ˇˇ
By the spring of 1936, there had been many frustrations, irritations, and disap- pointments in the brief motion picurte of Pare Lorentz. Film making for the government had not been what he had expected. As King Vidor remarked of Lorentz's Hollywood experience, "I do remember that he thought the govern- ment effort should give him some further entry [to motion picture studios and stock film libraries] than he apparently was receiving." His Hollywood experience was, however, not the only grustration and disappointment Lorentz encounter- ed. He had his troubles with government agencies as well.
The problem was not one of red tape and procedures alone. According to John Carter, there was opposition to Lorentz's efforts within the executive branch of the government:
At almost every point his [Lorentz's] superiors tried to sabotage the enterprise. The Department of Agriculture film chief was allowed to make a public speech ridiculing the documentary film program, high agricultural sources privately assured Henry Wallace that Lorentz would not be allowed to make another government film, his budgets were cut down and funds already assigned hin were tied up by petty bureaucratic tactics. Political dynamite was required to blast officials into a realization that these films were the sort of thing the White House wanted.
Perhaps Lorentz's dirve and flamboyance were too much for a conservative Department of Agriculture. There may have been concern that his films would draw attention and finances away from problems other than the one dramatiz- ed in The Plow that Broke the Plains or those to be treated in future films. There may have been professional jealousy of his ability to produce a quality film for the government and get it distributed nationally on commercial screens.
Lorentz had produced The Plow for less than twenty thousand dollars--no mean feat--although only six thousand dollars had originally been allocated for the film. Many of these expenses had not been paid, owing in part to the lack of proper government receipts. Other financial aspects of making films for the government were irritating to Lorentz. he complained about "the necessity of counting penies and accounting for pencils." Nor had Lorentz been paid excessively for his labors and ideas. He drew $18.oc a day for his efforts, less than the cameramen and others he had classified under the new Civil Service position.
Fortunately, Lorentz had continued writing for magazines, and he paid many of the expenses for completing and promoting The Plow out of this income and his wife's stage earnings.
Added to these irritations and frustrations was the fact that Lorentz really had no staff beside Arch Mercey. Much of the fight for distribution had to be handled by the field information officers of the RA, who had not been successful in securing bookings until Lorentz himself broke the barrier in New York. Also, they could not have been expected to give their full attention to promoting the film. There was no other distribution machinery within the government to which Lorentz could turn. His work seemed to have little permanence in the form of a staff and faci- lities, and lacked financial support. Consequently, Lorentz's work had no future, in the form of either more films or scheduled screenings.
In June, Lorentz walked into Tugwell's office to resign. He told Tugwell that he had made a valuable film according to expert opinion and had succeeded in getting commercial distribution. The film was running in New York, and book- ings were beginning to materialize elsewhere. He had done what he had set out to do, and there seemed to be little future.
As he turned to leave Tugwell's office, he found himself facing a profile map of the Mississippi River. "There," he said,"you people are missing the biggest story in the world--the Mississippi River." Tugwell called him back, asked what he meant, and began to discuss a project for a new film.
In the course of his research for The Plow, Lorentz had read the Misissippi Valley Committee Report, which had given him the basic idea for the dsign of the new film. "Having read the report, and knowing that 51% of the population of the country lived in the Mississippi Valley, my proposal was simple--to take an engi- neer's boat, put a couple of pick-up trucks on it, and start at Minneapolis and go clear to the Gulf." Lorentz changed these plans considerably once production began, but he convinced Tugwell that day that this idea would make an excellent film.
Tugwell communicated with the White House in an effort to secure funds. On July 4, Lorentz received a phone call at his home in Sneeden's Landing, New York, recalling him to Washington, John Carter told him htat fifty thousand dollars had been provided by the President to be used specifically for the production of the proposed film. Lorentz's salary was raised to thirty dollars a day. Both the succes of the The Plow That Broke the Plains and the need for such films had been re- cognized in a concrete manner.
Considering the problems and disappointments that must have driven Lorentz to offer his resignation, one must come to the conclusion that he though that the obstacles, frustrations, and irritations of the first attempt could be overcome.
In spite of his eagerness to produce the Mississipi film, Lorentz could not afford an- other personal financial fiasco like The Plow. John Bridgeman, a Treasury clerk, was assigned to Lorentz to accompany him as agent cashier. Lorentz and Bridgeman got along well, making the financial situation much more congenial.
