Ca ae) 10 Fol) Pp Cay Ree ur a ColeFrom Sennett to Stevens: An Interview with William Hornbeck KristIN THOMPSON AND Davip BorDWELL Introduction William Hornbeck was born in 1901 in Los Angeles. He lived at his mother’s hotel next door to the studios of the Keystone Company, where he got a job in 1916. His various early duties involved winding and processing film in the studio laboratory; later he worked in the drying room, as a printer, and as @ projectionist. In 1917, World War I siphoned away much of the company's eligible manpower; Hornbeck, being too young for the draft, moved into the editing department. In June of thae vyeat, Mack Sennett left Keystone to form his own company, Mack Sennett Comedies, taking Hornbeck and much ofthe rest of the company’s personnel with hin. By about 1922, Hornbeck was in charge of the editing department, and he remained in that position une 1933, when Sennett went out of filmmaking for a few years. A complete filmography for Hornbeck’s Keystone/Sennett period would be difficult, if not impossible, co compile, since, as supervising editor, he would have done varying degrees of work on every film pur out y the Sennett studio,” ‘Afier leaving Sennett, Hornbeck worked as Alexander Korda's supervising editor in England until Korda’s move t0 Hollywood in 1942. Among the films he worked on most extensively during this period were The Scarlet Pimpemel (1935), Sanders of the River (1935), Elephant Boy (1937), The Drum (1938), The Four Feathers (1939), That Hamilton Woman (1941), Lydia (1941), and The Jungle Book (1942). For the remainder of World War Il, Hornbeck went into the U.S. Army Pictorial Service, a branch ‘of the Signal Comps; his editing work there included the “Why We Fight” series produced by Frank Capra. This connection led ‘him eo Liberty Films after the war, where he edited Ie's a Wonderful Life (1946) for Capra, ‘When Paramount bought Liberty Films in May 1947, Hornbeck moved over to work on a number of films at that studio, During these years, he continued his association with Capra and worked closely wich George Stevens and Joseph Mankiewice He won an Academy Award for A Place in the Sun. His main films of the postwar period were: Singapore (director, John Brahm, released by Universal in 1947), State of the Union (Capra, MGM, 1948), The Heiress (William Wyler, Paramount, 1949), Riding High (Capra, Paramount, 1950), A Place inthe Sun Stevens, Paramount, 1951), Something to Live For (Stevens, Paramount, 1952), Shane (Stevens, Paramount, 1953), The Barefoot Contessa (Mankiewicz, United Artists, 1954), Giant (Stevens, Warner Bros., 1956}, 1 Wane to Live! (Robert Wise, United Artists, 1958), The Quiet American (Mankiewicz, United Actists, 1958), A Hole in the Head (Capra, United Artists, 1959), and Suddenly Last Summer (Mankiewice, Columbia, 1960), Hornbeck was negotiating for a job with Universal in 1960 when the studio was working on Spartacus. He was hired to help with the editing of the film and was made a vice-president in charge of editorial operations. He remained there for 16 years, editing only afew sequences and never appearing in the credits of films. He retired in 1976. ‘This interview was conducted on 9 July 1980, in Hornbeck’s home in Southern. terviewing: he has fine memory concerning many things we asked, and in the few cases when. proved an excellent subject fo fornia. In every case, Mr. Hornbeck he didn’t remember something, he tld us 50, not crying to fill in with aneedotes oF call up vague information, We thank him for his kind cooperation in both the recording and publication of this interview. The Silent Cinema [We began by asking Mr. Hornbeck about his early work at Mack ‘Sennett Comedies WH: In the early days, we still made a one-reel picture every day, every weekday. On Saeurday, we had a rwo-rel picture. That ‘meant six pictures, and when I became head editor there [used to ‘work on all of those films. We hed assiscants that would get che film ineo pretty good shape, and then I would just give i lite polishing touches and offie would go. They had 30 companies shooting, 30 dlifferene units in order to keep up that kind ofa schedule, : Could you tell us what the different duties were for various people? How many assistants there would be and, how the jobs were broken down? WH: They had about five editors, when Fist went there, and then about as many assistants, co do the splicing