Away with Words - a NEW silent film featuring Louise Brooks

To contemporary audiences, the silent films of the past may well require a kind of suspension of disbelief in order to come to terms with them as both as works of art as well as the gone world from which they sprang. That's true for Away with Words, a new silent production "starring" Louise Brooks. It is a joyful must watch for any fan of the actress, or of silent film.

Made from original and archival footage, Away with Words tells the story of Abel Lively, a lonely dreamer obsessed with Brooks who must come to terms with the too-safe bubble of his imagination. Set in London around 1931, Abel Lively is broke, alone, and terrified of going outside his one-man film studio -- and he couldn't be happier in not doing so. When his life is upended by a chance encounter with Penelope Peabody -- an unemployed painter with a taste for lock picking (played by the charming Jessica Still), Abel will have to choose between two worlds, the one in his head, and the one in which he has a chance at real love. 

Away with Words (Reshoot Productions, 2026) is the work of Sam Pothier, a U.K. filmmaker who wrote, edited, co-directed, co-produced and stars (as Abel Lively) in this quite clever romantic comedy-drama which also happens to be a silent movie. As anyone who has watched silent films will realize, Away with Words is indebted to the poetic logic of the silent era. It also leans into the dream-logic premise of Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr. Wallace Beery (as Oklahoma Red) and Edward G. Robinson (as Caesar) feature in "supporting" roles.

However, it is Louise Brooks (as Lulu) who is the focus of Away with Words. Most all the footage of Brooks comes from Beggars of Life (by far the most-used archival source at a little over eight minutes worth), as well as her two German movies from 1929, Pandora’s Box (just under five minutes) and Diary of a Lost Girl (just under two minutes). There is also a bit of It's the Old Army Game, and plenty of Brooks’ imagery in the form of photos and posters.

As Pothier stated, there are Easter eggs for silent movie enthusiasts, including a scene that merges footage from a Charlie Chaplin film and a Harold Lloyd film, along with three Buster Keaton cameos. All together, there is footage from some 30 silent and early sound films as well as six public domain Betty Boop shorts. All are credited at the film's end. 

It is also worth noting that nothing in this 99 minute film is A.I.-generated. Pothier and co-director / co-producer Husam Taha (who also served as the cinematographer) used lots and lots and lots of effects, but they're all of the "traditional kind" and all done by the two filmmakers. And what's more, these many effects are practically seamless to those in the right frame of mind, or in other words, those who suspend their disbelief. The inter-titles are likewise well presented. And a shout-out to Andrew Cowie, who has composed an exceptional and appropriate piano score. Away with Words is greatly enhanced by his accompaniment. Bravo future maestro!

Away with Words is available to stream on Amazon Prime in the United States and other parts of the world, including the United Kingdom, Australia and some countries in Europe. It can also be viewed on Google Play and YouTube. Screenings in England are in the works. More about the film can be found at its website and its IMDb page.

If pastiche can be art, even high art -- then Away with Words is a near masterpiece. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.  

Louise Brooks Coming Attraction Slides page updated

The Louise Brooks Society page devoted to coming attraction slides has been updated. I've added a bit of new information, re-arranged a couple of slides, and added a link to a must view video, which I have also embedded below. 

What are coming attraction slides? The answer, simply put, is that they were the equivalent of today's previews or trailers. During the silent and early sound era era, glass slides were projected in theaters as a means of alerting the audience to a venue’s future offerings, or coming attraction. 

The Louise Brooks Society page devoted to coming attraction slides collects examples of slides for every one of the actress' American silent and sound films -- except It Pays to Advertise and Windy Riley Goes Hollywood. There are 38 slides shown. There are also scans of placeholder images for Evening Clothes (variant slide), as well as God's Gift to Women and When You're in Love. I don't know if there were slides created for any of Brooks' three European films. As of today, none have turned up.

If you are interested in coming attraction slides, the one site you simply MUST VISIT is Robert Byrne's Starts Thursday. It is an amazing site which contains an informative history of coming attraction slides, as well examples of more than 11,000+ beautifully scanned slides. One could spend days looking at the many different slides. And yes, these are a number of examples of Louise Brooks related slides, including some not pictured here. The history of glass slides was surveyed by Byrne in 2026 in an video talk presented by the San Francisco Film Preserve. It can be found on YouTube HERE.  Also well worth a visit is the Coming Attraction Lantern Slides (W. Ward Marsh collection) at the Cleveland Public Library. Though a smaller collection, it is a treasure trove of imagery collected by Marsh, a Cleveland newspaper critic who also happened to have reviewed a number of Brooks' film for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. And for a little more background, there is this 2014 article on SLATE. 

 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. 

Louise Brooks Society @ Library of Congress Motion Picture Web Archive

Recently, I was told that the Louise Brooks Society website was chosen to be part of the Library of Congress Motion Picture Web Archive. I am thrilled, as this is an honor I have never dreamt of receiving. Once or twice a year from here on out, the LBS will be crawled and archived and made available to researchers at the LOC akin to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine presentation. [The LBS should appear on the LOC website sometime next year.]

With visitors coming.... I figured it would be a good idea to tidy up some of the more dense pages, like the filmography and bibliography pages. I thought to add new information, delete old links, clean-up typos, and generally improve whatever I could. I would make this my summer project, something to take on a little at a time. There are 24 filmography pages, and 24 bibliography pages. 

I started with Pandora's Box (1929), and have refurbished both its filmography and bibliography pages. I also refurbished the filmography and bibliography pages for The Street of Forgotten Men (1925). Next up in The American Venus (1926), and then Just Another Blonde (1926) and Now We're in the Air (1927) and all the rest.