Lorentz knew the Mississippi River Valley from personal experience. He had spent some time on the river as a youth before he enrolled at West Virginia University in 1923. He has written that he remembered the feeling of the big river.
During the early summer of 1936, Lorentz was busy on two fronts: doing research for the new film, and trying to get the first one distributed nationally. In this period of research he was especially drawn to the Mississippi Valley Committee Report, Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi, Lyle Saxon's Father Mississippi, and blueprints of the river made by Army engineers.
Lorentz included Virgil Thomson in the plans for the music for the second film. Both men were familiar with the folk music and literature of the river and hill country. Lorentz had been impressed by Honegger's Kind David, and was particularly in- terested in the possibility of building up a score for the film in the form of work songs with a boss singer and a workers' chorus engaging in calls and responses, somewhat similar to the form of Honegger's oratorio.
Lorentz prepared a script in outline form based on his research and headed for the Mississippi Valley in the summer of 1936 to check the script and his original idea of floating down the Mississippi from its source to its mouth at the gulf of Mexico. He quickly saw the impracticality of his plan.
From Cairo, Illinois, south, the big river is rather dull from a photographic point of view. "You can't take a thousand feet of nothing," he said. Such a presen- tation would not hold an audience. At Vicksborug, Mississippi, he visited the massive hydraulics laboratory maintained by the Corps of Engineers and learn- ed that the key to controlling floods in the lower valey was contgrolling the smaller streams and tributaries of the river. Consequently, he decided to tell his story by working down from samll mountain streams and rivers--especially the Tennessee--along the tributaries, and finally to the big river itself. As a matter of fact, there are few shots of the Mississippi River in the film. He re- turned east, revised his script, and set about hiring a camera crew, which was eventually composed of Stacy and Horace Woodard, Floyd Crosby, and Willard Van Dyke.
Stacy and horace were cmearamen, in the firm of Woodard Brothers, who had been producing a series of nature films called "The Struggle to Live." They had won two Motion Picture Academy awards for their work: a second prize for short pictures in 1933 for The Sea, and first prize in 1934 for City of Wax. Floyd Crosby had worked as a cameraman on two outstanding exterior films, Matto Grosso and Tabu (1931), the latter produced and directed by F. W. Murnau. He won an Academy Award for his work on Tabu. He had had experience in a variety of foreign locations with scientific expeditions. Willard Van Dyke had studied photography with Edward Weston and had made a picture for the WPA in California.
First public notice that a second film was under way appeared in the press on October 6, 1936. The New York Times commented on the report two days later on its editorial page and quoted Lorentz:"We are not going to argue that only man in vile. There never was such a tjhing as an idela river... But we do want to show that if man will only adopt practices slowing down the flow of the river he will get the full benefit of it in fields free from erosion, in power, in clean water." According to Lorentz the worst flood in the Mississippi valley had been in De Soto's time.
Although Lorentz was hired in July to produce the new film, various problems kept the project ensnarled until October. This was a longer delay than Lorentz had experienced on the first film, and it was to affect the film through changes in the shooting schedule.
Original plans were to start shooting at Lake Itasca, Minnesota, from the Univer- sity of Minnesota under the direction of Robert Kissack to film footage. Because of bad weather and a peat-bog fire, the footage was not shot until spring. Lorentz's own cameramen were divided into two crews. The Woodards accom panied Lorentz to West Virginia, where the frist footage was sot overlooking what had been his grandfather's land at Tygart's Valley. Horace Woodard left the crew after a short stay and returned home.
In Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi the two crews filmed footage of erosion, the barren hillsides, the poverty of the sharecroppers, reclamation in the TVA area, and, of course, dams, both completed and under construction. As shoot- ing continued into December, the crews were plagued by rains. Stacy Woodard left near the end of December. King Vidor had recommended Floyd Crosby. Lorentz wired Crosby to join the crew in New Orleans.
As prducer-director, Lorentz developed considerable new skill during the produc- tion of The River. Two anecdotes illustrate this growth. In the sequence of the negro roustabouts unloading bales of cotton from a Mississippi River steamboat, the workers could not accept the fact that they were to do real work. There was to be a seires of shots of bales tumbling down the ganplank toward the camera, with the heads of two Negros roustabouts looming above each bale as it neared the lens. The Negroes though it was playacting and began mugging ferociously as as they neared the camera. At other times they moved listlessly, without the char- acteristic rhythm of such work. Lorentz had to order retakes time and time again. Everyone was getting tired, stiff, and sore. Finally, Lorentz had the mate on the steamboat shout orders to the men. They put their backs into the work, forgot the camera, and Lorentz had his footage. Crosby was the cameraman.