for erch editor. And the same editors that did che positive cutting had to do the negative cutting. Thacwas always a very interesting ching. We didn’t have key numbers of anything to identity your scene. All we had were scene numbers, We'd put them up infront ofa light board and all the scenes would be shown so when you were cutting the negative ‘you'd pick out che shots you wanted and then you'd have co match it frame by frame by action. Ifehere was very litle action in the scene it was quite dificult. Key numbers didn’t come into use until the twenties, somewhere, 25, 24 Q:So you were using slates or something at that time. ‘WH: Yes, they had slates a the beginning ofeach scene, and atthe‘Willam Hornbeck, chie editor, in the editing toom of the Sennett Studios in Ederdale, 1920. (photo courtesy Mare Wanamaker, ‘end of the scene the cameraman would use a sign with his fingers, whether the scene was an OK scene or an NG [No Good] scene Q Did they print up all those takes? ‘WHE: No, the cameraman himself would develop the film during the night and break the negative down the next morning. He would come i, and each cameraman would have his own fil, and | remember he'd put some white gloves on, and pull his film down, and sometimes a scene might have been marked NG and later the director would sey, “Wel, you know chat scene wasn 100 bad, lt’ (OK ie” So the eameraman would have to keep a running memory of that, whether some marked NG would be OK. He'd be che only tone chat would know. They didn't keep records or reports or anything like that. The only record they kept was the how much film chey'd used thae day and how much off was short ends, The ‘cameraman had to do his own loading of his camera in the morning, carry his own cameras he set it up. ‘Q:So he'd come in, and in the dark he'd presumably have to cut apart the camera negative. WH: No, it would be developed, you see. Then he wouldn'c have to bein thedark. The next morning he'd have his developed film, and he'd pick out the NGs, and he'd put the NGs in one setion and the print in another section. Then [as an assistant would splice all those OK pieces together and send them ro the printing room, The NGs we would store in a box. Each company, each production, ‘company would have its own box of NGs, and t often would have topull the NGs again, to find something that hopefully would be beter than the scene they had printed. That happened a lot, for various reasons. They'd say, “Well, look, cheres a litle piece ofthat scene that'd be good,” so we'd search through. All that would be done by hand and by memory; there were no records kept of how many NGs there were and how many OKs there were, {Q: So editors each had an assistant. I've heard the terms ‘supervising: that period. WH: That was what [ became, the supervising editor, and I would finish the picrures off. 1don's think all studios did that, but this ‘company, because it had so much film, so many different pictures working, had w have someone to work them up to that tap editor. Q: When you started out as an assistant editor, how would you learn—not so much how to do the physical splicing, because that was obviously pretty easy to learn—but how would you learn the basic ways of putting shots together? How would you judge where to cut? WH: Well when Iwasa projections, i was quite easy. Tkepe watching and each eunthrough Ud see what had been done tothe film, I would lear from the others that were ahead of me. Tcan femember when T was eransferred toa printing room, that happened 1tnext tothe projection room, so Tbored a litle hole in the and I could see clenrly when they were sunning the film. 1 rand “master cutter” use know pretty well—you know, Iwas only 17 years old, you're very anxious and you learn so rapidly. Many times I'd get talking to some ofthe editors, and Td know quite alot about theie films, and they wondered how Lid that. They never caught on that had this litle hole and thar Icould watch each run. Td know that they'd changed a certain thing. Q: Presumably one of the things you were watching for as an editor was to avoid breaks in continuity. What were the kinds of things that you would consider a break in continuity: changes in costume or in sereen directi ike? WH: IF someone had a wrong costume on, what'ee you going to do Wn or the about it? Well, you'd have co retake it or eut to something else and hope that the audience