If you have a moment, please do visit the Louise Brooks Society website at www.pandorasbox.com. It is bursting at the seems with nearly 300 pages of content. Explore....
 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. 

Does the Louise Brooks Society have good site authority?

I asked Google's Gemini if the Louise Brooks Society has good "site authority." Here is what Gemini said.

"From an SEO and historical standpoint, the Louise Brooks Society (hosted at pandorasbox.com) possesses exceptionally high authority within its niche. While "Site Authority" is often measured by scores like Moz’s Domain Authority (DA) or Semrush’s Authority Score, its true strength lies in its reputational authority and backlink profile.

Here is a breakdown of why it is considered a high-authority site:

1. Longevity and "Lindy Effect"

• Established 1995: The site is a "pioneer" in the film history space, having been online for over 30 years. Search engines generally view long-standing domains with consistent content as more trustworthy than newer sites.

• Archive Depth: With approximately 300 pages of deep archival material—including the most comprehensive Louise Brooks filmography and chronology in existence—it functions as a primary source rather than a content aggregator.

2. High-Quality Backlinks (Digital Trust)

The site is cited as a definitive resource by some of the most authoritative entities in media and academia:

• Institutional Citations: It has been referenced by the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• Major Media: High-authority news outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today, and The Irish Times have linked to or praised the site.

• Film Industry: Recognition from the Criterion Collection, Leonard Maltin, and inclusion in the bibliographies of definitive biographies (like those by Barry Paris) cements its topical authority.

3. Niche Dominance (E-E-A-T)

Google’s ranking guidelines emphasize Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. The Louise Brooks Society excels here because:

• Subject Matter Expertise: The site is curated by Thomas Gladysz, a published author and researcher whose work has directly contributed to film restorations and academic scholarship.

• Official Backing: The site operates with the written consent of the Estate of Louise Brooks, which provides a level of official "brand" authority that few fan-operated sites achieve.

4. Technical Authority

• Keyword Ownership: The site consistently ranks at the top for specific, high-intent keywords related to silent film history, "Lulu," and Pandora's Box.

• Non-Commercial Nature: Because it is largely an educational archive rather than a commercial or "clickbait" site, it avoids many of the spam signals that can degrade site authority.

---

Summary: While a massive site like IMDb might have a higher general domain score, for queries specifically regarding silent film history or Louise Brooks, the Louise Brooks Society is often treated by search algorithms as the "seed" authority—the gold standard for accuracy and depth."

 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.   

Trademark on film icon Louise Brooks overturned - an update on what's been going on

Dear Friends and followers,

Imagine if someone tried to take something from you -- something important to you, something through which you found fulfillment, something through which you thought you were making a positive contribution, something in which you had invested years of your life. In doing so, they smeared your reputation, cut you off from friends, and reported you to the FBI. That's what happened to me and my Louise Brooks Society.

I am posting this to let everyone know what's been going on.... For the last three years, the Louise Brooks Society has been subject to some rather nasty online harassment. It has been a stressful, frustrating, costly, and sometimes discouraging experience.

In short, an individual tried to destroy all that the Louise Brooks Society has built up over the last 30 years. After things got really bad -- and after the Louise Brooks Society website was threatened with a take down notice, I was forced to seek legal help. I was desperate, and getting a lawyer to stop this harassment was my only remedy. After a two-and-a-half year legal battle, justice has prevailed.

At the heart of the matter was an I.P. (intellectual property) "dispute" / tug-of-war concerning Louise Brooks, the silent film star I have been researching, writing about, and promoting for three decades. Seven years ago, an individual wrongfully trademarked and later copyrighted Brooks' name, and then used their registered trademark as a means to harass not only the Louise Brooks Society, but as well others in the community of silent film fandom. If you think it's strange that someone would trademark and even copyright the name of a long-dead celebrity (someone to which they are unrelated -- no matter that one cannot copyright a proper name), and then try and prevent others from using that name -- you're right, it is strange, and IMHO kinda sad. It's also wrong on so many levels.

The attacks on me had little if anything to do with intellectual property. Rather, it was personal. The individual in question never took me to court or initiated any kind of legal action, rather, he simply filed complaint after complaint after complaint after complaint with various social media and e-commerce platforms -- and let them do his dirty work. As one lawyer told me, this person was using his trademark as a weapon. It was a means of trolling. To stop him, I initiated action with the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) in October, 2023 to have his trademark cancelled, and thus "dis-arm" him. I was warned it would be a long and difficult process, and it was, but I had no other options. After numerous delays, this person's trademark has been cancelled thanks not only to my efforts but those of Vincent Lesh.

Among other things, the various Louise Brooks Society social media profiles -- including its longstanding Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts -- were permanently taken down following bogus claims of trademark infringement. (My original Facebook and Twitter accounts dated to 2009 / 2010 and each had accumulated more than 5000 followers.) Additionally, following yet more meritless complaints from this same individual, pages from the Louise Brooks Society website were removed from both Google and Bing; there were, as well, complaints filed against the my YouTube, LinkTree, Tumblr, Etsy, CafePress, Post and Patreon accounts -- with the result some were taken down. Others survived, though damaged. This individual even claimed the Louise Brooks Society LinkedIn account, which pre-dated his trademark by more than a decade, somehow violated his intellectual property rights. How utterly asinine! Thankfully, LinkedIn agreed.

[The worst platforms, in regards to their handling of this situation, were Etsy and LinkTree. Both were abysmal. I have blogged about my Etsy experience before; see my December 17, 2022 post "A COMPLAINT against Etsy's intellectual property policies". My experience with LinkTree was just as ludicrous, and just as frustrating. At one point, LinkTree would not let me link to the Louise Brooks Society website (its URL was banned because of a complaint by you know who), nor would they let me link to a workaround link, a Google search result for my site. The person I dealt with at LinkTree was unsympathetic, and rather petty.] 