A further proff of Lorentz's growth is the fact that he no longer left matters to chance. He did not photograph what he happened to find along the way, as he had done much of the time in producing The Plow. Now the he made plans in advance for necessary footage. For example, through William Alexander, the Farm Security administrator, he obtained information about the time of cotton loadings in New orleans and in the valley inorder to get the needed fottage.
The last shots for the script were made on January 16, 1937, near New Orleans. Shortly after the crew broke up, it became apparent that the flood coming down the Ohio and some of the other tributaries was going to be a serious one. Lorentz recalled Van Dyke and Crosby to Memphis on January 21 and told them to start filing, but, as Van Dyke has told Richard MacCann, there were a thousand miles of disaster to cover and they did not know hwere to start. Lorentz flew to Memphis, prepared a script for the flood scenes, and supervised the shotting. Since the shotting budget was almost expended, he wired Henry Wallace for more money; the secretary granted permission to film the flood.
The unexpected flood disaster provided the crew with some of the most thrilling unstaged photography ever included in a motion picture. This was truly an un- expected stroke of luck for Lorentz and the film. Lorentz had planned to include a flood in the film, but he anticipated that it would have to be done through stock footage. Not only did Lorentz now have exciting flood footage of his own, but the disaster itself served to focus attention on the film when it was released, just as the dust sotrms of 1936 had aided the promotion of The Plow. Whole communities were evacuated, and tent cities were built to house the refugees. Distribution centers for food, fuel, water, and medical supplies were set up. An extensive first-aid program was put into action. When the flood-waters reced- ed, the WPA went to work removing silt and reparing the damage.
Lorentz and his crew worked their way back up the river, filming the rising, rushing, rampaging waters and the human suffering. Tjhey went up from Memphis along the Mississippi River levees to Illini\ois, often working as long as thirty-eight hours at a stretch. When they arrived at Cairo, they ran into opposition from relie directors. They were told they could go no further. Only one boat was to be allow- ed on the river, and that was a government boat. Because Lorentz was working for the government, he assumed that he and the crew could go on the boat. They were told they could not, although press and newsreel photographers were on the boat with government permission. Lorentz asked whose permission he needed in order to go along. He was told by a relief official that the man from Paramount was in charge. Lorentz is then reported to have said: Let me see if I've got this straight. This is a government boat and I'm making pictures for the government-- the one that owns this boat and that you're working for and I"m working for. The same government that has to have thousands of feet of motion pictures of this flood for the Army Engineering Corps and the Department of Agriculture. If they don't get these pictures from me, they're going to have to buy them from com- mercial newsreel men, and meanwhile I am being paid to take them and I can't get on a government boat to do it without permission from Paramount.
The official agreed with Lorentz's interpretation of the situation. Lorentz went over the heads of the officials to the Corps of Engineers, who were supervising matters along the river, and soon had his crew on the boat. After the episode at Cairo, the crew continued up the rececding Ohio River, shooting pictures of the ruined cities, until they reached Ironton, Ohio, not far
downstream from West Virginia, the starting place of the film. They finished their work on March 1, 1937. Lorentz returned to New York and began his assembly of the film. He started screening what he had photographed, began his editing plan for the film, and called in Virgil Thomson to work on the score. Llpud Nosler joined Lorentz as editor on The River at the recommendation of King Vidor. He remained with Lorentz as chief of the technical department and worked on Lorentz's later films for the government. He did not edit any of the films alone, in the sense that Lorentz gave him raw footage and told him to put it together. The two men assembled the scenes together, working closely and amicably for long hours. Nosler enjoyed the opportunity to experiment, and much of the pictorial continuity of the film is the result of his talent. Lorentz, inspired by the Mississippi Valley Committee Report, had decided that the opening of the film should stress the problem of runoff in the highlands and along the tgributaries.; Too, the initial section of the film should show the Mississippi growing from a drop of water to the wide expanse of its mouth. Lorentz planned much of the editing as moving from left to right and top to bottom. The other theme in the film--the close relationship between land, water, and people--is also to be found in the Mississippi Valley Report. Consider this quo- tation from the sound track of the film" But you can't paln for water unless you plan for land.... But you cannot plan for water and land unless you plan for people.
