Written by Johnathen Rockwell
Hello, my name is Johnathen Rockwell. I am a lifelong lover of film, avid history buff, and Tompkins County local. In a previous life, I studied at Oswego State University, obtaining my undergraduate degree in Cinema and Screen Studies, with a focus on film history and preservation. Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of learning about both the Wharton Studio Museum and the work of Theodore and Leopold Wharton, during the genesis of cinema.
With such a broad history to survey, the Wharton Brothers initially eluded my grasp. Admittedly, they are not the easiest filmmakers to uncover information about. As commonly cited “Only 14% of American silent feature films (1,575 of 10,919 titles) survive as originally released in complete 35mm copies. Another 11% (1,174) also survive in complete form, but in less-than-ideal editions — foreign-release versions or small-gauge formats such as 16mm.” — David Pierce, The Survival of American Silent Feature Films: 1912–1929. This is the foundational — and painful — fact of film history. Despite the fact that the art of cinema is still a young one, we find ourselves missing a majority of our foundational texts, often destroyed by our own hands.
What remains of the Whartons is fragmentary, for a number of reasons. As previously stated, the survival rate of silent film (both features and shorts) is incredibly low. Compound that with how the brothers told many of their stories — the serial format. The Perils of Pauline, The Exploits of Elaine, and The Mysteries of Myra alongside other Wharton serials have a higher likelihood of being incomplete, due to each episode/reel falling under similar risks. Imagine if your favorite episode of The Office was inaccessible forever — that’s the position we find the Wharton filmography in.
Which brings me to my work with the Studio Museum. Dedicated historians around the world have contributed to preserving the work of the Wharton Studio. Through digitization and preservation of Wharton related materials, we (I am lucky enough to count myself among them) have been able to ensure the posterity of some of the Wharton catalog. But posterity is only one facet of preservation. Access proves an entirely different challenge.
In short, my goal is to create an accessible library for the Wharton Studio museum, while creating an open research archive for fellow film scholars to use in their own research. This project, while daunting at first, can be boiled down into three phases:
1. The digitization and backup of the Wharton Museum collection including; Museum held and museum made media (recorded events, presentation slides, etcetera).
2. Cataloging each piece of material and creating a digital library tied to the museum website.
3. Creating a framework for media to be shared to researchers and the public. This new digital library will act as both an gateway to and extension of the studio museum. Website visitors will be able to become familiar with the Wharton filmography, while film scholars can dig deeper into the history of the studio, and its ties to the Ithaca area.
Creating a digital library for the Wharton Studio Museum is a step forward in extending the legacy of the Wharton Studio, filmmaking within New York State, and silent cinema. Scholars like Barbara Lupack (if you haven’t already, her book Silent Serial Sensations is absolutely worth a read) have done an incredible amount of groundwork to share the legacy of silent filmmakers. In my own view, my job is to share the work that others have done, while helping steward the works of the Whartons and fellow filmmakers. The core aim of the project is access. Creating an easily accessible method for others to explore the past is my biggest goal. As an archivist and a scholar, sharing an answer, drawing a unique tie to history, or providing deeper context is what I strive to do through my work. All of these outcomes are impossible without access to relevant materials.
Indeed, access is at the core of film preservation (or my definition of it). What good is a painting if no one can see it? Preserving the cinema’s ‘footprints’ (scripts, stills, moving images,etc) can offer greater context than the final product ever could alone. Recall the production madness of Apocalypse Now, or the wider cultural impact of the Exorcist. The context around these works — the journals, the reviews, the reactions — deepens the viewing experience today. Preservation creates a deeper cinematic experience. It offers viewers more than an escape from reality; it offers a window through time.
These facts (alongside the Indiana Jones-esque ‘hunt for missing cinema’) are what draw me toward film preservation. Working with the Wharton Studio is deeper than film preservation, though. Theodore and Leopold Wharton weren’t just filmmakers, they were celebrities. Ithaca shaped itself around the Wharton Studio: its stars, its needs, its stories. To that end, the Whartons chose to come to Ithaca again and again. It seems fitting that Ithacans celebrate the Wharton Studio as part of our history, even if their impact may have long since faded into the background. Not many places in Upstate New York can say they had their own resident film studio. We have ought to venerate this unique wrinkle of history within Tompkins County.
The history of Ithaca is a rich tapestry, defined by two universities. In reality, it is much more. The history of Ithaca is a story of innovation. Of new currencies and big experiments (of course I wouldn’t forget about Ithaca Hours). The early days of cinema hosted the same innovation (though not the same currency). The Wharton Studio existed in Ithaca. No — it lived in Ithaca. Though the Whartons (and their filmography) may be nearly a century past, Ithaca is still here, and still better because of them. It’s safe to say that we owe it to the Whartons to preserve and share their story and their work, because at its core, it’s part of our story.