For months on end, I would wake up wondering what he would attack next.... 

Not only were many of the LBS social media accounts deleted, so were MY PERSONAL social media accounts. Why? Merely because I mentioned something about Louise Brooks or posted a picture of myself wearing a vintage, store-bought Louise Brooks' t-shirt. (Seemingly, this person thought he had exclusive rights over all Louise Brooks merchandise -- even products made decades before he registered a trademark.) Sadly, as a result of the deletion of my social media accounts, I lost 15 years of friendships, followers, posts, messages, history, and pictures because of these bogus complaints. When it comes to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, there is seldom anyone home, and no effective way to appeal. I was judged guilty through mere accusation. And I was erased.

I knew I had to get a lawyer when the individual in question went after my longstanding website. He sent complaints to my ISP (internet service provider) demanding what he claimed was infringing material be removed from the Louise Brooks Society. In turn, my ISP sent me a notice that this materiel had to be removed within 72 hours or my entire website would be taken down. Among the infringing material was my Gift Shop page (recently restored), which was by-and-large composed of amazon.com links to Louise Brooks and silent film related books and DVDs. I will never understand how someone in the "compliance department" could think links to legit products from companies like Random House, Rizzoli, Kino Lorber, Fotofolio, etc... could infringe on a third-party trademark. Of course, they didn't -- and if they did, why didn't he go after amazon.com, or Random House?

The person in question (aka you know who) also objected to and complained about a statement on my homepage referring to the intellectual property protections which my website rightfully claimed. My statement originally read, "This website and the wordmark 'Louise Brooks Society' are under copyright and common law trademark protection." As a result, under threat of another takedown, my ISP required me to alter the statement. I did so, under protest, not because I admitted to having infringed the intellectual property rights of the dude who filed the complaint, but to get my ISP off my back. The altered statement  read: "This website and the wordmark “Louise Brooks Society” are under XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX." 

There was more, lots more.... Through a series of disparaging blog posts, this same individual spread innuendo and falsehoods about myself and my LBS website -- including the suggestion that I didn't write my own books (I have a team of ghost writers, no less), that this blog promoted sexual material and sexualized Louise Brooks (it didn't), that I was single-handedly manipulating Brooks' reputation, and bizarrely, that the "Louise Brooks Society" website either doesn't really exist or if it does it is some kind of scam, etc.... I can assure everyone that it does exist, as is indicated by the historical & legal record additionally documented though hyperlinked newspaper clippings (USA Today, New York Times, etc...), mentions in books, the Wayback Machine, and more.

Thanks to mindless A.I., some of these disparaging slop posts found their way into internet search engines, with the result being my online reputation was tarnished....and the LBS was deemed "controversial". ("Oh my" as George Takei once said.) This person called me a grifter, fraud, charlatan, pseudo-intellectual, "boomer" and worse -- there was even mention of necrophilia; and would you believe, he reported me to an internet regulatory agency (ICANN) -- who thought his claims inappropriate, as well as to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, even the F.B.I..... And, what's more, he used this meaningless report as "evidence" of my wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, they have never bothered to follow-up on his ridiculous claim that I was a cyberbully. Au contraire. 

For example, this is what Microsoft's Co-Pilot had to say when queried in 2024. The source of Co-Pilot's information was the previously mentioned slop blogs. Here is just one example. I have others. (Click to enlarge the image.)

All this was just the tip of the iceberg, as I would discover time and again. For example, through Microsoft's BING, this person filed 33 complaints of copyright infringement against 33 different pages on my longstanding website -- as if I would want to copy any of the banal material found on his now defunct site. The result was these 33 pages were removed from the BING search engine, no questions asked, and  my web traffic fell off. There were also complaints of copyright infringement filed against the Louise Brooks Society on Google, with the result being pages from my site were either removed or demoted on Google. I was never notified, and had to find this out on my own write appeals to these companies DMCA agents, which was another frustrating time suck.

I have come to see the Louise Brooks Society as my life's work. It's a passion project I have shared with the world since 1995, when I launched my site. Over the years, I have spent a lot of time and money on the LBS. What I found gratifying was connecting with other fans, finding some obscure article or image, helping to get films released, bringing attention to other's projects, writing an article, or simply sharing my enthusiasm for the actress, etc.... You can imagine how distressing it was when this individual attempted to destroy all that I had built up when he tried to have my website taken down. The actions taken against me are unforgivable.

As mentioned, the damage to my reputation has been considerable, as has been the expense incurred and the time wasted.... Hopefully, the worst is behind me, and I can go about cleaning up the mess created by this individual. And yes, I kept detailed records, including the various take down demands, site bans, and disparaging blogs. I have documented most everything, and am keeping my options open regarding future litigation. Through it all, I have come to realize life is too short to waste on such people, IMHO mere trolls who have nothing but negativity to contribute to the world. He may have set me back, but he did not stop me. I will go on.

While waiting for a judgement -- which was delayed by more than a year due to this individual's numerous objections and stalling tactics (as reflected in the USPTO record), I've kept busy working on the new Louise Brooks Blu-ray, Focus on Louise Brooks, as well as a handful of articles, a couple of books, and lots more. I have also continued blogging and launched a SubStack and rebuilt my Louise Brooks Society website: it is now bursting at the seams with nearly 300 pages of original research and rare content! Recently, my efforts have been recognized.... I am gratified to report that the Louise Brooks Society website was recently chosen to be part of the Library of Congress Motion Picture Web Archive. More on that at a later date. 

