Vintage Viewing: Marion E. Wong, Energetic Entrepreneur

What is certain is that, while ultimately upholding the value of family and of traditional culture, ‘The Curse of Quon Gwon’ gives vivid expression to the frustrations of women within those rigid norms, doing so with a cinematic language of the female gaze that centers female perspectives.

Marion_Evelyn_Wong

Written by Brigit McCone, this post is part of Vintage Viewing, our series exploring the work of women filmmaking pioneers. It also appears as part of our theme week on Women Directors, Part 2.


When considering the ethnographic films of Zora Neale Hurston, as one of the few surviving remnants of early cinema to be directed by a woman of color, I discussed the doubly distorted image of themselves that such women confronted, in a culture without their authorship. At the same time, the article surveyed the significant numbers who were recorded as making films that have not survived, with the intersection of racism and sexism placing obstacles in their path at every stage from financing to distribution to preservation. One of the most energetic women to struggle to fully author her own uncompromising vision, the first Chinese American director, as well as among the earliest female directors, was Marion E. Wong.

Wong founded the Mandarin Film Company (the first Chinese American film company) with ambitious plans to create non-stereotypical images of Chinese Americans, assuming, perhaps naively, that the American appetite for exoticized images of East Asia would make them even more eager to see authentic content. She shared with the Oakland Tribune that she wanted to “introduce to the world Chinese motion pictures with ‘some of the customs and manners of China.’” Mandarin Film Company was practically a one-woman show, with Wong serving as screenwriter, director, supporting actress, and costume designer on their only feature film, 1916’s The Curse of Quon Gwon: Where the Far East Mingles with the West. It’s “the earliest known Chinese American feature” film and “the first and only film made by an all-Chinese cast and an all-Chinese company.” 1917’s Oakland Tribune describes Wong as “energy personified,” with “imagination, executive ability, wit and beauty.” An article in Moving Picture World indicates that Wong traveled as far as New York and China in search of distributors for her film, but none were forthcoming. The film would have likely been as lost as the 1922 film, A Woman’s Error, by pioneering African American filmmaker Tressie Souders, had not two reels of it been unearthed in a basement in 2005. Watching Wong’s film now, we can catch a glimpse of what early cinema might have been, if the viewpoints represented had been more diverse.


Curse of Quon Gwon

The Curse of Quon Gwon: Where the Far East Mingles with the West – 1916

Opening with a statue to the household god Quon Gwon (Guan Gong or “Lord Guan,” a deity based on Guan Yu, a historical general immortalized in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese Literature). Worshiped in Chinese folk religion, popular Confucianism, Taoism, and Chinese Buddhism, Guan Gong represents the principles of loyalty and righteousness. Though the recovered reels of The Curse of Quon Gwon were lacking intertitles, they have been added to this version to enhance the viewing experience, with Guan Gong speaking the words of the Three Brothers’ Oath in the Peach Tree Garden, from Romance of the Three Kingdoms, in translation by Charles Henry Brewitt-Taylor. We are then shown the heroine’s formal introduction to the family of her groom. Wong stretched her budget by filming with an amateur cast: the heroine was played by Wong’s sister-in-law, Violet Wong, the villainess by herself, the mother-in-law by her own mother, Chin See, and the child by her niece. However, her sets are lavish and her camera moves gently back and forth to prevent the scene from being static. In general, Wong’s shot composition and editing compare very well with the industry standard of 1916.

Mixing Western and Chinese costume, Wong raises the cultural tensions and transnational identity of Chinese Americans at the time, resisting the tendency of mainstream cinema to portray “Oriental” characters as static stereotypes, instead imagining them in a state of fluid cultural transformation. As the heroine resists her maid’s efforts to transform her hair into a traditional Chinese style, her aspirations toward Western fashion are clear. An over-the-shoulder shot of her face in the mirror encourages the audience to identify with the heroine’s gaze, one of several moments by which the film establishes an aesthetic of female gaze and subjectivity.

One of the film’s central showpieces is its depiction of a traditional Chinese wedding ceremony, complete with regalia and gifts, reflecting Wong’s desire to showcase Chinese culture to her imagined Western audience. The beauty of these scenes make it difficult to imagine that a lack of quality was the reason for her film being rejected by distributors. Perhaps its centering of a Chinese American woman’s experience was judged unrelatable to viewers, though the struggle of a restless woman to accommodate herself to the strict rules of her culture is a universal theme. The heroine struggles to walk in her high shoes and laugh with her groom at his regalia, showing their unserious attitude toward Chinese traditions, even as Wong’s film celebrates them. After the wedding, Wong utilizes dissolves to show her heroine hallucinating that she is shackled with chains, anticipating Germaine Dulac’s dramatizing of the interior perceptions of women.

