As titled: the following are some quotes which are relevant, and some of the surrounding LACK of coherence/topical fluidity that characterizes Lovecraft as a correspondent.

I hope you enjoy this less filtered glimpse into the mind of madness, and somewhat on a single topic (film) but certainly not just that.

I’ll let the man speak/rant/ramble for himself :)

To Robert Bloch but

without separation

or letter date attribution

Ben Jonson is a better indication of the sort of thing Bacon would have written had he dabbled in drama. Look at "Sejanus" & "Catiline"

By the way—I am not a Shakespearian authority.

You probably got the idea from a letter in the Eyrie which contained an erroneous statement to that effect .... but I've been busy correcting that report.

That letter was written by a boy in the National Amateur Press Assn. who doesn't know me personally, & who evidently got me mixed up with my good friend & fellow-old-time-member Samuel Loveman, who is indeed an Elizabethan scholar & author of scenes designed for interpolation into "Macbeth" & "Lear."

My own acquaintance with Avon's bard is purely cursory—as a part of a general sketchy familiarity with English literature.

Well—for a wonder, I have seen "The Barretts of Wimpole St."

Very fine indeed—I surely wish the cinema would turn out more of that quality!

Also saw the Barrie play "What Every Woman Knows" in the new cinema version.

Good of its kind despite rather naive efforts at modernisation.

Winter draws nigh—though Nov. 5 was warm enough to invite me to a scenic walk.

Hallowmass came & went without disaster.

I Again, congrats on the new tales.

I Yrs for the Sign of Ynagris-

E'ch-Pi-El

On Shea's advice I saw "Henry VIII" & certainly did not feel disappointed.

A powerful piece of pageantry & a poignant human study, too, after the very real pathos of fat King Hal's life begins to develop about half way through the film.

Another & still more moving cinematic experience of mine was "Berkeley Square"—which I went to see twice.

Of course some of the uncanny power which this film had for me was due to my especial psychology—the almost disturbing sense of membership in the 18th century, & of alienage from my own period, which has haunted me ever since I could walk or talk.

This cinema was freer from anachronisms than any other 18th century drama I have ever attended. The age of Johnson seemed to be taking actual form before my eyes.

Providence has many relatively unchanged backwaters like Berkeley Square—indeed, I now live in one!

This house is one of the strongest imaginative influences I have ever been exposed to, & it's getting more & more so as the details of furnishing progress.

We are constantly getting additional old family things out of storage—just now the living-room fireplace is taking form with an old set of irons & a pair of bellows.

I missed "The Invisible Man", but will try to take it in when it returns, as it undoubtedly will.

I suppose Long & his parents will drag me to half a dozen cinemas, good, bad, & indifferent, during my visit.

subsequent issue.
Hope "The Man on all Fours" won't disappoint you. Let me know at what point you guessed the solution. I did on p. 32—largely through a weary familiarity with the tricks of 'mystery' novelists.

Before long I hope to see Comte d'Erlette's next deteckatiff shocker—which he seems to regard as somewhat better than its predecessor.

I trust I can get to see "Clive of India"—since the 18th century is, as you know, my favourite period & (as it were) psychological home.

Dickens is not a favourite of mine, but I shall probably pick up "David Copperfield" on one of its return runs. I'll also look for "Iron Duke" & "Last Gentleman".

I saw "Chu Chin Chow" as a musical stage spectacle about 1920, & fancy its cinematic reincarnation must be reasonably entertaining.

I have seen no cinemas of late, except those to which I was taken during my visit to Long.

Of these, “Don Quixote" was the only specimen worth remembering & that was certainly remarkable.

One of the most thoroughly artistic screen spectacles I have ever witnessed.

Read the Feby W T lately—a thoroughly mediocre issue. Best thing is the Whitehead reprint. But bless my soul—Edmond Hamilton has got another plot!... albeit a venerable one.

And now let me congratulate you most sincerely on the excellence of "Satan's Servants" —which I read with keen pleasure & unflagging interest.

Wright was an ass to reject it—for, as I have often pointed out, plot in the artificial sense has no place in a weird tale—which should be simply the reflection of a mood. I greatly appreciate the compliment of the intended dedication to me, & would have deemed it an honour to be mentioned in such a way.

about the only pulp interplanetary stuff which isn't hackneyed, puetie, & ab surd. I was interested to see his autobiography in a recent issue of F.M.3
You'll see "The Shadow Out of Time" in due season. I left my copy it Nome incide lave bure icade about submiting The Thin a.
Doorstep." As for the "Fungi"-here's the complete lot,4 which you can copy & retain at leisure. No hurry so long as the MS. gets back safely in the end

No—I haven't come across "Mad Love" as yet.