The foreword (page ii) to the report begins: "We cannot plan for water unless we also consider the relevant problems of the land. We cannot plan for water and land unless we plan for the whole people."
The rough cutting took several months, with Lorentz and Nosler working as much as eighteen hours a day in the cutting room. Some of the assembling was determined by Lorentz's own reactions to the river: "The bigger the scene, or rahter the landsacpe, the faster you should cut. A big panoramam of a river might be impressive to the movie maker, but it gets real dull to an audience and very quickly." While the film was being assembled, there were two problems of content to be faced. The flood presented on problem: "If you build it to a climax, what else can you say about the other problems? The problem was solved by music in part." The other problem was how t include Civil War material to add historical flavor. This had to be done in such a way as not to offend either the South or the North. It was decided merely to show the letter General Robert E. Lee wrote to his troops on the day before the surrender at Appomattox. Lorentz originally wanted Thomson to experiment with the form of the muscial score, but, because of lack of time and money, this experimentation was out of the question. Thomson set to work on a score similar in form to the one for The Plow That Broke the Plains. As in his preparation for The Plow, Thomson did considerable musicological research, systematically studyingfolklore and old hymns. He corresponded with George Pullen Jackson, a specialist in these fields and a faculty member at Vanderbilt University. Jackson provided tThomason with a large number of whbite spirituals. In the third program of the NET series "Lorentz on Film," Lorentz explained how he and Thomson worked together on The River: Virgil made piano sketches of each section of the movie, each large sequence, and then the crew and I tried to edit it down to a preconceived time, at which point Virgil would get some ideas, genius ideas, and we would work back and forth so that you didn't have a completed score put on top of a completed movie or vice versa. The words were then written to the music and to a cocept of music. The fact that the score was composed and the film assembled simultaneously seems to have helped maintain a close relationship between the two, resulting in an integrated film and score, as in The Plow, not "a completed score put on top of a completed movie or vice versa." The pictorial and musical unity of The River drew praise from many reviewers. Because of the nature of the pictorial content of The River, it was necessary for film and music to play roles of vary- ing dominance throughout the assembled motion picture. For example, in order to keep the flood scenes, with their tremendous dramtic punch, from overshadowing the more important but less exciting dramatic but rather ob- vious and shallow. The score for the later scenes relied on folk music, and was "full of the emotional content inherent in anything essentially human." Kath- leen Hoover also comments on the technique of fitting music to specific pic- torial content: "For the human episodes the [Thomson] drew on folk tunes, but his idiom was modern and individual. For the landscape sequences he invented material that captures the Mississippi's changing moods with electric immed- iacy. The narration was not written until the score had been composed and the film edited in its final form. The text was published later as a book with stills from the film. In the preface, Lorentz wrote, "It was intended as a functional text to accompany Mr. Virgil Thomson's score, and fit the tempo of the sequences in the picture." The narration for The River developed into its particular form rather unexpectedly. A poetic form had not been planned. Otis L. Wiese, editor of McCall's, asked Lorentz to write a report on the flood for his magazine. Lorentz, the movie critic for McCall's at the time, agreed because he felt that the report might porvide a basis for the narration for the movie. He wrote a five-thousand word narrative report, which he hlater decided would be unsatisfactory for the readers of Mc- Call's because it was "too specific, collected, including Forest Service reports and news accounts of the flood, and began work on a lyrical report, written in one weekend in a nonstop effort. He submitted both versions to Wiese, who published the lyrical verson. After 150.000 requests for copies had been re- ceived from readers of McCall's, Lorentz was convinced that this poetic approach would be suitable for the film. With only a few changes, it became the narration for the film. Chalmers recorded the narration, and then it was put together with Virgil Thom- son's score and Lorentz's edited film. The story line and construction--weak points in The Plow--were stron in The River. Added to the previous combination--excellent photography--music by Thomson, and narration by Lorentz, spoken by Thomas Chalmers---is the imaginative use of sound: "Effective use is made of natural sounds merely by repetition. For example, the sounds of the steel mill early in the film are imitated in the frantic whistle of a coast-guard boat later."The com- pleted sequences of The River are arranged chronologically. The intial sequence shows the growth of the Mississippi River from its many tributaires, the waters flowing calmly and