitude among the public towards homosexuality as well as E. M. Forster’s personal life. They also reflect and compare other contemporary films that deal with similar issues. Maurice and My Beautiful Laundrette are both pieces that comment on the societal view of homosexual relationships, and the prejudice that are forced upon those who are open about their sexuality. In Maurice, the times are much different where being gay is a crime and can ruin your life by destroying your career and status. The reviewers, despite being a part of a world where homosexuality is more open, they still comment on the shock value of “seeing two men making love” on the screen.  Maurice is a film that portrays a time entirely in the past in terms of when it was released, but based on a theme that will forever remain relevant, exhibiting the social awareness of Merchant Ivory productions at their very best.

Works Cited and Further Reading

Ansen, David. “A Closet with a View.” Newsweek. Box 31, Folder 12. James Ivory papers, Coll 283, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or.

“Did You Hear.” Rev. of Maurice. New York Native 5 Oct. 1987: 4. Print.

Farlekas, Chris. “‘Maurice’ among the Top Films of the Year.” n.d.: n. pag. Print.

Harvey, Stephen. “Men In Love.” Rev. of Maurice. Voice 12 Sept. 1987: 72. Print.

“Maurice at the Montreal Film Festival.”  Norstar Releasing Inc. 18, Aug 1987.  Print.

“Maurice Premiere Heralds All-Time Box Office Record.”  Unknown Magazine, N.D. Print.

Maurice Productions, Ltd. “Maurice – Venice Film Festival Schedule.” London. 1987. Print.

Maurice Productions, Ltd. “Cast List.” Box 30, Folder 14. James Ivory papers, Coll 283, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR.

“Steve Seifers Association, Inc.- Public Relations.” Box 31, Folder 12. James Ivory papers, Coll 283, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or.

We hope you’ve enjoyed our research and findings on Maurice!

 

 

 

 

Roseland (1977) By: Jenna Townsend, Ryan Stefan, Jon Bowman, Genevieve Alison, Ian Secord

Introduction of Roseland (1977) – by Jenna Townsend, Ryan Stefan, Jon Bowman, Genevieve Alison, Ian Secord

Roseland Dance-Hall

Roseland, the historical New York dance-hall, ended it’s rein this past year, as a location that holds strong and dear to the many of its patrons, specifically New Yorkers, since 1919, scraping at a century of entertainment with dance routines such as the Waltz, the Hustle, and the final bow of the Peabody.  Roseland, the Merchant Ivory Production film, depicts the energy and kinship towards the Roseland dance-hall through stories of the landmark’s deeper meanings felt within men and women, both young and old, through their stories and tribulations detailed elegantly through Ruth Jhabvala story lines and characters.  Beyond the stories and characters of the film, examined are processes and examples of efforts towards presenting this image of the Roseland in a format that aligns with its patron’s emotions, the film’s audience, Ruth Jhabvala’s depiction, Ismail Merchant’s production process, and a strong direction under James Ivory.

Through studies of the film industry and the emerging changes to the New Hollywood Era there is no greater example of an early artistic ambitious movement than those of James Ivory and specifically for our studies, the Roseland.  Through the stories portrayed by Ruth Jhabvala, in Roseland, of alternative and changing social values that were consistent with the changes to political and social movements in American culture, the shift in the film industry and society is clearly displayed.  James Ivory, himself, battled with the changes of the times, enveloped in communication and alterations to styles based on old practices, related to the Screen Actors Guild guidelines, that hindered authenticity Ivory sought to achieve with Roseland, standardized review format promotions which may have halted great acceptance in national and international markets, and the complications related to the detailed shifts in character attributes for matters of casting.  New York City, itself, plays a deeper role than the surface exposes; being that this is the first for both Ruth Jhabvala and James Ivory through gaining inspiration and creating an American screenplay adaptation, casting and production far away from the Hollywood studios, innovation of cultural shifts and diversification of the standard characters and roles, and finally failing distribution formats that aligned greater with the view points of New Yorkers rather than classical Hollywood and national markets.

Synopsis of film – Roseland (1977, James Ivory)

Roseland Movie Poster Featuring Christopher Walken and Joan Copeland

Roseland, three varying stories connected within the Roseland dance-hall are separated through classical ballroom dance routines; the Waltz, the Hustle, and the Peabody.

The Waltz: Tale of loneliness and finding a second love. May, a widow, seeking accompaniment while visiting the famous dance-hall, eventually accepts a dance suitor, Stan. Together through dancing the Waltz, May, regains her youthful memories and eventually finds she can love again.

The Hustle: Russell the playboy studio dancer is trapped in his own makings; the love of an older women who has kept him, his connection to former dance instructor who still loves him, and a younger women, Marilyn, in which he has become kin to her accompaniment.

The Peabody: Rosa, an older patron, sits waiting for the proper suitor for her final triumphant dance.  Through tribulations, finally, the Master of Ceremony, her ideal partner, asks Rosa to dance, she gives her final, perfect, fulfilling performance before collapsing to her death, her ideal departure.

Genevieve Alison – Roseland Dance-Hall and Roseland the Film

The pieces I chose from the archives include articles written for New York City publications, The Village Voice and Daily News, which examine the aging icon of the Roseland Dance Hall. Both articles detail the Roseland in such an evocative way that it is easy to see how the dancehall becomes a character unto itself. Writer, Barbara Harrison who penned the Village Voice article describes the “whiff of glittery geriatric excitement in the ballroom” and this easily seen through Ivory’s direction in Roseland; the very heart of the New York dancehall is illuminated on screen.

This is important to consider when discussing the production and promotion of the movie. The Roseland Dance Hall is an extremely well-known New York landmark and Ivory/Merchant have used this iconography as a marketing tool. The entire movie was filmed inside the dancehall over a 4-week period and the Daily News article notes how Ismail Merchant visited Roseland regularly for several months prior to making the film to get a feel for the atmosphere and meet the regular customers and even using some as extras.

The setting of the Roseland itself is also what inspired the screenplay as The Village Voice article writes:

Ruth, a polish Jew who’d lived in India for 25 years, was, from the moment she entered the front door, overwhelmed by the physicality of Roseland. Here, she found the raw material for her first ‘American’ screenplay. (The Village Voice)

Although Roseland was not Ivory/Merchant’s first American film, it was the duo’s first contemporary American story. Screenwriter, Ruth Jhabvala uses the setting of the historic ballroom to create a romanticized albeit lonely world in which these characters and stories exist.
As a result of this concentrated marketing of Roseland in New York city, New Yorkers embraced the film that showcased their beloved dancehall. As noted in a press release from Cinema Shares International Distribution – the company which distributed the film in the US, Roseland was the only film to receive a 7 minute standing ovation at the New York Film Festival, proving that using this landmark as a major selling point in the promotion of the film, paid off. However, it is also important to consider that whilst the film was successful in New York, this was not necessarily the case outside of the city. It could be argued that this concentration on New York and its well-loved dancehall, potentially isolated audiences and limited a wider reception.