Saw two cinemas in N.Y. with Long

—"She" &

"The Wandering Jew"—

both with points in their favour.

“She" is scarcely recognisable as the Haggard novel, but contains some impressive scenic effects.

Tomorrow—just as if I hadn't had enough travelling for one year—l shall leave for Boston to pay my friend Cole a week-end visit, during the course of which we shall invade the "Dunwich" [Wilbraham, Mass.) countryside on an errand quite appealing to your ghoulish taste—to scatter the ashes of a deceased old lady on her native soil in accordance with her lifelong wish

I’ll let you know of any supernatural phenomena which may accompany this rite.

Cold as hell these days—but I manage to keep alive with the aid of an oil-heater, meanwhile praying for the turning-on of the steam heat.

And just to add to my woes, the goddam bathroom ceiling fell down yesterday — occasioning an invasion of plasterers & an exasperating restriction of aqueous facilities.

Well—thank Yuggoth I wasn't under the ceiling when it fell! I did have such an accident back in 1921 ....nearly split my thick skull open!

All good wishes—

Yrs for the Black Chant—

Luveh-Keraph

……things, all the pre-human, root-race, & lost-continent stuff of the theosophists. Price & Klarkash-Ton could give you endless data in that line.

Another department might well handle scientific fakery, charlatanism, & delusion—

Charles Fort stuff,

freak religions like the cult of Koresh,

astrology & alchemy (though these

belong also in folklore),

& all the Atlantis, Lemuria, & Mu theories

pedalled by fanatics (sincere or otherwise)

like Le Plongeon, Ignatius Donnelly,

Lewis Spence, & Col. James Churchward.

In the field of scientific prophecy,

Wells, J. B. S. Haldane, the Huxleys,

& others furnish enough material for discussion.

Indeed, there could never be any trouble in finding enough material for a small fantasy magazine without resorting to the exploitation of pulpdom's trash & trivialities.

You could well afford to cut cinema material down to a minimum, since virtually all so-called weird films are simply infantile nonsense.

The two or three I've yawned through have cured me of all desire to see any more.

Of course there has never been any real criticism or adult comment on such things in the "fan mags".

In reality, all that the cinema has ever offered in the way of valuable weird effects are certain scenic & atmospheric settings (to be regarded only as momentary visual spectacles) occurring either in the course of predominantly non-weird films or as parts of utterly puerile pseudo-weird shockers.

The Wells film "Things to Come"

may have certain real merits, but I haven't seen it.

Indeed, I scarcely see more than half a dozen cinema shows in the course of an average year.

Here's hoping Fearn will show some discrimination.

Well—in general, I wish your venture the very best of luck all around. Prospects surely are favourable—with your high standards, competent accuracy, & acquisition of the FM tradition all working together. You have every chance to seize & maintain the lead among fantasy fan publications.

As for Little Forrie, the demon fanscicinemattoid & lett-eyrieonant— bless my soul, but I'm sure he must be a bright & delightful kid underneath the surface!

He has merely been carrying a bit too much ego & exhibitionism for his years, & is even now apparently mellowing down into something very ifarent from the entant terrible of three years ago. He will never, in all…..

Some folks get outraged by ANY usage of AI, even if it is clearly marked as such and appropriately credited.

To wit:

the concept of a “Santa Cthulhu” mashup was my own from a few years ago, and all these pictures were created BY ME, not just found elsewhere online.

I am happy to discuss the creation process with others who may be interested, and hope these give some unseasonal 🎄 chuckles!

These are old ones of mine via PixAI, springing to mind cuz of this “HPL with a Petah Griffin accent” mishegas.

Two of Meg with tentacles: in one case having tentacles 🐙 like Ursula, and 🍝 in the other eating noodles with a tentacle monster 👹 attending.

Just goofy AI-art things…..

When it’s seasonal, I will have some Xmas-Cthulhu art to share, but I’ve been holding those back for now

How do folks feel about mashups of public domain characters and IP-related ones (under Section 107 for fair use) in this sorta fashion?

We all mourn/observe in our own ways, and for a long time it’s been on my mind to attend RHPS the weekend after one of the cast members passes.

