I’ve had somewhat of a break from this subreddit in the past week, but have recently uncovered a few more relevant books 📚 of HPL correspondence.

The difference is, CL Moore’s letters TO Lovecraft are here as well.

She comments on some of the same films that he does, and in further detail in some cases about films he dismissed. To wit, the following:

“You must be sure to see "Crusades" if you haven't already. Unquestionably it takes history by the forelock and leads it down paths it never trod before, but the result is really gorgeous. Like you, my sympathies were chiefly with the Saracens.

No matter if our blood forebears were on the other side—the civilization of the infidel was surely so much more closely related to our present one than that of the Crusaders that our sympathies would naturally be on the other side.

Which is a somewhat involved sentence, but I'm sure you follow me.

To quote RHB "Sentence obscure, but fraught with meaning". You should read Don[n] Byrne's book whose title I can't remember—all about a young Crusader captured by the Saracens and coming over to their point of view?

The whole idea of the Crusades was a dazzling one, but surely it was only the rank and file who went with the sole idea for rescuing Jerusalem?

I mean, though I know nothing at all about the politics of the era, it doesn't seem natural that the Kings of Christendom hadn't some ulterior motive.

"Berkeley Square" was splendid, wasn't it?

Saturday evening I found myself listening to a radio presentation of "The Amateur Gentleman" with Leslie Howard in the leading role, and got a great deal of pleasure out of just hearing the voices without paying much attention to what they were saying, and picturing the scenes of that lost and lovely world through which the characters moved.

“Clive of India"' was good too.

Wasn't it historically accurate? It made no attempt to maintain a plot or even the usual continuity of a movie romance, and I had supposed that the reason was that it was simply picking out the highlights of his career.

You must have had much satisfaction in your dream when you so efficiently snubbed Gen. Burgoyne. I'm glad to know he finally received his just desserts.

And speaking of movies, I saw "The Last Days of Pompeii" the other afternoon.

A good picture, but what impressed me most was a moment when Basil Rathbone as Pontius Pilate came out on a marble terrace in his purple-bordered toga, and I realized for the first time the sheer beauty and dignity of the Roman dress.

Funny that, though all my life I've seen similarly dressed men in countless drawings and photoplays, I never until that moment realized how infinitely superior the toga is to any masculine dress before or since in dignity and beauty.

What a pity that people ever got to buttoning their clothes instead of draping them.

Perhaps a mercy for the women, though, for unless one's dignified and matronly and of a definitely hefty build the garb of the Roman lady would be anything but becoming.”

This is TO Lovecraft rather than by him, as I expand the scope of this study to his contemporaries!

“By now you've probably, at long last, received the Charles Williams books along with the returned Dunsany and Merritt things.

I enjoyed "The Greater Trumps" and "Place of the Lion" tremendously, but for some reason went suddenly flat when I came to the third book and simply could not read it.

I envy the writer his ability to say exactly what he wants to say, in as great detail and just as obscurely as he pleases, without a single qualm about the lag in the motion of his story. I never read anything written with such utter disregard for the reader.

It seems to be written for his own pleasure and no one else's, with a sort of take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and it's surprising how reada-ble, after all, the books, are if you're in the mood for it and can keep yourself thoroughly submerged and read slowly and deeply enough to see what he's talking about.

I think that even then you could go back and reread the book several times, discovering new things, at every trial.”

In a few instances, Lovecraft describes ‘sex cinema’, but I don’t know what the Providence red light 🚦 district was like in the 1910s — just, I guess, that there WAS one.

I hope we can have a mature conversation about this as an instance of film technology in its early stages, and keeping in mind that HPL was very conservative in his values and experiences.

There is plenty of stuff to discuss regarding his basically being an incel, if you wanna put it that way, but at the very least he usually saw sex as a necessary animal activity and wanted not much to do with it.

To wit, in this quote:

“As to pornography—no Child, I don't believe you enjoy it! You've heard all the big boys praising it, and you think it's awfully grown-up and everything…

but I don't believe you like it for yourself any more than I used to like the tobacco I so assiduously smoked for effect before I put on long trousers.

There's nothing beautiful or artistick about it, any more than the idealisation of certain ultimate digestive processes would be; and its only value is extrinsick-as a necessity in the detail'd and realistick depiction of mankind in psychological fiction.

I am un-dogmatick enough to affirm that it hath no interest in itself, and that its apparent interest amongst the young is wholly factitious, and deriv'd from that curiosity which false education and unwise reticence impart.”

END QUOTE 🛑

That persnickety Providence-man, our Pepys-personage, Mr. HP Lovecraft, very often had read the books that films were based on.

