Nice Work (if you can get it): The Silent Films of Adrian Brunel Josephine Botting Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD Royal Holloway, University of London January 2017 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Josephine Botting, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: Date: 2 Abstract This thesis explores the filmmaking career of Adrian Brunel during the 1920s, concentrating on the period during which his most significant work was undertaken. Brunel has received increasing attention as part of recent reappraisals of British silent cinema and has emerged as a significant figure; the claims made for him in other work on the period will be examined to reach conclusions about the importance of his role and legacy. Drawing on a wealth of primary resources, in particular Brunel’s own personal paper collection housed at the British Film Institute, but also the trade and daily press and other archival film material, this thesis represents a valuable insight into the British film industry during the period 1920 to 1928. Brunel was a proponent of film as an art form and his career outlines his attempts to fulfil his own creative ambitions and the commercial imperatives imposed by the British film industry. This will be achieved by constructing a detailed and comprehensive biography of Brunel’s career complemented by a close analysis of his films and their production histories. As an in-depth study of an individual struggling to sustain a career in the unstable conditions prevailing in the British industry at the time, this thesis contributes to ongoing revisionist work on British silent cinema, both in terms of its workings as an industry and attempts to encourage its development along more artistic lines. It uncovers the various forces controlling the production, distribution and exhibition of films in Britain and the degree to which Brunel was able to negotiate these in his attempt to find a niche in the insecure and competitive arena of British film. 3 Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank Royal Holloway, University of London for funding me to research and write this thesis. As my supervisor, Professor John Hill has furnished scholarly advice, tremendous support and constant encouragement throughout my period of study. Professor John Ellis, my advisor, also gave wise counsel. Many British cinema experts and enthusiasts have taken an interest in my project and generously shared information and ideas with me. Thanks are therefore due to Professor Charles Barr, Neil Brand, Geoff Brown, Kevin Brownlow, Dr Jon Burrows, Russell Campbell, Bryony Dixon, Lucie Dutton, Tony Fletcher, Mark Fuller, Bob Geoghegan, Alex Gleason, Julian Grainger, Ronald Grant, Janice Headland, Martin Humphries, Jonathan Rigby and David Wyatt. Thanks also go to the many staff members at the BFI who provided access to the collections: Carolyne Bevan, Jonny Davies, Nigel Good, Nathalie Morris and all the staff at the BFI Reuben Library. Jon Burrows and Sarah Easen kindly allowed me to use their flat for long periods of writing; my mother, Dr Renia Botting, also gave me sanctuary at key moments. It has been a real pleasure to get to know Adrian Brunel’s heir, Annie Kentfield, and her partner Jamie, who have taken a real interest in my project and shared memories of Christopher and Irene Brunel. Sergio Angelini has read and re-read my thesis at various stages and given very prompt and useful feedback for which I will ever be grateful. The biggest thank you goes to my family. My major debt is to my husband, Ian O’Sullivan, who did endless copying and reference checking but more importantly spent many weeks as a single parent to enable me to get this thesis written. Special thanks also go to Conor and Alec, who have had to get used to my long absences. 4 Contents Table of Contents Figures ................................................................................................................. 6 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 7 Introduction: ‘Might repay serious excavation…’: Adrian Brunel as a subject for study ................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter One: A Contextualised Biography of Adrian Brunel ................................ 32 Chapter Two: A Syndicate of Beggars: Minerva Films Ltd and independent short film production .................................................................................................. 86 Chapter Three: Art, the Trade and The Man Without Desire.............................. 118 Chapter Four: Making Dull Films Jolly: Brunel’s Burlesques ............................... 146 Chapter Five: ‘A war film with a difference’: Blighty and Brunel’s negotiation of the British studio system .................................................................................. 185 Chapter Six: Adaptation and the Power of the Author: The Vortex and The Constant Nymph .............................................................................................. 217 Conclusion: Brunel’s Legacy ............................................................................. 262 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................. 276 5 Figures Figure 1 Portrait of Adrian Brunel c. 1926 .............................................................................. 32 Figure 2 A 'hate party' gripe ................................................................................................... 61 Figure 3 Pressbook for The Man Without Desire ................................................................. 129 Figure 4 Trade promotion for The Man Without Desire ...................................................... 140 Figure 5 Promotional postcard for Crossing the Great Sagrada (ABSC 1/164) .................... 164 Figure 6 Cutting from Home Movies and Home Talkies, July 1933...................................... 178 Figure 7 Trade promotion for Brunel's burlesques (KW, 12 November 1925: 10-11) ......... 179 Figure 8 Cartoon of C. M. Woolf (KW, 10 Jan 24: 54) ........................................................... 189 Figure 9 Nadia Sibirskaia as 'The Girl' in Blighty ................................................................... 200 Figure 10 Young Robin plays with toy soldiers in a scene now missing from Blighty .......... 213 Figure 11 Advertisement for the cancelled trade show of The Vortex (Bioscope, 1 September 1927: 26) .................................................................................................... 232 Figure 12 Cover of Kinematograph Weekly, 2 February 1928 ............................................. 254 6 Abbreviations AB – Adrian Brunel ABSC – Adrian Brunel Special Collection IMSC – Ivor Montagu Special Collection KW – Kinematograph Weekly MPS – Motion Picture Studio 7 Introduction Introduction: ‘Might repay serious excavation…’: Adrian Brunel as a subject for study On 4 May 1929, Adrian Brunel attended a gala evening at London’s Marble Arch Pavilion. In front of a packed auditorium, he was presented with a Certificate of Merit for his work directing The Constant Nymph, which had been voted Best British Film of 1928 by the readers of Film Weekly magazine. On the surface, this was the most triumphant moment of his career: the feature had not only been hailed as a fine example of British film art but had also been a massive box-office success for Gainsborough Pictures. Yet behind the gloss of the occasion lay deep divisions between the main players in the film’s production. Michael Balcon, the studio head, refused to go on stage, so the film’s star, Mabel Poulton, accepted the award on his behalf. Balcon and Brunel were not on speaking terms since Brunel had launched a legal battle against the studio over its apparent breach of his contract and was suing them for unpaid fees. Brunel’s supervisory director on the film, Basil Dean, did not attend the ceremony; their working relationship had been extremely strained and, as an experienced filmmaker, Brunel’s pride had been dented at having to deputise for a novice director. This event serves to highlight some of the contradictions in Brunel’s turbulent film career. Each success emerged from a challenging production history and tells a story of conflict and compromise. Each also heralded a period of intense frustration and unemployment. The acclaim he received for The Constant Nymph from both the press and audiences appeared to vindicate his long-held conviction that art and popularity in the cinema were not mutually exclusive. But, by 1929, silent film was already effectively dead, his methods were out-dated and his career as a director of mainstream films was over. 8 Introduction This thesis sets out to examine and assess Adrian Brunel’s film career during the 1920s through a consideration of his films and the industrial context in which they were produced, supported by detailed research into his personal papers and other contemporary sources. Its aim is neither to confirm him as a genius nor to make claims for his films as ‘masterworks’ of British silent cinema. The intention is rather to bring new insights into his work by anatomising the production context and history in which each film was created. Each film, or group of films, is examined in relation to a particular issue or debate preoccupying the movie