naturally between their baks. This was the state of the basin before the coming of the white man with agriculture and industry. Thefollowing sequences show cotton farming, the impoverishment of the South by the Civil War, and the growth of lumber and steel industries. The results of the exploitaion of the valley are chronicled in the next sequences: floods, naked and eroding hillsides, displaced and impoverished people, the relationship between poor land and poor people. The epilogue depicts the Tennessee Valley Authroity at work putting the valley together again. Lorentz spend nearly six months completing The River after the dispersal of the crew in March. The film cost approximately fifty thousand dollars, in comparison with about twenty thousand dollars for The Plow. The difference in cost is ac- counted for in part by the increased number of personnel, the greater distance traveled on location--fourteen states for the second, five for the first--and the cost of shooting the unexpected flood. Word of the cost of The river must have leaked out early. Several months before the film was released, the New York Times reported that the Senate Special Committee on Government Reorganization was going to investigate motion picture production in the RA. the committee, with Senator Harry Byrd as chairman, was concerned with the cost of the two films. The RA officials were reported as welcoming such an inquiry since "they regard the films as one of their most suc- cessful and least expensive experiments." Apparently, the investigation was dropped. The second film of merit was now complete. Because of the confidence Lorentz had gained from the success of the first film and the encouragement he had received from his sponsors, including President Roosevelt, he was able to proceed in a different manner in securing the release of this film. It was not necessary to take it around to friends in the profession to seek their approval. Lorentz knew he had a good film, nd he began to make plans to get it distributed. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace was the first ranking official to see the film. Arrangements were made for him to see it at 10:00 a.m. in a caucus room. Lorentz objected: "No one looks at films at 10:00 a.m." But Wallace did look at it at 10:00 a.m. When it was over, he rose, walked to the door, turned, and said, "There is no corn in it." The secretary's Iowa heritage was showing. Actually, it had been too late to get good footage of a corn harvest. After this experience Lorentz was eager to get the President's reaction. He did not know how to get an invitation or arrange an appropriate screening. George Gercke, who had been Albany correspondent for the New York World when Roosevelt was governor of New York and was familiar with the President's habits, likes, and dislikes, found the answer. He decided tghat the President might not mind a postscript to his evening's film program at Hyde Park, and arranged an invitation for Lorentz and himself. Lorentz, Gercke, and The River arrived at Hyde Park on a rainy night in Septem- ber just after dinner, about 9:00 p.m. By coincidence, the President had been asking at dinner what had happened to the new Lorentz film. It was a typical, quiet evening at Hyde Park. As Lorentz recalls, "I think the Japs had bombed Shanghai, the stock market had crashed, and there had been an intercolleg- iate regatta on the hudson." The President looked at several newsreels and then a feature film, Sonja Henie in Thin Ice. About 12:30 a.m. The river was shown. When the lights came on at the end, Roosevelt turned to Lorentz and said: "That's a grand movie. What can I do to help?" According to Lorentz, the President wanted to show the film to a joint session of Congress, but Lorentz demurred. Did Lorentz anticipate the President's question or not? It is likely that, as they made the trip up the Hudson by train, he and Gercke had discussed what the President's various reactions might be. Lorentz was ready with an answer. He was facing two problems: the problem of distribution and his own future, and the role of movies in the government. He posed both problems to the President. Thomas Corcoran, a presidential adviser and coauthor with Ben Cohen of sever al New Deal measures, was visiting Hyde Park that weekend. He was called from upstairs and joined the discussion. The result, according to Richard D. MacCann, was that Corcoran began imnmediately to work on plans for the United States Film service. The next step Lorentz had in mind for distributing the filmn was motivated by its content and his experience while filming it. He decided to give the people most concerned--the residents of the Mississippi Valley--the opportunity to see the film first. He did not want Southerners to be offended by the film, and was worried that they might be if they learned of it first through a review. If he could win them over first, the felt that there would be much less misunder standing later. The world premiere of The River took place in New Orleans on October 29, 1937. If Lorentz had been worried about southern reaction before the New Orleans premiere, he had no need to worry when the screening was over. The audience stood up and cheered when General Lee's name appeared on the screen. The manager of the Strand Theatre, where the premiere was held, sent the following telegram to Lorentz: Held world premiere of River October 29th three