Lois Weber gave many speeches during her career as a film writer-director, but until now our knowledge of them has been limited to journalistic summaries and brief quoted excerpts. The current article advances our understanding of this dimension of Weber's career (and helps restore her “voice,” in a sense) by providing the text of an entire speech, reconstructed from five primary sources. Weber discussed a wide range of film topics in this public talk, which she delivered to the Los Angeles Woman's Club in July 1913. They included censorship issues, film's educational possibilities, her interest in greater authenticity in films, and her desire to uplift films and to correct the misinformation surrounding what she called “the glamour and danger of motion picture work.” It typifies the many speeches she gave to audiences made up of women who shared her interest in raising the standards of Hollywood and its products.

Lois Weber, a leading Hollywood writer-director during the 1910s and 1920s, possessed a work ethic and drive that at times reached superhuman proportions. Most famously—and astoundingly—she wrote, directed, starred in, edited, and titled one film per week without a break over a three-year period. Despite the strain of such an unrelenting production schedule, she found the time during those years to engage in a different and often overlooked type of film-related work: public speaking.

Lois Weber, October 1912.
Lois Weber, October 1912.

Weber had first demonstrated a flair for oratory during the early 1900s, when as a youthful Church Army worker she delivered sermons from street corners, and she honed that ability into a set of formidable speaking skills that served her well throughout her filmmaking career. She gave many public talks in the 1910s and 1920s, often delivering her commentary with a proselytizer's verve. They included several stump speeches during her 1913 campaign for the mayoralty of Universal City, California, a 1915 talk to an all-female audience titled “How to Get into Motion Pictures,” a speech as the guest of honor at a gathering of the Motion Pictures Producers’ Association in 1917, and a speech in 1918 that detailed Hollywood women's involvement in the war effort, to name a few.1 During a cross-country trip in 1921, she spoke to women's organizations in at least ten US cities on such topics as “Woman's Influence in the Photoplay World,” “Moving Picture Censorship,” and “The Sunday Blue Laws.” A stickler for authenticity, Weber insisted on delivering an actual speech to an audience of three hundred extras while in character as Louise Broome in her 1917 film The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, even though she knew the finished film would not contain any spoken dialogue.2 Public speaking was an important adjunct to Weber's work as a filmmaker, but unfortunately few transcripts of her talks survive.

What follows is a reconstruction of a speech titled “The Making of Picture Plays That Will Have an Influence for Good on the Public Mind” that Weber gave at a noontime gathering of the Los Angeles Woman's Club on July 14, 1913, about two and a half weeks into her term as Universal City's mayor. Delivered to “a large and extremely enthusiastic audience,” in the words of a Motion Picture News reporter, her speech was one of two complementary public addresses presented to the Woman's Club that day; the other was given by Lily Hubert, a Los Angeles film censorship board member who spoke about the censors’ work and the cooperation they received from local exhibitors.3 Weber's speech, the afternoon's main event, was a wide-ranging affair that included such topics as the educational possibilities of film and how she came to discover them, censorship issues and her call for a unified censorship standard, her defense of the one-reel film, her interest in greater authenticity in films, and her desire to uplift films and to correct the misinformation surrounding what she called “the glamour and danger of motion picture work.” It was representative of the many speeches she gave to audiences made up of women who shared her interest in raising the standards of the film business and its products.

The reconstruction is drawn from five primary sources, all published in 1913: Mrs. Phillips Smalley [Lois Weber], “Raising the Standard of Moving Pictures,” California Outlook: A Progressive Weekly, July 19, 1913, 9–10; George Blaisdell, “At the Sign of the Flaming Arcs,” Moving Picture World, August 9, 1913, 640; “High Standard of Pictures Is Urged,” Exhibitors’ Times, August 9, 1913, 7, 19–20, 22; “High Standard of Pictures Is Urged,” Moving Picture News, August 16, 1913, 14; and “Lois Weber—Mrs. Phillips Smalley,” Universal Weekly, October 4, 1913, 8–9. I based the reconstruction primarily on the California Outlook piece, which provides the most thorough coverage of Weber's speech and is essentially a transcript. However, it is not definitive; the journalistic accounts of her speech noted above contain quotations not included in the California Outlook transcription. These other accounts raise the possibility that Weber occasionally went off-script during the actual speech, or that she deleted certain sections from the typescript before submitting it to California Outlook for publication, or a combination thereof.