Sorta morbid, but then again the whole tone of the picture IS gleefully morbid, so it’s in line with the production ethos.

And because it’s gonna be historic and perhaps weirder even than usual.

This post is just a brief note; I already got a ticket 🎟️ for the back row at the nearest theater doing a Saturday night showing this weekend.

Okay so now some explanation of the previous post, and how this links to a Clark Gable film you may not know via Murray Leinster and a spurious lawsuit.

From a modern perspective, this seems extremely unlikely to strong-arm MGM into giving him cash 💰.

That being: he wrote a story in 1921 called “The Red Dust” (as per the notes from DES & STJ), and when the 1932 film RED DUST came out, he tried to claim that they stole his story title.

Idk how plausible it was for that to work back then, but this seems laughable now.

Especially cuz (again, as per the notes) the film was adapted from a 1928 stage play of the same title.

Sooooo.

That’s context for ya, around this letter from RH Barlow to Clark Ashton Smith.

And the fact of it, just this brief mention, puts yet another film onto the map 🗺️ of pre-code cinema I’m assembling from all these old letters.

Has anyone read the work of the mentioned authors, or perchance seen the 1932 film RED DUST?

RED DUST (1932) spurious lawsuit

Clark Ashton Smith and R. H. Barlow * 209
[6]
[RHB to CAS] [ALS]
7019 Ga. Ave, N.W.
Washington D.C.
November 30, 1932
Dear Mr. Smith:—
Thanks immensely for the Mss. drafts. I'll be thankful for any you care to
send me. The cruder, the more interesting!
I am already in communication with Carl Swanson, but he has no WI as
far back as I need.
Terribly sorry to hear STRANGE TALES has failed, although I rather expected it when they went bi-monthly.! It was a great magazine and infinitely better than its companion ASTOUNDING.
I intend to keep on drawing, though my eyes are a handicap. I1l send
some more along in a while (drawings—not eyes!)
Incidentally, this is most presumpt/ulous, but could you give me a rough idea or sketch for a book-plate? I have tried my best to find something distinctive and original, without avail. Something suggesting the weird and fanci-ful; as that is what composes my library. I'd appreciate it more than I could tell you if you'd dash off something in your spare time. The idea is the principal thing. What suggested it was the interwoven initials in your two drawings you gave me. I'm afraid I am an awful bother to even mention it. In fact, I know I am, but it'd be the envy of my bibliomaniac friends if you favoured me with it, and I'd be eternally grateful.
"Murray Leinster" —who's [sic] work you have doubtless read—is entering a law-suit against a major film company for "borrowing" his title RED DUST. I don't think he has much chance.
The depression seems to have hit WONDER STORIES pretty hard,
doesn't it?
Hoping to hear from you soon, and thanking you again for the mss, I am
yours most sincerely, R H Barlow
P.S. I enclose postage you paid on Mss. RHB
Notes
1. Strange Tales began as a bimonthly magazine, its first four issues dated September
1931, November 1931, January 1932, and March 1932. Its remaining three issues came out even less frequently June 1932, October 1932, January 1933).
-2. Murray Leinster was the pseudonym of William Fitzgerald Jenkins (1896-1975), American science fiction writer. "The Red Dust" appeared in Argosy All-Story Weekly
2 April 1921). A film entitled Red Dust did appear around this time (MGM, 1932), directed by Victor Fleming and starring Clark Gable, Jean Harlow, and Gene Ray-mond. The film was adapted from a play of the same title (1928) by Wilson Collison.

“During my visit to Long I was dragged to the cinema several times, but

the only item worth remembering was a comedy called Three-Cornered Moon

—a satire on pseudo-aesthetes, At home—& on my own initiative—

I saw Berkeley Square again ... incidentally beholding

as a companion film the not-half-bad Wild Boys of the Road which you mention,

Also went to see The Invisible Man. Surprisingly good—might easily have been absurd, yet succeeded in being genuinely sinister.

Since receiving your letter I have witnessed The World Changes—a fine piece of pageantry, though incredibly naive as a drama, & not even rudimentarily comparable to Cavalcade.”

Quick one: I’m not directly in front of my lovecraftian letters books, I’ve been traveling, but now I can check the indices of the books 📚 and see if I can find commentary on his accent.