dida’t notice that there was a change when you came hack. I've never run into that. Oh] guess you'd have the exit the wrong way, but you'd have to assume that the camera was ‘on the other side, Tran.into that with Alexander Korda. Lused to ‘complain that he would shoot everything from ane angle, and suddenly he'd go ro the other side and shoot a close-up, and I always objected to that, He didn’ mind: he said, “The audience has to know the camera went on the other side.” Q: But that was considered a mistake? Whi: He didn't consider ica mistake. I wouldn't have done i if hed been directing; would always be careful in geting around. Ud go swadually atound, rather than jut ditece reverse, Direct reverse we considered confusing. Today I don't think they worry about it much; it’s considered artiste, Lwould ay. Q: But in 1917 would they have been worried about that sortof thing? WH: They were pretey careful in 1917, tobe sure that everything. was imple so that you'd underetand it very well. Q: Was there any particular way that you would solve a problem? Say you've got a couple of shots that need to go. together, and yet the person was moving in the opposite direction in the second shot. Was there anything you could do about it, or did you just edit it together? WH: Wel, you'd try to get a movement that would excuse it,» tuen ‘of ahead or something, or there were various tricks that you would ty. You'd goto. closer shot ora longer shot. Oh, there's dozens of asthings thae you could devise. Make an insert even; if they were handling something, put an inert i. Q: One article I read claimed that it was possible to flip the ative over, 60 that in the second shot the person was ing in the correct direction, WH: Yes. You would have o be cereful sbour hair-combs and be sure that there wast a design on one arm that wasn't on the ather, You had to be very careful, But often, ifthere was no identification toshow that everything was lefthanded instead of righthanded, you could doi Q: Or no signs with lettering in the reverse, of something, like that. WH: Yes, that's the thing thar you'd have to guard against the idea that the audience should always be oriented to stay on ane side of the action unless you got them across gradually? Did it have aname then? WH: No tha such a new business that wwe didn't realize that it would realy become so important and remember, no. Wew artistic as eis today Q: Itseems that even though you didn’thave a name for it you did intuitively recognize that the audience could be pretty stabilized about where everything was happening. WH. Yes, well, I chink we tied to make i as eany to understand as le, so you're not going to confuse rhe audience. You member they used to always have complete exits and entrances, If you're going to go from here corown, why, they would very nese have to have you in an aurome ncher and not even use a dissolve any more. We ile of whatever, Today you just go hey were very hard to make in those days ida’ have the expert films we have today ives, We use the internegia ‘ives and youl can tell the orginal from the dupe. Bue in those days we had to be very careful making dupes, because they “The grain got larger on each change Q: If dupes were so difficult, would outtakes, or second choice takes, be used for trailers? WH: That's whae we'd do with the NGs, you ge, we'd nowr look in ‘che NG negatives and maybe there wasa lie section chat would be perfect fora trailer. We alo mace a foreign version, so we'd always es for that. That's in che ver early days'And on a dlficule scene, a scene that they knew they couldn't get a second time, we'd have two and three cameras on it, Of course, there ie was very easy to have out foreign version. But for other shots, we'd have cotakethe NG take. Beingsilent, why chere wasn’t any dialogue to The eaiting staf ofthe Sennett studios, Studio City, 1929. From left to right: George Barto [assistant editor), Bob Crandall (editor, Olve Hoffman 36 {negative cutter, Malcolm Knight feditan, Willa Hombeck Gupervising editor, Bill Harris (projections) and Franels Lyon (edits (photo counesy‘worry about, so long as the action was clear, we used that. Ie would QVve also read that during the twenties there would be ‘multiple cameras on the sets, not only to shoot the foreign negatives, but sometimes just in order to get hetter matches. WH: Capra did that e loc. He did it on films up into the