This reconstruction follows the order of Weber's comments as offered in the five sources and includes silent corrections involving punctuation, spellings, and minor word substitutions. In the interest of enhancing the text's readability, I did not reproduce the handful of modest phrasing variations that I discovered among the accounts; instead, I relied on my professional judgment as to the version that made the most sense within the context of her speech. Readers interested in doing a comparative study are invited to examine the texts that I cited above. Any errors arising from the merging of the various accounts are my own.


Lois Weber

Los Angeles, California

July 14, 1913

I have hoped for some years to see the indifferent and often condemning attitude held by refined and cultured people toward motion pictures give place to the same unbiased inquiry which they extend to other public matters of equal and sometimes less importance.

It comes as a pleasant and grateful surprise that the representative women of Los Angeles are the first to give me encouragement.

During two years of Church Army work, I had ample opportunity to regret the limited field any individual worker could embrace even by a life of strenuous endeavor. And meeting with many in that field who spoke strange tongues, I came suddenly to realize the blessing a voiceless language would be to them.

To carry out the idea of missionary pictures was difficult. To raise the standard was a different matter, but the better class of producers were prompt in trying to do this when they were brought to a realization of defects by censorship. It took years to interest the best actors and to bring back refined audiences, but even this has been accomplished. We need thoughtful men and women to send us real criticisms and serious communications regarding our efforts.

Naturally, the first things to appeal to me where motion pictures were concerned were the vast area one picture could cover and the millions of people who would understand its language.

It seemed to me that there was a medium for object lessons (and also for entertainment) which was unsurpassed. I hailed motion pictures as the open sesame to rapid progress all over the world.

With the usual exaggeration of the enthusiast, I saw ignorance melt in miraculous fashion before this new sweeping method of reaching all classes in a manner wholly agreeable to them.

Even now the theory still sounds reasonable to me. Here is one charity which a philanthropist could make pay financially.

Unfortunately the first motion pictures were necessarily only experiments, crude and common or uninteresting. Also their projection was imperfect and altogether the result could not interest an intelligent audience. The tone of any entertainment depends upon the interest taken in it by thinking people.

Had the pictures been experimented upon to perfection in private before being presented to the public, my dream might be nearer realization.

Unfortunately there was too much money to be made through the pictures, crude as they then were, for manufacturers to hold back until they could offer their wares on a higher plane.

That vast public called the “common people,” the public, I had hoped would benefit through this great invention; the public requires, and therefore will support, any form of varied entertainment, provided it is cheap enough.

Shut out from houses of high-class amusement, the pictures rapidly deteriorated into beer-garden attractions, seashore sideshows, and slum nickelette offerings.

As a river rises no higher than its source, so the reputation of the picture show sank to the level of its use.

Under such unfavorable circumstances, it is small wonder that intelligent people failed to see its possibilities.

Even I recognized that only through time, patience, and experience could pictures evolve into wholly uplifting influences.

But that they eventually would evolve seemed a certainty to me, especially when I saw with pleasure and some amazement how quickly the manufacturers endeavored to cooperate with the board of censors when that public-spirited body began to be interested, even though the board was self-appointed and in most states not legalized.

I say “with amazement” because fortunes had been made from the uncensored pictures and manufacturers were frankly in the business to make money.

To raise or change the standard of their productions meant a greater expenditure of money, with as far as they knew no increase in profit and possibly a falling off of the only audience they had been able to interest.

And yet, to the credit of the much maligned manufacturers, be it said, most of them grasped the public-spirited point of view and strove to rise to it, and there was no falling off of the old audience.

However, motion pictures were by that time held in such contempt that educated people neither believed in nor cared about their advancement.

That contempt extended even to the successful people of the legitimate stage, none of whom could have been tempted to enter the picture field.

Personally, I have suffered more martyrdom socially and professionally through my connection with that industry than I ever did as a mission worker for the reform of fallen women.

But we are coming out to the light. Today the stars of the theatrical profession are pleased to be seen in their best work in films. The rulers of the world see and use its possibilities. Beautiful theaters are going up for refined audiences, and objectionable features are being fast eliminated.4 

That same refined audience so newly acquired and so necessary to improvement is in danger of being a stumbling block to the realization of my hope. With the memory of the motion pictures’ old reputation still green, the dignity of the intelligent public demands a feature picture such as the Kinemacolor Durbar, or one of travel or educational value, shown in a high-priced theater, if their presence is desired.5 

The result is that those pictures are made especially for that audience, which is in no need of education, and as they are too long and expensive to be shown in cheap houses of varied programs, the five-cent audience gets no benefit from them and is no better off than if the high-class audience had never lent its support.