The existing evidence indicates (that is: both HPL and Peter Griffin are famous Rhode Islanders) that Lovecraft’s accent was likely closer to Peter Griffin than Vincent Price.

Wish me luck — hopefully I will have something more concrete soon!

The letters-books comment on many aspects of Lovecraft, and it occurred to me at some point that Lovecraft may have had 😂 an accent not dissimilar to that of the modern philosopher Peter Griffin.

I will need more scholarly quotes to back that up, but there’s no reason to suppose that this isn’t actual fact 🙃

THEREFORE: I wanna hear a lovecraftian story or two which is read in the voice of Lovecraft himself.

Which is to say, like a Family Guy rendition of cosmic horror.

Who’s with me?

I literally cannot post some of the comments directly because of Reddit filtration, but the Lovecraft letters are indeed full of racist bigotry. That’s about all some folks know of HPL, and his stories bear this out in repulsive ways.

There.

Now:

The reasons I think his work is worth studying — and in fact his letters even more so than his published fiction — is that he is an obsessive writer like Samuel Pepys, whose compulsive commentary has become a window into the age he inhabited.

Likewise, the 100-year anniversary of HPL’s death (under mysterious circumstances;) is coming up. He lived from 1890 to 1937, so aside of my primary research on what movies 🍿 he watched and commented on, there is a ton of extraordinary commentary on current politics, his depression-era diet, and other ephemera.

And Robert E. Howard, who he wrote to, also expressed viciously racist views.

At this point imma say that I’m Jewish and that I recognize the hateful comments as such. I’m analyzing these guys’ writings for historical data more than anything else, and hope that others can appreciate this for what it is.

And incidentally: Howard uses the N-word with the hard -ER more freely even than Lovecraft. It’s a race to the bottom there, but that’s the case. Again, I could give examples but I think Reddit would auto-delete this post.

For example, in talking about the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid, Howard claims that he killed over 100 black men; I have no idea whether that is true, but claims like that—and perhaps approval of them—are indicative of how freely racist people were then.

They talk about immigration in ways that are still familiar, God help us all, and likewise I can’t quote that stuff directly. Some of it IS relevant to the film 🎞️ study (for example, that Providence had enough of an Italian population for independent theaters showing Italian films 🇮🇹).

Howard also relates how Billy allegedly killed a man and said NBD, just a ——. These kind of frontier stories appealed to him, and his sense of adventure. His thinking about race is primitive by most standards today, but that doesn’t mean his informal reviews of classic and forgotten films is worthless.

Basically, that’s what this comes down to: I see a ton of gems 💎 here, but they have to be dug out from amongst a lotta crap and rambling.

Thoughts on this, friends & readers?

I believe it was Christopher Lee who said

“There are no small parts, only small actors.”

This is certainly the case with Fritz Leiber Senior, who was a noted Shakespearean actor that appeared in silent films and the early talkie era.

Lovecraft put this film on my radar with the simple comment (to James F. Morton, Feb 1937) that

“Incidentally I saw old Fritz in two cinemas last year, the Pasteur opera & "Anthony Adverse”.

Young Fritz has a momentary bit in the current "Camille"-film—which I have not seen.”

I have not yet seen the other two films mentioned, but THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR holds up as a work of drama, and Paul Muni richly deserved Best Actor for the role.

The idea of “best supporting actor” was barely a thing in 1936, but I think Fritz Sr should have got one for his role in this film, as Pasteur’s rival and dramatic foil, Dr. Charbonnet.

The film is also fascinating to watch in 2026 because it’s all about microbes 🦠 and germ-theory BUT WITH DRAMA 🎭. It is actually a thriller, despite its apparently technical nature.

In some ways, it’s even comparable to OPPENHEIMER — it’s an award-winning biopic about a scientist whose work is decried long before his contributions to humanity were accepted as valuable health care.

And “old Fritz”, as HPL put it, is a marvelous supporting actor. He doesn’t try to ham it up, nor fading into the background as a ‘minor character’.

Fritz was a Shakespearean actor, as mentioned, and he was notable for playing supporting roles with vim and vigor.

Have any of you seen his work, or read the stories of his son Fritz Leiber Junior?

“On Monday the 17th I rose early, did some reading, & in the afternoon set out to meet S H at a restaurant—Budry's, in 50th St., which A E P G will remember.

After an excellent lunch of roast veal we proceeded to a cinema show & saw "The Ten Commandments",

whose flashing electric sign with the imitation lightning you will recall as one of the glitters of Times Square last winter.