For example, regarding the 1934 Lés Mìserablês: he didn’t enjoy the film, but reflects that that has more to do with Victor Hugo than the performances.

“The twisted heritage of Javert” and portrayal by Charles Laughton was laudable, but as per the precise quote, HPL’s beef 🥩 was with the source material more than the adaptation.

🪶🦑🪶🦑🪶🦑🪶🦑

Lés Misèrables (1935 viewing by HPL)

“I have read the curious cinema notes with keen interest even though my recent cinema attendance (beginning Jan. 1, 1935) has been limited to

"Don Quixote",

"Men of Aran",

"Unfinished Symphony" &

"Les Miserables.'

The principal trouble with the latter, I think, is the novel itself... rather than the film or the actors.

After all, it is 19th century stuff—with the coincidences, improbabilities, false motivations, sentimentalities, & other stigmata of the period.

The character of Javert certainly eclipses that of Valjean—& not wholly because of the superior actor, I think.

It is years since I read the novel, but I think the twisted heritage of Javert is in the original.

Laughton is really a tremendously clever & versatile performer.”

END OF QUOTE 🛑

Usually I’m trying for snippets and to separate his rambling into actual paragraphs, or highlight relevant parts.

It’s too early in the day and this just goes ONNNNN, so here’s the thing in all its questionable glory. 😂

“How in thunder can anybody—with the millionfold questions of the real cosmos pressing in upon his curiosity and mocking the tragically short instant he has for their solution—waste his few brief years in chewing pencils over framed-up anagrams and synthetick word-squares and puppet acrosticks?

Bridge, golf, baseball, and puzzles .....and this is what the neo-Americans call a civilisation!”

To JVS, Feb 4th, 1934

“I first saw a play at the age of 6. Later, when the cinema appeared as a separate institution (it had been part of Keith vaudeville since 1898 or 1899), I attended it often with other fellows, but never took it seriously.

By the time of the first cinema shows (March, 1906, in Providence) I knew too much of literature & drama not to recognise the utter & unrelieved hokum of the moving picture.

Still, I attended them—in the same spirit that I had read Nick Carter, Old King Brady, & Frank Reade in nickel-novel form. Escape
—relaxation.

It was not till later that I got fed up & no longer enjoyed such mentally juvenile performances.

The earliest "stars" I remember (their names weren't given till about '07 or 08) are Maurice Costello, Henry Walthall, Florence Turner, Hobart Bosworth, &c.

.....I recall many faces, too, without the corresponding names.

I think the subsequently famous Mary Pickford didn't appear till '08 or so. Of stage stars I saw most of the celebrated figures of the late '90's & early 1900's, though I most unfortunately missed Sir Henry Irving.”

This here represents over a decade and a half of scholarship — I’ve been working from volumes 1 & 3 since I acquired them for a song like 12 years ago ($25 per book).

The film 🎞️ connection was there at the start, cuz a letter of his regarding Charlie Chaplin (c. 1917 or so) caught my eye, but I didn’t really dive deeper until 2-3 months ago.

That’s when I went on the casual hunt for affordable copies of the remaining three books, and found the truly indispensable INDEX chapbook.

These volumes are impressive but unindexed, so this one book actually makes the others far easier to search with confidence.

NVM the cost of these four others, it was hard to find them for under $100 per. If you want to search for them, go for it — a full set is like $600, and collectively I got these for a fraction of that price.

More importantly: while these are being republished and in more affordable forms (wider print runs and somewhat better organization), the volumes I have gathered are some juicy firsthand content to examine. 😊😊😊

I hope y’all enjoy what I’m sharing, and to know that it’s the result of some major ongoing research and editorial discretion. I’m trying to stick to his cinema notes, but there’s a lot more and it’s too weird to not give further context on the dude.

Happy sunny 🌞 week, everyone!

Yr obsequious and irreverent svt,
L. Theobaldus the 3rd

Believe it or not, but HP Lovecraft was a huge film-nerd for his era. He was a fan of this quirky time-travel film, enough so to see it FOUR TIMES and to recommend it in letters to multiple friends.

However, he was also ruthless in nitpicking details when he saw plot holes, and there are two major ones in this film which you could drive a truck through once you notice them.

He wrote at length about these, and I’ve shared his long rant elsewhere; if y’all want, I’m happy to re-post it as a comment here, but his caveats were somewhat as follows:

1️⃣ if the future-traveler wrote a diary 📔 in 1783 to guide his future self, why doesn’t it read like something written by a 20th-century man?

AND

2️⃣ during the time that the main character is in 1783, what’s happening with the 1783-character who presumably is body-switched into the year 1933?????

