FILM FILM - University of Macau Library

28 Transition and Transformation
tiation between individuals in the Scandinavian or European colony, is provided
by the issue of language; an issue which also has its bearings upon the
press debates and the reception of the films. In the 1920s, English had not yet
become the lingua franca that it is today, and the change to another working
language did provide considerable difficulties for many Hollywood immigrants.
This, of course, particularly concerned the actors after the change to
sound, a matter which will be dealt with in the chapter on A Lady to Love. But
already during the silent era, film workers who did not master the English language
caused some debate – as when scriptwriter Frances Marion noted the fact
that “the leading man chosen to play the Puritan minister [in Sjöström’s The
Scarlet Letter] was also a Swede who did not speak a word of English” –a
fact that she thought to be “even more curious, especially to anyone outside our
bewildering medium” than the fact that the director was Swedish. 2 Sjöström,
though, had a distinctive advantage compared to many other Europeans in this
linguistic transfer, as he had actually already spent no less than thirteen years in
New York, from age 1 to 14. Thus, he already had mastery of his new working
language. But, above the individual level, the linguistic circulation initiated by
this import of European directors to Hollywood also contained many other potential
problems, where whole film projects seem to have run the risk of getting
lost in translation. 3
Thus, however, the statement by Hjalmar Bergman – who returned to Sweden
after only a few unhappy months as part of this Scandinavian colony – in
his literary allegory of Hollywood, Jac the Clown, has often been generalized as
something that would include Sjöström as well, not least as he had extensive
experience in the theatre, in this circus allegory called “the arena”:
The arena is a short-lived meeting place for people from both sides of the barrier.
That’s where the movie falls short. Who loves or hates a moving picture rather than a
life-and-blood human being? As clever as they may be, these screen comedians remain
lifeless and hollow – they’re stuck in place, can’t even break their necks. A movie
screen is a poor substitute for real life. 4
This quotation seems to include a general pessimistic statement on cinema as
such and its possibilities to render the truth of life, rather than on the specific
production culture in Hollywood. Relevant as it may be for understanding the
outsider position that the Europeans may have suffered, it thus still seems less
valid as evidence of the particular change from Sjöström to Seastrom. Here, the
question is not so much related to the dichotomy between real life and movie
screen as to the possibilities to remain true – or not – within the new system to a
specific, artistic vision, in this case already clearly expressed during Sjöström’s
Swedish years through their distinctive stylistic character.