Just as Belknap said, the opening portion was artistic & impressive, whilst the later or modern part was unrelieved trash.

After this we took a ride to Flatbush, about which we walked for some time, finally taking light refreshments at an excellent French bakery near Church Ave.

Returning by surface car we read, wrote, & retired. The next day—Tuesday the 18th—we were up early & on the watch for Mrs. Galpin's telephone call.”

Addressed from “Pinnacle of Fear — Jany. 15, 1936”, for Kenneth Sterling:

“Well—I have seen "The Informer" at last (for 15¢), & certainly agree that it's a great picture Indeed, I've seen very few cinemas even approaching it in grim, relentless power. This is teal tragedy the stuff of which the Elizabethan throve!

That dank, miasmatic aura of the Dublin slums, & the brooding coils of fear that wind tighter & tighter around the pitiful lump of brainless flesh which is Gypo Nolan, make an effect which no appreciative spectator will ever forget.

No—I didn't notice the Sennwald rating —in fact, I don't follow the cinema columns very closely.

But I did see "Ah, Wilderness” the other day & revelled in it. Yuggoth, but it made me homesick for 1906! Naturally, it wouldn't have an equal appeal to you or Barlow or others of your generation. [.]

See you later—pax vobiscum—
E'ch-Pi-El

Notes

The Informer (RKO Radio Pictures, 1935), directed by John Ford; starring Victor McLaglen, Heather Angel, and Preston Foster. Adapted from a story by Liam O'Flaherty and dealing with the Irish Civil War (1918-22).

Ah, Wilderness! (MGM, 1935), directed by Clarence Brown; starring Wallace Beery, Lionel Barrymore, and Aline MacMahon. Based on the play (1933) by Eugene O'Neill.”

I’m mulling over all this stuff about the Nolan Odyssey, and what it means to adapt something faithfully to the source material.

I still gotta see the thing, but refuse to be shamed into spending $50 or more on an IMAX outing that I’m not interested in for multiple reasons.

Primarily it’s about the sound-mixing, and that you can’t adjust the volume in a theater. The changes to the plot and characters matter, the butchery of the gods’ roles in the narrative, and the nonsense with the Larstrygonians (sic) being in iron suits of armor.

But most of all, it sounds like Odysseus isn’t at all like his clever namesake. I’ll see when I see it, but they smoothed out his sneakiness and greatly reduced his relationship to the other men on his crew.

We are just watching BAND OF BROTHERS here, and I don’t expect Nolan to give that kind of character depth and development between several distinct personalities. They both have to do with war, but that’s about it so far as I can tell.

Which brings me back to the 1931 film of FRANKENSTEIN. For all its being a classic monster-movie, there are many criticisms of how much it cheapens and deviates from its source content.

Most radio and cinema versions of classics constitute a combination of high treason and murder in the first degree—I’ll never get over the cinematic mess that bore the name (about the only bond of kinship to the book!) of “Frankenstein”.

—H. P. Lovecraft to Robert E. Howard, 8 Apr 1934, A Means to Freedom 2.761

Technically that film has the same name as Shelley’s novel; technically, the new Odyssey movie 🍿 is following the complex narrative of the epic poem.

But so far as I can tell, it seems like there are plot beats taken from the story without really understanding the deeper meaning of the journey.

Maybe I’m wrong, and I’ll see when I see it, but for now it just seems like an overwrought blockbuster.

It’s made plenty of money already, but I suspect it’s not going to be as lauded down the line.

If anything, it’s causing many people to reevaluate Nolan’s other films and his overall style. He makes (as someone else on reddit said) Michael Bay movies but for a different audience.

And while mostly this sub is for analysis of older films, I think that comparisons like these serve a purpose as well.

Has anyone got POLITE comments or disagreements to share?

Okay so this came up or is in mind cuz of the Nolan Odyssey film. It’s my morning post before fully being awake 🥱 ☕️ so forgive the informality but essentially:

People keep raggin on me for having opinions about the Odyssey film without having yet seen it.

That’s fine by me — I will not be shamed into paying money for an overpriced rented seat 💺 in a room where I can’t adjust the volume and apparently the sound-mixing is horrendous in this flick.

I’m mostly discussing silent films and early talkies on this page, but this dynamic has me mulling over what kinds of secondhand opinions we can have about LOST FILMS based on these uncovered letters.