The person who applauds loudest at an entertainment is not necessarily the best judge of its merits, but applause is the only criterion the management has of the success of his offering, and so the program that is most loudly applauded either by attendance or public notice is the one the manufacturer is going to conclude is most popular.

Unfortunately, few people of superior minds lean toward noise, and the manufacturer's opinion is left at the mercy of those who do. Still, I must not make this statement general. There is one company which is struggling for and achieving the highest aim possible for a manufacturer to have. While, perhaps, some few of their pictures are still made to appeal to the rabble—that part of the rabble who temporarily refuse the higher brand—most of their pictures are aimed to appeal to and educate the best tastes of the public. That company is the Universal Film Manufacturing Company.

Judging from the caliber of most of the criticisms received from the noise makers in a motion picture audience, no superior mind ever troubles to voice any.

Letters arrive by the bushel, of the extremely helpful kind that praises dimples or wants to know if their favorite actor is married.6 

Mr. Smalley and I have counted the days red-letter ones when such people as the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the editor of the Ohio State Journal, and the exhibitors and exchange men of Los Angeles have written a word of appreciation of our efforts and proven that some thoughtful people are taking note of our endeavor to raise the picture standard.7 

The big feature producers have already the cooperation of people worthwhile, but I am presenting the cause of the one-reel picture seen in five- and ten-cent houses. There is no reason why those programs cannot be both artistic and educational, if an audience can be interested that will appreciate and demand it.

Even without that incentive I have not seen an American picture in many months that could give offense, and many of them were worthy of the most cultured audience.

Some of us working in the field do not see the justice of greater restriction for the motion picture than is placed upon the legitimate stage or current literature.

If we were to attempt to put on some plays that have met with great success on the legitimate stage, or to picturize some of the most popular books of the day, we would first have to weed out all objectionable features and that would not be so difficult if the different nations had one standard of objectionable features. But what is meat in one country is poison in another.

In some of the foreign countries the sexual problem and marital infidelities may be portrayed freely without offense. But those subjects are taboo in America. Again many foreign countries refuse to permit the garb of any religious order to be used in story films, while some of the most successful pictures in America have dealt with those subjects. In Detroit kisses are timed by the watch and in Chicago objection was taken to a scene in which a legally married woman sewed on baby clothes to indicate approaching motherhood. Miss Helen Gardner portrayed Cleopatra in a big feature film of that name. Months were spent in an endeavor to get costumes and customs absolutely correct for that period, and yet Canada put a ban on the production on the score that Cleopatra's costumes were voluptuous.8 

And as the pictures must find a sale all over the world to make them pay, the directors and authors are sorely taxed to meet all requirements and yet turn out an entertaining picture, or even point a moral convincingly.

I have had to give up my whole time, including many night hours, Sundays and holidays, under the pressure of writing a new story every week, portraying the leading role in it and supervising the direction of the production.

If I sometimes fall short of my standard it is not from lack of earnest effort, but because the brain has limits of endurance.

Another point of interest is that we endeavor to give more realistic settings in the pictures than you will see in legitimate houses where $2.00 is charged for a seat.9 

There an effort is seldom made to create the illusion of a real room, or even keep the walls from shaking violently when a door is closed.

That is not tolerated in pictures where five cents is charged.

On the stage it is often possible to see behind the scenes on either side or over the skyline. If that happened in a picture, the picture would be made over.

In these and in all our endeavors to seek flaws and correct them, we need the public's help and support.10 

We need intelligent criticism and helpful suggestion. We would welcome one standard of censorship.

We need to have you thoughtful people bother with us for a time if only from a sense of duty to the vast army of picturegoers.

The name of each manufacturer is on every film, and the manufacturer is grateful for serious communications and regards them seriously. The manager of the theater would benefit by the same interest and can usually be reached with ease.

So much has been said about the glamour and danger of motion picture work that I must touch briefly upon that subject.

In the first place, I know of no more healthy life than the motion picture people live out of doors. I also know of none that induces greater physical weariness. And as health is one of the first steps toward right living, so is legitimate exhaustion one of the greatest foes to vice.