When comparing with Dulac, it is worth remembering that Dulac’s revolutionary impressionist and surrealist aesthetics evolved over the course of many films, from a beginning making conventional narrative cinema. Considering how impressive the cinematic imagination of her debut is, if Marion Wong had received support and distribution, there is no telling how experimental she might have become.

Curse-of-Quon-Gwon-scene-1.5mb

After her husband’s departure, the heroine finds herself rejected and driven from the family home, following a false accusation by the villainess, played by Wong herself. She seeks to take her child with her but is prevented, despite pleading for her child to be returned. Stripped of jewelry, she seizes a knife and contemplates committing suicide to purge her dishonor, before throwing it aside and resolving to live on without shelter, friends, or support. Her befriending a lamb may represent her innocence, or the contrast between compassionate nature and cruel culture.

As the heroine wanders off, grief-stricken, across a windswept wilderness, I was reminded of chapter 28 of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, in which Jane strikes out alone and spends the night on the moors, confronting her place in the universe and testing her endurance. In depicting the heroine’s confrontation with nature, her right to be seen as a self-sufficient being and independent of her bonds with others, is affirmed. It occurred to me that I had never seen an Asian woman in an American film in this way, a different form of empowerment from martial arts (kung fu, wuxia, etc.) heroics – the right to be self-sufficient and to seek existential meaning. Zhang Ziyi’s leap from the mountain at the conclusion of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the only other example that springs to mind. In 100 years, depiction of Asian women in Hollywood has not matured in its nuance to the level that Marion Wong achieved in 1916. To celebrate the connection of Wong’s heroine with Jane Eyre’s psychological journey as rebellious woman in restrictive society, and acknowledge the Western leanings of Wong’s heroine, extracts from Jane Eyre have been used as intertitles to illustrate the heroine’s thoughts throughout the film.

As a guilt-stricken maid resolves to confess to the heroine’s husband, who has returned and is heartbroken to discover his wife banished, the villainess attempts to choke the maid into silence. Instead, the husband bursts in on them and learns the whole truth (without the original intertitles, it is impossible to determine exactly what the false accusation was, though it possibly involved the heroine’s adorable child). As her husband sets out to find her, the heroine stumbles home, weary from her wanderings. The triumphant reunion of the family, and the despairing suicide of the villainess, conclude the film.

As the heroine adopts Chinese dress, dabs her eyes sorrowfully then gazes on the idol of Guan Gong, bowing solemnly to it, before flashing forward to a scene of the happy family with an older child, the final message of the film is ambiguous. Was the heroine justly punished for her Westernized disrespect of tradition, repenting and learning better by embracing her duty to family? What is the curse of Guan Gong? In the Three Brothers’ Oath, Guan Yu vows, “If we turn aside from righteousness and forget kindliness, may Heaven and Human smite us!” Did the curse then apply to the villainess, who turned aside from righteousness by making the false accusation? Or was it the heroine who was cursed for her rebellious impulses and disrespect of tradition, but redeemed by divine mercy? Are we, finally, to see her Western attitude as transgression or simply as individuality? What is certain is that, while ultimately upholding the value of family and of traditional culture, The Curse of Quon Gwon gives vivid expression to the frustrations of women within those rigid norms, doing so with a cinematic language of the female gaze that centers female perspectives.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ5dbcFjXhQ”]


Photo of Marion E. Wong via Wikipedia in the public domain in the U.S.


 

Brigit McCone keeps trying to learn Chinese but can’t tell the tones apart, though she is happy the ‘Ireland’ is apparently written as ‘love you orchid’. She writes short films and radio dramas. Her hobbies include doodling and writing posts like this one.


Louise Brooks: A Feminist Ahead of Her Time

Brooks and her characters were powerful women, fighting for control of their lives. In Roger Ebert’s review of ‘Pandora’s Box,’ he states, “Life cannot permit such freedom, and so Brooks, in her best films, is ground down—punished for her joy.” Her real life mirrored her characters; often being punished for her freedom and feminist power.

Louise Brooks
Louise Brooks

 

This guest post by Victoria Negri appears as part of our theme week on The Great Actresses.

When you think of a flapper, what do you see? The iconic image is a woman with a long dress, often accompanied by long beads and that famous hair cut – a short, slicked bob curled against the face along the cheek bones.

The flapper image was cultivated by the silent film star Louise Brooks through her most famous character, Lulu. Forgotten for years, more attention has been paid to Brooks recently, after her films were rediscovered and re-popularized. This star, whose career ended far too abruptly, deserves much more credit than she’s been given as a trailblazer for feminism and the portrayal of female sexuality onscreen. At the same time, she was a pioneer of naturalistic acting, predating Marlon Brando and James Dean by decades.