ites. He liked that because then he wouldn't have to shoot the scene as many Q: His Harry Langdon films look like he did that. WH: Yes he liked to do thae. Ie wasn't for matching purposes, ie was justo save time. As ong as you had good lenses that would pick it up. Lighting sufered, you se; you couldn light for close-ups a8 wel as you would have normally, but Capra loved ic because i saved Q: He's also a very actor-oriented director, I suppose, and if he felt the scene was going well, he probably wouldn't want to break itup, and, say, get into a closer shot. WH: Some actors cant pick up and get into the scene very wel, soif ‘you runicall che way through, you've really gor che fel of the scene Q: So it was considered worth using the extra film in order to save time. ‘WH: Yes, film isnt the greatest cost when you come down cot, tunes it’s cheap film. If it's an expensive film, that's a minor cost Q: Presumably as the twenties went on, you as an editor would have more and more film available to you to choose from. WH: Gradually we started using more film, yes Q: In the thirties, it seems that a director would have always taken a master scene, that is, have the whole scene played ‘out in long shot or the establishing shot. Then the director ‘would have the east redo parts of the scene for the closer shots. Was that very common in the twenties? WH: With Capra it was, He would always try, the last thing of the day, co shoot the master scene for the next day. And that way he ‘could see that scene the next morning—ie would be developed during the nighe-—and he would look at it. Now he'd know exactly where he wanted co make his shots, his close shots. Maybe i saved him an awful lor of time; he sad, “Well, we don'e need close shots for any of this early par; we only need i there.” He loved that way of planning. And sometimes he'd change; sometimes if che scene ‘was not good, he could reshoot that master shot. He had several choices that way. Q: Was he unusual in the twenties, to do that? WH: Yes Q: gather your editing equipment was fairly primitive, too. WH: Especially because you had to grind your camera by hand, and we didn’t have splicing machines; we didn’t have any of the clectronic things that we have today for developing and printing. EEveryching ws done by eye. Q: At what point did you get some sort of viewing machines or Moviolas? WH: The first Moviola—I think [had the first one built. Oh, in the ‘wentiesyometime, It wasa litle tiny thing, but you could enlarge the film. You know, alorof the boys didn't like it; we used to work the film through out hand in front of light. It helped a lot eo do that. You got your timing that way. The Moviola had an, intermittent movernent. Butt was terribly noisy. Of course, then wwe dida’t have sound, oie didn’t mateer.! Q: Do you remember when editors started get films? WH: I started in 1922, Tbelieve. Lhave frames of tny old early credits, Iwasso excited about it, that [saved the frame of my cre. Kevin Brownlow has a collection of my old pictures, the old Keystone comedies, and none of those pictures had eredits on them, because whoever he bought them fram didn't want him to know wgeredits on where they came from, I guess. Wel, loaned him my tele frames, and he put the credits back om them, Q: You mentioned key numbers and that they weren’tin use until around '24 or'25. Now, by key numbers you mean edge numbering?” WH: That's ight. You see, in the printers thet they used in those clays, contact was very importent. In order to print the key number, even ifi¢ were on the negative, you'd have to have alte soe in che printer so that che light would shine through and print the key ‘number onto the positive. Well the lb people had a feeling that cutting thac tle strip in the printer would lose some ofthe contact and che cene might be aie our of focus. They wouldn't prine efor ‘many years; you had it on the negative, but they wouldn't print it through. So that was rwo or ehree years that we battled and batted, and finally we goe them to agree that they could print the key ‘numbers for us. Iewas an awful battle. ‘And then, too, we were using a film that wasn’ allowed to ute tI don’t know it was Agfa, or some foreign film, but they weren't allowed to use the key number, When they did use it, they used @ printing process on the negative. Well, you could ell che danger of ‘hat, having an ink put on your film before