Ryan Stefan – Roseland Production, New York, and the Screen Actors Guild

SAG – Screen Actors Guild

The movie Roseland presented new challenges to James Ivory and Merchant Ivory Productions. Ivory quickly saw he would need to use real dancers instead of actors to make the film look real. However, working in New York proved to have some challenges that annoyed Ivory and pushed him to write down some messages about shutting down the movie that may or may not have been seen by Screen Actors Guild. One of the three stories included a role that had problems getting a woman to fill it. For all of the hardships that went on prior to the movie, they were all solved to thread together these three short stories.

Ivory in preparation for the filming of the movie with an authentic look attended a dance competition. One of the competition was “The Hustle” which may have led to the naming of the second story. Upon inspection of the backside of the program, I saw Ivory had written a short note about using real dancers. He also noted that he would need to make a distinction between social dancing and professional dancing in the movie, but using the correct people would bring challenges to the production.

James Ivory filming in NYC during production of Roseland.

Working in New York’s Roseland dance hall, Ivory wanted to use actual dancers that still danced cheek-to-cheek. Quickly Ivory found out he was going to be fined $250 a day for each extra he used that was not a part of the Screen Actors Guild. S.A.G. is a union of entertainers partnering together to protect the wages they have earned over the years. Ivory, who had become an accomplished film maker by this time, was unhappy with the idea of paying fines for non-S.A.G. extras. In his response to notification of fines, Ivory wrote,

Your budget agreement means ’New York does not need this production… I’d just as soon shut it down. (James Ivory)

However, Ivory must have realized the iconic Roseland could not be recreated, while keeping the budget for the film. The problem that arose then was no actor wanted to play the role of Marilyn in the movie. Marilyn was casted as a middle aged woman that had been left by her husband. Before the production company found Geraldine Chaplin for the part, Ismail Merchant exchanged telegrams with Ruth Jhabvala to change the script for a more elegant look. He wrote,

Nobody wants to play Marilyn. Can you think about writing entirely new story but retaining Russell, Cleo, and A Pauline. We are doing that story. (James Ivory)

Jhabvala wrote back that she could write the character for a woman in her 20’s with few changes. I could not find if the changes were made prior to the production company finding Geraldine Chaplin.

Jon Bowman – Pre-Production: Casting and Character Evolution Of Marilyn

Geraldine Chaplin and Christopher Walken in Roseland.

In the original screenplay, Ruth Jhabvala saw the role of Marilyn as a divorcee reaching a mid-life turning point seeking a new exciting lifestyle that could shroud her crumbling circumstances.  The character of Marilyn sought to shift her recent tribulation towards a greater acceptance of herself while shadowing the downfalls of divorce and starting over, once again.

Through investigation of the special collections of James Ivory, specific to Roseland, the implicit process of casting, adaptation of scripts, shifts in character attributes, and production maneuvers are displayed throughout personal notes by Ivory along with communication records between the Ruth, Ismail and James.

Bylthe Danner near the time of casting for the Roseland.

With difficulties in casting the proper actor for the role, the ever present issues with creating authenticity due to the SAG’s perimeters, and a distinct disconnect in the story line, James Ivory sought to shift the character of Marilyn to a younger girl, a sort of schoolgirl type, excited for her new life, in the Hustle.  During this time, telegram letters between James, Ismail, and Ruth discussed the role of Marilyn and the difficulties of finding the right fit for the character’s role, desperately needed for the film. This exchange between the screenplay writer, producer and director display how a character’s attributes are altered, scripts rewritten, along with storyline adjustment beginning from the earliest stages of casting, production, and screenplay writing in order to show the concepts of the film properly in Ivory’s vision.

Through further exploration, a letter to Blythe Danner, displays James Ivory’s desire to find the right fit, explaining in detail why he wanted Blythe to play the role and, in doing so, gave extra insight into the character and her important position in the film. Blythe Danner later turned down the role, which eventually went to Geraldine Chaplin, where through Ivory’s personal notes he explains that Blythe felt too old for the role, quite the reverse of the original problem at hand.  These hand written notes and personal letter of Ivory’s seem to encapsulate the difficulties and obstacles of casting, production, and the creation of a story in which one desires to depict during a period of changes in society and Hollywood.

Jenna Townsend – International Distribution and the INA

Through my research of the distribution and promotion of Roseland, I came across many interesting things regarding the film that lead to further research to learn more. Unfortunately, as the papers only provide a small look into some aspects of the film, one area that I was interested in finding out more about wasn’t available. That area was in distribution, when I came across a paper that was in regards to the distribution to other countries, namely France.

 

Institute of National Audio and Visuals of France

When distributing the film, Cinema Shares Internal Distribution Company faced setbacks from the I.N.A, which, after further research, I discovered to be the Institute of National Audio and Visuals in France. However, what sorts of problems were raised or how they were resolved – an assumption based on the subsequent promotional materials of the film in France – were not included in the papers and are virtually impossible to find on the internet.

More things that I discovered while researching the distribution and promotion of the film was the lack of comment on the film as a whole being three separate parts coming together. More often than not, I came across reviews and promotional material separating the three episodes within the film, but never putting them into context of what all three films represented as a whole. Only one article did that, and surprisingly it was from a pamphlet comprised of mostly images of highly regarded news companies and magazines who had reviewed the film.
On that same note, most of the promotional materials I came across were handouts or booklets promoting the film with a large emphasis on New York City and the fact that the film was created at a well known New York Landmark. Noting this was important, especially when advertising to different cities or countries, because while the film received a large standing ovation when opening in New York, that same support and spirit wouldn’t be there in places such as Paris or London or Chicago. I found it really intriguing and telling that the promotional material revolved primarily around New york opinions and reviews, and when juxtaposing that against current films, the difference seen is huge. Gone are the days of having to promote the film simply because of the city. With films opening in wide releases all across the country, all across the globe, the hard work of promoting a film in regards to locations is really only left to smaller named film companies or indies, and rarely seen from current studios and their blockbuster hits.

Ian Secord – The Review Effect in Publication and Promotion

After researching the materials from the Roseland project in the Ivory pages, there was not very much national, let alone international press on the release of the film. However, from London, there were a couple of special screening advertisements in the collection. A small theater called The Screen on the Hill played a special screening of the film four times in one night. The film was also being shown in the 21st London Film Fest; a list of what the film fest would be playing along with reviews and plot summaries was included in the book. The final piece from the collection is an article from The Village Voice, a local newspaper that reported on the happenings of neighborhoods in New York City. The article examines real life attendees of the Roseland dancehall. The question is; did the film Roseland, get promoted to a broad audience or just the small community of competitive dance?

The Screen on the Hill played Roseland for a one night showing and the advertisement is an 8×11 piece of paper with a few film critic reviews along with stills from the film. This sort of advertising tends to be found on college campuses, or coffee houses where only a few people are able to see the advertisement meaning only a few of those people might go to see the film. That sort of advertising leans heavily on word of mouth which could potentially lead to worldwide success.

Roseland was being screened in the 1977 London Film Fest; the festival produced a pamphlet with all of the films and a description of it and the times the film was to be shown. The pamphlet was intended for the audience or anyone else interested in the films that were being played during the 21st London Film Fest. Films from around the world were shown in the London Film Fest which provided the largest media for Roseland to gain notoriety.