hundred and fifty leading people at New Orleans. Reaction was wonderful. I personally contacted several hundred of those people after premiere. They congratulated me for being able to bring film of that nature to my screen. Nineteen schools of the city had a representative from their history class to see River. Also showed Rivers [sic] to some 20,000 patrons. Audience reaction great. The public needs more history shorts like The River. Hop- ing Minneapolis enjoys it as New Orleans did. 50 The film was next shown in Memphis on November I and in St. Louis on November 10. Other cities on the schedule were Des Moines and St. Paul. The success of the river-city openings is revealed in excerpts from a brochure distributed by the Farm Security Administration: New Orleans State: This is a cinema which will live in your memory. It should make America sit up and take notice. New Orleans Times-Picayune: It is a story which concerns America and Mr. Lorentz has told it in a manner which will make America listen. New Orleans Item: The River is an extraordinarily well-done documentary film and is a worthy successor to The Plow That Broke the Plains. Memphis Commercial Appeal: . . . should thrill audiences everywhere, not merely because of the importance of its content, but also by virtue of the masterful manner in which its makers have dramatized the subject. Memphis Press-Scimitar: The River is more compelling and exciting drama than its predecessor. The Plow That Broke the Plains. St. Louis Post-Dispatch: An accom- plishment exceeding that of the previous picture, and a work of exceptional pic- torial quality. St. Louis Globe-Democrat: It is a film for the nation to see and ponder over and never forget. Des Moines Register: It is a splendid job. We recommend that people see it. St. Paul Dispatch: It is an extraordinary piece of work. 51 --------------------------------------------------------- 50: From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. 51 U.S. Farm Security Administration, "The River" [brochure], n.d. From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. ----------------------------------------------------------
The reviewer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch rated The River better than The Plow. He also foresaw that opponents of the New Deal would see it as New Deal propaganda, but pointed out that the picture had very little argument for any specific projeCt.52 Almost twenty-five minutes of the total twenty-nine in the film were devoted to photography of the Mississippi and its tributaries, industrial deve- lopment, the flood, and erosion. The River was inextricably tied up with politics from the time of its release. Two days before the Washington premiere, the political sig- nificance of the film was pointed out in the Washington Star: Just as The Plow ap- peared at a time when the Government was emphasizing the need of wide- spread soil conservation and relief for sharecroppers, so The River is released at a time when the Government is on a new quest. Pending before Congress is the Norris Bill proposing to create seven national authorities to build dams, abate floods, recreate farming, improve navigation—and generate powe r. The President advo- cated enactment of the legislation.53 The Washington premiere was held at the Rialto Theatre on December 7, 1937. Invitations were sent out by the secretary of agriculture. Lorentz attended, and must have been thrilled by the spontaneous and sustained round of applause that burst forth from the audience at the con- clusion of the film. The next day the Washington papers were full of praise: Washing- ton Post, Nelson B. Bell: In The River Pare Lorentz has produced a brilliantly illuminat- ing screen treatise upon the irresistible power for both good and evil of the Missis- sippi, father of waters. Washington Herald, Mabelle Jennings: The River proves mo- mentous film in Rialto preview. Washington Star, Jay Carmody: If you do not believe there is drama and poetry and excitement in the documentary motion picture, it can only be because you have not seen The River. The Washington Daily News praised the film but was concerned about the pro- paganda for the TVA at the end. In the edition of 82 November II, 1937. From the personal files of Pare Lorentz . 83 December 5, 1937 . From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. December 10, this paper reprinted Nelson B. Bell's review from the Post. A reviewer from the Christian Science Monitor also attended the Washington premiere: Official Washington had a thrill last night when it saw Pare Lorentz's second docu- mentary film with music. The River, prepared for the Farm Security Administration. In effect, the senses of the audience were assailed on three sides simultaneously as they looked at the picture. Some of the sequences are masterpieces of oblique suggestion, and all drive home the central philosophy or "propaganda," that it is man's denudation of the forests that has wrought the erosion and floods, and that what man has wrecked man can put together again . . . by TVA dams, let us say."