photographing, You Ihave thes litte smears and things. The company finally had to bandon that; don't know how they finally gor permission to use the same exposure method that Eastman used. Iewas probably something that they found they coulda’t patent—a method of exposure. Tan remember the details, but know we did have trouble with, the printing method, printing iron the negative instead of exposing icon, Then alt of cameramen would object to this exposing ie on the film, They claimed that there wae a chance of fogging the film when those litle chings were being exposed on the raw fil, and guess they had an argument chere. They sad, "Supposing this light didn’t work, and you exposed, you wouldn't know ituntil after you'd shot your valuable scene. There's great danger of that.” Q: That's interesting, because I had assumed that once edge ‘pumbering came in on negative, it was a simple matter. WH: No, ewas along time before all companies would use it, | know our company wouldn't use for along time, beeause they thoughs there was too great a danger of the concact being bad on the prince. Q: Did you often go sce your own movies projected at theaters? WH: Yes. Sennett had his own cheater, so was always there, listening tothe audience, and sometimes we'd change the picture ‘even after it had opened. Q: So it functioned as a preview. WH. ln the silent days you could do that, you'd just rake the rel hhome, orto the studio, change it, and bring it back. We had a couple of hours in between. {don’t know if other studios did that, Dbucwe did. Weld listen tothe audience and get reactions, and somebody would be yavvning, wesaid we'd better improve that, so we'd cut the scene out, maybe. Q: Would you have done that right through the twenties? WH: That was during the ewenties, yes, at she Mission Theatre, The Sound Period WH: Well, that wasa whole new ballgame, Now you had to be ‘course the frst sound pictures were prety rough, too. ‘You couldn't put music in after shooting; you didn't know how ¢o ‘ix your music and sound, On our ist pictures, if there wes supposed tobe mus inthe scene, we hed to put righ in when we Q: An offscreen orchestra or piano or whatever? WH: Yes, Then it would be diftewle to cut, because you had to have things match, and they had somerimes two, chree cameras. Ifyou 7were going to shoot par of ascene in this room and pare in the next room, they'd have to have a camera running the whole time hete and the whole time there, 0 that it would match, The technicians that came from RCA and the sound people said, “Oh, you can cut, you can't make 9cutin at all.” So the fst couple of films ie was just miserable. But we learned then we could cur. Sennett used to get us into a conference, and say, "Look, you fellows have to learn howto do this.” Talways said, "Wel, the engineers from RCA sty you can’t." He said, "The bell with that.” We'd come in on Sundey and fool with their equipment, and he authorized ic, and he sad, "Look, I don't care f they object co your doing it. ‘We even dubbed afl one time; actually, we didn'e dub it—we wanted to mix some music in a scene, so we got the idea of running two projection machines and having both machines with the loudest sound coming out ofthe horns. And we recorded that. Ie was very bad, ofcourse che quality was terrible. Bue we did that one Sunday, all ofus had watched or turned the knobs, and we ran it for Sennett, and he was delighted. He snd, "Now, you ee, the engineers said you couldn't mix sounds.” And heran this for them, and of course they knew what we'd done. They said, “Well, the quality's no good, you can'c use that.” And he said, "Never mind, now these kids got in there and they dd this; now it's up e yo fellows to get the They sid, “Well, we always knew how to do that.” He ssid, "Tdon’t care, you said we couldn doit.” And by golly, they ‘came up with a way to doit. Instead of through a projection machine, you do it through recorders and finally got dubbing started, But it mast have been a year before we got them to agree it ould be done. So that was the way it was, n the early days, too, Weld run into obstacles and we'd fool around ail we found something that would work. Q: When sound came in, did it affect your sense of timing? WH: Yes, icchanged a lor. Iewas hard to ge used to, because now you'd be forced ro change, frst hecause of matching dialogue, and then allowing for sound effeces and sa