The article written by Barbara Grizzuti Harrison for The Village Voice newspaper chronicles the lives of two women who attend the real Roseland dancehall in New York City and at the same time, gives a somewhat depressing review of the film. This negative review by Harrison, more than likely hindered the amount of people in the greater NYC area that would see the movie. If this article had been written with more of a positive light on Roseland, there could have been more interest drawn to the dancehall and to the film.

The three items from the Roseland box in the James Ivory papers included two documents that advertised show times for the film, but only to exclusive audiences that were knowledgeable of what and when films were having special showings. The limited access to the film was not highly publicized in one of the largest, most diverse cities in the world, is not a very intelligent way to get your films noticed. With negative reviews in the states and limited showings of Roseland in London, leads one to believe that more people would have seen the film if it were properly publicized and not kept in the dark from so many people.

Summary of Research and Conclusion:

Through research we discovered that the Roseland received lackluster results based primarily on the shifts within the early stages of New Hollywood, resulting in a clear example of challenges associated with past procedures and practices and the need to change them.  Merchant Ivory Productions adaptation of Roseland, a screenplay by Ruth Jhadvala, signaled the blaring necessity to alter filmmaking towards the emerging movements sweeping across America and across the world.  During its release in the 1977 social and political movements were at the forefront of society forcing individuals to question standards and practices commonly accepted previously, which through our research can be seen subtly displayed throughout the documents within the James Ivory Papers, in either conceptual or contextual examples.  The archives provided from Ivory’s paper are exceptional resources that explains Hollywood’s desire and necessity to change and produce films that were meaningful and represented the current social and political changes by not conforming to traditional standards that were failing at the time.

If recent studies of classical Hollywood have taught us anything, it is that we cannot consider either the filmmaking process or films themselves in isolation from their economic, technological, and industrial context. – (Stringer, 17)

Filmmaking and the films themselves, of the time, directly stated the changes to society and most importantly for the context of this course, Hollywood. Roseland was at the forefront of this change and may have contributed to the need for alteration to the process. With great performances, constructively written story lines, and a clear director’s eye for creating feeling and meaning in films, Roseland may have formed the movement through issues pertaining to the “Old Hollywood” standards and guidelines, film distribution, along with national and international promotion as stated in our research through it’s own failures and lack of recognition.  As a group our research shows how James Ivory, Ismail Merchant and Ruth Jhadvala were leaders in this movement of bringing economic, technological, and industrial context of film to the forefront. Roseland, and the supporting papers of James Ivory, are a period piece that will be marked in history as a key factor in the movement towards a socially diversified America, a shifting era in Hollywood, and a politically charged world.

Work Cited:

Friedman, Arnold. Roseland Press Release, 1977, Box 13, Folder 17, Coll 283 James Ivory Papers, Special Collections & University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. Date accessed 5th May 2014.

Harrison, Barbara. ‘The Subject is ‘Roseland’, The Village Voice, September 26 1977, Box 13, Folder 17, Coll 283 James Ivory Papers, Special Collections & University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. Date accessed 5th May 2014.

Institute of National Audio and Visuals of France, INA France. 2014, Website. May 11th 2014. <http://www.ina.fr/>

Ivory, James. Box 13, Folder 8, Item 5. Roseland Distributor Publicity Flyer. James Ivory Papers, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 12 May 2014.

Ivory, James. Box 13, Folder 9, Item 10. Roseland Distributor Publicity Booklet. James Ivory Papers, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 12 May 2014.

Ivory, James. Letter to Blythe Danner. Box 13 Folder 13, Roseland-James Ivory Papers. University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon, 8th May 2014.

Ivory, James; Ismail Merchant; Ruth Jhabvala. Telegraph Communication. Box 13 Folder 2, Roseland-James Ivory Papers. University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon, 9th May 2014.

Ivory, James. Synopsis of Roseland. Box 13 Folder 1, Roseland-James Ivory Papers. University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon, 9th May 2014.

Screen Actors Guild, SAG. 2013, Public Website. May 10th 2014. <http://www.sagaftra.org/>

Stringer, Julian “Hollywood in Transition, The New Hollywood.” Movie Blockbusters. (Oct. 18, 2013) Routledge Editorial. New York, NY. 17-55.

Stephen, Beverly. ‘The last romantic dance hall’, Daily News, October 14 1977, Box 13, Folder 17, Coll 283 James Ivory Papers, Special Collections & University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. Date accessed 5th May 2014.

The Screen on the Hill advertisement for Roseland, James Ivory papers, Coll. 283, Box 13, Folder 8, Special Collections & University Archives, University Libraries, Eugene, Or.  8th May 2014

The Village Voice, Newspaper Article. James Ivory papers, Coll. 283, Box 13, Folder 8, Special Collections & University Archives, University Libraries, Eugene, Or. 5th May 2014

21st London Film Fest Playbill, James Ivory papers, Coll. 283, Box 13, Folder 8, Special Collections & University Archives, University Libraries, Eugene, Or.  5th May 2014

Further Reading and Outside Links

“Blythe Danner.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, March 1 2014. Web media. 10 May 2014.

Institute of National Audio and Visuals of France: http://www.ina.fr/

“New Hollywood.” Google Books. Google Corp. 2003. eBook Format. 13 May 2014; <http://books.google.com/books>

“Roseland.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 07 February 2014. Web media. 12 May 2014.

Screen Actors Guild: http://www.sagaftra.org/

Special Note: The individuals of this group, the cinema studies class, and the University of Oregon, as whole, would like to thank James Ivory and Merchant Ivory Productions for allowing access to these special collections of materials from such an exceptional director and an outstanding film-making career.

 

The Householder (1963) By: Courtney Koenig, Paige Ott, Taylor Nunez, and Pedro Abdala

Introduction:

Prior to selecting The Householder as our movie of choice, none of our group members were familiar with this film or knew anything about it’s story. However, because of this, it made for an interesting experience in the process of watching the film and gaining some insight about the production of the film.

The Householder, from 1963, was not only the first film by Merchant Ivory Productions, but also the first collaboration of many between Merchant Ivory Productions and writer, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. James Ivory and Ismail Merchant first showed interest in Ruth’s novel, The Householder, in 1961, and directly proposed to make a film of her novel (Merchant). The film differs from many of the later Merchant Ivory films in that the visual landscape is rather dull and empty (though it does contribute to the film in the sense that it provides an appropriate background for the story). However, the film does possess the typical charm in storytelling that has come to be a mark of Merchant Ivory films.

Although the Special Collections Archives on campus pertaining to Ivory only had one box on The Householder, we were able to find some insightful pieces that helped us understand more about the film. Through careful analysis of these pieces we learned more about several aspects of the film’s creation, including information pertaining to production, promotion and distribution, and exhibition and reception. This  research gave us a deeper appreciation, not only for this particular Merchant Ivory production, but also for filmmaking in general. More specifically, it allowed us to dig deeper into the workings of a group of young filmmakers, creating their art under low budget conditions and with limited resources at their disposal.