* The first major city to book The River for an extended run was Chicago. Oliver Gris- wold, who had arranged the screenings at St. Louis and Memphis, worked out a special rotogravure Sunday section with Louis Rupple, managing editor of the Chicago Times. The material in this section was based on news coverage of the flood and the river -city premieres. Griswold arranged a confer- ence with executives of Ba- laban and Katz Theatres, showed the film, and told them of the publicity material prepared with Rupple. The officials agreed to book the film into the Apollo Theatre. As Griswold wrote, "The film sold itself. My job was just to get it before the right people."s5 Following the run at the Apollo, Joe Strut, of the Balaban and Katz Corporation, wrote to Griswold on December 15, 1937, quoting a memo from the Apollo Theatre: We are very pleased with the comments we are receiving on the government short. The River. Our audiences applaud it after every showing. During the last day or two we have received numerous calls on the telephone inquir- ing how long we are going to run it. Many of the inquiries are on the nature of people asking if we intend to show it in our outlying houses. ~ December 9, 1937. From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. 68 Letter from Oliver Griswold, December 10, 1963. In short, it is our belief that this subject has received more favorable comments than any short of this nature we have ever shown.ss During December, The River had a run at the Little Theatre in Washington, where applause was noted at every show- ing. An in- crease in business, instead of the usual slump during the Christmas shop- ping season, was noticed by the management. Before the film was released generally, many critics firmly endorsed The River and urged their readers to see the film. Gilbert Seldes wrote, "Nothing more useful to the entire industry can be accomplished than to force distributors to go outside their commercial contracts to show this icture."" After attending a preview of the film in New York, William Boehnel recommended that his readers see the film.58 The government had made the film available with- out charge to any theater owner who wanted to show it, but the film was still not enjoying wide distribution. The river-city campaign, the Washington premiere, and the Chicago run were beginning to arouse interest, but a national distribution con- tract was needed. Many exhibitors were still wary of showing a government film."" The River was spared the fate of being a film of merit that would rarely be seen. Para- mount Pictures agreed to distribute it. Lorentz completed negotiations with Para- mount Pictures and signed the contracts himself. Business Week reported that the film was available without charge, except for transportation charges from the Para- mount distribution centers in thirty-eight cities throughout the country."" Barney Balaban, chairman of the board of Paramount Pictures, must have been impressed with the film'? run in his chain in Chicago. The three-week run in Chicago, as well as bookings else- where, had proved that the film could draw cus- 56 Letter from Joe Strut, Balaban and Katz Corporation, to Oliver Griswold, Farm Security Administration, Documentary Film Section, December 15, 1937. From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. ? "The River," Scribner's, January, 1938, 42. 5S "New Film Tells Story of Floods," New York World-Telegram, January 29, 1938. From the personal files of Pare Lorentz. 89 "Movies: The Mississippi's 'Power for Good and Evil," Literary Digest, November 20,1937,34. ? "Federal Film Hit," Business Week, February 19, 1938, 36.
tomers, the only measure of merit that concerned exhibitors and distributors.
The first public showing of The River in New York was at Loew's Criterion on Febru-
ary 4, 1938. The companion on the bill, Scandal Street, lasted about a week, but
The River was held over.81 It ran five weeks in Boston at a first-run theater in Febru-
ary and March.
Lorentz had won a major distribution battle on the merits of his second film, but
Hollywood was going to withhold the welldeserved glory of an Academy Award.
When the list of nominees for the 1938 awards was released. The River was conspi-
cuous by its absence from the short-subject categories. The explanation was that
documentary films such as The River did not fit any of the existing categories, includ-
ing cartoons, black-and-white shorts up to a thousand feet, black-and-white shorts
up to three thousand feet, and color films of three thousand feet. The committee
did recommend that a new category for documentary and educational
pictures be established.B2
Lorentz received support from the Screen Directors Guild, the only professional film
organization he ever joined. The FSA announced a protest by the guild to the Aca-
demy of Motion Picture Arts and Science over the exclusion of The River from cons-
ideration for an award.e3 As Lorentz recalls, no one member was responsible, but
several of his friends, including Milestone and King Vidor, joined the protest.
Dean Jennings, a newspaperman who was working for the FSA and had officially
submitted the film, told Lorentz that all the producers of shorts, including Lorentz's
friend Walt Disney, objected to its inclusion on the grounds that the government
was competing with private industry. For this reason they did not allow the film even
to be screened in competition."* Although The River was denied an Oscar,
awards did come.
" Frank Nugent, "One Down, Two Doubled," New York Times,
February 13, 1938.
? " 'River' Omitted from Oscar Nominations," New York Times, February
7, 1938. «s "Protest Ban on Film," New York Times, March 10, 1938. 64
Letter from Pare Lorentz, April 5, 1962.
69
ˇˇ
ˇˇ