forth. You had to chanae; it was rather surprising, and you had to adjust toi ‘Q: In your mind, did you have any sort of practice about, when two people are talking in a shotireverse-shot conver- tion situation—would you prefer to cut after Player A had finished his sentence? WH: There's no rule there, no. You find our, when is that starting tosink in on the other person, when isthe other person supposed t0 react? Ic could be right in the middle of a sencence But you'd go for the reaction? WH: The question is: when am L anxious to see what this person is thinking of? Butifyou use a definice rule, that the dialogue muse finish think you'r asking a whole lt. Q Itscems that many editors would cut to the person listening just before the first person was done speaking—a couple of syllables or words before the end of the speech, WH: Yes, some of them lec it overlap alittle. Ithink chat would be proper if you're going to use chat rule o end. Always eave alittle bit of ail over—just like a door slam. Ifthe door start to g0, yout don’t wait or the door to completely sam, you get your next scene ‘working and you hear the door slamming. Thats going to give you beceer tempo. Q: Buras far as your choices were concerned, you would then fel where the reaction ofthe listener was most importane? WH: When you think, "Now we ought to see what that person's eyes ae looking like—are they getting anything out of it?” Maybe the scene doesn’t require that. Then you would end on your Phrases. And then you know, later on you might stat alitele sound inthe nexe scene. Even voiees, sometimes, come in before the next scene, I'm not fond of chat Q: Me neither. WH: I hink Iwas one ofthe frst that ried i, though, in a picture 28 called I Want to Live! We didn't do ie with dilogue, but we did it with the sound of the next scene coming in, and realy didn’ like it, but the director insisted that i was something that was going to bbe used alot, and he had the foresighton it-it has been used. But Ym not fond oft, especially when ie goes in two or three feet. 1 think that's very istating. Q: You said that when you shot with multiple cameras, ‘you'd have to take the whole scene, and the technicians said that you couldn't cut at all. What was the main problem? WH: The problem was when you did cut chere was an awful sound-it would go “bang,” you know. Well, then we devised lle ‘ciangular pieces of paper which stick on where the splice was {bloops), and the sound literally would go up and down. Ie would ‘only make a puff and we lived wich that for quite a while. Then we gotthe airbrush. That still had alittle puffon it. Ie was quite a while, till they had the push-pull sound. Then that eliminated your splice troubles.” Q: Did anyone at any point conceive of just shooting a scene ‘one camera and just go all the way through? Most directors wanted the freedom that cutting would give, even. if they had to use more than one camera? WH: We always used a least ewo cameras cn it, ou know, to get close. We were told we couldn't cut, s0 if we'd go toa close-up, we'd have the ange, Q: There wasn't much moving camera in those days? WH: No, very little moving camers. They did it occasionally ‘They'd have to geca crack built. Ie was lot of trouble, you know Q: Did moving camera shots pose different problems for an, editor? WH: Well, 've heard editors say you couldn't cut while the comers’ roving. I've always cut when the camera's moving, I've never leit bother me. Thad a director once, Joe Mankiewice, he said, “Well, made a scene today that you can't handle.” Sowe ran it, and when, the seenes were over, Issid, "What do you mean, I can't handle it?” ‘And he said, “Well, you cut it and you'll nd out.” So lcut the scene together, and ran it for him the next night, And he sid, “Well, for God's sake, it worked!” And [sil didn’t know what he was talking about. He said, “You know, Ihave an editor at Fox, and she told me you never can cut on a moving camera,” Well, i isn't 30 atl Iedepends on whee you cut. You cant cut ansuhere ne ‘moving camera, But he wa so delighted; he sai, "Wel learned something now.” But couldn’ understand wha he cane, Some articles on filmmaking claim in particular that on a ‘rackingin or-out, you can’teut; you get tou much ofa iar WH:Oh, not so, nots at al. you get the ight ation, you can cat. The audience are not watching the camera move, theyve watching the players. You