 

Synopsis: The Householder (1963; James Ivory)

Shashi Kapoor and Durga Khote

Prem Sagar, the main character in James Ivory’s film The Householder played by Shashi Kapoor, a new teacher at a college in Delhi India. Prem has recently married Indu in an arranged marriage played by Leela Naidu. Prem and Induare still learning ropes of relationships and getting to know each other, when Prem’s overbearing mother played by Durga Khote arrives at the couples house. Indu is not the traditional “woman” figure in India. She is independent and not as domesticated as Prem’s mother would like her to be. She brings many problems to the couple and greatly interferes in the relationship eventually leading Indu to leave Prem to return to the comfort of her own family. “Prem searches for answers from a variety of people, including a Swami (Pahari Sanyal), who reveals the secret of a successful marriage, as a result, he finally gains the maturity to love his wife.” (Wikipedia).

Courtney Koenig:

Throughout my findings in the Special Collections room I was able to find a wide variety of material given we only had one box of documents to look through. I primarily focused my research on distribution and production. The first document I found was a newspaper clipping from an unknown source. This document discussed The Householder being released by two corporate parts. One of those being Columbia Pictures, and one being Royal Films International. It stated that Columbia was to release the film and handle all business outside the United States, primarily meaning India. The next corporate part, Royal Films International, a wholly owned Columbia sales unit, was to distribute the film everywhere within the United States. I found this particularly interesting because I was surprised Columbia chose not to distribute the film worldwide. The next item I found was another newspaper article from The Times of India. This document gives a brief synopsis of the film but also talks a lot about James Ivory as a director. The journalist asks Ivory what it means to be a great director and he responds with charming answers. This article was written when Ivory was thirty-six which was a very pivotal time in his career. I found it interesting that Ivory talks about originally wanted to become a stage designer but ended up perusing directing after receiving his masters degree from University of Southern California. The last and probably most important document I found was a letter written by James Ivory regarding production costs. This letter explains that he and Merchant had originally budgeted to each put twenty five thousand dollars towards the film thinking that would be enough. However, this letter explains that is was not even close. Ismail had to come up with an additional one hundred and ten thousand dollars from “unknown” Indian sources and Ivory actually had to borrow fifty thousand from his own father, this was a lot of money at the time. They ran so much over budget that they decided to take the film to America to find a distributer. This is when Columbia Pictures came into the mix, eventually agreeing to distribute the film and pay any outstanding debts in India.

 Paige Ott:

In the course of researching for this project, I found and focused on three different documents, one from production, one from exhibition, and one from distribution. The first is the collection of checks written by James Ivory and Ismail Merchant during the production and exhibition stages of the film. Although these checks were written over the course of the film’s production and post-production, I would consider them to be in the production category because most of the checks written were for the travelling and transportation costs incurred in the process of filming the movie on location in New Delhi. In going through the checks, the budget of the movie and the allocation of the movie became more apparent.

Leela Naidu

The second item I focused on was a review of the lead actress, Leela Naidu, by Time Out magazine. The review was a very positive one and would fall into the exhibition/reception category of research. In the review, Naidu is described as “totally unaffected, and utterly beautiful” and the film is described as an “old fashioned domestic comedy of Indian manners. marital adjustment, and clash between traditional and new” that has been movie magic’d into “a universal charmer.”  Although this is only one review of the many in the research box, it is a good indicator of the positive reviews the film received.

The final item I focused on was a series of telegrams written back and forth between Ivory/Merchant and Columbia pertaining to the international distribution rights for The Householder. The letters illustrate a slow and complicated process of negotiations between the two parties and the struggles Merchant Ivory encountered during the distribution process. Many of the letters are firmly worded and it is clear that Merchant feels Columbia is not giving the film proper attention, calling them “shamelessly greedy” and seeking advise from lawyers. After much argument and debate, the final telegram reads Columbia “will pay advance and distribute in India as per contract.”

Taylor Nunez:

I chose three different pieces from the Ivory Papers pertaining to The Householder. One that relates to distribution, one to exhibition, and one to reception. The distribution piece is letter addressed to Violet Alva from L.F. Noronha. The letter expresses concern over some distribution disagreements. Merchant Ivory Production entered into two different agreements for distribution of the film: one with Colombia Films of India Ltd. to distribute in India, and one with Colombia Films International Corporation to distribute globally. However, as the letter suggests, Colombia Films of India Ltd. seemed to have disagreements with the negotiations and Noronha asks of Violet to give Ismail Merchant advice or assistance when he visits Dehli to sort out the issues. After doing some web searching, I found out that Violet Alva was an Indian lawyer and politician. However, I was not able to find clues as to the identity of Noronha. I assume he had ties in the production of the film though,  because one line in the letter reads, “The fact is a lot of my own money is blocked in the production of this film over for over two years and until Colombia pays…I cannot realize my investment” (L.F. Noronha).

Another piece I looked at was an exhibition piece, and what seemed to be program sheets that profiled the film. The program is associated with the Asia Society, which is an educational organization dedicated to promoting, understanding and strengthening partnerships among people, leaders and institutions of Asia and the United States in global context across many mediums (“About Asia Society). The program was titled “Images of India: A Merchant Ivory Retrospective,” and it lists the cast and production credits, as well as an overview of the film. One highlight is that it states, “..what was really significant about “The Householder” was that for the first time Western audiences were given a glimpse of a kind of middle class life which is representative of India today…” (“Images of India”).

The last piece I looked at was a reception piece: a film review in Film and Filming magazine by Gordon Gow. This review had generally positive comments about the film. He commends Ivory for portraying a universal situation and being able to represent India to the world. At one point he states, “it is evident that Ivory is a useful link between Indian cinema and us” (“Films and Filming”).

Pedro Abdala:

There were many documents pertaining to exhibition and reception in the archives for The Householder. A thorough analysis of these documents has led to some intriguing insights on the film. The first document was a set of program notes from a screening of the film. On the header of the program notes was written “National Film Theatre Programme notes”. Based on the spelling and a brief internet search it appears that this theater must have been in London, and was therefore the location for this particular screening of The Householder. The front page consisted of basic information about the primary players in the cast and crew (National). On the back of the program notes was a review by David Robinson extracted from the Financial Times newspaper. This review of the film was very positive. The reviewer made several comparisons to Shakespeare Wallah: “like ‘Shakespeare Wallah’, The Householder has a naive quality that is altogether deceptive” (Robinson). He also praised James Ivory’s style and nuances, saying that “…the director imposes upon it a consistent and compelling warmth and feeling for locale and character” (Robinson). What is intriguing about this particular part of the document are the repeated references to Shakespeare Wallah; it seems to indicate that even though The Householder was made before Shakespeare Wallah, it was released (or at least seen by critics) after it. The second document was a review by a critic by the name of Allegra (there is no last name included in the article’s signature). This review was unfavorable towards the film. The author critized many aspects of the film, including James Ivory’s directing, Ruth Jhabvala’s writing, the camera work, the content, and the acting. One sentence from the review summarizes the author’s overall opinion of the film: “The Householder is flat, drab, dull, naive and much too nice to be true, even for the cinema” (Allegra). The third document analyzed was a review written in The Spectator newspaper. Much like the first document, this reviewer showed favorable feelings toward the film and drew several comparisons to Shakespeare Wallah. In contrast to the review by Allegra, this is what this reviewer had to say about James Ivory’s directing: “…it looks as if Mr. Ivory is managing his (perhaps rather facile) power to make us smile, weep and delight in what we see” (Quigly). She also had good comments on the writer: “it has been adapted from her own novel by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, that excellent observer of the Indian bourgeoisie…” (Quigly). Overall, these documents allow one to develop a vision of how The Householder was received. Although there were some negative reviews, the majority of people appear to look upon the film in a positive light.