And BTW: Louise Brooks' 1982 book, Lulu in Hollywood, has recently been released as an e-book for the very first time. I am likewise proud to report I had a hand in making that happen, just as I am proud to have helped bring it back into print back in 2000. (You know who complained about that as well.)

My proceedings against this individual are a matter of public record, and can be found online on the government's official USPTO  (United States Patent and Trademark Office) website. They make for "interesting" reading ... though that is NOT the word those who have read them use to describe them. Au contraire.

I won't say more about the person in question, who once described himself in a USPTO filing as the "keeper of the ethereal flame". I have never met him, do not know him, and wish to have nothing to do with him. I cannot think less of a person then I think of him. Contempt is defined as the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn. It is a word whose meaning I have come to appreciate.

In my opinion, the overturning / cancellation of the Louise Brooks trademark (registration no. 5930349) represents a victory not only for the Louise Brooks Society, but also for the actress' fans, the silent film community, as well as other legacy estates.

I wish to thank my lawyers at the nation's leading IP law firm, Kilpatrick, Townsend, and Stockton, for their extraordinary help. Without them, literally, I WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.  I also wish to thank my wife, Christy, as well as my online and real world friends for their support -- especially the late Donna Hill. I owe her so much. I also wish to thank the Estate of Louise Brooks, who has been an ally throughout.

In closing, let me add that my story is not so unique. I believe that what happened to me is part of a larger unreported narrative of how social media, e-commerce platforms, search engines, and internet service providers ignore, tolerate and even enable bad behavior. They FAILED. That's my informed opinion.

Just recently, I received an email from Peter Cowie, the distinguished film historian, biographer and author of Louise Brooks: Lulu Forever. He is a friend, and he wrote to thank me for blogging about his recent memoir, Flashbacks: A Passion for Film. It is a book I recommend. His email came at a time I was feeling a bit discouraged, but what Cowie said lifted my spirits. He wrote, "I honestly believe that without your efforts across the past quarter century, Louise’s name would not be held in such high esteem." 

It's time to forge ahead.... Straight on till morning.

Thomas Gladysz
Founding Director, Louise Brooks Society

This old picture of me got me into trouble on CafePress, and I was banned from using it.
Why? Simply because Louise Brooks is pictured in the background — even though
it is MY picture of ME showing MY possessions. 

To learn more about the Louise Brooks Society, including its mission statement, history, accomplishments, ambitions, etc..., please check out the About the Louise Brooks Society page of the LBS website. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. 

It Pays to Advertise, with Louise Brooks in a cameo, was released on this day in 1931

It Pays to Advertise, with Louise Brooks, was released on this day in 1931. The film is a farce about rival soap companies, an advertising agency, and a ne’er do-well playboy who attempts to make good. Louise Brooks plays Thelma Temple, a dancer appearing in a musical entitled Girlies Don’t Tell. Brooks’ part in the film, done to fulfill her contract with Paramount, amounted to little more than a cameo. The Hollywood Reporter wrote “Louise Brooks flashes in and out of the opening scenes and looks like a good bet for bigger roles.” Due to tepid reviews and negative publicity, It Pays to Advertise did poorly at the box office. At best, most exhibitors reported only fair business. In Los Angeles, according to one report, the film “set a new low.” The film failed to do much for Brooks’ sputtering career.

More about the film can be found on the newly revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page. 

Production on the film took place in and around Los Angeles in late 1930. It Pays to Advertise was based on a popular stage play from 1914. In 1931, reviewers commented that the story was old-fashioned – despite the fact that Paramount attempted to update its scenario through the use of new scenes, art deco sets, snappy dialogue, and a fast-moving script.

The film received few positive reviews. Photoplay wrote that it has “plenty of speed and lots of laughs”, while praising the “perfect cast”. Variety wrote “Subject to the limitation of all screen farces, this revamped stage frolic makes good enough program material with only moderate prospects at the box office.” New York’s The World, however, called it “pretty dreary.” The New Yorker stated “Among the dull pictures of the week we might list that old relic, It Pays to Advertise, which is full of smart-aleck cracks and is altogether a bore.”

The film starred Norman Foster, then husband of Claudette Colbert, and Carol Lombard, who was at the beginning of her film career. The gravel-voiced Eugene Pallette played the soap king; he had also played a supporting role in Brooks’ previous American film, The Canary Murder Case. The fast talking Skeets Gallagher played the wisecracking publicist – then called press agents. Brooks received fifth billing, and was largely left off promotional materials supplied by the studio.

Few publications mentioned Brooks, except to mention her brief appearance. Some publications noted that the role represented a comeback. The Kansas City Star commented, “Carole Lombard is pretty as the Mary Grayson in the cast, but Louise Brooks, who used to be quite a name in the photoplay world, is more attractive as the actress who does the airplane fall and is not seen thereafter.” Harry Evans, writing in Life magazine, stated “Louise Brooks, whom we have not seen on the screen since her momentary appearance in The Canary Murder Case (in which a voice double was used to speak her lines), seems to have been studying, as she gets away with her bit in this one creditably. Her real purpose in the film, however, is to show her legs, and in this phase of stage-craft she certainly needs no double.”