Undesirable characters are to be found everywhere, but few such characters could stand reporting to work every morning at 8 o'clock, working all day in the blazing sun, or the cold, or whatever weather exists, without comforts, and enduring minor hardships in out-of-the-way places, such as poor food or none, many changes of costume, bumping over rough roads, and paying, at all times, strict attention to business.

That routine soon weeds out the undesirables, as is evidenced by the delightful people who have succeeded in this business, most of whom welcomed it as a longed-for opportunity to be with their families in a permanent home.


Snippets from one such Universal City campaign speech may be found in “Inhabitants of Moving Picture City, Planning to Incorporate and Elect Mayor and Board of Aldermen, Thwarted When Actresses Start Suffrage Movement,” Arizona Republican, May 15, 1913, 5. Richard Willis, a reporter who covered the 1915 speech noted here, suggested that it did not actually live up to its name: “Lois Weber addressed an all-girl audience on ‘How to Get into Motion Pictures,’ but it really was a dissertation on how not to get in.” Richard Willis, “Short Stories of the West Coast Studios,” New York Clipper, January 1, 1916, 37. The 1917 MPPA speech is noted in J. Carl Jessen, “In and Out of West Coast Studios,” Motion Picture News, March 24, 1917, 1838. The 1918 speech is observed in “Motion Picture People Raise Nice Sum for Government while Having Patriotic Frolic,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 2, 1918, 12B.
A reporter on the set that day described the moment thusly: “When she appeared before the audience, she made a regular speech carefully worded and phrased exactly as if she were addressing other than a film assemblage. Miss Weber, who has achieved an enviable reputation as a public speaker, consequently was not at a loss for words when it came to speaking on the subject to which she addressed herself.” “Lois Weber Makes Real Speech before Camera,” Seattle Times, March 18, 1917, 7C. Excerpts of the speech that she gave in character as Louise Broome (a composite figure she based mainly on birth-control activists Margaret Sanger and Ethel Byrne) may be found in the script continuity included in Kay Sloan, “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle: An Introduction,” Film History 1, no. 4 (1987): 361.
“High Standard of Pictures Is Urged,” Moving Picture News, August 16, 1913, 14. Lily Hubert (Mrs. P. G. Hubert) served on the Los Angeles Board of Motion Picture Censors from April 1, 1913, to November 23, 1914. A listing of her service years is available online at http://cityclerk.lacity.org/chronola/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.FacultyDetail&OfficeHolderID=1651. A fragment of Hubert's talk is reproduced in “High Standard of Pictures Is Urged,” Moving Picture News, August 16, 1913, 14.
Weber's comment on “beautiful theaters” may have been related to a then-recent development in the city of New York. On July 9, just a few days before Weber's speech, New York mayor William Gaynor signed a long-debated ordinance that allowed for the construction of large-capacity film theaters in that city. Gaynor's action effectively paved the way for the development of motion picture palaces in New York and inspired their construction elsewhere. See Martin F. Norden, “New York Mayor William J. Gaynor and His City's Film Industry,” Film Reader 6 (1985): 88.
Weber was referring to The Durbar in Kinemacolor, a film that documented the exceptionally lavish coronation of Britain's George V and Mary as emperor and empress of India. A Kinemacolor Co. film, it was released in the United States in February 1912. See “Kinemacolor Durbar,” Moving Picture News, February 24, 1912, 5–6; “Durbar in Kinemacolor Affords Vast Delight,” in the same MPN issue, 20–21.
Weber was presumably being sarcastic here.
Phillips Smalley was Weber's spouse at the time and a longtime collaborator on her films. Weber had read about the Ohio State Journal editor's supportive comments of her 1912 film A Prophet without Honor in William Lord Wright's Moving Picture News column and had written a letter to Wright about them. In a follow-up column, Wright reproduced some of Weber's letter. See “William Lord Wright's Page,” Moving Picture News, September 21, 1912, 13, and October 12, 1912, 13.
Produced by the short-lived Helen Gardner Picture Players Co., Cleopatra was released on November 13, 1912.
By “legitimate houses,” Weber was referring to venues for the performance of serious spoken drama.
Weber later became quite famous for shooting her films in actual homes and other authentic locations. For an account of the making of one such film, see Alfred Giebler, “Staging Motion Picture Play in a Private Home,” Colorado Springs Gazette, August 4, 1918, 24.