Leela Naidu and Shashi Kapoor

 

Conclusion:

In the production process, the letters pertaining to the production costs and the checks written over the course of the film showed the limited budget and constraints of the film, including that which came from Ivory and Merchant and their families. The article about James Ivory as a director gives us a clearer look into an important time in the young directors career and his film experience.

There was more information in The Householders research box pertaining to the distribution of the film than any of the other categories. This is mostly due to the Columbia controversy regarding the international distribution rights to the film. Much of the information and communications on this topic are seen through telegrams and are therefore very choppy and incomplete. Nevertheless,although we all found different bits of information about the negotiations between Merchant Ivory and Columbia, together we were able to come up with a clear picture of the process of difficulties, and eventually success, in distributing the film internationally.

Finally, there were many reviews from various papers and magazines, as well as program notes from a screening that provide interesting insight into the reception of the film and its impact on Bollywood cinema. Based off the pieces of reception we looked at, it’s clear to see the commending appraisal toward Ivory and his work, especially as an American director with such flair for storytelling through Indian cinema.

 

Work Cited:

Primary Sources

“L.F. Noronha to Ismail Merchant.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 10. Col 283. Special Collections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, Or. Accessed May. 5, 2014.

“Images of India.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 14. Col. 283. Special COllections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Accessed May. 5, 2014.

“Films and Filming review.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 16. Col. 283. Special COllections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Accessed May. 5, 2014.

“Leela Naidu.” Time Out Magazine. James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 16. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 5 May, 2014,

“Letters between Ismail Merchant Productions and Columbia.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folders 10-11. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. 5 May, 2014.

Allegra. “Yoga, Yogurt.” Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. The Century 3 October 1964. Print. Box 1, Folder 15. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.

*National Film Theater Programme Notes. Print. Box 1, Folder 14. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.

Quigly, Isabel. “Ivory Power.” Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. Spectator 4 March 1966. Print. Box 1, Folder 15. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.

*Robinson, David. Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. Financial Times 25 February 1966. Print. Box 1, Folder 14. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.

*The article by David Robinson is included on the back of the National Film Theater Programme Notes, and thus they are actually both part of the same document.

Secondary Sources

“The Householder.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 July 2014. Web. 15 May 2014.

“About Asia Society.” Asia Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2014. <http://asiasociety.org/new-york/about>.

Grant, Andrew . “Milestones in Bollywood Cinema: 1960-1965.” . About.com, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 9 May 2014. <http://worldfilm.about.com/od/topbollywood/tp/milestones1960-1965.htm&gt;.

Ivory, James, and Robert E. Long. James Ivory in Conversation: How Merchant Ivory Makes Its Movies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Print.

Behind the Scenes of “A Room With a View”

Offical Movie Poster

Introduction:

       For the group blog and presentation assignment, our group, which consists of Brianna Brock, Andrew Clark, Brandi Gardner, Michaela Lahoz, and Elton Prince, were assigned A Room With a View (1985). As a group, we viewed the film, visited the James Ivory Collection to choose some items to explore, and finally we met to discuss and work on the project together in order to prepare both our group presentation, as well as, the blog entry portion of the project. Although the tale is familiar, the film is produced with what, by then, had become the ‘Merchant Ivory method’ and illustrates the capacity for a brilliant production born from a modest budget. Within the archives we all choose items related to production and/or distribution and opted to write our blog entry sections individually.  Brandi Gardner and Elton Prince viewed the production portion of the film in boxes 26 and 27, in an attempt to better understand the film’s structure. Michaela Lahoz, Brianna Brock and Andrew Clark all focused on the distribution/ reception portion of the collection in attempt to grasp the result of the film. During our third meeting we discussed organization, form and came to an agreement on our format for the presentation as well as for the paper.  These two sections of paperwork for the film are important in the understanding of both the structure of the movie making process, as well as, how society reacted to the film after its release. These concepts are important to know due to the changes in society and how we view and appreciate films of this era. Without knowledge on production of a film like A Room with a View, we would not realize the technological advances and advances in cinema as a whole. We also do not learn about the drama of filmmaking like we do when studying the movie documents. Furthermore, an understanding of the aftermath of a successful film is important for future films and what methods are effective. To truly grasp the effect of a film not just on the viewers, but on the cast, it is needed to overlook the intimate letters and documents that occurred after the films release.

Synopsis: A Room with a View (1985 James Ivory)

James Ivory directed the film A Room with a View, 1985, which is based off a novel by E.M. Forster and produced by Merchant Ivory Productions. This film, which stars actress Helena Bonham Carter, is about an English girl who travels with her elder cousin (Maggie Smith) to Italy. This girl, Lucy Honeychurch, meets a young man, George Emerson, who witnesses a violent crime with her. Lucy sees the young man again in her hometown, but Lucy is to marry a suitable gentleman, Cecil Vyse (Daniel Day Lewis). Lucy breaks off her engagement to Cecil, realizing she loves George (Julian Sands). The film ends with Lucy and George’s honeymoon in Italy, in love.

Smith and Carter exchange words

A Detailed Summary By: Brandi Gardner

     When researching through the James Ivory Papers on the film A Room with a View, which is based off a novel by E. M. Forster, I came across the film synopsis. A synopsis is created during the production stage of the film.

The definition of synopsis is: A brief outline or general view, as of a subject or written work; an abstract or summary.

Considering all the different parts of a film and what it takes to produce them, it may be difficult to understand the purpose of a synopsis. This can seem especially true considering all films have query letters, budgets, character bios, etc. However, a synopsis is a useful brief summary on the subject that can be passed around to whoever needs it. This gives the producers of the film an easy way to explain the entire film in a one page document.

Most synopsis pieces have the purpose of summarizing the author without imposing their own personal views and opinions. A synopsis also needs to have a thesis to give the arguments inside the synopsis a purpose and goal.

However, in the synopsis for A Room with a View I did not find a thesis or argument of a normal synopsis. This synopsis merely states a thorough, yet brief, plot line of the film from beginning to end. All synopsis pieces are different, but the one for the film leaves out the normal outline that a synopsis on a novel would have.

Films and novels although seemingly similar are different enough to make different uses of a synopsis. For James Ivory’s movie, a detailed summary was all that was necessary for the production. There were multiple slightly altered brief summaries to give outlines with different details.

This synopsis gives producers of the film the ability to quickly and easily tell others their story without giving the time or energy to give every detail or the full manuscript.

Lewis and Carter engaged.Elton Prince

 Detailed Production Costs By: Elton Prince

With regard to the production costs of a major motion picture, one may find that there are intricacies with which no amount of critical thought could foresee a workable budget. One such complication is the business relationship which develops among the various parties and entities involved. Another is how contract opacity and unforeseeable situations present themselves and they tend to do so well after the budget planning stage. The production of A Room With a View was no exception. With production taking place on location in Italy and the United Kingdom (IMDB.), and financial transactions taking place between these two countries as well as the United States, one must ultimately ask; how were all of the details accounted for in a pre-Internet world?

