With all due respect in regard of the comment that Ollie's Triangle
efforts were not widely viewed was because of Triangle's poor
managment and financial problems, the answer is NO! It is much more
complicated than that.

Triangle did suffer from a flawed business plan (in hindsight) and
financial problems that developed from several causes. However, it
would take a book (and there are several out there) to describe what
went wrong with Triangle. Even so, Triangle did produce several great
stars whose films are still revered today and whose Triangle efforts
are still available... Douglas Fairbanks, Roscoe Arbuckle, Mabel
Normand, the Talmadges and the Gishes. Why they are remembered and
Ollie is not can hardly be described because of their relationship
with Triangle.

Can anyone tell me who were the great attractions of World... or
Thanshauser... or Mutual...or Kalem ... or even Selznick BEFORE Ollie
signed with them? (And yes, Selznick had a major star before Ollie
and she was the reason that Famous Players invest heavily in the firm
before Ollie got there). The fact that ALL these firms except for
Selznick failed before 1920 should suggest something more than poor
management.

Ask yourself this about Ollie's relationship with Triangle... How
important was she? Once you research that question, you will have a
great idea of what was going on at Triangle and her place in American
Film in general.

A personal note, Sarah Baker deserves a great deal of credit for her
work on Ollie. However, I think that it is a slight to think that Ms.
Baker is the only one working on this subject when there are, at
least, a couple of dissertations and projects being done on Ollie,
Selznick, Triangle and the role of the female in American Film before
1920. (And I have nothing to do with them!) Sarah has done a lot but
others are working hard too.

-- In TheNewCovenOfOliveThomas@yahoogroups.com, "ollieofthefollies"
<ollieofthefollies@y...> wrote:
>
> Oh, so it was Triangle's poor management and financial problems
that
> kept her movies with them from being widely viewed? As another side
> note, I've been posting messages to the Golden Silents website and
> asked them why she's not included. They said it was because they
had
> only seen "Love's Prisoner", a Triangle release and not one of her
> better efforts I'm sure, and that the nature of her death was
> unglamerous. While others on the site, such as Valentino didn't
have
> exactly a spotless life either, the body of his work that's still
> available for viewing is more famous and impressive. Maybe
when "The
> Flapper" comes out in the spring, they will have more to go on. In
> any case, it all goes to show that, whether it be the Triangle
> features or the Selzick ones, the only way to get her name out
there
> is by making more of her movies available to the general public.
Not
> an easy feat to achieve, I'm sure, but at least Sarah Baker is
> trying. Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> -- In TheNewCovenOfOliveThomas@yahoogroups.com, "rancidcheesehead"
> <rancidcheesehead@y...> wrote:
> >
> > a quick note...
> >
> > Found note from LEXand51st quite insightful but the comment on
how
> > many people even remember a first run Ollie movie was telling.
> >
> > It should be noted that if any are still around, they most likely
> > saw one of her Selznick films and not the more numerous Triangle
> > movies.
> >
> > Triangle changed radically from the moment when Ollie auditioned
> in
> > Febraury 1917 to her second film in July/August 1917. Triangle
was
> > imploding and even though Ollie was one of the few bright stars
> > remaining, her films were not widely released outside of the deep
> > South or overseas. This was due to the internal problems of
> Triangle
> > and interesting reading for those of you who like court briefs
and
> > financial documents. Simply, why Ollie (or Alma Rubens, Willian
> > Desmond, or even Taylor Holmes)was not widely distributed by
> > Triangle is why Triangle went into bankruptcy.
> >
> > Good Luck and that should keep Ollie of the Follies quite busy...