This film heavily focuses on the competition between the printing press of two sucessful papers. That success is fully based on the quantity of production, rather than quality. Charity’s character proves this point as her soul purpose is to dominate and control the printing press. Overall, this movie tries to illustrate the struggles one has to overcome in order to achieve greatness in the business industry.

this is a really good piece on Fuller, as well as Park Row:

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/88939%7C0/Park-Row.html

After reading about Sam Fuller’s history working as a newspaper boy, I was able to see more of his personal touches throughout his favorite movie, Park Row. For example, Phineas Mitchell’s character cause revealed a taste of some of the morals and values Sam Fuller held dear to, not to mention his persona. Just like plot in Park Row such as Phineas Mitchell wanting to promote honest news to the public, perhaps Sam Fuller wanted to make a statement about being able to create his own movie without having to abide to the film industry? Before Park Row, Sam fuller was financially successful from directing scripts for free and receiving praise as well as offers from big studios. Unfortunately Park Row left Fuller hurting for money since it was a box office hit and due to the fact that he self funded the film. I also found it interesting how two of his later films, the Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss were so different from his other films that mainly consisted of war and more political subjects but instead featured an insane asylum and a prostitute. Not to mention directors Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese were also influenced by his intense and “in your face” style.
My questions are: What do you think made Park Row such a box office flop? Do you think adding more romance into the film would of helped engaged women and children to see the movie? Was the topic of yellow journalism too aggressive and controversial at the time that lead to poor revenue in the film?

I found this article from Fuller’s Most Fascinating Flop: Park Row by Lisa Dombrowski.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/vlt/summary/v064/64.article01_sub05.html

For me as an international student, the film ‘Park Row’ is great history film. It is more than just a film. It seems like the documentary film showing how American journalism acted their role and developed technically. Samuel Fuller independently produced and financed ‘Park Row’. Thanks to his independent condition He could produce ‘Park Row’ with freedom. I think that the life of Samuel Fuller is reflected in ‘Park Row’. He shows his passion to produce ‘park row’ with only his own efforts and aesthetic through Phineas Mitchell. Phineas Mitchell published his own newspaper ‘The Globe’. He fought for the justice and real role of press. It is very similar to Samuel Fuller’s production of ‘Park Row’. For me, ‘Park Row’ is a great documentary film talking about the history of American journalism and Samuel Fuller’s life.

There is a very interesting article that I found about the Park Row district and what it has become today following what it was in its heyday at the end of the 19th century. . By watching Sam Fuller’s Park Row we were able to observe what life was like on bustling Park Row, where the biggest newspapers were printing out the news.

“In the late 19th century, a cluster of buildings along or near Park Row, close to those busy news engines, City Hall and the city’s courts, housed almost every daily newspaper in town — The Herald, The Sun, The Tribune, The World, The Journal and The Times.”

Those newspapers have long since moved or closed shop and a new breed of journalist have taken up residence. They are the media, the modern news, churning it out to the public in the digital age. It is interesting to note how journalism and reporting the news has changed so drastically.

Do you think that Sam Fuller would detest this new age of journalism? How would Sam Fuller make a movie about today’s modern media?

Park Row was directed by Sam Fuller in 1952 and it was one of his first films. As a result, the film is somewhat biographical as it relates to his experiences of working in the newspaper industry as a young boy. There are many personal touches that Fuller adds to his film. For example, the character of Phineas and his ideals that he espouses about the newspaper industry are very personal to Fuller. In addition, I also thought the opening scene that was “dedicated to journalism” was a great touch to the film. It set the tone for the audience and it also displayed Fuller’s passion for journalism, which I think is an important concept. Fuller also garnishes his film with other newspaperman homages such as ending the film with “30” and referencing formative newspaper characters such as Benjamin Franklin. Overall, I enjoy the not so subtle way in which Fuller commands his film. It adds character and tone to the film and after all, this subject is very personal to Fuller as we can see from all the postings below that pertain to his early life as a newspaper boy. Fuller also uses Davenport’s obituary as a podium to express his own feelings about the newspaper industry, and I thought that was very cool. Were any of you bothered by Fuller’s bold and not so subtle directing style? I feel that it is important to understand the director’s background when evaluating a film. After learning about Fuller’s history, it is easy to understand why he made so many personal choices within the film.

Sam Fueller went out and made this film on his own dime and did not have to worry about the influences of top executives.  These executives are more worried about the bottom line than creating a film that serves as an important social commentary.  I thought this was interesting because you can see some of the characteristics of Fueller in Phineas.  Phineas fights for his dream to be a true newspaperman and write an independent newspaper, something opposite of what was going on at The Star.  Just like Fueller, Phineas goes out and creates something on his own, without the watchful eye of those above who are more focused on the finances.  Did anyone else notice this besides me?  Does anyone see characteristics of Fueller in other characters in relation to avoiding the capitalistic view of media and a greater focus on quality press.

Here is a book, The films of Samuel Fuller: If you die, I’ll kill you, written by Lisa Dombrowski talks a lot about Sam Fuller and his films. In Chapter 2: The Fox Years, 1951-1956, the author says:

Park Row is the one film on which Fuller truly operated without oversight, free as he was of studio interest, the pressure of a producer, or the demands of a financier. Fuller’s production freedom during Park Row allowed him to commit his energies where he wanted, and the film reflects both the most anemic and the most exciting techniques within his visual repertoire. Park Row is the film in which Fuller demonstrates his greatest reliance on the long-take master shot, containing an average shot length of thirty-six seconds—well above the Hollywood average of eleven to twelve seconds normative during the period and the longest of Fuller’s career.

Park Row is a visual embodiment of Fuller’s passion for journalism and history and of his excitement at the freedoms afforded by independent production. 

http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue01/features/fuller1.htmI

This short essay from Images touches on some interesting aspects of the way Fuller presents his films.  Park Row is not explicitly mentioned.  However:

“Like the layout of different stories on a newspaper page (“Co-Ed Murder Suspect to Tell All,” “Saw Parade of Beauties Unclad in Worker’s Room,” “Furriers Fail to Quit in Needle Strike” [The Graphic, June 20, 1929, 5]), the overall presentation of a Fuller film often shifts from one narrative mode to another.” 

This is just one example of the way the author likens Fuller’s style to newspaper layout and tabloid journalism.

Fuller actually used these topics as the set piece for his older films like Park Row, but the other films mentioned in this essay, with the exception of Steel Helmet, all fall in the years to follow.

This leads me to believe that Fuller not only still fell back heavily on his reporting background, but also that he subtly maintained his passion for journalism and news print, if only stylistically.

There is also an explanation for some of the clunkiness we discussed today.  According to the essay,

“Fuller has said that he plotted his potboilers on a blackboard with different color chalk to make sure the compositions of red (action), white (exposition) and blue (romance) were balanced.”

Though this may have made sense to Fuller, his little exercise came across as abundantly obvious.  That being said, Fuller seems quite unconcerned with being subtle, which comes right back to the point the article is making about Fuller’s journalistic style.

I think the important thing to Fuller is that his message was not only received, but received through a megaphone pointed into the ear of the audience.  In that, he succeeds.

This is a pretty good piece on Fuller http://chronicle.com/article/Sam-the-Man/24260