Remarkably, BOTH of these issues arise in his story “The Shadow Out of Time” ⌛️. From context and timing, it is actually provable now that the film was the main inspiration behind that story. 🤯

It’s a fun flick, and worth checking out if you’re curious to know more and to see it enacted!

As usual, Lovecraft speaks clearly for himself, but here’s some context:

He won $25 in 1917 (which was a LOT at that time) for a review lambasting a recent film 🎞️ — there was a ‘best review’ contest, and he wrote FOUR PAGES about what a slipshod piece of garbage it was.

Tragically, I cannot yet locate this review itself, but the outline of it pretty clearly dismisses the film as overrated, inaccurate, mawkish, and altogether dull.

🪶🪶🪶🪶🪶🪶🪶🪶

“Last week a local emporium of amusement known as Fay's Theatre offered a cash prize of $25.00 for the best essay or review concerning a "feature picture" displayed by them—a widely advertised picture entitled The Image-Maker of Thebes (Thanhouse Pathé release.)

Having something of a critical nature, I resolved to witness the great five-reel film spectacle, & to participate in the competition. The picture was even poorer than I expected—a rough-hewn amateurish affair dealing with reincarnation in a pitifully feeble & hackneyed manner, containing not the slightest subtlety or technical skill in plot, directing, or acting. It was a hopeless relic of the time-honoured
“10-20-30" melodrama.

I gave up all hope of winning the prize, since I thought nothing but a favourable critique would be acceptable; but in a spirit of semi-humour I sent the management a genuine criticism covering four typewritten pages—an essay in my customary U.A.P.A. manner—which would, in colloquial parlance, be designated as a "roast"!

Imagine, then, my surprise at receiving yesterday a cheque for $25.00 as winner of the prize—a cheque accompanied by a letter of exceedingly flattering nature!! Which goes to show that the best method of eliciting praise from a motion-picture exhibitor is to ridicule, satirise, & condemn the pictures he displays!!”

Okey-doke, here’s the count for this single passage:

EIGHT named films, plus “included the following items”, indicating that there were other pictures but none worth writing home about.

This letter appears elsewhere in his correspondence books, so luckily it’s currently accessible (see the J. VERNON SHEA volume for more) for wider study.

This is being photographed from Volume 4 of the Selected Letters, of which there were ever only 5000 printed.

I hope y’all enjoy it, and the list.

Have you heard of any of these?

CLEOPATRA (1934) informal review by HPL:

“Yes I did see the "Cleopatra" cinema, agree that it was a marvelously fine spectacle. The Roman architectural backgrounds gave me a mighty kick-for as I may have mentioned, I have a devotion to classical Rome which amounts virtually to a sense of personal identification.

Contrary to your expectation, the Egyptian settings caused me many a groan despite my admiration of their intrinsic beauty & impressiveness.

How come?

Why, simply because they didn't belong in the Greek city of Alexandria! As a moment's reflection will remind you, the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt were Macedonian Greeks & nothing else but.

Alexandria was bult on previously unoccupied land in B.C. 332, at Alexander's orders & was laid out in the most sumptuous Greek fashion by the celebrated architect Dinocrates, who also repaired the damaged temple of Diana at Ephesus.

The court & army of the Ptolemies were Greek from start to finish—in language, costume, man. ners, & habits of thought; very few ideas being picked up from their native Egyptian subjects.

The folkways of the Egyptians were always respected, but were never copied. The Egyptians lived their own lives up the Nile, just as they had done in the days of their independence or under the Persian sa-traps-but Alexandria stayed purely Greek. Indeed, it soon became the virtual centre & intellectual capital of the Greek world.

There were, of course, many Egyptians in Alexandria—but they formed a subordinate element in a "native quarter" like the Chinese in Victoria, Hong-Kong, or the Hindoos in Calcutta.

To represent Cleopatra as an Egyptian queen in costume & setting is just as absurd as to represent a British viceroy of India in a rajah's turban & living in a Hindoo palace.

Alexandria & its ruling class were just as Greek as Athens or Corinth or Syracuse.

Hundreds of coins show the real appearance of Cleopatra—a Greek matron in coiffure & dress. If she ever put on Egyptian finery it was probably only once or twice a year to impress & flatter her subjects up the river.”

This one is cinema-tangential, it came up from the index but he could easily have used another public gathering spot to make the same point.

I’ve been sharing many of his brilliant insights, but this is another example of his being obsessively weird while claiming that other people were giving their kids “freaky names”.

He was a certifiable kook with a Capital K, and some of what I’m sharing now is for analysis of his character and mindset.

Do any of you have names on his hate-list, or know folks who do?