Understanding a traumatic event from Brooks’ early life gives shape and context to her career as a performer. As a child growing up in Kansas, Brooks was sexually assaulted by a neighbor. Later, her mother blamed the incident on her. This may be the first instance of Brooks being demonized for speaking out. Needing protection from her mother, she instead received blame. Her most famous characters, especially in Pandora’s Box (1929)  and Diary of a Lost Girl (1929), were young women who were punished for behaving in a way that was counter to societal expectations.

In Diary of a Lost Girl, flowers in her hair
In Diary of a Lost Girl, flowers in her hair

 

She showed her defiance throughout her Hollywood career. At the beginning, she was offered two contracts, one from MGM and one from Paramount. Torn between the two, she turned to her friend Walter Wanger for advice. In Lulu in Hollywood, her autobiography, Brooks explains that Wanger told her to take the MGM contract because if she went with Paramount, people would think it was because of their relationship. She responded, “‘You just say that because you don’t want me at Paramount.”… “And you think I’m a bad actress.’” She signed with Paramount.

When Paramount refused to treat her fairly by offering her a promised raise some years later, Brooks didn’t capitulate. She left the studio, refusing to return to Los Angeles to add voice work to the film The Canary Murder Case and taking G.W. Pabst’s offer to film Pandora’s Box in Germany instead. Paramount bosses announced that Margaret Livingston would finish the dubbing work, because Brooks didn’t have a suitable voice for talkies. Thus began a long period of Paramount and Hollywood unofficially blacklisting Brooks.

It also marked the start of what would become her most famous collaboration.

In Diary of a Lost Girl, Brooks’ Thymian is thrown into a reformatory after she refuses to marry the father of her child because she doesn’t love him. Her morals, true to her core, don’t fit with the times, and she is punished for them. At the start of the film, we see her wearing all white. She is innocent and childlike, surrounded by people in darker colors, and blissfully unaware of her effect on others. After rejecting the aforementioned marriage, she is forced into a reformatory against her will. Eventually, she escapes with a friend. With no other options, she becomes a prostitute. By chance, she runs into her father as she is being “auctioned off” on her birthday and he is embarrassed and devastated to see how she’s turned out. Shortly thereafter, he dies and Thymian blames herself. Once again, Brooks’ character is so accustomed to living in a society where the blame for tragedy is directly linked to a woman’s sexuality. She is overpowered by guilt.

In Diary of a Lost Girl, seeing her father as she's being "auctioned" off
In Diary of a Lost Girl, seeing her father as she’s being “auctioned” off

 

In Pandora’s Box, Brooks’ character Lulu is caught backstage in an intimate situation with Schon, her lover, who is engaged to another woman. This backstage scenes is so powerful in large part because of the look on Brooks’ face: indignant, challenging, and powerful. It’s the same face that stands up to Paramount and goes to Germany to film two brilliant, timeless movies. Above all, her performance registers a real note of defiance, challenging the male gaze. Following her wedding to Schon, he walks in and misinterprets Lulu’s actions with two characters: Schigloch, who she claims is her father, and a fellow performed named Quast. Schon, sure Lulu has been unfaithful, tries to convince his wife to kill herself. But in a struggle, the gun goes off and she accidentally murders him.

In Pandora’s Box, Lulu’s seduction is portrayed as manipulative, without feeling. With nowhere to turn, Lulu resorts to prostitution to survive. We are challenged by the end of the film, when she is murdered by Jack the Ripper. Is it retribution for her actions or is it a tragic circumstance? The most famous image from the film is Brooks in a black veil and dress, attending her own trial as if it were a funeral.

However, in Diary of a Lost Girl, Thymian’s innocence is overpowering. She faints multiple times during the movie after traumatic, stressful events, and even wears a crown of flowers following her confirmation at the beginning of the film. While Lulu dares us to make a judgment call, Thymian is a tragic victim of society. Ironically, both are driven to prostitution in desperation, as Louise Brooks claims to also have in real life.

Brooks and her characters were powerful women, fighting for control of their lives. In Roger Ebert’s review of Pandora’s Box, he states, “Life cannot permit such freedom, and so Brooks, in her best films, is ground down—punished for her joy.” Her real life mirrored her characters; often being punished for her freedom and feminist power.