Set in the advertising and business world, It Pays to Advertise referenced a number of actual products and their slogans. As a result, one trade journal took exception to the practice. Harrison’s Reports, which billed itself “a reviewing service free from the influence of film advertising,” objected to product placement in film — be it verbal or visual. Over the course of four months (in articles titled “The Facts About Concealed Advertisements in Paramount Pictures,” “This Paper’s Further Efforts Against ‘Sponsored’ Screen Advertisements,” and “Other Papers That Have Joined the Harrison Crusade Against Unlabelled Screen Advertising”) editor P. S. Harrison railed against the business world farce in particular and product placement in films in general. “The Paramount picture, It Pays to Advertise, is nothing but a billboard of immense size. I have not been able to count all of the nationally advertised articles that are spoken of by the characters.” In the next issue, Harrison stated “In last week’s issue the disclosure was made that in It Pays to Advertise there are more than fifteen advertisements in addition to the main advertisement, ’13 Soap Unlucky for Dirt,’ which Paramount is accused of having created as a brand for the purpose of selling it.”

Taking the high moral ground, Harrison’s Reports spurred a campaign against “sponsored moving pictures – meaning pictures which contain concealed or open advertising of some one’s product.” Harrison wrote to the studios – and Harrison’s Reports noted that a handful responded with pledges to not include verbal or visual product placement. The crusading editor also wrote to more than 2,000 newspapers, and a number published articles and editorials decrying the practice. Among those papers that joined Harrison’s cause were four of the New York dailies, the Gannett chain, and scores of small town papers, as well as the Denver Post, Detroit Free Press, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and Tulsa Tribune. The Christian Science Monitor added to the chorus of complaint when it remarked, “Paramount should have been well paid for the large slices of publicity for trade-marked products that are spread all through this artificial story.”

SOME THINGS ABOUT THE FILM YOU MAY NOT KNOW:

— It Pays to Advertise was based on the play of the same name by Roi Cooper Megrue and Walter C. Hackett. It was first presented on the Broadway stage on September 8, 1914 at the Cohan Theatre, and ran for nearly a year. Thelma Temple, the character played by Louise Brooks, does not appear in the original play.

— A novelized version of the play, adapted by Samuel Field, was published in 1915. The book was also serialized in newspapers across the United States. 

— The play has been made into a film on four occasions: there was a silent film in 1919, directed by Donald Crisp; the talkie in 1931, directed by Frank Tuttle; and a Swedish adaptation in 1936, directed by Anders Henrikson. In 1932, Paramount produced French language version of the 1931 film: Paramount remade the film at their studio at Joinville, France under the title Criez-le sur les toits, directed by Karl Anton and starring Saint-Granier and Robert Burnier.

More about the film can be found on the newly revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.   

When You’re in Love, with Louise Brooks in a bit part, was released on this day in 1937

When You’re in Love, with Louise Brooks in a bit part, was released on this day in 1937. The film is a romantic musical scripted and directed by long-time Frank Capra writer Robert Riskin and starring Grace Moore and Cary Grant. The enjoyable and fast-moving plot turns on high-spirits and high-notes. Louise Brooks makes an uncredited appearance as one of a number of dancers in a musical sequence near the end of the film. 

More about the film can be found on the Louise Brooks Society filmography page.

Louise Brooks, third from the left, is obscured by Grace Moore's hand.
This is likely the only known still to depict Brooks.

Production of the film took place at Columbia Pictures studios in Southern California between October 5 and December 20, 1936 . The musical pageant at the end of the film, which likely includes Louise Brooks, was likely shot in part at the Hollywood Bowl.

For When You’re in Love, Brooks accepted work as an extra (its almost impossible to spot her) with the promise of the feminine lead in another Columbia film. To exploit the situation, the studio put out the word that Brooks was willing to do anything to get back into pictures. “Louise Brooks is certainly starting her come-back from the lowest rung of the ladder,” wrote Wood Soanes of the Oakland Tribune. “She is one of a hundred dancers in the ballet chorus of Grace Moore’s When You’re in Love.” Brooks kept her part of the bargain, but the studio did not. Brooks’ lead in a Columbia film never materialized.

The film proved especially popular, and was seen as a worthy successor to Moore’s triumph in the 1934 film One Night of Love, for which she was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress. The Hollywood Reporter stated, “With a more substantial story than the last two Grace Moore vehicles, When You’re in Love is a signal triumph for the foremost diva of the screen, for Cary Grant who should soar to stardom as result of his performance in this, and for Robert Riskin, here notably handling his first directorial assignment.” The Hollywood Spectator added “It is unquestionably her best to-date and never has she appeared to better photographic advantage.” Rob Wagner, writing in Rob Wagner’s Script (a trade journal), was especially enthusiastic. “Here is the perfect combination – the director who writes his own script and delivers perfectly . . . Yes, I’m raving, … but because I’m a priest of beauty; and this picture thrilled me.”

The film was held over in New York City, as well as in Baltimore, Seattle, Detroit, New Orleans, Trenton, Tacoma, and Springfield (Massachusetts and Illinois). The same was true in Atlanta, Georgia. The Atlanta Constitution wrote that the film, the “best picture made by Grace Moore” was “now in its third week at the Rialto Theater, with the demand for seats showing no signs of easing.” The same was true in Hartford, Connecticut. The Hartford Courant wrote “Don’t look now, but Loew’s Theater appears to be starting another one of those record-breaking picture engagements with When You’re in Love.”

The great British novelist Graham Greene, writing in Night and Day, was tempered in his assessment. “Miss Moore, even in trousers singing Minnie the Moocher, can make the craziest comedy sensible and hygienic. In For You Alone, the story of an Australian singer who buys an American husband in Mexico so that she may re-enter the States where her permit has expired, Mr. Riskin, the author of Mr. Deeds and (let’s not forget) Lost Horizon, has tried his best to write crazily, but he comes up all the time against Miss Moore.”