Nestled within the James Ivory Collection archive, and located inside boxes numbered 26 and 27, there is a folder which contains financial records and related writings. Within that folder is correspondence regarding possible financial shortcomings. It would seem that a Mr. Brian Auckland Snow felt that Merchant Ivory Productions did not fulfill the mutual contractual obligations. According to a letter, written by Ishmail Merchant, Mr. Snow had written and stated that he was owed £14,408. What was interesting about this particular issue was that the letters to and from Mr. Snow and his agent, and Ishmail Merchant and the Association of Cinematograph Television and allied Technicians took place across the period of a calendar year.  Mr Snow seems to have a bona fide complaint in that his company spent the money in order to provide production services to the film. Further reading, reveals a conflict in that the original dollar amount allocated for the services rendered was only £4,000. A discrepancy of over £10,000 was ultimately the issue. Throughout both sides of the conflict there is a fair amount of passive aggressive tone, and an even greater number of threats. The union threatened MIP, which warned Mr. Snow, who’s agent in turn snapped at Ishmail Merchant. Although the archive did not provide a clear resolution, it is assumed that one was found, as Merchant Ivory Productions went on to produce several additional award winning films. Ultimately, however, one is left to wonder how so many financial details could have been managed effectively during a period of analog communication.

Sands steals a kiss from Carter.

Congratulations on Nomination Letter from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences By: Andrew Clark

The letter from Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. to James Ivory on behalf of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a brief congratulations on the nominations for A Room with a View and includes detailed instructions for preparing the acceptance speech and the rules regulating the speech process. When taken in context with surrounding documentation, such as the March 30th, 1987 copy of “The Hollywood Reporter,” there emerges an interesting context of reception towards the film and the Academy Awards in general. In 1987, the Academy had asked Goldwyn to make format and technical changes for his first show as producer. Primary amongst this was the streamlining of categories and features such as soundtracks, coupled with new and innovative presentations happening during the reception, opening piece, and transition periods. The congratulations letter to Ivory details that only one person would be allowed to speak for the group, must limit the speech to less than 60 seconds, and directs ivory to prepare in advance in order to avoid forgetting any important thanks he wishes to include. What is intriguing is the almost pedantic tone in which the letter is written, a consistent theme in industry communications that was identified throughout official correspondences relating to this film.

A Room with a View won a total of 26 awards internationally and was nominated for an additional 21. The 1987 Academy Awards were for Best Art Direction (Gianni Quaranta, Brian Ackland-Snow, Brian Savegar, and Elio Altamura), Best Costume Design (Jenny Beavan and John Bright), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala). Clearly Ivory took notice of Goldwyn’s instructions to prepare for the speech, as there were several excerpts, phrases, and other scribbling to be found on several different pieces which bore no direct relationship to the Academy Awards specifically. These phrases and drafts were eventually compiled into a handwritten draft which is discussed elsewhere. Contextually, there is more information about the Academy Award than any other nomination this film received. For Merchant Ivory Productions, this was an opportunity to finally be recognized as “mainstream” in the US film market, and as such it is clear the Ivory put much consideration and preparation into leveraging this opportunity into a meaningful, albeit concise, presentation.

Ruth Prawer Jhabvala

Don’t Forget about Ruth By: Michaela Lahoz

Ruth Jhabvala is part of what made MIP into the successful partnership. As was often for the time period she is often left out when discussing the success of Merchant Ivory. Well known for both her novels and screen writes she won an Academy Award and Writers Guild Award for writing the screen adaptation of “A Room With a View”. Jhabvala brought to the movies she wrote a sense of culture, her own being quite diverse. Born in Poland but raised mainly in London after her family fled Hitler, she later married an Indian man and lived in both India and New York. (NY Times, 2013) Included in the Ivory Papers collection for the movie “A Room With a View” was a telegram congratulating Jhabvala on her wins from Robert Lawrence and United Artist. The telegram was sent from Beverly Hills all the way to Delhi, India. The telegram was in rough shape after it’s cross ocean journey and 30 years later. Robert Lawrence at the time was a studio executive at United Artist a big studio in Hollywood at the time; he went on to produce cult classics such as “Clueless”, “Ghostbusters”, and “Die Hard”. (Filmbug)The acknowledgement by Lawrence of Jhabvala as a “first class act”  is significant because women in Hollywood are often overlooked. Jhabvala is often left out of the discussion when people are discussing Merchant Ivory Productions of which she is the often forgotten part of what made them a success. When she died, Ivory said that she was part of the trifecta that was Merchant Ivory Productions. Her place in cinema history now more widely recognized and backed up by her many awards for her screenwriting.

Merchant, Jhbaval, and Ivory

The Delivered Speech By: Brianna Brock

Four notecards from the Beverly Hills Hotel were found to have an acceptance speech written on them by James Ivory. The speech that was written on them is very similar to one James Ivory gave to accept the award for Best Writing for “A Room with a View” in the 1986 Academy Awards on behalf of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. The speech is very well written and thanks most people involved in the production and greatly praises Jhabvala. The speech is hand-written and thanks Time Associates, Ismail Merchant for being an inspiration. He also thanks Helena Bonham Carter and Dick Robbins for composing beautiful music. He ends his speech by thanking E.M. Forster, the author of  “A Room with a View.” This speech shows that the film did so well that it was not only able to make it into the Academy Awards but to win an Oscar as well.  Jhabvala had worked with Merchant-Ivory Productions since 1960 and was considered to be one-third of the indomitable trifecta including James Ivory and Ismail Merchant and Ivory was not about to leave her out. He really wanted to make sure everyone knew just how important she was to Merchant-Ivory Productions. The actual speech he ends up giving at the Academy Awards thanks Jhabvala and stresses how he can only hope to give as great a speech as her and hopes he does her justice. I feel that this relationship is very important to the films success and that the film would not have done as well without it. It also greatly shows how great of friends these two were, not just co-workers.

Conclusion:

With the joined viewing of the James Ivory documents for the film A Room with a View, we were able to learn the drama, and financial struggles of producing such a low budget film. We also viewed the multiple brief synopsis documents. These documents allowed us to get a full briefing of the film’s plot and underlying conflict. We were able to understand how the directors and producers of the film pitched the film and/or explained it to their colleagues.

What was also studied was the post film distribution and reception documents. We found a letter from Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. to James Ivory on behalf of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts offering a congrats on his nomination. The letter, after the rather short congratulations, transforms into a rather strict set of rules on how the thank you speech should be conducted. Although this piece is meant as a congrats, it has a snide tone. Once again we witness the slightly dramatic incidents of cinema. Ruth Jhabvala is the writer of the film. We find out that as a woman, she is impressive but under appreciated by others in the industry. Jhabvala was a key character in the Merchant Ivory Production team. We viewed the acceptance speech that Ivory gives on behalf of Jhabvala. Throughout the production, through the distribution and reception, there is drama and tension amongst the people involved in cinema; however, we see that even though there is pressure, Ivory remains thoughtful and kind during his acceptance speech for Jhabvala’s best writer award.