She played one of the screen’s first bisexual characters in Pandora’s Box. She had multiple romances with directors and co-stars, Charlie Chaplin and supposedly Greta Garbo included. She was volatile, confident, both open and closed off. She was so powerful in silent film and never given the chance to show her voice in the sound era.

classic haircut
Classic haircut

 

Louise Brooks should have had a much fuller film career. After returning to Hollywood from Germany, she spent the ’30s making a few unsuccessful films and retired from Hollywood. The following decades were spent struggling to get by, battling alcoholism, relying on the loyalty of friends and even becoming a call girl in New York. However, unlike the tragic heroes in her films, she resurfaced when she met James Card, the curator at the Eastman House in Rochester, New York. He encouraged her to move to Rochester, where she started to come to terms with her past.

It was in Rochester that Louise Brooks found her voice and wrote one of the most brilliant, brutally honest memoirs, Lulu in Hollywood, in 1974. As years passed, her tragic ending morphed into being rediscovered and appreciated. Film historians, critics and movie fans praise her bold work, her erotic glances, and her unparalleled ability to evoke the truth onscreen. The world will never forget her.


Recommended ReadingLulu in HollywoodThe Chaperone, by Laura Moriary; Femmes Fatales: Feminism, Film Theory, Psychoanalysis by Mary Ann Doane


Victoria Negri is a New York City-based filmmaker/actress currently in preproduction on her first feature, Gold Star, loosely based on her relationship with her late World War II veteran father. When she’s not watching, making, or writing about movies, she’s probably running a race somewhere.

Personal website: http://victorianegri.com/

Film website: http://goldstar-film.com/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/victorianegri

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Victoria-Negri/119590451388113

Reproduction & Abortion Week: ‘Where Are My Children?’

This is a guest post by Erik Bondurant. Long before established reproductive rights, including the right to contraception and abortions, were being challenged, there was a long battle to earn these rights in the first place. Half a century before Griswold v. Connecticut would mark a real turning point for reproductive rights, director Lois Weber offered a powerful commentary, inspired by Margaret Sanger, on the morality of contraception in her 1916 silent feature Where Are My Children?

 
The film opens in heaven, where the souls of babies dwell, awaiting conceptions that will bring them down to Earth. These souls are divided into three groups. There is the highest order, granted to those who desire having children, there are chance babies, and then there are the unwanted babies, noted as being quick to return due to the intervention of either contraception or abortion. This casts the film in what may be an uncomfortably religious and moralistic tone for many.The issues of contraception and abortion are handled from a variety of angles. Richard Walton, a District Attorney, is taken with the idea of birth control primarily in its potential to weed out the supposed poor and unfit, perhaps preventing crime. This endorsement of eugenics was quite popular before the Nazi’s embrace of the concept made such support untenable. No less than Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for an 8-1 majority, would claim that “three generations of imbeciles are enough” in upholding a forced sterilization law. Sanger herself was not above seeing the eugenic appeal of contraception. Eugenics remains tightly bound to the debate over abortion, with anti-abortion groups often citing drastically higher abortion rates among Black women as a form of eugenics and economist Steven Levitt arguing in Freakonomics that the legalization of abortion was a primary cause of the subsequent fall in crime rates.

Intellectually, the film hits its peak with its focus on Dr. Homer and his testimony at a trial in support of contraception. Through his eyes we see various large families stuck in poverty and women suffering the grinding fate of being pregnant every year, until menopause or death. With a bit too much symmetry to the recent all-male Congressional panel on the matter, we are told “a jury of men disagreed with Dr. Homer’s views.” Thus a pamphlet discussing family planning is ruled obscene.The emotional heart of the story takes place within the District Attorney’s own household. He is desperate to have children, but his wife enjoys the freedom to remain in the social scene. This is a group of women who, in contrast to the poor families that Dr. Homer discussed, are curiously unladen with children. This, we find out, is because they have access to an illegal abortion provider named Dr. Malfit. When one of his patients dies from complications and the District Attorney’s prosecution unveils the client list, the film roars to its dramatic conclusion with Walton condemning his wife, asking her the titular question.

Like Vera Drake, this film shows class divisions within reproductive services in an environment where those services are illegal, and the cost that can come from illegal abortions. However, unlike Mike Leigh’s film, this film is decidedly anti-abortion, which may be off-putting to some watching it from a modern perspective. Ultimately, the important pro-contraception aspect of the film and the compelling dramatic construction in portraying the heavy moral component to abortion, no matter what one ultimately thinks of abortion, makes Where Are My Children? a must-see film. Lois Weber, one of the first and greatest directors in cinema history, provides a much-needed woman’s voice and eye on the topic.Where Are My Children? is available to stream for free.

———-

Erik Bondurant is a political scientist and a film blogger at The Movie Review Warehouse and contributor to Sound on Sight, with a primary focus on the portrayal of politics, gender and sexuality in cinema.