SOME THINGS ABOUT THE FILM YOU MAY NOT KNOW:

— Grace Moore (1898–1947) was an American operatic soprano and actress in musical theater and film. She was nicknamed the “Tennessee Nightingale.” During her sixteen seasons with the Metropolitan Opera, she sang in several Italian and French operas as well as the title roles in Tosca, Manon, and Louise. The latter was her favorite opera and is widely considered to have been her greatest role. Moore is credited with helping bring opera to a larger audience through her popular films. Moore died in a plane crash near Copenhagen’s airport on January 26, 1947, at the age of 48. Moore’s life story was made into a movie, So This Is Love, in 1953.

— Attracted to Hollywood in the early years of talking pictures, Moore’s first screen role was as Jenny Lind in the 1930 MGM film A Lady’s Morals. Later that same year she starred with the Metropolitan Opera singer Lawrence Tibbett in New Moon, also for MGM. After a hiatus of several years, Moore returned to Hollywood under contract to Columbia Pictures, for whom she made six films. In the 1934 film One Night of Love, she portrayed a small-town girl who aspires to sing opera. For that role she was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress. The last film that Moore made was Louise (1939), an abridged version of Gustave Charpentier’s opera of the same name, with spoken dialog in place of some of the original opera’s music. The composer participated in the production, authorizing the cuts and changes to the libretto, coaching Moore, and advising director Abel Gance.

— In the film, Moore sings “Siboney“. Xavier Cugat’s version of “Siboney” was recommended by Brooks in her self-published booklet, The Fundamentals of Good Ballroom Dancing.

— The New York Times noted that the lyrics of Cab Calloway’s “Minnie the Moocher” had been censored, writing “we did notice that the censors took out the reference to the King of Sweden who gave Minnie whatever she was needin’. Now it’s the King of Rythmania, who filled her full of vintage champagnia.” Although Daily Variety noted that preview audiences enjoyed Moore’s swing rendition of the classic song, it was not included in the general release print. 

—  Back in 2016, I wrote an article for the Huffington Post on When You're in Love when it debuted on the cable station, getTV. Check it out.

More about the film can be found on the Louise Brooks Society filmography page. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.   

A Girl in Every Port, featuring Louise Brooks, was released on this day in 1928

A Girl in Every Port, starring Louise Brooks, was released on this day in 1928. A Girl in Every Port is a classic early “buddy film,” On loan to Fox, Louise Brooks plays Marie (Mam’selle Godiva), a girl in Marseille, France. The film was directed by Howard Hawks, and stars Victor McLaglen and Robert Armstrong as the two sailors, and features Marie Casajuana, Sally Rand, Natalie Kingston, Leila Hyams, and Myrna Loy as the women they romance in various ports of call. 

More about the film can be found on the recently revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page. 

The film was shot in November and December, 1927 at Fox’s studios in Hollywood. Location shooting was done on a boating trip to Santa Cruz Island, located along the California coast. The film debuted at the mammoth Roxy theater in New York City. Fox claimed, and Film Daily reported, that A Girl in Every Port had broke the “world’s record” for a single day’s box office receipts, when on February 22, 1928 it premiered at the Roxy in New York and grossed $29,463.00. A hit, the film was written up in just about every NYC publications, from the German-language New Yorker Volkszeitung to Women’s Wear Daily to the socialist Daily Worker.

The film received glowing reviews. TIME magazine stated, “A Girl in Every Port is really What Price Glory? translated from arid and terrestrial irony to marine gaiety of the most salty and miscellaneous nature. Nobody could be more charming than Louise Brooks, that clinging and tender little barnacle from the docks of Marseilles. Director Howard Hawks and his entire cast, especially Robert Armstrong, deserve bouquets and kudos.” Weekly Film Review noted that the audience “Cheered it – and loved it!”

What many critics focused on was the bond between the two male characters, sailors played by Victor McLaglen and Robert Armstrong. Bland Johaneson of the New York Daily Mirror wrote, “A Girl in Every Port at the Roxy is a man’s picture. It’s a good character comedy. But the love interest is the love of two men friends. The girls are all rats. And that limits the picture’s appeal to the romanticists. . . . Victor McLaglen and Robert Armstrong do fine acting, and the comedy is neatly handled.” Limitations aside, women also liked the picture, according to the Newark Star-Eagle. “Women laughed delightedly in the Fox Terminal yesterday at what was supposed to be exclusively a he-man picture. Victor McLaglen starred as a true adventurer in A Girl in Every Port, and although the film was mostly fast battling, feminine spectators found delightful entertainment in it. . . . He has a prize associate in Robert Armstrong, who was the fighter in the stage version of Is Zat So, and Louise Brooks, cast as a sideshow siren, does capitally as the crisis of McLaglen’s career as a seaport Don Juan. . . . This is a salty, virile picture, full of flying fists and colorful rows in strange climates and distinguished by the unmovie like and emphatic characterizations of the two leading males.” 

The salty nature of the picture did not go unnoticed. According to Irene Thirer of the New York Daily News, “Director Howard Hawks has injected several devilish touches in the piece, which surprisingly enough, got by the censors.” An exhibitor from Michigan wrote in the Exhibitor’s Herald, “the salesman said that this was a good picture when he sold it to me… time must have rotted it for it is one of the smuttiest pictures on the market. If you want to promote immorality, by all means play this one. I have to use care and precaution in the selection of pictures, and this one brought plenty of criticism”.

Aside from its popularity in the United States, the film had an even bigger impact in Europe, especially France. Writing in 1930 in his “Paris Cinema Chatter” column in the New York Times, Morris Gilbert noted “ . . . there are a number of others – mostly American – which have their place as ‘classics’ in the opinion of the French. . . . They love A Girl in Every Port, which has the added distinction of being practically the only American film which keeps its own English title here.” The film enjoyed a long run in Paris, where to this day it is still highly regarded.

