On 4 May 1929, Adrian Brunel attended a gala evening at London's Marble Arch Pavilion. In front of a packed auditorium, he was presented with a Certificate of Merit for directing The Constant Nymph, which had been voted Best British Film of 1928 by the readers of Film Weekly magazine. On the surface, this was the most triumphant moment of his career: the feature had not only been hailed as a fine example of British film art but had also been a massive box office success for Gainsborough Pictures. Yet behind the gloss of the occasion lay deep divisions between the main players in the film's production. Studio head Michael Balcon refused to go on stage, so the film's star, Mabel Poulton, accepted the award on his behalf. Balcon and Brunel were not on speaking terms since Brunel had launched a legal battle against the studio over its apparent breach of his contract, and was suing them for unpaid fees. Brunel's ‘supervisory director’ on the film, Basil Dean, did not attend the ceremony; their working relationship had been extremely strained and, as an experienced filmmaker, Brunel's pride had been dented at having to deputise for a novice.

This event serves to highlight some of the contradictions in Brunel's turbulent film career. Each success emerged from a challenging production history and tells a story of conflict and compromise. Each also preceded a period of intense frustration and unemployment. The acclaim he received for The Constant Nymph from both the press and audiences appeared to vindicate his long-held conviction that art and popularity in the cinema were not mutually exclusive. But, by 1929, silent film was effectively dead, his methods seemed outdated and his career as a director of ‘A’ pictures was over.

This book sets out to examine and assess Adrian Brunel's film career during the 1920s through a consideration of his films and the industrial context in which they were produced, supported by detailed research into his personal papers and other contemporary sources. The intention is to bring new insights into his films by anatomising their production context and history. Each film, or group of films, is examined in relation to a particular issue or debate preoccupying the industry at the time, taking account of the difficulties posed by the unstable environment in which Brunel was at work.