can'edoiallehe time, Ard Mentiewice was sure that he was going to have ete Q: Some technical articles have said that editors would sometimes have trouble ifa cameraman, say, had shot long shot and then went in fora closer shot. Most cameramen would want to diffuse, especially ifie was a woman, and there'd bea gap. Can you cut froma longshot thats very crisp toa closer shot that’s very soft? \WH: Well you would ike to, but there agai, I would say that she rule was you couldnt dot. You'd ther nce snare ra of oft, but how else are you going to doit) Youve ongeocaner some pon so ied be beter to cu fom a stright sleet she penon that doesn’ have the dfsion to the other one = if you'd have your long shot of aman and a woman, You could cutfirsin tothe ma WHE Thacisn’e quiteso bad. Ido ifs ching. ‘Q You run across references by people writing duting the ‘are r00 much about the heavy,“The simple editing equipment ofthe mmid.1920s: 2 splicet, fm cement, sicel straightedge guide, razor blade, and sisors rom Herbert. Mckay, Tit Hinoaoae oF Motion Prcruse_Phorocaaris, NewYork Falk, 1930s and 1940s, in maga: about points like this. Given twa shots, let's say: a mat siting nes like American Cinematographer, down to play the piano you have your long shot and you have a ‘medium shot, and his tails of his coat flip out a he sts down. Some editors would say it was considered a very slick cut, oct asthe tails were flipping; but other editors would aay, no, cut before the action, or cut ater the action. WH: wouldn't possibly do ie. To me it would give away yous cctting ability, if you had to rely on that sort of match. Maybe you'd have to, ifthere were naother place that you could match it Bur | would never rely on that. My first point would be to find a comfortable place where the audience wouldn't notice the ewe. 1 would run iton a Moviols, and Id fel where the eut had to come. 1 detest wheve someone starts to turn in shot, and they pick it up from another angle—I detest that. I've done it because there was m0 ‘other place to doit, ut would guard against that, because now | notice the cut, and Td much rather change on a spot where you wouldn't be aware ofeheflm being cut, the audience, afer they've seen a movie, say, “Well, I dida’t see any cuts in the picture,” that's perfectly cur picture. IFyou've noticed cuts, that wasn't ae good ase should be Q The viewer's attention is deflected from the story? WH: If you didn notice the muse in a picture, the musi dida’e dlseace from the film. Ifall you keep on saying is,“Wasn't the music wonderful," well, whee about the picture, wasn't that any good? Ie's combination ofall things, bur T've heard so many people say, "Oh Tehouhethae music was eres," and Tsay, "What about ehe story?" The perfect movie would be; “Well, ved the picture, and I didn't notice the music I didn’t notice the «ute, didn't notice the photography, ie was st fine.” And that's a nice fli Q: Did you notice in the early fifties any trend towards onger takes? WH: Stevens liked long takes, yes. Cepra didn'e. Well, Copa liked them, but he woutd cut inta them. But Stevens would ie things Q: If you did the dissolves in Stevens’ films, you have the reputation of having the slowest dissolves in Hollywood, WH: Yes, Iwas famous for those dssolves--30., 40 oot disclves, Q: Did he say why he wanted to do that? ‘Welle was allright. WH: We fooled with it together, and [think I accidentally ot one. [ think I ordered it 10fo0t, which was a long dissolve, and it came out 100 feet, Because someone had gotten the papers mixed up, and he said, “What are you trying codo there?” And [ssid "Wel, i's @ mistake," but Isai, “e's fairly inceresting." So he said, “Let's ery it, ‘not at 100 feet e's try it at 30 fer and see what happens.” OF ‘course it gave us an excuse to have music for an incoming scene. Q:Ir’samood-setter, ina way? ‘WH: Yes, it was fine. Ip that particular piceute [A Place in the Sua it worked wel. The courtroom scene was one ofthe best anes, you know. When you saw the court coming in, yous know he was going, ogo to tril [The conversation moved on to rapid editing] WH: Liried tin A Place inthe Sun one time, near the end af che Picture. We worked and worked on itor along time. Ifyou remember the film, Monty Clift was electrocuted at the end, and. Stevens and 1 worked on this lot, We thought, "What the heck 00s through a person's mind when they know they’te going to