Notably,  Jean-Paul Sartre hoped to take Simone de Beauvoir to see the film on one of their first dates. Later, the writer Blaise Cendrars stated the film “marked the first appearance of contemporary cinema”.

SOME THINGS ABOUT THE FILM YOU MAY NOT KNOW:

— Much was made over the “bevy of beautiful girls” appearing in the film. Writing in the Hollywood Daily Citizen, Elena Brinkley quipped, “It seems to me they’ll never finish signing girls for Victor McLaglen’s A Girl in Every Port.” Early on, among those she reports cast was Anna May Wong.

— Maria Casajuana, a Spanish-born dancer and one-time “Miss Spain,” made her screen debut in A Girl in Every Port. As a newcomer, her role was heavily promoted. Beginning with Road House (1928), Casajuana appeared in films as Maria Alba. She also appeared in Goldie, a 1931 remake of A Girl in Every Port.

— Casajuana was not the only actress working under another name. Gretel Yolz was actually Eileen Sedgwick, one of the Five Sedgwicks, a pioneering family in Hollywood.

— In 1931, Fox remade A Girl in Every Port as a sound film entitled Goldie. The remake was directed by Benjamin Stoloff and starred Spencer Tracy, Warren Hymer and Jean Harlow. The 1952 Marx Brothers’ film of the same name is unrelated. 

More about the film can be found on the recently revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page.  

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.   

The Canary Murder Case, starring Louise Brooks, was released on this day in 1929

The Canary Murder Case, starring Louise Brooks, was released on this day in 1929. The film is a detective story involving an amateur sleuth, a blackmailing showgirl, and the “swells” that surround her. The film was initially shot as a silent, and shortly thereafter reworked for sound. Louise Brooks, who plays the canary, would not dub her lines for the sound version. Her refusal and perceived “difficulty” harmed her career, effectively ending her stardom in the United States. 

More about the film can be found on the newly revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page.

Based on a bestselling book of the same name, The Canary Murder Case was released to great anticipation. In February, 1929 Motion Picture named the film one of the best for the month, declaring “William Powell is superb. The rest of the players, including Louise Brooks, Jean Arthur, James Hall, Charles Lane, Gustav Von Seyffertitz and many others, win credit.” That opinion, however, was not shared by most. More typical of the reviews the film received was that of the New York World, who declared the film “an example of a good movie plot gone wrong as the result of spoken dialogue.”

Mordaunt Hall, writing in the New York Times, was more generous, “It is on the whole the best talking-mystery production that has been seen, which does not imply that it is without failings. It is quite obvious that Louise Brooks, who impersonates Margaret Odell, alias the Canary, does not speak her lines. Why the producers should have permitted them to be uttered as they are is a mystery far deeper than the story of this picture.” Billboard added “Louise Brooks is mediocre as the Canary, but this does not detract from the production, as she appears in but a few scenes.”

Malcolm St. Clair directed The Canary Murder Case, with Frank Tuttle taking over the sound retakes. The film was released as an 80 minute talkie in most markets, and as a shorter silent in theater’s not yet “wired for sound.” A few publications, such as The Film Daily, reviewed both formats.

Louella Parsons, writing in the Los Angeles Examiner, stated St. Clair “was handicapped by no less a person than Louise Brooks, who plays the Canary. You are conscious that the words spoken do not actually emanate from the mouth of Miss Brooks and you feel that as much of her part as possible has been cut. She is unbelievably bad in a role that should have been well suited to her. Only long shots are permitted of her and even these are far from convincing when she speaks.” Parson’s comments were echoed by Margaret L. Coyne of the Syracuse Post-Standard, who observed, “The only flaw is the substitution of another voice for that of Louise Brooks — the Canary — making necessary a number of subterfuges to disguise the fact.”

All were not fooled. The Oakland Post-Enquirer and other publications eventually caught on. “It is generally known by this time that Margaret Livingston doubled for Louise Brooks in the dialogue sequences. Hence the not quite perfect synchronization in close-ups and the variety of back views and dimly photographed profiles of the Canary.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer quipped “The role of the murdered girl is played by Louise Brooks, who is much more satisfying optically than auditorily.” Writing in Life magazine, Harry Evans went further, suggesting Brooks’ didn’t speak well. “Louise Brooks, who furnishes the sex-appeal, is evidently a poorer conversationalist than Miss Arthur, because all of her articulation is obviously supplied by a voice double.” 

It was an assertion that would haunt Brooks for years.

SOME THINGS ABOUT THE FILM YOU MAY NOT KNOW: 

— S. S. van Dine is the pseudonym used by art critic Willard Huntington Wright (1888 – 1939) when he wrote detective novels. Wright was an important figure in avant-garde cultural circles in pre-WWI New York, and under the pseudonym (which he originally used to conceal his identity) he created the once immensely popular fictional detective Philo Vance, a sleuth and aesthete who first appeared in books in the 1920s, then in movies and on the radio in the following decades.

— Wright was one of the best-selling authors in the United States. The Canary Murder Case was the second book in a popular series featuring Vance — though the film made from it was the first in the series to feature the character. William Powell revived his role as Vance in four additional films, including The Greene Murder Case, released later in 1929. Other actors who played Vance include Basil Rathbone and Edmund Lowe.

— S.S. van Dine’s novel was loosely based on the real-life murder of showgirl Dot King, which was never solved. King was among those nicknamed “Broadway Butterflies.”

