Volume II: Filmography

WHICH SHALL IT BE?

June 22, 1915 (Tuesday)

Length: 2 reels (1,710 feet)

Character: Drama

Scenario: Adapted from Ethelinda Lynn Eliot Beers' old poem of the same name

Director: Ernest C. Warde

Cameraman: William Zollinger

Cast: Arthur Bauer (Mr. Kenniston, a rich man), Inda Palmer (Mathilde, his wife), Ernest C. Warde (Farmer Selden, the father), Zenaide Williams (Martha, his wife, the mother), Eldean Steuart (baby Lillian), Madeline and Marion Fairbanks (the twins), Helen Badgley (Dick, the bad boy), Maurice Steuart (Jamie), Leland Benham (Donald, the cripple), Roy Hauck (John, the eldest son), Lorraine Huling

Notes: 1. The New York Dramatic Mirror, June 23, 1915, in a review listed the Thanhouser Kid as part of the cast; this attribution is improbable, as by that time Marie Eline had not been with Thanhouser for over a year; the Kidlet was undoubtedly intended. The Steuart babies mentioned in the same publication were listed erroneously as "Stewart" elsewhere, including in Reel Life, June 19, 1915. 2. The question mark at the end of the title was omitted erroneously in some notices.

BACKGROUND OF THE SCENARIO: Which Shall It Be? was adapted by Thanhouser from a poem of the same name by Ethelinda Lynn Eliot Beers. The author was born in New York in 1827, the daughter of Horace William Eliot and Keziah Westcott Eliot. Her father was a descendant of John Eliot, the apostle to the Indians. She began writing as a teenager and soon was a frequent contributor to magazines. In 1846 she married William H. Beers. Her best known poem was The Picket Guard, published in 1861, a tribute to an unknown soldier. Ethel had the premonition that she would die after the publication of a collection of her poems, and die she did, in 1879 one day after the publication of All Quiet Along the Potomac, and Other Poems. The Thanhouser film closely followed the theme of Which Shall It Be?, a poem which told of a childless neighbor who offered to exchange a house and land for the parents' choice of one of their seven children. In the poem no surnames are given. The father's name is John, and the identified children are Robert, Lillian, James, Robbie, Dick, and Mary. The eldest is not named. The names used in the Thanhouser scenario differ slightly.

ARTICLE, The Moving Picture World, June 26, 1915:

"Long ago Edwin Thanhouser proved that he was a master hand at children's stories, and he has begun the release again, evidenced that he can still excel himself. On June 22nd he will release Which Shall It Be? in two reels. This is based on the old famous home-circle poem of that name. To read the lines one's emotions are stirred. But the opportunities in the filming increase the effect. It tells the wealthy man who offers a poor couple comfort for life if they will give him one of their seven children. At night, when the little ones are all asleep, the parents steal softly in to chose a child to be given away. They stop at each tot, but find a reason why they want to keep that one - and pass on to the next.

"'Which shall it be - which shall it be?

"'I looked at John - John looked at me.'

"The little cripple becomes most precious, and the bad boy of the lot - well he needs a mother's care. So they write back that they cannot give one away.

"Zana Williams plays the mother in sweetly simple fashion, and Ernest Warde the father. All the Thanhouser juniors come in for a strong share of the work; Helen Badgley, Leland Benham, the Fairbanks twins, and a few additions make up the seven children. The handling of the little story in two reels makes it an offering of standard value that will be heard from."

SYNOPSIS, Reel Life, June 19, 1915:

"A wealthy, childless old couple, living on a fine country estate, envy Farmer Selden, their neighbor and his big family. As the farmer is poor, they do not doubt but that they can induce him to let them have one of their children in return for money and land. 'It isn't as though we were asking the Seldens to give up their favorite child,' said Mrs. Kenniston, 'any one of the seven will do.' So Mr. Kenniston writes to his neighbor, stating the case and making him a handsome offer. Poverty is pressing hard upon the farmer and his family. He and his wife sadly agree that perhaps the best thing they can do is to let the rich Kennistons take one of the children. That night they tip-toe upstairs to the children's bedsides, to decide which one of the seven they will let go. Of course, they cannot give up Baby Lillian, and to separate their twin girls is out of the question. Jamie, next to Lillian in age, is still too young to be sent to strangers. Donald, crippled since babyhood, they cannot think of sparing. Strangers could never understand how uncomplainingly he bore pain. Dick is a little terror, always in hot water. 'Only a mother's heart could be patient enough for such as he,' whispers Martha Selden, and they move on to the side of their eldest son. But John least of all can they do without. 'He is so like his father,' weeps his mother. The rich, old couple are very much surprised when they receive the farmer's courteous answer to their note. For Farmer Selden tells them that he cannot give away even one child. What queer ideas poor people have, to be sure!"

REVIEW, The New York Dramatic Mirror, June 23, 1915:

"While the copyright, if there ever was one, has expired on this poem, written a good many years ago, Thanhouser will need no protection, for this film, as Mr. Warde has so ably produced it, there need be no fear of competition. The exquisite lines of the poem, telling of the poverty of the couple with seven children, who are offered by a rich neighboring couple much money in land in consideration of their parting with one child. The lines refer especially to the parents going from crib to bed in their vain endeavor to part with one. To begin with Mr. Warde has an exceptional lot of child actors in his command, including the Kid, the Kidlet, the Twins, and one of the Steuart babies and two more, all quite capable of filling their parts, a most unusual child gathering. Then he has hardly tried to make his picture dramatic. He allows his children to play and romp around quite naturally. Later, of course, comes the extreme pathos of the endeavor to part with the child, and here the lines of the poem come in quite handily. It is really an exquisite bit of film, a subject that will appeal to every mother and father, and put on in such a way as concerns clear photography, nice acting and modulation in handling that will carry it straight to the hearts of nine out of ten of its beholders."

# # #