Our team achieved a better grasp on the behind the scenes of hollywood and cinema. The people involved can be passive aggressive or snide. We realize the difficulties and stress that cinema must place on the workers. Without these documents, we would not learn what it takes to make a film, how people react to them, and how concepts and technologies have changed with the times.

Works Cited

“1986 Academy Awards Acceptance Speech for Best Writing (Screenplay).” Academy Awards Acceptance Speeches. aaspeechesdb.oscars.org. Web. 15 May 2014.

Gates, Anita. “Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, Screenwriter, Dies at 85.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Apr. 2013. Web. 15 May 2014.

Goldwyn, Samuel. “Letter of Congratulations.” Box 28. Fol. 6 Coll. 283. James Ivory Collection, University of Oregon, Eugene. 5/7/14.

Hollywood Reporter, The. “March 30, 1987 Edition” Box 28. Fol. 7 Coll. 283. James Ivory Collection, University of Oregon, Eugene. 5/7/14.

Internet Movie Database: Filming Locations; A Room With a View. Worldwideweb ,http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091867/locations. Accessed 11th May, 2014.

Ivory, James. “A Room with a View.” Short Synopsis. Box 27. Folder 5. Coll 283. 5/7/14

Ivory, James. Financial Correspondance; A Room With a View. Boxes 26 and 27. Folder 2. Collection 283. Accessed 7th May, 2014. 

Ivory, James. Telegram to Ruth Jhabvala; A Room With a View. Boxes 27. Folder 4. Collection 283. Accessed 7th May, 2014.

Ivory, James. “The Delivered Speech.” Box 28. Fol. 14 Coll. 283. 5/7/14

“Robert Lawrence.” Filmbug Birthdays RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.

Walker, Jade. “Ruth Prawer Jhabvala Dead: Oscar-Winning Screenwriter And Novelist Dies At 85.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 9 May 2014.

 

Jane Austen in Manhattan (1980)

Introduction

Jane Austen in Manhattan is a Merchant Ivory Production film released in 1980, directed by James Ivory and produced by Ismail Merchant. It was originally released as a movie made for television in the U.K. but later opened to theaters in both the U.K. and U.S. The film is based on a play written by Jane Austen at the age of 14 and was later translated into a screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. After signing on to create the film, Merchant Ivory Productions discovered that
Austen’s play was an unfinished fragment and reconsidered the value of the story. Jhabvala convinced Ivory that there was a story to be told about the sale of the manuscript and created a complex plot involving events mirrored in Austen’s original play. The film stars Anne Baxter and Robert Powell and debuts Sean Young. It was Merchant Ivory’s twelfth film and expectations for the film were high after the success of their first made-for-television film, Hullabaloo Over Georgie and Bonnie’s Pictures. However, negotiation issues between Merchant Ivory Productions and London Weekend Television (LWT) regarding the budget of the film and problems with the London film unions may have impacted the overall product in a negative way. These problems could explain the negative reception and ratings of the film from London and New York media.

This blog will provide a brief synopsis and a broad analysis of the film using specific items found in the James Ivory Collection at the University of Oregon Libraries and information we have compiled through in-depth secondary research. As outlined below, the history, significance, production and reception of the film are all integral components in the understanding of the film’s impact on the industry at large. Jane Austen in Manhattan was one of the first of its kind in the format of movie-made-for-television and set the stage for the evolution of this genre.  

Synopsis

Jane Austen in Manhattan tells the story of two rival theatre companies competing to produce a play based on an incomplete script titled Sir Charles Grandison written by Austen at the young age of 14. The first group is led by Avant Garde director Pierre (Robert Powell) who employs George Midash (Michael Wagner) to purchase the manuscript while Lilianna Zorska (Anne Baxter), who heads the a troupe of Mozartian Operatic actors, is also vying for funding of her version.

The film also centers around Ariadne Charlton (Sean Young), a young actress who moved to New York with her husband. Pierre manipulates Ariadne to leave her husband and commit to his unstable company. As Lilianna begins to earn the young actress’s loyalty, events begin to parallel those occurring within the play and she is eventually whisked away by Lillian’s troupe. The rest of Pierre’s group eventually dissipates or defects to Lillian’s.

History (Sacha Anderson) 

Because there was so little physical material on our film other than production — possibly due to the fact that it was a movie made for television versus the theater — I decided to go a bit into a history of Jane Austen, her play and other writings, and so on because it is such a central part of the film and the reason it exists at all.

Jane Austen’s play manuscript is based off of Samuel Richardson’s novel, Sir Charles Grandison. She assembled it when she was only around 14 years old and it is believed to have been written by her prior to 1801 for the purpose of being a small, home skit. The manuscript stayed within the family for many years until finally a copy being produced in 1980. For years it was though that Anna Austen, Jane’s niece, was the author but further investigation proved that scenes were written long before Anna’s birth (Austenonly).

Going through the James Ivory Papers of Jane Austen in Manhattan I found a prop copy of Jane Austen’s manuscript which is used in the film. Being a huge Jane Austen fan as I am, I noticed that the handwriting in the prop copy looked identical to Jane Austen’s handwriting, which I assume means they tried to make it as authentic-looking as possible to the real manuscript.

Jane Austen was born in 1775 as the seventh child to her parents George and Cassandra Austen. Jane began writing at a very early age, coming up with her theatrical performance for her family at just age six. In 1796 Jane began writing what would become her most famous piece, First Impressions (later known as Pride and Prejudice). Jane died in 1817 with a total of six novels, a short fiction, and a plethora of other and unfinished works in her name (Warren).

Movie for Television (Scott Kincannon)

Although the film Jane Austen In Manhattan eventually came out in theaters in the United States and United Kingdom, it was originally released on television, featured on London Weekend Television (LWT). LWT was an English network that aired premiere films on weekends in England from Friday’s at 5:15pm through Monday’s at 6:00am. However, London Weekend Television is now a dormant network no longer running, and hasn’t been since 2002.

The term “made for TV movies,” was originally coined in the United States in 1961. The prime time television network NBC was the first to run a program that aired television movies, it was known as “Saturday Night At The Movies.” After the success of NBC’s “Saturday Night At The Movies,” many other major networks followed suit and began airing more and more television movies. Today, we see networks such as Lifetime, and Hallmark that air a significant amount of TV movies.

The television movies that are aired on Hallmark or Lifetime are clearly very low budget. The same can be said for most TV movies, including Jane Austen in Manhattan. In fact, there were negotiation struggles between producer Ismail Merchant and London Weekend Television. Supposedly the film exceeded the originally planned budget, exemplified in a letter to James Ivory from Melvin Bragg, “It was understood that you would work within the perimeters of television film making” (Ivory Papers). Melvin Bragg and London Weekend Television are clearly disappointed with the negotiation issues and the excess budget. Another letter from Melvyn Bragg again illustrates the negotiation struggles between LWT and Merchant Ivory productions. Similar to the letter written to James Ivory, this one written to Ismail Merchant says, “The offers we are prepared to make to you and Ruth and James are far in excess of any fees offered in any comparable situation by London Weekend Television” (Ivory Papers).