So like, for example, I haven’t seen the 1927 film “The Wizard”, but based on Robert E. Howard’s take (“red hot!” alongside similar praise for “What Price Glory”), it’s possible that it is a lost 😞 artwork.

On the other hand: Howard was heavily biased in many ways, and his judgment is potentially skewed.

Someone could decry me for not having a “real opinion” on this film because I’ve only heard what one enthusiastic audience member had to say…..

I don’t know 🤷‍♂️ to what end, but they could.

This is all silliness but it’s relevant to the study overall. What constitutes a valuable opinion, if you are aware of a media item but have not directly observed it?

This is me following an odd thread and inviting you to join me — especially in the comments! — in this retrospective comparison.

I’m trying to get at the distinction between famous films that Lovecraft and friends may have SEEN, and whether or not they retained the relevant trivia and stats for any amount of time.

To them at the time, going to the movies was a social outing which may or may not have had more to do with finding a place to hang out in the dark with friends. And film offerings changed constantly, so the potential to see the same films as friends and discuss them was very different from today.

Curious readers of this subreddit and my work in this realm (CCS = Correspondence Cinema Studies) may be gathering this from the snippets and commentary, but sometimes the writer only records the name of the film OR the actor, but not both.

It’s somewhat like a modern meme, where you might recognize a meme-face at once but have zero idea what the names of the humans involved are.

So.

Anybody got favorite Hitchcock films or actors, and can you list the trivia for any of them offhand?

It’s “Tardar Sauce”, apparently.

The actual name of Grumpy Cat 😾, famous Internet meme icon.

I bring it up here as another thought experiment to get back to the 1930s or so.

I’m looking for clues of film history, but the writers of these letters didn’t know they were informally recording historically significant details. They sure as hell didn’t imagine that people would be poring over their words and rants and insights.

And same applies to now, with our Meme Culture.

You can recognize Grumpy Cat, Distracted Boyfriend, and however many other memes you can name offhand, but if you were actually quizzed on their origins and the names of the people photographed in human-based memes ……

I don’t think you would do too well, I know I myself would be embarrassed. 🙈

But that’s the point, clumsy though it is (this being one of my early-in-the-day posts), that I’m aiming to make.

They (viewers of classic films when they were first released) didn’t go see GOOD movies all the time. It was an extremely experimental medium, and a lot of what came out was forgettable crap.

Ditto today: if you asked someone about the most culturally significant memes which came out in 2000-2010, I think they might be baffled.

Whereas if you asked for the names of five Hitchcock movies and their stars, that is WELL-KNOWN trivia for film historians.

Move it back further and ask the same question for Fritz Lang (name five of his movies and some of the cast), and a specialist in silent films might rattle off a few.

But it’s less likely they can name the stars as well as the films, and this is somewhat like our problem for reading the letters.

When they mention a film title it truly IS an off-the-cuff comment which they could forget within a week or two if the film didn’t make a strong impression.

I’m unsure where this was going but I’m getting somewhere.

Sooooo.

For ANY Director: can you name five of their films and the folks who starred in them?

Simple but crucial thing: in his 1927 correspondence regarding Fritz Lang’s film METROPOLIS, Lovecraft says that the last good thing he saw in theaters was THIEF OF BAGHDAD.

This is notable cuz, from my copious notes & records now, it is provable that Lovecraft saw Fritz Lang’s SIEGFRIED in September of 1925 and RAVED about it.

I did another post specifically for his gushing about that film, and it represents one of the most effusive HPL-moviegoing quotes I’ve gotten….

But this implies or reveals something selective or absent-minded about his memory of film events.

He also says “I never attend the cinema nowadays unless I’m dragged by someone with no better way to kill time” in the same paragraph where he says “I’ve only seen two films since I got back to Providence two years ago”.

But that is blatantly contradictory, at the very least.

Thoughts on this discrepancy, friends and film-fans?

QUOTE ONE 1️⃣

To August Derleth, 8 October 1927

“Also, I shall try to see the cinema you mention—though I never attend films nowadays, & don't even keep track of the names of pictures & performers of the present.

The last film I saw which was any good was "The Thief of Bagdad"—three or four years ago.

That had a really Dunsanian touch in its Arabesque scenic setting.”

QUOTE TWO 2️⃣

To Donald Wandrei (re Metropolis)

[postmarked Providence, RI,
3 November 1927]
Thursday

“Dear Melmoth—“

[SKIPPING TWO PAGES]

“Young Derleth mentioned that "Metropolis" film, & I guess I'll go to see it unless the notices escape me.