be killed?" And he choughe, woulda’eit be an idea if we could get in this fash, when we know the juice is coming, f his whole ife flashed for him in one mint "08 one second. So we made up a lice 20eeond piece of all the things that had happened during the ‘movie, hoping that i might develop into something. But we worked tonit and we worked om it for weeks and never could get eto gel Q: That's very short, 20 seconds. WH: I don’t know ifthe audience would have known what we were tying, and then the studio were getting very irritated with us for ‘aking so much time cutting the film. They said, “Look, you fellows can play with the film aftr ie’ released.” (Laughter) They wanted to start getting some money out o Notes "A Sennetefimography for both the Keystone and Sennett studios is available in Davie Turcon's Mack Sennett (Cinema d'aujourdlhan series, Paris: Editions Seghers, 1966), This interview was concucted as pare of the research for a book the authors have written in collaboration with Janet Seager: The Clasial Holtwod Cinema Flr Syl ane Mode of Praduction to 1960 \orthcoming rom Routledge & Kegan Paul) ‘The biographic summary wae written from material in Kevin 39Brownlow’s The Parade's Gone By (New York: Knopf, 1969), which ‘contains an interview with Hornbeck on 9p.307-11; Ephraim Kats, ‘The Film Encyclopedia (New York: Crowell, 1979), Fm Daily ‘Yearbooks and from material povided by William Hornbeck in the course ofthe interview ‘We are graceful to Mare Wanamaker, ofthe Bison Archives in Los Angeles, for putting usin touch with Mr, Hornbeck, and for providing the sil which illusrate the aril A note on terminology. During the silent periad, she word "scene! was used for what would later be termed a “shot.” Practitioners who hbegan their careers a that poine tend co retain this usage; ehus when, Mr. Hornbeck uses the word "scene" in tis interview, he usually means “shot From the early tens, when many of the American film companies established their European branch offices, filming usually took place with two cameras operating side by sie; the second provided the forcign negative. As Hornbeck says, this was because duplicating the negative produced an unacceptable copy. In 1927, Eastman incroduced its Duplicating Film, which cliainated this problem. (1 Crabtree, "The Motion Picture Laboratory,” Journal ofthe Society of Motion Pictre Engineers, 64, No.1 January 1935) pp.21-22) “Hornbeck is almost certainly not referring here roa "Moviol!” as such, but to a Moviolastyle viewer improvised in che Sennett studio. Before the standardization ofthe Moviola across the industry inthe mid-1920s, editing staffs occasionally improvised their own viewers by removing the heads of old projectors in order touse the intermiveent mechanism. In his interview with Brownlow, William Hornbeck n 1970 (photo courtesy American Cinema Eto) Hombeck says: “We constructed «sore of Moviolain 1921, but it was very crude and teribly noisy." (p.309) Iwan Serturer, inventor of the Moviola, sold the first few copies of an early model to the Faicbanks, Pickford, and Universal stacos in September 1924, and began manufacturing the Movil Midget in NNovenher. The Midget quickly became heindsty andar Eari Theisen, “The Story of the Mavioa,” Interna 7, No.10 (November 1935), p.4; and Mork Sereurie, the Moviola,”Jouraal of the Sait) of Motion Picture anc Engineers, 75 No.7 (uly 1966), ».702.) "Enseman Kodak introduced edge numbering an its negative film szock in 1919. (Carl L, Gregory and GJ. Badgley, “Attachments to Professional Cinematograph Cameras,” Transactions of the Sactsy of Motion Picture Engincers, No.8 (14-16 Apeil 1919), p.83,) In 19M, sound engineers developed the “push-pull” recoeding process by splitting the standard crack into two narrower ones and putting half ofeach wave on ane track and halfon the other. Gn vatiabledensty tacks, the waves wete splitso thata ‘asoppostea “pov” onc on variable area racks, a wv peak was opposite a wave valley. Because the tracks were [80° out of Phase, push-pull sound tended to cancel distortions introduced by Tab work and splicing; it alsa increased soundtracks. (See Frank T. Jarney, Je" The Push-Pull Sound Recording and Reproducing System,” International Projections, 12, Not (April 1937), pp.19-20, 23.30; and Watson Jones, “Standard ‘nd Push Pull Soundtrack,” International Photozapher, 11, No.6 Guly 1939), pp. 1-12) volume range of|