Significance (Nikki Pirucki) 

Although minimal, Jane Austen in Manhattan had great significance to the careers of the actors in the movie. Sean Young, who has now starred in hit movies such as Blade Runner and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, made her movie debut in Jane Austen in Manhattan. Young plays Ariadne, a beautiful, young actress who is torn between choosing which of the two directors to work for. According to Turner Classic Movies, Young was casted over other more experienced actresses because of her beauty and personality, even though Ivory later stated that Young had trouble delivering her lines during her audition. Merchant also casted two successful actors, Anne Baxter and Robert Powell, for the two key roles to bring more experience and talent on the set, and draw more attention to the film. Baxter had previously been nominated for two Academy Awards, and won one and a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Role in Razor’s Edge.  She also earned a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1950. Jane Austen in Manhattan was Baxter’s second to last film in her career before she passed away. Powell had been in many movies and television series before Jane Austen in Manhattan., such as “Jesus of Nazareth” and “The Thirty Nine Steps.” In 1978 he was nominated for “Best Actor” for the BAFTA TV Award, but did not in. In 1982 he won a Golden Phoenix at the Venice Film Festival  for his work in the film Imperative. Although much of all these actors successful careers began prior or following Jane Austen in Manhattan, the film was a significant factor into all three of their careers. The movie was not successful by any means, but it brought fabulous actors together and the movie was significant in all their careers.

Production (Emily Carey)

The large majority of content found in the James Ivory collection for Jane Austen in Manhatten focused on production. The collection included screenplays, call sheets, character descriptions and continuity documents, among others. The items are valuable in their original forms but provide very little detail that is not available in the film itself.

As mentioned before, Merchant Ivory Productions signed on to create the film before reading the original screenplay. The production company got wind that London Weekend Television (LWT) had bought the rights to a play written by Jane Austen and immediately took the project on as a made-for-television-movie. It wasn’t until after the company committed that they discovered Austen’s play was incomplete and struggled to formulate a full storyline. This was the first of many issues involved in the film’s production as the company faced multiple union issues. Americans were frustrated with the long workdays and short lunch breaks that Ivory demanded while the British were frustrated that the film was shot in New York and employed no British actors.

Merchant Ivory Productions was successful, however, in recruiting a theatrically experienced staff to establish credibility within the film. Ivory brought on Andrei Serba, a New York Shakesperian set designer, to develop a set that would be appropriate for both mediums. He also employed Michael Shawn, a well-known Broadway musical choreographer. Ernest Vincze, the film’s cinematographer, was perhaps the most influential in the overall aesthetic appeal, making the film “look lush on a tiny budget.” The production provides insight to the developing format of movies-made-for-television and differentiates from both “classic” and “new” Hollywood.

Reception (Sam Stites)

The James Ivory Papers contained copies of newspaper clippings from several different news organizations including the London Evening Standard, London Newspaper Group and the New York Times. The two London movie reviews were extremely critical of the film. Particularly, they pointed to the subject matter, screenplay and the fact that it couldn’t be seen in theaters when it was first released as reasons for the film being unsuccessful. The London Newspaper Group characterized it as being “unrelentingly trivial from beginning to end.” The New York Times’ review was a home video review from 1987, seven years after the film was released in the United Kingdom. “Even devoted Jane Austen fans might want to give a miss to Jane Austen in Manhattan,” New York Times writer Howard Thompson wrote.

All of the reviews focus heavily on the plot as being a reason for their disapproval, but it is unclear if any of the reviewers fully understood that the screenplay came from an incomplete story by Jane Austen, or of the budgetary problems that the film had in it’s inception. Most film reviews today generally take into consideration what type of problems or triumphs a film had in particular in order to rationalize why the movie might be that way. In fact, the two London papers were very disparaging toward the film. Perhaps this has some correlation to the film union problems Merchant Ivory had during the production of the film that boiled over into the reaction. It could also be that since by this time Merchant Ivory was a season group of professionals, the expectation of their products was much higher than what was shown on London Weekend Television. Whatever the reason may be, the clippings found in James Ivory’s collection probably weren’t his favorite pieces of reaction to his work.

Conclusion 

From pre-production through distribution of the film to London Weekend Television, Merchant Ivory productions had a tough time with Jane Austen in Manhattan. An incomplete manuscript, union problems and struggles with funding all had an affect on the overall quality of the film, resulting in what we’ve found to be a generally negative reaction to the film. Even though Merchant and Ivory hired well-known and talented actors to play the cast, the film did extremely poor as far as reviews and attention. The film also lost buzz because it was one of the first “made for television “ films ever. Like most of Merchant Ivory Productions films, Jane Austen in Manhattan had trouble with distribution. The movie did not go on VHS until about ten years after the release date. In all, we were unable to gather a great amount of first hand information from the James Ivory archives, but our secondary research has shown us the struggle that Merchant Ivory Productions went through to make Jane Austen in Manhattan and the unsuccessful outcome of the movie. Although James Ivory is a well-known, successful director, this film was not one of his bests nor does it display his best work.

Citations

Premiere Invitation, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 13, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

Character descriptions, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 5, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

Personal Commentary (James Ivory in 2000), James Ivory Papers, Coll. 238, Box 16 Folder 13, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

Prop Copy of Grandison, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 6, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

“Sir Charles Grandison by Jane Austen at Chawton House and on-line.” Austenonly. N.p., 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 May 2014. <http://austenonly.com/2011/02/14/sir-charles-grandison-by-jane-austen-at-chawton-house-and-on-line/&gt;.

Warren, Renee. “Jane Austen Timeline.” Jane Austen Timeline. N.p., 25 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 May 2014. <http://www.janeausten.org/jane-austen-timeline.asp&gt;.

Miller, Frank. “Jane Austen in Manhattan.” Turner Classic Movies. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article.html?isPreview=&id=430514|412886&name=Jane-Austen-in-Manhattan>

London Evening Standard review, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 14, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

London Newspaper Group review, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 14, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

New York Times review, James Ivory Papers, Coll. 283, Box 16 Folder 14, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Ivory Papers Blog Entry Headline

Introduction (“Title”) – by Student A., Student B., Student C., etc.

This is where you will write your stunning introduction evaluating and contextualizing your group’s findings. Do not simply summarize your group’s findings but work together to craft a thesis that articulates a claim about what your findings collectively represent. 300 words should do it.

 

Synopsis of film – Title (Year and Director) –

. A brief synopsis of the film and basic production information. (About 100 words total)

* Probably a good place for an image such as the film’s theatrical poster maybe formatted to the left or right to add an element of graphic design to the blog entry.

 

Author 1 – Sub-headline

300-word individual entry by one group member analyzing your findings – perhaps a formatted high resolution image to accompany the text?

 

Author 2,3,4, – Sub-headline

300-word individual entry by one group member analyzing your findings – perhaps a formatted high resolution image to accompany the text?

 

Conclusion sub-headline

A 300-word conclusion written by the group

 

Works Cited and Further Reading

A complete list of works cited compiled by the group in MLA or Chicago format that includes all

primary archival sources and five secondary sources selected by the group for further reading.

 

Remember to use a few well-placed high resolution images to illustrate your entry so that it does not look as lifeless as this sample entry. Anything else you can think of to add elements of design to your blog entry are welcome!