— Glenn Wilson, a Federal investigator attached to the bureau of criminal investigation for Los Angeles county, reportedly served as an adviser on the film.

—  In 2024, Kino Lorber released the Philo Vance Collection. It includes 4k restorations of The Canary Murder Case and The Greene Murder Case, and a 2K restoration of The Benson Murder Case. Based on S.S. Van Dine’s bestselling novels, these classic Pre-Code murder-mysteries showcase the case-cracking prowess of the debonair detective Philo Vance, as portrayed by cinema’s icon of gentlemanly sleuthing, William Powell. More information about this recommended Blu-ray can be found HERE.

More about the film can be found on the newly revised Louise Brooks Society filmography page. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.  

Lulu in Hollywood, by Louise Brooks, released as an e-book for the first time

The first ever e-book edition of Lulu in Hollywood by Louise Brooks is set to be released on February 3, 2026 by the University of Minnesota Press. The print edition has just recently been re-released with a bold new front and back cover, shown below. For more, visit this page HERE.

I am pleased to report that both the e-book edition of Lulu in Hollywood and its re-release as a print edition has come about through behind-the-scenes efforts of Thomas Gladysz and the Louise Brooks Society.

The book description on amazon.com, where the book is for sale, reads:

"Essential writings by this icon of the silent era―rereleased in print and now available as an e-book 100 years after Louise Brooks arrived in Hollywood. 

Lulu in Hollywood is an intimate collection of eight autobiographical essays by Louise Brooks, silent film darling and icon of the flapper era. Ranging from her childhood in Kansas and her early days as a Denishawn and Ziegfeld Follies dancer to her friendships with Martha Graham, Charles Chaplin, W. C. Fields, Humphrey Bogart, William Paley, G. W. Pabst, and others, Brooks’s writing offers a rare glimpse into her extraordinary life. Including her revelatory “Why I Will Never Write My Memoirs,” Lulu in Hollywood also features Kenneth Tynan’s 1979 essay “The Girl in the Black Helmet,” which revived interest in Brooks’s work and was the best discussion of her film work to appear in her lifetime."

# # #  

The publication of Lulu in Hollywood was very important to Louise Brooks. It was her testament to the world. Notably, Brooks’ own copy of the book was on her night table next to her bed at the time of her death in 1985.  

the 1982 edition

The book sold steadily, but sometime in the mid-to-late 1990s, Lulu in Hollywood fell out-of-print. In the year 2000, aided in part by a grass-roots campaign led by the Louise Brooks Society, Lulu in Hollywood was republished in an expanded edition by the University of Minnesota Press. The copyright page of this new edition reads, “The University of Minnesota press gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Thomas Gladysz, director of the Louise Brooks Society, in the publication of this book.” Happily, for fans everywhere, it has remained in print since, and has now been rereleased an e-book.

The University of Minnesota edition was given a new look, with a redesigned front and back cover. It was also revised. The now eight essays included in this most recent edition are “Kansas to New York,” “On Location with Billy Wellman,” “Marion Davies’ Niece,” “Humphrey and Bogey,” “The Other Face of W. C. Fields,” “Gish and Garbo,” “Pabst and Lulu” and, additionally, “Why I Will Never Write My Memoirs.” The original William Shawn introduction was replaced by Kenneth Tynan’s acclaimed New Yorker profile, “The Girl in the Black Helmet”. Retained in the new edition was the original afterword by Lotte H. Eisner, “A Witness Speaks”, as well as the condensed filmography and the various illustrations.

the 2000 edition

Someday, I hope to get an annotated edition released, but that might have to wait seven years. 

Read and learn more about Lulu in Hollywood on the Louise Brooks Society website. A page about the book can be found HERE. The LBS also hosts a BIBLIOGRAPHY of reviews and articles, as well as a GALLERY page of international editions. 

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.   

Pandora's Box, starring Louise Brooks, was approved for release on this day in 1929

Pandora's Box, directed by G.W. Pabst and starring Louise Brooks, was approved for release on this day in 1929, though the film did not premiere until February 9, 1929. That first showing -- the film's premiere -- took place at the Gloria–Palast in Berlin. (And despite what has been stated elsewhere, Louise Brooks did not attend the premiere. She had already returned to the United States.)

Pandora’s Box was based on two plays by the acclaimed German dramatist Frank Wedekind. Despite it being a German production made from a well known work of German literature, German censors were taken aback by what was then considered the film’s frank portrayal of sexuality. The modernist poet H.D. (Hilda Doolittle), writing in the English / Swiss film journal Close-Up, noted the controversy when she stated the film had only “passed by the German censors after a stormy discussion of several hours duration.”  

On January 30, 1929, the production received an approval card (No. 21540) from the Berlin Film Censorship Board which allowed for its public screening.** 

Some ten days later, the G.W. Pabst-directed film debuted at the Gloria-Palast in Berlin. Writing in Film-Kurier on February 11, Georg Herzberg thought it inevitable that the film would contain less provocative material than Wedekind’s stage play. The reason the reviewer suggests was “self-censorship” — because unlike the stage-play, the film was aimed at a larger audience, not only in Germany, but also overseas. Herzberg notes “… the filmmaker had to tone things down.” And then asks, “In popular cinema, how will one understand the character of Countess Geschwitz and her relationship with Lulu?” 

** On April 9, 1934 the Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda revoked the January 30, 1929 approval card, thereby banning the film in Germany. Please visit the Louise Brooks Society website for more on Pandora's Box and its history of censorship around the world. 

 
And, more about Pandora's Box can be found on the newly revamped Louise Brooks Society website on its Pandora's Box (filmography page).

THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society  (www.pandorasbox.com). Original content copyright © 2026. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.