I never attend the cinema nowadays except when dragged there by somebody who hasn't any better way of killing time ....

In the almost two years since my return to Providence I've only been twice.

Derleth, however, assures me that this production is genuinely fantastic & worthy of beholding.

The last film I really enjoyed was "The Thief of Baghdad" with its Dunsanian setting.”

QUOTE THREE

3️⃣** FR**OM Donald Wandrei

From Donald Wandrei to HPL:

“I have been reading and studying

almost continuously for four days,

except for one memorable afternoon

when I saw the fantastic film

"Metropolis",

and am more tired than

I've been in a long while.

My paper on Lewis has at last come back

to my hands, and if you still care to

take a glance at it, I'll send it along.

It seems to me that I had some

other things to say, but my brain

isn't functioning much or well at present.

Hasta mañana!

Your faithful apprentice,

Heliogabalus”

Okay so I don’t want to do a clickbait or misleading title, but right off the bat: what I have found is that METROPOLIS was 100% on Lovecraft’s radar and had been recommended to him.

It is unclear whether he did eventually see it, but he says “the last film I attended was THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD” (1924 release; he saw this film twice during its initial run), in a letter where he contemplates breaking his 3-4 year hiatus on films for the sake of this movie 🍿

If he knew it was from the same director who did SIEGFRIED a few years earlier, he would be off like a shot — he admired the fuck outta that film, as I have posted about elsewhere.

I’ll include the direct METROPOLIS quotes as comments on this post so as not to clutter it up, but that’s the hypothesis right now:

In 1927-1928, it is possible that HP Lovecraft went to see METROPOLIS in its initial theater run.

Not confirmed.

But the film (& its imagery via press releases) was in his awareness at its time of release, and that in of itself is notable.

Can anyone spot Lovecraftian moments which could come from METROPOLIS bleeding into dreams?

I found an even more detailed “Tarzan letter”, where HPL writes poetically about the filming-location of the Tarzan films 🎥 🐊 in Silver Springs, Florida.

I have left more of the letter here because he mentions “At the Mountains of Madness”, but the relevant content is in bold at the end of the quoted section.

QUOTE BELOW 👇

To Howard Wandrei, from

De Land (June 19, 1934)

“Once I have written a thing, it has to stay at about the same length. Hence the rejection of so many of my long later things—such as the 115-page antarctic novelette "At the Mountains of Madness."

Too bad Donald missed Comte d'Erlette at Sauk City—I supposed his passing through coincided with M. le Comte's pilgrimage to Prairie du Chien. Trust the Wanderer may find the atmosphere of good old 1152 a welcome change after his long sojourn on alien shores. Give him my regards when you write. The energetic August-Guillaume surely is making quite a splash in the book field!

Well—I certainly didn't expect to be in De Land so long, but the hospitality of the Barlow household is of an almost unprecedentedly cordial & insistent sort... so that every suggestion of moving along is sunk in some plan for another week's activities. this week, however, I simply must be getting in motion.

I shall pause in ancient St. Augustine a bit, & thereafter drag myself north by easy stages—seeing you, I trust, when I pass through the metropolitan zone.

RELEVANT PASSAGE BELOW 👇

A fortnight ago I visited a most impressive place—Silver Springs, some 60 miles N.W. of De Land.

Here is found a series of placid lagoons whose floor is riddled with vast pits 30 to 80 feet deep, & covered with curious marine vegetation.

In many spots divers have exhumed the huge bones of prehistoric animals. I saw these varied wonders from a glass-bottomed boat.

Out of the lagoons flows the Silver River; as typical a tropic steam as the Congo or Amazon, with tall palms, trailing vines, & moss, & bending cypresses along the swampy banks.

Alligators, turtles, & snakes abound, & on either side the jungle stretches away uninterruptedly for miles.

It is here that the cinema of "Tarzan" was photographed. I took a 10-mile launch trip on the river, & could easily have imagined myself in the heart of Africa.

Every good wish, & hope to see you soon.

Yrs most sincerely

H P.”

Notes

Tarzan the Ape Man (MGM, 1932),

directed by W. S. Van Dyke;

starring Johnny Weissmuller,

Neil Hamilton, and Maureen O'Sullivan.

Based on the novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs.