i' T N' I - ' 'i ' ' ' n-t MB IE kMi a'- If I J:| "--i* T I -lu _ If ai«»siiaS:l.s, 3 caj^'^-- ^ /'i -Zn^-K Scanned from the collection of Richard Koszarski Coordinated by the Media History Digital Library www.mediahistoryproject.org Funded by a donation from David Pierce Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from IVIedia History Digital Library http://www.archive.org/details/filmspectatorvol56welf Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood, California, March 3, 1928 No. 1 C*]inniiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiuiiiiniDrniiiNiinQiiMiiniiiiniininiiiiininiiMiniiDiinniiiiiinni[iininianininniinniriiniiiiaiiiiiiinnrninuiiiiniDiiiiinin Has the screen become a stagnant artZ Pictures need a few people who^U take a chance The Spectator comments on its second birthday Reviews by the Editor MIDNIGHT MADNESS LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT HONEYMOON FLATS CZARINA'S SECRET ONE MAD HOUR FOREIGN LEGION SECRET HOUR SPRING FEVER SKYSCRAPER WINGS WEST POINT LOVE Reviews by Donald Beaton WEST POINT BABY MINE SPRING FEVER SKYSCRAPER FEEL MY PULSE ONE MAD HOUR MIDNIGHT MADNESS DRUMS OF LOVE PRINCE OF PEANUTS HONEYMOON FLATS 11 ■>iiniiiiiiiiiiiiannniiiiiiuiiiiniiiuiuiiiitiiiiiuE]iiiiiiiiiiuiniiiniiiiiiianiiiiuiiiianiniiiiuiaiiiHiiiiniE]iiiiuiiiMiaiiiiuiiiMi[]iiMiiiiiiiiDinuiiiiiiic^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 JEAN HERSHOLT The Roaming Star JOSEPH JACKSON Originals - Adaptations - Titles Free Lancing Until Warner Studio Reopens LICHTIG AND ENGLANDER Representatives CHARLES LOGUE FREE LANCE WRITER AT FIRST NATIONAL A *•-. . ..-. Notice is served on AL COHN that he'd better write his own ads. I've taken up golf again. PAUL SCHOFIELD ORIGINALS AND ADAPTATIONS Deramy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. O. Christensen, Associate* i GLADSTONE 4809 TITLES by DWINELLE BENTHALL and RUFUS McCOSH 228 Maekham Bldg. Hollywood PAUL KOHNER Production Supervisor for Universal "THE MAN WHO LAUGHS" — a Paul Leni Production, Starring Mary Philbin-Conrad Veidt. T ^ CHARLES KENYON SCENARIST laiiii UNIVERSAL JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT March 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California HEmpstead 2801 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that zvrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 3, 1928 Spectator Celebrates Its Second Birthday THIS is The Spectator's second birthday. It's a rather healthy youngster now, and has outgrown those moments during its first eighteen months when it wondered whether it was worth while for it to go on living. I suppose that there was no time during the life of the infant when I should not have been completely satisfied with its progress, for there was no reason why anyone should take it seriously until it had established the fact that it was entitled to serious consideration. For the first eighteen months apparently I was the only one who took it seriously. Then the salary cut crisis arose, and I wrote an open letter to Jesse Lasky. It acted like an explosion with an element of humor in it. Within thirty days the circulation of The Spectator more than doubled, and it has turned over a couple of times since. I think it now has twice the combined circulation of all the other film papers published in Hollywood. All it need do is to continue its present rate of progress for one more year and it will have a greater circulation than any film trade paper published in America. The quality of its circulation is the most gratifying feature of its development. Appar- ently all the thinking people in Hollywood who are con- nected with pictures read it, and to them during the past half-year have been added thousands of exhibitors as well as an extraordinary number of Eastern people prominent in dramatic, literary, and financial circles. I am relating these facts because I think they will interest those people in Hollywood who have demonstrated so earnestly their friendship for the paper, and all of us are interested in the progress of our friends. The success of The Spectator justifiies the idea upon which it was founded: that there is in every line of endeavor a market for absolute honesty. I argue so persistently in these pages that it is not hum- anly possible that I should be right all the time, but I have not advanced one argument that I did not believe in sincerely. Whatever degree of respect that this policy has gained for The Spectator is its chief asset. It is a policy that never will be changed. It is easier to write honestly, and it is better business. Honest opinions in a paper are like honest emotions on the screen. Both are market- able. When I first came to Hollywood to uplift the screen by writing stories for it, I endeavored to write honest stories. I made old men and old women human, and wrote of fundamental emotions. I did not sell my stories. I was told that you can not interest audiences in old men and old women, and that sentiment had no market value as screen material. Such was the sincere belief of producers, with whom I did not agree, a disagreement, however, that did not create a market for my stories. A couple of years ago William Fox announced that he had made enough money and that hereafter he was going to make the kind of pictures that he always had wanted to make. The pre- sumption was that he expected to lose money. I've had some articles in The Spectator to the effect that producers would get farther if they forgot trying to guess what the public wanted and made pictures to suit themselves, con- sequently I awaited the outcome of the Fox plan to prove or disprove my contention. Fox made pictures to suit himself, and he is making more money than he did before. In any line of endeavor the way to make most money is to forget money. Concentrate on your output and the income will take care of itself. The success of The Spec- tator demonstrates it. I did not start The Spectator to uplift the screen. My sole idea in starting it was to uplift my bank account. At no time have I deemed its mission to be anything except to make money for me. But I beat Mr. Fox to it. It was after he made his money that he decided to make pictures to suit himself, an idea ROMANCE By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN Romance! — theme of the ages — Of your beatitudes poets have sung; Your brow is enwreathed with roses; Upon your proud shoulders is hung The cloak of our intricate fancy. You are lord of our dreams and our passions; Our loves; the celestial fire That illumines the garden of friendship; That fiames in the breast of desire. You are, to our lips, a chalice Brimmed with a vintage rare; To our eyes, a glimpse of Heaven, And the favored who congregate there. When you fold your garments about us We are gods; and the lilting cadence Of a song that but hearts may hear Resolves Love's old enigmas: A glance, a smile, a tear. Not enough is material comfort — The reward of the cautious wise — The soul feels an impulse upward To the light of romantic skies; It has savored the fragrance of living. And yearns to drain the cup. As the plant from the humble sod Yearns aloft to supernal gardens That encompass the throne of God. But alas, for our ardent yearnings! And alas, for the prayers we pray! Romance draws his cloak about him And turns from the crowd away, Walking the shadowy by-ways, Seeking for hearts of valor Daring some bold emprise For Love, or for mere Adventure — And a fig for the cautious wise. Page Four that I had when I established The Spectator. In writing each number I make no effort to please its readers. My only endeavor is to please myself. In this I have not been successful, but in my striving I have pleased more people than I could have pleased by forgetting myself and think- ing only of them. I am going to persist in my attempt to please myself and I hope that I will succeed in getting close enough to it to please you. * * * Some Thoughts That a Birthday Suggests CRITICISM of the older arts has become stabilized. Definite standards have been established and the arts have profited greatly from the constructive thoughts of those who write about them. Motion picture criticism has assumed no definite form. The majority of those who write about the screen know nothing about it, consequently what they say has no constructive value. Many of its critics look down upon it, and seem more anxious to demonstrate their own cleverness than to be helpful. They strive to bury their ignorance beneath avalanches of words. Most of those nearest the industry allow their criticisms to be affected by business and per- sonal considerations. When John Ford was directing Four Sons an advertising salesman representing the Los Angeles Times visited his set and endeavored to sell him space in the Times annual hold-up number. Ford would not buy. For three days Ford and members of his cast were an- noyed by the salesman, who finally had to be asked to stay away from the set. Three weeks before Four Sons opened at the Carthay Circle Ford was told that the Times criti- cism of it would be unfavorable. Two days before the opening Ford told me to look for a roast in the Times. It came. Because Ford would not advertise in the Times, the readers of that paper were deceived grossly as to the merits of his picture, the review going to the length of omitting the name of Margaret Mann, who, in a sense, is the whole picture. Perhaps she also refused to advertise. I could relate scores of such instances. The greatest grafters among the papers display the greatest venom. "Variety" is the king-pin of them all. But screen people make the grafting publications possible by supporting them. When I started The Spectator I had the hope that a paper devoted to fair criticism, the only kind I could write, would receive the enthusiastic support of those who work in pictures. From the standpoint of circulation it has. But the advertising patronage has disappointed me. Writers, directors and actors know that my comments can not be affected by anything that does not appear on the screen, and they seem to prefer to spend their money with papers that can see virtue only in the work of an advertiser. They are stupid fools if they can not see that the most favorable reviews in such papers can not influ- ence those whom they are trying to impress: the pro- ducers. Do you imagine that any producer is such an ass S3 to be affected by what the Times said of Four Sons? Hundreds of thousands of dollars are extracted from film people's purses every year by papers that give no returns whatever. I had hoped to make The Spectator an instru- ment to stop this waste. A small card in this paper regu- larly is all the advertising that anyone needs. Contract players need it to keep the industry informed of the pic- tures in which they are appearing; free lances need it to THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 keep their names before the industry. If screen workers would unite in support of The Spectator the grafting journals would be put out of business. I do not want any- one to spend a lot of money. It would be foolish to do so, and I retain for myself the sole privilege of being foolish in these pages. I have great ambitions for The Spectator, but they are based on the expectation of support from the industry. In return I can offer no more than I have given for two years — common honesty applied to the task of writing about the screen. * * * Trying to Settle the Status of Screen Art A NUMBER of us were discussing screen art. In the group were Douglas Fairbanks, Conrad Nagel, Mil- ton Sills, Fred Niblo, Barney Glazer, and Will Hays. I charged that already it is a stagnant art; that it is giving birth to nothing new. Fred Niblo claimed that in its short career it had outstripped the stage, had got away from painted rocks and canvas forests and had become real. Will Hays vigorously challenged my statement. He said he certainly did not approve of my sweeping indictment, claiming that pictures are an Arabian Night's dream; that the industry is a stupendous one, attracting in this country alone ninety million people to theatres every week; that its progress has been extraordinary, as proven by the fact that at the present time it is bewildered by the rapidity of the development of sound devices, television and such things; that it stood aghast when it contemplated its own possibilities. And still I say that screen art is stagnant, that it is giving birth to nothing new. It is not responsible for any of the things about which Hays boasts. The ninety million people made it a gigantic industry, and the sound devices and television originated in brains uncon- nected with the industry. If there be one major mechan- ical or technical improvement that started in the brains of someone working in pictures I have not heard about it. This is not the fault of those thus employed. They have the brains, but the whole progress of the screen thus far has been one of resistance to new ideas. It is idle for Will Hays to boast about an industry that has done noth- ing whatever in the first quarter of a century of its life to develop the source of supply of its raw material: stories. Up to within two years ago any producer could take a pencil and a piece of paper and prove conclusively that an original story could not be made into a successful pic- ture. To-day it has changed its mind about original stories, but has not changed its attitude towards those who write them. If the screen had been born with com- mon sense its first step would have been to establish its own literature; if it'had acquired common sense in the past twenty-five years it would be doing something about it now, but it hasn't and it isn't. It has discouraged initiative and every step forward that it has taken has been a grudging concession to an outside force too insistent to be ignored. And as an art it has not advanced as much as it has as an industry. It is doing to-day the same old things that it did a quarter of a century ago. That was my charge, which Will Hays combatted with arguments regarding features unrelated to the art — about as sensible as meeting an indictment of modern portrait painters with the claim that the frames being made for their work reflect steady progress. Before considering in detail its March 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five artistic development let us consider the welcome it has extended to a distinctly successful mechanical develop- ment. In Technicolor the screen has available in Holly- wood a process by which all feature pictures can be made to look natural by reason of showing everjrthing in its own color. This process has been developed and perfected outside the industry. For the past few years there has been no reason why the screen should show a red rose as a black object, but it keeps on doing it. Is that progress? Producers can understand the necessity of doing something about voice reproduction, for that is noise, and noise is something blatant, which they can understand. But to reproduce the glorious coloring that nature shows us is art, and they do not understand art, which is why it is stagnant. * * » Screen Too Backward In Making Experiments THAT what the screen lacks most is a spirit of adven- ture I have said before. The business is conducted in a manner that does not permit of experimentation. It strives to make every picture yield a profit, consequently each of them contains only those features that we have seen time and again in pictures that have been successful at the box-office in the past. It is a system that utterly bars progress by refusing to take a chance with a new idea. We can understand why a small, independent pro- ducer who risks his financial future on every picture he makes, would be adverse to indulging in experiments, but we can not excuse the big producers for a similar hesita- tion. Financially the thing that is of importance to them is their balance sheets at the end of a year. If their net profit be satisfactory, it matters little how much profit each picture has made. They are in a position to make ex- periments, and each experiment should be made for the purpose of ascertaining the manner in which it can add to their profits. A manuscript was submitted to Simon & Schuster, book publishers. Any publisher could have proven to the firm that a book made from that sort of manuscript would be a failure. The author was unknown, he was illiterate. He did not know how to construct sen- tences, how to spell or punctuate; there was no story; his writings were rambling and unrelated narratives of experiences in Africa; he was a garrulous old man with- out the slightest knowledge of literature, an uncultured peddler of tinware who could not know what the reading public wants. Simon & Schuster must have taken all these defects into consideration. But the book was pub- lished, and if its specifications had been submitted to me I would have been willing to bet its publishers that it would have been a flat failure that would not return enough to pay for putting it in type. Simon & Schuster further invited disaster by making a large and handsome volume out of the revolutionary manuscript. The book appeared in June of last year, an issue of thirty-five hundred copies. The experiment succeeded. The forms were put on the presses again at once and another issue of thirty-five hun- dred copies sent to bookstores; in July ten thousand more copies were bought up eagerly; in August another ten thousand; in September a similar number, and how many since, I do not know. The book is Trader Horn, and although it has in it just about everything that a book should not have, it is one of the most fascinating volumes that I ever have read. Imagine me saying that of a book that is punctuated even worse than motion picture titles! The publishers, whose future profits depend on the advance of literature as an art, realized that they must experiment in the interests of the art. They publish many books in the course of a year, and if the experiment were a failure they have all the other products over which to spread the loss. They were not interested in how much profit one book made, their chief concern being the profit on an entire year's operation. If our picture producers could grasp the same idea, and cease being reluctant to try some- thing new, occasionally they would uncover such a gold mine as Trader Horn, but even a failure would mark a definite step forward by indicating something that here- after must be avoided. The trouble now is that there is no way of ascertaining if a given idea be good or bad, as producers will not risk a dollar in an effort to make the discovery. They want only the old ideas, and an art that will not welcome a new one is a stagnant art. Will Hays's Arabian Nights tales to the contrary notwithstanding. * * * Not So Bad, Even Though It's Moral ROWLAND V. Lee scores in two ways with The Secret Hour: he wrote the screen story and directed it. He performed both jobs acceptably. It is a Pola Negri picture, one of four in which Lee has directed her. The first of the series. Barbed Wire, I put on my list of ten best pictures of last year. It had what Secret Hour lacks — a great background. An orange grove is not as impres- sive a background as the world war, and it is in an orange grove that most of the action of Secret Hour takes place. Perhaps more than any other American director, Lee has a grasp of European psychology, and makes pic- tures with European settings seem real when they reach the screen. And European settings have more pictorial possibilities than American settings. Over there things are old and massive, and the cities have not the mathe- matical precision of ours. That is why most of our big pictures have foreign locales. A Seventh Heaven, a Barbed Wire or a Four Sons would have lost a great deal of its pictorial attractiveness if it had been laid in this country. All this is by way of preface to the statement that although it is strong in drama. Secret Hour will be considered a small Negri picture. It is an intimate story of three people, a screen version of They Knew What They Wanted, a play that was presented in only a few places, consequently not many people will share my disappoint- ment over the fact that the picture lacks the punch of the play, an emasculation that was necessary to make it suit- able for screen purposes. I am sorry that I saw the play, for I like to take my pictures straight, not with a dash of memory of what they might have been. In the play the girl who is about to become a mother is not married, which is more intriguing than the picture has it. In Secret Hour a justice of the peace mumbles words that are not dramatic enough to compensate for the drama of which they rob the story. But Secret Hour is a good pic- ture, measured by any standard. Miss Negri gives a splendid performance. She plays an American girl whom we encounter first as a waitress in a cheap restaurant. Later she goes to the orange ranch to marry Jean Her- sholt, an Italian, who owns it. Jean wooed her by mail. Page Six THE FILM substituting a photograph of Kenneth Thomson for his own. When she arrives at the ranch she finds Thomson, and they have an affair, as Jean is injured so badly that the wedding has to be postponed. The acting of all three principals is splendid throughout. Hersholt's characteri- zation of the simple-minded Italian is one of the finest things he has contributed to the screen. He is one actor who never disappoints. I would like to see Thomson in more pictures. He is an excellent actor and is a refresh- ing departure from the standard model of leading man. I do not understand why the screen uses so many young fellows who can't act when it has Kenneth Thomson and a few others who can. Lee's direction makes the most of the story material. He is particularly effective with the restaurant sequence which opens the picture. All his direc- tion reflects a keen understanding of human emotions. But I wish he would not use so many close-ups. The public complains that pictures are too much alike. As most of the stories have been done, we must depend upon the locales to give them an air of individuality. When close-ups are used the locale is blotted out, and as close- ups are frequent in all pictures I believe they are re- sponsible for the public's complaint of a lack of variety. A score of close-ups in one picture looks like a score in another, which make the pictures resemble one another, even though the North Pole may be the locale of one and the tropics the locale of the other. If the locales, instead of close-ups, be kept before the audience there would be no charge that pictures are alike. Every time a director shoots a close-up he is doing something to make his picture resemble all others. * * * Ted Sloman Gives Us a Cracker jack WHEN The Foreign Legion is released Edward Sloman is going to be given a place in the front rank of directors. He makes a splendid job of it, and gives to Universal a production that is good enough to be shown in any house anywhere. He had a good story to start with, and Charlie Kenyon gave him a finely writ- ten screen version of it, but the director can not be denied the chief credit for the entertainment value and dramatic strength of the picture. The story is set in Morocco with the exception of a cut-back to an English sequence, and we are given some of the most striking desert scenes that ever reached the screen. The photography is excellent throughout, being of a rich quality that registered with me even though the projection room in which I saw it did not do the film full justice. In no one of his previous pictures has Sloman displayed such a fine sense of composition and grouping. There is only one flaw in grouping during the entire film. Mutinous soldiers crowd around their colonel, but leave a wide lane down which the camera points to pick him up. Why WILL directors persist in making that mistake ? What possible reason could excited soldiers have for stopping at an imaginary line and craning their necks to look down it to see something that they could see easily by taking a step forward? However, this is the only sin that Sloman commits. He uses medium shots and long shots effectively, which treatment has the advantage of retaining all the photographic and pictorial values while putting over the story even better than close-ups would. But the greatest feature of the direction is Sloman's good SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 judgment of dramatic values. The picture is a powerful drama containing many strong scenes. Every one of them is directed admirably, Sloman pausing at the point of per- fection that lies between too much repression and over- acting. He tells his story quietly, refraining from too much emphasis of scenes that in themselves are sufficiently dramatic to need no acting to make them more so. Norman Kerry and Lewis Stone are the featured players in The Foreign Legion. I don't think either of them ever gave a better performance. Norman is becoming a better actor all the time. In this picture he has a most sympathetic role, and brings out all its values. Lewis Stone is dis- tinguished from most other screen actors by his excellence as an actor, and from all other screen actors by the fact that he does not read The Spectator. I wish someone would tell him that I think his performance in this picture is very good indeed. Craufurd Kent has a heavy role, unre- deemed by a single virtue, and he puts into it the intelli- gence and mastery of mechanics that characterize all his screen work. I believe, however, that his part would have been more convincing if he had been allowed to show some sign of decency. If I had been directing him I would have had him being kind to a dog or a horse, which would have made him still more the heavy by accentuating his villainy by contrast. Blary Nolan has an important role in this picture, the first big one I have seen her in. She has beauty and ability, and I see no reason why she should not have a successful screen career. June Marlowe is another member of the cast who gives a good account of herself. I like her. I like all our screen girls who look sweet, refined and intelligent. There are not many. Uni- versal has given The Foreign Legion an adequate produc- tion. Morocco is a fascinating locale for a motion picture, and in this picture all the fascination is brought out. Edward Montague supervised the story, and if he, Kenyon, and Sloman can continue to give us such notable pictures as this one I hope Carl Laemmle will give them a chance. Universal has turned out bigger pictures than The Foreign Legion, but it never turned out a more perfectly made one. H( * * Howard Higgin Makes Roughnecks Delightful THE Skyscraper, directed by Howard Higgin for De Mille, is a good audience picture and also is one that should interest Hollywood. It defies so many tradi- tions. It has practically no story. It has no elaborate in- terior sets. It has no heavy. It has only atmosphere. Most of the action takes place within the gaunt skeleton of a rising skyscraper. Accepting the scenes at their face value, the characters perform their daily tasks at a dizzy height, bringing to the audience an impression of the haz- ardous occupation steel workers follow. In his opening sequences Higgin plants effectively what would be the soul of a skyscraper if a skyscraper had a soul. He shows the thin line that runs between life and death on such a job — a careless footstep, then the street below. He plants this atmosphere ■with some of the most delicious comedy I have seen in months. Alan Hale and William Boyd are steel workers. Even before a title tells us that they live to- gether we grasp the fact that they have for one another that manly love that means lifelong friendship. We are sure of it the moment they start their first quarrel; and they don't stop quarreling or fighting for as long as we March 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven see them on the screen. In the last Spectator I gave it as my opinion that Alan Hale should play comedy. I was not avifare at the time that he had such a role, but I am glad to point to it as proof of the soundness of my idea. He is a capital comedian. Bill Boyd never did as well in any other picture in which I have seen him. The continuous warfare between him and Hale will keep any audience in a constant roar of laughter. Thanks to the excellence of Higgin's direction we lose sight of the fact that there is no story. Every foot of the film entertains us, and that is all we ask of any picture. There is a slim romance between Boyd and that altogether delightful Sue Caroll. It is the kind of love story that we can be interested in only to the extent that we are interested in the parties to it. Higgin first builds up our interest in the characters as individuals, after which it doesn't matter much what they do; they are our friends and our interest extends to anything that they do. That is what interested me most about the picture. In the opening sequences no story is planted and nothing happens that later in the picture ties up with anything. Higgin merely plays around with his characters until we know them thoroughly, after which it is no trick to keep us interested in them. The characteri- zations so ably portrayed by Hale and Boyd are consistent to the end. There is not a single sentimental moment in their relations. They are at war constantly and no effort is made to present them as anything other than a pair of roughnecks. They are almost the whole picture, and they make of it a sparkling comedy quite good enough to appear in any house. This is the first sample of Higgin's work that I have seen. It is free from all the standard direc- torial weaknesses that I criticize so frequently. It betrays an understanding, sympathy and tenderness that should make Higgin in demand as a director, even if his delight- ful sense of humor were not enough to recommend him. Ralph Block supervised The Skyscraper. He hasn't been out at the De Mille studio very long, but he is beginning to put his impress on production. Tay Garnett wrote the screen story and no doubt is entitled to credit for a good share of the skilful character drawing. He also acts. He appears in a brief bit in which he is called on to make love to Sue Caroll. I hope Tay had the decency not to ask for pay for that day's work. * * * "Wings" a Truly Great Picture WINGS is a magnificent picture. Perhaps more than any other production that yet has been brought to the screen, it shows us what stupendous deeds the motion picture camera can perform. It is rich in entertainment value, but richer in what it promises in the way of future development. It is Paramount's most val- uable contribution to screen art, and dignifies both its makers and the art. No picture ever made revealed an equal cleverness in blending miniature shots with life- sized ones. The nature of my calling demands that I view pictures critically, and as I view them I scribble notes which later become the basis of my comments. I made no notes on Wings. I sat back and enjoyed it, which, in as far as I personally am concerned, is my greatest tribute to its excellence. The thrills that came from the gigantic screen were all that mattered. The amazing photography is enough in itself to make the production notable. The theme and the comprehensive manner of its presentation dwarf everything else that composes the picture, and make its faults unimportant. But there is a lesson which the faults teach us. Some weeks ago I argued in The Spec- tator that love stories are not necessary to all pictures. Wings is a striking example of the kind of picture that is weakened by conventional treatment. It is so tremendous that the private affairs of the characters in it are trivial. That excellent little actress, Clara Bow, manages only to be a nuisance. There was no story reason for taking her to France. The fiutter of a skirt has no place among whirring propellers. The picture deals graphically and dramatically with the affairs of war, and the presence of a girl behind the line for no other reason than to conform to the movie convention that there must be a girl in a picture, detracts from its strength. Only the fact that Wings is powerful enough to carry the load kept it from being ruined by its story. I would have shown the girls only in the opening and closing sequences, and when the characters are in France I would have injected nothing to distract the audience's attention from the serious business of war and the part played in it by the men for whom interest had been developed. That Paramount did not know what to do with such story as it had is shown by the fact that it does nothing to clear the reputation of Clara Bow who was sent home from France in disgrace. The audience knows that she is innocent, but the picture ignores the fact that there is a blot on her record. The whole drunk sequence never should have been shot. I know that our fine boys who went to France did such things, for I saw much of it over there myself, but it should not have been dragged into a picture to which it contributes nothing whatever. There is nothing half-way about a motion picture; what does not strengthen it harms it. The Saturday Evening Post may be taken as a gauge of the public's taste in fiction, a taste identical with that to which pictures cater. That publication, which is amaz- ingly prosperous because it contains stories the public likes, realizes that a love story is not essential. I have not kept tab, but I feel that I am safe in saying that not half its stories endeavor to focus our interest in girls. If the screen were right in its conviction that every picture must have a love interest, the Post would not be the suc- cess it is. During the past ten years the Post has con- tained scores of war stories in which no girls figured. Wings would have been a much better picture if it had reduced the girl interest to a minimum. But, even so, it is a great picture. It is one you must see, and one that every exhibitor should book. It is a distinct triumph for William Wellman, its director. * * * Something About Young Directors TOM Meighan is fortunate in having Lewis Milestone to direct his first picture for Caddo Productions. In both Two Arabian Knights and The Garden of Eden Milestone demonstrated that he is one of the coming direc- tors. He is the foi-tunate possessor of a rare sense of humor in addition to a fine appreciation of dramatic values. If I were asked to make a list of the young men who give promise of having a brilliant screen career, one of the first names I would set down would be that of Lewis Milestone. Tom Meighan still possesses the screen Page Eight personality that made him a favorite, but he has appeared in a succession of pictures so hopelessly bad that he has retained but little of his box-oflHce value. K any director can bring him back it is Milestone, and I hope Tom has sense enough to put himself in his director's hands. There are some other young fellows who are doing notable things now and from whom more notable work may be expected in the future. Sam Taylor is one of them. He made a splendid picture of My Best Girl, and jumped from that human little story to The Tempest, a John Barrymore production which is strong in drama and rich in produc- tion value. It is a wide range to cover, but I have so much faith in Sam's ability that I am confident that he will repeat in the big picture the success he achieved with the smaller one. Bill Howard is another who will bear watch- ing. He is intelligent, versatile and daring, attributes that make for success in directing. He has not given us yet a big production, but has done so well with modest ones that if I were a producer I would have no hesitation in entrusting him with the biggest story on my list. Joe von Sternberg has the queerest record of any director. With only two pictures to his credit and both of them box- office failures, he makes a splash with two big Paramount pictures. Underworld and Last Command, two productions that appealed alike to critics and the public. These two successes have placed him in the front rank of directors. He has done something that for some strange reason few directors do: he has followed one success with another. The recognition of Jack Ford as a director dates back farther than that of the others I have mentioned, but he has come to the front so rapidly of late that he can be regarded almost as a new director. The Iron Horse and Three Bad Men were good pictures, but they did little more than hint at the greatness of Four Sons and Mother Machree, both of which will rank well up on any list of the most worthy contributions to screen art. All the critics who have viewed it bear tribute to the outstanding quality of Mother Machree, and they credit its success to Ford's direction and Belle Bennett's magnificent performance. With these two pictures Ford has duplicated Von Stern- bergs two-in-a-row feat in a mathematical sense, and has surpassed it in giving us two better pictures than those of Von Sternberg. Ford now has a different kind of story on his hands. Hangman's House does not offer him an op- portunity to strike the deep human note that makes Four Sons and Mother Machree great pictures, but it is laid in Ireland, a locale dear to Jack's heart, has definite charac- terizations and considerable drama. If he can make out of it a picture that ranks with the other two, and I believe he can, Ford will come mighty near to being entitled to recognition as our greatest director. Harry D'Arrast is another young fellow from whom we may expect none but good pictures. He brings more polish and finesse to his work than any of the others, but has yet to demonstrate his ability to handle a big story. All those I have men- tioned use their intellects. From them we may expect the THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 ilmar LyiiMAR) Cleaners 6037 Hollywood Boulevard Phone HOUy 0899 new note that screen art soon will strike. There are some others whom I might discuss among those whose future is promising, but they have not yet demonstrated their abilities as emphatically as have those whose names I have mentioned. * * ♦ "Her Mad Hour" Is Not Quite Sane ELINOR Glyn should come to Hollywood when they are making a picture from one of her stories. She is a brilliant woman with a logical mind, consequently she writes stories that are both brilliant and logical, but Her Mad Hour is neither. It is a picture made by First National from a story by Madame Glyn. Joseph C. Boyle directed. My obj'ections to it are not such as to lead me to advise exhibitors not to book it. It has considerable production value, and much trashy stuff that many people like — the kind of people who will not be disturbed by the fact that the major premise of the story is illogical. Sally O'Neill and Alice White get beastly drunk in an early sequence, and next morning Sally wakes up married to the gentleman who is sharing a bedroom with her, a scene that morally is quite sound. The preview audience was given the privilege of seeing Sally having a shower bath, attired as one generally is when engaged in that exhilarat- ing pastime. To an extent the water acts as a screen, an irritating one, but, even so, the preview audience was more fortunate than any other audience will be, as a scene of that sort never will get beyond even a blind censor, which is as it should be. After the husband's father has disowned his son, Lowell Sherman, whom it always is a pleasure to see on the screen, happens along and becomes a good Samaritan in order to perform some villainy with much finesse. Although he is a stranger to the couple, Sally and her high-born husband live off him until Sally is given a package of stolen jeyels to return to the grande dame from whom they were stolen, the object being to get the reward offered for their recovery. The police get Sally, and it is there that the story runs wild. Instead of telling the police the truth and assisting in the capture of the thieves, Sally becomes heroic and refuses to talk. The story demands that she go to jail, and she gets one year for grand larceny, notwithstanding the fact that the audi- ence knows that under no possibility could she be convicted of such a crime, even though she refused to explain how she secured the jewels. Possession of stolen property is not proof of larceny. Sally's husband has the marriage annulled, which he could not do, divorce being his only way out; Sally goes to jail, a son is born to her, and the husband takes the baby away from her. All this is tough on Sally, but it is not convincing on the screen because it is not logical. It could not have happened. Sally's action in shielding the gang of thieves who made a catspaw of her is utterly ridiculous. Being so, everything that hap- pens to her thereafter is simply motion picture, and can not be taken seriously. I am sure these faults were not committed in Elinor Glyn's manuscript. No drama can be any stronger than the premise upon which it is based. Sally forfeits all claim to our sympathy when she goes to jail as a result of her own stubbornness, consequently when we see her scrubbing the jail floors we yawn and wonder what is coming next. If she had tried to keep out of jail, but had been railroaded there by a logical sequence of events, March 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine we would have had some sympathy for her. It is a queer thing that people in studios seem to be incapable of grasp- ing such elemental truths when they go about the business of making motion pictures. Her Mad Hour almost is re- deemed in its last hundred feet. Sally discovers her for- mer husband being married to another girl, and at the same time finds out that she can not recover her baby. She steals an automobile and starts a wild ride that termi- nates when she drives the car over a cliff. During the drive we see her face in close-up, and I must congratulate the young woman upon doing some superb acting in that long sustained, intimate shot. On her face is depicted all the misery she is suffering, and I was surprised to see how well she did it. Apparently we must take her seri- ously as an actress. Let's Look at the Money Side of It A SUBSCRIBER writes me to the effect that he is getting a little tired of reading about close-ups, although he feels about them as I do, and is sorry that Griffith happened to think about them. This reader must take into account that I am addressing a dull audi- ence in my campaign against this blight on screen art, and it takes a long time and much persistency to impress a dull person. If there were no dull persons in pictures there would be practically no close-ups. All the really in- telligent people approve my arguments against them. To make any impression whatever on the others I must keep hammering at them. It is accomplishment, not advocacy, that measures a publication's value to any cause it serves. I am convinced thoroughly that the senseless use of close- ups is costing the motion picture industry millions of dollars annually. Take Love, the Metro picture starring Greta Garbo and Jack Gilbert, and directed by Edmund Goulding. I was talking about it with Louis B. Mayer the other day. He told me that some critics said it was one of the best pictures ever made and that others said it was one of the worst. The criticism that I read came under the second heading, and I agree with them. The adverse critcisms must have had an effect at box-offices, a tendency that adverse criticisms have, although producers scoff at the idea. It follows that if there had been no such criti- cisms the picture would have made more money. Love was given an elaborate and artistic production, and con- tains excellent acting by the two principal players and by Brandon Hurst and George Fawcett. With such assets it should have satisfied the tastes of the critics. But it did not. The story was no worse than most stories, conse- quently we must ascribe its lack of appeal to the treatment given it. It was treated almost entirely in close-ups, and to them, and to them alone, I attribute the picture's failure to give general satisfaction. If it had contained about half a dozen close-ups, instead of over three hundred, it would have been a good picture; it would have given the audience the full benefit of the fine production and preserved the dramatic value of all the sequences. In the form in which it was presented to the public it is one of the most stupid pictures I have seen. There is a close-up of a butler an- nouncing a caller; another of a servant bowing to her mistress. I challenge the whole Metro personnel to advance one argument in justification of such utterly absurd shots. Granting their absurdity, and that of some three hundred others equally as senseless, how can a picture containing them be a good one ? With such a cast and such a produc- tion Love should have been an outstanding picture. Close- ups have made it a poor one. Add to it the hundreds of other pictures that each year are made poor in the same way and it is easy to see how close-ups are costing the industry millions of dollars annually. This loss can not be stopped suddenly for we have few directors who have sufficient ability to shoot pictures as they should be shot, but it will have to be stopped some time, and the directors who bring about the reform will be the ones who will command the big salaries in the future. Of course, the story of Love may be contributing somewhat to the pic- ture's failure to be an outstanding success. The public is not accustomed to heroes who run away with other men's wives. It is done, it is true, but in pictures it is done by villains who get theirs in the end. In Love the husband conveniently dies to permit the picture to end with the standard clinch, which presumably restores the hero and heroine to good standing in the community. Anyway, Love reminds us what excellent artists Gilbert and Miss Garbo are, and what a master at artistic settings Cedric Gibbons is. Also it gives us Phillipe de Lacey in a role that allows him to demonstrate what an extremely clever lad he is. He is charming on the screen. * * * Harmon Weight Shows Progress HARMON Weight is a young director who gives definite promise of becoming an important one. I've seen but two of his pictures, The Symphony, which I gave a place on my list of ten best pictures of 1927, and Midnight Madness, which he recently completed for De Mille. I was fortunate enough to see the first production before Universal gave it the final massage which no doubt squeezed out of it all the quality that made me enthusiastic about it, including the name which has been changed to Burning Cocktails, or something else so ridiculous that I can not recall it. Perhaps the public will not give Symphony the same rating that I did, but the public will not see the picture as I saw it. Midnight Madness will cause no excitement. It is a little thing that will pass unnoticed by all except those who have some knowledge of screen technic. It interested me primarily as an example of intelligent direction. Weight was given a story written originally by Shakespeare, and which attracted some atten- tion under the name Taming of the Shrew. Robert N. Lee gave the theme modern treatment, but did not have enough to go on to provide the director with a script that left nothing to his originality. Clive Brook, a wealthy man, asks Jacqueline Logan, Walter McGrail's secretary, to marry him. She agrees, and later Brook overhears her telling McGrail that she is marrying for money. Brook does not back out. He marries her, poses as a poor man, and makes Jackie like it. There's the whole story. Weight tells it in a way that makes it interesting. It is not smeared with close-ups. He has two and three characters on the screen at the same time speaking titles and there is no doubt about which one is speaking. Directors have defended close-ups on the ground that they were necessary to distinguish the origin of spoken titles. There is one shot showing Brook kissing Bliss Logan while they are seated at a table in a crowded restaurant. You often see Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 such shots. They are ridiculous, as well bred people do their kissing with more privacy. No doubt the Midnight Madness script called for the action, but Weight takes the curse off it by making both characters look silly and con- fused after the deed has been committed. Most directors shoot it in a matter-of-fact way, as if a restaurant were run as much for making love as for serving soup. In handling his characters the director shows a marked sense of dramatic values. The three leading characters give ade- quate and intelligent performances. Brook is particularly good. He is one of the most accomplished actors we have, and even in such a little picture as this one makes his part stand out as a fine example of intellectual charac- terization. I never have seen Jacqueline photographed as well and I do not think she ever gave such a good per- formance before. McGrail is a hea\'y with a sense of humor, quite a refreshing departure. When he is putting over something on the girl he does not sneer at her in the approved manner of villains; he laughs heartily and seems to be enjoying himself hugely. We should have more heavies who do not take themselves seriously. In his scenes with Brook he is easy-going and gentlemanly, and there is nothing in his demeanor to suggest that his motives are not lofty. In one sequence Frank Hagney does creditable work as a heavy of a rougher type. But the picture is Weight's. If given a chance with something bigger, I am quite sure that he would do it justice. I believe he has something new to offer, and heaven knows we can do with a few directors who will wander from the beaten path and reveal fresh angles of screen art. * * * Bill Haines and the Etiquette of Golf THEY'RE overdoing Bill Haines as a smart alec. In an altogether satisfactory printed story or motion picture there must be a central character who com- mands our sympathy, respect and liking. If we can not become interested in some one in a picture we can not become interested in the picture itself. It is upon this theory that our wholly pure hero has been developed. He is in the picture as the magnet for our sympathy, and he is kept more than humanly good in order that he will not forfeit it. To the extent that we are interested in him are we interested in the unfoldment of the story. I have seen Haines play nothing but a smart alec, which probably is all he can play, and a smart alec is a most obnoxious person. In most of his stories, however, he was given some redeeming feature that commanded at least a little respect for him. But in Spring Fever he is obnoxious all the way through. He can not maintain his popularity if he be given a succession of such parts as he plays in this picture. Metro made quite a picture out of it, and Ed Sedgwick directed it acceptably, but how can a picture please us when the chief character, the one whose fate the story deals with, is an altogether unpleasing person? Bill plays the part all right, and can not be blamed for the characterization, but a hero who does not perform one gracious act in the entire picture is the kind of hero that the public soon will tire of. He is a bumptious ass in the opening sequences, but it is not until he reaches the country club that he becomes altogether impossible. Only his golf game is creditable. He has a good stance and a fine swing and it was a pleasure to watch him use any of his clubs, but anyone who behaved as he did on a golf course would have been thrown over the fence before he had been there one hour. He speaks to Joan Crawford, whom he does not know, as she takes her stance for a drive. How did Bill become a crack golf player without learning what an unpardonable sin that is? He knows it, Ed Sedgwick knows it, and the scores of golf players on the Metro lot know it, yet an important scene in the picture is one containing this bad breach of golf etiquette. The picture is the only one I have seen that seems to have been made primarily for golf players, which is a good idea, as there are many millions of them throughout the world, yet it makes its hero do things that will irritate every golfer who sees it. Why deliberately offend the audience that a picture is aimed at? Metro would offer in its defence that Bill does the irritating things to get laughs. In farce you can disregard the conventions, but in straight comedy you can not. Spring Fever is not a farce, for in a farce all the characters are abnormal. In this picture Haines is the only character who is not normal. If there be any value in the comedy, it will appeal most to people who are familiar with goLf courses and country clubs, and the farther it gets away from the atmosphere of such places, the more it weakens the comedy. The country club atmosphere is not maintained. The club is run like a hotel. Haines registers and is shown to his room by a bell boy. I never have been in that kind of country club. The other phases of the story are as absurd as those I have mentioned. Haines, to win Joan Crawford, lies to her, an astonishing thing for a hero to do. A maudlin attempt is made to gloss his infamy by showing him leav- ing her on their wedding night. Everything in the picture is forced. It contains a weakness common to many pic- tures, a hero whom the heroine could not possibly love. Such a girl as Joan is shown to be would despise such a hopeless cad as Haines characterized. Imagine a hero who peeps through a keyhole to get a glimpse of a girl in a bedroom! Comedy? Well, if that be Metro's conception of comedy it should try its hand at something else. Spring Fever is impossible all the way through except when Bill swings at the ball. He is quite all right then. ♦ * » On the Necessity of Making Hero Likable THE screen needs new ideas, but in our search for them there are established conventions that can not be ignored altogether. I have protested against heroes who are too good to be human. An all-good char- acter is monotonous, but we have to be careful how we add the spice to take away the monotony. The main con- sideration must be to keep the audience in sympathy with the hero. We may make our hero a thief if we so estab- lish the reason why he is a thief that the audience will get his viewpoint, and sympathize with him. In The Noose we forgive Dick Barthelmess for being a hijacker because it is established that he was brought up by a crook and knows no other life. Had his upbringing been conventional, and had he become a hijacker in spite of it, he would not be entitled to the sympathy of the audience. In West Point Bill Haines is characterized as about the lowest form of animal that we can have as a hero. He is presented to us as a hopelessly conceited cad, a wisecracking nuisance who would not be tolerated for one hour in any decent March 3, 1928 society anywhere. Yet he is the hero of a story about West Point and the manly boys there. Joan Crawford is shown as rejecting a handsome fellow, with all the in- stincts of a gentleman, to accept Haines who outrages all of them. The characterization can not be defended on the same ground that we can defend our thief or hijacker. No reason whatever is established to excuse Haines. For five or six reels he is a pest, and for the rest of the picture he isn't. His regeneration comes after we are so thor- oughly disgusted with him that we would rather see him choked than forgiven. At best it is only an imitation of the regeneration theme. As I have said, under certain circumstances we can forgive a man being a thief or hijacker. Under no circumstances can we forgive him being a pest. It simply is not done in decent society. No author can write well enough, no director direct well enough, and no actor act well enough to make plausible and likable a rude, vulgar, conceited, wisecracking, boorish hero. I can't recall the name of the picture in which Haines made his first hit, but I remember that I liked it. He was an amusing wisecracker, and he retained my sympathy. With that shortsightedness that is a charac- teristic of motion picture producers, Metro overlooked the fact that it was the likable quality in Haines that made him popular, and proceeded on the assumption that audi- ences were pleased with his obnoxious side. In his last few pictures an effort has been made to have him as obnox- ious as possible. The only result of this policy will be to reduce his box-office value. The similarity of his char- acterizations is contributing to it. It does not make a great deal of difference to Metro, for it can develop another star to take his place when he is through. But I feel sorry for Haines. He has a certain flair for comedy that would retain for him his popularity for a long time if he were given stories that presented him as a likable fellow. West Point is a well produced and well directed picture, but is not as good as Dress Parade, which Donald Crisp made for De Mille in the same locale. In Dress Parade Bill Boyd's characterization is made plausible by his early environment. The only creditable performance in West Point is that of young William Bakewell. He is a lad who should go a long way. It was impossible for Joan Crawford to give a convincing performance, as it was inconceivable that she should fall in love with such a disgusting ass as the hero, whose conduct made the pic- ture the most objectionable I have seen in a long time. T ONDON After Midnight is quite the queerest motion •*-' picture I ever saw. For once Tod Browning gets too deep for my poor understanding. I do not know if I was expected to take it seriously as a treatise on the applica- tion of hypnotism to crime detection, or whether I was to regard it as a fanciful joke. My difficulty in deciding is caused by the fact that it is too ridiculous to be considered seriously, and was treated too seriously to be regarded as a joke. On this reasoning. Tod failed to hit whichever mark he aimed at. To me the funniest thing in it is Lon Chaney's acting. The magnificent Chinaman of Mr. Wu is a comical figure in his conception of a Scotland Yard inspector. The fact that there may have been, or may be, an inspector whom Lon copied exactly does not matter. The screen must make obeisance at least in the direction of our standardized conceptions. I agree with Trader Horn when he says: "But the correctful thing in all literary THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven books is to remember that even the truth may need sup- pressing if it appears out of tangent with the common man's notion of reality." Next in comedy value in this picture is Lon as the hump-backed runt with all the teeth. I can't understand why he was in the picture. The make- up no doubt pleased Lon, but that is not sufficient reason. However, the whole thing is too utterly silly to warrant detailed criticism. There is about one reel of story em- bellished by six reels of utter rot. If the Scotland Yard man wanted to hypnotize Conrad Nagel and Henry B. Walthall surely he could have managed it without dragging in a vampire for which there is no authority beyond Slavic folklore, an old man with startling teeth, and a woman who looks like a bit of animated death. Browning and Chaney have demonstrated in the past that they can make good pictures. They should continue to do so by leaving such crazy things as London After Midnight alone. * * * TTONEYMOON Flats, directed for Universal by Millard ■*• •*■ Webb, and starring George Lewis and Dorothy Gulli- ver, is a delightful little picture. It deals with well dressed young people in pleasant surroundings, and has a capable supporting cast composed of Kathryn Williams, Jane Winton, Bryant Washburn, Ward Crane, and Phillips Smalley. It opens with a wedding scene of considerable pictorial value, and thereafter deals with the affairs of the bride and groom. It is a happy little thing, and such tribulations as befall the principal characters are serious to them, but amusing to the audience. Webb handles it with the best of taste, his direction being intelligent throughout. We should have more pictures of the sort. The seamy side of life is stressed too much on the screen. We can stand more youth and beauty, and less ugliness. George Lewis gives a capital performance. He improves with each picture and justifies the confidence I had in him three or four years ago when I took him to Jesse Lasky and urged that he be given a chance on the Paramount lot. At that time Lewis had never been inside a studio and had not seen a motion picture camera, but I had seen him in high school theatricals in Coronado, and had persuaded him to come to Hollywood and have a go at pictures. Noth- ing came of the Lasky visit, and for some time it was with extreme difficulty that I kept the boy from starving to death. But he is getting a nice salary now, soon will marry his Mary Lou, and move into a honeymoon flat of his own. All of which is very nice. But I was talking about Honeymoon Flats. Dorothy Gulliver gives a pleas- ing performance, as do all the members of the cast. The picture will not cause a furore, but any exhibitor who books it will give his patrons some pleasant entertainment. * * * SORRELL and Son was made from a successful book. The book is a well written one, the work of an edu- cated, cultured author, who makes it a creditable contri- bution to current literature. The screen takes it. In transferring it into a picture it was necessary in some instances — titles — to use the same medium of expression that the original author employed. There is nothing mys- terious about the use of the English language. The rules that govern it have been established by a thousand years of evolution. They are fixed, and anyone can learn them. Given a thought, there is an established method of express- ting it. One title in Sorrell and Son reads: "Thank God! He had you to do it for him." The man who wrote the Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR 3Iarch 3, 1928 title knew what he wanted to say, but he did not know how to say it. What he meant was: "Thank God he had you to do it for him!" What are the people with sufficient intelligence to enjoy Sorrell and Son in book form, going to think when they see such a sample of gross ignorance in a picture made from it? The punctuation of the titles is simply atrocious, as it is in practically all the United Artists pictures. I am surprised at Joseph M. Schenck. He is one producer who in every other feature of his pro- ductions always gives the public honest measure. He has a fine taste in screen fare and no doubt has an ambition to be as successful in making pictures as he has been in his many other enterprises, yet every picture he turns out is evidence of his indifference to illiteracy being one of its most striking features. It's beyond me! t * * 'T-'HE Czarina's Secret is another artistic gem of the -*• series that Technicolor is making for Metro release. There are to be six, each presenting a great moment in history, and this one is the fourth. Dr. Herbert T. Kal- mus, president of Technicolor, and a scientist with an international reputation, is the producer of the series. He applies his scientific mind to the material side of picture production, and having demonstrated with his superb two- reelers that pictures can be shot on schedule and within estimated cost. He is about to extend his operations to include seven-reel features in color, and will apply to their making the same common business sense that has made him a successful producer of shorter subjects. The Czarina's Secret deals with the moment in Russian history when Catherine II became empress, supplanting her weak and vacillating husband, Peter III. Dramatically it is a splendid picture, and the Technicolor process has made it gorgeous pictorially. Olga Baclanova, an artist famous in Russia before she came to Hollywood, puts a great deal of feeling and dramatic power into her portrayal of the role of Catherine, and David Mir contributes a masterly characterization of Peter. Sally Rand and Lucio Flamma have secondary roles and handle them adequately. R. William Neill directed the picture splendidly, and Aubrey Scotto supervised its production. Technicolor has brought its process to a point of perfection that our big producers can not ignore much longer. They can not keep on giving us only white and black creations when such a color process is available. * * * A DIRECTOR, defending close-ups in a conversation with me, claimed that most actors are so weak in facial expression that they can put over very little in a medium shot, making a close-up necessary. I am aware of that. The trouble is that we rely too much on facial expression, and have carried it to a point that has made audiences tired of faces. A man can stand with his back to the camera and put over indifference by a shrug of his shoulders quite as well as he can express it with his face in a close-up. The shot of the shrug would retain the pic- torial value of the set and add variety to the scenes. My chief quarrel with close-ups is that they are done to death. We never will have the new note in direction that pictures lack so badly until directors cease adhering to one method of expressing themselves. Even a brainless person in an audience can appreciate a display of brains on the screen, and it takes no brains whatever to shoot a scene in close- ups. I have heard it argued that only by breaking a WM. K. WILLIAMSON U. S. A. and English Styles in British Cloths (Ladies and Gentlemen) 8289 Santa Monica Blvd. Hollywood Phone HEupstead 0580 WINGS Legion of the Condemned I LieuU E* H. Rohinson MOTION PICTURE AERONAUTICS WHitney 4617 GEORGE SIDNEY SAYS: "I don't mind the nine dollars, Welford, but in 'Gottes Himmel' spell my name right." Qt£n/ oxford 9511 ~^hc^ 430 No. CanonDrive BeveretHills J^ext to J>iorri3oris,MaTkBt Paul Kohner says That the story ALEXANDER MARKY Wrote, and is now directing and supervising for Universal Somewhere in the South Seas Is one of the finest original screen stories he has read in years On Marky's Staff LEW COLLINS WILFRID M. CLINE HAROLD I. SMITH ZOE VARNEY March 3, 1928 THE FILM scene into close-ups can enough footage be obtained to carry a picture to its required length. That is absurd rea- soning. The length of any picture should be only what is necessary to tell the story. Expanding it by torture is a fool idea. If a picture must run into seven reels, there should be seven reels of action written into the script, not five reels of action and two reels of close-ups. No argu- ment can cover up the fact that most directors rely on close-ups because they haven't enough brains to avoid them. * * * THE thing most interesting to me that I have learned during the two years that I have been writing The Spectator is that my own activity has definite limitations. I find that I can not do half the things that I would like to do. I can not read peoples' stories and advise them how to sell them; I can not take tourists through studios, get people jobs, give strangers letters of introduction to those of my friends who are prominent in film circles, read scripts or arrange for tests. I would like to do all these things, and I have endeavored to, but as I start The Spec- tator on its third year I have to reorganize myself. The circulation of the paper is so great that it is entitled to all my vigor. I can not interest myself in other people's affairs all day, and put vigor into what I write at night. All art is but properly applied vigor, and the physical man is as important to it as the mental. I have been so fearful of earning a reputation for high-hatting that I have given appointments to all those who have requested them, and it has been astonishing to learn what a wide variety of miracles people expected me to perform. I must put a stop to it before it grows any worse, and to be fair to my- self I am forced to limit my interviews to those with people who tell me in advance why they want to see me. Then if I determine that I can be of any value to them I will call them back and make an appointment. * * * HARRY Langdon has turned out another terrible pic- ture in The Chaser. When he began to make his own pictures he was recognized as a prominent star, but what he has given us has been of such poor quality that he no longer is to be taken seriously. Langdon has ability as an actor and none as a producer, and he serves in both capacities. In an early Spectator I predicted precisely what has happened to him. It is pitiful to see marked talent sacrificed to an unwarranted ambition to boss the SPECTATOR whole show. of it would occupy, Page Thirteen The Chaser is not worth the space a review An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard A SCENE in The Foreign Legion, a splendid Universal picture directed by Ted Sloman, is held on the screen long enough to enable me to count the people in it. It is a long shot containing twenty-six people, all being shown ALFRED HUSTWICK Film Editor Titles Since 1919 with Paramount TheOXFORD PRESS, Inc. Commercial Printing Catalogs, Publications, Books, Folders, Mailing Cards and Circulars, Office Forms, Invoices, Statements, Cards, Letterheads, Bill Heads, Envelopes. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 TAY GARNETT IVriter DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. O. Christensen, Associates SUMPTUOUSLY FURNISHED HILLSIDE HOME FOR RENT This home, scarcely two years old, is located in the Los Feliz district near Western Avenue. Four bedrooms, three baths; two-car garage. Telephone MRS. HIBBARD, at GL. 3156 for further details. Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 in full figure. In the extreme background Lewis Stone sits at a table. He just has discovered that the soldier he must sentence to death for mutiny is his own son, and despite the fact that he is shown in such a long shot none of the drama of the scene is lost, his physical action amply making up for anything we lose in the way of facial ex- pression. It is what I have been preaching right along. One of the craziest notions that exist in studios is that it is only by close-ups that drama can be put over. Sloman knows how to do it in a long shot. * * * A LOVE scene, being a tender and sentimental affair, should be enacted in secluded surroundings. In Spring Fever Joan Crawford and Bill Haines have such a scene in the open. Their tender embrace is witnessed only by the birds in the tree above them, by the shy buttercups that bloom at their feet, by the summer breeze that floats by them, and by eighteen hundred people who formed the gallery that watched Bill beat Edward Earle at golf. Except for the gallery and caddies, the lovers had the place to themselves, giving the scene that air of privacy and intimacy that makes such scenes so appealing. * * * ONE thing in The Foreign Legion greatly astonished me. A title reads: "Stop? I should say not! We must carry on." What astonished me is that the title is punc- tuated just as I quote it here, an amazing thing to find in a Universal picture. * * * W/ ITHIN certain limits punctuation, like pie, is a matter '^ of personal taste. I do not quarrel with screen punctuation because it does not follow the same system that I do. My complaint is that it goes beyond the per- missible limit. This is a title in Secret Hour: "How about the baby — ain't I got something to say about that?" No amount of argument can justify such punctuation, not even the old wheeze that the screen has a language of its own. The title should read: "How about the baby? Ain't I got something to say about that?" One question mark can not be spread over two questions. * * * THERE is one clever feature in Love, the close-up debauch in which Metro presents Greta Gar bo and Jack Gilbert. In many places the closing title in one sequence serves as an introductory title for the sequence that succeeds it. There is a fadeout after the title, "Then I will see you at the grand duke's ball to-night," and a fade-in on the ball, without any further explanatory title. It's an idea worth stealing. * * * rriHERE is a battle scene in D. W. Griffith's Drums of ■•■ Love. The soldiers are divided into two classes: those who are wholly alive and those who are very dead. There are no wounded. D. W. handles his mobs splendidly, but the battle sequence would have been more convincing if some of the people on the ground had moved. A few of them crawling to safety would have made the scenes more real. * * * JUST by way of showing that there is something else to find fault with, I rise to remark that most of the people with whom I converse are not particularly careful with their use of English. Perhaps it would be a good idea to publish a few brief lessons in grammar. Don't say, "Between you and I." The correct way is "Between you and me." AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 17-Year-Old Critic IN Feel My Pulse Bebe Daniels at last is in a picture which is some- what amusing. There are some very funny gags in it, but of course there is the usual amount of silliness. How- ever, when a fine actor like William Powell has to waste his talent in a silly comedy, the whole picture is spoiled for me. Powell doesn't let his work become inferior just because he is in an inferior picture. That is the sign of a true artist. Gregory La Cava, whose pictures as a general rule are amusing, directed Feel My Pulse. He must be responsible for whatever merit the picture possessed. The story was quite original, at least it was more original than that of the aver- age motion picture. There was the usual amount of inconsistencies, of course. The rum-runners and the hi- jackers have a battle. The hi-jackers bring a gun, which looks like a one- pounder, to shell the bootlegger's re- treat on an island. A few miles away a coast guaa-d cutter is alichored, yet the men on it never heard the re- ports of the gun. Also, the rum-run- ners were operating right under their noses and they never even got sus- picious. Bebe Daniels has a very funny drunken scene with Heinle Conklin. It was the high-spot of the picture so far as humor went. Her work, and Conklin's, was splendid. As I saw the picture at a preview, I suppose it will be cut and tightened up a good deal. As it was, it dragged considerably in spots. Toward the end the action be- gan to come fast and furious. When everything moves svnftly like that, things which might not be very funny if much attention were paid them be- come very amusing. Richard Arlen contributed his very excellent screen personality to the general strength of the cast. THERE is supposed to be a lot of symbolism to Skyscraper, one of De Mille's latest pictures. How- ever, it went right over my head. There was supposed to be a great deal of splendid comedy in it. About every third attempt at comedy was amus- ing. There was supposed to be a lot of good direction in it. I will admit that there were some good bits, but there were also some bad directorial lapses. The first "funny" gag was Bill Boyd's playfully burning Alan Hale with a blow-torch. How anyone could expect two grown men to do a thing like that in real life is beyond me. And the picture was about real life, or was supposed to be. Hale retaliated for being burned by dropping a red-hot rivet into Boyd's hip-pocket. Outside of the fact that no one could drop anything fen or fifteen feet, as Hale did, into any pocket, the thing was absurd. Any workman who tossed rivets around as though they were pebbles would lose his job so quickly he wouldn't know what had struck him. Boyd brought some fixed dice into a crap game. One die was all sixes, the other was all ones. To imagine that any person who was not deaf, dumb and blind could look at those dice and not notice that they were phoney was absurd. There was a scene in a hospital with Boyd and Hale in adjoining beds. They were talking back and forth, and the camera kept switching back and forth from March 3, 1928 one to the other. The continued switch- ing back and forth was terrible. The whole scene should have been shot so as to get both beds in it. In another scene, which might have been very good, the girl came and stood behind Boyd's chair. He was going to send her away, because he was crippled. That whole scene was shot in a series of close-ups, first of the girl and then of Boyd. As a result, the entire force of the scene was lost by the continual interruptions. That was another scene which should have taken in both char- acters at once. There were several bits of good comedy. Most of them were when the cast went to Coney Island. There was another good bit when Hale and Boyd rescued the girl and fought over who should carry her. There were numer- ous good touches, but they were offset by the bad ones. Howard Higgin, who directed Skyscraper, managed to keep his people in character very well. The titles by John Krafft, which were very good, also helped to keep them in character. I think I liked Bill Boyd better in this than I ever have before. The part suited him perfectly. Alan Hale, as usual, gives one of the per- fect performances which always come from him. Sue Caroll, as the girl, dem- onstrated that she has ability in spite of the handicap of having beautiful legs. Movie traditions seem to demand that if a girl has legs they must be the big features of her performances. Legs being an almost universal com- modity, they soon begin to pall upon audiences. Esther Ralston was a year or so living down the fact that she had beautiful legs, and not until Spot- light, where her legs weren't promi- nent, was she ever mentioned as being able to act. It will be unfortunate for Miss Caroll if she has to follow in Esther Ralston's footsteps. Wesley Barry, whom I haven't seen for a long time, did well in a small part, as did Alberta Vaughn. THE FILM SPECTATOR they were stealing pictures from other people, they were good; but now they allow other people to steal pictures from them. There was no story to Baby Mine, but that would have been no handicap had the action been funny. There was no attempt at characteriza- tion. If there had been, the picture would have been far more funny. Both Arthur and Dane are artists at that particular kind of acting. The direc- tor should have allowed them to do a little more acting and less slap-stick, and the picture would have been bet- ter. Rp'ih Spence contributed some rather good titles which were quite in keeping with the rest of the picture. SPRING Fever is mildly amusing in spite of being silly. William Haines is, as usual, the smart, wise-cracking youth who finally be- comes very noble. There are some funny scenes at the golf course when the picture is just starting. Haines has to run all around the course to get to work on time. There is really so little in this picture to mention that it is hard to write up. Suffice it to say, then, that golf is a pretty geod back- ground for a picture. MG.M. must have made money on Rookies, because they have kept ♦the team of George K. Arthur and Karl Dane intact. Rookies was funny in spite of all the vulgarity which was put in, but Baby Mine, the latest Arthur-Dane picture, has so much vulgarity in it that it has ceased to be funny. There were some funny scenes which were mostly to the credit of Charlotte Greenwood. Dane and Arthur were tremendous hits before they were stars, but they do not seem to do so well on their own. When Page Fifteen least as far as having the two lovers living happily ever after is concerned. The ending was quite satisfactory, however. When Barrymore comes in and finds his wife and his brother together, he does not immediately engage in a furious battle with his brother. He has a few moments of more or less friendly talk with them, and then he cuts their throats. The only thing the matter with that scene is that Alvarado, the brother, should have given Barrymore a knife the minute he came in and told Barrymore to kill him. That would have been more compatible with his character. UNIVERSAL, to judge from The Prince of Peanuts, regards the public as half-witted. However, the public isn't any more half-witted than the person who conceived this picture. The picture started out as though it might be funny, but after a little while, it degenerated into a lot of old, stale gags, none of which was funny. I saw a Universal pic- ture one time where they said before- hand on the screen that the picture was made solely for amusement and the audience was not to believe any of it. Thus any silliness was excused and the picture was enjoyable. If Universal is going to make many more like The Prince of Peanuts, it should get in the habit of putting that foreword before each picture. Then the audience wouldn't feel as if its intelligence had been insulted. Glenn Tryon, who was starred in The Prince of Peanuts, gives a very clever per- formance all throi'-'i the picture. If he were put in things which had some sense to them, he would become a comedy star of the first rank. Marion Nixon was pleasing in what little she had to do. DRUMS of Love is full of the usual D. W. Griffith stuff. There is a battle and many soldiers and a fingernail-chewing heroine. Other- wise, the picture might just as well have been made by any one of a hun- dred other directors. There is nothing particularly great to distinguish it from the average run of costume pic- tures. Splendid performances by the three principals helped out a lot. Mary Philbin, in spite of the handicap of the Griffith motions or emotions as the case may be, did the best work she has done since The Merry-Go-Round. She shows a capacity for more subtle acting than she has hitherto. Lionel Barrymore, done up in a disguise which rivals Lon Chaney's, gives a performance which is free from the over-acting which he sometimes in- dulges in. As a result, his work is the best he has done recently. Don Alvarado is a revelation. Griifith is to be congratulated on the way he has brought out the talent in Alvarado, who gives a fine, even performance all the way through the picture. Griffith does not tack a happy end- ing on a picture when it does not fit. Drums of Love ended unhappily, at F HARMON Weight has made a very entertaining picture out of ♦ Midnight Madness. The story is old, but there are so many clever directorial twists that it is refresh- ingly new and original. There are very few closeups in Midnight Madness, a thing which makes the picture sur- prisingly easy to watch. There are several interesting situations, all of them handled very cleverly. Mr. Weight seems to be able to take even the most trivial things and make good picture stuff out of them. The comedy in Midnight Madness is very good in a quiet way. There is more left to the imagination in this picture. Weight gives the audience credit for having some sense, which the majority of directors don't. Clive Brook gave a good performance, and so did Walter McGrail. Jacqueline Logan was quite satisfactory as the girl. ONE Mad Hour is rather typical of Elinor Glyn. There is the usual stuff in it. It starts with a wild party and ends with the girl killing herself. At first the picture was rather slow and dragged considerably, but towards the last it began to be- come interesting, and in the final scenes where the girl was rushing along the mountain road in a car, try- ing to get up courage enough to drive the car over the edge of the road and kill herself, the picture became quite gripping. However, it would only rate as second or third rate. Lowell Sher- man was supposed to be a very clever crook and all that, but he stole some jewels and demanded that a reward be paid for them. He told the women who owned them when and where to get them back, and made no attempt Fish Pools Fire Places Built of Natural Volcanic Rock Cactus All Varieties Dessert Product Co. 7928 Melrose Avenue WHitney 0402 ORegon 5239 Page Sixteen to outwit the police. As a result, he had to flee for his freedom, and all the time and money spent on the robbery was wasted. He wasn't such a clever crook. One Mad Hour had an unhappy ending, which seems to have become the rage lately. So far, the unhappy endings have been logical; but pretty soon the vogue for them will have spread so that they will be put into pictures on the slightest provocation. It will be a senseless procedure, but a lot of motion picture procedures are senseless. ALL acting can be divided into three classes. There are born actors; there is the acting which comes from intelligent people who have learned how to act to a certain degree; and there is the class of acting where the persons do- ing it are too dumb to learn how and have not had it born into them. As examples of the first class we have Janet Gaynor and Emil Jannings. There are others, but these two come to mind first. They wouldn't know how to tell anybody how to act. With them it is instinctive, something that has about the same degree of effort for them as breathing has for most peo- ple. In the second class we have Con- rad Nagel. I can remember very viv- idly reading a criticism of a picture he was in several years ago. His work was dismissed as "his usual careless per- formance." Nowadays he doesn't have a part which he doesn't make stand out by reason of fine work. He brought his intelligence into his work, and as a result, he has become one of our finest actors. As for the third class, its numbers are legion. M-G.-M. should have the sense to make the next William Haines picture one in which Haines does not play the wisecracking kid. West Point, his latest, is the best he has made since Brown of Harvard. However, this type of characterization will begin to get tiresome if he makes any more and uses it. He has demon- strated time and again that he has acting ability and would be good in something else. Now, when he has made a hit, he should start on other stuff. West Point, as I have said, is very good. The performances of the entire cast were splendid. The story isn't new; in fact, he has done it many times before. However, it was done more adroitly than usual. As we came in after credits were given, I don't know who directed West Point, but I think that the titles were done by Joe Farnham. They were too funny to have been done by anyone else. Al- though the football game is old stuff, in this instance it was very well done. There were some very good shots of the real Army-Navy game last year, but there was a terrible artificial back- drop which stuck out like a sore thumb. In a picture where there was so much money spent it seems that M.-G.-M. could have spent a little more and got a real crowd in the THE FILM SPECTATOR background. Another thing which got on my nerves was the way Billy Bake- well, who was supposed to have con- cussion of the brain, was allowed to move around. There was nothing lacking in the performances of the various members of the cast. Haines has never been so good before except perhaps in Brown of Harvard. William Bakewell, who supported Haines, as the adoring friend, was splendid. He gave a per- formance which was one of the high- lights of the picture. He should be given bigger stuff, because he has abil- ity. Joan Crawford was better in this than in anything I have ever seen her do. The fellow who is Haines' rival was good, too, but I didn't get his name. MILLARD WEBB has made a very delightful comedy in Honeymoon Flats. There is nothing great to the story. It is just a simple little thing about the trials and tribulations of a young married couple. George Lewis and Dorothy Gulliver have the leads, and they are splendid. George is becoming one of our cleverest young men, and Dorothy Gulliver makes an admirable foil for him. At no time is the comedy overdrawn and made silly. That is one of the delightful qualities of it, the characters are all human. March 3, 1928 and as a result anything they do meets with the sympathy of the audience. There is an amusing scene where the young husbands leave home in the morning to go to work and their wives bid them good-bye from the windows of the apartment house. There were also some good bits where Bryant Washburn, who was very good, told George to be careful that his wife didn't deceive him, while ail the time Washburn's wife, Jane Winton, was carrying on a flirtation with Ward Crane. Miss Winton, who is one of the most beautiful girls on the screen, demonstrates again that she has abil- ity. It is too bad she doesn't get larger parts. Ward Crane, whose villainy is pleasant to watch, comes to light again in this. I haven't seen him in a long time. There were several things the matter with Honeymoon Flats. One was a scene where George was supposed to be going fifty miles an hour in a section of traffic where it was a physical impossibility to go more than thirty-five. Another was a place where Ward Crane and Jane Winton made love to each other in a summer house which was right in plain view of all the guests at a din- ner party. However, the picture was so far above the average in entertain- ment value that little things can be excused. OASIS By JAMES BRANT In a Canyoa of Native Palms, Palm Springs, California HERE is a g:reen streak in the bottom of a deep and narrow cut between rocky mountain sides, with a sparkling stream fresh from the shaded recesses of mountain tops. A vista that sooths and rests and instills in the mind thoughts of far beyond. An oasis with a rippling melody, a touch of nature in a wilder- ness. It must have been a lovely spot when native Indians had its freedom before destructive civilization hemmed it with limitations. From a vantage point there spreads a desert valley of sand and dormant scrubs that seethes in the hot heat of summer and in the springtime, fresh- ened by little drops from the clouds, is a sea of color from the bloom of desert flowers. A natural state far removed from the caves of tenement and apart- ment cliffs. In motion pictures, in the upbuilding and development of which you are so much interested, vulgar coarseness and suggestive sensuality is far removed and has nothing in common with ideals of purity and progress. The muck of the gutter is a blight that withers verdant beauty and fouls rip- pling freshness. Life is made up of thoughts and thinkings. No act but that a thought precedes it. Picture plays are the physical evidence of a thought or a morbid dream, they instill virtue or incite immorality, and have for such specific reason an educational value of vital import and potential force, to the extent that the production and distribution of motion pictures is essentially and properly and rightly an educationaf institution. * • * Motion pictures are national and international in scope and their distri- bution is interstate and for that reas- on, and because they are educational, motion pictures are rightly subject to control by the Federal Government under and by a law of Congress. Censorship by states, wherein a politically appointed individual, or a committee where in one individual has the deciding vote, dictates to five mil- lion people what they shall have or what they shall not have, savors of despotism and has little in common with democracy. Such censorship, varied to suit the whim and caprice of some squint-eyed vote getter, or the pet of some squint-eyed vote getter, renders the production and distribu- tion of motion pictures a haphazard guesswork, whereas such production and distribution should be free and untrammeled and subject only to reas- onable and proper limitations pres- cribed by national law. There are already too many laws restricting and regulating the varied activities of the general ^lublic because a few, a min- ority, sometimes a very small minor- ity, have not the sense to behave nor March 3, 1928 the decency to observe common rights. It would seem that the time has arrived when it would be eminently proper to establish a law for the intel- ligent freedom of the general public with teeth to force the usurping min- ority to behave or get the hell out of the country. The enactment of a law by Congress to control and supervise the motion picture industry and to establish a secure foundation on which to build a structure of enlightenment, education and uplifting entertainment is not only a proper subject, but is also a vital subject, for the consideration of the general public. Such a law, in the first instance and as primary to future enactment, might properly and justly be very broad and THE FILM SPECTATOR very liberal, almost without restriction or limitation, in order to avoid the hampering of a great industry. Such a law might properly provide for the establishment of a special federal court to decide the right or wrong, or the propriety, of any matter in or any question affecting the production and distribution of motion pictures. Such a law should unquestionably provide trial by jiiry, and the jury, instead of being picked on a gamble from a wheel of fortune, might prop- erly be selected from the enlightened citizenship of the dominant race, or races, that can and should control the affairs of the present and build for the future, in order that the potential force of motion pictures be directed and exerted to a desirable end. Page Seventeen The selection of the jury might properly be based on depth of thought and breadth of view, men or women or both. It is not essential that they should be learned, all choked up with the dead things of the past, but it is essential that they should be educated to think, reason, weigh and estimate the problems of the present and vision the future. With such a court and such a jury and the careful building up of prece- dent upon precedent, a sound founda- tion and a broad and liberal policy would in due course be established for the motion picture industry, even unto the posing of an undraped model, a maiden of such beauty of face and form as to be a symbol of purity and a type of perfection. WRITINQ FOR THE FAN MAGAZINES By MADELEINE MATZEN THERE is a wealth of glamour and anecdote round and about the studios. All the world is more or less interested in the making of pic- tures and in cinema personalities. But almost nothing of real interest is writ- ten about them. This, of course, is due to the fact that almost all the magazines have a policy governed en- tirely by those who advertise in their publications. The studios are the heaviest advertisers so the editors of the fan magazines are obliged to edit with two blue pencils called "Policy" and "The Public's Reaction" sitting on their desks. Fan magazines (of which there are at least nine important ones with wide circulation) are not published to please the fans but to please the pro- ducers. Why they are called "fan" magazines I can't imagine, unless it is because they are supposed to fan into flame the dying interest of the public in waning stars and poor productions. * * * No writer of fan articles will tell the truth about anything or anybody in the picture world — not if he expects to sell the articles. If a star or a director happens to have an original or an interesting idea and it is em- bodied by a writer in an article the editors promptly consider just whom such an idea will offend. And there are always people whom ANY SORT of an idea (even the shadow of one) offends. So an article with an idea in it is promptly "killed". That is why the "ga-ga" article and the "blah" story reign supreme in the fan maga- zines. Blindly the producers force the edit- ors of the magazines which represent their industry to print articles about their people in which these same people appear as utterly unintelligent, low grade morons. And then the producers wonder why they are loosing money — not just their own money but the money of those who have trustingly invested in their concerns. A good story is always a good story — any press agent will tell you that. But when it is so utterly far-fetched and unsuited to the personage around whom it is obviously concocted — it no longer is a good story. And the fan writers continue to invent insipid myths about screen personages when there are true stories galore connected with every person who has amounted to more than a row of pins in the industry. * * * So carefully expurgated was the publicity that concerned The King of Kings and the members of its cast that the public have grown to feel that this picture was produced and played by a group of automatons sans brains and personality. I fancy that H. B. Warner, a most skillful and intelligent actor, must have many interesting things to say concerning his playing of the role of The Christ, or he might have something startling to say about Miss McPherson's inter- pretation of it. But he was not per- mitted to say anything! None of the cast had anything to say! The articles printed about them and their roles in the picture were too trite, too colorless to be reading matter. To pretend that the picture was produced under a sort of hocus-pocus of divine inspiration or guidance is absurd. To pretend that it was too holy a thing to be discussed in print seems to me too arrogant a pose on the part of its producers — and a false gesture! And a disappointment to the public who at once took the picture to their hearts. If you can write stories about screen personalities that deal only with the most superficial matters and contain no germ of interesting, unique or honest thought — you can always sell them. It seems to me that such a con- dition is stupid beyond belief! Fur- thermore it's an insult to the public and the publishing profession. And it has brought about a change in the makeup of fan magazines. They are publishing fewer and fewer articles and using rafts of pictures. And the articles that they do use are very brief. It appears that the long suffer- ing public are loyal enough to their favorites to buy pictures of them but they'll be darned if they'll read the rubbish that is written about them! Why publish fan magazines anyway? Why not issue huge rotogravure sup- plements and be done with it? 4( :{c * Added to the difficulties that the writer encounters in the policies of the different magazines there is the addi- tional difficulty of graft between the picture people and the writer. There is no reason why the writer should waste his mind and any small talent he may have in writing gush and mush about some woman or man who has no gift, and occupies his or her position in the cinema world be- cause they are a favorite of some per- son in power who ought to know bet- ter. But the writer of fan articles receives gifts or substantial checks. Diamond trinkets, silk stockings, im- ported bags and perfumes, tickets to the fights, etc. — these things are usually sent to the writer a day or so after the interview in hopes that the pleasure the writer feels in receiving these gifts may in some way influence the tone of the article. Certain stars, even producers and directors, are noted for their generos- ity along these lines. These are the personalities whose names and photo- graphs you see most frequently in the fan magazines. And they are seldom the personalities in whom the fans are interested. The producers claim that they want the public to choose their own favor- ites— but seldom does the fact of a newcomer, discovered by the public, appear in a picture periodical. Once upon a time Hollywood had as its citizen a wit who could write most entertainingly about the film colony. That man was Herbert Howe. But I guess that Mr. Howe grew discour- aged over conditions — his articles grew scarcer and scarcer. Finally he made so much money juggling real estate that he ceased writing. And so one of the keenest minds in the industry was completely eclipsed by Page Eighteen dark and dull policies — and too much real estate. * * * Not long ago a little actress from across the sea came to Hollywood to make pictures. Shortly after her arrival here she was invited to a tea to meet many of the best known women stars. Delighted, she put on her prettiest frock and hat and went. It was a bit late when she arrived and found the party in full swing. She was introduced to all the stars and to a well known press woman who was also there. After the flurry of intro- ductions were over the hostess rose, seized a silver platter of small cakes, dumped the cakes out crumbily on the top of the tea table and with the plat- ter in one hand made a speech. This speech was something of a revelation to the little foreign actress who had been considered an artist and something of a social acquisition abroad. The hostess said that Miss So-and-So (the press woman) had honored them with her presence and now was the time for the stars to show their appreciation of her — and to show it substantially. To the foreign actress' horror the hostess passed the platter among the guests. Bills and gold pieces were showered upon it and the sum collected was handed to the press woman who accepted it without batting an eye as her just due. The foreign star was hugely em- barrassed for she was not in the habit of carrying much money with her when attending afternoon teas. With scarlet cheeks and scared apologies she borrowed from her hostess, added her "bit" and took her departure. Of such things is "society" in the cinema colony made. * * + Trying to get a real story about a film celebrity is like trying to rob the First National Bank. It can be done but it's next to impossible to get it printed. The producers holler all the time about censorship — but nowhere in the world is censorship more short sighted or steel bound than it is for those who write about the motion picture people. If the public discov- ered that the stars and directors whom they adore were human beings first of all they would no doubt love them the more deeply. It is not a crime to be human, it's often darned interesting. Everyone tires of perfection. In real life the clever man wins out over the handsome one every time. If a star had a mind and used it, and once in a while used it so that all the world might read, his popularity would rival that of the late Valentino. Take the case of Will Rogers. Will is far from a handsome man, but his wit and sage sayings have made a shining screen star of him. But no, the stars must remain dumb and beautiful and absurd — the producers have decreed it so. Rogers is the only one that they have not hedged round with censorship. Trying to censor Will Rogers would be like trying to clip the tail off a comet — it can't be done. The main requisites of a popular fan writer are that first of all she must THE FILM SPECTATOR be feminine. Secondly she must have no sense of humor — if she does have she won't be able to virrite the gushing effusions that sell so readily. Then she must play bridge well, dance, appreciate smart luncheons and know how to flatter convincingly. She should be a yes-yes-lady if possible. Most stars would faint with horror if a no-no-lady came and interviewed them. And as for being able to write — that is a matter of very srnall importance when it comes to pleasing the producers. It seems to me that if I were a producer I would seek out men and March 3, 1928 women who first of all were humani- tarians and psychologists, who had personalities and who could write — when I wanted my stars interviewed. If I happened to have under contract a star or a director who had ideas about life and his work I'd advertise that matter to the skies via the fan magazines. Think of the rejoicing among the poor bedeviled editors 2 interviews containing real reading matter began to flood into their offices! And think of the excitement if the public once discovered that their stars were human beings just like themselves! VOICES FROM THE WILDERNESS JUNK— AND ACTORS Dear Mr. Beaton: As one long since departed from the business of the theatre, but neverthe- less intensely interested in it, in all its ramifications and activities, and par- ticularly in the welfare of the actors, I am a little surprised that the actors in the picture field are so slow in get- ting under the protecting wing of "Equity". Probably most of the people who have been derived from the legitimate stage are members. Probably many of them have been members since "Equity's" bitter fight for recognition, and remember the con- ditions that prevailed in the theatre in the years previous, when the actor was at the mercy of the producers, and was often left stranded miles from home, to get back as best he could. "Punch" Wheeler, an old time ad- vance man, dead now, but alive in the memory of all who knew him, used to tell of organizing a company in a box car in Texas with ten members and thirty dollars, and they worked their way back to New York in the face of all kinds of adversity. In one town in Mississippi, the advance man had gone on a bat and given out so many passes that they had to play two nights in a one night stand to get them all in. But the condition of the actor in those days is best illustrated by a story that the late Nat Goodwin used to tell. Mr. Goodwin speaking: "We had gone out with a turkey show, that old Doc Stover had booked out of his office in Barney Ragan's saloon on 14th Street. His desk was on the head of the third barrel from the door, and we had got up to Troy when the enterprise died. I remember that when the curtain went up, there were just four people out front, a fireman, two policemen and one other, but I went down to the foots and made a little speech to the effect, that not- withstanding the small attendance, we were going to give just as long a show; just as finished a performance, as if the house was crowded; and that 'other' spoke right back: 'AH right, but make it snappy. I'm the janitor and I want to close up.' "Well, we got down as far as Albany the next day, and before night three or four of us had negotiated pas- sage to New York in the deck house of a barge loaded with junk. There were no sleeping accommodations save a few battered chairs, and the floor, but during the night we dozed fitfully, and were brought up standing when we heard the watch hallooing to a boat going up river. 'Ahoy, there. Who are you?' 'The City of Hudson.' 'Where bound?' 'Albany.' | What are you carrying?' 'Freight and passeng- ers.' Then from the other boat — 'Who are you?' 'Tug Oneida with a string Showmanship For Exhibitors A complete new section of showman- ship ideas will be found in the 1928 FILM DAILY YEAR BOOK published by THE FILM DAILY and which is now being distributed. These ideas are grouped so that the exhibitor who has a certain type of production to put over can quickly turn to that section and find countless ideas on how to exploit and sell his picture to his patrons. It has taken months and months to collect and prepare these many stunts for publication, and the exhibitor who does not get for him- self a copy of the 1928 FILM DAILY YEAR BOOK will be doing himself an injustice. These money-making stunts are all practical, they are not just theory as so many stunts submitted to exhibitors are these days. They are stunts that have had the personal ap- proval of some of the best showmen in the business to-day. They are pre- sented briefly and clearly so that ex- hibitors may readily grasp the idea and put it into practice. ^This is only one of the many interesting features that will be found in THE FILM DAILY YEAR BOOK which is given free with each yearly subscription to THE FILM DAILY, whose offices are located at 1650 Broadway, New York City.— Advt. March 3, 1928 of barges.' 'Where, bound?' 'Jersey City.' 'What are you loaded with?' 'Junk and actors.' That's the way it was, junk first, actors last." From what I read, and with a knowledge of the conditions in the theatre before Equity was organized, I am afraid that unless they get in, the film actors will find themselves as Nat Goodwin used to tell it: last. FRANK E. HATCH, Boston, Mass. A REAL UNDERWORLD Dear Mr Editor: Evidently it depends on whose ox is gored as far as criticism of pictures is concerned. After seeing Underworld, by a strange co-incidence, the next picture I saw was The City Gone Wild, of exactly the same type. After reading the fulsome praise accorded to the former, the way the latter was panned was quite a revelation. As a picture of the underworld and its ways. The City Gone Wild was truer to fact than was Underworld. The latter, however, was produced by a large and powerful 'Corporation', the former by a small independent company, which evidently emptied its cofi^ers on the star and director and had but little left to make the picture. In the first place, in Underworld, a big mistake was made in the very beginning, namely, casting a crook in the leading role, and then trying to make a sympathetic character out of him. While Bancroft gave a good per- formance, the characterization was to the last degree stagey, and not in the least conforming to the general idea of a gangster. Contrasted with the same character, as portrayed by Mailes, I found it en- tirely lacking in conviction. Again, throughout the picture, I kept won- dering whether "Feathers" was really a crook's girl or a society girl playing at slumming. She had none of the ear-marks of a "Mol". On the other hand, I would guarantee to go down in the Loop, any day, and pick out a ringer for Louise Brooks, in any one of a dozen joints affected by such people. In The City Gone Wild as long as the story stuck to the crooks and their attorney, it never wavered, it was only when it dipped into Society that it wobbled and became moviesque. It is true that the "bumping off" of the dis- trict attorney was a bit outside the usual methods of gang procedure, but we can also credit this to a desire for effect. In reality he would have been picked up on some pretext or another, and "taken for a ride in the country". Another thing, entirely overlooked by the author of Underworld, is that gangsters are« not independent bank robbers or bandits, but are strictly satellites, who live on the proceeds of the graft which they sustain. The modern gangster is distinctly a pro- duct of Prohibition. Again, as none of the real, leading characters, namely Mailes and Brooks, asked for our sympathy, there was no necessity for any maud- THE FILM SPECTATOR lin, eleventh hour repentance on their part. They remained unregenerate to the end, as all good crooks do. I my- self would not place either picture among the fifty best, but the worst I would give The City Gone Wild would be equal brackets with Underworld. F. ELY PAGET. SUGGESTING A BLEND To the Editor: What is all this rumbling we hear about foreign pictures becoming rivals to American productions ? Is the world to sit quiet while some great art is coming into being? Rather not! If American pictures are of such profit, certainly other nations have men who have the right to take to this new form of art. If American producers make money in other foreign cities, should not the foreigners of those other cities be free to likewise pro- duce pictures for release in America? And this much-discussed problem of foreign actors invading America. Is it not more or less a childlike com- plaint? Just a few days ago a certain news- paper stated that America had, via the movies, conveyed the impression to the citizens of America that cer- tain foreign born persons were the most terrible of villains and that those foreigners were, each in his own aspect, representative of the majority of people of the land from which they hailed. A writer for another period- ical alleged that the screen of America was afflicted with anemia; that the public is seldom treated with photo- plays that do justice to the spectators, and that the several vistas expected in pictures were usually beclouded and sacrificed to gags. Truly if the screen had its begin- ning in America its improvement should be first observed as beginning in America. The way things are go- ing now it appears that other persons of other foreign lands are going about the task of producing motion pictures that endeavor to bring to the screens of the world views of life which are not restricted by petty prejudicial cant and poppycock. It is certainly pleas- ant rumbling. We all look for rain in The Latest Books Are Always Obtainable at The Hollywood Book Store OPPOSITE HOTEL HOLLYWOOD Artistic Framing Stationery and Circulation Library Page Nineteen the hottest weather, rain that will bring results like the spirit of spring. And just so, foreign film producers will rain upon the film market a happy series of pictures that will prove a lesson for many persons connected with film production. Commercial profit from pictures may have its beginning in America. However, artistic perfection in film production seems to be due to come from certain sections of Europe. We have had that forecast by some of the pictures they have produced. Great will the day be when the happy blend of foreign and American talent is seen in pictures. So far we have had a mere taste of it. HARRY LEE WARD. l^orman's ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6S53 Hollywood Boulevard Orders Injimries Can be : scured Polr'S'Keference Book and Mailiiig List Catalog Gives counts and prices on over 8.000 different lines of business. No matter what your business. In this book you will find the number of your prospec- tive customers listed. Valuable information Is also given as to how you can use the mails to secure orders and Inquiries for your products or services. Write forVour FREE Copjf R. L. POLK & CO., Detroit, Mich. LarRest Clly Directory Publishers In the World Mailing List Compilers— Business Statistics Producers of Direct Mail Advertisiiie VALUES AND VARIETY WATCH OUR WINDOWS ^ C^Aousand Gl/is of Distinefim' SHOP Al' BALZER'S— "TWO SHOPS"— JUST WEST OF VINE Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR March 3, 1928 One Year of Spectators There will be available shortly some handsome books con- taining all the numbers of The Spectators pubUshed during its second year. We are binding only those for which we have orders in advance. During the past year two hundred and thirty-four pictures were reviewed. There have been many articles making what we hope were constructive suggestions regarding the making of pictures. All these are being gathered now into one beautifully bound book that will look well on any library shelf. We have fixed a price of Ten Dollars per volume. May we suggest that you fill out and mail the coupon below? ORDERS WILL BE FILLED IN THE ORDER OF THEIR RECEIPT. THE EDITION IS LIMITED. WE WOULD ADVISE PROMPT ACTION. WELFORD BEATON, 7213 SUNSET BOULEVARD, HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNLA. Enclosed is my check for ten dollars, for which send me one bound copy of The Spectators printed during its second year. Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Centt FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood, California, March 17, 1928 NoT^ ^•iijnniNinniiiiNiiiirinniiinuniQinnninnnniiiinuiiaiinniiiinnnuiJiiiniDiiHnuiinaiiiiiiiiiiiiQiiiinMiiiininniiiiiiinininiinuniiiiiininiDiiiinuimQmnii^ i Hays tries to diagnose the ills of pictures Wall Street action inevitable result of inefficiency What will be the effect of Sound devices? We finally get a look at Von Stroheim opus RED HAIR BABY MINE THE DOVE SERENADE HIS COUNTRY SHOW DOWN WEDDING MARCH BEAU SABREUR = = 1 s 1 = = HAS ANYONE SEEN KELLY? SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS '^]Ollmllllll□lllllll^lllE]lllllMlllll[]lnlllllllllt]lllllllllllllnlllllulllll□lltMllllllll]l^llMlIlll□llllnllllllUlllllMllillUlllllllllll^^^^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 <«]niiiiiiiiric]niiiiiiiiiJE]iiuinuuiaiiiiHniiiiQninnniiiE]iMiiiiinn[]HiiiinuiiaiiiuMiuiiuiMiiiiinirDuuiiiiiniuiMiiiiinME]iiuiiiiininniiiiinninuiiiiiJi I Qood Bye, Los Angles/ , ♦ HellOf New York! I Having successfully tried out my play, "RELATIONS" at the Vine Street I Theatre, Hollywood, where it ran for nine weeks, I am taking the play to New I York, for production there. I I sincerely regret having to leave the picture business, and the many loyal and I staunch friends I have made here, though only for a while, since I am coming back I to you as soon as I have completed my task in New York. I Au revoir, my very dear friends in L. A., and Hello, ditto, in N. Y. I EDWARD CLARK Harold N. Hubbard, in Hollywood Daily Citizen : "Relations", which was given a hilarious greeting by a large audience last night at the Vine Street Theatre, is NOT "just another one of those Jewish plays." It has "IT" and is sufficiently clever and human in its delineation of certain phases and char- acteristics of Jewish life to command interest. Edward Clark, the author-producer, takes the lead- ing role of "Uncle Wolfe" Michaels, and succeeds admirably in his portrayal, a genuine accomplish- ment, considering an author-producer-actor's diffi- culty of maintaining proper perspective. Harry Burns, in Hollywood Filmograph: Last Monday evening, at the Vine Street Theatre, Edward Clark presented his Jewish-American com- edy, "Relations." The show was well staged, and one of the best professional first-night critic audi- ences just sat there and roared to its heart's content. Clark not only wrote and produced the play, but takes the leading role as well. His portrayal of "Uncle Wolfe" is by far the best piece of acting that any character player or star has brought to the stage of the West Coast in many a day. His Jewish char- acterization couldn't offend the most critical Hebraic critic. He actually lived and moved in the soul of the character he was portraying. Marquis Busby, in Los Angeles Times: "Relations", a new Jewish-American comedy by Edward Clark, which opened the long-dark Vine Street Theatre last night, differs from the "Abies" and the "Potash and Perlmutter" series. Its chief claim to distinction is the fact that it does more than merely scratch the surface of race psychology. It presents a rather keen insight into certain aspects of the Jewish race. Llewellyn Miller, in Los Angeles Record : Edward Clark's "Relations", which re-opened the Vine Street Theatre last night, is double-time com- edy, cleverly played, and directed with a keen dra- matic sense. Overwhelming honors go to Edward Clark, who plays the lead of "Uncle Wolfe" to a steady comment of laughter from the audience. It is indeed a distinguished piece of work. California Jewish Review: At last! A Jewish-American play that does not deal ■with mixed marriages, that does not depend for its humor and pathos on inter-racial friendship or hos- tility, and yet is a good play, good from every angle. To utter prophecies about "Relations", now showing at the Vine Street, is a dangerous procedure, as in the case of all new plays, but the critic will take a chance this time. He predicts that "Relations" will be as big a box-office success as the perennial "Abie's Irish Rose". To say that it is better, more natural, less burlesque, and far more true to life than the Anne Nichols dish, needs no keen dramatic insight nor divine guidance. And to the readers of this paper and their friends the critic says, "If you want to see the best legitimate show in years, go and see "Relations". New York Variety: It remained for Edward Clark to dramatize a famil- iar topic and weave around it a story of Jewish family life without the aid of an Irish motif. Its principal appeal lies in the character of a middle- aged Jewish merchant whose troubles with relatives is one long recitation. As dravm by Clark, it teeters with laughs to tears with comedy punch lines thickly interspersed. Clark's intelligent characterization of "Uncle Wolfe" is outstanding. He gives a splendid performance. Gregory Goss, in Los Angeles Examiner: Edward Clark's comedy, "Relations" depicts the ebb and flow of a Jewish merchant's fortune as he allies himself with and against his relatives. He exploits the theme that "Blood is thicker than water." Clark himself plays the role of "Uncle Wolfe" with great understanding. He shades his comedy and pathos with careful discrimination and clarifies the dialogue with a fascinating play of facial expressions. Harriet Clay Penman, in Hollywood News: Those who expect to find "Relations" a follow-up of "Abie's Irish Rose" will see nothing of that over- worked plot. It is neither salacious, cheap in its humor, nor commonplace in treatment. It is more than a play — it is really a human document. □ i <'*joiiiimiiiiE3iiiJmiiiii[iiiiiiiiiiiiiE}iiiiimiiiic]niiiiniiiiic]iiiniiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiniiiii»iiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiiiiiiiiniin March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California HEmpstead 2801 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 17, 1928 Calling Wrong Doctors For a Very Sick Patient TIE Hays organization is trying to find out what ails the industry. It has made the stupendous discovery that pictures cost too much, and to find out why, it employed as investigators people who know nothing about pictures. Quite stupid, but it is a stupid organization. The industrial engineers advocate the collective buying of materials; the interchanging of sets, lights, and ward- robe; a central garage for transportation, and a central costume and wardrobe department. Why it was necessary to hire anyone to point out the desirability of these reforms I can not conceive. They are little things that sensible business men would have adopted long ago. They will take care of the pennies, but will not stop the waste of dollars. The excessive cost of picture production is not so much a result of its inefficient conduct as a business as it is of its manhandling as an art. The sole business of the industry is to make pictures, and until they are made sensibly there will be waste. Cutting ten per cent, from the cost of building material is not as important as saving all the cost of the materials that enter into the building of sets that do not appear on the sc;reen. Reducing the cost of a costume will not save as much money as will the elimination of the costumes that are made for people who do not get beyond the cutting-room floor. Some money can be saved by the improvement of the system of taking people to location, but still more would be saved by refraining from taking them on trips that yield no foot- age for the completed picture. The Hays organization can hire all the most expensive industrial engineers in the country; it can look into the cost of concrete, and com- plain about the high price of glycerine, but it can never effect any real saving in production until its members insist upon and get perfect scripts. Pictures cost too much because the people in charge of making them do not understand how they should be made. When work starts on nine out of every ten neither the supervisors nor the directors know where they are headed for. They laugh at the suggestion of a perfect script, and talk a lot of rot about it being fatal to curb inspiration by limiting a director to the action previously outlined on paper. No argument in favor of the present system of making pic- tures can stand up against the kind of pictures that are being made. Both artistically and economically the ma- jority are atrocities — deformed things that become twisted after they are taken from authors and given to people of low mentalities. They will not be good pictures or economical ones until ignorant supervision ceases and story-tellers are allowed to tell stories on the screen. I do not mean by this that each author should supervise his story. What I mean is that it is a business that should be dominated by people with an ability to tell stories, whether their own or those of other people not being im- portant. And the place to tell the stories is on paper. When a director begins work he should have in his script a perfect motion picture. It can be done, although those in Hollywood with brains enough to do it are not allowed to exercise their talents. Some day they will, and when that day arrives we will have better pictures and all the things that now distress the members of the Hays organi- zation automatically will disappear. The motion picture industry has not a single ill that a perfect script will not cure. ^ * * Perfect Pictures to Come Only From Perfect Scripts EVEN if perfect scripts were not possible under the present system a way would have to be devised to provide them before the industry could practice the economy it must practice to become financially sound. Either by congressional action or by the dictates of the courts the pernicious block-booking system will be termi- nated and producers will have to sell their pictures solely on their merits. They will be financially remunerative to the extent that they achieve perfection as vehicles of en- tertainment. If the present producers can not be made to see that perfect pictures can come only from perfect scripts it will not mean that we will not have perfect scripts. It will mean that the present producers will have ONLY A DOG By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN An ownerless dog he was — flotsam of life — No one to call his friend. What were the thoughts of the mangy cur? Scum of the gutter! I ask you. Sir, Wouldn't you be at outs with life With none to call a friend? And the starved soul of him looked from his eyes, Seeking a kindly glance — Brown eyes they were, lonesome and sad — But all looked askance, thinking them mad. Ah, Sir, I wonder how look your eyes When denied a kindly glance. Puzzled he was, and hurt, that his gods withheld That thing of his greatest need. Caught in the net of Circumstance, Scorned — Why, Sir, even you, perchance. May know how it feels when all withhold The thing of your greatest need. Only a dog — a vagabond! Nothing to proffer In requital of a kindly deed Save the great heart of him, loving and leal; For only the half-soul of a dog can feel That all that he has is a worth-while proffer In requital of a kindly deed. Page Four to step aside and yield their places to others who have sufficient brains to secure them. Screen art is so sound at the core that it will slough off the rottenness that now retards its growth. Under the new selling conditions that will be forced on the industry there will be a market only for pictures with merit. During a conversation with Florence Vidor the other day she likened a motion picture to a jig-saw puzzle. The completed picture is like the puzzle before the saw is applied to it. After it is cut into hundreds of pieces its makers know where each piece belongs only because they have seen the whole thing. The perfect script is the puzzle before it is cut, and each piece is a scene. To make the perfect picture the director niust know the exact relationship of each piece to the whole. Lacking such knowledge he can not direct each scene intelligently. Under the prevailing system whereby a sloppy script is given to a director it is as impossible for him to create a perfect picture as it would be for the jig-saw puzzle people to make a puzzle that would fit together perfectly if the thing they cut up were not a perfect design to start with. The scenes of a picture will fit together to make a perfect whole only when the original is a perfect design. When you have worked out a jig- saw puzzle there are no pieces left over. When the pieces of our present pictures are put together there are scores left over, consequently those used do not fit together per- fctly. An effort is made to hide the cracks beneath titles, but the rough spots can be seen through them. Ernst Lubitsch maintains a higher average of artistic perfection in his pictures than any other director. This is because he never starts shooting until his script is perfect. When he shoots a scene he knows exactly what relation it has to every other scene in the picture. As he has a perfect whole before he cuts it up into scenes the scenes fit per- fectly when he puts them together again. He starts with a perfect picture on paper and gets back to it when he completes his cutting. Occasionally we get a good picture under the present system, but never one that costs only what it should. After I first saw Four Sons and before it opened at the Carthay Circle two reels were cut out of the last five. Not by collective buying could Fox save the cost of the materials that were used in the two reels that did not reach the screen. Nor could the pieces fit together perfectly after two-fifths of them had been elimi- nated. But Four Sons is an exception. We have not many masters like John Ford who can pare perfection and have perfection left. The average director can give us only what he finds in his shooting script, and until he gets a perfect picture in his script he can not give a perfect picture to the screen. * » ♦ Disgruntled People Can't Turn Out Good Pictures WHY is the Fox lot turning out the best pictures? It buys its stories in the open market. Its con- tract players are no better than those on other pay-rolls. Its scenario department has no great names on its roll. In short, the Fox organization is in no better position than any other to command talent. It is giving OS the best pictures, and from present indications will continue to do so, because it appreciates the important part that morale plays in film production. Last summer I criticized it for its treatment of some of its players. THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 These players now are satisfied. Like all others on the Fox pay-roll, they are happy in their work. Winfield Shee- ■• han in the past year has become the greatest producer ; because, in as far as his lot is concerned, he has undone i the harm the Hays organization has done on all the other f, lots. The producers as a body have reduced the general morale in Hollywood to a level that is reflected in the inferior quality of the great majority of pictures. Their policy has been one of active antagonism to those upon whom they must rely for their pictures. The unsatis- factory financial condition of the industry is attributable to the manner in which the Hays organization has conducted its affairs. Last summer's attempted salary cut was the greatest economic blunder the industry could commit. It is directly responsible for the spirit of unrest that has prevailed in Hollywood ever since and which has made screen workers indifferent to the quality of the pictures they make. The screen is a subtle art. Like all other arts the principal item of its diet is enthusiasm, and it can grow strong only on the stimulation it derives from it. The Hays organization has robbed it of its enthusiasm, without which it can not do its best work. If the industry had been managed intelligently, it would have attracted only the envy, and not the disapprobation, of Wall Street. The fact that it is a borrower is due to the further fact that it is incompetent. Manufacturing a product capable of earning enormous profits, the longer it operates the heavier it borrows. Metro recently put fifteen million dollars of preferred stock on the market. If it made its pictures with the ordinary business efficiency that prevails in all other industries it would have that much money to distribute among its itockholders. Universal blunders along with its production until it has over eight million dollars locked up in films and it has to go to the length of wrecking its organization by shutting down until receipts again fill its money drawers with working capital. Warners have made such inferior pictures that their receipts have not kept pace with their expenditures, and they are faced with the necessity of meeting four million dollars of paper which matures this year, and to pay which there is no money in sight. The Warner studio ceased production, a forced, but false, economic move, as it stops the output of the product upon which the company must depend for receipts to meet its obligations. Only by grossly inefficient management could an industry potent- ially so remunerative get itself into such a deplorable mess. No one in a responsible position in it, except Sheehan perhaps, seems to be able to grasp the elemental fact that the screen can prosper as an industry only to the extent that it maintains its status as an art. It can do good business only if it makes good pictures. Yet the people who can make good pictures are robbed of their incentive to do so by the blundering incapacity of those for whom they work. * * » Nothing to Worry About, as Future Is Promising ANY student of screen conditions can view the future only with optimism. The present is all that need give anyone concern. When pictures first went to Wall Street for sustenance they formed contact with what some day will be their salvation. The inefficiency and waste that now characterizes the conduct of the business March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five will continue only as long as those who provide the money •will tolerate them. There is every indication of growing impatience which presages action. The majority of those in the saddle in Hollywood feel so sure of themselves that they will not believe any upheaval is impending. This is quite understandable, for if they had brains enough to see the inevitableness of a change they would have had brains enough to have made it unnecessary. They reason much as Edwin Schallert did in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. Schallert does not think that Wall Street ever will interfere with pictures. The screen is a showman's business, he contends, and bankers are not showmen, con- sequently they will leave the conduct of screen affairs to those who are. I am not acquainted with the individ- uals who form the firm of Dillon, Read & Co., although The Spectator has several subscribers among them. I may be wrong, but I do not imagine that there are any auto- mobile mechanics among the partners. Yet the firm handled the tremendous Dodge Brothers deal and dictated just ■what was to be done about it. When the banks took Judge Gary out of his law office and made him head of the steel trust I am quite sure that they did not make him pass an examination on the method of making steel girders. Schal- lert seems to be laboring under the impression that before Goldman, Sachs & Co. tells Warner Brothers that they can have no more money, the members of the banking firm should qualify as showmen by staging a song and dance turn up and down Wall Street. Instead of gather- ing unction to their souls from the thought that bankers are not showmen, motion picture executives should indulge in the more disturbing reflection that Wall Street is peopled exclusively with show-me men. It is such reason- ing as that in the Times article that has fed the over- whelming egotism of our screen barons and given them a false feeling of security. Nothing is surer than the fact that Wall Street some day will take over the screen indus- try, and when it does it will be a happy day for Holly- wood. The very fact that the bankers realize that they are not showmen will make them more careful in their selection of those who are, and to the men who are selected will be given the management of the larger producing organizations. The bankers will see that ethics enter the picture business, and that is all it needs to make it profit- able. No business cati profit unless it be respectable and honest, and the film business has been neither. The Brook- hart bill to curb block booking, a vicious practice, prob- ably will become a law. It should. I have formed this opinion from a careful perusal of a memorandum on the bill prepared by C. C. Pettijohn, general counsel of the MADISON S BUDGET is the source book for many a screen gag and comedy situation. No. 20 just out, $1. JAMES MADISON 5150 '/4 Sunset Blvd. HOllywood 6468 FREE LANCE Hays organization, which opposes its passage. I have read nothing in support of it, but if the dumb arguments of Pettijohn are the only ones in opposition to it that can be presented, I do not see what possible reason a congress- man could have for voting against it. Its passage will force a certain amount of decency into the picture busi- ness. More will come when the bankers, who now are carrying the industry on their shoulders, begin to smell their loads. It will not be long. Then the people in Hollywood who have brains to contribute to the screen, will have their day. * * * Taking Leave of All Sense of Modesty WHEN I asked some of my friends if they thought it would be immodest of me and out of keeping with the general tone of The Spectator to publish a few of the flattering comments made upon it, they as- sured me that it would not be one or the other, and that I would be foolish not to let my Hollywood readers know what notable authorities elsewhere thought about it. I was grateful, because I hoped my friends would say what they did. I am not given much to tooting my own horn, which does not mean that I do not want it tooted. I think tooting is delightful, but I lack the necessary nerve to use my own horn when indulging in the delight. I intend to advertise The Spectator in some Eastern literary papers, and for the purpose have set down a few remarks about it made by literary people. I am tremendously proud of them and I want you to read them. That is why I am grateful to my friends for advising me to do what I wanted to do — and what I undoubtedly would have done anyway. Omitting the top and the bottom, this is how the advertisement will appear: Samuel Hopkins Adams: Read The Spectator? Of course! Where else could I find the same spirit of courage, conviction, and joyous contempt for consequences? H. L. Mencken: I read The Film Spectator with increasing in- terest. There is vigorous and excellent writing in it. Arthur D. Howden Smith: The Film Spectator reveals its editor as a writer of practically perfect English, and as a man with an analytical mind, a sense of humor, and a profound knowledge of the screen. Stewart Edward White: I naturally receive many magazines — all dead- head, by the way, except The Film Spectator! — but the latter is the only one of the lot I read, or have read, from cover to cover. And that is not because I pay for it, either. London (England) Express: Welford Beaton is America's most discerning motion picture critic. New York World : Welford Beaton picture criticism . formly sound. . a literate writer of motion . his opinion has been uni- SCENARIOS GAGS TITLES Arthur D. Howden Smith, whose latest novel. Manifest Destiny, and his Autobiography of Commodore Vanderbilt, are attracting great interest, is one of the most distin- Page Six guished of the younger American novelists. He is now in Hollywood in connection with the screening of several of his stories. * * * Can't Escape Fact That Sound Is Here ATWO-hour session in a Fox projection-room, view- ing and hearing Movietone, is rather staggering to the imagination. Almost every conceivable kind of sound was reproduced, and as many different varieties of scenes presented. We see a naked boy dive into the ol' swimmin' hole and hear him exclaim, "0, gee!" We see the papal choir in the Vatican grounds, and hear it sing. We hear a rooster crow, and the band playing when the guard at Buckingham palace is changed, two scenes with a greater difference in pictorial quality than in spirit. I saw quite enough during the two hours to convince me that the talking picture, or whatever it is destined to be called, is here. I am no authority on mechanical contriv- ances, but as much about them as I can understand has convinced me that Movietone is the most practical device that yet has been developed. It photographs the sound on the same film upon which the action is photographed, con- sequently it can be cut at will without interfering with the synchronization. The weakness of the Vitaphone is that the sound is reproduced by means of a phonograph record, which makes it impossible to alter it after it has be«n completed. As I understand the General Electric patents from which Paramount is developing the system that it will use, the action and sound are photographed on separate films, which would appear to be more cumber- some than the Movietone device. But by whatever system it has been achieved, sound photography is an accomplished fact. Fox was two years ahead of the others in its devel- opment, and it is to Movietone that we can look to take the lead in presenting talking pictures. They will revolu- tionize screen art. I do not agree with those who argue that we always will have silent pictures. If it were pos- sible to put a quality into silent pictures that could not be put in those into which sound is reproduced, I would agn^ee that we probably would not sacrifice that quality to obtain sound. But such is not the case. Sound is a complement of pictures as they are to-day — something that does not alter what we have already, but which gives it greater entertainment value. Nothing is sacrificed when we add sound, but something will be missing when we omit it. The public may be relied upon to patronize what enter- tains it most, and it will not patronize a silent picture in one house when it is offered a talking film in another. The manner in which sound adds to entertainment value was emphasized in one of the Movietone sequences I viewed on the Fox lot. In a recent Spectator I complained of the flatness of scenes of a football game. I said they meant nothing as they did not convey an impression of the progress of the contest. Movietone reproduced scenes of the Army and Navy game. They were stirring. I heard the bands play and the rooters sing, and watched the cheer leaders dance in front of their blocks of hilarious supporters. The screen brought to me the enthusiasm that prevailed on the field, and made me a partner in it. When the game started I felt like adding my cheers to those I heard. Silent scenes of football games always have bored me, but I would have been willing to sit that THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 one through. Sound should have the same effect on scenes of every sort. Intelligent directors will lose no time in studying the effects sound devices must have on methods of motion picture production, and actresses and actors should give heed to their voices. They should not listen to those who argue that silent pictures never will be sup- planted. Screen art is going to advance until it fully em- braces sound. That is ine\ntable. It will not be checked by the fact that an actress lisps. » * * Practice Not Quite as Respectable as Pimping ONE practice of motion picture producing organiza- tions that is not quite as respectable as pimping is that of farming out contract players at salaries in excess of those paid them by their employers and not allowing the players to share in the excess. It is a cheap, money-grubbing practice that people of decent instincts would not indulge in. Apparently Joe Schenck regards it as I do, for any player under contract to him or to United Artists gets all the money that is paid for his services when he is leased out to another studio. And not only that, but Joe will battle for half a day to get the largest possible salary for the player who is being bor- rowed. Universal conducts its business on lines a little > different. Last year it loaned Jean Hersholt so often, and at a salary so much in excess of what he was drawing at the studio, that it got back the full amount it had paid Jean during the year, and seven thousand dollars besides. In addition to this, Jean made four pictures for Universal during the year. To put it in another way: Jean worked in four Universal pictures at no expense to the company, and in addition earned seven thousand dollars for it. It is here that the story begins to get good. Under its contract with Hersholt, Universal can lay him off without salary for two weeks in any fifty-two. Exercising this right. Universal notified Jean that he would draw no salary between February twenty-six and March twelve. Then Universal loaned Hersholt to United Artists and stip- ulated that the salary was to begin three weeks before shooting began. As shooting was to begin on March twelve. Universal drew pay for Hersholt's services dur- ing the two weeks that he was drawing nothing, thus demonstrating to pimps that their business methods are loose, for pimps allow the people who earn the money to retain at least a little of it. Under its contract with Her- sholt Universal may be able legally to commit this theft, but that does not relieve Carl Laemmle's organization of the odium of putting over about the lowest, measeliest, dirtiest trick to get a few dollars, that I yet have heard of in connection with even the motion picture industry, whose history consists largely of a succession of bad smells. The whole system of loaning players at increased salaries is rotten. The moment that Universal accepts one dollar for Hersholt in excess of what it is paying him, that moment Universal confesses that it is not paying him what he is worth; either that, or it is forcing the borrow- ing company to pay more for him than he is worth. In any event it is a practice that really decent people would not indulge in. To carry it as far as Universal has carried it — to lay off an actor while it is drawing pay for his services from another producer — is simply unspeakable. T March 17, 1928 At Last One Fragment of Von's Opus Reaches Screen WHEN Eric von Stroheim first sees Fay Wray in The Wedding March he is in the saddle, in com- mand of a small detachment of cavalry acting as a guard for the Austrian emperor. In keeping with mili- tary restrictions, Von sits rigidly erect. Fay, an onlooker, is standing at the curb. She is attracted by the dashing officer and looks up at him. Her pretty face — and Fay is really beautiful throughout the whole picture — attracts Von and he makes fleeting glances at her without chang- ing his position or relieving the stiffness of his military bearing. Fay is confused; she lowers her eyes, but again they seek those of the military image towering above her. Close-up follows close-up; shy glances grow bold and be- come smiles; surreptitiously Fay drops a flower into the yawning top of the officer's military shoes, and with a stealthy movement he raises it to his lips. There is little action in the sequence, but Von Stroheim's superb direction puts a wealth of meaning into it. It is of a piece with a score of brilliant directorial gems which make The Wed- ding March sparkle. Von has a long scene with his mother (Maud George) during which each speaks titles that are necessary to plant the story. They stand still, but the scene is full of action due to its scintillating direction. George Fawcett, father of Von, and the late George Nichols, father of Zasu Pitts, arrange the marriage of the two. They are seated on the floor, and they are maudlin with drink. The scene is acted magnificently and directed with rare skill. I have seen The Wedding March twice, once at Anaheim and again at Long Beach. When I saw it first I refrained from commenting on it, for it was pre- sented in an experimental shape, and the experiment failed. As it was so bad that any change must improve it, I did not feel that it was fair to damn it for faults that would disappear when it was recut. In the form in which it was shown at Long Beach it is an infinitely better picture. Owing to the crazy way in which it was made, by which the complete story was told in one hundred reels, it is pos- sible to present only a portion of it in the ten reels in which it will be released. The ten reels that I saw on the second occasion tell only that portion of the story that deals with the incidents leading up to the dramatic epi- sodes in which the acting and the direction reach their greatest heights. But the ten reels make a good picture, with tense drama, magnificent performances, inspired direction, superb production, and beautiful photography. The Anaheim version had the weakness of characterizing Von Stroheim as an all-good hero, a role that he has neither the appearance nor the personality to play con- vincingly. Nicki was made so spotless in that version that when the seduction scene was reached it gave the impres- sion that Mitzi, his victim, had been the aggressor. In the final version Nicki is presented as the roue that he was drawn in the original story, and all the scenes which developed that side of him were put back into the picture, with the result that it becomes a gripping story of a man's lust and a pure girl's love. With consummate skill Von stroheim puts the story on the screen, his acting de- serving as much praise as his direction. In places the tempo is so slow that it may be resented by those who do not follow pictures closely enough to become interested in THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven the degree of subtlety that they can display, but on the whole I think it is a production that will do well at the box-office. * * * Take It From Any Angle, Pat Powers Is the Real Hero THE real hero of The Wedding March is P. A. Powers, whose millions Von Stroheim drew upon so unspar- ingly to support the wild debauch the making of the picture became. After the second preview Pat put his feet beside mine on my fender, blew smoke into the fire, and laughed at himself, which is why I confer upon him the distinction of being the hero of the production. He looks upon the whole adventure as an amusing interlude, and still maintains that Von is a genius and that The Wedding March will be a huge success. I hope so. And I think so. Perhaps if I had known nothing about its history, or if Von Stroheim had made only as many reels as I saw and spent no more money than a sane person would, I might rave about the picture as I viewed it. But as I witnessed the unfolding of the story I could not close my mind to the fact that for every reel I saw nine others were reposing in the cutting-room, and to the further fact that I was not getting the story as it was conceived in the mind of the author. All this is by way of apology for a confession that I can not with confidence express my opinion of The Wedding March. It is not a picture that Hollywood can estimate dispassionately, for picture people will be hampered as I am. We will have to await the verdict of the outside world before we can be sure of ourselves. My own ideas are fixed enough, but I can not be sure that they will be yours. I do not believe that any picture containing so many excellencies can fail to make an excellent impression. The appealing and in- telligent performance of Fay Wray of itself almost would make a picture notable. Her part is the biggest one in the version I saw, not in "sides", but in importance to the story, and she reveals a dramatic power astonishing in one so young and inexperienced. Another magnificent per- formance is that of Matthew Betz. He plays a vulgar brute, a low hound who is in love with Mitzi, and gives a vibrant, compelling, masterful characterization that should take its place among fine things done on the screen. George Fawcett is splendid as Nicki's father, and Maud George displays marked ability in her portrayal of the role of mother. In this picture there is a reminder of the exist- ence of Dale Fuller. What has the screen done with this talented character woman? Has she quit pictures, which might be wise, or have pictures quit her, which would be most foolish? In The Wedding March Miss Fuller gives a flawless performance, a striking characterization that should make her in demand. George Nichols and Hughie Mack left us as a legacy the art they reveal in this picture, worthy performances to keep us from forgetting what sterling actors they were. That splendid artist, Zasu Pitts, has practically nothing to do in as much of the picture as reached the screen. I understand she is giving an extra- ordinary performance in the cutting-room. Add to all the good acting, the extraordinary wealth of production value and I do not think we can view The Wedding March as other than a great picture. There are scenes in it that are breath-taking, so gorgeous are the sets, lighting, and photography. It is a crime that such a picture was not Page Eight shot in color, as all such elaborate pictures soon will be. It would not have cost any more, but even if it had eaten up another million or so, Pat already was so numb that probably he would not have noticed it. And perhaps it would have made him laugh still louder. * * * Is Eric Von Stroheim a Really Good Director? PERHAPS the feature of The Wedding March of most interest to Hollywood is the sidelight it casts on Eric von Stroheim as a director. In the previous paragraphs I have paid tribute to the brilliance of some of his work, but, even so, I do not rate him as a particu- larly capable director. I could name a dozen directors who with half the money and in half the time could have given us vastly superior pictures. Imagine Bill Howard with a million and a half dollars and from now on in which to make a picture And the same goes for the rest of the dozen. In The Wedding March Von does several things that a good director would not do. He provides a setting so beautiful that in it the most exquisite love scene ever brought to the screen could be enacted — and he chops the scene into scores of close-ups that reveal him as lacking the ability to realize the possibilities that a more capable director would have grasped. To do him justice, however, I cheerfully admit that a few of the close-ups are extraor- dinarily effective, particularly one showing the head of Mitzi as she slowly is drawn across the screen to satisfy the passion of the roue whom she loves. A sequence show- ing George Nichols and Zasu Pitts, father and daughter, in conversation is presented entirely in close-ups which dance on the screen until they tire the eye. I would esti- mate that there are between seven and eight hundred close-ups in the entire picture, proving that Von treated Griffith's discovery as wildly as he did Pat's bankroll. Betz hands Fay Wray an illustrated paper, telling her as he does so that in it she will find something of interest about the man she loves. Does she grab it excitedly, having eyes only for what is printed about the man to whom she has given herself? No. It is a moving picture, conse- quently she keeps her eyes on Betz's as she reaches slowly for the paper, holding the gaze for a long time after she obtains it, then lowers her eyes to study the paper. No director who would shoot such an idiotic scene can be called a master of his craft. A normal girl would not have gazed for a long time into the eyes of a man she hated as she reached for and held in her hand a paper contain- ing news of the man she loved. They do it only in the movies, where they do a lot of other silly things except in pictures which are directed with complete intelligence. In another respect Von Stroheim shows himself to be a slave of motion picture conventions. There are many close-ups of Fay Wray showing her face smeared with glycerine. Besides being disgusting, the use of glycerine is wrong fundamentally. No really capable director would use it in scenes depicting an excess of grief. A sugges- tion of it in the eyes of an actress portraying only mild grief is permissible, but when the actress can work her- self up to the portrayal of overwhelming agony of mind without shedding real tears an artificial agency should not be employed, for tears are not an infallible indication of gfrief. In Four Sons Margaret Mann does not shed tears when she receives word of the death of her sons. It was THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 not her way of betraying a breaking heart. To have smeared her fine face with glycerine would have been an i; idiocy that Jack Ford had too much sense to commit. If ) Von Stroheim had risen above the little things that marred his picture The Wedding March would have been a master- piece. It would have helped some also if he had shot it in something less than one hundred reels. * * * Extending Glad Hand to Miss Helen Lynch PERHAPS the most interesting feature of The Show Down is the fine performance given by Helen Lynch. I am interested greatly when some young person of whom I know nothing, whose name is unfamiliar and face strange to me, steps to the front and in the presence of such capable troupers as Evelyn Brent and George Bancroft delivers a brand of acting that keeps her very much in the picture. You safely may put this new Helen down as one of the exceedingly few fluffy creatures who will earn for themselves definite places in pictures. Her performance in Show Down is an intelligent one that would do credit to an actress who already had won her spurs. And the picture has many other interesting fea- tures. I understand that it is Bancroft's first starring picture. Up to the last couple of reels Evelyn Brent steals it, but before the finish George steps to the front and gathers it to himself in some brilliantly acted scenes. Paramount made no mistake when it decided to present Bancroft as a star. He has all the qualifications. Show Down is a psychological drama, although it starts off as if it were going to be something else. Direct, vigorous titles written by John Farrow create the impression that the story is going to be one of the struggle between two men for the possession of an oil well, but it sheers off and becomes an excellently depicted exposition of the debilitat- ing effect of the tropics on a white woman. Evelyn Brent is the woman and she gives a performance which I think is the best she has contributed to the screen. Fred Kohler is an unalloyed villain. He plays excellently the charac- terization that was given to him, but I wish he had been allowed to relieve its harshness with a suggestion of a sense of humor. The screen should get away from the standard villain. There are none in real life, and this is the era of realism on the screen. Kohler's performance would have been more impressive if he had not thrust his jaw out quite so far or taken so much pains to avoid being mistaken for the hero. Leslie Fenton, Arnold Kent, and Neil Hamilton also have important parts. Fenton's char- acterization is a notable one. Producers are giving more indication all the time that they realize that the public wants to see acting. When they become fully convinced of it such a sterling artist as Fenton is going to be kept busy. Victor Schertzinger directed Show Down. His pictures that I had seen previously did not prepare me for the excellencies of this one. He performs the remarkable artistic feat of making an oily swamp look beautiful with- out robbing it of its status as a swamp. The menace in the story is the wretchedness of the locale, yet Schert- zinger's artistic sense is responsible for a scenic treat- ment that makes the whole production a series of most attractive shots. In one scene Victor reveals that he really is not a motion picture director. He commits the fault of having Bancroft fill his pipe before lighting it. I am March 17, 1928 surprised that Victor does not know that such a thing is not done on the screen. Pipes never are filled; they simply are lighted. The introduction of Bancroft is in accordance with what I have advocated from time to time. He walks into the picture with his back to the camera, and is not picked out in a close-up until there is an excuse for it. While there are more close-ups in Show Down than I think there should be, Schertzinger's direction on the whole betrays a disposition to break away from directorial conventions. Such a story is not easy to tell on the screen. But it is told well, and the scenarists and director are to be commended. * * * Quite Evident That Lad Has Something ONCE upon a time I saw a little Western picture directed by a boy who is something to Carl Laem- mle. William Wyler is his name, but out at Uni- versal City they call him Willie. In my review of the picture I said that the lad showed promise and that some day he would be heard from. His first was not a great picture, but it contained a lot of little touches that indi- cated that its youthful director had ability. The other night I saw Willie's first feature picture, Has Anyone Seen Kelly?, a title which is a handicap for a production to carry, but it has the somewhat unusual distinction of meaning something that is consistent with the story. Willie fulfills my prediction. He has turned out a picture that is packed with clever direction. It is a human story, and Wyler handled it with a light touch and a sense of humor that makes it one of the most delightful films that I have seen in months. No exhibitor need be afraid of it. It is a clean comedy that will please any audience. I hope Uni- versal will not treat it too modestly because it is the first ambitious attempt of a lad with no previous experience with such an undertaking. When I survey the list of current releases that are showing in the New York houses I encounter more than half a dozen that can not compare with Kelly for entertainment value. The story is a simple, little one, its direction being responsible for its quality. It bears out what I have said so often: that the story is not important, the manner in which it is told being the thing that counts. If young Wyler does not become too satisfied with himself he some day will be rated among the really worth while directors. Bessie Love is the big feature in this interrogative picture. What an excellent little trouper she is! She is one of the cleverest girls we have. I can not understand why she does not appear steadily in the productions of one of the big studios. Girls with half her ability are thrust before us constantly, while Bessie exercises her talents chiefly in quickies, with only occa- sionally an excursion to one of the bigger lots. Another artist whom it was a delight to meet again in this picture is Tom Moore, who is featured with Bessie. He never was cast rnore happily. He plays the part of an Irish cop, and even a potato is no more Irish than Tom. His per- formance is fiawless. He is funny in his comedy scenes and impressive in the sentimental ones. Why don't we see the Moore boys of tener ? In certain parts Matt is one of the best actors we have, and I never have seen Owen give a poor performance. Yet we see very little of the boys, while, as in the case of Bessie Love, we see many featured men who lack their ability. Another Irishman THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine who gives an excellent performance in the Wyler picture is Tom O'Brien. He is a heavy with a sardonic sense of humor. And of course a picture so Irish would not be complete without Kate Price. She's in it, all right, and contributes some delicious comedy. Universal has given the picture an adequate production, and the lighting and photography bring out all its values. In many places the direction strikes a deep human note, and despite the many Irish characters there is not a single caricature, nor even a suggestion of farce. Wyler handles the whole thing with the best of taste, and frequently becomes brilliant. I feel grateful to him for helping to maintain my status as a prophet. * * * Glad, at Least, That the Baby Isn't Mine WHEN a big studio turns out a picture we have the right to presume that it is the highest expres- sion of the organization's capability for making that particular kind of picture. If this be true, and if Baby Mine may be accepted as a refiection of Metro's comedy sense, my advice to Mr. Mayer and his associates would be to stick to the burningly passionate Gilbert- Garbo affairs, the Chaney nightmares, and the pale and uninteresting Shearer and Novarro productions. Only clever people should attempt such a story as Baby Mine, and the clever people on the Metro lot are not allowed to make its pictures. Without refreshing my memory by going back over Spectator files, I can not recall an M.-G.-M. picture that I have praised wholeheartedly since I reviewed Flesh and the Devil, which Clarence Brown made into such a good picture. Since that time I have reviewed one or more pictures from each of the other lots that I have referred to in warmest terms. None of the lots whose pictures are rating so much higher than Metro's in technical excellence and entertainment value, has a corner on picture brains. I dare say that there is as much real picture ability on the Metro lot, which is turning out so much trash, as there is on the Fox lot, which is turning out so many masterpieces. Metro does not lack writers, actors or directors. What it lacks is a Winfield Sheehan — someone who has sense enough to allow picture brains to make its pictures. The Metro system is to blame for such a hopelessly brainless concoction as Baby Mine. Bob Leonard, who directed it, has shown in the past that he is capable of making good pictures, but in this one he has not one moment of inspiration. Aiiy two-reel director in the business could have done better. Karl Dane and George K. Arthur can give good perform- ances, but they do nothing in this picture that hundreds of extras with little experience could not do as well. The only bright spot is Charlotte Greenwood, and she is inter- esting only to the extent that one can imagine her in a decent story well directed. She has a happy way with her that affects the audience. When I viewed the picture I noted the reaction of the audience to avoid allowing my personal preference in screen entertainment to color my consideration of it. There was laughter, but it was scat- tered, and all of it had a childish ring to it. Most of the audience sat in stony silence. The titles are as bad as the rest of it. The very first one reads, "Some people are born with gold spoons in their mouth." I do not under- stand how "some people" can have but one mouth. Then Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 there is such highly original and scintillating humor as this: "You ought to be kicked by a jackass, and I would like to be the one to do it." Metro can make money out of such trash as Baby Mine, but only because it can force it on the public in its own houses. When the government regulates the industry, as it surely will, and block booking ceases, there will be no money in such pictures and Metro will be forced to turn out intelligent ones or go out of business. It is making no preparation for the change in marketing conditions that is to be forced on the industry. It is adhering to a policy by which good pictvires can not be made. It is a policy of not using the brains that it is paying for. * * + Put Down One More to Bill Howard's Credit HUMANITY seems at last to have come to the screen. Love, passion, jazz, cocktails, and bathrooms seem to have run their courses, and now we have the one thing that it is most obvious we should have had from the first: a deep human note. No picture which had heart appeal well done has been a failure. Nor will such a picture ever be a failure. We will have mechanically perfect pictures which will score successes — Flesh and the Devil, Camille, Sadie Thompson, Sunrise — but they will not go down in screen history as will Seventh Heaven, Four Sons, Beau Geste, Mother Machree, and such pictures whose appeal is almost solely to the heart. The new trend in screen themes is the healthiest manifestation that the art has made. It is the only phase that pictures cannot run through and come out at the other end. The public takes only a pass- ing interest in jazz, but it never outgrows its taste in heart-throbs. The market for something that will pro- duce tears never wavers. I think Donald already has re- marked in his part of The Spectator that it is a queer thing that now that the screen is presenting us with real life we give it credit for doing something remarkable. From the first it has used human beings in its pictures, but only lately has it begun to make them human. One of the latest directors to make his bow in humanity is William K. Howard. He has given us His Country, an extraor- dinarily good picture. Bill is one of our most interesting directors. I don't know what he did before Gigolo and White Gold, but the latter was notable enough to establish a reputation. Then came The Main Event, a prize-fight story, quite unlike either of the other two. And now His Country, a simple heart-throb, totally differing from all three. The interesting feature of Howard's work is that each of the four pictures was as good as the script allowed. Technically White Gold was no better than The Main Event, but its theme offered greater possibilities, conse- quently Howard made a greater picture out of it. His Country is another perfect piece of work. It is distin- guished for superb direction and magnificent performances. There is not much of a story, which is of no importance. But it has a great theme, that of this country's assimila- tion of those who come to its shores seeking new homes. Rudolph Schildkraut and Louise Dresser, husband and wife, come from Europe with their three children. Lucien Littlefield and Fritz Feld have a hand in their affairs here. Schildkraut becomes a citizen, his son is killed in the war, he is jailed on a false charge after he is naturalized, later the truth comes out, and he goes back to his job in the federal building. That is all the story, but under Bill Howard's direction it becomes great. It is an inspiring story in loyalty, but when we examine it as a motion picture we are apt to forget that feature of it and admire it more for the sheer artistry of its treatment. Schild- kraut's performance is a wonderful example of screen act- ing. He plays his part with superficial lightness, but never allows us to forget the deep note underlying it. When the picture is released it will gain this veteran further recog- nition as a great artist. Miss Dresser, of course, is splen- did. Her part is one that allows her great talent full sway, and she realizes all that there is in it. And what a superb actor Lucien Littlefield is! He contributes to this picture another of his incomparable characterizations. And we can thank His Country for showing us what a finished actor Fritz Feld is. He gives a fine portrayal of an anarchist, and in doing so gives evidence of possessing ability to handle just as capably a wide variety of parts. Robert Edeson plays a judge, and Milton Holmes and Linda Landie are the son and daughter. There is a younger daughter who is not mentioned in the credits, and in the opening sequence we see an adorable baby who should be rushed into a lot more pictures before she grows up. The titles in His Country are a big contribution to its general excellence. All in all, Bill Howard has scored again. * * * Our Salutations to the World's Champion Liars THE main trouble with Beau Sabreur is its relationship to Beau Geste. Put out as just a motion picture, and judged solely on its own merits, it would have much to recommend it, but presented as a sequel to the great Beau Geste it becomes a disgrace to the family. The only thing the two pictures have in common is sand. Its ex- ploitation is a sad commentary on how the New York oflSces of the producing companies disregard common hon- esty in marketing pictures. Ben Schulberg's organization turned out a pretty fair picture, and the New York high- binders rob it of any chance it has by tieing it up with another production for no other reason than that the other was one of the notable films of the past year. Beau Sabreur is in no sense a sequel to the Brenon masterpiece, and to offer it as such is a bare-faced fraud on both exhibi- tors and the public. The jails of the country are filled with people who are not any more downright criminal than most of the people who sell pictures made in Hollywood. Those responsible for offering Beau Sabreur to the public as in any way related to Beau Geste are just a little worse than the man who holds you up and takes your purse. The latter at least does not lie. Within the somewhat narrow limits of his profession he behaves ethically. Picture ex- ploitation has reached a deplorable level. The only pic- tures that are advertised truthfully are those that live up to the wild imaginings of the people who write the adver- tisements. The merits of the productions play no part when the announcements are being prepared, but occasion- ally a picture is good enough to do justice to the praise of it that was vsritten before the advertising department saw it, which makes the words of praise ethically as great lies as if the merits of the pictures did not measure up to the exploitation department's statements of them. The advertising men think they are lieing when they write their ads, and the thought disturbs them not at all. The March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven Spectator now has sufficient circulation among exhibitors to warrant producers using its pages to reach their cus- tomers, but it never will get any producer advertising be- cause it will not allow the exploitation departments to lie ■' about their pictures within its covers. It is willing to accept announcements which make plain statements of fact about pictures or which quote reviews of them that have appeared in other papers, but it will not accept adver- tisements made up of falsehoods written for the sole pur- pose of swindling exhibitors. The Spectator would not have allowed the Paramount selling department to an- nounce in its pages that Beau Sabreur was in any way related to Beau Geste, and the former picture would have fared better if all other film papers had made the same stipulation. The Brenon picture was an extraordinary development of the brother love theme and contained a masterly performance by Noah Beery. Sabreur is a story of an effort to get a greasy looking Arab to sign a treaty and does not contain a masterly performance by Noah Beery or anyone else. John Waters, who directed Sabreur, did as well as anyone could with the story, with the excep- tion of his handling of the fight scenes. They are not con- vincing, being too mechanical. But there is much beauti- ful photography in the production, and to the extent that we can forget Beau Geste we can find the story interest- ing. Perhaps the best performance is that of William Powell. Evelyn Brent is as satisfactory as anyone could be in her part, but I do not agree with her choice of clothes for desert wear. In The Show Down also she is dressed more elaborately than she should be. I wish they would cease casting Gary Cooper in he-man parts. They do it because he is a stalwart lad, but the impression I get of him is that he is a dreamy sort of person who should play mild and poetic roles. I must remember to ask Ben Schul- berg where they get those marvelous desert shots. I want to drive out and look at the sea of sand. Can't See a Great Deal in This One THAT the camera must be the eye of the audience or of one or more of the characters in a motion picture, seems to me to be good screen reasoning. Every shot should show a scene as someone sees it, and it should be made on the assumption that the audience is present as a witness of what is going on. If we go beyond such re- striction we would have directors outdoing themselves with absurd shots made from angles that would put human beings to great inconvenience to duplicate. I don't know what was in Roland West's mind when he conceived some of the shots in The Dove. He has two looking down from the ceiling to the floor of a gambling den. He has others looking through windows at action inside a room. As no character is hanging from the ceiling or snooping outside the window, why these particular shots? If the effort merely were to present something novel, why not get really frisky and show scenes upside down? That hasn't been done yet. Pointing the camera through a window with- out presenting it as the point of view of some character is bad technic. It raises a bar between the audience and the scene, which never should be done. Looking directly down on a scene is merely a trick devoid of reason. It is an unreal view which lends unreality to the picture con- taining it. It contributes to the unreality of The Dove, which is one of the most unreal pictures that I have seen. The plot moves cumbersomely, overwhelmed with an elab- orate production and heavy photography, exterior scenes which have a vast capacity for looking unconvincing, un- known people going to undesignated places, a long parade of heavily gauzed close-ups of Norma Talmadge and some engaging ones showing Noah Beery with his mouth open. By way of compensation we have a title spoken by Noah while his back is toward the camera, a refreshing novelty worthy of emulation. There are also some meritorious shots following a title referring to Noah's hacienda. The camera makes the journey from the locale of the previous scene to the hacienda, vividly creating the impression that the audience is moving over to see what is going to happen. It is the best thing in the picture, the only note of con- structive originality shown. The foggy quality of Norma's close-ups would not have been so apparent if they had not been cut in so sharply with clearly defined ones of Beery and Gilbert Roland. It made the quality of the photography distinctly uneven. I can not believe that our lovely Norma has reached the gauze stage, but if such be the case, her close-ups should be the only ones in any of her pictures. As always is the case with a picture con- taining many close-ups, no intelligence whatever was dis- played in their use in The Dove. There are individual close-ups of two men laughing heartily. Laughter, when hearty, causes a physical upheaval that the camera can catch from a distance. Registering it with a close-up in a picture already having too many of them is idiotic. The main reason for The Dove's lack of entertainment value is that it has a tenuous story that would not stand such a ponderous attempt to make it impressive. It is a story of elemental emotions, robbed of all its elemental quality by the artificiality of its purely motion picture treatment. It should have been told in a bold, stark way, and pre- sented as a border drama in which the emotion of its char- acters were deemed to be of more importance than the manner in which they are photographed. Beery's per- formance almost saves it, but I don't agree with his char- acterization. Pretty Good, If You Forget That It's SiUy THERE are some motion pictures to which the ordinary rules of criticism can not be applied. The Shepherd of the Hills, directed by Al Rogell for First National, is one of them. All it pretends to do is to put on the screen some incidents in the book by Harold Bell Wright. The incidents are not related, making the film more epi- sodic than the well made picture is supposed to be. Such a form of screen entertainment is excusable when the incidents themselves are sufiiciently entertaining to inter- est us enough to bridge the gaps between them. The only mission of any film offering is to entertain us, and if it can do it with unrelated incidents it accomplishes its pur- pose as successfully as a connected narrative could. When Rogell undertook to put the Wright book on the screen he must have realized that he had a difficult job on his hands and that it was up to him to make the scattered episodes vivid enough to make us forget their lack of co- hesion. He succeeded in this. I enjoyed all of The Shep- herd of the Hills, for I accepted it for what it is and excused its indifference to the conventions of screen pro- Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR ductions. It is a succession of appealing and beautiful pastoral scenes, rich in characterizations and human sjon- pathy. Each sequence was directed with intelligence and feeling. Alec Francis gives a compelling performance in a part for which he is suited admirably, and Maurice Murphy proves himself to be a boy actor of extraordinary ability. Some producer should take this gifted lad and feature him in a succession of stories. We seem to run to adults exclusively and to overlook the fact that parents and children throughout the world would hail with pleas- ure a child star who has the striking screen personality, good looks and marked intelligence that Maurice Murphy possesses. We have a few clever boy actors, but none other with the appeal of Maurice. And we might have a few more pictures like this one. It is comforting to sit back and watch the unfolding of something uplifting when the acting, direction, and photography possess enough merit to make us forget how silly the whole thing is. In real life I can not quite follow someone who thinks he can produce rain by faith, but I am willing to accept it as screen fare if we don't get too much of it — and if it be done as well as Rogell does it. And in a well regulated motion picture I like to see some reason presented for the villain's villainy, and I don't like to see him plotting his devilishness in front of the people upon whom he hopes to practice it, but the sheep and the dog and the bear and the squirrel, and the country roads that wound up hills, and barns and farm horses in Shepherd of the Hills made me complacent enough to view the villain as a delightfully normal chap, whom I knew would get his come-uppance from the hero before Al Rogell called it a day and re- paired to the cutting-room. And he did — by means of a beautiful sock on the jaw which landed him in a muddy brook, which served him damn well right. In dramatizing the drought I do not believe that Rogell used his lighting to the best effect. He used the sun for a back-light. This had the effect of filling his scenes with shady places that suggested coolness. If he had kept the sun behind the r ilmar yS^jyjARJ Cleaners 6037 Hollywood Boulevard Phone HOlIy 0899 An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard March 17, 1928 camera there would have been no shadows — just a white, burning light that would have suggested heat and drought. When the rain came it was a regular movie rain, which always is unlike any other rain in the world. It comes down vrith a volume that would wash the country away if it were not turned off every time the director says "cut!" Some day I hope to see a normal rain on the screen. But there are so many things I hope to see some day! * * * Clara Bow's Red Hair Goes Into Motion Pictures WHEN we compare the entertainment value that Paramount put into its screen version of the famous Anita Loos story with that which it puts Into its screen treatment of Elinor Glyn's most recent contribution to film literature, I think we will agree that the release of the latter may affect the tastes of gentle- men, and that, after all, they really will prefer red-heads. Red Hair, directed by Clarence Badger, is a joyous little picture, by long odds the best thing that Clara Bow has done since It. It is a story of a gold digger, a much better 'Trinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 Qt^n/ oxford 9511 430 No. CanMiDrive I BeverjvHills Hosiery Short Vamp Shoes for Women This Ad Good for 10% Discount Before April 1st GL. 7405 6509 Hollywood Blvd. March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen one than Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. To start with, it has a story that almost has a plot. It is a connected narrative that will hold the interest of the audience, and it gives Clara an opportunity to display her most ingratiating side. And the red-headed youngster can act! Through the froth and frivolity that make her characterization in this picture so delightful there shines a quality that suggests that Clara Bow some day is going to be a dramatic actress whom the world will acclaim. I do not know the young woman, consequently I can not speak with authority re- garding her mental attainments, but the only limit to her force and power as an actress is the extent to which she develops her mind. When you are engaged in an occupa- tion it helps some if you know what it is all about, conse- quently I hope that Clara is taking her profession seri- ously enough to study it. PYom the moment we see her in Red Hair she is a vibrantly cheerful, provoking, little gold-digger who quite delights us. The first shot is in Technicolor and shows Clara trying to vamp a dignified old pelican of philosophical mien and reposeful manner. She does not rely on the red hair or the lure of her expres- sive eyes to ensnare the pelican. Very sensibly she in- trigues the old bird with fish, proving that when all else fails the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, a theme, by the way, which Red Hair does not develop. For half a dozen reels Clara goes joyously on, and does noth- ing that a perfect lady with red hair would not do, until the tail end of the sixth reel she takes off all her clothes at a party and jumps into a lily pond. This makes three I've seen disrobe in the presence of a crowd of men, Corinne Griffith, Billie Dove, and now Clara Bow. Each scene was ridiculous, vulgar and stupid. Screen art has descended rather low when it has to lean on scenes show- ing pretty young girls taking off their clothes under cir- cumstances that conceivably could not prompt any decent girl to do such a thing. Such scenes are inserted solely to cater to degenerate minds and can not be defended on the ground of being either good drama or good taste, nor have they the saving grace of humor. When we get by it in Red Hair, however, the picture slips along in an amusing way until the final fadeout. Lawrence Grant, William J. Irving and William Austin have equal parts in support of WM. K. WILLIAMSON U. S. A. and English Styles in British Cloths (Ladies and Gentlemen) 8289 Samta Mohica Blvd. Hollywood Phokc HEiirsTEju) 0580 MR. BEATON: Your praise of THE PATENT LEATHER KID was merited, therefore gratifying, but why ignore the poor, struggling writers without whom there would have been no PATENT LEATHER KID : Rupert Hughes, Adela Rogers St. Johns, and WINIFRED DUNN? Clara and each does excellently. Lane Chandler is leading man. I don't think I ever saw him before, but as much as one can judge by one performance it would seem that the young fellow is a pleasing addition to our masculine lovers. Red Hair is fortunate in having titles that fit it perfectly. At times they display rare wit that adds greatly to the chuckles that the whole film provokes. The punctuation of the titles is correct, which proves that it can be done without wrecking a picture. Exhibitors need not be afraid of Red Hair. * * * Sound Devices and a Female Menjou WHEN it perfects its sound device Paramount should do The Serenade over again. The story gets its motivation from the success of a composer, one of whose compositions is featured throughout. I saw the picture at a neighborhood house and was impressed by the IS: ONE OF THE MYSTERIES OF ALEXANDER MARKY'S Expedition to the far South Seas, where he is now directing and supervising an original screen story he wrote for Universal Why has it not been done before? Another mystery is: Why did he choose LEW COLLINS WILFRID M. CLINE HAROLD I. SMITH ZOE VARNEY to accompany him? Sdward Sverett^orton takes great pleasure in announcing the opening of his own company in "cA Single oMan" by Hubert Henry Davies on oMarch 15, 1928 at The njine S^^^^i Theatre^ Between Hollvzvood and Sunset Boulevards Production directed by Maude Fulton Art Director Ben Kutcher Produced by Winter Davis Norton Pag-e Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 lack of appropriate music. Ordinarily I do not notice the music, but a picture based on a musical theme carries its own suggestion that it should not be treated by the organ- ist with his usual lack of originality. With the general use of sound devices such a picture could be made in no other way. Serenade is a capital little picture, however, even though we have to take Adolphe Menjou's musical genius for granted. I do not think he ever gave a more finished performance. His part did not carry with it the devilishness we have grown to expect from him, and his eyebrows and shoulders are not called upon for their usual contributions to his acting, but even without them he is as impressive as ever. This picture again shows us what an excellent actor Lawrence Grant is. Some producer should profit by the lesson that Margaret Mann teaches us and secure a story with a starring part in it for Grant. He is capable of giving a magnificent performance, and the public has been educated up to the point of appreciating real acting without regard for the age of the actor. Katharyn Carver is wholly satisfying as leading woman, her sweet and refined screen personality admirably suit- ing the part she plays. The Serenade gives us another glimpse of Lina Basquette. I have great faith in her future on the screen. She impresses me as an intelligent young woman who takes her work seriously, two qualities that go a long way toward a successful career. Every time I see Menjou on the screen I wonder again why some producer does not realize the opening for a female of the species. A fascinating young woman cynic with a sense of humor is something which the screen lacks. K I were in the producing business I would have a story written with such a characterization in it, and I would cast Carmel Myers in the part. She has proven amply her ability to portray vamp roles, but I can not recall having seen her when her vamping was done for a worthy motive, or in a part that gained for her the sympathy of the audi- ence. She is a victim of her own success. She has done so well in unworthy roles that no one will cast her in any other kind. Hollywood is full of talented artists who are in the same plight. Because Earle Foxe is a good actor he gives in Four Sons a notable performance of a Prussian ofiicer. If he were not on a lot run as intelligently as the Fox lot is, or if he were free lancing, he probably would get work only in pictures that have Prussian ofiicers in them. The fact that he is an excellent actor would not be taken into account. Such is the way of producers. For- tunately for Foxe, John Ford knows he can act, and he GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue (Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 plays an Irishman in the last Ford picture. Carmel Myers, and scores like her, have not had the same good fortune. Give Harry D'Arrast, who directed Serenade so cleverly, a story of a sophisticated girl with a cynical outlook on life, a sense of humor, and a suggestion of a past, cast Carmel Myers in the part and I am confident that we would get 3 picture that would behave quite delightfully at the box-oflSce and become the forerunner of a series of the same part. We need a female Menjou. * * * /^NE of the most misunderstood things that contribute ^— ' to drama in a motion picture is suspense. The treat- ment accorded it in many films serves to emphasize the fact that the screen would be the gainer if directors applied a little thought to the study of each scene before it was shot. Judged by what we see in the majority of pictures suspense is supposed to be created by the simple expedient of delaying the happening of something that inevitably WINGS Legion of the Condemned LieuU E* H* Robinson MOTION PICTURE AERONAUTICS WHitney 4617 $25.00 Natural Pink Rubber Gold Pin Truebyte Teeth $25.00 Perfect Fit Correct Articu- lation Satisfaction Guaranteed Dn T* A* MacKay GL 1608 DENTIST X-Ray 7934 Santa Monica Blvd., comer of Hayworth Also unbreakable Dentures constructed of the most approved materials — with or without gold base — such as Hecolite, Coralite, Iteo, etc. We have recently perfected a technic in Ceramic Art, making practical the use of Porce- lain instead of Gold or other materials for practi- cally all Dental Restorations, including Crowns, Bridges and Inlays. This Porcelain meets all the demands of correct high class dentistry, per- fectly matches the color and shade of natural teeth, and costs no more than gold. This should especially interest professional people. We irnnte your investigation. March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen ' will happen. When an audience knows that something is going to happen, suspense can not be built by delaying it. The thing to do is to have it happen. Delay in that case merely is irritation. If a girl is descending to the library in which the audience knows she will find the body of her father who has been murdered, better drama is obtained by taking her directly to the room than by having her turn from the door for some trivial reason introduced solely to delay her on the assumption that delay builds suspense. If the audience be not aware of the murder, such delay is permissible for then the audience gets the shock of the discovery at the same time as the daughter does, consequently it can not be irritated by the delayed happening of something that it does not know is going to happen. This argument does not apply to, say, a bomb timed to go off at a certain hour. As much suspense as possible may be built up prior to the time, as the audience does not expect the explosion to occur until the hour ar- rives. But don't irritate your audience. * * * Tr\IRECTORS would do me a personal favor if they '-^ would ask their girls to apply less lip-stick before going into close-ups. The totally meaningless close-ups of Clara Bow in Wings were made hideous by the blackness of her lips. You find the same thing in practically all pictures. On or off the screen, I hate lip-stick. It is dis- gusting. Also it is vulgar and it nauseates me. That is as far as I can go without putting into print the pro- fanity that lip-stick inspires in me. When I say it nause- ates me I would have you know that I am not referring to the taste of the beastly stuff. Even if my white hair and lack of opportunity did not limit my kissing to chaste salutes within my family circle and an occasional oscula- tion of greeting committed with the cooperation of the wife of a friend who is a witness of, and a dampening in- GEORGE SIDNEY I'm not SAYS: this space for advertising using purposes — Just to show I'm not afraid to walk into the lions' den — "Yeh, but the lions den, and the lions now — dots somting else again." ALFRED HUSTWICK Film Editor Titles Since 1919 with Paramount fluence on, the ceremony, I am sure I could not kiss gooed- up lips without becoming very, very ill, a conviction that makes it highly improbable that I ever will know what the damn stuff tastes like. It is as a decoration, not as a confection, that I object to it. * * * T^HE other day I sat in a projection-room and viewed a ■*■ picture that took three weeks to shoot and cost the stupendous sum of ninety-seven dollars. It is a one-reeler that was directed, photographed, and edited by Robert Florey, assistant to Henry King, and S. Vorkapich, the Serbian painter, both of whom had a hand in writing the story. Most of the photography was done with a De Vry camera, and the only light used was a three hundred-watt globe. A large number of sets were used, the most elab- orate taking almost three hours to build. The materials used were cardboard, cigar boxes, and tin cans. Jules Raucourt and Voya Georges compose the cast and both give satisfactory performances. The picture gives a glimpse of the life of a motion picture extra in Hollywood and is exceedingly clever both in conception and execution. TAY GARNETT Writer DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. 0. Christensen, Associatea Practical Showmanship Ideas Pages and pages of showmanship ideas are to be found in the FILM DAILY YEAR BOOK which is now being distributed FREE to all subscribers to THE FILM DAILY. This is only one of the important fea- tures of this volume of over a thousand pages. A book which should be at the finger tips of everyone in any way inter- ested in motion pictures. Have you re- ceived your copy. 1000 pages of valuable information, cloth-bound, stamped in gold. The only book of its kind pubhshed. Sub- scribe NOW — THE FILM DAILY 1650 Broadway New York City Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 It took such a long time to shoot as it was made in the apartments of Florey and Vorkapich and was such a noisy proceeding that the respective landladies raised objections and work had to cease until good humor had been restored. * * * ONE would think that Charley Chaplin, who has caused so many million laughs, would know in advance what incidents in a picture would cause laughter. But he doesn't. In the William Tell sequence in The Circus he waggles his finger to denote that he found a worm in the apple he is eating. It is a little piece of business that always gets a laugh. When the scene was being shot Charley gave no thought to the movement of his finger. He did it instinctively. No one watching the rushes noticed it. When the picture was previewed for the first time Charley was startled by the laughter that the action caused. He told me about it during a conversation in which we were discussing the value of previews. If Charley Chaplin can't tell what an audience is going to like there is little chance of the rest of us being able to. * * * HP O James Madison belongs the distinction of issuing •*■ the highest-priced printed matter in the world. It is called Madison's Budget, and vaudeville and bur- lesque performers by the hundred depend upon it for their supply of jokes, wisecracks and pieces of comedy business. The latest issue. No. 20, is just off the press and contains a large assortment of Madisonian comicalities, and is written for the needs of present-day comedy entertainers. * * ♦ A CCORDING to "Variety" no more "sucker money" is ■^*- going into the show business. When no more "sucker money" goes into special number advertising "Variety" will go out of business and the Los Angeles Times will get out no more hold-up numbers. WHEN we have perfect scripts, which will mean that pictures will be cut before they are shot, such flaws as are apparent in Show Down no longer will mar films. Fred Kohler walks rapidly out of a close-up and comes strolling into a medium shot. In the same sequence EveljTi Brent goes through a complete transition in the length of time it takes her to step from a close-up into a long shot. It is obvious that some film was cut out. It is but rarely that we see a picture that does not remind us that a lot of it was left on the cutting-room floor. If pic- tures were prepared properly before shooting begins there would be nothing left over when they were cut finally. * » * THEY were "gag men" until their salaries became so big that a more dignified title was sought. Then they became "comedy constructors". United Artists has made another advance. Among the credits distributed so gen- erously in The Dove someone whose name I did not catch is dignified as "humorist". There are some amusing scenes in the picture, but none half as funny as that credit. The authors of the story and the man who directed it are named. Apparently they lack all sense of humor. That is the only construction I can put on the screen's announcement that a humorist was employed to help them out. * * * TO MAKE his heavy a really vulgar oaf Von Stroheim in The Wedding 3Iarch has Matthew Betz devour food in a revolting manner, but not quite as revolting as the manner in which Raoul Walsh has his hero eat in Loves of Carmen. Such scenes are all right when presented to char- acterize a heavy, but become merely disgusting when they gratuitously are made part of the characterization of a person who is supposed to retain the sympathy of the audience. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's \7-Year-0ld Critic WE are certainly living in an age when big things are happening. Lindbergh flies to Paris; Ford brings out a new car; and The Wed- ding March finally emerges, clothed and in its right mind. I doubted for awhile that I would live long enough to see it. However, it is about the worst picture, considering the time and money expended on it, that I ever have seen. It was to have been one of the big pictures of whatever year it was released, and as a rule, big pic- tures have something to recommend them. The Wedding March is totally devoid of merit. It gets better toward the end, but there has been so much poor stuff before that, that whatever good stuff there may be has been com- pletely over-shadowed. There are about three reels of story stretched out to about twelve reels of film, and to make the flimsy story sufficient, the picture is shot nearly entirely in close- ups. There is very little action, and the only scene which comes anywhere near being cleverly done is where Von Stroheim, sitting on his horse, flirts with Fay Wray, who is standing in the street beside him. That scene is dragged out so far that it gets to be monotonous. There were other scenes which might have been good had they not been shot in close-ups. The close- ups in this were terrible. There were close-ups made of everything, includ- ing a pig. The pig's close-up was very good, as he didn't appear as conscious of the camera as some other members of the cast. Had The Wedding March been shot in colors, it would have been notable for some beautiful scenes, at least. But there was no color in it, and although the scenes in the orchard and at the church during Corpus Christi were beautiful, they would have been wonderful in color. An ex- ample of one of the scenes which was ruined by close-ups was one where Von Stroheim and Fay Wray get into the old buggy which she calls her "fairy carriage". Had that scene been made in a medium shot, so that the background of the apple blossoms and the old buggy were shown, it would have been very beautiful. However, it was shot in a series of close-ups so terribly blurred one could hardly tell the characters apart. To go on telling all the scenes ruined by close-ups would take far too long. The Wedding March had some good performances. Von Stroheim carries his "wooden-face" stuff too far. He expresses no emotion at any time dur- ing the picture, although he has a very good smile which he hardly ever uses. Fay Wray was splendid. Her performance proves that she has a lot of ability. Zasu Pitts gives a per- fect performance, as usual. Matthew Betz, as the heavy, takes the acting honors of the picture. His characteri- zation was excellent. George Fawcett was good, and so was the woman who played his wife. I didn't get her name. There were several lesser characters who did good work. ELINOR Glyn and Clara Bow seem to be a happy combination. They made It, which was one of the biggest hits Clara ever has made, and then they made Red Hair, which is as 'March 17, 1928 good as It. Red Hair is about the same story as the other Clara Bow opuses, but Clarence Badger's direc- tion and George Marion's titles have made it much better than usual. Marion is to be congratulated on his titles, as they are the best he ever has written. There is no attempt to make them the main features of the picture, as they are funny only in legitimate places. Therefore, they are very good. Of course, Clara had to gallop around clothed only in a wor- ried look or it wouldn't have been a true Clara Bow picture. I don't sup- pose it is her fault that all her pic- tures have a lot of undressed stuff in them, but she ought to do something about them, because a lot of epidermis gets very tiresome after awhile. There was one sequence in Red Hair which was shot in color and it certainly was beautiful. It wouldn't have hurt to have kept on with the color, as there were several places where it would have fitted in very well. Lane Chand- ler, who played opposite Miss Bow, is new to me; but he looks as though he had possibilities. He is good looking and possesses a good screen per- sonality. William Austin is the only other member of the cast whose name I can remember, but the rest were all good. MY Best Girl is rather amusing in places, and on the whole is a pretty good picture. Mary Pick- ford is always good in anything she does and this was no exception. The story is as old as motion pictures, but Samuel Taylor, the director, has put in so many adroit touches that it is amusing. One particularly good scene is where the two of them, Mary and Charles Rogers, walk across the street so wrapped up in each other that just by miracles do they keep from being run over. Another good place is where they do a scene on the back of a truck. However there were poor scenes. One in particular was the scene where she pretends she is a gold-digger to keep The Latest Books Are Always Obtainable at The Hollywood Book Store OPPOSITE HOTEL HOLLYWOOD Artistic Framing Stationery and Circulation Library ISorman^s ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard THE FILM SPECTATOR from ruining Rogers' career. A little of it would have been all right, but it was dragged out until it became so tiresome that it lost all its power. The picture was too small and unimportant to be worthy of Mary Pickford. Charles Rogers, who played opposite her, is a distinct find. He may not be such a wonderful actor, but he has one of the most likeable personalities I have seen in a long time. Lucien Littlefield, as Mary's father, was splendid as usual. Hobart Bosworth, as Rogers' father, was fine, too. Vera Gordon and Carmelita Geraghty were very satisfactory. WHEN His Country is released, it will be hailed as the finest picture ever turned out by De Mille. It is the best picture I have seen in the last six months. Splen- did performances by Louise Dresser and Rudolph Schildkraut combined to make it a classic. If it had been the first of these human interest stories Page Seventeen with the war as a background, it would have gained a place among the greatest pictures ever made. As it is, it probably will be among the ten best of the year. How William K. Howard, who is still very young, can put so much feeling into his direction is a mystery. To look at His Country, one would arrive at the conclusion that the director was an elderly man who had been of a philosophic turn of mind all his life. With the possible exception of Joseph von Sternberg, Howard is the best director we have. Frank Bor- zage can make a Seventh Heaven, but if he were handed a prize-fight story like The Main Event, which Howard made into such a good picture, he would be terribly at sea. De Mille, Clarence Brown, Murnau, Niblo, Rowland Lee, King Vidor Lubitsch, Herbert Brenon, and Raoul Walsh, who are the best directors we have, never could make successes of both a human interest story and a prize-fighting one. John Ford might ATTRACTIVE LAMPS AND SHADES AT REASONABLE PRICES J/f C^ousofld '..>4 Page Eighteen be able to do it. I contend that the director who should be hailed as the greatest in the business should be versatile. Von Sternberg and Howard both are that way. Von Sternberg can make both kinds of pictures, as Underworld and The Salvation Hunters prove. Howard is a bit better than Von Sternberg, because he puts a more human quality into his work. Von Sternberg is mechanically per- fect in his direction, but his work hasn't nearly as much of a soul as Howard's. However, to get back to His Coun- try. There were three or four scenes in it, any one of which would have made a picture a masterpiece. The story deals with a Checko-Slovak fam- ily which comes to America to live. The father gets a Job as janitor in a government building. The war comes; the father is accused of being a traitor, and is sent to prison; the son goes to war and is killed; and when the father gets out of prison he finds Reviews ^ Honest opinions of pic- tures mean much to the exhibitor. THE FILM DAILY always expresses an honest opinion on ev- ery picture it reviews. If it's good we say so. If it's bad we say so. Many exhibitors buy and book on our opinions. They know they can rely on us for the truth. THE FILM DAILY is small enough to be intimate, but big enough to be in- dependent. Write us for one of our issues with re- views and judge for your- self. Then subscribe to THE FILM DAILY and get this service regu- larly. THE FILM SPECTATOR it out. That is all the story there is. It is the marvelous human quality of the picture which makes it so good. The father doesn't become president of a bank or anything; he stays jani- tor. The son isn't a Greek god for looks; he looks just like hundreds of other American boys, and, as a re- sult, his death is felt far more by the audience. Milton Holmes played the part and was splendid. John Krafft helped out the atmosphere of the picture by keeping the titles in the language of the people they dealt with. Sonya Levien and Julien Josephson wrote the story. Josephson wrote the original story and Miss Levien did March 17, 1928 the adaptation. They both deserve a lot of credit for having an unusually good appreciation of screen values. Robert Edeson and Lucien Littlefield gave splendid performances, but the greatest praise for acting goes to Louise Dresser and Rudolph Schild- kraut. Neither of them ever has given such a good performance before. Miss Dresser has a scene when her son goes to war and one when her hus- band is being tried for treason that are marvelous. Schildkraut has the same scenes with one or two added on. A clever member of the cast was Fritz Feld, who was the heavy, and gave a very good performance. I 1650 Broadway N. Y. C. I Special Announcement! AT LAST! YOU can keep in close touch with world devel- opments in motion pictures by reading CLOSE UP An International Monthly Magazine Published in Europe — approaching films from the angles of art, experi- ment and development — not highbrow, but progressive — reporting the major achievements — a searchhght on new film-forms — distinguished thinkers and writers as contributors — Havelock ElHs, Andre Gide, Arnold Bennett, etc. — news of all countries with correspondents in Paris, London, Berlin, Moscow, Rome, Hollywood, etc. Annual Subscription $3.50 Single Copies 35c Vol. 1 July - December 1927 — $5.00 bound Send Subscriptions to: AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES: FILM ARTS GUILD SYMON GOULD, Director 500 Fifth Avenue, Dept. 100, New York Hollywood Representative: MARTIN SACKIN 6206 Temple Hill Drive, Hollywood Phone GRanite 1702 'March 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen JEAN HERSHOLT The Roaming Star 1 »" They say that We Americans, written by AL COHN is a mighty fine picture. Out at Brentwood the other day I did a par four hole in two. CHARLES LOGUE FREE LANCE WRITER AT FIRST NATIONAL GLADSTONE 4809 TITLES by DWINELLE BENTHALL and RUFUS McCOSH 228 Markham Bldg. Hollywood PAUL SCHOFIELD ORIGINALS AND ADAPTATIONS Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. O. Christensen, Associates JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT PAUL KOHNER Production Supervisor for Universal "THE MAN WHO LAUGHS" — a Paul Leni Production, Starring Mary Philbin-Conrad Veidt. Charles Kenyon FREELANCING I^i Preparation Recently Completed ^ A GIRL ON A BARGE ,^ For Universal Show Boat FOREIGN LEGION DEMMY LAM SON 1 SYMPHONY MANAGEMENT Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR March 17, 1928 SKYSCRAPER PRODUCED BY Ralph Block FOR PATHE ^ DE MILLE From the story by DUDLEY MURPHY Adaptation by Screen Play by ELLIOTT CLAWSON TAY GARNETT Directed by HOWARD HIGGINS "Ralph Block hasn't been out at the De Mille Studio very long, but he is beginning to put his impress on production." (From Film Spectator, March 3, 1928.) As Editor-in-Chief for Paramount Famous-Lasky : Quarterback Knockout Riley Stark Love God Gave Me Twenty Cents So's Your Old Man Running Wild Ace of Cads The Show-Oflf Popular Sin The Potters Love's Greatest Mistake Cabaret Paradise for Two Gentleman of Paris Shanghai Bound Serenade (Selection and prepara- tion of material) As Associate Producer for Pathe - De Mille : Skyscraper The Cop (In Production) Man -Made Women (In Production) Let 'Er Go Gallegher Stand and Deliver The Blue Danube Edited by ^VELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Tol. 5 Hollywood, California, March 31, 1928 No. 3 >]iniiiiniiiDuiiniiiiuniinininiiDiiiiininHaminiiiiiiBniiiiHiiiiaiiiiniiiinaniniHiniuiiiinMimnnnnHiniuiiiiiuiiiiiaiiiMininic]HiiiiuiinDiiinniiiiinnn sr- .......■..-----...-------.---■.■■■■■.■■■-■.-.■-■■.-----.---.---..■■-- Industry slights its most important product No excuse for any picture lacking in cleverness We cast our vote for the Brookhart Bill Paramount does well by Abie and his Irish Rose TREE OF LIFE HOT HEELS MAN WHO LAUGHS ALEX THE GREAT LADIES FROM HELL BANTAM COWBOY PARTNERS IN CRIME ABIE'S IRISH ROSE LATEST FROM PARIS CREAM OF THE EARTH SOMETHING ALWAYS HAPPENS And a Number of Others by the Junior Critic ^unmiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiuiiiiiiic]iiuiiiiiiiiiniiuiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuwiiiiiiiiic]iiniiiiiiiiniiiiniiiiiiHMiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiN Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928 Special Contributor Discusses Directorial Trend in Films By JIMMY STARR (NOTE : Mr. Starr is the oft-quoted "Cinematters" of the Los Angeles Record.) Directorial Vitality In Picture Making WITH the inception of a new service issued Saturdays to an average clientele of 6500 exhibitors, Cinematters devoted its first page to The Shepherd of the Hills primarily because the picture represents already proven exhibitor profits, and, secondly, because it marks the entry into the small group of directorial leaders of young Albert Rogell. I have reviewed probably in excess of 2500 motion picture productions in my capacity of motion picture editor, commentator and reviewer for vari- ous media and one fact stands out as the sine qua non of cinematic success. It is that all the "wows" are directorial bullseyes. They reflect a certain direc- torial vitality without which there can be no great entertainment content. George Loane Tucker's The Miracle Man was THE vital expression of that director's career. Underworld proved that while Josef von Sternberg had been labeled "esthetic" — and that word too often is associated with "anemic" — he is a tremendously vital individual who gives ample evi- dence of his dramatic vitality in Underworld and The Last Command. White Gold was a punk story. Nobody could "see" it and they gave it to William K. Howard to keep him and Jetta Goudal busy. The vitality of his direction and the magnificence of Goudal's performance created a picture of enduring value. So with many other pictures representative of that quality which, in a director, is his "everything". In The Shepherd of the Hills Albert Rogell came through with a directorial performance that had — to use that expressive four-letter-word — "guts." This expression may be somewhat gross for BIr. Beaton's literary publication, but I note by his own review that he seems to agree with me. * * * Director "Touches" Overdone Affectation TIERE is a devil of a lot of mush being written about "directorial touches." Said "touches usually represent stippling where the true art- ist would have given us vigorous, broad strokes of the brush. The truth about all the hooey written anent "the new technic" is that while the Germans know how to combine vigor with delicacy, the Amer- ican director ofttimes becomes almost offensively picayunish, even effeminate, in his over-reaching for effects", the import of which he rarely knows and less often achieves. True, our newer generation of megaphone mentors, to which Rogell belongs, is working steadily and surely toward a more thorough appreciation of the craft. So swiftly indeed, that to-day we can present our Borzage, our Cummings, our Von Stroheim and Von Sternberg (exclusively products of the American cinema) in open competi- tion with the cream of Europe's creative artists. Rogell has joined that very meagre group which knows, as well as feels, drama, and fully realizes how to apply such knowledge and feeling to the pictures it produces. Just as we find to-day the leadership of motion pictures entrusted to the hands of youth, so too do we discover our most discerning motion picture critics to be comparatively young men with a keen vision of the motion picture's future, and with a keen appreciation of its robust qualities. You will find, for instance, that seventeen-year-old Donald Beaton's reactions to pictures are forthright, and clearly responsive to the vital cinematic exposi- tion of which I am an ardent booster. Marquis Busby, of the Los Angeles Times, probably one of the cleverest movie reviewers in the country, lauded The Shepherd of the Hills, for example, principally on the score of the director's faithfulness to the author's intent, and a sincerity of directorial ex- pression that resulted in extraordinary entertainment effectiveness. * * * Producers Must Evaluate Enthusiasm PRODUCERS to-day do not regard with sufficient importance the enthusiasm of youth in relation to the pictures with which it is creatively asso- ciated. Enthusiasm is a quality which only the emo- tional possess, and motion pictures are fundamentally an emotional expression. I commend highly the ex- periments of the F. B. O. company and Fox, which have elevated assistant directors to directorial oppor- tunities, balancing lack of experience with tremen- dous enthusiasm. It is true that the judgment of officials responsible for selections has not always been of the best, but the principle is undeniably sound. When Jesse Lasky turned Bill Howard loose on The Thundering Herd, he anticipated simply a program western. Bill's enthusiasm made of this picture one of the outstanding works of its type in film history. Watterson Rothacker, Al Rockett and Charles R. Rogers have a similar experience to their credit in the assignment of Al Rogell to make The Shepherd of the Hills... Nothing can stop the enthu- siasm of these youths, whose background and talents fit them so admirably for the battle of the motion picture toward its place in the sun of art. — Advt. I March 31. 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California HEmpstead 2801 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that zvrestles with us strengthens our nei-ves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, MARCH 31, 1928 Looking: Down Upon Their Biggest Asset THE other day I asked the head of one of the biggest producing organizations if he had any pictures that he could show me. "Only a couple of program pic- tures," he replied. "You wouldn't want to waste your time on them. Before the end of the month I'll be able to show you two specials." This man's organization turns out five program pictures for every special it attempts, and ten for every special it really gets. The program pictures are the backbone of the business. Without them the company could not continue in operation. Yet the head of the organization tells me that it would be a waste of my time to go into a projection room to view one of these pictures. "Only a program picture" is doing for the whole screen industry what "only a Western" did for what to-day should be the most profitable line of pictures that Holly- wood could turn out. The average picture is damned in every studio before the director gets the script. He starts oflf with the knowledge that everyone on the lot expects him to make a rotten picture; he is tied down as to shoot- ing schedule and must keep within an unstretchable cost budget. These restrictions are placed on him despite the fact that he is handed a half-baked script, which makes it necessary for him to build up the story as he goes along and which must make both cost and shooting sched- ule unknown quantities. There is only one course open to him and he adopts it: he shoots the necessary footage, over which people in the cutting-room pray and grnash teeth and suffer horrible anguish until they give to the screens of their country a cinema that bears upon its face evidence of the pain that attended its birth. The special pictvires, the big fellows that my producer friend thought would not be a waste of my time to view, have all the money and all the time that are necessary. Their directors have a chance. And they are not the pictures that The Spectator is interested in chiefly. In my personal capacity I prefer to view the big films, but as editor of The Spec- tator I foUow the progress of the program picture with more interest, for I realize that it is of much greater im- portance to the industry. One of the greatest of the many Page Three great follies that the producers commit is to determine in advance what pictures are going to be great and what are going to be "only program pictures." The only way to go about the business is to make every picture as good as it could be made, and those that rise to the top automatic- ally will become the specials. This will give all the direc- tors and producing units an even break. A given picture would require just so much in the way of time and money, and it should have just that much of both — ^no more and no less. And neither time nor cost should be guessed at until the script had been completed down to the last detail. Under the present system it is decided to shoot The Pas- sionate Pink Garter at a cost of eighty thousand dollars, and the only thing to go on when the estimate is made la a title, not a story or a cast or anything else that could convey to anyone the slightest idea what the completed picture would cost. Perhaps when the story is written it could be made into a good picture at a cost of one hun- dred thousand dollars, but it already is cursed with the limit of eighty thousand and being "only a program pic- ture" it must carry the curse through life. No manufac- turing business on earth can prosper permanently if it holds in small respect anything it offers for sale to the public. How far would a tailor get if he said, "Oh, it's only a buttonhole"? The world judges the screen not by the specials, but by the program pictures which are the chief support of the industry. Yet it is almost beneath HELP! HELP!! By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN "What are pictures made of?" the little boy asked; And I sate me down to tell him, little recking of the task It were to classify the elements that appear upon the screen — The jumbled, multifarious, Movie-mannered, theme-extraneous, Conglomerate, heterogeneous, Witches' brew of elements — (If you gather what I mean.) There's a lot of female pulchritude; There's virile he-man stuff, The dregs of human vintage. Old Nature in the rough, Sophisticated action. And passion, love and sex To cater to the whimsies Of the public, multiplex. There's the thought that half the people are a bunch of poor morons, And the other half are damfools — ^the simplest species known — Acquiescent to suggestion — that is to say — I mean Who'll fall for the insidious, Salacious and libidinous, The vulgar, trite and hideous Conceptions of the barons who control the silver screen. So they mix a lot of ego With their miles of costly film; And extraneous conceptions, To display a shapely limb; And comedy relief! — It's dragged in by the neck, For the simple-minded public Must have its fun — by heck! "Yes — but what are pictures made of?" the little boy asked. (That's why I'm in the bug-house — Avast there, mate! — you tell him.) Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. the dignity of our big production barons to reveal that they know there is such a thing as a program picture. * * * There Never Is an Excuse for Total Lack of Cleverness ALMOST any of the trifling and non-entertaining pro- gram pictures that the big studios turn out could be made into first-class screen fare if they received an application of care and intelligence prior to and during the course of their making. You practically never see a picture that has no story value whatever, and just as rarely do you see one that looks as if it had been made by people who had developed picture minds. I suppose that on the Metro lot a Dane-Arthur film is "only a pro- gram picture" — and as such must get along as well as it can under the restrictions that are placed upon the mem- bers of its class. As a result of this system we are given Baby Mine, a puerile and childish attempt at comedy that is a disgrace to the organization that produces it. From the same lot we get other program pictures — such as the Bill Haines series — which prove how badly Irving Thal- berg needed a holiday. If he had taken the rest of the production staff with him to Europe and left the making of pictures to the brilliant picture people on the pay-roll, the M.-G.-M. bankers would not have so much to complain about. The Metro output has settled down to a succes- sion of offerings that are just more movies and which lack that touch of cleverness that motion pictures should have. There is not much basic difference between a limousine and a truck. The former gets its beautiful lines, its vibrant look and its luxurious qualities; and the latter its stolid and stupid appearance, while they are being finished, and after they have passed the point that is com- mon to them. Up to a certain stage in its manufacture a truck could just as easily be a limousine, and vice versa. All motion pictures start off to be limousines and most of them become trucks— used trucks, at that, which rattle and cough, and emit odors. They are "only program pic- tures" which must carry the bulk of the load of misman- agement from which the industry suffers. The fact that only a diet of brains will make them strong enough to carry the load is something that producers do not seem able to get into their heads. We have an art that should be sparkling, bright, vivacious, entertaining, and it nearly always is dull, stupid, repetitious, and uninteresting. And it is not because we lack the brains that could give it the qualities it should have; it is because those brains are controlled by people whose mentalities can not reach beyond the qualities it gets. Ever since Paramount began to put out the Beery-Hatton fearful farces I contended that it was poor business to make them so totally lacking in cleverness. In reply to this, the pictures' grosses were pulled on me. They made money, and the screen can commit no crime that a dollar in the box-office will not wipe out. It is poor reasoning. There may be an im- mediate market for shoddy goods, but no permanent busi- ness can be built on them. The Beery-Hatton pictures were atrocious things and by no possibility could they con- tinue indefinitely to make money. This thought, however, would not worry Paramount. Great harm is done the screen by the failure of those who control it to realize that it has a future. The only permanent thing about it is itself, for all its assets are material things, and although it is an art it has no intangible assets of an artistic nature. If ordinary picture intelligence had been behind the Beery- Hatton pictures Paramount would have in these two artists to-day an asset as fixed as a stage, or any other tangible property. Every time I reviewed one of this team's pic- tures I argued that it would take no more time and no more money to make the films clever enough to appeal to intelligent people without making them so highbrow that they would be over the heads of those who were making the existing ones profitable. There is no question about the abilities of Beery and Hatton and I contended that they could give us some sparkling comedies if they had decent stories and intelligent direction. Along comes Frank Strayer with Partners in Crime and proves that there was some sense in what I said. * * * Here's a Beery-Hatton Picture That's Going to Knock 'Em Dead THE greatest handicap under which the latest Beery- Hatton picture will suffer is that it is a Beery- Hatton picture. I started out to see a preview of a picture called Partners in Crime and when I discovered who were in it I wanted to turn back. But I felt that I must even suffer for the readers of The Spectator, and I resolved to see the thing through. The opening sequence intrigued me. I found drama in it. The first hundred feet of the first reel commanded my interest, and it never wavered until the final fadeout merged into "The End". I laughed so heartily that it hurt, and time after time had to stop laughing long enough to wipe away the tears that were blinding my view of the screen. I would char- acterize Partners in Crime as practically a perfect comedy. There are ridiculous things in it that are made plausible by their treatment, and which stir the risibilities of the \'iewer so much that he doesn't care a hang whether or not they're logical. It is an ideal comedy because it has a story that is coherent and interesting, and because the comedy comes naturally into it while the story is being told. For the first time since I've seen them together, I find a Beery and a Hatton who could be at large in society without attracting the attention of alienists. Beery plays a boob, but he is the kind of boob that one knows, and it is not at all overdrawn. Hatton is a fresh and nosey reporter, and every newspaper man knows one or a dozen just like him. There is not a scene in the entire seven reels that could not happen, and at no point is there any evidence of straining to register a point; there are no gags and no interpolated comedy, yet if it does not create a roar of laughter that will encircle the globe I will acknowledge that I have no sense of comedy and will advise producers to pay no attention to what I write about them. It is a picture that Hollywood should study when it reaches the community houses. It conforms to my opinion of what a comedy should be. Apparently its sole mission is to tell a story of the underworld. For almost an entire reel there is not a suggestion that there is going to be a laugh in it. As the story unwinds Beery comes into it, naturally and unobtrusively, and without being labeled as something that you should watch if you want to laugh. After a while the story picks up Hatton in the same way, and then it proceeds to carry the two of them through to the end without once forgetting that it is a story. Because the amusing scenes are part of the story March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five they do not allow us to lose our interest in the narrative while we laugh; and they derive their comedy value from the fact that they are parts of the story. I always have maintained that this kind of comedy was the easiest kind to write, yet the studios go ahead bursting blood vessels in their frantic efforts to think up new gags. Given a story funny in itself and the gags will take care of them- selves, as Partners in Crime proves so conclusively. Frank Strayer directs it with rare intelligence. The greatest feature of his direction is the casual manner in which he brings in the extremely funny scenes. Instead of losing most of their humor by being dragged in by the scruff of the neck, as they are in most comedies, they have the appearance of being inserted because they could not be avoided, which adds immensely to their humor. You get the impression that Strayer was attempting to tell a serious story, and along came a couple of roughnecks, who mess it up without retarding it. That is real comedy. Because both Beery and Hatton have something to do, they give excellent performances, quite the best they have given since they have been associated. William Powell again proves what an excellent actor he is, and Arthur Houseman also contributes a meritorious performance. The love interest is carried by Mary Brian, whom I always find pleasing, and Jack Ludens, an upstanding hero who is entirely satisfying. No picture ever had a set of better titles. They are not wisecracking, but are full of rich humor that will provoke roars of laughter. Partners in Crime is a great comedy. * * « Casting Our Vote for the Brookhart BiU CC. PETTIJOHN, chief counsel for the Hays or- ganization, has been my only source of informa- tion regarding the merits of the Brookhart bill to put a stop to block-booking. I have read all his argu- ments in opposition to it, and those of no one else in sup- port of it, and have satisfied myself that the bill should pass. Block-booking is economically unsound, and as practiced by the motion picture industry is ethically un- sound. I am assuming that Pettijohn, the paid protester, has assembled all the protests that can be made, but his arguments could not impress an open mind. He touches only the surface of the question, and contradicts himself freely even when dealing with it. He invites the public to devise a better selling system and present it to his or- ganization. The argument of a burglar that he can think of no easier way to make money may be sound enough as an argument, but scarcely will be accepted as an excuse for burglary. If the motion picture business had been run intelligently, block-booking would have ceased long ago. Joseph Schenck sends a telegram to Washington protest- ing against the Brookhart bill, yet he is head of an or- ganization that will have nothing to do with the evil which the bill aims to correct. United Artists sells its pictures under the plan which Brookhart wishes to force on the entire industry, and it sells them in that way because Schenck, its president, knows that block-booking is not good business. He does not want it prohibited by law, for the more unhealthy practices his competitors indulge in, the sooner they will go broke and allow Joe to pick up their pieces and make of them things that will fit into the structure he is raising. Block-booking is economically unsound because it forces people to buy things that they do not want. Upon such a policy no business can be built in a way that will make it permanent. It is not the duty of the public to devise a better plan and present it to the industry, but unless the industry itself can evolve a sys- tem free of the fundamental faults of the present one, it is the duty of Congress to step in and force it to. On one page of a booklet which he prepared, Pettijohn says that selling pictures is unlike selling anything else, and that ordinary rules can not be applied to it; and on the very next page he says that there is no fundamental dif- ference between the picture business and any other. His second-page assertion is the correct one. No business ever prospered on a policy of charging customers more for an article than it was worth. At some time in its career every other industry tried to take unfair advantage of its customers and none of them found it to be good business. It was found that prosperity came only from contented customers. Ethics did not bring honesty into business. Plain, ordinary, common sense made business respectable. The motion picture industry is the only large one which does not recognize the elemental fact that honesty is the best policy. K it could realize that fact it would become respectable, and the first step of its reformation would be the abolition of block-booking and the substitution of an honest selling system. It would be a system whereby the customer would pay for an article only what it was worth. Surely it would not be difficult to devise such a system. If the industry itself can not think of it, the nearest cor- ner grocer could enlighten it. But like all things that are dishonest at heart, the motion picture business will not reform itself, unless it be forced to. Take from it the instrument which it wields unethically, and it will be com- pelled to find another that it can use ethically. If the Brookhart bill passes, the Podunk exhibitor will not go out of business, as Pettijohn so somberly predicts. Noth- ing that Congress or the motion picture industry can do will make it impossible for the people of Podunk to enjoy screen entertainment. The passage of the bill would dis- turb the industry, of course, but all great reforms started with disturbances. • * * "Abie's Irish Rose" Blooms Gloriously on the Screen ABIE'S Irish Rose in its screen form is a cinematic symphony that will be played on the heart strings of the world. From one of the worst plays ever written has come one of the best motion pictures ever made. It is noted for the humanness of its appeal, for its superb direction, and for Jean Hersholt's magnificent per- formance. It serves also to introduce to us a splendid little actress in the person of Nancy Carroll. It is full of both laughs and sobs, in many places the one riding so hard on the heels of the other that the tears become con- fused. When the picture reaches New York the film critics are going to speak harshly of it, and they will try, by making light of the sentimental scenes, to prove that they are big, strong men, who eat nails. But the New York people will like it, and it will run for a long time on Broadway. And throughout the rest of the world people will flock to see it, for it is a clean picture that decent people will like. If you wish to argue that the story is so ridiculous that it should not hold the interest of an Page Six intelligent person, I will agree with you, and then con- fess that almost always during the running of the eleven reels I was either crying or laughing, and a picture that can make me do that is good even if it is bad. But not even the most hairy-chested, he-man slayer of screen repu- tations that a New York paper employs can say that Abie's Irish Rose is not a good motion picture. More than any other picture I have seen it emphasizes what an extraordinary art that of the screen is. Anne Nichols' play is a silly thing, and the screen story written from it con- tains all the silliness of the original, but by great direction and superb acting the silliness becomes plausible and the picture emerges as a human document that will stir the emotions of the world. As you watch the picture your reason tells you that fathers would not treat their children as the fathers on the screen do, but your emotions respond to the treatment, and when the emotions go on shift, it is a matter of small importance what reason has to say about it. From a purely motion picture standpoint Abie's Irish Rose will appeal to the most intelligent. The first impression of Victor Fleming's direction that one gets is that it is conventional and unimaginative, but as the reels unwind the consciousness grows that a weak story is being told so well that it is interesting, points are being scored without apparent effort, and there is not a dull moment. While Fleming had one of the most competent casts ever assembled for a picture, no great performances could have been given if great direction had been absent. The domi- nant note in the director's handling of his people is dignity. While the picture deals solely with types, there is not a caricature in it, and to Fleming goes the credit for sup- pressing any threatened outbreak of over-acting. He uses too many close-ups, weakening the effect of some scenes that would have been better without them. But he has not sinned greatly in this regard, utilizing Both medium and long shots to good advantage in many places. The lighting is the worst feature of the production. In no scene is the source of origin of the light planted, and in none can I remember having seen a shadow. A richer quality would have been obtained by a more thoughtful use of lights. THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. attention to them, an amazingly crass bit of direction in a| picture so well done in all other respects. Jean Hersholt has dignified screen art by his many great contributions ^ to it, but nothing that he has done previously strikes a I higher artistic note than his characterization of Solomon I Levy. He is magnificent. There is nothing extravagant in I his conception of a Jew, and he resorts to none of the hand-wavings that have grown to be the hall-mark of such characterizations. It is a part of mixed emotions, and in every phase of it Hersholt is superb, further strength- ening his position as our greatest screen actor. Nancy Carroll is here to stay. In this picture she gives the screen one of the finest performances ever contributed to it by a beautiful girl. She has mastered her mechanics until they are not apparent, and she reveals both depth and understanding. Charles Rogers is again the delight- ful boy. Superficially his work is perfect, but in some scenes, such as that in which the girl returns the ring, he does not realize all the emotional possibilities. He should endeavor to cultivate an ability to get farther under the surface of his characterizations. Camillus Pretal, as the rabbi, and Nick Cogley, as the priest, are perfect in their parts. Each combines spirituality with human un- derstanding. Bernard Gorcey is a comedian whom the screen should capture and hold fast. His Jewish charac- terization is a treat. Farrel McDonald gives in this picture the finest performance to his credit and is re- sponsible for many laughs. Ida Kramer and Rosa Rosa- nova make big contributions to the wealth of good acting, and Laon Ramon, who plays Abie as a boy, proves him- self an excellent little trouper. It is seldom that we see in one picture so many flawless performances as this one contains. Jules Furthman has to his credit as writer of the screen story the feat of taking poor material and making from it a most intelligent piece of screen litera- ture. There is hokum in Abie's Irish Rose, and it is great and glorious hokum, which is, and always will be, the best kind of screen material. Ben Schulberg has reason to be proud of his belated contribution to the Irish-Jew epoch in screen history. Also he is to be congratulated upon heading a staff that could produce it. Superb Performances Feature of Production THERE are many fine touches in Abie's Irish Rose despite the matter-of-factness of the direction. How- ever one might limit himself in making a list of great moments on the screen, he could not exclude one sequence that this picture contains. Nancy Carroll re- fuses to marry Buddy Rogers because she is Irish and he is a Jew. A little later they stand in front of a church door and see emerging from it a blind oflficer and his bride, who pass beneath a bridge of crossed swords as they descend the steps. Nancy's eyes fill with tears, and extracting the engagement ring from the pocket where Rogers placed it when she returned it to him, she places it on her finger, and smiles through her tears at the handsome boy. It is a beautiful sequence, tender in conception and extraordi- narily effective in its presentation. While the spell of it still holds the audience there is injected the only jarring note the picture strikes. Nancy and Rogers embrace on the street in full view of hundreds of people who pay no Hanging Crepe on an Already Gloomy Story WHEN I saw The Man Who Laughs it was in twelve reels, which, I believe, was the length in which Universal intended to release it. However, I can not believe that such a folly will be committed. As I saw it, it was the most tiresome film I ever gazed upon — a dull monotone, a long parade of scenes which meant noth- ing, a gruesome story that failed to interest me. I do not blame Paul Leni, the director, for this as much as I do the people responsible for the editing and titling. You can judge all the cutting from the manner in which two sequences were handled. A letter is inserted to estab- lish the fact that Conrad Veidt has been identified as Lord Clancharlie and that his father's estates will be restored to him. A sequence or two later the scene of his identifica- tion is shown. In another sequence the picture goes to boresome lengths to work up enthusiasm for Veidt's ap- pearance before an audience. After these scenes have paraded before you until you are furious at them, you are March 31, 1928 THE FILM taken into Veidt's dressing-room and you see him begin- ning leisurely to put on his make-up. Both these sequences should have been reversed, as they surely will be before : the picture is released. Ordinarily when I see in preview : a picture that obviously will have to be recut I do not i review it, as it would be unfair to comment on it except : in its completed form. I do not present these remarks, : therefore, as a review of The Man Who Laughs unless it ; be released as I saw it; I present them for what interest ;; they may have as applying to pictures in general. That, . by the way, is the idea behind any review you read in The Spectator; I take the picture I am reviewing as a ; text upon which to hang a discourse that I hope will • have general application. The Man Who Laughs is not good screen material, however presented. It is wrong . fundamentally, for it asks us to become interested in the love between a deformed man and a blind girl, something for which it is easy to arouse our pity, but in which it is . difficult to make us take the same interest as we do in the love affairs of normal people. As a picture entertains us only to the extent that we take an interest in the leading characters, we can not derive much entertainment from one whose characters make an impression on us only be- cause they are not like other people. We can become interested in Lon Chaney whether he plays the part of a crocodile or a dough-nut, but even he could not interest us in a love affair between a crocodile and a dough-nut. But accepting the story, even though it should not have been produced, we find that it is treated in a manner that accentuates its own drawbacks as screen material instead of glossing them over. It is a sombre tale to begin with, and it is treated in a sombre manner — dull, heavy, Ger- manic. Its tempo is funereal. There is enough in what I saw to make a fairly interesting picture about eight reels in length. The additional four reels were inserted seemingly to make it as long as possible between happen- ings in the other eight. Totally wasted efforts were made to make us feel bad about things that contained nothing to make us feel bad. Mary Philbin and Veidt are brought up together. On one occasion Mary fails to find him in his bed at midnight. Leni or the scenario writer makes a tragedy of it. Mary wanders all over the circus lot, and the sequence ends with a perfectly ridiculous and exceed- ing long close-up of Mary doing her very best to portray an emotion which she could not have felt and which she could not make the audience feel. Acting and photog- raphy do not make scenes. The only convincing thing on a screen is a thought, and the only convincing scene is one which contains a thought that the audience is going to believe in. The best scene then becomes the one in which the plausible thought is handled best. * * * Conrad Veidt Has Little Chance to Do Good Work ONE thing that The Man Who Laughs emphasizes is the important part the camera plays in establishing the mood of a scene. The picture is tiresome largely because the camera reveals but one mood. I can remem- ber only two or three bright daylight scenes in the whole twelve reels. All the others were dull, drab, draping the film under a gloomy pall. There may have been beauty in them, but I was impressed only with their monotony. I suppose Leni made some long shots which could have SPECTATOR Page Seven given us a comprehensive idea of his sets, but whoever edited the picture ignored these shots and gave us an unending procession of deep medium shots that simply were messes. Leni has a habit of shooting anywhere into a crowd, and filling the screen with an intimate view of a section of it, which, precisely as is the case with every other scene in a picture, is all right if we are interested in the crowd and what it is doing, and if we are not given so many such shots that we grow tired of them. Getting back to what I said in the previous paragraph — ^we are interested only in the thought that actuates a crowd and not at all in what the camera gets when it bites it, if the thought has not been planted, or if the thought be one that does not appeal to our sense of plausibility. Leni's direction conveys the impression that he thought the audi- ence would follow the camera blindly and believe every- thing it picked up; that it would accept the labels he hung on scenes and weep when he told it to weep. When he made The Cat and Canary Leni gave us a picture that would be entertaining anywhere; in The Man Who Laughs he gives us one that may do well abroad, but which, by no amount of re-editing, can be made one that will score any marked success in this country. It merely is the kind of foreign picture that American audiences have refused to accept. The fact that it was not made in Europe does not in itself make it any more interesting. If we are going to show such pictures here, we should be on the square about it and buy them from their German makers. But we are not going to show them because they are not the kind of pictures that we want. There is not a smile in the twelve reels of this Leni picture, yet the characters laugh uproariously pretty much all the way through it. Veidt is supposed to be a clown who provokes his audi- ences to exhibitions of great mirth, and we see him in the act of making them laugh. To make such scenes convinc- ing we would have to see in them the same humor that his audiences see, but we do not. He is an object to provoke our sympathy, but not our laughter, which makes the laughter in the picture unreal and in poor taste. This is particularly true of a scene showing the members of the House of Lords laughing derisively at the poor, deformed creature. We have seen enough of Veidt's work to know that he is a great actor, but in this picture he does noth- ing that an inexperienced extra could not do as well. His features are fixed in a horrible grin, and it is the flexi- bility of a screen actor's facial expression that gives him freedom to display his art. Olga Baclanova, a capable Russian actress, who comes from nowhere into the story, plays a particularly vulgar part. Leni undresses her solely to show us an undressed woman, something inexcusable in any picture, and particularly inexcusable in one that started out to be a dignified drama. Her appearance in The Man Who Laughs will add nothing to Mary Philbin's reputation. In such an unreal picture both her happiness and her sadness are unconvincing. I am sorry, for as I write her picture looks down upon me from my library WINGS Legion of the Condemned Lieut* E. H. Robinson MOTION PICTURE AERONAUTICS WHitney 4617 Page Eight wall, and it bears the inscription, "To my dear Uncle Beaton." The best performance is that of Cesare Gra- vina, who is intelligently human throughout. There are many bits well done by the members of a very long cast. * * * Picture That Eats Up Carl Laemmle's Money rr-HE Man Who Laughs is an eloquent argument in THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. 1 ^ favor of the perfect script. I do not know how much the picture cost, but I am satisfied that for every additional dollar that Carl Laemmle might have spent in making his script perfect he would have saved one hundred in production cost. All I know about the picture is what I saw on the screen, and I gathered from it the impression that the twelve reels were cut unwisely from a great many more. When Veidt repudiates his in- heritance and seeks his former associates we see him walk- ing or running through elaborate sets that we did not see before and do not see again. As is the case with all other sequences, showing us the stages of his journey greatly retards the action, which makes it poor art; and building such elaborate sets for so little footage is poor business. If any picture sense had been exercised in this sequence there would have been a quick cut from the beginning of the journey to its end, for already the audience was bored to extinction; and if any business sense had been exer- cised the director would not have been allowed to spend so much money for such trivial results. The story of the film is buried beneath a massive and gloomy production, made more gloomy by the deadly monotony of background, lighting and the scarcity of scenes that are sharp and well defined. Paul Leni is first of all a master of investiture, and then a story-teller, thus reversing the qualities that a director should possess. The screen is a story-telling art, and everything in a picture should be subjugated to the story. The only value of any scene is its story-telling value. If all the time that was necessary had been spent on the script of The Man Who Laughs to make the plain thread of the story the most vivid feature of the produc- tion, the impossibility of most of its labored embellishment would have become apparent before a dollar was spent on sets. In an opening sequence we see King James in bed in a sombre room heavy with statuary and other furnish- ings that cost money to assemble on a set. All the screen gets for all the money is a view of the king rising and leaving the room. There is no story value in it, or any- thing else to excuse it. The scene that succeeds it is not affected by the fact that the king is fresh from bed. If the minds of the people who made the picture had been kept on the story and away from scenic effects, the money spent on the bedroom set and shooting it would have been saved, for the script would have revealed that the scene was superfluous. The same thing applies to dozens of other scenes in this picture. No matter how much a scene costs it has a place in a picture when it contributes to the atmosphere and assists in advancing the story. But it is a truism that a picture is harmed when it includes anything that does not help it. I can think of no neutral quality that a picture possesses. Here we have one already at least four reels too long and it is filled vidth scenes which resemble one another with exasperating monotony, which contribute nothing to the story and which cost a lot of money — and all undoubtedly because the studio believes that there is no such thing as a perfect script. If Uni- versal can not understand that it is a wanton waste of money to erect a set to show a man getting out of bed, and that such a scene being unnecessary, helps to make the picture a poorer one, it should employ people who do understand such elemental things or cease trying to make pictures. Such cessation ■will come about automatically if it makes many more like The Man Who Laughs, which can not bring back all the money wasted on it, no matter how it is recut and otherwise juggled. Even the wealthiest of the producing organizations can not continue forever to make pictures that lose money. Carl Laemmle can charge up the present loss to his mistaken notion that a perfect script is not possible. • « * Assuming That It Is the Best That Metro Can Do THE resources of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer organiza- tion are sufficient to command the best picture brains in the country. There is no excuse for it turning out even an unimportant picture that lacks the qualities of brilliance and cleverness. Louis B. Mayer has been left alone to surround himself with the best production staff that money could buy; he has been in the saddle some years, at least quite long enough to be turning out pic- tures that we have a right to consider as samples of the best that we can expect from him. Let us take one of his recent pictures apart and see what it is made of. We will select The Latest From Paris, starring Norma Shearer, and directed by Sam Wood. Norma is as well equipped to carry her part in a picture as are any of the other beautiful stars who can't act. She has a pleasing screen personality, looks like a thoroughbred, which most of the others don't; has ability of a sort, and knows how to wear clothes. Sam Wood is one of the best of our purely con- ventional directors, those in whose hands screen traditions are sacred and safe. He never will give us a great picture, but he never will give us a poor one if he has a script with anything in it. Metro assembled a capable cast for the picture. George Sidney is one of the few really great screen comedians, and Tenen Holtz is a character actor whom Metro consistently has neglected since it put him on its pay-roll. Ralph Forbes makes a satisfactory lead- ing man. There is a good idea in the story, one that must have been worked out consistently in the original. With all the brains in the world at its command, we have a right to regard this picture as a sample of the best work that the Metro studio can turn out. On that lot the supervisor curse has reached its most virulent form. On every point raised in a story conference writers with brains have to yield to supervisors without any. The Latest From Paris is a product of the supervisor system. If that system had developed on the Metro lot to the point of efficiency that would justify its existence, this picture would be a bright and sparkling comedy that would have enjoyed long runs all over the country. But it is a stupid picture that gets by solely because Metro can put it into houses which it controls and because by the block- booking system it forces exhibitors who want the Gilberts and Chaneys to buy also the Shearers and other pictures which they do not want. It is no less intelligent than the other pictures that come from the same lot, and may be taken as a true reflection of the picture mentality of the March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine organization. It is a stupid picture because it has no nat- ural situations in it. It is all movie, and there is not one foot of it that even hints at that brilliance and cleverness that we had a right to expect from such a big organiza- tion. Norma and Forbes are spending Christmas Eve in a country hotel. They leave it and stroll about the streets. A snow storm is in progress, and we have a right to ■ assume that it is cold, yet our two lovers wear no over- ! coats, hats or gloves. Norma wears slippers and silk ! stockings, and no wrap of any sort. Everyone in the world with enough brains to know the way to a picture house knows that such a scene is impossible, yet Mayer's production department puts it on the screen and gravely asks us to accept it as a brilliant piece of picture work. It is so unintelligent that it is bewildering. I do not understand how people can sit in projection-rooms and view such scenes without realizing how they will be re- garded when they reach the public. It so happens that the sequence was well done, and contained a rather de- lightful love scene, but it was robbed of all its attractive- ness by the blundering stupidity of its treatment. It seems impossible that the supervisor would not have appreciated that the sequence would have been improved greatly if both characters had been bundled in furs. I don't think we've had that kind of love scene — and as it would have made the characters look comfortable, the audience would have felt comfortable while looking at them. * * * Decidedly Absurd Scenes in "The Latest From Paris" LET us go a little farther into The Latest From Paris, not because the picture is worth more space as a work of cinematic art, but because it is interesting now and then to take one apart and see what it is made of. In leading up to the absurd love scene dealt with in the previous paragraph, Ralph Forbes is shown to be a rude, vulgar, wisecracking lowbrow, whom such a person as Norma Shearer by no possibility could love. He is the kind of lover that Bill Haines always is directed to be, one who lacks everything that we have a right to look for in a hero. Forbes is playing poker on a train, obviously bound for somewhere. His money is in front of him, and his hand is satisfactory, being an ace-full. He sees Norma in a train on another track. He leaves money, cards, hat, baggage and train; rushes across the tracks, into Norma's car, insults her until Sam Wood tells her to smile as an evidence of her love for him, and travels with her appar- ently all day. It is something that only an idiot would do and something that only another idiot would accept as an evidence of intelligent affection, yet it is presented to us in this picture as a sample of the very best work that Metro can turn out. The train sequence precedes the love scene. The love story has proceeded too smoothly, and for the sake of the story there must be an interruption in it, consequently Norma and Ralph stand in the snow and indulge in a quarrel just as crazy as the rest of the sequence. There is no reason for it whatever, the script calling on Forbes to take a stand that no one in his right mind would have thought of. It is just one of the pvirely manufactured situations of which the whole picture is made. Metro apparently thought it desirable to have sus- pense at the end of the film, suspense being worn by all the best pictures this season. If you have not seen the picture you will have a hard time believing me when I tell you how the brilliant picture people on the Metro lot achieved their suspense. There is another girl in the picture who loves Forbes. She says to him, "Don't be shy. If you asked me to marry you, I'd say yes." "That's very sweet of you," replies Forbes. The girl accepts that as a proposal, announces herself as engaged to Forbes, and arranges an immediate wedding. Our noble hero, in love with Norma, finds himself trapped and at slow tempo prepares for his wedding to the girl he does not love. If only he could remember the words that he could use to convey to her the fact that he dfd riot propose! But the poor devil can't think of the English words, and knowing no foreign language, he must go through with it! In all my picture viewing I don't recall having seen a situation so absolutely idiotic as this one. If it were thought fit to gain suspense by making it appear as if Forbes were about to marry the wrong girl, it could have been done in any one of a dozen clever ways that any person with ordinary brains could have suggested. An attempt is made in the final reel to develop heart-interest drama, and to make the audience feel sorry for the suffering hero and heroine, but it becomes ludicrous because it is based on a ludicrous premise. With average brains applied to it, the closing sequences could have been bright and clever comedy. As an example of the scores of little crimes the picture commits we may take Norma's action in invading the home of an important customer, taking her sample trunk into his dining-room and displaying her samples before he has had his breakfast. The Latest From Paris is offered to the public as the best that Metro could do with the story. It is a disgraceful exhibition of the depths to which screen art can descend when its course is directed by people who are incompetent themselves and who have the power to overrule the suggestions of the competent people at their command. This Shearer picture could have been a good one, but, as it is, it is enlighten- ing as giving us a true glimpse of the mental capacity of the Metro lot. * * * Something Always Happens When People ReaUy Think OVER on the Paramount lot they seem to have taken a hitch in their mental breeches and to have declared to goodness that they are going to put more down- right cleverness into their pictures. I think the Menjou pictures must have demonstrated that there is a market for subtlety, and that there is money in mental explora- tions that are made intelligently. If I were in the pro- ducing business I would assemble all the things that you really can not do on the screen and make a picture out of them. Paramount seems to have had about the same idea when it made Something Always Happens. Esther Rals- ton is the star. I believe her name is planted in a title, but from the beginning to the end of the picture that is all we learn about her history before the story opens. We are not told whether she has any relatives, or a home; where she came from or where she's headed for. We first see her in an English home, a title telling us that she is engaged to marry the son of the house, Neil Hamilton, thereby saving the picture from having to tell a love story by presenting it with a ready-made one to start with. And the picture ends precisely where it begins, with Esther Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. still engaged to Neil, and without having revealed any- thing that interfered for one moment with the smooth course of the love affair. When the end comes we think that Esther probably is an American, but that is as close as we get to knowing anything about her. And Something Always Happens is one of the most entertaining little pictures that I have seen in a long time. All the things that it does not do are the unimportant things that other pictures do to get length — things responsible for that bored feeling that comes over you so often in picture houses. The conventional film would have shown the development of the love story, and would have used up at least two reels getting Esther and Neil into the English home where the action begins. Any supervisor could show you that you simply can't make a picture without telling your audience all about the characters. If you show an Amer- ican girl in an English home you must show how she got there — and there are a lot of other things that any super- visor can demonstrate to you must be in any successful picture. Far be it from me, of course, to even suggest that a supervisor ever could be wrong, but, strangely enough, as I watched Something Always Happens I never once noticed that it was short-changing me. I liked Esther Ralston and I was interested so much in what was hap- pening to her, and what she was making happen to other people, that it never occurred to me to wonder if she were the daughter of an Oklahoma oil baron or a New York preacher, and whether Hamilton proposed to her on a private yacht or in a bunker. These are items of information that all other pictures provide us with, and which we accept stolidly, as we accept so many other things that we see on the screen. There is no reason for them, but they always are done. There is an extraordinary opening in pictures for people who will do things differ- ently. I do not believe that in the history of the devel- opment of any art was there such an opening for new people to walk in boldly and take front seats as there is to-day in screen art. To capitalize on the mistakes that the present producers have made, and to put most of the present ones out of business, would be ridiculously easy. Not more than half a dozen people who supervise pictures have even the slightest qualifications for their positions. The screen has become monotonous because most of the pictures are made by people who are too weak mentally to recognize a new idea. When we see one, as presented by Something Always Happens, we are both grateful and surprised. * * * Story Built on Sound Principles SOMETHING Always Happens is sound dramatically because it tells us everything about the principal characters that we are interested in at the moment. We do not know whether the girl and boy ultimately marry or terminate their engagement, and we are not aware of there being anything lacking, for we are not interested in the love affair. The picture shows us merely a couple of hours of the lives of the boy and girl, just a brief inci- dent that has no connection with anything that preceded it and which is wound up too completely to have an effect on anything that comes after it, consequently it does not leave our curiosity unsatisfied. Esther Ralston finds the English home deadly dull and longs for something to hap- pen. She and Neil Hamilton leave for London to take a famous family jewel to the bank. On the way they enter logically a deserted house — and Esther gets her wish that something would happen. It is hokum, using the word in the sense that it is used to express anything really enter- taining, but, like all well presented hokum, it is corking good screen stuff and is going to make this picture one of the most popular Esther Ralston films that Paramount has given us. Much footage is used to show Esther wander- ing around the cob-webby rooms, having experiences with mysterious hands that come from behind curtains,"' and strange feet on creaking stairways, until the audience gets all worked up, just as it did when it saw Cat and Canary on the screen. After a period of tremendous excitement of a harrowing sort, Esther learns that the whole thing is a plant of Hamilton's to satisfy her restlessness, and she provides some excellent comedy by continuing the mystifying things in a manner that alarms Hamilton and Charles Sellon and Roscoe Karns, his accomplices. When this phase comes to a satisfactory conclusion, Sojin ar- rives with a gang of cutthroats to steal the gem that is being carried to the bank, and what happens then is real melodrama. These quick transitions in the story are what makes it interesting and clever, although that phase show- ing Esther fooling the others, the middle phase of the story, is not presented with any degree of cleverness. It is impossible farce inserted in a place that cried for really clever comedy. In the final phase there is the best fight I ever saw on the screen. Neil Hamilton and a gentleman with a most unattractive and vicious face have a set-to that is soul-stirring, and which reaches its peak when both of them nearly slide head-first into the fire in a grate. There are only five reels of Something Always Happens, but they are full to the brim with action that thrills, amuses and entertains. Frank Tuttle has given the picture excellent direction on the wftole, and if he had worked out some clever way for Esther to put over her comedy in the second stage of the story, his score would have been one hundred per cent. But as it stands the picture will be a popular one, and I recommend it without reser- vation to my exhibitor readers. To Hollywood it should come as something to view and study. I have seen many five-reel pictures of late, but this is the only one I have seen in five reels. The others were padded to comply with someone's crazy notion that unless it be seven reels it is not a feature. But the chief thing that we will learn from it is the fact that we can become interested in people without having to follow them from the cradle to the grave. Something Always Happens is an intelligently pol- ished screen gem. I do not mean that it is going to break any records or cause any commotion; but it is going to please audiences, and perhaps it is going to show Holly- wood supervisors something about making pictures that they should know. But there is so much that they should know! * * * Motion Pictures Should Realize All Possibilities VIEWED either as an art or as an industry the screen should keep a step ahead of its public. To-day it is lagging behind. Our best pictures are those that do best now what has been done for the past ten years, and they stand out, not solely on account of the qualifications March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR they possess themselves, but because these qualities are emphasized by the fact that the great majority of films, striving for the same results, do not attain them. Our good pictures are good only by comparison with those that are not. You might argue that anything becomes good only by the same method, that everything in life is com- parative, but this argument has strength only to the de- gree in which the creator has used all the means at his /Command to make his creation attain perfection, so that his product will stand comparison with all others which also have exhausted their possibilities. The screen is not taking advantage of its opportunities, and it is failing to give its public complete satisfaction because the public is aware of it. Take a picture like The Ladies From Hell. Personally I liked it very much. It was produced on a lavish and artistic scale, was directed capably by John S. Robertson, contains an excellent performance by Norman Kerry, a delightful one by Lillian Gish, and adequate ones by others of the strong cast. It presents Scotland to us in a romantic and stirring manner, although its titles do their best to detract from its atmosphere. It pleased me, I repeat, but I did not read one favorable criticism of it, nor has it apparently made a distinctively favorable im- pression on the public. Viewed solely from the stand- point of what it is, there is nothing in it that I could criticize unfavorably, consequently I can attribute its fail- ure to make an impression to the fact that the public subconsciously knows what it should have been. Its sins are not those of commission, but of ommission. It is a picture that Metro should have made this year, not last year. The public has known for some time that color photography has been perfected by Technicolor to a degree that makes possible gloriously beautiful reproductions on the screen, and it now knows that sound can be repro- duced in a manner equally satisfactory. As it viewed The Ladies From Hell it probably did not notice the lack of color and sound, but that did not prevent it from being subconsciously disappointed with the picture because it should have contained both. At this stage of the develop- ment of screen art it is ridiculous to show us a scene of marching pipers and deny us the feature that makes the scene stirring: the skirl of the pipes. Last year it might have been all right; this year it is not. Nor is there any excuse for showing us in black and white the tartans of the Scottish Highlanders. If Metro had used all the means at its command to make this picture as perfect as possible it could have given the world a film that would have been a sensational success. It stirs the imagination merely to contemplate what might have been done. Let us suppose that there had been a reproduction of a musi- cal score played by a symphony orchestra and embracing all those famous and beautiful Scottish airs, with the sweet strains of Annie Laurie being predominant; that when the pipers marched onto a scene we heard the soul- stirring wails of their romantic instruments; and let us suppose further that the exquisite coloring of the tartans, the green of the trees, the grey of the castles, and the blue of the sky had been added to the engrossing story and the excellent acting — ^then we would have had a pic- ture that would have enthused the world. The public knows that it could be done, and it was disappointed with the flat monotony of black and white, and mute scenes that should have been given a voice. The Ladies From Page Eleven Hell is a good picture — so good that Metro should do it over again in a year or so and add to it those features that all pictures soon must embrace if screen art is not to con- tinua to lag behind the demands of those who support it. * * * "Hot Heels" and Two Young Fellows QLENN Tryon, young Universal star, and William Haines, young Metro star, play the same kind of roles. Both of them generally are characterized as smart alecs, much given to wise cracks and other de- ficiencies which make pests out of plain people. Tryon is rising rapidly, every picture in which he appears im- proving his position. Haines is slipping. Perhaps this fact has not become apparent at the box-office yet, but if not, it soon will be. I do not base my statement on the records the Haines pictures are making. It is based on common sense. Every time Bill appears in a picture he plays an objectionable ass, a characterization that makes his films unpleasant. You can not derive the full meas- ure of enjoyment from a picture in which you are hoping that someone will sock the hero on the jaw. People simply will not go on buying such pictures, consequently the end of Bill Haines is in sight unless Metro has sense enough to give him pleasant characterizations before he loses all his friends. In the case of Tryon we have a young man whose popularity is increasing because he has a personality that makes you like him even when he is doing the things that annoy you when Haines does them. And Tryon does not carry his antics to the point of downright rudeness, as Haines always is made to do. In his latest picture, not yet released — Hot Heels, it is called — Tryon uses exactly the same tactics to impress Patsy Ruth Miller as Haines uses in West Point to im- press Joan Crawford, and while we can understand how Glenn can win the favor of Pat, we can not believe for a moment that a nice girl like Joan could be attracted to such a low down cad as Bill is made to play. Hot Heels is a delightful little comedy in spite of the fact that it contains perhaps the worst set of titles that I ever read. "When the sun comes up in Squeedunk it is morning," is a sample of the exquisite humor the -^srriter of the titles displays. But as I saw the picture in preview the titles it contained undoubtedly will be replaced by more fitting ones before the film is released. William Craft directed the picture capably and it contains excellent performances by Lloyd Whitlock and others, but its greatest charm is the excellent acting of Patsy Ruth and Tryon. The more I see of Pat the more impressed am I with the fact that she is an excellent little trouper. Glenn is a natural clown. In two scenes he holds the screen for a long time. I can't remember now what he did when he was by himself in these scenes, but I remember that he kept me laughing, which, after all, is as much as we ask of a comedian. But we haven't many comedians who can do nothing for sev- eral hundred feet of film and get away with it. Patsy Ruth and Tryon stage a dance that is done very cleverly. They do it themselves, no doubles being used in the long shots. The dance is supposed to enthuse the hotel guests who witness it, and the scene is convincing because the person viewing the picture can understand readily that the dance would enthuse all those who saw it. Nearly all such scenes fall down in pictures because the star's action, Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. which is supposed to impress someone in the picture, does not impress those viewing the picture. Anything that does not impress a person viewing a picture could not very well impress a person in a picture, elemental facts that picture people seem to overlook. Any exhibitor who gets Hot Heels has nothing to worry about. * * * Quite a Delightful Little College Story JUST when we had a right to believe that college pic- tures had run their course and that we would have to look to other themes to amuse us, along comes Uni- versal with the best one of the lot. The Plastic Age, a title that means something, was done over for the screen as The Cream of the Earth, a title which means nothing, and a mighty fine little picture is the result. Melville Brown made the adaptation and did the directing. He is a good box-office director, and when he outgrows a rever- ence for screen traditions — which means only the applica- tion of some thought to each scene as it comes up — he may give us something worth while. The only things in Cream of the Earth to complain about are little things which in no way lessen the entertainment value of the picture, but they are quite big enough to draw attention to some loose spots in the direction. A popular girl at a dance has four young fellows dancing attendance on her. While she con- verses with them they stand in a line behind her and she tosses her words over her shoulder. Brown apparently is unaware that the old idea of having characters face the camera, even if such grouping raises the question of the director's sanity, is not being adhered to this season by our best people. When a group of men exchange gay re- marks with a girl in a ballroom she does not stand with her back to it. Camera-consciousness in a director is responsible for many ruined scenes. In one place in this picture Buddy Rogers discovers that his girl has turned him down. He registers his great grief by staggering across a hotel lobby to the street, his head down, shoulders slumped, and with his overcoat dragging on the floor. Utterly absurd. The kind of young American he was pre- sented as being would have taken the blow standing up in as far as any physical reaction would reveal his feel- ings, but his face might betray how hard he was hit. I can't imagine any well dressed young man getting into such a jam that he would drag his overcoat across a side- walk. Instinct keeps one from doing a thing like that. When I record that the lighting of the interiors in Cream of the Earth also showed a total lack of applied imagina- tion, I have enumerated all the faults of the picture, and I repeat that it is mighty good entertainment. Every scene is laid in the college, and Brown has preserved ad- mirably the college atmosphere. One of the things I like about the picture is the lack of a villain who generally is present even in college pictures, thereby disturbing the spirit of them by introducing something unpleasant. Every- one loves everyone else in this little picture, the theme of which appears to be the use and abuse of necking, Marian Nixon being the principal neckee, while Charles Rogers comes from nowhere and gradually reveals him- self as the most successful necker in the college, the evi- dence of his success being the fact that he captures such an altogether delightful girl as Marian. I am not an authority on either the technic or the ethics of necking, but I get the impression that this picture treats the ques- tion with authority. This Marian Nixon person is a young woman worth watching. She has the kind of screen per- sonality that will keep her popularity constantly on the upgrade. In Cream of the Earth she gives a delight- ful performance. Buddy Rogers is quite acceptable as a college boy, and Hayden Stevenson, Hugh Trevor and Robert Seiter carry their parts well. Tom Reed wrote some clever titles and they earned many of the laughs with which the large audience greeted the preview of the picture. The only thing about it that did not pre-* serve the college atmosphere was the punctuation of the titles. The system adhered to was the extremely low- brow one that Universal not yet has grown beyond. I can not understand why Carl Laemmle persists so pains- takingly in creating the impression that he does not him- self understand the use of English, and has not sense enough to employ someone who does. * * * Better With Tin Pans Than He Is With People WHEN Dudley Murphy gathered some tin pans, wheels, tools, and drums and made them play parts in his two-reel Ballet Mechanique, he did quite enough to make himself interesting. There is no place in the screen entertainment world for pictures as odd as Murphy's two-reeler, but can the mind that conceived it become practical and turn out something close enough to the earth to be a commercial success? That is the most MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF DANCING Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputation. 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to keep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GR.ANITE 3561 An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to zvear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen interesting thing in connection with the queer geniuses who bob up every now and then. F. B. 0. gave Murphy a feature picture to direct, Alex the Great. Murphy also adapted the story, in his dual capacity, therefore, being entitled to all the praise that can be bestowed on any fea- ture of the production. Unfortunately there is no feature of it that I can praise. Murphy handles his people as he did his tin pans, and makes them act as if they had the same mentalities as the wheels and tools. His initial diffi- culty was that he had no story, whether the fault of the original selection or of his adaptation I do not know. As it reaches the screen it contains the fundamental error of having a sweet, refined and cultured city girl fall in love with a most objectionable, wisecracking boob from the country. Metro commits the same mistake with Bill Haines. We have love interest in all our pictures, and one would think that screen authors would be able by this time to write their love sequences convincingly. If Metro intends to continue to present Haines as the most obnoxious ass on the screen it should cast opposite him a wisecracking, gum-chewing dumbbell. This not only would provide Bill with the only kind of girl who could fall in love with him, but it would provide an opening in his pictures for another comedy characterization. In Alex the Great Murphy presumed to make the girl love the boy because it is so written in the script, and not because that kind of girl would love that kind of boy. Another fault that the young director commits is in his use of close-ups. It is worth commenting on because we see the same thing in so many pictures. Murphy has four people at a table in a restaurant. Albert Conti, one of them, behaves in a manner that would startle the others if they saw him, and they could not avoid seeing him. As for story reasons they must not be aware of Conti's behavior. Murphy shows him in a succession of close-ups, apparently on the theory that as we can see no other character in the scenes with Conti, no other characters can see what he is doing. It is a brand of infantile direc- tion, by no means rare. Directors should remember that when one character in a group is picked out for a close-up he must do nothing in the individual shot that he would not do if he were shown always as one of the group. A common use of this ostrich-like close-up is to show one character making a violent grimace at another, and when we return to the whole group there is no evidence to the effect that the grimace registered with anyone but the one it was aimed at, although all the others in the group must have seen it. When one' character is shown in a close-up it does not remove from the mind of the audience Oxford Oxford 9511 430 No. CanonDrive BeveriyHills ^ext to Morrisons ^Market the consciousness of the proximity of the other characters who have been registered in a medium or long shot. Another fault which Alex the Great commits, and which you find in many pictures, is an aggravation of this close- up one — the fault of having a character make an ass of himself without attracting the attention of a person two feet away from him. Murphy's adaptation and direction seem to be based on the theory that if it's in the script, it's all right. A good thing to remember is that authors and directors can not at will make people deaf, dumb and blind. The screen should present only real people, and real people can see things that are not more than two feet away. % * 4 \ SCREEN story told entirely by hands is an interest- ■^~*- ing novelty which I saw in a projection-room recently. It was produced in Germany by Stella F. Simon, an American woman residing over there, but who was in FRANK STRAYER DIRECTED PARTNERS IN CRIME FOR PARAMOUNT Partners in Crime BY GROVER JONES and GILBERT PRATT SUPERVISION OF B. F. ZEIDMAN . L Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR »-■■■-"-• March 31, 1928. JOHN PETERS I CHARACTERS I Hollywood 6229 GLadstone 5017 I Personal Management i W. O. CHRISTENSEN GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue L,eads Telephone GRanite 5151 WELFORD BEATON remarked to ALEXANDER MARKY before his departure for the far South Seas, where he is now directing and supervising one of his original screen stories for Universal: "It should be easy to make a good motion picture." Marky's answer was: "It should be easier to make a good picture than a bad one" — and his enterprise, somewhere in the Pacific, is an effort to prove his contention. He is aided by LEW COLLINS WILFRID M. CLINE HAROLD I. SMITH ZOE VARNEY ALFRED HUSTWICK Film Editor Titles Since 1919 with Paramount CHARLES LOGUE FREE LANCE WRITER AT FIRST NATIONAL ilmar UJ^jyjApj Cleaners 6037 Hollywood Boulevard Phone HOlly 0899 | CHARLES STUMAR CHIEF CINEMATOGRAPHER OF **UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" "THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN PARIS" "HAS ANYONE SEEN KELLY" "THE MICHIGAN KID" UNIVERSAL PICTURE CORPORATION TAY GARNETT Writer DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Larason, Manager Ruth Collier and W. O. Christensen, Associateg 'Printers of The film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 EDWARD EVEREH HORTON Now Playing m '^A Single Man*' with MAUDE FULTON at VINE STREET THEATRE March 31, 1928 Hollywood at the time I saw the picture. Originally there were four reels of it, but Alfred Hustwick has compressed them into one which opens with this foreword from which you may glean an idea of the nature of the picture: "Noth- ing is more eloquent than the human hand. In its rhythmic movements may be read the whole story of mankind, grop- ing from chaos towards perfection." While my chief inter- est in the screen lies in its development as an art, I refuse to follow it when it becomes too artistic to be commer- ciaUy profitable. Mrs. Simon's conception is an extra- ordinary one, and she has expressed it with thoroughness, but she has given us a picture that few of us can under- stand and which can not interest audiences. If Mrs. Simon made it merely to satisfy her own yearning and to entertain those who can appreciate such artistic ex- pression, it was a splendid thing for her to do, but if she made it in the hope that it could be sold throughout the world it was a foolish thing to do. But I would not dis- courage such pictures. They have a definite mission. This one, for instance, will serve to show the value of paying attention to hands on the screen. When we see them, and nothing more, we notice for the first time how exceedingly expressive and eloquent hands are. The short film is called Life and Love. If the opportunity presents itself, by all means see it. * * * FB. 0. is doing right by the boys of the world, and, ♦ incidentally, is making a wad of money out of it, which all producers must do when they do right. I dis- covered this evidence of the F. B. Ovian wisdom only the other day. It has a boy cowboy. It has had him for some time, but I did not know it. Buzz Barton is the young gentleman's name, and he has begun to grow old, ab:eady having attained his fourteenth birthday. He is a freckled- face kid whose grin makes you think that you would like him. And he is a superb little rider. His grin and his riding equip him to be a Western star and put him on an equal footing with the fully grown members of that select band. I have seen only one of Buzz's pictures, and was astonished to find in it nothing that a boy would not do. He neither carries nor fires a gun, which is more F. B. Ovian wisdom, for it would not do to glorify shooting in the minds of the youngsters all over the world who will look upon Buzz as their own hero. The Bantam Cowboy was directed by Louis King. It sticks closely to the West- ern formula. It has its sheriff and its outlaws, and per- fectly ridiculous characters doing perfectly ridiculous things, but it is none the less a clean little picture that will please those whom it is designed to please, and will do no one any harm. As a Saturday afternoon feature it, and no doubt also the others of the series, should be val- uable to any exhibitor. * * * ■pjECENTLY I saw one of the most remarkable films Ja. that ever came my way. It is called The Tree of Life, and in the five reels that constitute it L. H. ToUhurst tells the whole story of creation. He starts with the orig- inal swamp and ends with man. If you wish to know how life started on our globe, how it developed, how it started with something lower than an insect and followed one triumphant step with another until finally it produced a motion picture supervisor, don't undertake a coxirse of reading. See the Tollhurst picture and you can gain a THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen ^•]iniiiniiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiitiiaiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiniic]iiiiiiiiiiiic3iiiiiimint]iimiiiiiiiE3i§ I What You Want When You Want It. | I HoUywoods^r^H Bureau | i i I Telephone Secretary j i We maintain a 24-hour telephone j I service, j I You give GRanite 5191 as your | I number ; we take your calls and relay | I them to you, wherever you may be. | I Let us be your telephone secretary. | I Fee, $5.00 per Month | I DAY OR NIGHT PHONE | JGRanite 519ll j 6061 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD j <«i:]i niiiii laiiiiiiiiuiiniiimiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiEiiMiiimiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiEiMiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiimiiKO WHAT THE CRITICS THINK ABOUT HIS WORK: "Every reel reveals the fine editorial mind of Tom Miranda, ztiho made the production an example of perfect editing." — The Spectator. "Tom Miranda's one, tzvo and three word titles tell with pozvcr and penetration what many title ivriters cannot express in six lines." —The Preview. "Tom Miranda is responsible for the edi- torial Zi'ork and titles, Zi'hieh are on a par^ zuith any super-feature produced up to date." — FiLMOGRAPH. "Tom Miranda's titles arc almost as im- portant as the fiin: itself." — New York Review. He just finished titling Mack Sennett's Great Super-Feature, "THE GOOD-BYE KISS" NOW FREE LANCING FItzroy 0481 Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. LEO MEEHAN DIRECTED "KEEPER of the BEES" BY GENE STRATTON PORTER WINNER of The Exhibitors' Poll as the best box-office attraction 1926 DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER L EDWARD SLOMAN WISHES TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THE NICE THINGS SAID ABOUT FOREIGN LEGION AND WE AMERICANS March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeett better idea of evolution in one hour than you could in one year's reading. The Tree of Life is the first film that I have seen that was made purely for conveying a scien- tific message of educational value. It opened my eyes to the immense influence the screen some day must have on teaching methods. Here is a subject that would be as dry as dust to read about, yet ToUhurst makes it a fasci- nating recital on the screen, and — which is important — he tells it in a way that makes you remember it, for you have the eye to help the brain to do the remembering. The picture does not preach, but it tells the story of evolution in a way that will confound those old-fashioned, slow- thinking people who claim that man is of divine origin. From a purely pictorial sense it is entertaining, and I have no hesitation in recommending it to the exhibitors who read The Spectator. * * * THE dominant note of screen art is vulgarity, the nat- ural consequence of the fact that pictures are domi- nated by vulgar people. Good taste is almost an unknown quality, as we have not more than a half dozen directors who have the slightest idea what it is. The fact that audiences are made up largely of people who have no idea what it is either does not lessen its desirability as screen material, for good taste is something that one can feel instinctively, even if he can not identify it. Show- ing kisses in close-ups is one 6f the most vulgar things that the screen does. It is not good technic. It emphasizes the manner of an embrace when the scene gets all its value from the fact of the embrace. The close-ups of clinging lips have become so common that they can pre- sent no longer an impression of passion. A really good director, one who had good taste and a thorough compre- hension of the spirit and significance of a kiss, never would show one in a close-up. It should be shown only in a deep medium or a long shot, to preserve that suggestion of privacy that gives point to it. Even in the longest shot we can see the sweethearts embracing one another, and that is all we need see. A close-up robs a kiss of all its tenderness. The next time a director starts to shoot one he should pause to reflect that he is doing something vulgar. • * * THE other day I sat beside a director while he shot a scene showing a woman making her exit through a door, and a moment after, a man entering the room through the same door. When "camera" was called the man misjudged the time and arrived at the doorway too soon. He all but bumped into the woman. They smiled at one another, he bowed, she made her exit, and he entered the room. "Cut!" said the director. "N. G. Be more careful, Mr. Blank. You spoiled that shot." As a matter of fact, nothing that my director friend rehearsed could compare for naturalness and eflfectiveness with the acci- dental encounter in the doorway, but his mind was so set on the conventional method of presenting the scene that he could see no virtue in any variation of it. One weak- ness of pictures is that they are too precise. No one in them ever makes a mistake. A director would think you were crazy if you suggested that he show a well trained butler dropping a fork. Yet last night at a dinner party a most efiicient butler dropped two forks almost down my neck. I would not suggest that directors should stage Jules Furthman SCENARIST "Abie's Irish Rose" 'The Way of AU Flesh" "THE DRAGNET" (in production, directed by Josef von Sternberg.) An Important Contribution to Film Literature ! FILMS of the YEAR, 1927-1928 Introductory Essay and Notes by Robert Herring 32 Full-Plate Illustrations Paper Boards: Price, $2.50 Size, 71/2XIO Inches The cinema is becoming a wonderful form of ex- pression; and the present book, the first of its kind, provides a permanent record of those strik- ing scenes, which flash across the screen for an instant and then remain only a memory. Dramatic action, sudden brilliant contrasts of light and shade, amazing effects of grouping, are all to be found in the careful selection of "stills" which has been made by Mr. Robert Herring, the well-known film critic. Mr. Herring discusses in his foreword the present and the future of the films, and the plates represent for the most part the best of the pictures which it was possible to see in London during the past year, though a few older ones and a few which have not yet been shown are in- cluded. "FILMS OF THE YEAR" is a volume whose shape resembles that of the pictures as shown, making it an easy and pleasurable matter to look through the reproductions which will make an irresistible appeal to every lover of the cinema. ORDER FROM FILM ARTS GUILD 500 Fifth Avenue, New York City Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. such mistakes, but I recommend to them that they be on the lookout for them when they occur naturally. We want human beings on the screen, and human beings have been known to drop forks. * * * TJEFORE shooting a scene that is put in a picture only ^-' to give someone a chance to act, the director should satisfy himself that the someone can act. The story of a picture I saw recently called for a boy becoming an orphan through the death of his mother. The death scene was shown and the boy acted his part of it unconvincingly. He was not equal to it, and the scene harmed the picture. The full value of the sequence from a story standpoint could have been gained by omitting the death scene. The fact that the mother died could have been shown indirectly, or could have been covered in a title, either of which would have strengthened the picture by relieving the boy of a scene that was beyond his ability to enact with conviction. The same argument will not apply to all death scenes. Some are necessary because they have their places in the stories. But when the reason for a death is solely to make someone an orphan it is not necessary to show the death itself. If the cast is equal to it, it is all right, but the picture in question would have been better if the scene had been eliminated. * * * 'P'VERY little while you see some poor color work on •^the screen. It is not the kind I have in mind when I champion the use of color. The only process that I have seen which brings out all the hues is that of Technicolor. The series of Great Moments in History that is being pro- duced by Technicolor itself is creating the greatest en- thusiasm throughout the country. These two-reelers are demonstrating to the public that color photography has been perfected to a degree that makes it inexcusable for the industry to overlook it any longer. In an early Spec- tator I predicted that in three years most of our im- portant features would be shot in color. The prediction still has eighteen months to run, and I don't think that I'll be so very far off. The public will demand color, as it will demand sound, and producers must take their orders from the public. * * * THE third dimension seems to be here. I recently saw a five-reel picture that contained some of the most extraordinary shots that it ever has been my good for- tune to witness. They were scenes of Grand Canyon, and from the foreground to the backg^round seemed to be many miles. It was as if the rear of the theatre had fallen out and through it we were looking at the canyon without the help of the camera. It almost was too good to be regarded without suspicion. I don't know much about the purely technical end of screen art, so can not pass judgment on the third dimension feature of the film, but if what I saw is what it seemed to be, the whole industry should be excited about it. Apparently I am the only one whom it excited, and I am hesitant about setting down fully my enthusiasm before I am quite sure whether I should be excited and enthusiastic. * « * ONE of the papers reports that studios are going to break up their teams, as they are finding that they do not pay. Months ago I argued that the only advant- age a fixed team was to a studio was the opportunity it gave the studio to express its insanity. It is impossible to give any one thing the distinction of being the most insane that ever figured in pictures, but the conviction that the public wished to see comedy teams would come as near as any other to winning the prize. The public wants well written comedies. If two comedians fit into each of them naturally, well and good, but it does not alter the fact that comedies are what the public wants, not comedians. * * • pERHAPS if we could run it down we would find that •■• the people in studios who are responsible for the punctuation of the titles are the kind of people who leave their spoons in their coffee cups. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By DoNAUJ Beaton — r/!^ Spectator's \7-Year-0ld Critic ABIE'S Irish Rose is a splendid picture. It is gripping and goes straight to the heart of anyone seeing it. After a stream of rotten Irish-Jewish pictures, it is a master- piece. The Irish papers, which pro- tested The Callahans and the Murphys so strongly as being an in- sult to their race, will hail this with joy, and it may make them even for- give Hollywood and the motion pic- tures for giving them the other atrocity. That's asking a lot, however. Jean Hersholt, in Abie, gives the finest performance he ever has given on the screen, and anyone knows how great his work must be. His perform- ance in this was a true work of art. His part was so cleverly and subtly done that it was a masterpiece. Next to Hersholt, the credit for the suc- cess of Abie's Irish Rose, is the di- rector's, Victor Fleming. He is very good, and his direction of the senti- mental scenes discloses a remarkable depth of feeling. However, his work sticks to hide-bound moving picture conventions a good deal. There were far too many close-ups in the picture, and in one scene the boy and girl stop and kiss each other in the middle of a busy street and nobody pays the slightest attention. In another place, Hersholt, who has disinherited his son and mourns him for dead, has the "& Son" painted off the front of his store. While the painter is working, there is a shot of Hersholt. He is standing expressing anger, not the sorrow he would have felt had he mourned his son as dead. Those are the only things I object to in Abie. The humor is put in very adroitly, one instance being where Nancy Car- roll, who gives an amazingly good performance, takes some sort of liquor during the Jewish solemniza- tion of the wedding. It is apparently strong, and the way she puts it over is one of the cleverest bits of com- edy I ever have seen. The picture was full of such touches, just as it was full, also, of beautiful, senti- mental scenes. There is one place where the wedding of a blind French officer is shown. That, like the com- edy scene, is one of the best bits I ever have seen. To recount all the beautiful scenes which Hersholt con- tributes to the picture would take far too much space. Hersholt and Miss Carroll did not have a monopoly of the good perform- March 31, 1928 ances in Abie. Charles Rogers was very clever as usual. He has the best screen personality of any of the younger men of the screen. Bernard Gorcey and Ida Kramer as the lawyer Cohen and his wife were very good. J. Farrell McDonald did good work, as did the two men who played the rabbi and the priest. THE Ladies From Hell is a fairly satisfactory picture. There is not much in it, to be sure; but there are some beautiful scenes and some good acting in it. Apparently, the pic- ture was going to star Annie Laurie, played by Lillian Gish, but when they got through shooting it they found that there wasn't enough of Annie to justify its name. Norman Kerry had a part fully as big as hers. There was a good deal of good old, slam-bang fighting in the Ladies From Hell, which always is good on the screen no matter how high-brow the audience is. Everybody gets a kick out of a good fight. John Robertson did a good job of his direction. He handled his characters very well, and his crowds were good, too. There is some- thing funny about the title of the picture. I have understood always that the expression "Ladies From Hell" originated from some surprised German soldier as he was being gently but firmly disembowelled by a High- lander in the World War. The story of this picture took place some two- hundred years before the war, and yet it gave the impression, in the opening titles, that they were called that then. However, be that as it may, this is the first picture in which I have liked Miss Gish. As it is the first I have seen her in when she has not been directed by D. W. Griffith, I suppose that is to be expected. In this she didn't claw at her teeth whenever she wanted to express great emotion. She put it over far more cleverly and nat- urally, and proved why she has been hailed as a great actress. However, I enjoyed her work more in the lighter moments which Robertson gave her. In her previous pictures, a light mo- ment is where she comes home and finds the whole family lying around in picturesque attitudes with their throats cut or finds her grandmother hanging by the thumbs from the chan- delier while her little brother has his ears pinned to the wall with a couple of knives. In The Ladies from Hell, she has some really delightful scenes which she does very well. Norman Kerry is very satisfactory. Hobart Bosworth, who wears a Santa Claus beard is also good, as is Brandon Hurst. Russell Simpson and David Torrence did well in smaller parts. THE FILM SPECTATOR ually the child is left an orphan and is adopted by three old bachelors. After they become very attached to her, the rich family comes and takes her. And so it goes. That was good once, but the scene in Sallie In Our Alley where the three step-fathers give the child up is not done convin- cingly enough. Walter Lang, the di- rector, reveals that he is trying to get away from the usual screen convent- ions. The bright spot of Sallie was seeing Shirley Mason again. She has always been one of my favorites. SALLIE In Our Alley has a story that is so old that it is decrepit, and as the same story has been done before and more cleverly, the picture hasn't got a tremendous amount of merit. It is the same old story of a member of some rich family offend- ing the traditions and going to live with a poor but honest mate. Event- WE came in late to The Latest From Paris, but after I had seen a little of the picture it turned out that that was a blessing. I don't know how I could have stood it all, if the rest was as bad as the part we saw. When we got in, Norma Shearer and Ralph Forbes were wandering around in a good, healthy snowstorm, wearing neither hats nor coats. To expect anybody to take anything they did seriously from then on was im- possible. Heroes and heroines can't be made out of a couple of hopeless nit-wits. After wandering around for awhile, they had a quarrel about some- thing so silly I can't remember what it was; and she dashed into the hotel and upstairs to her room. The min- ute she did that, all the guests in the lobby got up and stood in a row to watch what was going to happen next. When Forbes came in, they were all standing there staring at him. That is a thing that is so likely to happen in a hotel. To tell all the silly things about The Latest From Paris, how- ever, would be simply a synopsis of the story, so there is no use going on with them. Robert Leonard is charged with the direction of this picture. I used to think he was a good director, but after The Demi Bride and The Latest From Paris, I certainly don't think so any more. EXCEPT for a set of terrible titles and the general appearance of having been put together as it went along. Hot Heels, a Universal picture directed by William Craft and starring Glenn Tryon and Patsy Ruth Miller, is pretty good. The picture would follow the story for a while, and then all hands would knock off and be funny for a while. These humor- ous interludes, which usually had lit- tle or nothing to do with the story, were the funniest parts of the picture. I for up to the minute equipment news read W*^^ FILM DIGEST Page Nineteen Tryon and Patsy are natural comed- ians, and as a result, their antics were very funny. With a clever set of titles the picture would have been very amusing; but the titles were so poor that they detracted rather than added anything to the picture. Hot Heels opened with a very amusing burlesque of a regular old-time melo- drama, replete with Little Nells, Jack Dalton (The Villain), sturdy sheriffs, and old parents and homesteads. Universal is gradually getting saner in its Tryon stories, and it looks as though they are going to give us eventually some crackerjack comedies. Tryon and Patsy Ruth Miller are a very good team. P. S. — Hot Heels contained a very interesting and thrilling horse race. AFTER all the epidemics of college pictures, it remains to Mel Brown and Universal to give us the best of the lot. Brown adapted his story from The Plastic Age, a book. Some time ago there was a picture made called The Plastic Age. The only resemblance it bore to the book was the title and the names of the char- acters. Brown, who did the adaptation in addition to the direction, has fol- lowed the book more closely. He couldn't follow it too closely, as there were parts in it which never would get past the censors, but he did a very good job. There was nothing objec- tionable in the picture, however. Brown calls his picture Cream of the Earth, and it is well worth seeing. Although I don't know much about college, this picture gives the im- pression of being more true to real life than anything produced yet. There is nothing overdrawn in it at all. There is no sneering villain who blows up the college and blames it on the hero. The final race which decides the track meet is won by the hero, but one isn't sure all the time that he is going to win it. There is more of an element of uncertainty in it than is usual. Buddy Rogers and Marian Nixon do a love scene in an automobile that is beautifully and naturally done. It is one of the best love scenes I have seen for some time. However, they drive on until they are directly in front of the big hotel where Marian is staying, and continue it. That is silly, because even nowadays a couple won't sit in a crowded street and neck. II 1650 Broadway N. Y. C. [| ISJorman^s ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Re finished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard Page Twenty As I saw Cream of the Earth at a preview, I suppose that there is still some to be cut out of it. There were spots where it dragged a little, but they can easily be fixed. When it is tightened up it will be an even better picture. Buddy Rogers and Marian Nixon, in the leading roles, gave very good per- formances. Stanley Taylor, as Buddy's friend, gave a performance which war- rants his being given larger parts, and so did Hugh Trevor. Hayden Steven- son was good as usual, and Bob Seiter did well in a small part. ADOLPHE Menjou and Harry D'Arrast are a splendid combi- nation, if we are to judge from Serenade. Menjou's perfect acting lends itself very well to D'Arrast's perfect direction, thus we have a per- fect picture. D'Arrast has the happy knack of making any scene on the screen beautiful, no matter what the subject may be. He also gives the audience credit for having some sense, and, as a result, his pictures are a success. Serenade received a spon- taneous burst of applause when it was over, something that very few pic- tures get except at preview showings. However, that has little to do with the merits of the ■ icture. Serenade is a good proof of the statement that things happening to normal people are far more funny than when they happen to impossible freaks. All the characters in this were very human, and, as all the characterizations were splendidly done, it was very good. I haven't seen any picture for a long time which amused me as much as Serenade. Menjou is such a splendid actor that he would be good in any- thing, and in this he is right in his element. All his scenes are a treat to watch. Lawrence Grant contributed a performance to Serenade that proves he is one of the finest actors the screen has. He should be given bigger parts. Kathryn Carver, who played opposite Menjou, is new to me, but she also proved that she is capable of bigger and better parts. Lina Basquette also did well in a smaller part. THE Showdown is a pretty good picture, although I don't like pictures of this particular type. It is the story of a girl who comes down to the tropics, and is conquered by them. Also it is the story of the struggle between two oil men. In those two themes lies the main weakness of the picture, as neither of them was developed sufficiently to make it powerful. It would have been much better if just one had been used. Victor Schertzinger did a pretty fair job of the direction, al- though he did use a good many close- ups, and did make some of his group- ings unnatural. There was a composite shot that was very cleverly done of what was running through the girl's mind just as she came-to after faint- ing. The suspense during the time when the two men were playing cards for the oil well was held up very well. THE FILM SPECTATOR However, when the theme about the conquest of the tropics was complete, the picture made one of its surprising jumps and completed the story of the rivalry of the two men. As a result, the interest was lost. There were places where it dragged and became too heavy. John Farrow's titles were good, but I'd like to take exception to the first two. They are long and flowery, and all they convey is that the story is laid in a tropical oil field. That could have been said in one short one. George Bancroft is starred in The Showdown and gives a very ex- cellent performance. However, Evelyn Brent gives him a battle for his laurels. Her work, as usual, is splen- did. Leslie Fenton, Fred Kohler, and Helene Lynch also were very good. PICTORIALLY speaking. The Shep- herd of the Hills was a fine pic- ture. There was little else in it, and as a motion picture it was not so good. There were spots which dragged a lot, and there were also things in it that had little or nothing to do with the story. The villain in the piece was so obvious that he never could have got away with a thing. He did practically all his plotting directly in front of all the villagers. The villagers were ready enough to turn against the shepherd, whom they loved and re- spected, when he did anything against them, yet they never thought that the villain might have been their oppres- sor. However, there are scenes in The Shepherd of the Hills which are perfect masterpieces of beauty. The sheep off'er wonderful opportunities for beautiful shots, and Al Rogell makes the most of them. His direc- tion was good throughout the picture, although he did have some artificial groupings of his characters. He kept them all in character very well, and that is where The Shepherd of the Hills had most of its merit as a mo- tion picture. It was a character study all through, and was good as such. ATTEND THE WORLD PREMIERE OF FRANK BORZAGE'S Production "STREET ANGEL" With JANET GAYNOR and CHARLES FARRELL Carthay Circle Theatre, Tuesday, April 10th March 31, 1928. There were some good performances in The Shepherd. Alec Francis, in the title role, is very good and makes a somewhat difficult character human. Maurice Murphy proves again that he is one of our cleverest child-actors. John Boles was good, and so was the rest of the cast. MAKING sequels to famous pic- tures is a poor business at best, and when the sequel is a medi- ocre picture like Beau Sabreur, it is a very bad idea. Making a poor se- quel is just a cheap attempt at cash- ing in on the reputation of the good picture. There were many vague and unexplained things in Beau Sabreur which left one in some slight doubt as to what it was all about. Appar- ently it was made to be a long pic- ture, and then they discovered that there wasn't enough in it to warrant its length, so they cut it down. As it is, it is a jumble of a lot of differ- ent scenes which detract from the gen- eral idea of the story, and that was certainly slight enough. Gary Cooper, who looks about as French as One- Eyed Connelly, stays out after hours with a girl. His uncle immediately tells him he has disgraced the family. The two of them go through a scene which wouldn't have been good even if it had had a sensible reason. From that scene, one got the impression that staying out after hours was a heinous crime. At the time of this in- terview. Cooper was a private, yet later he blossomed forth as an officer with a lot of decorations. So did his three friends. How he got his sudden promotion and all his decorations was never explained. There were the usual three comrades, but their friend- ship was so asinine that it wasn't in the least convincing. Incidentally, this friendship was the cause of one of the world's worst titles. Cooper grabs his two friends and they all line up in front of the camera, and Cooper says: "Well, old comrades, we have gone Tha Latest Books Ars Always Obtainable at The Hollywood Book Store OPPOSITE HOTEL HOLLYWOOD Artistic Framing Stationery and Circulation Library |>]iiiniiiiiii[]iiiiiniiiiiE»iiiiiiniuDiiiiiuiiuiE]iiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiniiiiiii(]iiiiiiiiiniaiiiMiiiiiii:]iMiiiiiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiit]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiim j TOM WHITE I I announces the opening of | j THE TOM WHITE ENTERPRISES I I 6276 Hollywood Boulevard I = a g Star Bldg. i I g <*iimiiniiiHiiiiiiit]iiiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiiMiiiojiiiii,'niiQiiiinniiii;]iiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiininMniiiiiiiiaiiiMiiiiin March 31, 1928 through many adventures together, and now we will go through another one." That was the substance of it, al- though it was probably not punctu- F ated as well as that. After that title, I expected a large sign to be lowered behind them, bearing the words, "The Foreign Legion Boys in the Sahara", or "Winning Through to the Great Oasis". The whole picture was just one fault after another. John Waters, the director, handled his comedy scenes well, but the rest was just blah. Splendid performances by Noah Beery, William Powell, and Evelyn Brent helped considerably. THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one NEXT to the invention of movies themselves, I think that of talk- ing pictures is the greatest. Col- ored pictures were not quite such a radical departure, as they had been done before on still pictures. The talk- ing motion picture, represented best now by the Movietone, is a distinct step forward in the progress of screen art. It seems inevitable now that actors will have to acquire good speak- ing voices in order to sur\'ive on the screen. The Movietone picks up flaws in voices with remarkable accuracy, just as the moving picture camera picks up flaws in make-up. Which re- minds me, by the way, that the actors and actresses that think they can get by without any make-up are mistaken. I have seen several lately, and they look terrible. However, that has little or nothing to do with what I was saying. Movietone opens up tremend- ous new fields in news photography in addition to the change it will make in regular motion pictures. To not only see and hear famous men make speeches, and also to see and hear great ceremonies, will be a wonderful treat. Perhaps the pictures of Oriental religious ceremonies which news pho- tographers seem to delight in showing on the screen will become a bit more interesting. As a rule, they bore me nearly to death. IN my review of D. W. Griffith's Drums of Love, I forgot to men- tion the work of little Joyce Coad as Mary Philbin's younger sister. That was a very serious oversight, as she gave a splendid performance. She is destined to go far on the screen. AN ORIGINAL IDEA Dear Mr. Beaton: Allow me to point out what, in my opinion, is a weak spot in your other- wise shining armor. Being a crusader for the mass of actors, technicians, etc., you are at the same time under- mining their earning capacity by wag- ing war against Waste. Waste rep- resents a lot of work for us all, and after all a successful picture can stand a lot of it. "The picture's the thing" and when the producers will learn, with your help, to make good pictures the cost of them is not of vital im- portance. They will make profits anyway, meanwhile keeping a large amount of people employed. A. SCHOLTZ. REVIEWED IN THIS NUMBER The Man Who Laughs — Universal super production; stars, Mary Philbin and Conrad Veidt; director, Paul Leni; production supervisor, Paul Kohner; author, Victor Hugo; adaptor and scenar- ist, J. Grubb Alexander; story supervisor, Bela Skeley; camera- man, Gilbert Warrenton; titles, Walter Anthony. The cast: Mary Philbin, Conrad Veidt, Julius Molnar Jr., Josephine Crowell, Torben Meyer, George Siegmann, Brandon Hurst, Olga Baclanova, Nick de Ruiz, Sam de Grasse, Stuart Holmes, Cesare Gravina, Edgar Norton, Charles Puffy, Frank Puglia, Carmen Cos- tello. Abie's Irish Rose — A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by Victor Fleming; from play by Anne Nichols; screen play by Jules Furthman; photographed by Harold Rosson; assistant director. Bob Lee; production management, William de Lignemare. The cast: Charles Rogers, Nancy Carroll, Jean Hersholt, J. Farrell Macdonald, Bernard Gorcey, Ida Kramer, Camillus Pretal, Nick Cogley, Rosa Rosanova. Ladies From Hel! — Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer. A ro- mance by Josephine Lovett; titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cum- mings; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Merrill Pye; wardrobe by Andre-ani; photographed by Oliver March; film editor, William Hamil- ton; directed by John S. Robertson. The cast: Lillian Gish, Norman Kerry, Creighton Hale, Joseph Striker, Hobart Bosworth, Patricia Avery, Russell Simpson, Brandon Hurst, David Torrence, Frank Cur- rier. The Latest From Paris — Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Story and scenario by A. P. Younger; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Arnold Gilles- pie; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by William Daniels; film editor, Basil Wrangell; di- rected by Sam Wood. The cast: Norma Shearer, George Sidney, Ralph Forbes, Tenen Holtz, William Bakewell, Margaret Lan- dis, Bert Roach. Hot Heels— Universal-Jewel. Star, Glenn Tryon; director, William Craft; author, William Craft; scenarist, Harry 0. Hoyt; cameraman, Arthur Todd; titles, Albert De Mond. The cast: Glenn Tryon, Patsy Ruth Miller, Gretel Yoltz, James Bradbury Sr., Tod Sloan, Lloyd Whitlock. Cream of the Earth — Director, Mel Brown; author, Mel Brown; continuity, James T. O'Don- ahue; cameraman, J. Stumar; titles, Tom Reed. Universal. The cast: Charles Rogers, Marian Nixon, Stanley Taylor, Hugh Tre- vor, Hayden Stevenson, Andy De- vine, Robert Seiter, Earl McCarthy. Tree of Life — Produced by Prof. Louis H. Toll- hurst. Cameraman, Prof. Louis H. Tollhurst; titles, Ransome Sutton. Alex the Great — An F. B. 0. picture. Story by H. C. Witwer; adaptation by Dudley VALUES! — EASTER GIFTS AND GREETINGS — VARIETY! •^ '7Aousand (Sifts of DMinction' SHOP AT BALZER'S— "TWO SHOPS"— JUST WEST OF VINE FORMAL DRESS & UNIFORM SHOP. Carrying a Complete line of Full Dress, Tuxodocs, Cutaways, with their necessary ac- cessories. For Sale, or Rt-nt. .A. first cl;is.s Barber Shop in con- junction with Our Establishment. I'hone GLadstone 9908 6201 Santa Monica Boulevard Page Twenty-two Murphy; directed by Dudley Murphy; photography by Virgil Miller; titles, Randolph Bartlett. The cast: Richard Skeets Galla- gher, Albert Conti, Patricia Avery, Ruth Dwyer, Charles Byer. Bantam Cowboy — An F. B. 0. picture. Original story by Robert N. Bradbury; adaptation by Frank Howard Clark; directed by Louis King; photography by Roj"- Eslick; titles by Randolph Bartlett. The cast: Buzz Barton, Nancy Drexel, Sam Nelson, Frank Rice, Tom Lingham, Bob Fleming, Bill Patton. Something Always Happens — Paramount-Famous-Lasky picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schul- berg; director, Frank Tuttle; story, Frank Tuttle; adaptation and screen play, Florence Ryerson and Raymond Cannon; cameraman, J. Roy Hunt; Editor, Louis D. Ligh- ten; super^nsor, B. P. Fineman; assistant director, Russell Mathews. The cast: Esther Ralston; Neil Hamilton, La'wrence Grant, Vera Lewis, Sojin, Roscoe Karnes, Charles Sellon, Noble Johnson, Mischa Aver, James Pierce, Serenade — A Paramount-Famous-Lasky Pic- ture. Director, H. D'Abbadie D'Arrast; story and screen play, Ernest Vajda. The cast: Adolphe Menjou, Kath- aryn Carver, Lawrence Grant, Margaret Franklin, Lina Bas- quette. Partners in Crime — A Paramount-Famous-Lasky Pic- ture. Director, Frank Strayer; as- sistant director, Ivan Phonas; screen play, Grover Jones and Gil- bert Pratt; cameraman, William Marshall; editor-in-chief, B. F. Zeidman. The cast: Wallace Beery, Ray- mond Hatton, Mary Brian, Jack Luden, George Irving, William Powell, Arthur Housman, Bruce Gordon, Joseph Girard, Jack Rich- ardson, Albert Roccardi. Sally in Our Alley— A Columbia picture. Directed by Walter Lang; produced by Harry Cohn; photographed by Joseph Walker, A. S. C. The cast: Shirley Mason, Richard Arlen, Alec B. Francis, William H. Strauss, Paul Panzer, Kathlyn Wil- liams. Shepherd of the Hills — A First National picture. Pro- duced by Chas. R. Rogers; directed by Al Rogell; adaptation and con- tinuity by Marion Jackson; story by Harold Bell Wright; photog- raphy by Sol Polito; film editor, Hugh Bennett; art director, Ed- THE FILM SPECTATOR ward Shulter; titles by Dwinelle Benthall and Rufus McCosh. The cast: Molly O'Day, Alec Francis, Maurice Murphy, John Boles, Matthew Betts and Otis Harlan. The Showdown — A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by Victor Schertzinger; from play by Houston Branch; adaptation by Hope Loring; screen play by Ethel Doherty; photographed by Victor Milner; editor-in-chief, Louis D. Lighton; assistant director, Russell Mathews. The cast: George Bancroft, Eve- lyn Brent, Neil Hamilton, Fred March 31, 1928. Kohler, Helene LjTich, Arnold Kent, Leslie Fenton, George Kuwa. Beau Sabreur — Paramount. A John Waters pro- duction. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; director, John Waters; author, Christopher Percival Wren; adapted by Tom J. Geraghty; pho- tographer, J. Roy Hunt; supervis- ion of Milton E. Hoffman; assistant director, Richard Johnston; editor- in-chief, E. Lloyd Sheldon. The cast: Gary Cooper, Evelyn Brent. Noah Beery, William Powell, Roscoe Karns, Mitchell Lewis, Arnold Kent, Raoul Paoli, Joan Standing, Frank Reicher, Oscar Smith. Special Announcement! AT LAST! YOU can keep in close touch with world devel- opments in motion pictures by reading CLOSE UP An International Monthly Magazine Published in Europe — approaching films from the angles of art, experi- ment and development — not highbrow, but progressive — reporting the major achievements — a searchKght on new film-forms — distinguished thinkers and writers as contributors — Havelock ElHs, Andre Gide, Arnold Bennett, etc. — news of all countries with correspondents in Paris, London, Berlin, Moscow, Rome, Hollywood, etc. Annual Subscription $3.50 Single Copies 35c Vol. 1 July - December 1927 — $5.00 bound Send Subscriptions to: AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES: FILM ARTS GUILD SYMON GOULD, Director 500 Fifth Avenue, Dept. 100, New York Hollywood Representative : MARTIN SACKIN 6206 Temple Hill Drive, Hollywood Phone GRanite 1702 'March 31, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three JEAN HERSHOLT The Roaming Star According to his ad in the Screen Writers' Bulletin, AL COHN for months has been writing The Last Warning. Apparently he doesn't pay any attention to that ad, either. GEORGE SIDNEY SAYS: "Welford, put me on the same page with that other actor — it's gettin' kinda lonesome where I am now." I » GLADSTONE 4809 TITLES by DWINELLE BENTHALL and RUFUS McCOSH 228 Mark HAM Bldg. Hollywood JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT PAUL SCHOFIELD ORIGINALS AND ADAPTATIONS Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth C(^ier and W. O. Christensen. Associates PAUL KOHNER Production Supervisor for Universal "THE MAN WHO LAUGHS" — a Paul Leni Production, Starring Mary Philbin-Conrad Veidt. Charles Kenyon FREE LANCING Recently Completed Show Boat FOREIGN LEGION SYMPHONY .y^ In Preparation A GIRL ON A BARGE For Universal DEMMY LAMSON MANAGEMENT Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR March 31, 1928. ^imiiiiuiiiQiiiiiiiiininniinnTiTiainiinuniui iniiiaiiiiuiiiinuniiiiniNiDiiHiiiiiiuEiniiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiuiiiiiaiiimiiniiQiiiniiniiiaiiiiiniiiuDiiiiiiiiiinciMiiiiiiniiniuiiiiinMniiiiiiiiiiiinriiiiiHiiiiaiiiin Mew York Speaks Los Angeles Hears IRVING CUMMINGS ^4;^, '"Sor""' 1 Production opIMoq^ 'Dressed to KilV ' S^^:r>^% HELD OVER for 2nd Week ROXY NEW YORK & = ^^tl ^Of> <%» '^-""^Cf*^^> '«I9 Cmnm rags «-^/^ C Vt<'°^w^' ^?o?^ £.M^,ro.,fe %t^. "ig.., J^^<^'o. j^;e>t„^- ^i^^l^lS^"^. ^^°2^ ^?-^?^^ -THIS WEEK'S- EDITORIAL "Dressed to Kill"'. . .a great picture. . .as good of its kind as "What Price Glory" or "Seventh Heaven". . WOW!. . .In the bag. . .another Fox knockout. . . That was the gossip that overflowed the Fox lot into almost every studio in the film area . . .but we long since gave ear to self-serving propaganda-gossip. But Cinematters last night pot a hot report from New York: "DrCBscd to Kill" broke Roxj' theater record for two opening daya of picture — Sol.OOO. Consensus Is this is the best picttire of the winter- spring: season, with special emphasis on the extraordinary direcioi'IaJ treatment of Irving Cummingsl Fifty-one thousand dollars for two days* business! That's proof of a pudding made-to-order for entcrtaiament- eatersl Ami marks the "return" of Irvin Cumminps. Not that Irvhis over really passed out of the motion picture eye. But he has needed a big shot. He had his detractors- Where will they be when this mie. ^ts abroad: $51,000 (or two days' admissions to see Irrlnf Cummijigs' "Dressed fo,KiU"r • • • ■NTOW we know why Sol Wurtzel decided it was time to take his first vacation in 12 years! That Fox organization is so hot that Centigrade and Fahrenheit don't cover the temperature degrees to which this or- ganization is climbing. . .no wonder they feet confident in cornering hundreds of expensive theaters with their coincidental upkeep, .do you know that Fox repre- sents, more than any other cinematic factor since the beginning of the industry, the element of YOUTH? . . . Do you know they haven't one supervisor who has been in his field more than a scant two j'eara. .and these boys are making the pictures of the v."orld? Splendid experienced directors like Frank Bor7age, Raoui Walsh, Irrlng CTimniIn,":s, .lack Ford, Alfred Green, . -insnired and inspirinj; youngsters such as Wilb'km JL Ckinselmaii, Pliilip Klein. Chandlrr Sprnguo. erstwhile nen'spaoerman, now story chief, young Winfield R -.Sheehan him-selfj ciilef of the oroducing outfit, the neiv superTisor, J. K. McGuinness, ■' Howard Hawhs. ■ .brilliant starlets such as Jant^t Caynor, whom, tjicldentally. Coramin^rs put orer In "The Jotinstotrn Flood": fltarlc* ForreU. .^reorffe O'Brien. Madge Bellamy, experienced but young: rharles Jlorton, Dolores del Kio, iiruted hj*Foi in "What Price Glorj'." and others- • • « Raoul Walsh is said to agree that Edmu-nd Lowe's performance is the best thing he lias ever done not bar- ring his own great opus. Mary Astor is acclaimed as a "new ■personality." It's different, !^ew York says. That's Fox all over, fans— ^"dressed to kill" — the fatted calf of moviedom! Yours for Movie-sartorial Magnificence, CI.'^EMATTERS. I " TDressed to Kill' is the best crime melodrama to come this way, ... It moves I I rapidly and dramatically, it is well acted, and the direction of Irving Cummings i I is exceptionally fine." I I —Richard Watts Jr., N. Y. Herald-Tribune. I j "It is in the direction and characterizations that it offers a cinema entertainment I worth seeing." — Betty Colfax, N. Y. Evening Graphic. | j Mordaunt Hall (Times), Irene Thirer (News), Regina Cannon (American), Bland j I Johaneson (Daily Mirror) UNANIMOUSLY HAIL IRVING CUMMINGS I "DRESSED TO KILL". It is a FOX SPECIAL. □ i.*iiniiuiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii[]ii iiiiiQiiiiii iniiiiiiniiiuE]i!MiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiMiiiniiiMiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiii[]niiiiiNiiiQiNiiiiMiiic]Miiiiii!iii(Mii!iniiic]iiiiNiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiE3MMiin JWELFORD BEATON THE 20 CCIltS FILM SPECTATOR . Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood, California, April 14, 1928 No. 4 ^jnninniiiaiinnniiiiaiiitnjnumiDiiuiHiiDiiuniiiiiianiimiiuianiiuiiniiauiiiuuiianiiniiiiiiDiiniiiiiinQunmuiiiainiMiiunaiuinitniiDiiiiiuiiiiiu^ c Whafs to happen to our Presbyterian Elder? One more sublime folly to Industry's credit Economy is preached, but it is not practiced We discuss briefly the final fadeout a = = THE CROWD ROSE MARIE THE BIG CITY LAST WALTZ TRAGEDY OF YOUTH DRESSED TO KILL <&iK]iiiiiuiiiiianiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiNiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiit]iiiiiiiiiiiii[]imiimiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiniiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiiiiiuiuiiiiniiiiiiE]n Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 C>3iiuiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiinnnmiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiuiiiDiininiiiiiQiiiiiiiniiinmmiiiiiiniiiiiiniuinmiii iQiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiinii iiiinuiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiuiiiiniiiiiiiMniiiininiiiiiiinniimiiiiiiiuiiiniiiininiiimiiiniE'^ I Special Contributor Writes on'^Netv Faces" for The Spectator | I By Jimmy Starr | I ("Cinematters" of the L. A. Record) | 'Sexless' Personalities Fail to Click ^^■jk yEW FACES." That's been the cry in j[\ the movie studios for the last two years. How many have been chosen, how few have "clicked." Yet we all know that a complete revolution must be accomplished, a new era of the industry must be launched before the permanent basis of the motion picture will have been laid. "New Faces." We've got to have 'em. And that means the passing of every star who scintillated more than five years ago. How difficult it is for even the Gloria Swansons, the Mary Pickfords (for- give the plural), the Milton Sills-es, the Pola Negris to retain their respective holds on the public. About them is the murky atmosphere of the passe. One slip, in the form of a none-too-good vehicle and the die is cast. But producers must be warned to analyse more closely the popular requirements in "new faces." That clever operator in casting, George Frank, of the Edward Small office, gave me an in- teresting slant 'tother day. "The demand is for the sophisticate," he says. "The girls and boys who have failed to hit are those who lack real appeal. They have the mask of beauty, of youth, of innocence — but nothing behind it. There has never been a per- sonality lacking sex-appeal who ever reached the heights with the exceptions of "America's Sweet- heart," who, after all, is in a sense a legendary figure, the world's beautiful cinematic myth, and Lillian Gish." Consider, indeed, the cleverness of Winfield R. Sheehan of Fox in teaming up Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell; undoubtedly an ap- preciation of Miss Gaynor's limitations despite her great talent. Lupe Velez is the outstanding example of the type of starlet who is bound to outstrip the crowd of aspirants. Why? She has fire. An ar- dent, pulsating, propulsive force that combines the qualities of youth, feminine understanding, an ele- ment of sophistication, beauty-none-too-conscious-of- itself and an instinctive histrionic flare. Lupe is the ideal brunette for our new movie generation. Hale Predicted Comedy Sensation SOME months ago I pointed out Alan Hale as the coming comedy sensation. I based my pre- diction on no more evidence than a bit in a pic- ture called Vanity, with Leatrice Joy. Not much of a meal for a comic. But Hale, I realized, had the almost-Rabelaisian expressiveness of universal joy which is Wallie Beery's, plus a sensitiveness and finesse that is to be found in Chaplin and Ray Grif- fith and the ability to "dumb-pan" a la Keaton. He can wear clothes, too, so he knows no limitations in his field. When Skyscraper is projected here you will appreciate what Welford Beaton wrote of Hale in connection with this William-Boyd-Alan Hale vehicle. Just as I hailed-Hale I have exclaimed over the possibilities of Marian Douglas, that young miss who won Harry Carr's editorial and professional interest as the girl who, through numerology found a new name and a new interest in her work. She was Ena Gregory, a talented, lovely blonde who, unlike most brightly-tressed actresses, has a great deal of expressiveness, both in appearance and in the histrionic sense. It is the function of the critics to study the trends in film production and popular taste. Too often they do not follow the same lines — and the producer is the sole loser. * * • Marian Douglas Has Emotional Power SINCE little Miss Douglas became the "girl-with- the-thirteen-letter-name" she has played leads or feature roles in five productions — and this within a space of four months. I "caught" her in The Shepherd of the Hills. She was exquisite. Then she did a couple of Ken Majmard leads. Un- fortunately these pictures, while eminently successful financially and popularly, do not enjoy first runs in Los Angeles and many a future has been predicated upon a local success. Leo Meehan used her in his The Devil's Trade Mark, not yet released. I understand Meehan made this picture without a single scene rehearsal, yet Leon D'Usseau, the bril- liant chap who is supervisory head and assistant to Bill LeBaron at FBO, sees a great future for the youngster (she is not yet 20). Now she is at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. IMaybe they will see poten- tial stardom for Marian. But what have they done with Marceline Day? True, too, MGM took three years to develop Joan Crawford to stellar eminence and attempts with other bets have been none too auspiciously received. * » • Combination Needed To Insure Stardom A COMBINATION of the girl, the role, the pro- duction, the director, the release and the place- of-showing must be brought about under most happy augutries to g:ive the real opportunity to the aspirant for high honors. Few producers have ex- ercised such care and intelligence in their handling of precious personalities as has B. P. Schulberg with Clara Bow. And you must bear in mind that Schul- berg brought Bow to the fore at a time when he was scarcely in a position to give her the "breaks" that the big organizations can afford their young- sters. I refer to Clara's career with Schulberg when the latter was an "independent". Watch this Douglas girl, however. She has emotional power as an actress, almost flawless features and com- plexion— and SEX! I compliment Larry Weingarten and Chet Withey at MGM for "seeing" Miss Doug- las and trust the girl will triumphantly bear out my high predictions for her future. TAdvt. '^*i""">>ii luiiiiiiMiiHaiiiiuiiiiiiniiiuiiiiiiiaMiiiimiiQiiiiiiiiniiDmuuiiMjauiiiiiiiiiaiiiuiiiiiuQiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiuninuiiiuiiiiiQiiiiiiiin iiiiQiiiiiniiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiuiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiO April 14, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Editorial Office : 7213 Sunset Boulevard HEmpstead 2801 Advertising and Circulation Departments : 411 Palmer Building - Gladstone 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles zvith us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 14, 1928 Our Czar Seems to Have Got Himself Into a Mess LAST summer The Spectator stated that the only dif- ference between Will Hays and a cheap politician is that Hays is not cheap. He is a small-town man with a city income, a man who thinks in cents and sells his thoughts for dollars. His flair for performing tricks has taken him out of his small town, and he has gained a national reputation, but never has developed an ability to apply other than small-town methods to problems that have arisen in the larger field in which he so strangely has found himself. Long before I started The Spectator I viewed the appointment of Hays as the virtual head of pic- tures as an act of folly on the part of the producers, and frequently in The Spectator I have made references to him consistent with that view. In the first place, pictures IN THE NEXT SPECTATOR Revolutionary effect on the industry of the general use of sound devices. The actor with a voice coming into his own. Other general comment and reviews of several im- portant pictures not yet shown here, among them: The Tempest, John Barrymore's latest starring vehicle, directed by Sam Taylor. Laugh, Clown, Laugh, with Lon Chaney, directed by Herbert Brenon. Three Sinners, Pola Negri starring, directed by Row- land V. Lee. Glorious Betsy, the Warner Brothers picture featuring Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel, with which the new Warner theatre will be opened. Director, Alan Crosland. Several other reviews, among them Speedy, Harold Lloyd's latest; Street Angel, which opened at the Carthay Circle this week; Ramona, starring Dolores Del Rio; Easy Come, Easy Go, starring Richard Dix; Man-Made Woman, a De Mille production starring Leatrice Joy. should not be run in a manner that makes necessary the employment of an apologist for them; but given the fact that they are, and that an apologist becomes necessary, why pick on one whose only claim to distinction was that he was a cabinet officer during the most corrupt adminis- tration that Washington has known in the last century? One other office Will Hays held, that of chairman of the National Republican Committee. Recently he has been called upon to explain to a Senate committee some things he did as chairman. I will give you a pen picture of the manner in which he proved equal to the occasion. I quote from Outlook of March fourteen: "Prominent and import- ant personage that he is, Hays became a pitiable figure be- fore the grilling was over. He gripped the chair arm till his knuckles turned white. He bit his lips till the blood ran, till his hankerchief was all but saturated." There you have an ennobling picture of the "czar of the movies"! Hays' perturbation was caused by the fact that when he was under oath four years ago he did not tell all the truth that two months ago he was forced to tell. On the first occasion he committed moral perjury, which is ethi- cally as great a crime as committing legal perjury. To- day he stands before the country as a thoroughly discred- ited man, but he still is "czar of the movies"! I have formed my estimate of Will Hays solely from listening to him talk and from reading his speeches, methods that at all times were open to those who employ him. I have listened to and read scores of Hays' speeches, but not one of them revealed any mental depth. He brings trickery even into public speaking, using words to deceive people into the belief that he can think. But this shallow, petty Presbyterian is presented to the world as the model from which pictures pattern their respectability. He it is who says that Rain is not chaste enough for an independent to make into a picture, but is chaste enough for Joe Schenck to make into one. He it is who struts about Hollywood as the industry makes obeisance to him, but who jumps side- ways every time one of his bosses pulls a string. What are the producers going to do with him now that he brings discredit to a job that had influence only to the extent of his claim to unimpeachable respectability? The situation is a serious one and must be met promptly. Hays has his points. I do not wish to discredit him entirely. He has some notable achievements to his credit, the most notable being that of selling his fifteen-hundred-dollar-a-year mind to the motion picture industry for one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. * * * Pictures Should Get Rid of Their Presbyterian Elder HARRY Sinclair, the gold gusher, is not in jail, nor is A. B. Fall, Secretary of the Interior in the same cabinet in which Will Hays was Postmaster-Gen- eral, and until they are sent there by the law we can not classify them as criminals. But while facts are not proof until they are proven, it is upon its understanding of them that the public bases its first opinion, and this opinion con- demns the Teapot Dome incident of the Harding adminis- tration and characterizes it as one of the most unsavory chapters of our political history. After Will Hays knew what a mess it was, he concealed the fact that as chair- man of the National Republican Committee he handled some of the dirty money that was involved in it. He knew Page Four that the laws of the country demanded that publicity be given to campaign contributions, and by trickery he evaded the law. When before a committee four years ago he swore to tell all the truth, and this year he confessed that he did not tell all the truth on that occasion. When he received the bonds from Sinclair he lied to his own com- mittee by crediting the contribution of one man, whose name was too unclean to use, as several contributions from men whose names conveyed more in the way of respecta- bility. If it had not been a moral crime to accept the con- tribution Hays would not have concealed the fact that he had received it. If he had been a member of the Coolidge cabinet when the facts of his connection with the scandal came to light there would have been an instant demand for his resignation. But Hays holds only one official position, that of sponsor for the respectability of the motion picture industry. He is paid an enormous salary for posing as a citizen so virtuous that he makes virtuous all that he touches. His connection with the Presbyterian church and his ability as a lobbyist were all that the industry thought it was buying from him. Now it learns that it purchased also a large and unsavory mess. And what does the indus- try do to meet the emergency, to show that it itself is respectable, although the man whom it paid to make it so is not all it thought he was ? Does it ask him to resign, or at least to suspend his picture activities until the oil investigation be completed ? No. It sends Hays to Europe to appear before the government of France as the accred- ited representative of the motion picture industry of the United States. It sends to a clean country a man who can not leave his own except by permission of a senate committee investigating a crime with which his name is connected. The poor, dumb creatures who constitute the Hays organization can not realize that his presence in France will be regarded as an affront to those whom he went over to placate. Anyone with any knowledge of European psychology would know that no greater blunder could be committed; and anyone with any sense of the amenities of international intercourse would know that a man under a cloud in his own country could not make an efficient ambassador to another. Possibly nothing that this particularly stupid industry has done heretofore can match in stupidity the sublime folly of allowing Hays to go abroad to tell Frenchmen what a nice industry it is. Hays' usefulness to pictures has ceased. His further connection with them is impossible. And no doubt if you made that statement at a meeting of his organization its members would look at you in amazement and swell into a chorus the one word, "Why?" ♦ * * Must Foreigners Always Play the Foreign Parts? To GIVE pictures with foreign locales the proper for- eign atmosphere the casts are made up largely of foreign actors. When we want a Russian army we recruit it among the Russians living in Hollywood. United Artists carried this so far that signs in the Russian lan- guage had to be posted all over the lot to keep the soldiers from wandering into private offices. The foreigners were employed to support John Barrymore in a picture with a Russian locale, and in which he plays a Russian officer. Norma Talmadge is playing a European in her present picture and the cast is made up almost entirely of Euro- THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 peans. If the employment of foreig^iers in these two pic- tures be defended on the score of their foreign locales, how can the argument be squared with the fact that tha stars are not foreigners? If Jack Barrymore can play a Russian officer, what is to prevent an American extra playing a Russian private? If a New York woman can play a European character, why can't a New York man do the same thing? I have no quarrel with the employment of foreigners in pictures, but I do quarrel with the rea- son given by American producers for their employment. There is no logic in it. Hollywood is over-populated with talent. The unemployment problem is a serious one, and its seriousness is being accentuated by the warm reception that we still continue to give to foreigners. When a for- eign director is given a picture he makes places in it for as many of his countrymen as he can employ, but there are no striking examples of American directors displaying a* much loyalty to their countrymen. One prominent foreign director withdrew his support from The Spectator because I advocated the exclusion of more foreign players. He maintained that I was narrow, that art knew no national- ity, and that Hollywood should welcome the artists of tha world. In theory I agree with him, but until all the art- ists here now are eating regularly I do not think we should import any more from any place. I would bar people from Ohio as cheerfully as I would people from Russia, but un- fortunately we have no machinery by which we can ex- clude Ohioans. We have, however, in the immigration laws, a bar that can be erected against the admission of any more foreigners, and the bar should be erected. Even at the risk of losing a few more foreign readers I must con- fess that if I had but one job and had two applicants for it, an American and a foreigner of equal attainments, I would give it to the American. The American is here by reason of his birth, and no one asked the foreigner to come. But the presence of the foreigner in Hollywood is a fact, and when I advocate the exclusion of his country- men not here already, I am serving his interests as much as I am the interests of the native American. We have hundreds of splendid artists who secure work but seldom, and every time a new one arrives work becomes more scarce. While it is at all scarce I believe producers should agree with the foreign director who quarreled with me, and proceed on the theory that art has no nationality, thereby dismissing from their minds the conviction that when a Russian picture is being cast there is a reason why only Russians should be employed. * • ♦ Unwise to Bargain the Enthusiasm Out of Players THERE can be no doubt of the need of greater econ- omy in the production of motion pictures, but tha industry can not benefit from its exercise unless it be applied intelligently. I doubt if we will have economy ap- plied intelligently as long as those responsible for the present grotesque waste of money remain in charge of production. Extravagance has held high carnival for the past decade, and we have raised a race of executives who have grown to believe that the only production method is that of making two dollars do the work of one. Lacking the ability to see the faults of the present system, it is highly improbable that they ever will develop to the point that will enable them to see virtues in any other. Wha» April 14, 1928 THE FILM Wall Street cracked its whip last summer the first econ- omy that suggested itself to the minds of the producers was the last that should have been resorted to: the reduc- tion of salaries. One independent producer whom I know had the same idea. He brought to pictures a keen business mind. An adaptation of his first story was worth at least five thousand dollars to him, but there were many writers out of employment and he secured one to do the adapta- tion for two thousand dollars, making a saving of three thousand dollars on that one item, but getting a listless screen story, the only kind that could be written by a woman who knew her employer had based her value on her need of money. When he cast his picture he took ad- vantage of the fact that there was little production going on and he bargained with his players until they agreed to such reductions that they were paid a little more than half their established salaries, which represents another saving. The extra work in the picture was the sort that pays seven dollars and a half and ten dollars a day. There were thousands of extras out of employment, and this producer got all he wanted for five dollars a day by the simple expedient of announcing that he would not pay more. Of course he paid without hesitation the full price lor all the materials that entered into the building of his sets. Concrete and plaster and lumber are products that are handled by business men who set a price and maintain it, a method approved by my business-man producer, who knows that to succeed business must be stabilized. During production he complained to me that shooting was costing him more than it should, and when I looked at some of his nishes I agreed that he was getting listless performances. He had to uss his biggest mob twice as long as the sched- ule called for, and even then it had no life in it when it appeared on the screen. But the sets looked fine. In all departments of the production my friend was getting ex- actly what he paid for. He got full bags of cement because he paid the full price, and half-performances because he paid half salaries. I do not say that any of his players "laid down". It simply was a case of all the enthusiasm having been bargained out of them before they went on the set. They started work with the conviction that the pro- ducer was cheap, and they delivered cheap goods. Yet this producer exercised the only kind of economy that yet has suggested itself to the captains of the industry. Their own wildly extravagant salaries still prevail and they have made no move in the direction of demanding scripts that in themselves would effect economies by removing one cause of extravagance: the building of sets that never are used and the shooting of scenes that do not reach the screen. To the extent that it is the worst managed busi- ness on earth can the remedy be applied with ease. Only the most elemental brains are necessary. Unfortunately, however, our producers seem to lack any sort of brains. * * * They Talk Economy, But They Don't Apply It POSSIBLY Robert Kane is equipped as well as any other producer to speak with authority on production economy. I do not know him, but have been familiar with his name for several years. He is one of our big pro- ducers. During the past year while economy has been discussed Kane must have given heed to what was said, and probably he contributed some of his own thoughts SPECTATOR Page Five to the discussion. We may assume, at any rate, that he profited as much from the discussion as any other pro- ducer, and that he would apply what he learned to his future activities. Recently Kane, our average producer, made Harold Teen. In its finished form it would show on the screen not more than three hundred and twenty-flve scenes. That is something that Kane would know if h« knows anything whatever about pictures. With methods of reducing producing costs being a live topic of studio production, one would assume that Kane worked on the script until it contained only the number of scenes that ultimately could be shown, eliminating from it all the superfluous scenes that would eat up money that would yield no return. But Kane, our average producer, did net do this. He handed to his director a script which con- tained five hundred and fifty-eight scenes. This means that the executive head of the unit making Harold Teen instructed his director to shoot two hundred and thirty- five scenes that by no possibility could reach the screen. What good did all the talk of economy do Kane? None whatever. It did not teach him the elemental fact that money is wasted when spent on a set that does not reach the screen. There is the other consideration that no mat- ter how good Harold Teen may prove to be, it could not escape being better if it were made intelligently, but I am discussing economy, not art. In all the studios Kane's method of production still rules. Such a thing as a perfect script scarcely is known. The present executives are in- capable of understanding it. And yet these executives seem to be fastened so firmly on the industry that there seems to be little prospect of a change. The ignorance and inefficiency of some of these high-salaried executives is a matter of common knowledge in Hollywood, but when one of them leaves a job in one studio he bobs up again a week later holding a similar or better job in another studio. I have been in Hollywood for six years and during that time the same bunch of executives has bounced around from one studio to another, carrying ineflSciency from one job to another, and following one failure with another. While this has been going on men who would score great suc- cesses as executives have been walking the streets of Hollywood looking for jobs. The world's belief that Holly- wood does not know how to make good pictures has been created by the failure of those who make them so poorly to step aside and leave their making to those who could do it so well. Owing to the Jewish domination of the in- dustry, it so happens that most of the wholly incompetent executives are Jews, for a Grentile must have outstanding ability before he can rise to a position of authority, while all a Jew needs is to be a relative of the boss, or to play poker with him. We are used to regarding Jews as great lovers of money, but we can not so regard those Jews who are motion picture producers. They could not squander so prodigiously anything that they love very much. * * * About Spectator Medal For the Final Fade-out A DIRECTOR who says he is interested in the medal which The Spectator is offering to the director who makes the most original or most refreshing final fade-out this year, asks me to be more explicit in suggest- ing the kind of fade-out that I mean. Well, let's see. My object in offering Ihe medal was to stimulate interest Page Six that would get the screen away from the entirely unimagi- native and vulgar final clinch. The purpose of the clinch generally is to show that the boy and girl are going to be married. Suppose we have a story in which the outcome of the love element is in doubt until the last scene. The standard method of winding up such a story is to have the boy and girl entwined in one another's arms. There are hundreds of different ways of treating it, any one of which might get the medal. I will suggest one. Open on a scenic exterior — a meadow, a shaded wood, or something else attractive. When the empty scene comes on we do not know if the girl has accepted the boy, and that is all we need know to end the story. Into the scene the two come, entering by the left foreground, their backs to the camera. Their hands are clasped and they swing their arms as they stroll along. When they are in the right position before the camera they exchange happy glances, which brings their profiles to the screen in a shot close enough to show us how happy they are. Then, with their backs always to the camera, they move diagonally across the screen and we fade-out as they are disappearing in the right back- ground. There is nothing extraordinary in this scene, but at the same time it is not purely pictorial. Young people, or old ones, too, for that matter — are oblivious to all the rest of the world when they are exchanging their love vows. Everything else has ceased to exist and they are all that remains. Did you ever see a love scene directed in a manner that indicated that the director knew this ele- mental fact about love scenes? The scene I suggest has it in mind. As the young people appear on the screen with their backs to the audience the impression is created that they have forgotten the rest of the world, an impres- sion which retains the spirit of a love scene. I do not make my boy and girl kiss in the final scene, because lovers instinctively seek secluded spots for such demonstrations of affection. They might hold hands while crossing an open field, but they would not embrace in such an exposed place. What we see of them tells us all we need know to wind up the story acceptably. They would not be holding handi and acting so joyfully if the girl had refused the boy. Directors as a class are dull and stupid. They have brought screen art to a standstill. They continue to do now what someone started doing a score of years ago. The con- ventional method of ending a motion picture is with a clinch, and directors would keep on using that method for- ever if someone did not call them names and throw stones at them for doing it. What we lack are directors with brains enough to sit down and reason out each scene for themselves. All any one of them need do to make himself a sensational success is, as each scene comes up, to dis- card the usual and conventional method of shooting it. He automatically would give us a most refreshing picture. And he might win both The Spectator medals, one for a love ■cene and one for a fade-out. * * * Average Man Rather Poor Screen Material EVEN if The Crowd were not as good as it is, Metro would deserve a lot of credit for having made it. It is a peculiar organization. In rapid succession it turns out pictures that give little evidence of the expendi- ture of any thought on them, and then it comes along with something like The Crowd that is so full of thought that THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 it will not be a box-office success, in spite of the fact that it is one of the finest and most worthy motion pictures ever made. King Vidor's conception was an extraordinary one and he has put it on paper with a degree of faithful- ness and conviction that could be attained only by a master craftsman. When he reached into the crowd his hand fell on the shoulder of one of its standard parts, and out of that part he made a motion picture. His hero is one of the men upon whom nature relies to keep intact the in- tegrity of its crowds, a man without either virtue or vices, and lacking the mental equipment to lift himself by his thoughts above the level of the others whose elbows always were touching his. With this thought, and with his aver- age man, Vidor proceeds to write an essay and spread it on the screen. In so doing he presents us with two per- formances of extraordinary merit, those of Eleanor Board- man and James Murray. The acting of these two young people is enough in itself to make a picture notable purely as a picture, but a dozen such performances in such a pic- ture coujd not make it notable as screen entertainment. It has the fundamental weakness of attempting to interest us in something inherently uninteresting. We are not interested in average things, whether animate or inani- mate. We are interested in anything in the degree that it is above or below the average. We are interested in Lind- bergh because he is a fine, brave boy who soars above the average; we are interested in Hickman because he is a beast so far below the average that he attracts our atten- tion. We are not interested in young Johnny Sims, one of several hundred clerks in an insurance company's office. He is one of hundreds in the same office and of untold mil- lions throughout the world, and there is nothing about him to attract our attention. Vidor presumed that we would become interested in Johnny when he was pointed out to us, but pointing at him does not make him more interest- ing. I am aware that great plays and great books have been written about average people, but in them the aver- age people did things or thought thoughts that we would not expect from average people, proving, after all, that they were not true to the average. The Crowd gets all its merit from the fact that it deals with people who do not rise above or fall below the mean average. In short, it tries to interest us in the most uninteresting thing on earth: an average product. The most successful picture always will be the one which deals with the most interest- ing subject in the most interesting way. It can not be a picture that possesses only one of these superlatives. There are some things so uninteresting that they can not be made interesting by any kind of treatment. The average man is one of them. » * * "The Crowd" a Picture That Dampens Enthusiasm BUT The Crowd was a fine thing for Metro to do. I am afraid, however, that the poor box-office record that it is going to make will have a blighting effect on the organization's output. In the future when a director wishes to get Mayer's permission to make a picture with a thought in it. The Crowd will be trotted out as proof that the public does not wish to think. The Vidor picture would not have been made if the Metro executives understood the business that they are in. If they knew anything about screen fundamentals they would have seen that the pictura ; April 14, 1928 THE FILM could not be successful. While we go to the film houses primarily for entertainment, we go to them also for in- spiration. The reason the public enjoys a picture whose logical ending is happy, more than it does one which, to be logical, must have an unhappy ending, is the inspiration it derives from the former. Johnny Sims and his friends are paying over ninety per cent, of what the world pays to see motion pictiires. The screen has become practically their only source of inspiration. The discouraged stenog- rapher is inspired by the fact that the stenographer in the picture marries the boss, and the traveling salesman is g:iven fresh hope when he sees Dick Dix or Bill Haines, playing a salesman, cop the millionaire's daughter in the final reel. Johnny Sims sees that there is a future for him when the picture shows the clerk becoming vice-presi- dent and marrying the president's daughter. But what does anyone get from The Crowd? The comfortable citizen who drove to the theatre in a car of his own and who can sleep at night without worrying about the grocery bill, sees paraded before him on the screen every heartache he and his wife endured during the years of their upward struggle. Out of locked closets come spectres of the past that the screen breathes life into and makes real again. And what do the friends of Johnny Sims get out of it — the young people who constitute the crowd? The only thing that keeps their heads up and eyes front is the thought that some day they will rise above the multitude, as the heroes in motion pictures always do. But this pic- ture has no such inspiration. With extraordinary vigor and conviction it plants the utter futility of endeavoring to battle one's way to success. It shows that the crowd is too powerful to be combatted, and it breathes hopelessness and despair. All these drawbacks are accentuated by the excellence of the production from a motion picture angle. I do not think a finer example of intelligent direction ever reached the screen. As an example of cinematic art The Crowd is a success, but as a medium of screen entertain- ment it will be a failure. It is too depressing, and carries realism just a little farther than the public will prove willing to follow. But it should not discourage further adventures into realism, which should be applied to themes that strike a more optimistic note. Metro is to be com- mended for discarding the superlatively happy ending that was tacked onto The Crowd at one stage of its evolution. It ends now just as it should. * * * Shooting Different Endings Confession of Studio Stupidity AT the time of one of its previews The Crowd had a wildly ridiculous ending tacked on to it, as I pointed out at the time. I suppose it cost some thousands of dollars to shoot. It destroyed in half a reel what King Vidor so powerfully built up in seven. The impossibility of it was so obvious that finally even the Metro executives Baw it. They recalled the prints that had gone out, and replaced them with the version that was shown in Los Angeles. It is not an unusual thing for a studio to make two or more endings of a picture, and to give each one a chance to make good at a preview. It is a sensible prac- tice that should be adopted by other arts. Take archi- tecture. At present when an architect is planning a twelve-story building he builds from the basement up, and designs a roof that is in keeping with the rest of the SPECTATOR Page Seven structure. That is, he thinks it will look well. Anyway, the contractors go ahead and finish off the building with the roof that the architect deemed the most logical for it. Picture people would have used more intelligence in fin- ishing the building. How could the architect know that Iowa tourists would like the roof he designed? Logical? My dear boy, you and I know that the architect has the right idea, the artistic idea, but we are not erecting build- ings for you and me. We must think of our public, dear fellow. And to please the public several roofs would b« built, one after the other, and each given a turn on the top of the building until the final choice was made. My illustration is not an extravagant one. Despite the fact that alternative endings have been shot for some of our best pictures, I maintain that such a practice is an artistic idiocy and an economic folly. There is but one ending that any story can have: that dictated by logic. There may be discussion during the story-building stages of what ending logic would dictate. Opinions would differ, but be- fore shooting begins such differences should be composed and the picture given the ending that the majority mind decided was the logical one. To shoot two or more end- ings is a childish practice, a sad confession by the pro- duction staff that it does not understand the story it is putting on the screen. The practice is an off-shoot of executive indifference to waste. Dollars are the cheapest things to be found on any of the big lots. On the pay- rolls are men who could recognize the proper ending for a given story, but in the executive offices are men who are afraid of themselves and who squander scores of thou- sands of dollars each year while trying to make up their minds, with which they are furnished quite scantily. When exhibitors fail to be impressed by the cost of a picture a move may be made to reduce the cost. Metro will sell The Crowd to exhibitors on the strength of the large sum it took to make it, which puts a premium on extravagance. Exhibitors reason that if it took that much money it must be good, and buy it on that theory. They should remem- ber that the cost figure presented to them by the salesman consists of three parts: the amount that what reaches the screen really cost; the amount wasted, and the amount that the liar who sells the picture throws in for good measure. • * « "Dressed to KiU" Is Excellent Entertainment PERHAPS I should have excepted the Fox organiza- tion when I charged the whole industry in the last Spectator with slighting its principal product, the program picture. If we are to accept Dressed to Kill as a sample of what it intends to do in the way of comparatively cheap pictures, we must agree that the studio's production staff realizes the importance of not applying to the big specials all the constructive brains in the organization. I have said many times in The Spectator that there is no excuse for any picture being hopelessly poor, that the one with the poorest story at least could be entertaining if directed, acted, and edited with ordinary intelligence. Dressed to Kill is just a crook drama that very easily could have been presented as a lurid, over-acted and unbe- lievable nightmare of the underworld. But it wasn't. By his direction Irving Cummings has raised it to the level of intelligent and gripping screen drama. It is a director's Patre Eight picture, for it is not the story, but the manner of telling it, that raises it above the level of scores of pictures that cost twice as much to make. It is full of clever directorial touches. Mary Astor and Edmund Lowe sit side by side on a couch and have a long conversation that is necessary to the story. It is a sort of scene that is hard to handle, for the camera can not be kept for a couple of hundred feet on two people talking. Cummings gets away with it by shooting the pair from different angles, but never separating them into individual close-ups, which is the standard, unimaginative method of shooting such a scene. Cummings shows equal intelligence in using lights to enhance his drama. There is nothing spooky about his lights and shadows, but he invests each scene with a rich pictorial quality that adds strength to the action depicted in it. In each scene shadows indicate the source of origin of the light. Each scene in every production would have the same thing in it if we had enough picture brains to go round. There is in Dressed to Kill another feature that I never saw before. Lowe, as the leader of a gang of crooks, plans the robbery of a fur store. We are told exactly what his plans are and then we sit in a tense attitude to see if they are carried out. Lowe tells one of his fellow crooks to be walking past the store, reading a newspaper; another to engage the doorman in conversa- tion, and so on. When the robbery sequence opens the audience becomes interested intensely in the working out of the plans. It knows that a man is going to pass the store as he is reading the paper, and that another is going to open a conversation with the doorman, conse- quently these things mean something to it when they happen, and enables it to take a much more intelligent interest in the robbery. A newspaper rule is that first you must tell the readers what they know already, then you can proceed to give them the news they don't know. A variation of this idea is found in Cummings' treatment of the robbery sequence. He tells the audience what is going to happen, and it takes an extraordinary interest in watching to see if it does. There is another sequence in Dressed to Kill that reveals that someone with a real sense of humor had a voice in writing the story. We see the members of a gang murder a stool pigeon, and the sequence I refer to is one showing the victim's funeral. The mem- bers of the gang who did the killing act as pall bearers and cover the casket with floral tributes to the worth of the departed. The scene is presented with all the gravity and dignity that attend funerals, nevertheless, and not- withstanding its subject matter, it is a delicious bit of comedy. * * * It Presents to Us the Latest Models in Crooks DRESSED to Kill is going to be a successful picture because it makes the kind of people we know do things that we never see done. Most crook pictures contain extravagant types unlike any we encounter in real life. We picture them as exactly the kind of people who would rob safes, consequently when they do rob safes they are doing merely what we expected them to do and we can't get any great kick out of it. But Irving Cum- mings presents us with slow moving, quietly dressed fel- lows who have nothing in appearance or demeanor to classify them as desperate criminals, and when men of THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 that sort get into action we do get a kick out of it. Hi« crook is a 1928 model, and to divert suspicion from himself by acting as a pallbearer for a man he murdered is exactly the kind of thing the 1928 model would do. Dressed to Kill also avoids any suggestion of underground dens in which crooks plot horrible things. Everything is in the open. Some of the settings are elaborate, and there is not one that has any suggestion of meanness. The chief crook (Lowe) lives in an elaborate apartment to which he brings a girl who has intrigued him. When he is locked out of the bedroom to which he has led her, he goes to bed with all his clothes on, on a couch in his sumptuous draw- ing-room. At least that is where we find him next morn- ing. It is the one bad spot in the picture. Such an apart- ment would have more than one bedroom; in any event the man would not have slept even on the couch with all his clothes on, and showing that there was another bed- room would have indicated that the man, in attempting to occupy the same room with the girl, had something on his mind other than a desire merely to find some place to sleep. As that thought is all there is in the sequence it should have been accentuated by showing the man non- chalantly seeking another bed when the girl turned the key on him. In every other respect the direction of this picture is flawless, and I can assure my exhibitor readers that it is a picture good enough to be shown anywhere. Edmund Lowe gives the best performance he ever gave in any picture in which I have seen him. He is the quiet, pleasant, well dressed crook that the story calls for, and he depicts the role with finesse and understanding. Mary Astor rapidly is graduating from the class of beautiful girls into that of beautiful actresses. Always a gorgeous creature to behold, in this picture she adds to her pictorial attractiveness an exhibition of real acting that gives me a new conception of her. She and Lowe have many delight- fully acted scenes, most of which she dominates. Appar- ently the young woman has something that other directors have not been able to discover. Ben Bard contributes a clever characterization, and several others in the cast give good account of themselves. The story is one that holds the interest of the audience right to the end, but unfortunately the picture goes on for perhaps half a reel after the story ends. Lowe's efforts to save the girl cost him his life. He is riddled by bullets fired by mem- bers of his gang and finally topples into a gutter and dies. Why the picture continues after that I can not imagine. The fact that you can't beat the law is planted when the luxury-loving, soft-living Lowe dies in a gutter, yet the picture proceeds to rub it in unnecessarily, and tries to introduce comedy that utterly ruins the effect of the logical ending. However, you needn't wait for the tail-end of Dressed to Kill. You've received far more than your money's worth down to that point. * * * We Have a Close-up of Some Ham and Eggs THE Spectator, you may remember, is offering two gold medals, one for the best love scene screened this year, and one for the most original and appropriate final fade-out shown during the same period. It is just as well that I did not offer a medal also for the most striking close-up. If I had, the contest would be over. I have said many harsh things about the abuse of close-ups, April 14, 1928 THE FILM and could see but little virtue in them. To Tod Browning, however, goes the credit of almost reconciling me to their use. His treatment of close-ups in The Big City is fas- cinating, and reaches a state of ecstasy when the screen displays proudly a close-up of a dish of ham and eggs. Close-ups of hams we previously have had in great abund- ance, but this is the first time I have seen one embellished by the golden yolks of eggs. I have tried to find out what close-ups are for, and what reason regulates their use. I have learned that sometimes they are used solely because of their beauty; frequently because only in a close-up can emotion be registered convincingly, and most often to cover someone's blunder in writing the script, directing it or in cutting the film. Just as I am about to reconcile the use of close-ups with the logic of the three excuses, along comes one of a dish of ham and eggs, and I am undone. To Tod Browning would have gone any medal that I could have offered for an effective use of the close- up. Running this one a close second in The Big City is a close-up of a dish of spaghetti with pearls and diamond rings in it. The jewels are lifted from some cafe patrons by some members of Lon Chaney's gang. Lon is present, but as he is robbed also no one suspects him of being con- nected with the crime. An hour or two after the robbery Lon is seated at a table, with Virginia Pearson crying opposite him, and Eddie Sturgis brings him the jewels in their setting of spaghetti. It's great picture stuff. As it would be unsafe for the thieves to walk past the unsus- pecting policemen with the jewels in their pockets, and as no one must suspect Lon's connection with the affair, the swag is cooked with the spaghetti and carried to Lon in a covered dish which no one dreams of investigating, thereby making the use of spaghetti quite unnecessary. I know it is involved as I write it, but it is an involved scene, one of many in an involved and very silly picture. Browning and Chaney have reached the point of turning out pictures with hammer and saw. Every situation in The Big City is a manufactured one, with corners so poorly cut that it does not fit into the next one to it. It is the most childish attempt at picture making that I have seen recently. In looking over the notes I made when I viewed it, I find that I have twenty-eight things listed that are as ridiculous as the close-up of the ham and eggs, and the spaghetti-embellished pearls. The titles are so stiff and awkward that they creak, yet to them went the burden of telling practically all the story. One absurd scene follows another until the only feature of the picture that is enter- taining is the speculation it arouses as to how long the absurdities can last. I will spare you the other twenty-six notes. But I must give Betty Compson and Matthew Betz credit for splendid performances. All the other members of the cast were directed wretchedly. ♦ * * Foreigners Threatening the American Supremacy THE feature of The Last Waltz that interested me chiefly is its similarity to American-made pictures. Other Ufa productions that I have seen revealed their foreign origin in every reel. This one might have been made in Hollywood, except that it displays more sense in lighting than is characteristic of our films. The story of The Last Waltz is fully as interesting as the stories of ninety-nine per cent, of the Hollywood product, the pro- SPECTATOR Page Nine duction is both artistic and elaborate, and two male mem- bers of the cast give most excellent performances. Appar- ently the director got out of the story all there was in it, and it is not a great picture only because the story lacked the element of greatness. But it is quite good enough to serve as a warning to us. America's hold on the film market of the world is threatened. If a foreign studio can match so perfectly the work of a Hollywood studio, there is no reason why the world at large should continue to pay us one dollar for what it can buy elsewhere for fifty cents. Foreigners always will be able to undersell us, for the people in charge of production outside thi« country have business brains and take pride in applying their brains to the making of good pictures economically. Over here the heads of the great producing organization! are interested more in exploiting the industry than in advancing its welfare. They are running it to the ground at a time when foreign production is shaping itself to cater to the taste cultivated by Hollywood, as The Last Waltz demonstrates. It is not Germany, however, that we have most reason to fear. All motion picture producers elsewhere in the world should keep their eyes on Russia. In that country they are applying common sense to picture making, and in the long run applied common sense proves unbeatable. Their first concern has been to develop the physical and scientific side of production, and they have made extraordinary progress. Give them two or three more years in which to learn to tell stories as the world wants them told, and Russia will be in a position to domi- nate the screens" of the world. They are building on a permanent foundation. They have schools to teach all branches of the business, writing, acting, directing, photog- raphy, set dressing, business management, and everything else. From among the thousands who attend these schools a few will emerge as great picture artists or executives. In this country we have not done anything to perpetuate the business. Those in whose hands the industry rests now have not made one move that would indicate that they expect it to survive them. I tried to interest some of them in a plan to establish in Hollywood a school to teach all branches of picture production, but among the executives I could find no one whose interest in pictures went beyond the amount of salary he could persuade them to pay him. Russians love screen art and are jealous of it. In this country the art is looked upon only as a gatherer of dollars for a handful of picture barons who do not care what its future is. Prove to them that foreigners will relieve us of our supremacy and it would not disturb these barons. They are getting theirs now. * * * Getting Even With Mr. Edward Everett Horton EDDIE Horton and I are neighbors. Our ranches on Sunset Boulevard adjoin for their full length, one hundred and eighty-four feet. One day Eddie, who is a nice boy, gave his mother a new Lincoln and Mrs. Horton used it to smash a hole in the fence that separates Eddie's flower garden from mine. The hole is still there, and Eddie uses it to pass through when he enters my gar- den to swipe my flowers. It seems to me that I am putting in flowers only for the snails and Eddie. I would not mind this so much if Eddie displayed as much sense as the snails do in leaving me alone personally. I sit in my Page Ten back yard when I write The Spectator, where I can get the mixed perfume of sweet peas and orange and lemon blossoms, and see the earth working out the chemistry of color and demonstrating on petals the triumphs of its process; and have with me my two dogs and two cats, who prowl about me and ask me now and then to stroke their backs. I can concentrate in such surroundings, but I cannot when Eddie stands on his side of the fence and throws acorns at me. It not only is an unneighborly act, but is a plagiarism. I was up at Burlingame recently, playing golf for a week with Stewart Edward White and Samuel Hopkins Adams. I took a couple of lessons from the professional and during their progress Sam Adams threw acorns at me. I told Eddie about it, and he has contracted the habit. As I can not throw straight enough to make reprisal in kind eifective, I decided to make The Spectator my weapon of revenge and pan the daylights out of him when he took over the Vine Street Theatre and as Edward Everett Horton cast himself in a succession of fat parts. I dressed up and sat in the front row at his opening, hoping that the reflection from my stiff shirt would confuse him. I told him last night when he came over to borrow some butter, that I was going to write something about him this morning, and he's on his side of the fence now making menacing gestures with some chunks of concrete which have replaced the acorns for the time being. I might take a chance myself, but Lord Roberts, my huge orange Persian cat, is asleep on a chair beside me and I can not subject him to a barrage of con- crete, consequently I have allowed myself to be intimi- dated into the admission that Eddie is some pumpkins as an actor and that A Single Man is most delightful entertain- ment. As I forget the concrete and think only of the play and the performances, I find it easy to become enthusiastic, even if Eddie did forget to wrap a couple of passes around some of the acorns he hurled at me. When I pay to see a show it has to be good, and A Single Man is. Horton is a superb actor and I never saw him in a part that suits him better. Maude Fulton's first adventure in legitimate comedy is a glorious success. She puts feeling and under- standing into the part she plays. Harriet George is entirely adequate as the effervescent youngster. Fan Bourke makes an extraordinary success of a small part, and I hope that as the tenure of the Horton company con- tinues at the comfortable little theatre she will be given parts that will allow her to delight us still more. It is a fine thing for Hollywood that we have such neighbors. It should show its appreciation of what Horton and his associates are endeavoring to do. Generous support will assure the permanence of the company that with its first venture displays such an ability to entertain us. After seeing A Single Man I am content to allow Eddie to steal my flowers, and it won't disturb me if he forgets to return the butter. * * * About Girls Undressing and a Nice Little Film rHY is it, I ask you, that on the screen we can watch a young girl undress down to her what- you-call-'ems without batting an eye, while in real life or on the stage it isn't done ? As I recall all the undressing scenes that I have seen during the past few months, I do not remember one that helped the story in THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 any way, or that contributed anj'thing in the way of drama or comedy. Such scenes are injected into pictures solely to pander to degenerate tastes. They are cheap and vulgar, and by over-playing suggestiveness they destroy the idea that prompts them — the idea of putting in a little spice to season a picture. I have no quarrel with the idea, for I do not bring a Puritanical mind to my task of con- templating pictures. In fact, between you and me, I'm rather a gay old bird, but I can find no gaiety in a scene that leaves nothing to the imagination. These thoughts were prompted by a scene in The Tragedy of Youth, a Tiffany-Stahl production in which Patsy Ruth Miller and Willie Collier Jr., are featured. For no decent reason whatever Pat is shown undressing during the progress of a quarrel she is having with Collier, her husband. Direct- ing a long sustained quarrel between two people is, I'll grant you, a difficult job for a director to handle, there- fore it is one that should be tackled with zest and directed in a manner that would give us the full measure of the director's cleverness. George Archainbaud's cleverness in this scene does not rise above a girl's underclothes, a rather vulgar admission that he was unequal to the bril- liance with which such screen material should be handled. But he has made a nice little picture out of The Tragedy of Youth nevertheless. The story is as old as time, Adam and Eve and the snake having played in the original pro- duction, but it has been fixed up into a new shape which makes it a whole lot better picture than most of those that the big studios turn out. Although it is a triangle story there is no heavy in it. Pat Miller and Buster Collier marry in the beginning. After a year of it Buster neglects his wife, and Warner Baxter steps into the affair quite accidentally and falls in love with Pat, who ulti- mately divorces her husband and marries him. Techni- cally I suppose Warner rates as a villain, but he is a noble one of most agreeable personality. When a ship upon which he is traveling is about to sink he takes off a life preserver and hands it to another passenger v/ith the title: "Take it! You have something to live for." Appar- ently it was the last preserver on the huge liner. It is amazing that such a childish absurdity can get into a pic- ture. It hurts Tragedy of Youth because it introduces silliness at a time when the story is moving along smoothly and logically. There are a couple of technical blunders for which there is no excuse. Collier takes some flowers from a vase and turns the vase upside down. No water runs out. When flowers are in a container, the container has water in it. A phonograph is set going. While it is play- ing considerable action takes place, necessitating perhaps half a dozen cuts to the revolving record. In each shot the phonograph needle remains on the same spot on the record, making no progress whatever towards the center of the disc. But, anyway, The Tragedy of Youth is a good little picture. Patsy Ruth Miller, Collier and Baxter give most creditable performances, and the titles are punctu- ated almost properly. * * * From This One's Mistakes We Can Learn a Great Deal THE poorest picture has its place on the screen. Ai we study it to learn what makes it weak we discover things that help us to make other pictures strong. The successful man in any branch of industry or art sue- April 14, 1928 ceeds by avoiding repeating the mistakes of others, thus these mistakes have as much to do with his success as his own acts of wisdom. The motion picture industry should feel grateful to Metro for Rose Marie. It shows to what extraordinary lengths the Mayer organization will go to serve screen art. It simplifies the making of other North- west Mounted pictures, for in the future when a situation in such a picture comes up for discussion an immediate decision can be made: Don't do it the way it was done in Kose Marie. I see that the screen credits Lucien Hubbard with the writing and direction of this picture, but I believe the honor was wished on him, for no one man unaided could turn out such a poor production. Rose Marie is another monument to the blundering incapacity of the Mayer organization. It has been stated that it cost seven hundred thousand dollars to make it. A fairly good two hundred thousand production has reached the screen. Half a million dollars was sacrificed to the incapacity of Irving Thalberg or Harry Rapf or whoever had the thing in charge. This picture should have been to Northwest pictures what The Big Parade was to war pictures. Metro had absolutely everything at hand except brains enough to realize its opportunities. Of course there was no reason why it should have paid such a fabulous price for the story for there is nothing in it to distinguish it from the other out-door stories that Metro reads and rejects every day, but, even so, there was no reason for murdering the poor thing after it was purchased. It emphasizes what a queer business the making of pictures is. Mayer, Thalberg, Rapf and others draw gigantic salaries. H one may judge genius by the pay it commands, Mayer and Thalberg must be two of the greatest geniuses the world ever has known. Mayer refused to deny to me that he drew eight hundred thousand dollars a year from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Such a salary must be predicated on the assumption that the man drawing it is a few stages beyond even a superman. Yet he gives us a picture like Rose Marie! With unlim- ited money at his command, unlimited talent and brains available, and all of God's out-doors for his setting, he produces a picture that any independent producer could improve upon as screen entertainment at an outlay of twenty thousand dollars. And Rose Marie cost seven hun- dred thousands. I wonder just how long things like that can go on in the picture business. There is an element of dishonesty in the continued maintenance and tolera- tion of an inefficient organization. The half million dollars wasted on Rose Marie has the same effect on the returns to stockholders as the theft of that amount from the com- pany's safe would have. The bankers of the company and its officers know what is going on. Practically all the Metro directors receive The Spectator regularly at their homes. They will read this and other comments on the company's money being wasted, and when Mayer's con- tract expires they will sign him up again at a larger salary and present him with a diamond-studded fire sign for his automobile. It's a queer business. I wish I knew how I could horn in on it. * * ♦ Some of the Things That Harm "Rose Marie" HOWEVER, we derive no profit from merely saying that Rose Marie is a poor sample of screen art. We have no right to find it guilty until we have pre- sented our case against it. Metro's first mistake was to THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven give an out-door, virile story an in-door, musical comedy treatment. The thing is over-produced. There are scores of shots of milling masses doing nothing whatever to advance the story — shots filled with purposeless animation and so crowded with people that the picture, for all its sublime out-door setting, seems almost stuffy. The great- est weakness is the failure to make the romance stand out. There was a chance for a wonderful love story, a tender, gripping, romantic portrayal of the drawing together of the boy and the girl, but as we get it on the screen, love comes by instantaneous combustion. It is not developed and is handled with the same degree of feeling that is shown later when there is a murder or two. A confession of weakness in the story is the long list of narrative titles. A perfect script would have no narrative titles; this pic- ture has dozens. There is an exceedingly well planned and, as far as it went, a well executed thrill when ice is shown coming down a river, but neither the human nor physical possibilities of the sequence were realized. James Murray pulls two characters out of the raging torrent, taking no more risk than he would in taking two goldfish from a bowl, and later House Peters commends his "very brave" act. Silly twaddle. In the case of Joan Crawford close-ups were justified, but the picture is full of others that are not. Not because she is beautiful and intelligent looking, but because in almost every scene she had to work out her problem alone, it was all right to pick out Joan in close shots, but there the intelligent use of close-ups ended. It might repay us to consider one sequence in detail. Gibson Gowland, a murderous heavy, pulls a gun on Joan, Peters and Murray in a trapper's cabin. The three are scattered and Gowland moves them around as he sees fit. The whole Oxibrii oxford 9511 430No. CanonDrive j BeveriyHills ^ext to Morrison's ^iarhet An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. ^^>-^ BOLGER'S THREE STORES : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard Page Twelve sequence is shown in close-ups. Not once is the whole room and the relation of the characters to one another planted. Anyone with any sense of the dramatic would have presented the sequence in a sustained long shot. The physical actions which the man with the gun made the others perform made the scene, not the facial expressions of any of the characters in it. We never should have lost sight of one character. To have seen three of them mov- ing about the room under the commands of the fourth, ■who sat by the fire and gave his orders, would have been dramatic. The handling of this sequence shows that Hub- bard, or whoever was responsible for it, really did not know what the whole thing was about. But we can thank Rose Marie for showing us what an excellent trouper Joan Crawford is becoming. She gives a most intelligent per- formance, one that gives me great confidence in her future on the screen. James Murray — he looks like the kind of guy that everyone would call "Jim" — is a young man about whose future there is no doubt. We'll hear from him. It was a pleasure to see again that excellent actor House Peters whose unpopularity in studios has kept him off the screen for a long time. Gibson Gowland gives a fine char- acterization of a heavy, and others in the cast do well. There is some gorgeous photography, but it saddens one to think, as he views the picture, just how good it might have been. » ♦ , OCENARISTS and directors should give more thought to *^ their fade-outs at the end of sequences. Too many of them now have too great an air of finality, thus serving to allow a let-down in the audience's interest in a story. The perfect picture, as I see it, is the one that keeps the inter- est on an absolutely straight line that tilts upward. In other words, the interest should climb a straight incline, not mount by steps. In some pictures we have the closing title in one sequence giving some indication of what is to come after it, thus preventing any let-down in interest, but it is seen too rarely. In a picture directed by Tom Terris, the name of which I have forgotten, there is an intelligent use of titles to carry the audience from sequence to se- quence. Terris gets his effect by dissolving into a title the end of one sequence and the beginning of the next. It is a commendable practice that should be adopted more generally. In some other picture I remember a spoken title: "Then I'll see you at the ambassador's ball." The title was followed by a fade-in to a ball to which it was an adequate introduction. In the vast majority of pictures, however, each sequence ends with a finality that disturbs the continuity of thought, and there should be no such dis- turbance from the beginning to the end of a picture. If screen art is to advance more thought must be expended on its fundamentals. My life is made up largely of view- ing and analyzing pictures, but I can detect few indications that they are making any real progress. * * * OUSPENSB is good hokum and all hokum is good screen ^ material when it is presented properly. When an effort is made to create suspense by a purely theatrical trick it ceases to be suspense. In Hot Heels, a pleasant little Glenn Tryon picture, the hero rides a horse in a race which in- volves the fortunes of the heroine. Of course the picture- wise audience knows that he is going to win. In an effort to make the outcome of the race appear doubtful the script calls for the hero falling off his horse, then re- THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 mounting and ultimately winning. There are two things the matter with this. In the first place, if the race were even enough at the outset to make the result problemati- cal, the theory upon which the sequence is built, the hero would be so far behind when he remounted his horse that it would have been impossible for him to overtake the leaders. In the second place, the suspense would have been more real if the hero's mount had been shown hitting up a terrific pace from the beginning of the race, outdistanced at first by the other horses, but always pressing forward bravely, never wavering, and keeping everlastingly at it until one after the other he mowed down those who chal- lenged his right to the prize. That would be true sus- pense. Having the rider fall off introduces an element that is foreign to the spirit of the race. * * * 'T~'HE waltz is coming back. I read that somewhere. And -*• as a great deal of The Spectator is written with the radio three feet from me, bringing to me Gus Arnheim's I Next Production "TKe Qossipy Sex Watch for Opening Date at Vine Street Theatre 'Trinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Cax-if. Telephone GRanite 6346 Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputation. 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to l;eep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GRanite 3561 MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF j DANCING I I THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 enticing strains, I am somewhat of an authority myself on the revivification of the waltz, for I notice that it is played with more frequency on dance programmes. It is a dance with rhythm to it, a dance of grace and poise, of dreams and romance, the only one that has inspired some im- mortal musical compositions. And it is the only ensemble dance which possesses photographic value. In spite of all these advantages the waltz figures but seldom in shots showing dancing in progress at private or public func- tions. We are given only jazz, which has no photographic value. We see our beautiful girls and handsome boys bobbing ungracefully up and down, when we might be seeing them gliding gracefully across the polished floor while we listen to the organist's interpretation of the strains of Strauss. By showing the waltz in what might be termed the more polite scenes, we have jazz left to char- acterize the gayer parties. We should not show always the banker's daughter and the dive-keeper's mistress danc- ing the same kind of dance. But apart from consideration of characterization, it is the duty of the screen to present each scene with as much pictorial value as it can with- out lessening in any way its contribution to the story. As the waltz has more pictorial value than the catch-as-catch- can, it should be shown oftener. * * * XT THEN I viewed Abie's Irish Rose it had orchestral ac- '^' companiment, an orchestra of twelve or fourteen pieces playing the score that will be heard in all the big houses where the picture will be shown. The orchestra reproduced noises suggested by the action. Jean Hersholt beats a drum and the drummer in the orchestra reproduces the sound. Parrel MacDonald blows a horn, and the sound comes from the orchestra pit. As recently as one year ago these effects would add value to the presentation of the film; to-day they are so ridiculous that they detract from it. Before we had sound devices it was all right to pro- duce sound any way we could, but to go on beating a drum in an orchestra when every child in an audience knows that the sound could have been photographed with the action, is to bring down on a production the damning eflfeet of being considered old-fashioned when it is shown first. Paramount should delete the drum and horn from its score. No one can blame it at this stage of the development of LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Was My Most Valuable Aeronautical Assistant WM. WELLMAN TAY GARNETT IVriter DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. O. Christensen, Associates Page Thirteen sound devices for not using one of them in the production of the pictiure, but this immunity can not be extended to cover a foolish imitation of a sound device. Abie's Irish Rose is quite good enough in itself to achieve great suc- cess. Nothing is gained by reminding an audience that it might have been still better. * * * MADELINE Brandeis has undertaken to make a series of "Children of All Lands" pictures. They are to be one-reel subjects for non-theatrical release, as they are supposed to be of interest only to children. If the pictures in the rest of the series equal the first, Pathe should alter its selling plan and go after the business of picture houses. The Little Indian Weaver is a one-reel gem that is bright enough to shine on any program. Mrs. Brandeis visited the Navajo country and discovered a charming little half- breed girl who never had seen a motion picture camera. CHARLES STUMAR CHIEF CINEMATOGRAPHER OF "UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" "THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN PARIS" "HAS ANYONE SEEN KELLY" "THE MICHIGAN KID" UNIVERSAL PICTURE CORPORATION WARNING! TO PRODUCERS OF TALKING PICTURES Vitaphone, Movietone, Cinematone, Graphictone, Kinemaphone — and Others talking pictures. I TOM MIRANDA dialog-ue expert, now specializing in dialogue scripts for talking pictures. At present doing the dialogue script for RICHARD WASHBURN CHILD'S mystery story, "THE SCREEN" Free Lancing Telephone FItzroy 0481 Page Fourteen THE FILM but who revealed a surprising ability to act when she was placed before one. The reel gives us a glimpse of the life of Navajo children, and I doni see how it could interest children elsewhere any more than it did me. Mrs. Bran- deis is going abroad shortly to bring back to us equally intimate glimpses of children of many lands, but appar- ently I am going to be denied the privilege of seeing them because she or the Pathe people have decided arbitrarily that they would interest children only. I would not be sur- prised if it turned out that they interested adults more than they did children. In any event, Mrs. Brandeis' idea Ib a splendid one, and she has made a splendid start at materializing it. The series will be a valuable one. * * * TRYING to anticipate the public taste is a bootless occu- pation that I have characterized several times in The Spectator as a waste of time. Pictures themselves set the styles. The Big Parade was such a good picture that it SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 1^' revealed to the public that the world war could be pre-, sented in a fascinating manner, consequently it looked for j further entertainment in the same setting and war pic- tures became the vogue. No style in woman's attire is| set by a gown that does not look well on the original wearer. Only by being presented with its maximum of attractiveness does it strike the fancy of the feminine mind, which it holds as long as it is worn only by those who look attractive in it. When its artistic qualities are abused by inartistic treatment it ceases to be the vogue. JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS Hollywood 6229 GLadstone 5017 Personal Management W. O. CHRISTENSEN r-" GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue (Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 ALEXANDER MARKY has shattered a few motion picture traditions in launching his South Sea Expedition for Universal AND the manner in which he is now Directing and Supervising his story Somewhere in the Pacific is playing havoc with a few more of them. His fellow iconoclasts LEW COLLINS WILFRID M. CLINE HAROLD I. SMITH ZOE VARNEY GEORGE BARRAUD PROVEN STAGE SUCCESS (His characterization in "Interference" , Hollywood Playhouse) NEW SCREEN PERSONALITY DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER THE FILM SPECTATOR A good one sets a April 14, 1928 It is the same way with pictiures. style that prevails until poor imitations make the public turn from it. The time spent on trying to gauge public taste can be spent to better advantage in creating and hold- ing it. The studio that ignores the trend of the public mind and thinks only of the quality of its products will receive the largest reward. * * * NO characterizations that we see on the screen are so in need of reformation as those of heavies. Screen authors approach them from the wrong angle. When the sole reason of a heavy's presence in a story is to provide a menace to the happiness of the hero, as generally is the case, there is no sense in revealing him as a heavy to anyone except the hero. To all others in the picture he can be shown as an agreeable chap until knowledge of his villainy becomes general. As he is treated usually he sneers at everyone, thus denying him the privilege of lend- ing any diversity to his characterization. Possibly as a class the heavies are the best actors we have, but it is seldom that they are allowed to display their abilities. * * * TT7ILL Hays banned Revelry, the book by Samuel Hop- ^^ kins Adams revealing the inside workings of the Harding administration, on the ground that a picture made from it would give the public an unjust opinion of that chapter in American history. I agree with the czar's rea- soning. Recent developments have shown that the book does not reveal half the rottenness of the administration. Will should have gone farther. He should also have banned the various investigations. If he had been able to do this, he might still be regarded as a great and glorious orna- ment to pictures. Page Fifteen 'T^HE fact that Fox, the greatest purveyor of pure senti- -*■ ment on the screen, has three pictures running simul- taneously on Broadway must disturb those New York critics who scoff at sentiment and pan every film contain- ing it. The success of the Fox pictures proves what every student of human nature knows, that sentiment is, and always must be, the most sure-fire screen material. It is the one absolutely universal human attribute, common alike to poet and murderer. Any picture as well done as Four Sons or Mother Machree can not fail to please those for whom it is made. If critics were honest with them- selves and with their readers they would praise such pic- tures instead of condemning them. * * * AMONG the many crimes that are committed in Rose Marie is that of showing French Canadians talking pidgeon English to one another. When the Habitants con- verse with the officers of the Mounted it is proper that the titles should be shown in pidgeon English, for we have one man talking to another in a language hot his own; but when one Habitant talks to another the titles should be shown in straight English, for the inference is that they were spoken in French correctly enough to be trans- lated correctly into English for the screen. * * • VICTOR Fleming departs from screen traditions in Abie's Irish Rose when he shows a soldier dying with his eyes open. A rabbi closes the eyes after the soldier dies. Despite the fact that the standard method of dying is with the eyes open it nearly always is shown on the screen differently. There are a lot of other things that our directors might improve before they set about the task of showing nature just how a man should die. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 17 -Year-Old Critic WHEN I wrote up The Latest From Paris, I made a terrible mistake and said that the direc- tion was the fault of Bob Leonard. It seems he was innocent, as Sam Wood was responsible for the direction. I make haste to correct my mistake, be- cause being connected with a picture like that is an awful thing, and only the one who is really responsible should bear the blame. AT last I have seen Four Sons. The firmest impression I carry away from it is that John Ford is a brilliant artist and a splendid director. It was Ford's picture from start to finish, in spite of the many splendid performances abounding in it. Nowa- days, a director, to make a truly great picture, must use his material in a new way. It is not enough that he should give it the old treatment and do it well. Four Sons had one new thing after another in it, as Ford seems to regard screen conventions in a sort of go-to-the-devil attitude. Maybe his success will embolden other directors to do the same thing. Ford also takes frightful liberties with the lighting effects, but the ma- jority of them is not so successful as his other innovations. At times one has a desire to rush in and dust off some of the characters, because of the weird look the light gives them. How- ever, where there is so much good in a picture the small faults don't amount to much. Wherever there is a chance for a beautiful or striking arrange- ment of a scene, Ford made the most of it. The last part of Four Sons was not as good as the first, by any manner of means. There was an attempt to inject comedy through the medium of smart-cracking titles, uttered by Mother Eernle's precocious little grandson. When he wasn't making wise remarks, he was about as nat- ural as a wooden leg. When he was making them, one felt impelled to take a fly swatter and eliminate him. Margaret Mann, who is the most de- lightful nev/comer to screen fame that we have, gives a splendid perform- ance as Mother Bernle. Earle Foxe does brilliant work as the heavy. Albert Gran adds another splendid characterization to his "Papa Boul" of Seventh Heaven fame. A good touch in connection with Gran is the lovable old dog who follows him everywhere. It is the sort of thing one sees around all the time, but scarcely ever sees on the screen. The four sons, James Hall, Frank Bush- man Jr., Charles Morton, and Charles Meeker, v/ere all good. August Tol- laire, Frank Reicher, and June Coll- yer also deserve favorable mention. THERE may be som.e excuse for The Lovelorn, but I doubt it. Just because it is a feature of a news- paper syndicate means nothing, be- cause if this thing becomes general and pictures telling the dramatic story of the rise and fall of lemon pie or of the intense struggle against pound- age start flooding the market, God help us. After reading the drivel that is written in the "Advice to the Love- lorn" column, the title would have kept me away had it not been for the fact that a preview was also showing at that theatre the same night. After Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR April 14, 1928 •>]lllinilllllQIIIIIIIIIIII(]|lllllllllll[3IIIIIIIMIIIC3llllinilllOlllllllllll[]IIIIIIIIIIIIE3llllll C1IIIIIIIIIIIIC1IIIIIIIIIIIIE3IIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIC] IIIIIIIU IIIIIIICJII lllllllllinillllllllllinill IIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIIIinElll^ Some Personal Correspondence My Dear Welford : I feel that I ought to advertise the following facts, and if you'll fix this dope into some kind of an ad I will gladly take a page in The Spectator. Laid off for an indefinite period by Universal, the same as many others, I thought it a good opportunity to write an original underworld story — something a bit different — as different as HIS PEOPLE was from the general run of Jewish-Gentile stories, so I wrote THE DEVIL'S CAGE, a story of night clubs. This was sold immediately and made into a damn good picture with PAULINE GARON. Thus encouraged I wrote another, one that mixed the high and the low of the underworld, — crooks and saints, and called it LIFE'S MOCKERY. This was sold almost as fast, and it made a crackerjack of a vehicle for BETTY COMPSON (all honor to Miss Compson and Robt. F. Hill, the director). So far so good. Now comes the news that I am really proud of. Richard Talmage advertised for an underworld story of the waterfront. I submitted one and this morning I was notified that Mr. Talmage and a committee selected my story, THE MAN WITHIN, out of a collection of EIGHTEEN PUBLISHED NOVELS AND SHORT STORIES SUBMITTED TO THEM. I forgot to mention that I wrote the continuities for the GARON and COMPSON stories and I signed a contract this morning to do the same for Mr. Talmage. NOT SO BAD. Please fix this up into a decent ad as it's going to cost me more than I have ever spent for advertising since I've been in this industry. Sincerely yours, IsADORE Bernstein. Dear Bernie : Sorry I can't oblige you. I'm in conference. — ^W. B. = 5 *>iiciinniuiiHQiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiniiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiinniiic3nuiiiii»iDniiiuniiiE]iiiniiiiiuQiiiiMiiiiiiC3niiiiii»iin!niiiiinuniiiiiiiiii!iciiiiiMiiin April 14, 1928 sitting through reel after reel of dis- connected scenes scattered willy-nilly through the picture, the end of it was a welcome sight. Lovelorn is a hard picture to write up, because the ma- jority of the time I didn't know what it was all about. INTERFERENCE, now showing at the Hollywood Playhouse, is one of the best plays I ever have seen. I am no judge of the merits or de- merits of stage plays, because I go to them solely for entertainment. Judged by that standard, Interference is splendid. It grips one right from the start, and the interest never lets down for an instant. The high light of the play was the superb perform- ance of George Barraud. Theoret- ically, he was the heavy; actually, he had all my sympathy from the start. If his performance were the only good thing about Interference, the play still would be worth seeing. WHILE Harold Teen had many poor things in it, it was very entertaining just the same. Mervyn Le Roy, the director, demon- strates that he has a good sense of comedy. The main fault of the picture was that he put in serious stuff, which had no place in it. One instance of that is the dynamiting of the dam. That bit should be cut out, because there is no reason for it. Also, there was no reason for Harold Teen's flight. There were many silly things like that, but there was something about the picture which condoned any silli- ness. The funniest thing in the whole picture was the amateur movie that was made in it. The picture was ter- ribly fumiy, and just what might have been expected from a bunch of high school students. Arthur Lake, who played the title role, gave a very good performance. Jack Egan, as the teethy Horace, came next to him in acting honors. He demonstrated that he can handle bigger parts. Alice White, as Giggles, gives one of her usual delightful characterizations. Mary Brian makes a very sweet and appealing Lillums. Jack Duffy and Lucien Littlefield are good as Grandpa Teen and Pop Jenks. William Bake- well and Lincoln Steadman turn in good work, also. LADIES Night in a Turkish Bath is a very poor picture. It looks as though someone had thought of that title when the picture was about half done and the Turkish bath stuff had been tacked on to make the title fit. The whole thing is based on an impossible premise, and therefore can- not be taken seriously. Nothing that happens to any of the characters af- fects very much the person who sees the picture. It moves too slowly, al- though in a theatre, with an audi- ence, that defect might be remedied. Perhaps the other people's laughter might make it seem funnier. Edward THE FILM SPECTATOR Cline directed this picture. Dorothy Mackaill and Jack Mulhall, both fav- orites of mine, were featured. They did their usual good work. Page Seventeen- ■f~TASY Come, Easy Go is not a story f\ of motion picture executives, as ■^"^ may be imagined from the title. It is the latest Richard Dix picture; and while it is not the worst he ever has made, it certainly is not the best. As a rule, the Dix pictures suffer from too little story; this has too much. It is supposed to be a comedy of sit- uations, but it isn't done cleverly enough. There aren't enough funny things in it, and, as it's a comedy, that is a rather serious shortcoming. Frank Tuttle directed it, and is prob- ably responsible for its lack of pep. His direction was pretty good other- wise and showed a sanity which is rare among comedy directors. I us- ually enjoy a Dix picture, because I like Dix himself. He can act, and is the sort of fellow that everyone likes immediately. The acting honors of Easy Come, Easy Go all belong to a man I have seen dozens of times be- fore. His name is Sellon, and I think his first name is Charles. At any rate he gives a performance in this which should get him bigger parts. Nancy Carroll plays opposite Dix in this. It is a crime to put her in small parts like this after her splendid perform- ance in Abie's Irish Rose. Frank Cur- rier did good work in a smaller part. TO paraphrase an old slogan — "When Worse Pictures Are Made, They Will Be Jewish-Irish." I thought Publicity Madness was bad, in fact I still do; but The Cohens and Kellys in Paris is worse. The only thing I liked about it was the fact that the cast was run at both the begin- ning and end of the picture, so one got a chance to find out who the char- acters were. There is nothing of any merit in it, and to catalogue all the faults would take too much space. The whole thing looked like an amateur moving picture made by the inmates of the Home for Mentally Deficient. J. Farrell MacDonald, (Jeorge Sidney, Vera Gordon, and Kate Price made heroic efforts to make a picture out of it, but even their combined talents weren't enough. I almost can forgive everything else in the picture because it gave me a chance to see Sue Carol again. She was in only about five shots, but they almost made up for the rest of the picture. Sue has a likeable personality, and when she has had more experience she will be a good actress. Somebody should star her in a series of pictures depicting real modern youth, not these blood- and-thunder dime novels with titles such as "Gliding to the Gutter" or "Slipping to Supervisor". I think they would make money. The Cohens and Kellys gave me a chance to see another of my favorites — Charles Delaney. We should have more leading men of his type. SEE Wm. Fox ■■ Frank Borzage's Production "STREET ANGEL" With Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell Carthay Circle Theatre NOW ™ho Latest Books Are Always Obtainable at The Hollywood Book Store OPPOSITE HOTEL HOLLYWOOD Artistic Framing Stationery and Circulation Library ISIorman^s ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard REVIEWS are important to exhibitors, distribu- tors and producers. REVIEWS are important to stars, directors, cam- eramen and players. FILM DAILY REVIEWS are unbiased and con- structive. Read them — they'll benefit you. FILMDOM'S NEWSPAPED ' H»«i*" ANDWEEKLY FILM DIGEST 1650 Broadway, N. Y. C J Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR AprU 14, 1928 LEO MEEHAN DIRECTED THREE PICTURES CLASSED IN THE FIRST TWENTY COMMERCIAL SUCCESSES IN EXHIBITORS' HERALD LIST OF "ONE HUNDRED BEST BOX-OFFICE ATITIACTIONS 1927" LEO MEEHAN WAS LISTED AMONG THE FIRST FIVE COMMERCIAL DIRECTORS | 1 f DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLTJER SIX ORIGINAL JAMES A. CREELMAN STORIES PURCHASED FOR SCREEN MATERIAL DURING THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER April 14, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR REVIEWED IN THIS NUMBER Ladies' Night in a Turkish Bath — A First National Picture. Directed by Eddie Cline; produced by Ed- ward Small; story by Charlton Andrews and Avery Hopwood. The cast: Dorothy Mackaill, Jack Mulhall, James Finlayson, Sylvia Ashton, Harvey Clark, Reed Howes, "Big Boy" Guinn Williams. &arold Teen— A First National picture. Pro- duced by Allan Dwan; presented by Robert Kane; adaptation by Tom Geraghty; directed by Mervyn Le- Roy; photographed by Ernest Bai- lor, A. S. C. The cast: Arthur Lake, Mary Brian, Lucien Littlefield, Jack Duffy, Alice White, Jack Egan, Hedda Hopper, Ben Hall, William Bakewell, Lincoln Stedman, Fred Kelsey, Jane Keckley, Ed Brady, Virginia Sale. Four Sons — A William Fox picture. Story by I. A. R. Wylie; scenario by Philip Klein; directed by John Ford; photographed by George Schneider- mann. The cast: Margaret Mann, James Hall, June Collyer, Earle Foxe, Charles Morton, George Meeker, Francis X. Bushman, Albert Gran, August Tollaire, Ruth Mix, Frank Reicher, Wendall Franklin, Hughie Mack, J. J. O'Connor, Michael Mark, Ferdinand Schumann-Heink, Carl Borheme, Constant Franke, Hans de Furberg, Tibou von Janny, Stanley Blystone, George Blagoi. Dressed to Kill — A William Fox picture. Story by William Conselman and Irving Cummings; scenario by Howard Estabrook; directed by Irving Cum- mings; assistant director, Charles Woolstenhulme; cameraman, Con- rad Wells. The cast: Edmund Lowe, Mary Astor, Charles Morton, Ben Bard, R. O. Pennell, Robert Perry, Joe Brown, Tom Dugan, John Kelly, Robert O'Connor. The Crowd — A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Screen play by King Vidor and John V. A. Weaver; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gib- bons and Arnold Gillespie; ward- robe by Andre'-ani; photographed by Henry Sharp; film editor Hugh Wynn; directed by King Vidor. The cast: Eleanor Boardman, James Murray, Bert Roach, Estelle Clark, Daniel G. Tomlinson, Dell Henderson, Lucy Beaumont, Fred- die Burke Frederick, Alice Mildred Puter. The Big City— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Story by Tod Browning; scenario by Waldemar Young; titles by Joe Famham; settings by Cedric Gibbons; photographed by Henry Sharp; film editor Harry Reynolds; directed by Tod Browning. The cast: Lon Chaney, Marceline Day, James Murray, Betty Comp- son, Mathew Betz, John George, Virginia Pearson, Walter Percival, Lew Short, Eddie Sturgis. Rose-Marie — A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Based on the stage production of Arthur Hammerstein; from the play by Otto A. Harbach and Os- car Hammerstein, 2nd; music com- posed by Rudolf Friml and Her- bert Stothart; written and directed by Lucien Hubbard; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Richard Day; photographed by John Arnold; film editor, Carl L. Pierson. The cast: Joan Crawford, James Murray, House Peters, Creighton Hale, George Cooper, Polly Moran, Gibson Gowland, Lionel Belmore, William Orlamond, Harry Gribbon, Ralph Yearsley. The Lovelorn — ^ A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Story by Beatrice Fairfax; adapta- tion by Bradley King; titles by Frederic Hatton; directed by John P. McCarthy; a Cosmopolitan pro- duction. The cast: Sally O'Neil, Molly O'Day, Larry Kent, James Murray, Charles Delaney, George Cooper, Allan Forrest, Dorothy Gumming. The Little Indian Weaver — Directed, produced and continuity by Madeline Brandeis; released through Pathe Exchange, Inc., for the use in schools to aid in teach- ing geogn^aphy and for the enter- tainment of children. Photog- Page Nineteen raphed by Bernard Ray; assistant, Robert Monroe; story by Mary Gibsone Whitlock and Madeline Brandeis. The cast: Buny Basil, Byron Wells, Mrs. Big Tree. The Last Waltz— A Paramount picture; a U. F. A. production; from the musical com- edy by Oscar Strauss, Julius Bram- mer and Alfred Gruenwald; di- rected by Arthur Robison; scenario by Alice D. G. Miller; supervision of Charles E. Whittaker. Featur- ing Willy Fritsch and Suzanne Vernon. Easy Come Easy Go — A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Tuttle; original story by Ann Davis; scenario by Florence Ryerson; photographed by Edward Cronjaeger; assistant director, Russell Mathews. The cast: Richard Dix, Nancy Carroll, Charles Sellon, Frank Currier, Arnold Kent, Guy Oliver. Cohens and Kellys in Paris — A Universal long run special. Di- rector, William Beaudine; original story, adaptation and continuity by Al Cohn; cameraman, Charles Stumar; titles, Albert De Mond. The cast: George Sidney, J. Par- rel MacDonald, Vera Gordon, Kate Price, Sue Carol, Charles de Laney, Gino Corrado, Gertrude Astor. Tragedy of Youth — A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Story by Albert Shelby Le Vino; continuity by Olga Printzlau; titles by Fred- erick and Fanny Hatton; film edi- tor. Bob Kern; photographed by Faxon Dean; directed by George Archainbaud. The cast: Warner Baxter, Patsy Ruth Miller, Buster Collier, Claire McDowell, Harvey Clark, Margaret Quimby, Steppin Fetchit, Billie Bennett. VALUES! — EASTER GIFTS AND GREETINGS — VARIETY! •^ ^Aousattd ]iiiiMiJHii[]nniiiniiJUiininiiiiiainn[iiiiiiainniiiHrinniMnmnc]MniiiiiiHDnniiiiniininniniiiiaiiHiMiiiMniMiiMiinrDiniinniMC]nniiiiUMnMiiiniiincininiini^ = Sound causing revolution in pictures a i a Screen actors are a very dumb bunch Lubitsch gives screen a perfect picture Latest unreleased films of John Barrymore, Emil Jannings, Pola Negri, Lon Chaney, Dolores Costello, Leatrice Joy and Richard Dix, SPEEDY RAMONA THE PATRIOT THE TEMPEST STREET ANGEL THREE SINNERS GLORIOUS BETSY LITTLE BIT OF FLUFF MAN-MADE WOMEN EASY COME, EASY GO SINS OF THE CRADLE LAUGH, CLOWN, LAUGH Ojit]iMiiiiiiuiDiiiiiiiiiMiE]iniiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiinE]iniiiiiuiiDiMiiniiiiiniiiiiiuiiiiDiuiMiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiM[]iiiiniiiiu[]iiiiiiiiiiiiQ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 JEAN HERSHOLT Loaned to United Artists The advertisement of AL COHN and a slight disposition to take too many strokes between the tee and the cup are my two greatest worries. ALEXANDER MARKY is just making his parting shots of the South Sea story he is directing and supervising for UNIVERSAL in the distant waters of the Pacific He is expected to arrive in Hollywood some time in May, and the next issue of the Spectator will tell of another motion picture tradition he is in- fringing upon on his way back. GEORGE SIDNEY SAYS: "When this is printed, I'll be East having fun, to say the least." His Fellow Violators LEW COLLINS WILFRID M. CLINE HAROLD I. SMITH ZOE VARNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue (Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT PAUL KOHNER Production Supervisor for Universal CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat Foreign Legion Symphony In Preparation A Girl on a Barge For Universal Demmy Lamson Management ALFRED HUSTWICK Film Editor Titles Since 1919 with Paramount April 28, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Editorial Office: 7213 Sunset Boulevard HEmpstead 2801 Advertising and Circulation Departments: 411 Palmer Building - Gladstone 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 28, 1928 A LETTER Mr. John Barrymore, United Artists Studio. My dear Jack: Here are some facta: You are credited with being the greatest living Hamlet. You now are making motion pictures. Sound photography has been developed sufficiently to make the talking picture satisfactory screen entertain- ment. Technicolor has made it possible to reproduce on the screen the exact shade of any colored object. No person could be sufficiently stupid to deny that the only perfect picture must contain both sound and color. The screen is rushing swiftly towards them, and in a very short time the silent, black and white picture will be a thing of the past. You are offered an opportunity to write your name im- perishably in the history of motion pictures. You can be a pioneer in sound and color by putting both into a picture that will command the instant attention of the world as no picture containing either yet has done. Do Hamlet in Technicolor and reproduce the lines in Movietone, or by any other sound device that would do justice to your own magnificent voice and to the voices of the excellent artists with whom you would surround your- self. There are enough trained players in Hollywood to make casting easy. No man can become the great artist that you are with- out being under definite obligation to his art. No man can be hailed as great by the people of two continents without owing something to those people. It is your duty to perpetuate your Hamlet. The choice is not yours. Before we had sound and color you had some excuse for not trying to film the great Shakespearean story, but with the advent of these aids to realization any excuse was made impossible. Your art is calling you. And you should not overlook the fact that such a pic- ture would make several million dollars. That makes Art's voice even stronger. — W. B. * * * Sound Devices to Cause a Revolution in Pictures THE new Warner Brothers theatre, which opens this week, is going to write screen history. The first picture it shows, Glorious Betsy, will give you just a hint of what sound is going to mean to the screen, and the second. The Lion and the Mouse, will turn the industry upside down and make every other picture, including those not yet released, old-fashioned. In sound we have something over which producers have no control. After The Lion and the Mouse is released generally and shown in the five hundred theatres already outfitted for Vitaphone, we will have no more important silent pictures. They will be as dead as the dodo. The industry will have to re- adjust itself violently. In every studio there are in the THE CHARM OF MYSTERY By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN Dear Mr. Beaton: While "The Charm of Mystery" may seem to have little bearing on pictures, a moment's thought will show it to be peculiarly apposite and in accord with your own contentions. The charm of a woodland pool, a woman's eyes or a picture is in large degree owing to their power of stimulating the imagination. Divest the pool of its sylvan setting and it becomes a puddle. Present a senti- mental emotion in the blatant glare of a close-up and you rob it of all the glamour which the mind may conceive: nothing is left to hang a fancy on. And fancies are woven from the intangible stuff of moon beams, not the uncom- promising beam of a spotlight, revealing all too clearly the mascara and lipstick, when we would imagine the virginal freshness of dawn or the countenance of age, hal- lowed by memories. A great picture is analogous to the shadowy pool or eyes in whose deeps repose enigmas; for it allures the fancy to wander in the domain of Mystery — whose other name is Romance. G. F. M. Her eyes . . . love-kissed, tender — Twin pools in a bosky dell. And your parched throat! Remember? This . . . and, too, the joy Clear pools in sylvan shade impart. Or eyes that hold deep mysteries — Clear pools — a very part themselves With witchery and sprites and elves. 0 these . . . That conjure fancies of unthought delights, Those minor tones of love — more sensed than heard- That weave o'er hearts a tapestry of light: For these there's not — nor need be — any word. And lovely eyes have subtileties all their own. What need have they their inner thoughts to tell If in their deeps repose the mystery Of life and love? Ah, these . . . The things we can not understand, but feel Sometimes when gazing deep in pools, Or eyes, that have the charm Of mystery. Page Four making now expensive pictures which under the old condi- tions would have three years of prosperous life, but which are destined to be out of date before they are released. Instead of producing revenue for three years, they will be put on the shelf within one year to make room on the screens of the world for pictures that reproduce dialogue and music. It took only one reel of The Lion and the Mouse to open my eyes, and in the experience of Warner Brothers with that one picture is written the whole story of the revolution in screen art. It was shot first as a standard silent picture. After it was completed some- one thought it would be a good idea to vitaphone some of the speeches from the play. Lionel Barrymore, Alec B. Francis and one or two others were called back, and the opening sequence, which occupies about one reel, was re- shot on the silent stage. This reel was substituted for the silent one, and the entire picture run for the studio heads. One reel of action and the fine, scholarly tones of the voices of Barrymore and Francis made the succeeding reels look ridiculous. Warner Brothers had no choice in the matter. They could not release a picture whose first reel made all the succeeding reels hopelessly out of date. They either had to throw out the vitaphoned reel or vitaphone the whole thing. But the vitaphoned reel was something so stupendous as a milestone in the progress of screen history, that it could not be sidetracked. All the other reels were vitaphoned, and when Hollywood sees The Lion and the Mouse it will realize that a new art has been born. Pictures generally will have the same ex- perience as this one picture. Instead of reels, consider it in terms of studios. If Warner Brothers had a monopoly of sound reproduction it soon would have a monopoly of motion pictures, for after the public has had two or three vitaphoned pictures it simply is not going to accept any others. But no one has a monopoly. Fox has Movietone developed as far as it need be to provide entertainment for which the public will pay. Paramount is experimenting belatedly with the General Electric patents, Metro is searching frantically for a sound device that it can use, F. B. O. has an alliance with General Electric, and First National and Universal are trying to find out what can be done about it. The screen has been given a tongue, and has added ears to its present audience of eyes. The new development can not be ignored. Within one year those independents who can not give voice to pictures will cease making them, as there will be no market for the silent kind. * * • Silent Pictures WiU Not Satisfy the PubUc THERE are some people who argue that silent drama is not doomed to extinction, that it has been developed as an art too great to disappear. The weakness of the argument lies in the fact that screen art is not com- plete, and nothing can achieve its destiny until it is com- plete. Two great screen actors can reach artistic heights in depicting a scene in which they quarrel violently, but as an exhibition of art it is not complete because no sound comes forth from the screen to make it as real as we know it must have been when the actors were before the camera. The real scene is composed of pantomime and sound, and the screen has given us only the former. As long as we knew that there was no method by which the THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 other could be given us we were content, for half a loaf is better than no bread. But now we know that we can get the whole loaf. Will we be content with the half? Be- fore we could answer in the affirmative we would have to make over the entire human race. Any art becomes perfect only by realizing all its possibilities. Sound now is possible to screen art, which ceases to be perfect until it takes advantage of it. 11 screen art were the diversion of only the highly intelligent, and in its present form had been developed to a point that satisfied those it catered to, perhaps it might ignore the tongue that has been given it, for the higher the intelligence the less obvious need be the appeal to it. But screen art is the most universal of all arts, and only the obvious has universal appeal. The in- di\'idual may prefer to think, but the mob prefers to have its thinking done for it. Screen art is the mob's art, and it will prosper to the extent that it satisfies the mob. No mob is going to be satisfied with the silent sight of a marching band when it knows that in a theatre across the street it can hear a band as well as see it. There will be, of course, those who would prefer their silent drama to re- main silent, but their number will be so small that there will be no profit in catering to it. I am not of that num- ber. A few sessions in Fox and Warner Brothers projec- tion rooms have made me an enthusiastic convert to the inevitability of sound. My eyes have been opened to the facts that screen art as we have known it is but half an art, and that the other half has arrived. It is a subject for fascinating speculation. Directing and acting will be made over completely. For almost an entire reel I watched Lionel Barrymore and Alec Francis in perhaps the most engrossing scene I ever saw on a screen, yet neither moved from the chair in which he was seated. I was moved by the appeal in Alec's voice and chilled by the cold incisive- ness of Lionel's as he smilingly lured his victim to his ruin. No title writer that screen art yet has developed could have put into the sequence the quality that the voices con- tributed, and no actors that we yet have seen could have carried it so far with as little action. Within the space of that one reel I forget the medium and become interested in that much of the story that it told. Either the Vita- phone or the Movietone will appeal as a novelty for but a brief moment. I am confident that when the first au- dience sees The Lion and the Mouse it will forget Vita- phone before the first reel is over and have attention only for the drama in the story. This assertion is based on the assumption that the picture will be a good one. I have seen only the first reel, and certainly it gives the film a great start. * * * Actors With Voices to Come Into Their Own THE development of the new screen art vnll tend to reduce the importance of the director and increase that of the actor. At present, when a director wishes a character to register without a title that he thinks that another character is a damn fool, he must exercise skill in directing the scene in order that the audience will get its import. In the speaking picture the first character can sit still, his face immobile, and put over the point simply by saying it. But he must have a voice with which to say it. And that's the kick in the whole situation. The other day at the Masquers' Club I saw David Torrence, Mitchell April 28, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five Lewis, Cyril Chadwick and Edmund Breese chatting at a time of the day when actors who can not speak English were busy on motion picture sets. The sound era will change all that. The big actors of the future will be the Dave Torrences with their trained, cultured voices and their sound knowledge of the art of acting. If I were Jesse Lasky, Louis B. Mayer, Winfield Sheehan or Jack Warner, I would be rounding up good actors with voices and placing them under contract. The producer who could get a corner on such artists would play the devil with his competitors. There will be no doubling in this voice busi- ness. The lines that the audience hears will be spoken by the actor whom the audience sees. Doubling is impos- sible. Theoretically it is possible, but it is too difficult and too expensive to be practical. Warner's experimented with it exhaustively and came to the conclusion that it could not be done. This means that even our Janet Gaynors and our Jack Gilberts will have to show them- selves possessed of pleasing voices if they are to retain their popularity. The day when screen personality is the only essential to screen popularity will have passed when sound devices are used generally. And no longer will we have title writers pavring over speeches that the actors speak. What they say when the scenes are shot is what the audience will hear. This means that there will be a violent revolution also in the virriting end of the busi- ness. Real writers will come to the front. The clever men and women who write our titles now will be in de- mand as writers of dialogue — but the dialogue will have to be in their own stories, for the new art will not tolerate the manhandling of author's creations, the curse from which the screen has suifered thus far in its history. At first, of course, supervisors with no literary training will write into scripts their conception of speeches, but when the world laughs at them they'll quit making asses of themselves and leave the writing of speeches to those who can write them. As I see the drift toward sound, it will bring to the fore the real brains already in pictures, and borrow more heavily than ever from the stage. I am aware that I am liable to the charge of letting my en- thusiasm run away with me, but remember, please, that I have seen developments that you probably have not seen. I have heard Conrad Nagel make love to Dolores Cos- tello, and have heard what she said to him, their voices coming to me just strong enough to be heard above an obligato of negro voices singing spirituals down in Vir- ginia; and I watched them make love, for they sat in a beautiful garden that the camera caught when the Vita- phone caught their voices and the singing. the industry displays in the discussions that ensue. There are two fixed opinions: that color on the screen causes retinal fatigue, and that the color process is too expensive to be practical. Both these opinions are contrary to facts. Before he made Black Pirate Douglas Fairbanks hired scientists to make exhaustive tests that resulted in proof of the fact that a natural-color pictiire was easier on the eyes of its viewers than the black and white pictures we get now. So much for the first count in the indictment of color. As to cost: if any producer will look into the matter he will find that he can effect a great saving in production expense by shooting his pictures in color. At the present time one of the greatest items of expense is providing a picture with production value — big mob scenes, spectacles and elaborate sets. Audiences have grown so accustomed to these features that the best a producer can hope for when he spends two hundred thousand dollars on a picture is to get one that looks as if it cost that much. If he shot his picture in Technicolor he could spend one hundred thousand dollars and get a production that looked as if it cost three hundred thousand. In a black and white picture all the production value must be provided by dol- lars, and the most expensive set never reveals on the screen how much money was spent on it. When shot in Technicolor, an inexpensive set looks like a million dollars. It was by accident that I discovered these facts for myself. I happened to wander on to a set at the Tec-Art studio where Technicolor was shooting one of its "Great Moments in History" series, the little artistic gems that are being received so warmly by the public. The scene being shot was laid in an oak-paneled room. The walls were con- structed of composition board which had been stained an oak-brown. I could not believe that any kind of photog- raphy would cover up the artificiality of the set as I saw it. I said as much to Dr. Kalmus, president of Techni- color, and next day he phoned me to come over and see the rushes. On the screen I saw a room whose walls were of oak of rich, warm, alive brown. For a black and white picture ten times as much money would have been spent on a set, and nowhere near the same amount of produc- tion value would have been obtained. I was interested, and visited the studio again. This time ship scenes were being shot. Again I wondered at the apparent inadequacy of the set, and again I was enlightened when I visited the projection room next day. I saw quite enough to make me decide that if I were going to make a motion picture that would make the world think my bank-roll was twice as big as it was, I would shoot it in Technicolor. So much for the cost of color. Exploding Myths About Making Colored Pictures WE will have the perfect motion picture only when we have combined action, sound, and color. It always has seemed strange to me that the industry has been so backward in realizing the possibilities of color. For the past two years the Technicolor process has been brought to a point so near perfection that the industry can not advance, as an excuse for not adopting color, the fact that it is not practical. As I have been a consistent cham- pion of color ever since I started The Spectator, I introduce it freely as a topic of conversation when calling on my producer friends, and I am amazed at the ignorance that Charlie Chaplin Has An Erroneous Idea CHARLIE Chaplin is going to do Napoleon on the screen, and the other day I urged him to do it in color. "A red thing waving across the screen diverts the attention of the audience," he argued. A short time ago I read an interview in which Cecil de Mille was quoted as saying that color was all right for big spectacles, but never would be practical for intimate scenes. How far is screen art going to get when people as prominent in it as these two hold fixed opinions on something of which they are so profoundly uninformed ? Probably Charlie would sit with you in a balcony looking down upon the gorgeous Page Six coloring of a costume ball and argue that it would look more attractive if all of it were done in shades of grey; and Cecil would lead you to a corner in his garden where one red rose commanded attention, and tell you that color did not suit a single rose. Recently I saw a Technicolor two-reeler in which Napoleon appears and which was rich in the color of the period. The emperor's uniforms were shown in the exact shades of the originals. In short, I looked at the real thing. Charlie will give us a Napoleon wearing uniforms of various shades of grey. He will im- pose upon us the task of imagining what the colors are, because he fears that if he gave us the colors themselves, thus releasing our imaginations from the task of con- juring them, it would serve as a diversion that would take our minds off the story. The truth is that not until all pictures are shot in color will the full mind of the audi- ence be on the story. The world is full of color, yet the only place we do not see it is on the motion picture screen, which boasts that it brings all the world to us. We are used to saying that our present pictures are in black and white, but they are not. Their shades are grey and greyer. Only in a Technicolor picture have I seen real black on the screen, a rich, beautiful black that I wanted to run my hand through. No one can deny the emotional appeal of color, yet screen art, which is successful only to the extent that it appeals to the emotions, frowns upon the instrument that will do half its work for it. Some of our feminine stars have reached the stage of having to be shot through several gauzes when close-ups are taken. If shot in Technicolor they can wear street make-up and go ahead for another ten years before a gauze would be neces- sary for the biggest close-up. Anything that would add ten years to the life of a feminine star is worth looking into. But apart from all material considerations, we must come to color because it is logical. We can not go on for- ever presenting a red rose as a dark grey spot on the screen. As in the case of sound, the grey was all right when we could not do any better, but now that the public knows that the red of a rose can be reproduced, it will be satisfied no longer with the dark grey spot. But in spite of its inevitability, I can not see any indication of studio appreciation of the fact. All thought is expended on an unnatural and expensive way of making pictures, and none on a natural, economical method that has been brought to near-perfection on the very door-step of the industry, but to which the industry seems strangely reluctant to open the door. But someone will give us a big feature in which color and sound will be combined, and then all the rest will have to follow suit. Studios would be wise to develop artists who understand the photographic value of colors. * * * Screen Actors Are An Exceedingly Dumb Bunch WITHOUT doubt screen actors, taken as a class, are the dumbest creatures that an indulgent God lets live. They are playthings in the hands of the producers, and probably will continue to be for all time, as they seem to lack the collective brains to help them to help themselves. When everyone was boosting the Academy I contended in The Spectator that Equity was the only organization that ever would serve screen actors. Many of my friends pointed out to me that I was wrong THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 and that the formation of the Academy made Equity un- necessary. Recently the actors' branch of the Academy was called together for a meeting. One hundred and twenty-five letters of notification were sent out; the night before the meeting one hundred and twenty-five telegrams were despatched; the day of the meeting one hundred and twenty-five phone messages were sent. Nine actors at- tended the meeting. While a few leaders among them were trying to weld actors into an organization that could demand fair play from producers, the latter were pursu- ing merrily their policy of unfairness. They still pursue it. Individual actors can not object if they hope to con- tinue at work, but Equity could help them if they had sense enough to make it strong by joining it. The great- est need of all the industry is an eight-hour day. It never will be wholly prosperous until it puts itself on such a basis. As the short-sighted producers can not be made to see this, the reform must be forced on it. Equity is the only organization that could be placed in a position to do the forcing. Producers would benefit by it. Equity has banished Jeanne Eagels from the stage for eighteen months because she did not live up to her contract with her producers, the organization thereby demonstrating that it considers the interests of the producers and its members to be identical. All that a strong motion picture Equity would do would be to force producers to conduct their business as it must be conducted if it is to reach its greatest economic efficiency. At present producers hon- estly think that the film industry is unlike all others and that an eight-hour day could not be applied to it without doing it harm. It is a ridiculous belief, but it prevails. At present the industry measures an artist's value to it by a standard that all other industries have discarded as an economic folly. An actor who can be persuaded to work sixteen hours a day is judged to be twice as valuable as one working eight hours. And actors, the poor fools, stand for it. Regular hours on the Tiffany-Stahl lot are from seven-forty-five in the morning until midnight. The new standard contract provides for extra pay when an artist who is engaged by the week works for seven days. Tiffany- Stahl gets around it by employing artists for fourteen days for two weeks pay, a cheap and mean subterfuge. And again artists stand for it, for they have no organiza- tion to insist upon their rights. More foreign actors continue to pour in because there is no Equity to stop them. Equity has an organization here, but it is of little value because but a fraction of the thousands of screen artists belong to it. Every one of them should be a mem- ber. Producers who can see no virtue in fair play never will extend it to screen artists except under compulsion, I TAY GARNETT Writer DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier and W. 0. Christensen, Associates April 28, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven and a strong organization is the only weapon of compul- sion that the artists can wield. I have no hope of such an organization being formed. Actors will continue to be treated like cattle because collectively they have the brains of cattle. But perhaps my simile does cattle an injustice. They have at least brains enough to travel in herds, some- thing that screen actors have not yet succeeded in doing. * * * Doesn't Seem Possible That It Is As Good As I Think It Is EVER since I viewed The Patriot I have been wonder- ing if any picture possibly could be as good as I think it is. It seems to me that there never has been such direction as Lubitsch gave this picture, and that the screen never has shown us a performance that could i match that of Jannings as the mad czar. And never has ! any other star been given such extraordinary support as Lewis Stone provides. Superlatives, all of them, but it is a superlative picture. It is a tremendous story, directed by a genius and acted by masters of their craft. Never before have Lubitsch or Jannings done anything, in this country or abroad, to compare with it. The Patriot is a perfect drama. There is nothing petty about it. Its theme is the welfare of a nation, and the lengths to which a man will go to serve his country. It follows the perfect form- ula by having its drama develop within it. Nothing from the outside intrudes; no character is struck by lightning nor is one disposed of by a train wreck. The situations pile up on one another with almost bewildering rapidity, but each is the logical result of what goes before. There were ten reels of it when I saw it, and not for one moment does the interest let down. There are dozens of intensely dramatic scenes in it, any three or four of which would make an otherwise ordinary picture outstanding. The mood of the direction matches admirably the mood of the story. It is an important story, and the picture takes itself seri- ously, moving along in a brisk, businesslike manner as if it would brook no interference from anyone. When a statesman wants to despatch a message he hands it to his secretary, who hands it to some other busy person, who passes it on to someone else who is in a hurry to see that it gets on its way. When the leading characters are going from one place to another, they keep going, ignoring the screen habit of stopping to smirk in front of the camera. In fact, Lubitsch never seems to take the camera into account. When a character starts to leave a room, he leaves it without turning at the door to remind us who he is. The mob scenes bear further testimony to the perfec- tion of the Lubitsch touch. The czar is mad, and when he goes for a drive his horses gallop, making the peasants hurry to get out of his way. But don't get the impression that the drama moves along at a dizzy rate. It doesn't. It moves swiftly, but smoothly, and without one superflu- ous foot of film being used. It is the greatest argument for the perfect script that I ever have seen on the screen. Every little while I encounter a director who boasts to me that he can't be bothered with a script, that he reads his story once, throws the script away, and proceeds to shoot. The picture produced by this method is exactly the kind of picture that this method would produce, and its director never will amount to anything. Ernst Lubitsch does not deem himself blessed with an ability to shoot without a script. He takes months if necessary to put a perfect motion picture on paper, and when he is satisfied with it in that form he shoots it exactly as it is written. That is why his pictures are such perfect examples of screen art. It is why The Patriot is an absolutely flawless screen drama. In the whole ten reels I did not see one scene that could be criticized adversely. It's a picture that makes me nervous. It doesn't seem possible that it is as good as I think it is. * * * Jannings' Performance Greatest That the Screen Ever Has Seen WHEN in days to come we foregather and discuss the dying days of the silent drama and the dawn of the sound device era, we will talk of the glori- ous performance that Emil Jannings gave us just before the old style went out. As the mad czar in The Patriot he provides the greatest characterization that the screen world ever has seen. He is amazing. One reason we do not have more madmen on the screen is because it is consid- ered impossible for a crazy person to awaken the sympathy of the audience. Jannings gets our sympathy. He is a pathetic creature, harmless to those who have contact with him, but a menace because of the power he wields. At no time does he do anything that a sane person might not do, but never do we lose sight of the fact that he is insane. He relies almost entirely on his eyes to put over his mental derangement. He runs the full gamut of emo- tions, and his gay moments provide some delicious comedy. His performance is a whole chapter in the history of screen acting. Possibly if anyone except Jannings had played the part of the czar, Lewis Stone would have run away with the picture. Under the magic of the Lubitsch direction a new Stone has appeared. Always a good actor, his performances were marred somewhat by his me- chanics. He has had certain idiosyncrasies which he carried from one part to another, and always had a tendency to stress his points too much. In The Patriot he displays a new art. All his well worn gestures are missing and he gives a performance that entitles him to a classification in which he did not belong before, that of a really great screen actor. I am grateful to this picture for enabling me to indulge in something that pleases me so much that it amounts to a selfishness — introducing to you another unknown who has made good. Harry Cordingly was selected by Lubitsch from a score of applicants for the part of a peasant who grows in importance in the picture until he becomes an animal and chokes Jannings to death, but who proves to be a sentimental baby when he is forced to shoot Stone. It is an exacting part, but Cordingly was equal to it, and I wish him a happy and prosperous screen career. Neil Hamilton is commendable as the crown prince. And now having reversed conventions and dis- posed of the men first, I come to Florence Vidor, and have pleasure in setting down that even the extraordinary work of Jannings and Stone does not keep her from being very much to the front in The Patriot. She is splendid in all her scenes. Vera Vernonina has a small part and handles it well. Apparently Lubitsch belongs on the Paramount lot, which now is turning out such excellent pictures. After his experience on the Metro lot where his Student Prince was ruined while he was in Europe, it must have been a relief to him to find himself a part of the efiicient organi- zation that now surrounds Ben Schulberg. Such a picture Page Eight as The Patriot could be the product only of perfect har- mony. Less than a year ago the Paramount lot was seeth- ing with unrest, but to-day its atmosphere is that of ani- mated contentment, everyone being busy and happy. Schul- berg apparently was unruffled by the absurd reports of Lubitsch's extravagance and temperament that emanated from the Metro lot when he left it, and left him alone to make his Jannings picture. Ben's faith has been justified. Lubitsch has strengthened still further his claim to dis- tinction as the greatest director. Only a great director could give us such a great picture, and only such a great producer as Schulberg could sponsor it. * * * John Barrymore Gives His Finest Performance JOHN Barrymore's performance in The Tempest is per- haps the finest he yet has contributed to the screen. It lacks the wide range of his Jekyll and Hyde and the robust vigor of Sea Beast, but is rich in opportunities for what one might term intensive intellectual acting. Barry- more has many scenes which he plays by himself and in which he carries the story along by the force of his mastery of the art of screen acting. There is less of the actor in his performance in this picture than we usually find in his screen characterizations. The part rings true. Particularly effective are the scenes with Barrymore alone in prison. The hopelessness of his position, his despair, his longing for freedom are depicted with rare skill and power. The Tempest is going to add to Jack Barrymore's screen following. And it is going to introduce to Amer- ican audiences a young woman who hereafter will loom large in screen circles. Camilla Horn, the German young- ster who played Marguerite in the Ufa production of Faust, starring Jannings, was brought from Europe to appear opposite Barrymore in The Tempest, and that those responsible for the importation had the right hunch is proven most emphatically by Camilla's performance. She is a wonderful little artist, a fine looking girl whose face indicates the presence of an intellect behind it. Judging her by what I have seen of her in two pictures, I would place her among the half-dozen best screen actresses. She is equal to every phase of her part in The Tempest, and gives the impression that she would be fully as equal to any other part, no matter how exacting. In apportioning credit for the success of The Tempest Sam Taylor's name is to be bracketed with those of the two leading players. It was a brave thing that Johnnie Considine did when he gave Sam such an important picture to direct. With sev- eral comedies and only one comedy-drama to his credit, there was nothing in Taylor's record to indicate that he could handle a drama as powerful as The Tempest. But he has proven equal to the task. One of the strongest fea- tures of the picture is its masterly direction. Taylor has a definite and intelligent understanding of dramatic values, an eye for composition and grouping, and can handle his mobs with as much assurance and conviction as any di- rector more experienced in pictures of this sort. Sam Taylor may be put down as one of our really big directors. Considine has given The Tempest an artistic and generous production, a feature of all United Artists pictures super- vised by him. The photography is superb throughout, and the intelligent use of lights gives the picture a rich quality. You may put The Tempest down as a picture that the pub- THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 lie will receive with approval. One feature of it that will interest Hollywood is the presence in the cast of two actors who have not been seen on the screen before and who give truly magnificent performances. Boris de Fas, who, I believe, is a Russian, plays the part of a nameless, nondescript peddler, and gives a performance that stamps him as an actor of ability. Ulrich Haupt, a German, makes his bow in American pictures in The Tempest. He plays the heavy. I don't think I ever have seen on the screen a more perfect performance of a role of that sort. Louis Wolheim is in the cast also and adds considerably to the entertainment value of the picture. The peculiar thing about his part is that it has nothing to do vrith the story, but it is none the less interesting on that account. (Operator's Note — The above 14 lines are "overs" which means that Mr. Beaton changed his mind about what he wanted to say. This is the first time I have seen that happen since the inception of The Spectator, and I have put in type everything he has written for it.) * * * "Glorious Betsy" Is Warner's Best Picture THE Warner brothers are going to open their Holly- ,1 wood theatre with the best picture they ever made, ^ with the exception of some of the Lubitsch produc- tions. Glorious Betsy is a page from history. Dolores Costello plays Betsy Patterson, the Baltimore beauty who married Jerome Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon, played by Conrad Nagel. In case you are as ignorant as I was about it, it will interest you to know that the young Bonaparte married the glorious Betsy and took her with him to France, where she was turned back by the emperor, who had other marriage plans for his brother. Up to this point the picture follows history, and makes a permissible departure from it to make a more agreeable ending than the real Patterson-Bonaparte romance enjoyed. Alan Cros- land directed Glorious Betsy and has made a splendid pic- ture of it. I do not wish to suggest that Crosland has limitations, but I must give him credit for being particu- larly happy in his direction of costume pictures. He has an artistic eye for grouping, a sound sense of drama and a neat sense of humor. As I recall all the pictures I have seen them in, I can not place one in which either Dolores or Conrad gave a performance equal to that which contrib- utes so largely to making Glorious Betsy such satisfactory entertainment. As the screen story is written it is a beautiful romance, and it has been produced, directed and acted beautifully. It differs from Crosland's Don Juan in that it is a picture to which you may take the children. Dolores Costello plays Betsy delightfully and with under- standing. There are gay moments and sad ones in her characterization, and she runs the whole gamut of emo- tions with a skill surprising in a girl so young. This pic- ture reveals to us a new Conrad Nagel, a romantic actor, tender, dashing, skilful with the sword and possessed of a rare sense of humor. What he will mean to speaking pictures is demonstrated in those sequences which have been vitaphoned. His fine voice registers splendidly. The voice of Dolores has a quality as charming as her person- ality, entitling her to face with confidence the future of her art. Marc McDermott, another whose voice will be a valuable asset to him, plays a part with his usual confi- dence, grace and skill. I am writing this review three AprU 28, 1928 weeks before the opening of the new theatre, but already I think I can hear the storm of applause that will greet one sequence. Andre de Segurola is one of the commis- sioners who come from France to announce that Napoleon has become emperor. We hear him make the announce- ment and then sing the most glorious national hymn. La Marseillaise. It is screen entertainment that will stir the most lethargic film patron and is interesting as presaging what the future of pictures holds for us. Although Dar- ryl Zanuck assured me that the Vitaphone score for the picture as played by Herman Heller's symphony orchestra will sound much better in the theatre than it did in the projection room, I scarcely am ready to believe him. Per- haps it is because I never before heard music while view- ing a picture in a projection room, but it is a fact that the scoring of Glorious Betsy seemed to me to be the best I ever heard. If you miss this picture you are not keeping abreast of screen history. * * * Again Herbert Brenon Gives Us a Masterpiece HERBERT Brenon has made an amazingly good pic- ture out of Laugh, Clown, Laugh. Metro borrowed him from United Artists to direct the picture, with Lon Chaney in the star part. The result is completely sat- isfactory. The picture pleases the eye and appeals to the senses, and throughout its entire length there is an under- current of feeling that always can be looked for in a Brenon picture, and which we seldom find in one with a European locale. There is a sweep to Laugh, Clown, Laugh, a suggestion of breadth and freedom that is re- freshing. As you watch the picture you have a feeling of comfort, and you do not have to overwork your eyes to see everything that is going on. This effect is produced by Brenon's policy of placing the audience in a good seat, not too far away and not too close. See this picture and you will understand what I mean. You will notice that there are long shots of scenes in which there are but two people, and nothing that they do will be lost upon you by their distance from the camera. Also you will find two, and sometimes three, players in a medium shot, each speaking titles without confusing you for a moment over the identity of each speaker. I have raved about the close-up curse for a long time, and if you wish to find out my conception of its cure, see Laugh, Clown, Laugh when it is released. When Brenon has a scene in an attractive setting, he plays it out with the setting as part of it, con- sequently we get a succession of beautiful shots without losing anything in the way of drama. There are close-ups in the picture, but they are used intelligently. I can not recall any previous Lon Chaney characterization which re- veals the artist as this one does. Lon is splendid through- out. There is a suggestion of over-acting in the first se- quence, but that is as far as it gets. He is magnificent in a sequence in the great empty theatre, when he invokes an audience and an orchestra. The leading woman in this picture is Loretta Young, a miss of seventeen, who is as sweet and refreshing as one of the spring flowers that people my backyard where I sit and write. It is her first picture. What kind of an art is it in which a child can step to the front in her first adventure with it and give the impression that she never has known anything else? Loretta is as self-possessed, as easy and as natural before THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine the camera as any seasoned player could be. I could not see the slightest evidence of the novice in one of her scenes. She undoubtedly has ability, which will assist her charm- ing and appealing personality to carry her far. Bernard Siegel gives a splendid performance, as also does Nils Asther. Loretta and Asther carry the romance, which Brenon has stretched through the picture with his usual tenderness, sympathy and delicacy. Even while I write I find the spell of Laugh, Clown, Laugh growing on me. It is an excellent picture, the finest that Metro has given us in many a long day. And I insist that it derives its chief strength from what I have been urging on the industry so persistently — the cessation of the ignorant use of close- ups. Brenon gives us a motion picture, while so many others give us parades of portraits. When a close-up is necessary, Brenon brings his character forward and gives us a nearer view of him. As we have had no unnecessary ones, we find this necessary one quite refreshing. Which is as it should be. * * * Can't Stand Comparison With Great Predecessor THE street Angel is a picture that everyone should see. The combination of Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell directed by Frank Borzage is one of the most important in motion pictures, and is so efiicient that it could produce nothing that it would be a waste of time to see. It was the fate of these three people to be united in their first venture together in a picture of such extraordi- nary merit that their future efforts must be confined to striving to reach again a peak once attained, and every succeeding effort can not escape comparison with the first. Seventh Heaven is a much greater picture than Street Angel because it has, in optimism, a great theme and, in the war, a great background. Street Angel is just a romance, and has no theme. Also Seventh Heaven came to us as a glad surprise, introducing to us two youngsters from whom we had no right to expect anything; while street Angel brought us artists whom we regarded as seasoned and from whom perhaps we expected something that no actors are great enough to provide. In view of all this, our first reaction to Street Angel is one of disappoint- ment. But when we think of the extraordinary perform- ances of Charlie and Janet, and the masterly touches and deep understanding of Borzage; and recall the marvelous pictures that the cameraman put on the screen, we arrive at the conclusion that Street Angel is, after all, a pretty good picture. If we could forget Seventh Heaven, we would think it still better. But no amount of thinking could convince us that Street Angel is as good as it should be. In two or three places it drags until it is tiresome, but that is a fault that can be remedied easily. The chief faults of the picture are fundamental ones that should have been eliminated before the script reached the director. As in the case of Ramona, which is reviewed somewhere farther along in this Spectator, Street Angel tries to awaken our interest in two people who are inherently uninteresting at the outset and who remain so through- out the picture. It is not just acting that can put over a picture. The performances must be about something in it- self interesting, and which becomes more so to the extent that the acting approaches perfection. We leave Janet and Charlie as we found them: a couple of waifs Page Ten from nowhere. The whole picture is too much in mono- tone, a weakness that extends even to the extraordinary photography, of which there were a few too many sub- dued shots. When the two characters are parted on the eve of their wedding there was a chance to get drama by showing the girl going down to jail and the man going upward to success. But this chance was overlooked; the two remain always in the same station of life, thus rob- bing the picture of an opportunity to be strong in con- trasts. The one weakness of Borzage's direction, admirable enough in most respects, was the characterization of Far- rell after Janet goes to jail. Again we have no contrasts. Charlie is drooping as much after a year of it as he did when the blow first fell, which is altogether wrong. I don't know how the original story had it, but I feel that the screen version would have provided a much better picture if Farrell had become successful and famous while Janet was in jail. But the film will do no one any harm. Janet remains the greatest screen actress we have and Charlie takes a long step forward. Street Angel is his picture more than it is Janet's. His performance is really notable. * * * Rowland Lee Has a Few New Ideas ROWLAND Lee always can be counted on to do some- thing different. He has no accepted method of handling a given situation, which lends a refreshing quality to the pictures he directs. He opens Three Sinners, Pola Negri's latest, with a truck shot. The camera travels around a room, pausing for a moment in front of each person in it until there is nobody left, after which it backs up and shows us the whole room. By this time we have seen all the people, but have no idea who they are. Lee makes us acquainted with them by means of spoken titles. Two spoken to a child — "Kiss your father good-night," and "Tell your grandfather you're sorry" — are illuminat- ing. There are no narrative titles in the picture, which, in itself, is a good feature. But in this production some of the spoken titles are distorted or made cumbersome by being written to embrace the narrative. I believe that if narrative titles can not be avoided, they should be pre- sented frankly as such, thus ridding spoken titles of the burden of the story. I blamed Lee for too many close-ups in his two previous pictures. I do not know if I am en- titled to any credit for the reformation that the new pic- ture reveals that he has undergone, but if congratulations are not due me, they certainly are due Lee. There are comparatively few close-ups in Three Sinners, and those that are in it are placed intelligently. I believe this pic- ture is going to be the most popular with American audi- ences that Pola has made in this country. While the locale is in Europe, the theme is a universal one that could be presented with a Dallas, Texas, background as effect- ively as with a Parisian background. The presence in it of a baby adds a human note that most of Pola's pictures have lacked. Pola gives her usual splendid performance. Even in the sequences in which she is shown as occupying a doubtful relationship with the proprietor of a crooked gambling house, she never lets us forget the fact that she is a good woman, forced into a false position through no fault of her own. She has a splendid scene with Paul Lukas when she reveals to him that she is his wife whom THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 he has mourned as dead. This sequence derives most of its effectiveness from the fact that it is piresented in long and medium shots and is devoid of those great, staring close-ups which are shot by unimaginative directors and inserted by unintelligent cutters. In this picture I get my first glimpse of Lukas. He is an acceptable leading man, which he seems to be in this picture until the end nearly is reached, when Warner Baxter steps to the front and gets Pola's hand. The best work that Lukas does is in a sequence showing him searching for the body of his wife who he thinks has been killed in a railroad wreck. He sheds no tears, but registers that he is overwhelmed with grief. It reflects intelligence in both acting and direction. Olga Baclanova, TuUio Carminati and Robert Klein are others who contribute good performances. I am not sure that the titles that were in the picture when I saw it are the ones that will be in it when it is released, but I hope they won't be. They are stiff and stilted, and punctuated terribly. But Three Sinners is a good picture, even with its present titles. Those exhibitors who have the idea that American audiences do not want Negri pictures should try this one on their patrons. I think they'll like it. * • * Why Don't Other Producers Follow the Harold Lloyd Plan? ALL Harold Lloyd's pictures are successful primarily because he is an excellent actor. Speedy is full of hilarious gags that in themselves are funny, but the storms of laughter that they arouse do not reach their peak until Harold, by some little stroke of actor's genius, gives them their final punch. In all his pictures Harold has to compete for recognition with his gags, and the latter always are so clever that they draw the applause and lead us to overlook the fact that all of Harold Lloyd's success is due mainly to the fact that he is one of the best actors on the screen. In Speedy he gives what seemed to me to be the best performance of his career. He gives us a boy that we like, not a frozen-face Buster Keaton, nor a wisecracking pest like Bill Haines; but a regular youth who can't hold a job, and doesn't care, and who is ready to blow his last cent to give his sweetie a fine time. The absolute cleanliness of the Lloyd pictures, of course, has contributed greatly to their success. When I have said that Speedy is very funny and extraordinarily clever I have written my whole review of it. Ted Wilde's direction is flawless. Amusement and hearty laughs are not all that I get out of Harold's pictures. As I watch them I wonder how under the sun the amazingly clever gags are thought of. I make obeisance to their creators! I bow low to the genius who conceived the idea of using the reflex action in a total stranger's knee as a means of getting even with another stranger who trod on one's toes. The brilliance of such inspirations dazzles me. Speedy is full of them. Harold makes one picture a year. I think that's it, but, anyway, they come a long way apart. When we see one of them flit joyously across the screen it gives us the impression that Harold and his gang made it one morning when they were full of pep. There is a spon- taniety, a sparkle to them that makes us feel that they were born of a moment's inspiration, and nothing to sug- gest that they were built slowly and that they progressed painstakingly from idea to idea. And despite the fact that he does not give us a great many pictures, Harold has April 28, 1928 THE FILM made a great many dollars. I don't suppose even Charlie Chaplin can match his fortune. The financial aspect of the Lloyd comedies interests me only as it supports my vari- ously expressed opinion that there always is a market for mentality. I have said repeatedly that what most pictures lack is downright cleverness. We turn them out now so rapidly that there is no time to make them original. If one of the big producers put Harold Lloyd under contract to-day, Harold agreeing to the terms offered him, we would get three, and perhaps four, Lloyd pictures a year. They would be like the Haines, Dix and other comedies and would make some money, but not half as much as Harold makes now by his one-picture-a-year policy. As picture-making is a money-making endeavor, I am sur- prised that other producers do not profit by their contem- plation of the Lloyd method. Hasn't it occurred to some- one that if Buster Keaton were put on a one-a-year sched- ule, and that the whole year were consumed in making the one as clever as possible, he soon would be making five dollars to every one that he is making now? His pictures would have time to be clever. Cleanliness and cleverness constitute a screen combination that can't be beaten, « * * Beautiful Picture, But It Lacks Story Value RAMONA is a beautiful picture. If I were a director or a producer I would rather have it to my credit than ninety per cent, of the pictures I have seen thus far this year. Edwin Carewe directed it intelligently, and it contains excellent performances and superb photography. Yet despite the fact that it has all the superficial essen- tials to picture perfection, it is not being hailed by the public as one of the great pictures of the year. It will not be an outstanding success financially, which shows that a picture must have something besides acting and scenery. In endeavoring to satisfy ourselves with the reasons why Ramona has not scored a greater success we may find out things that will profit us to remember when we make other pictures. We can find only a few faults with the direction. I think Carewe painted with too bold strokes. He made Vera Lewis too hard and unrelenting. It is pointed out in a title that Miss Lewis has a distinct grievance against Dolores Del Rio, but the individuality of the grievance is lost when everyone else in the picture except her son, is made a victim of it. A more logical characterization of the mother would have shown her sub- jecting only Dolores to harsh treatment. After Dolores and Warner Baxter have been married for some years they smile and smirk at one another continually, which no people do after they've been married for any leng^th of time. Ed Carewe ought to know that. The greatest fault in characterization was that of Roland Drew. His grief over the marriage of Dolores to another man is exag- gerated grotesquely. Five years after the wedding he still is in a daze. If he had suffered as greatly during that period as we see him suffering at the end of it, he would have lost his mind. That concludes my indictment of the direction, which, all told, does not consume much footage, not enough to mar an otherwise perfect picture. The reason Ramona did not appeal to me is because no reason was given why it should. A half-breed girl of a century ago is not of sufficient importance to enlist my interest, and the tragedy of her romance was not complicated SPECTATOR Page Eleven enough to hold my interest. Ramona is a biography of a girl who does nothing in the picture to merit having her biography written. If a villain had crossed her path and made her the victim of a complicated plot I could have become intrigued with the manner in which the plotter was foiled. If the story had been based on a theme I would have been interested in its treatment. But there is no theme. The girl is uninterestingly virtuous from the first, and the men are the souls of honor, something that becomes good screen material only when it has to fight against odds to remain so. Dolores' baby dies. It just dies. The death has nothing to do with anything else in the story. Pillagers ride in from some unknown place and destroy Ramona's home. We don't know who they are; we have not seen them previously, and we do not see them again. Unless we can be interested somewhat in them as personalities we can not be interested greatly in anything they do. Ramona is a picture that emphasizes the value of the tie-up. It shows that a straight narrative free of complications is not good screen material. No picture has to exert itself to cause me to shed tears, yet I was tm- moved when Ramona's baby died and could not share the grief of the mother. I was delighted with the long pro- cession of beautiful scenes, but less beauty and more story value would have held my interest more closely. * • * Production Good, But Story Lacking in Logic MAN-Made Women, the last Leatrice Joy picture made by De Mille, contains some of the nicest bits of direction I have seen in a long time. Paul Stein is particularly effective in putting over his time lapses. He shows dinner guests assembling in the drawing-room, then by a succession of close-up dissolves, each of one place at a table, he shows the progress of an entire meal. He carries the same idea through an evening at bridge and ends with hands reached out for wraps. He shows an en- tire evening in about thirty seconds of dissolves. In sev- eral other places in the picture he makes further intelligent use of the dissolve to advance his story by skipping lightly over the non-essentials. But eversrthing in the production is not to his credit. He has four of his dinner guests lined up as rigidly as a mixed quartette while they are awaiting the butler's announcement. Guests at a social function do not stand in a straight line, elbows touching, and grinning urbanely at nothing whatever. The only director who can make a social gathering look absolutely natural is Harry D'Arrast, and the chief reason for his success is that he realizes that all the guests do not face the same way all the time. Stein gives us a group of four guests standing in an absolutely straight line, which is quite unlike what four guests would do unless they were drunk and wanted to sing "Sweet Adeline." Leatrice Joy, H. B. Warner, John Boles and Seena Owen give very good performances in Man-Made Women, and the photography brings out all the values in a thoroughly adequate production, consequently it is a picture that I can recommend to the exhibitor readers of The Spectator, which point they should keep in mind while they read what more I have to say about it. The person who falls down in this production is Ernest Pascal, the author of the story. It is a variation of the taming of the shrew theme, treated illogically. Leatrice leaves her husband (Boles) and Harry Warner, himself in Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 love with her, contrives a reconciliation. The story is un- convincing because Boles is presented as an impossible, surly ass, whom a wife not only should leave, but whose throat she should cut just prior to her departure. Those who think will find that Boles' characterization ruins the picture. To have any strength the story must create sym- pathy for the deserted husband. Man-Made Women cre- ates no such sympathy. If Boles had been stripped of his gloom and had been given a sense of humor, the audience would feel sorry for him and the story would have some point. In one sequence Seena Owen tries to shoot Leatrice Joy, and again we have action based on the silliest reason. In his original story Pascal may have established the logic of his situations, something that the screen story abso- lutely fails to do. By paying as much attention to cause as to effect, Man-Made Women could have been made a clever and refreshing treatment of the triangle theme. As the picture presents it, we have the noble lover per- suading the -nif e to go back to her husband, while the audi- ence hopes she won't, for after about one month with such a husband a wife would have to leave him, shoot him or go crazy. It is too bad that all the beautiful production, clever direction and good acting could not have had a story back of them that was constructed with more logic. * • * Can't Eliminate Character Simply By Not Showing Him THERE is a sequence in Easy Come, Easy Go, a new Richard Dix picture directed by Frank Tuttle, that in a striking manner demonstrates that you can not eliminate a character from a picture simply by eliminat- ing him from scenes. In a recent Spectator I discussed the same idea as it related to close-ups, and criticized directors who pick out one character in a group with a close-up and have that character do something to which the others in the group do not react when the shot is en- larged to embrace them. When the presence of a character in a sequence is established it must be kept in mind while the sequence is being shot. In Easy Come, Easy Go we see the conductor of the railway train that is the locale for the sequence, enter the wash-room, and take off and hang up his coat and hat. He gets a hurry-up call and leaves the wash-room in his shirtsleeves. This is the last we see of him. He is in the picture to provide Dix with a disguise when he dons the conductor's hat and coat. I can't remember any other picture going to such elaborate pains to be wrong. When all the rest of the sequence is being run on the screen any intelligent person in the audi- ence must be wondering what the conductor is doing. We know there is no place in a train of Pullmans where he can hide, and we know that conductors of crack passenger trains do not roam around in their shirtsleeves. No pic- ture should make an audience wonder about something that it does not explain eventually. It would have been an easy matter to have shown Dix finding a hat and coat in one of those little cupboards that occupy what would be cor- ners on Pullman cars. Then we wouldn't have worried about the conductor. Easy Come, Easy Go is the poorest Paramount picture I have seen for some time, although it by no means is a total loss. It has rather more of a con- nected story than most of the comedies of its kind, and it is only by comparing it with other recent pictures from the same lot that I find it indifferent. It lacks that quality that Paramount has begun to put into its pictures: clever- ness. But it has story enough to hold your interest and to keep you wondering what is going to happen. It is rather a conventional role that Dix plays and he plays it with his accustomed zest and ability. He is a much better actor than most of his parts give him any opportunity to dem- onstrate. The outstanding feature of the film is the per- formance of Charles Sellon, who plays an old crook. It is a superb characterization that should bring this fine old actor other good parts. Nancy Carroll, who scores so heavily in Abie's Irish Rose, is the girl in Easy Come, Easy Go. It is just a girl part that allows a girl many oppor- tunities to display her beauty and none to display her ability. But Nancy is all right. We'll hear from her. The titles are a drawback. A great deal of the humor of Sellon's characterization was lessened by the kind of titles that were given to him. But on the whole, Easy Come, Now Playing 'The Qossipy Sex Phone GL. 4146 Prices: Mat., 50c to $1.00; Eve., 50c to $1.50 Matinees Thursday and Saturday VINE STREET THEATRE T^rinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 r— An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard ■'I April 28, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen Easy Go will not lose any friends for Dix. I do not quar- rel with it so much for what it is as I do for what it might have been. * * * Looked Unpromising, But It Really Is Interesting You can imagine how I tried to side-step it when I was told that it was a six-reel picture made by some rich Santa Monica woman not connected with the film industry, that it was shot entirely in her home and that the leading part was played by a young miss who never before had stood in front of a motion picture camera. But I could not stall indefinitely and finally found myself and the six reels together in a projection room. I saw a mighty interesting picture. I have said many times in The Spectator that it is easy to make a good motion pic- ture, and Sins of the Cradle rather goes to prove it. Mrs. Annie L. McDonald knew nothing whatever about how pictures were made, but she had an idea for a story and a beautiful house and garden that could be used as a locale for it. She vsrote the story, setting down one scene after another until she figured that she had told her story in a series of pictures that would be both beautiful and enter- taining. She knew the kind of a girl she wanted for the leading part, but could not find just the right one among the many Hollywood professionals whom she interviewed. At no stage of the growth of the idea did she have the slightest notion of using her own fifteen-year-old daughter Ann in the picture, but one morning someone suggested that Ann be given a test — and Ann played the part. Mrs. McDonald was so loath to exploit her own daughter that Ann McDonald appears on the screen as Ann Preston. She gives an extraordinary performance, but that is not the feature of the production that impressed me most. Sins of the Cradle is a better motion picture than over half of those made by the big producing organizations, yet no one with real picture experience had anything to do with it until it was handed, after it was shot, to Tom Terris to edit. It is full of production value of the most approved movie kind. An example: We see an elaborate fountain in the center of a flower garden, sending a score of streams into the air to run through moonbeams before falling on a group of statuary of great artistic beauty. Suddenly the statuary comes to life — girls in bathing suits. Sins of the Cradle, however, is a deeply human pic- ture. It tells of a foundling home which has a cradle in a bower to which unmarried mothers may come and leave the little ones whom the rest of the world apparently does not want. Ann plays the part of a foundling whom we follow through life until she finds that love has greater pulling power than the convent which it had been her in- tention to enter as a nun. It is a picture of tenderness, sympathy and humanity, and I am sixre that audiences any- where would like it. * * * THE Spectator is gratified to see so much professional advertising coming to it voluntarily. We want all that we can get, but we have been devoting our attention to creating a medium that would do the advertiser good and have made no effort to get advertising by applying pres- sure. I flatter myself that the regular readers of The Spectator are convinced that no amount of advertising by an individual can affect the paper's opinion of the work of such individual. The Spectator advertising pages are valuable to those who buy them only to the extent that the editorial pages are honest. And the price of space is just as honest. The rate is high, but everyone who uses space pays it. The other night a prominent director told me that his manager had persuaded him not to advertise in The Spectator because the rate was too high. About four months ago this same manager told me that he would take a full page in every issue for one year if I would give him a reduction of twenty-five per cent, in price, but bill his clients for the full amount, handing the manager his LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Was My Most Valuable Aeronautical Assistant WM. WELLMAN CHARLES STUMAR CHIEF CINEMATOGRAPHER OF "UNCLE TOM'S CABIN" "THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN PARIS" "HAS ANYONE SEEN KELLY" "THE MICHIGAN KID" UNIVERSAL PICTURE CORPORATION VICTOR MILNER Qinematograp her For Paramount MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF DANCING Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputation. 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to keep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GRanite 3561 Page Fourteen part of it when the checks came in. I told this petty grafter that when I could afford to reduce my rates I would give the advertiser, not thieving agents, the benefit of the reduction. Since that time this chap has persuaded him- self that The Spectator's a poor advertising medium, and he advises his clients accordingly. The full-page rate is eighty-one dollars, the advertiser pays that much and The Spectator gets all of it. "We divide with no one, and will sell space on no other condition. The Spectator is read by everyone in the industry, I think it is well thought of, and it is the only medium which an actor, director, writer, cameraman, or anyone else wishing to reach the industry need use. * * * SYD Chaplin has come back to us in A Little Bit of Fluff, his first English-made picture that I have seen. It lives up to its title by being a fluffy little thing, but it is amusing throughout, and somewhat better than we achieve over here when we attempt the same kind of polite farce. If the foreigners make pictures as bad as Flying Romeos or Ladies' Night in a Turkish Bath, they wisely keep them at home and send us something of a higher grade. This Sydney Chaplin thing is not the world's cleverest comedy, but it has a degree of cleverness in it, and for its entire unwinding it seemed to keep the preview audience amused. At times it was greeted with roars of laughter. The English propensity for bold strokes was in evidence in the characterization of a mother-in-law in A Little Bit of Fluff. The character was overdrawn so extravagantly that the whole production was harmed. Syd himself gives a splendid performance in this picture, being just a little better than he ever was before. I always have considered him to be a clever actor, but he not always has had parts that enabled him to show it. An interesting feature of Fluff to me was the opportunity it afforded me of meet- ing Miss Betty Balfour. I read regularly several English film papers, and have gathered from them the impression that this Betty person is the greatest drawing card over there. I don't know much more about her now than I did before I saw her. She is attractive to look at, and gives the impression that she is intelligent, but there was noth- ing in her part to give her an opportunity to demonstrate what she knows about acting. * * * T ET us consider for a moment a sequence in which the •*-' hero, in an auto, is rushing to the rescue of the hero- ine in distress. There seems to be a general impression that the way to build suspense is by cutting back and forth from the hero to the heroine. There are half a dozen flashes of the auto, not one of them long enough to create the impression of sustained speed. I believe the effect would be better if there were but one cut to the auto of sulficient footage to create suspense. If the camera were mounted behind the driver and the audience carried along with him far enough to make it feel that it was flying to the rescue with him, it would make a stronger sequence than we get now by placing the camera at the side of the road to catch the car as it flashes by. The weakness of the short shots is that they do not create the impression that it is going to any particular place. Traveling with it for some distance and eliminating all other shots of it, I think would make the rescue more dramatic. At all events, it is an idea worth trying. It would have the virtue of being different. A weakness of pictures is that the same THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 thing is done in the same way in all of them. The minds of directors seem to have become standardized. Few of them seem possessed of original ideas. LAUGH, Clown, Laugh contains some scenes that are difficult to handle. They show stage performances to which audiences in the picture react. Ordinarily such scenes cause reactions -within the picture out of proper- JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 r— — YOUR TRAVEL TROUBLES ELIMINATED You do not have to leave your office to arrange for the shortest or longest trip Route, Tickets, reservation arranged by us. All you do is use your phone INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL BUREAUX INCORPORATED 511 S. Spring St. TUcker 1402 OUHumiiiaiiimniiuDiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiniuiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiNiiiiiiiiiDi^ I JVhat You Wa7it When You Want It. I ^ O 11 J PERSONAL D i I Hollywood SERVICE Bureau | I Telephone Secretary | I We maintain a 24-hour telephone | I service, | I You give GRanite 5191 as your | I number ; we take j^our calls and relay | I them to you, wherever you may be. | I Let us be your telephone secretary. | I Fee, $5.00 per Month j I DAY OR NIGHT PHONE I JGRanite 5191 | I 6061 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD j OiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuimiiiiiiiiQiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiijiiiii[>> April 28, 1928 tion to the merits of the performances that are reproduced. In The Man Who Laughs we have audiences laughing up- roariously at something that we find pathetic as we view it, consequently the laughter jars us. In Langh, Clown, Laugh, Herbert Brenon handles such scenes in a manner that overcomes the difficulty. He shows us only the be- ginning and the end of the stage performance arid we ascribe the enthusiasm of the audience to the merits of that part of the performance that we did not see. Lpn Chaney gives a remarkable characterization of the clown, but Brenon does not stress it too heavily, and does not offer what we see on the screen as an excuse for the hearty applause of the audience before which Chaney per- forms. * * * A PRODUCER showed me recently a list of ten pie- •^*- tures. "Every one of them is a success", he declared, "and not one of them has a heavy in it. I am giving my writers instructions to cut out the villains." Did you ever hear of such an idiotic thing? When a given story is being considered all other stories should be forgotten. No picture ever was successful because it had no heavy in it. It was successful because it had a good story, and the THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen fact that it had no heavy in it had no more to do with it than the fact that it had no cross-eyed goat in it. Every story should contain everything that it should contain. If a heavy comes in naturally, it should have a heavy, just as it should have a cross-eyed goat when such an animal be- comes a logical part of it. Producers should profit by the study of all the pictures that he can see, but he should apply subjectively to his own pictures what he learns from others. No progress can be made by an imitator. * * • THE dear young things who delight us so much when we see them on the screen, should learn how to shake hands. Much can be expressed by a handshake, and all that most of our girls express by it is that they lack dominant personalities. Directors, of course, are to blame. Most of our screen handshakes are those squashy things that give me a cold and clammy feeling, whereas they should be vigorous and hearty as if the hand shakers meant them. These thoughts were suggested by the way Mary Astor shakes hands with Edmund Lowe in Dressed to Kill. Her hand goes out and she grasps Lowe's as if she meant it and were glad to greet him. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's \7-Year-0ld Critic TRYING to make a road-show out of a program picture has seriously damaged The Street Angel. The picture should have been about seven reels long, instead of nine or ten. Even at seven it would have been very slow-moving. Seventh Heaven was great because it had other things in it beside the love of the boy and the girl. The love theme dominated the picture, of course, but there were splendid characterizations besides those of the two principals. The Street Angel has no other character- izations which run all through the pic- ture but those of Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor. Though they gave superb performances, just two peo- ple cannot hold one's attention through ten reels. They might if there were splendid sets and lots of production in the picture, but The Street Angel had none of these things. The only impressive thing about its sets was the number of street women who were crowded into them. They were all over the place, and to my mind at least, they introduced a sor- did note which injured the beauty of the love story. They didn't have to be quite so evident. Street Angel had none of the appeal of Seventh Heaven. It took so long to get to the sad scenes, that all through them my only reaction was to wonder if the picture were ever going to end and whether it was thirty or forty reels. Frank Borzage, who directed Street Angel, is not wholly to blame for the poorness of it. Like William de Mille, who directed Tenth Avenue, he was given too little story to make into a pictxire. As it was, the picture con- tained many splendid bits of direc- tion. Charlie and Janet are equal now, in the number of pictures taken. Janet took Seventh Heaven; Charlie takes Street AngeL He gives a superb performance, one that even surpasses his splendid wOrk in Seventh Heaven. Janet also gives a marvelous perform- ance, but where she got the breaks in Seventh Heaven, Charlie gets them in this. Henry Armetta, a new-comer, gives a brilliant characterization. It is a pleasure to see again Natalie Kingston in one of her clever perform- ances. The men who photographed Street Angel deserve only the highest praise, as they. did some of the most brilliant camera work I ever have seen on the screen. THE Tempest is the best thing John Barrymore has done since The Sea Beast. In it he gives a performance which proves why he is one of the finest actors we have. In this he is something more than the woman-crazy acrobat he has been forced to play in his last few pictures. He is a brilliant artist, and it is grati- fying to see him treated as such at last. Sam Taylor does a splendid job of directing The Tempest. It is full of clever touches, and he leaves some- thing to the imagination of his audi- ence. When motion pictures regard the audience as intelligent, then will the audience regard pictures intelligently. There were spots where The Tempest dragged and the picture seemed a bit out of the grasp of the cutter. He didn't seem able to get some of the scenes and let them drag on and on until they got tiresome. That dragging and too many close-ups were the only weaknesses in an otherwise perfect picture. Barrymore's brilliant performance was not the only good bit of acting in The Tempest. Camilla Horn, imported from Germany for this picture, gives a very clever characterization. There is something about her which indi- cates that she is of starring calibre. She is the only leading woman Barry- more ever has had, with the exception of Dolores Costello, who has done some acting on her own hook. Miss Horn is destined to be one of our big- gest stars. Louis Wolheim's acting was very good. He was supposed to be the comedy relief, but at all times there was a suggestion of power under his fooling. Wolheim couldn't have been all fool, because Barrymore, as he was characterized in the picture, couldn't have been a close friend of a man who was nothing but a clown. He put his part over splendidly. Boris de Fas, who played the Commis- sar, does splendid work, and a man named Haupt, who is the heavy, proves by his superb work that he deserves bigger parts. George Faw- cett, who is one of the few actors in Hollywood who isn't worrying about a contract he signed when he was under age, gives his customary splen- did performance. POLA Negri has always been one of my favorites, and I always en- joy one of her pictui-es. 'There- fore, I would have enjoyed Three Sin- Page Sixteen ners even if it had not been a very fine picture. Rowland Lee has given us a beautifully done picture, replete with clever acting, good direction, and a very logical story. I do not say he is responsible for the logical story, but he is responsible for keeping it logi- cal on the screen. There is nothing overdrawn in Three Sinners; every- thing is sane, and within the bounds of reason. The heavy does not go around sneering a nasty sneer all the time, which is enough to make the pic- ture good if there were nothing else of merit in it. The whole thing goes evenly on, gradually working up to a powerful climax. The picture does not seem possessed of much power until the last scenes are reached, and then it gets more and more dramatic until the end wakes one to the reali- zation of having seen a brilliant piece of screen craftsmanship. If Miss Negri were not the splen- did actress she is, Three Sinners would have been stolen from her by the brilliant supporting cast. It takes a real actress to have the courage to surround herself with a supporting cast of brilliant actors. However, Miss Negri dominated the picture with ease. Paul Lukas, Tullio Carminati, and Olga Baclanova, who played the three sinners, were all splendid. Warner Baxter and Anders Randolf were also good in smaller parts. AFTER a succession of mediocre pictures, Lon Chaney returns with a bang in Laugh, Clown, Laugh. Herbert Brenon can always be counted on for a great picture, and, while this is no Beau Geste, it is one of the best ever turned out at M.-G.-M. Brenon gets all the pathos into it without smearing the screen with quarts of glycerine. That doesn't mean that his characters weren't emotional; they were too emotional. They flew off the handle at every pause in the con- versation. However, that may be the way Italians act, for all I know. "The entire cast of Laugh, Clown, Laugh is excellent. Chaney himself gives a brilliant performance, of course. Little Loretta Young, who is featured with Chaney, gives a re- markable performance, considering that this is her first picture. She will go far on the screen. Bernard Siegel is a new one to me, but he does very good work. Nils Asther is also good. PAUL Stein has made a very amus- ing little picture in Man-Made Women. Leatrice Joy, who is al- ways delightful on the screen, is starred. Stein and Miss Joy are a good combination, if this picture is any criterion. The story is not new, but Stein has put in so many nice new touches and so many good bits of direction that the picture is very entertaining. He puts over the passage of time with a skill that practically amounts to genius. His character drawing is not quite so clever as the rest of his work. The young husband in the picture is made out to be rather an impossible creature. He gets angry at his wife for doing things which are THE FILM SPECTATOR not considered so terrible in this day and age. Stein had rather a delicate character to handle in the wife. If he made her out as bad enough to incur sensibly her husband's wrath, she would have lost the sympathy of the audience and ceased to be the hero- ine. The picture dragged somewhat, but as I saw it at the first preview, I suppose it will be tightened up a good deal before it is released. Man-Made Women had two sterling troupers in it besides Miss Joy and John Boles, who played the husband and wife. 'The two were Seena Owen and H. B. Warner. Their splendid per- formances contributed a great deal to the picture. WINGS should not be criticized like any other motion picture, because it is more like a great historical document than anything else. A picture like Wings, made about the first flying warriors in the world, by some of them, will be tre- mendously valuable in about seventy- five years, when they all will be dead and gone. It will be something like having a news-reel of the Crusades. All the silly stuff that goes on in Paris, when Clara Bow endeavors to get the boys back in the trenches by Christmas, is poor movie stuflT, but it's a good idea. Leave in Paris was sup- posed to ease the nerves of the fliers, but by the time they got around to it, the nerves of the audience also needed easing. The various noises and explo- sions added a great deal to the pic- ture and gave more proof that event- ually all pictures will have to have sound. A lot of the effects in Wings would have been totally lost if it had not been for the noises accompanying them. Whoever is responsible for all the wonderful flying stuff in Wings is a genius. To him and William Wellman, the director, goes the credit for having made such a splendid picture. The two men around whom the story was written were splendidly done by Dick Arlen and Buddy Rogers. I like both of them on the screen, and their work in this is done just as well as usual. Clara Bow was good, although she didn't have much of a part. Jobyna Ralston was also good. WHEN will Famous Players find out that trying to cash in on the success of one picture by mak- ing another like it is poor business? They made Beau Sabreur in an effort to cash in on the success of Beau Geste ; and now they make The Legion of the Condemned in an attempt to do the same thing for Wings. Both pic- tures were very poor. The Legion of the Condemned deals with a bunch of young men who go hunting death with a feverish enthusiasm worthy of a better cause. They all join the French air service and scatter spies hither and yon over enemy territory. One is a gambler, another a drunkard, another a murderer, one is just bored, and another, who has a prejudice against dying in his bare feet, is a mixture of all of them. This last char- April 28, 1928 acter is played very cleverly by Lane Chandler. I saw him in Red Hair, opposite Clara Bow, but I never imag- ined from his work in that that he was such a good actor. All members of the squadron had fairly good reasons for joining it except Gary Cooper, who joined it because he came in and found the girl he loved apparently blowing down the neck of another man. These fellows who are so broken up when they find their sweethearts necking with some one else give me a pain. • If they must commit suicide, they should do it and get it over, not join an air service and make silly gestures for no good reason. However, it turned out that the girl. Fay Wray, broke her lover's heart because she was a member of the French Secret Service. The Legion of the Con- demned deals with the year 1917, yet the girl, who was French, could make love to a German diplomat without arousing any suspicion in his mind. The picture drags on and on until everything ends happily. Heaven de- liver us from any more like it. TENTH Avenue would be a very fine picture if it were not for the fact that it drags. It is a long time getting started and an even longer time finishing. There are big scenes, but after they are over there is such a long let-down that the pic- Reviews "I wonder what THE FILM DAILY wiU say about it!" That expression started years ago when the im- portant people of this in- dustry learned that our reviews were "straight from the shoulder" and constructive. Read THE FILM DAILY regularly and profit. FILMOOM-S NEWSPAPER AHDWEIKLY RLM DIGEST 1650 Broadway, N. Y. C. J April 28, 1928 ture loses its punch. William de Mille, who directed Tenth Avenue, did a very good job. I don't think he is wholly to blame for the slowness of the pic- ture. There did not seem to be enough story for the length of the picture. The whole story could have been told easily in five reels. There were a few deft comedy touches such as the scene where Ethel Wales, who is drunk, tries to take off her necklace. THE FILM SPECTATOR De Mille had a splendid cast in Tenth Avenue. The honors of the pic- ture belong to Joseph Schildkraut. His performance was marvelous in spite of a tendency of his to over-acting. Phyllis Haver, one of the cleverest girls on the screen, does a brilliant piece of work, also. Victor Varconi, whom I like on the screen because I have yet to see him do poorly, is very good. REVIEWED IN THIS NUMBER Easy Come, Easy Go — A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Tuttle; original story by Ann Davis; scenario by Florence Ryerson; photographed by Edward Cronjager; assistant director, Rus- sell Mathews. The cast: Richard Dix, Nancy Carroll, Charles Sellon, Frank Cur- rier, Arnold Kent, Guy Oliver. Glorious Betsy — A Warner Brothers picture. Di- rected by Alan Crosland; assistant director, Gordon Hollingshead; story by Rida Johnson Young; scenario by Anthony Coldewey; photographed by Hal Mohr. The cast: Dolores Costello, Con- rad Nagel, John Miljan, Pasquale Amato, Andre de Segurola, Michael Vavitch, Paul Panzer, Clarissa Selwynne. Laugh, Clown, Laugh — A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. From the play by David Belasco and Tom Gushing; screen play by Elizabeth Meehan; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gib- bons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by James Wong Howe; film editor, Marie Halvey; directed by Herbert Brenon. The cast: Lon Chaney, Bernard Siegel, Loretta Young, Cissy Fitz- Gerald, Nils Asther, Gwen Lee. Legion of the Condemned — A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by William Wellman; story by John Monk Saunders; screen play by John Monk Saunders and Jean de Limur; editor-in-chief, E. Lloyd Sheldon; photographed by Henry Gerrard; assistant director, Rich- ard Johnston. The cast: Fay Wray, Gary Cooper, Barry Norton, Lane Chand- ler, Francis McDonald, Voya George, Freeman Wood, Chariot Bird, Albert Conti, E. H. Calvert, Hugh Leland. Little Bit of Fluff— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Produced by British International Pictures, Ltd. Adapted by Wheeler Dryden from the famous stage play, A Little Bit of Fluff, by Walter W. Ellis; titles by Ralph Spence; photographed by Rene Guissart and George Pocknall; film editor, Leslie Wilder; directed by Jess Robbins and Wheeler Dryden; produced at Elstree, London. The cast: Sydney Chaplin, Betty Balfour, Nancy Rigg, Annie Es- mond, Edmond Breon, Diana Wil- son, Clifford McLaglen, Enid Stamp-Taylor. Man-Made Women — A De Mille picture. Director, Paul L. Stein; associate producer, Ralph Block; from the story by Ernest Pascal; scenario by Alice D. G. Mil- ler; cameraman, John Mescall; as- sistant director, Gordon Cooper; film editor, Doane Harrison; cos- tumes by Adrian; unit production manager, Harry H. Poppe; released by Pathe Exchange, Inc. The Patriot— A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by Ernst Lubitsch; from the play by Alfred Neumann; adaptation by Hans Kraly; photographed by Bert Glennon; assistant director, George Hibbard. The cast: Emil Jannings, Flor- ence Vidor, Lewis Stone, Tullio Carminati, Vera Voronina, Neil Hamilton, Harry Cording. Ramona — A United Artists picture, presented by Inspiration Pictures, Inc., and Edwin Carewe; from the story by Helen Hunt Jackson; screen play by Finis Fox; cinematographer, Robert B. Kurrle; film editor, Jeanne Spencer. The cast: Dolores Del Rio, War- ner Baxter, Roland Drew, Vera Lewis, Michael Visaroff, John T. Prince, Mathilde Comont, Carlos Amor, Jess Cavin. Sins of the Cradle — An Independent picture. Directed by Richard Drake Saunders; as- sisted by Edward M. Langley; un- der the supervision of Charles R. Seeling; story by Annie L. McDon- ald; titled and edited by Tom Ter- riss; photographed by Miles Berne and Clifton Maupin. The cast: June Mar low. Bob Seiter, Ann Preston, Lucy Rogers, Cecelia Evans, Charles Darrah, Mary Meeteer, Margaret Camp- bell, Geraldine Kasal. Speedy — A Harold Lloyd picture. Story by John Grey; gag men. Rex Neal, Howard Rogers, Jayne Howe; titles by Al de Mond; directed by Ted Wilde; photographed by Walter Ludin. Page Seventeen The cast: Harold Lloyd, Ann Christy, Brooks Benedict, Bert Woodruff. Street Angel — A William Fox picture. Directed by Frank Borzage; story by Monckton Hoffe; adapted by Philip Klein; scenario by Marion Orth. The cast: Janet Gaynor, Charles Farrell, Henry Armetta, Louis Liggett, Alberto Rabagaliati, Guido Trento, Helene Herman, Natalie Kingston, Milton Dickin- son, Jennie Bruno, David Kashner. The Tempes1>- A United Artists picture. Super- vised by John W. Considine, Jr.; directed by Sam Taylor; original story adapted by C. Gardner Sulli- van; titles by George Marion, Jr.; art direction by William Cameron Menzies; photographed by Charles Rosher, A. S. C; technical advisor, Col. Alexis Davidoff, I. R. A.; pro- duction manager, Walter Mayo; film editor, Allen McNeil; ward- robe manager, Frank Donnellan; interior decorator, Casey Roberts. The cast: John Barrymore, Camilla Horn, Louis Wolheim, Boris De Fas, George Fawcett, Ulrich Haupt, Michael Visaroff. Tenth Avenue — A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by William C. de Mille; from the play, Tenth Avenue, by John Mc- Gowan and Lloyd Griscom; screen play by Douglas Z. Doty; photo- graphed by David Abel; assistant director, William Scully; produc- tion manager, R. M. Donaldson; film editor, Adelaide Cannon; cos- tumes by Adrian; art director, Stephen Goosson. Three Sinners — A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by Rowland V. Lee; play by Bernauer and Osterreicher; screen play by Doris Anderson and Jean de Limur; photographed by Victor Milner; editor-in-chief, E. Lloyd Sheldon; assistant director, Daniel Keefe. The cast: Pola Negri, Warner Baxter, Paul Lukas, Olga Bac- lanova, Anders Randolph, Tullio Carminati, Anton Vaverka, Ivy Harris, William von Hardenberg. Wings — A Paramount picture. Directed by William A. Wellman; from the story by John Monk Saunders; screen play by Hope Loring and Louis D. Lighten; photographed by Harry Perry; titles by Julian Johnson; assistant director, Rich- ard Johnston, produced by Lucien Hubbard under the supervision of B. P. Schulberg, associate pro- ducer. The cast: Clara Bow, Charles Rogers, Jobyna Ralston, Richard Arden, El Brendel, Edward "Gun- boat" Smith, Gary Cooper, Richard Tucker, Henry B. Walthall, Julia Swayne Gordon, George Irving, Hedda Hopper, Arlette Marchal, Nigel de Brulier. Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR THE PETTY CASH BASIS By Madeline Matzen In an article published in the Sep- tember 23, 1927, issue of "The Film Mercury", Jas. P. Calhoun writes about "The Original Story Problem". After talking with Mr. Beresford, he comes to the conclusion that you have one chance in ten thousand (if you are a newcomer) of selling a story to Uni- versal. But I notice that Mr. Beresford says nothing to him about Universal's policy of taking for petty cash all the new ideas they can get. Their policy is one way of getting around a dilB- culty and of staying on good terms with the Labor Commission. And yet Universal wastes thousands of dollars a week in making super fea- tures like Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc. Isn't this being penny wise (or penny sharp) and pound foolish? I cannot see how such a condition could be permitted by the head exec- utives— if they happen to know of it! I am told by certain people at Uni- versal that the "Petty Cash Basis" of payment was abandoned some weeks ago — but I was only told that it had been discontinued after I had said that I intended writing an arti- cle for "The Film Spectator" about the system. But doubtless the Universal scenario department will find other ways of obtaining fresh ideas. What has once occurred can occur again if the same people remain in power. The system under discussion has existed for a long, long time at Universal City. I was talking just the other day to two of their old writers, now employed at different studios, and they tell me that it has always been part of Uni- versal's policy to hold out the glad hand and pay small salaries (not listed on the payroll) to new writers. Milk them dry of ideas, dismiss them — and keep the ideas. But the "Petty Cash Basis" is a fairly new ar- rangement. And yet every day you see huge advertisements containing statements purported to come from Carl Laemmle (for they are issued over his signa- ture) urging new writers to offer sug- gestions and ideas for which he (Mr. Laemmle) will pay them well. It rather looks as though someone were putting something over on poor Mr. Laemmle ! * * » The new writer is urged to come to Hollywood and try his hand at writ- ing for the screen. Lured by gilded promises and assertions he comes. Perhaps he falls for the "Petty Cash" idea. Does The Writers' Club help him out? It does not! I have yet to hear of a single truly gifted young or new writer being helped ahead by The Writers' Club. The mediocre minds are given a lift and the club welcomes them — but show me the genius who has been encouraged by them! But if you have already "arrived" then the club will entertain you royally; they will give a dinner for you — and Rupert Hughes will be the toast- master. Is The Writers' Club a writer's trust? Or is it intended to further the art of writing? I was talking just the other day to one of the old members of the club: "I've resigned!" he told me. "So many new writers are joining, it's not the same!" And yet this club should be the first in all Hollywood to encourage and help the newcomer if he has real talent. Instead, they seem to regard the newcomers as up- starts. Such a condition is comic. It reminds me of the social climber — once in he is the first to look askance at the next newcomer. It is "good busi- ness" to protect one's job, but it is better business to write so darn well that your job does not need protect- ing. * * * A system like the "Petty Cash Basis" (I laugh to myself every time I wi-ite it, for it sounds so important and plausible) is a disgrace to the motion pictui-e profession and an abso- lutely disheartening obstacle to the new writer. There is no possible ex- cuse for it. I should like to know very much what the clever Mr. Mon- taigne has to say about the matter. After all, it is his scenario depart- ment. I understand, moreover , that Mr. Beresford's wife is opening up a new tea room — an excellent one. Perhaps Mr. Beresford might do a kind act and employ in his tea room the poor devils who have slaved under the "Petty Cash" system until they are quite broke, discouraged and out of a job. If you are young and struggling for a foothold the items of thirty-cent carfares and luncheons mount up, and one cannot live forever on promises and petty cash. The Latest Books Ar« Always Obtainable at The HoUywood Book Store OPPOSITE HOTEL HOLLYWOOD Artistic Framing Stationery and Circulation Library Norman's ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard April 28, 1928 A LITTLE SLAM My dear Mr. Beaton: A feature which has always annoyed me more than most in your paper, is the didactic and patronizing depart- ment in which your son, Donald, from the eminence of his seventeen years, is given free rein to criticize the work of directors and vyriters who were making good pictiires while he was being weaned. Since The Spectator is your paper and we don't have to read it unless we want to, I presume we will have to endure the young man's sophomoric ravings indefinitely. I feel, however, as the editor of the paper and an old newspaper man, you should at least instruct him in the rudiments of ac- curacy. In the current issue, after taking a whole-hearted slam at Norma Shearer's picture. The Latest From Paris — a slam, incidentally, which is an echo of your own blanket indict- ment— he goes on to say that the pic- ture was directed by Robert Leonard, whereas it should be credited to Sam Wood. Even if the young man can not take the trouble to get the data ac- curate, it is surely up to you or some- one in your editorial department to correct such errors. Incidentally your punctuation, gram- mar and syntax are getting to be quite as bad as that to be found in the titles you constantly revile. I could quote chapter and verse but I can't be bothered. Heaven knows why I continue to SEE Wm. Fox - Frank Borzage's Production "STREET ANGEL" With Janet Gaynot and Charles Farrell Carthay Circle Theatre NOW SLIP COVERS Finest Workmanship — All Corded Finish Will give lasting service and add pleasure and beauty to your home. We have a large assort- ment of colors and patterns. Call, write or phone. Estimates free. WEST COAST SLIP COVER Co. 1425 W. 8th St. DRexel 6728 I April 28, 1928 I read The Film Spectator. It invariably spoils my afternoon and yet I always look forward anxiously to the next issue. Subconsciously, I daresay, I am nursing the faint hope that one of the moron producers you despise so heart- ily, will offer you a vast stipend to supervise his pictures, and that you will announce the disintegration of The Spectator. F. HUGH HERBERT. NOTES ON PICTURES By WALTER KRON IT IS with immense interest that I note how readily the great Amer- ican public lets go of its hard- earned dollars to view the current bilge on our screens. True, they wit- ness merchandised drama and cheap emotions frozen in celluloid with a gullible face — that is, the majority of them do. There must be a certain per- centage of the vast audiences that realize the movies are now in the hands of Vandals. The censors have not dominated the producers to such an extent that they would not be able to sell anything but burlesques. Every person who sits through the average picture without a murmur subjects his self-esteem to rigid tests. The pinnacle of the pres- ent so-called screen art is base. It is a real brain strain on most directors to manufacture opuses for "Cro Mag- non" audiences. If my enlightened reader thinks this a bald statement, behold this list be- low on current display: 1. The Final Extra; 2. Sting of Stings; 3. Born to Battle; 4. The Bashful Buccaneer; 5. Husband Hunters; 6. Hard-boiled Haggerty; 7. Hell's Four Hundred; 8. Breed of Courage; 9. Devil's Dice; 10. The Drop Kick; and 11. Prince of the Plains. This is a selection running in sur- rounding shooting galleries. I know nothing of these masterpieces; I merely quote the titles. For students of the psychology of the neolithic movie Americanus, I can furnish a portfolio filled with evidence docketed in alphabetical order. It would also be valuable to the future historians. This "cinemania" review complete will soon be open for gen- eral inspection. Some irate reader or director, see- ing a mental kick at his bread basket, may exclaim, "Well, if you don't like it, why the hell worry about it?" Such a reaction is expected. It is the utter bovine attempt at drama that provokes a sneer — this pandering to the most primitive of man's in- stincts, not the moral but the lowest in mentality. The picture factories have not the best brains because the best brains cannot be bought. And if the best could be enlisted, the pos- sessor of such would be appalled by the motive that prompted it. But the first rate heads are not always in the literary field, although a great THE FILM SPECTATOR amount of them are there. But in motion pictures they would be un- suited. This element must be fostered from its own soil. It should grow out of its own bed of manure. These flowers are growing in the earth of America. They view the pure wonder and expression of their art through the eye of a camera. Every panorama, mountain, shaded arbor, and slum and city street is a background — every human, an actor. All is eloquent to them. They await the torch-bearer. * * * The motion picture as an industry is built on sand. An enlightened future wiU testify to this. Being a material of self-expression and tied to the frail whim of a public makes the business precarious. In five years its value as a mint will be past history. The makers of unearned salaries will be reduced to the level of vaudeville actors. As a place of refuge for afternoon shoppers, tired bond-salesmen, and bored husbands and wives, the movies are a hypnotic pastime. But for a place to attract a man with mind alive, they are little removed from a chute- the-chutes, a merry-go-round, or a room of distorted mirrors. * * * The colossal movie mind to-day seems to be of a light, trivial, transi- ent material. The vented zig-zag con- volutions in their brains are shallow. To ask the regime now directing the dizzy emotions on celluloid to give us something better is a hopeless re- quest. We must await the time when their nakedness is apparent to their dull following. Drama that provokes tear-gushing is measured as powerful. Such a contention is false, and senti- ment is the refuge of a director de- void of intellect. The tear-jerker reaches back into the musty era of East Lynn and Uncle Tom's Cabin. Stella Dallas is a good example — a picture begging for sympathy. At bottom the structure is weak. It is Page Nineteen that very conscious striving for sym- pathy that deadens it. The evoking of the tear-duct can never enter into the confines of a work of esthetic ambi- tions. Excessive heroics appeal to the primitive and child audiences mainly. A successful director needs little of discernment as a rule. He has but to feel his way as he directs a picture. The lower down in the scale of man- kind are his feelings and imagina- tions, the larger the audience. At pres- ent, in all honesty, he needs absolutely no more head than a gas station at- tendant. It's all chartered for him. * * * The picture of the future will flaunt boldly a challenge with a foreword reading something like this: "This pic- ture is a new venture for a discrimi- nating adult audience. We have at- tempted in our best way to deviate from the groove of the present picture productions. Perhaps we have failed to express our thought successfully. We can only say we have tried. We warn that those of the audience who expect to see a sure-fire standard pic- ture will be mistaken, and we warn also that some may not be greatly en- tertained. If after the first reel is shown, there are any who do not care to remain, they may report to the box- ofSce, and their money will be re- funded." "But," you say, "our blood-brother and feeder, the exhibitor, might com- plain!" .... Such nonsense! We have to-day a queer species known as the motion picture critic. This man cries from the house tops the rare quality of a picture that is different. The picture might have no more artistic merit than a Maxfield Parish department store eye soother. But the simple fact that it is different will bring these fellows into the cheer lines. Their conceptions as decent critics might be dubious, but they do love a unique consumption. A profes- sional reviewer of current pictures is generally a sorry jackass. VALUES AND VARIETY WATCH OUR WINDOWS S^ ^Aousand »uiNiiiiiiDiiiiiiinMiEiiiiniirniiQiiiiiiniHiDniiiiiiiniE]iiiiiiuniiniiiiiiiinnaiiinniiJiiE]iiiiiiiniiiniiiiiiNiinE]iiMiiimriDnininiiiiuiiiiuiMii^ Kenneth Thomson a engaged for LA GRINGA" FOX STUDIO HOlly 6229 IRVING CUMMINGS, Director W. 0. CHRISTENSEN Management MIC3I "iQii iiii"!iiiii am iiic: iHiiniu □iiiiiiiiiiiicjiiiihiiiiiidmiiiiiiiiiiejiiiii iiniiMiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiE] i(iiiii[3iiiniiiiiiiniiiiii niiiiiiiiininiiiiiiiiiiiiEJiiiiiiiiininiiiniiiiiiiE^ May 12, 1928 of this kind the lips of girls are shown as a heavy and dead black while those of men in the same shots are grotesquely pale in comparison. Any effort to make them look alike should be along the line of toning down the use of lipstick by the girls. Men seldom offend. Arthur Stone, however does in Valley of the Giants. There is a sustained close-up of him making a speech and there is enough make-up on his lips to take care of a chorus. I don't see how he got through the picture without being kissed by a property man. Come to think of it, I believe I overlooked Arthur in my review of the Sills picture. He gives an excellent performance. He is a talented actor. * i^ • ONE reason among many why actors should join Equity and make it a powerful weapon of defense, is the ques- tion of rehearsing that the general use of sound devices THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen will present. Lois Wilson and Eddie Horton spent a week rehearsing a sketch for Vitaphone. They worked on the set one day and got one day's pay. And you can't blame Warner Brothers. The condition is a new one, and no one knows yet how to handle it. But a precedent is be- ing established that may give actors trouble. If all of them joined Equity there would be no danger of trouble. * * * /~VNE by one little improvements are getting into pic- ^^ tures just to prove that screen art is not altogether stagnant. One that I have noticed lately is the growing habit of showing only one side of a screen telephone talk. This is an improvement founded on common sense. When we know a man is telephoning to his wife there is no rea- son whatever why the wife should be shown if the hus- band's message is the only part of the conversation that advances the story. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's \7-Year-0ld Critic THE nearest approach to the per- fect picture has been made in The Patriot. Ernst Lubitsch directed it, and Emil Jannings and Lewis Stone acted in it. There were other good per- formances, of course, but the work of Jannings and Stone will go down in motion picture history, as will the di- rection of Lubitsch. But for the fact that it does not have sound, The Patriot would be at least iive years ahead of any motion picture released in the last few months. I think it is ahead of its time, because it leaves more to the intelligence of the audi- ence than any picture yet made. In a few years all pictures will have to re- spect the intelligence of the audience, something they rarely do now. Every director in the motion picture industry should see The Patriot at least three times. It is the perfect textbook. It is also the sort of picture that anyone would go to see several times. I imag- ine that it could be enjoyed just as much the second or third time as it could be the first. There would be new things to find in it each time. The Patriot has no tremendous sets in it, at least none peopled to any great degree; yet during its entire ten reels there is not a dragging moment. Everything moves along swiftly, but at no time does it move so fast that it gets away from the persons who see it. There never has been a perform- ance on the screen before like the characterization of the mad czar which Emil Jannings creates in The Patriot. The assassins of the czar are the real sympathetic characters of the picture, but Jannings manages to make himself also sympathetic and still leave the murderers in the right. One of the many things which contrib- uted to the tense drama of the story was the forming of the murder plot by the czar's only friend. Jannings had a ticklish thing there, because if he failed to win the sympathy of the audience, his death, at the instigation of his friend, would have had no dra- matic interest. On the other hand, if he won the hearts of the audience completely, his friend would become the heavy instead of the hero. The master hand of Lubitsch was evident in the brilliant medium Jannings fin- ally struck. In all the years Lewis Stone has been on the screen and in all the clever performances to his credit, he never has given a hint of the ability and power he displays in The Patriot. The greatest compliment to his work that I can think of is that he comes closer than anyone else ever has to stealing a picture from Jan- nings. Florence Vidor never for a moment allows her part to get away from her. Her work is very clever. Harry Cordingly is a newcomer, but he is splendid in a character part. Vera Veronina impresses in a small part. THE only fault to find with Good Time Charley is that it deals with a character strange to the aver- age moving picture fan. Good Time Charley is a song-and-dance man, and what is a normal action to a song-and- dance man is insanity to some one who is not or has not been connected with the stage. I dare say that the clever characterization of Warner Oland as Charley was only understood by about one in twenty-five of the people who saw it. However, the Vitaphone con- nected with the picture is far more interesting than any of the merits or demerits of the visual parts of the combination. I saw Good Time Charley in a projection room, yet it had a com- plete score all through it. There is no doubt but that sound is a great invention. All through the showing of Street Angel, which had a Movietone score, I wanted the characters to speak. At times it would seem that they were going to, and I would lean forward with a feeling of expectancy, only to sink back, disappointed, when nothing happened. Even during The Patriot, which had no sound of any kind, I kept imagining the added power of the scenes if only some of the titles were spoken. Good Time Charley was like Street Angel. There were splendid places for the charac- ters to speak. However, they were passed up even when they could have been put in very easily. Warner Oland, a splendid character actor, has the leading role as "Good Time Charley". Clyde Cook, who, with the exception of Charles Chaplin, is the finest comedian in motion pic- tures, gives a brilliant performance. Cook is not only a fine comedian, but he is one of the best actors in the business. He should be given bigger parts. I don't know the name of the man who played the heavy in Good Time Charley, but his work deserves favorable mention. Helene Costello does good work also. BEAU Broadway may be a good picture. It may be bad, too, for all I know. Sue Carol was in it, so it was naturally a success for me. I said a little while ago that she would be a good actress as soon as she got some more experience. Well, she is getting experience all the time, and in Beau Broadway she is delightful. But for Lew Cody's clever work, she would have stolen the picture. Sue has a splendid personality, and some producer is overlooking a great bet in not starring her in a series of stories about young people. She has the qual- ity that made Wallace Reid success- ful. He was successful because he was typical of young American men. Everyone who saw him on the screen Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR May 12, 1928 felt as though he knew him. Sue, in a superlative way, is the typical, well- bred, beautiful, intelligent American girl. In the eyes of the young man she is his best girl personified; the girl sees herself in her; to the older man or woman she is the sort of daughter he or she would want to have. She would be a success. Apart from Sue, Beau Broadway isn't much. To do it justice, it is bet- ter than the last Cody-Pringle atroc- ity I saw; but then that's not much of an achievement. The ending is a bit unexpected, and Ralph Spence's titles are better than any he has done as yet. They managed to contribute the majority of laughs to the picture. Those are about the only two things of any particular merit in Beau Broadway. The story is not consistent enough and looks as though it had been patched together as the com- pany went along with the shooting. There was one very funny scene where Cody and Sue go to church. That was about the only scene where Mai St. Claire gave any evidence of his usual good direction. He did a pretty fair job, but it was not nearly as good as . he should have done. Lew Cody was splendid. His performances are al- ways pleasant to watch, because he has the art of comedy completely at his command. Aileen Pringle did not have to do as much as usual in this, but she was good. Hugh Trevor was highly satisfactory, as was the rest of the cast. THE Valley of the Giants was a silly motion picture, but it was good entertainment. Only when there was an attempt at a dramatic moment by any member of the cast did the picture become uninteresting. The actual dramatic moments were sup- plied by train-wrecks and free-for- all fights. Several private fights be- tween Milton Sills and Paul Hurst also enlivened proceedings; because when Sills makes a picture, the wear- and-tear on actors, furniture, and clothes is terrific. Several things in The Valley of the Giants were absurd. Sills is supposed to be a business man, yet when he finds out that the money he wants to borrow from a friend is =*^ Isadore Bernstein SCENARIST ORIGINALS ADAPTATIONS CONTINUITIES SINCE FEBRUARY 15, 1928 "THE DEVIL'S CAGE" Original Story and Continuity STARRING PAULINE GARON "LIFE'S MOCKERY" Original Story and Continuity STARRING BETTY COMPSON "THE MAN WITHEN" Original Story and Continuity STARRING RICHARD TALM-A-GE "THE GHETTO" Continuity From Viola Brothers Shore's Story "The Schlemihl" STARRING GEORGE JESSEL NOW IN PRODUCTION AT WORK ON going to be loaned him, he gives a yell of glad surprise and falls all over the friend. To see him, one would imag- ine that he was very grateful for the money, but doubted that the friend would get it back. Another sequence that was silly was the one where the heavj' turned a machine gun on Sills' railroad builders. Sills goes all alone to make him stop, instead of taking three or four men. As a result, he and the heavy have a terrific battle. The good points of the picture were the he-man fights, the train wreck, and the beautiful shots of the redwoods. A good, gory fight is always great stuff on the screen, because the average audience is still cave-man enough to enjoy the spectacle of strong men be- ing "spattered around. The average audience also has enough of the child in it to enjoy destruction, and a train wreck, particularly when the train is loaded with logs, is a destructive enough sight for anyone. Anybody who wouldn't enjoy some of the beautiful shots of the redwoods would have to be dead from the ears up. AT last Bebe Daniels has made a really clever comedy. It is called The Fifty-Fifty Girl and is more amusing than anything I have seen lately. George Marion has written a set of titles for it that should rate him a nice gold medal, because they contributed a great deal to the pic- ture, and there wasn't a misplaced wisecrack anjTvhere. The majority of the Daniels comedies look as if they had been put together as the shooting progressed, but this had a definitely worked out story. As a result, there were no long periods where no laughs cropped out, as has usually been the case in this star's comedies. I know nothing about law except the few axioms I picked up under pressure after an unfortunate attempt to race a fat gentleman on a motorcycle, but there was one thing in The Fifty- Fifty Girl which didn't seem right. A mine is tied up by the litigation be- tween the two partners who o^vn it. One dies, and the other one calmly takes the mine. In my ignorance I al- ways thought that a court-battle was in no wise affected by the death of @F^~ GEORGE WASHINGTON COHEN Starring GEORGE JESSEL Adaptation and Continuity From the Play "THE CHERRY TREE" Address 1337 N. Sycamore Ave. Phone HOUywood 3792 May 12, 1928 one of the contestants, and I always have been sure that the death of one party to the arg-ument hardly would give the case to the survivor. How- ever, I may be v?rong. I usually am. I never have cared much for James Hall on the screen, but in this he was very good. He has a likeable person- ality which has been rather smothered by the fact that he has been merely a leading man for so long. Bebe Daniels herself is as good as she usually is. William Austin turned in a creditable performance. IVAN the Terrible, a Russian-made picture, is a very interesting study for anyone who is interested in motion pictures. The Russian idea seems to be to make the story subor- dinate to the atmosphere of the scenes, because Ivan the Terrible has very little consistent story up until the last few reels, where it begins to get inter- esting. During the first part, several stories are told, but it is a story which is started and finished in the last three or four reels which is told most clearly. At the beginning three stories are started, one about the czar's op- pression of the old nobility, one about the love of the two peasants, and one about the peasant's desire to fly. All these stories are finished, and while one is taking his choice of which one he wants to regard as the main theme, the story of the czarina's intrigue with the peasant is developed. The first three stories are confused by a lot of production value which distracts the attention, but the last allows noth- ing to interfere with it, and so it is more powerful than the others. The Russian method of opening every scene with close-ups does not help to make the story any clearer. Their search for realistic characters is com- mendable; but when they get people who do not conform to our ideas of good looks, one is not vitally inter- ested in what happens to them. There is a total lack of sympathy in Ivan the Terrible. However, it is a very in- teresting picture. JOHN Ford is an artist. The Four Sons and his other successes es- tablished it, and Hangman's House proves it. When I read Donn Byrne's book, I doubted whether there was any director in the business who could get the Irish spirit of it on the screen. Ford has done it beautifully and de- serves a tremendous amount of credit. Splendid titles by Mike Boylan con- tributed a great deal to the picture's sticking close to the book. Victor McLaglen was featured in Hangman's House; and he was splendid in what he had to do, but his part was hardly the one to be featured. Earle Foxe, who is the heavy, gives a perform- ance which is better than his work in The Four Sons. Never for a moment does he over-act or let his part get away from him. His is the outstand- ing work of the picture as far as act- ing is concerned. June Collyer and Larry Kent were very satisfactory in THE FILM SPECTATOR their parts. Hobart Bosworth was also very good. Hangman's House contained so many beautiful scenes and so much charming atmosphere that one would have forgotten the story altogether had it been told less adroitly. There were some beautiful scenic effects ob- tained through the use of fog. To my knowledge, this is the first time fog has been used extensively. Occa- sionally there have been shots of it, and it was used quite a lot in Street Angel. No previous fog scenes ever have attained the beauty of those in Ford's picture. Aside from the beauty of the scenes, the atmosphere always seemed authentically Irish. Ford being Irish himself, the atmosphere naturally would be correct. There were some clever little touches of comedy here and there in the picture which also deserve favorable mention. Page Seventeen a comedy, I suppose. It has no big laughs, but manages to be amusing at all times, something that few com- edies ever attain. The story is logical at all times, and there is nothing to strain one's credulity. Menjou and Evelyn Brent, who are featured, give splendid performances. One scene in particular, where Menjou stands in a doorway after some practical jokers have soaked him with water and dis- pelled his romantic dreams, is one of the finest things Menjou ever has done. Miss Brent, in addition to her good performance, is given a chance to wear some beautiful clothes. She wears clothes splendily, but lately her roles have not allowed her to dem- onstrate it. All in all, The Tiger Lady is some of the best entertainment I have seen in a long time. ALEXANDER Korda is an abso- lute genius at creating beautiful scenes for the motion picture camera. He can take any sort of set and make it a pleasure to look at. However, when he has created a beau- tiful picture, he goes right into close- ups and gives one no chance to enjoy the scene. This fault and a rather anemic story combined to make The Yellow Lily a poor picture. Billie Dove and Clive Brook are the principal characters, and while they are both good looking people, one begins to get rather tired of them after about five reels of close-ups. The continual close- ups are unfair to the actors. For one thing, they can't put over their acting so well when they are confined to nothing but facial expressions; and for another, after the close-ups get tiresome, one loses interest in what the performers are trying to convey and begins to find faults in their work and looks. In addition to the close-ups, the story weakened the picture con- siderably. It was too vague and dis- connected to be good. Korda, who, by the way, directed The Yellow Lily, is good at creating beautiful scenes, but he can not draw characters. None of them has any originality or any par- ticular power. The brother of the girl is strong one minute and weak the next. Nicholas Soussanin played the part quite acceptably, but he appar- ently was as confused about what he was supposed to convey as I still am. The picture was full of ridiculous things, more the fault of the story than the direction. The brilliant per- formance of Gustav von Seyfi:ertitz was one good thing which stood out. ADOLPHE Menjou has made another good picture in The Tiger Lady. A year or so ago, he was being ruined by poor pictures, but he has made so many good ones since then that he is more popular than ever. Hobart Henley is responsible for the direction, and his work is very good. He made some very pretty shots and developed the production value to the full. The Tiger Lady is classed as THE WASTEFULNESS OF WASTE My dear Mr. Beaton: I note with mingled amusement and concern Mr. A. Scholtz' opinion that the present waste in the movies serves to make work for the carpen- ters, electricians, cameramen, etc., that they would otherwise not have. Mr. Scholtz reasons for the day only— and not the year's average. If every studio to-day issued a call to workers, "We will immediately shoot for two weeks on absolutely superflu- ous film," it would give work to hun- dreds who are walking from studio to studio. But if the cost of that film should appear on the financal state- ments of the various companies, lab- eled "Cost of superfluous film", and then should reach the eyes of Wall Street, "Bang," down wo\ild come the axe, and the studios would all close, everybody being out of work for a period far greater than the two weeks spent in shooting. In fact, the recent shut-downs are without doubt due in large measure to this very cause. The mere fact that the expenses were not labeled "Superfluous" did not pull the wool over the eyes of Wall Street. If Mr. Scholtz can see any gain for himself and his fellow workers in, for example, the fact that First National shot for the war sequences alone of The Patent Leather Kid, 500,000 feet of film, of which about 1,500 feet ap- peared in the finally cut picture (these are the figures the cutter himself men- tioned)— if, I say, he can see any gain in this, it is most remarkable reason- ing. Personally, I can well believe that First National will soon fall in line and shut down for a greater or less period, which will be glossed over by the publcity department as due to their year's product being finished ahead of schedule. Anyone who has read Tausig s books on Economics knows the fallacy of the theory that unproductive labor is of any benefit to either employer or employee. And shooting from imper- fect scripts, with the waste attendant thereon, is an excellent example of unproductive labor. GAYLORD A. WOOD. Indianapolis, Ind. Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR REVIEWED IN THIS NUMBER Beau Broadway — A Metro-Goldwjm-Mayer picture. Directed by Malcolm St. Clair; story by Malcolm St. Clair; adapted by F. Hugh Herbert; continuity by Gfeorge O'Hara; titles by Ralph Spence; settings by Cedric Gib- bons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by Andre Barlatier; film editor, Harry Reynolds. The cast: Lew Cody, Aileen Pringle, Sue Carol, Hugh Trevor, Heinle Conklin, Kit Guard, Jack Herrick, James J. Jeffries. Fifty-Fifty Girl— A Paramount picture. Directed by Clarence Badger; associate pro- ducer, B. P. Schulberg; author, John McDermott; screen play by Ethel Doherty; editor-in-chief, E. Lloyd Sheldon; photographed by J. Roy Hunt; assistant director, Henry Hathaway. The cast: Bebe Daniels, James Hall, William Austin, George Kot- sonaros, Johnnie Morris. Fools for Luck — A Paramount picture. Directed by Charles Riesner; associate pro- ducer, B. P. Schulberg; adaptation and screen play by Sam Mintz and J. Walter Ruben; story by Harry Fried; photographed by William Marshall; editor-in-chief, B. F. Zeidman; assistant director, Paul Jones. The cast: W. C. Fields, Chester Conklin, Sally Blane, Jack Luden, Robert Dudley, Mary Alden, Arthur Housman, Eugene Pallette, Martha Mattox. Hangman's House — A William Fox picture. Directed by John Ford; story by Donn Byrne; adapted by Philip Klein; scenario by Marion Orth; assistant director, Phil Ford; cameraman, (Jeorge Schneidermann. The cast: Victor McLaglen, June Collyer, Earle Foxe, Larry Kent, Hobart Bosworth, D'Arcy Corri- gan. Belle Stoddard, Joseph Burke, Eric Mayne. His Tiger Lady — A Paramount picture. Directed by Hobart Henley; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; adapted by Ernest Vajda; from the play by Alfred Savoir; supervised by Ernest Vajda; photographed by Harry Fischbeck; titled by Herman J. Mankeiwicz. The cast: Adolphe Menjou, Eve- lyn Brent, Rose Dione, Jules Rau- court, Mario Carillo, Leonardo de Vesa, Emil Chautard. Honor Bound — A William Fox picture. Directed by Alfred E. Green; story by Jack Bethea; scenario by C. Graham Baker; assistant director. Jack Boland; cameraman, Joseph Aug- ust. The cast: George O'Brien, Estelle Taylor, Leila Hyams, Tom Santchi, Frank K. Cooley, Sam de Grasse, Al Hart, Harry Gripp, George Irving. Valley of the Giants — A First National picture. Directed by Charles J. Brabin; from the story by Peter B. Kyne; adaptation by L. G. Rigby; photographed by T. D. McCord; assistant director. Bob Landers; film editor, Frank GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR MOTHER'S DAY— MAY 13TH J/l ^Aousand (gifts of DistinetinniiinnuiHainiiiinniaiininiiiuQHiiiHH»iMnHUKiii[E]iiiHiiMiiiDninniiiiiniiiimiiiiiniinniMn!a!:niiiiininiHn:!!iiiin!niiiiniuuiiiiiHiiiiiniiiuiiiiiiiC]iiin Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol 5 Hollywood, California, May 26, 1928 No. 7 ^MMiiniiianiiiJiHiiiDiiiiMiiiniaiiiuiJiNJiannniiiinaininriiinniiiiiiiiiiiiaiJiniiniiiainuiiiMiiDiijnninnaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiianiniinniaiiiiiiniinEiiiiinui^ = = Shouldn^t let box-office do the thinking Doing the same old thing in the same old way Method of production puts curb on imagination Film barons convinced they have no faults GOLDEN CLOWN DRAG NET PERFECT CRIME DON'T MARRY DETECTIVES STREET OF SIN GIVE AND TAKE = = = = ^uniiifliiniiiauiiniiiiUQiiiiHiiuiiaiiiniiuiMuiuuiiiiuinuiiniiniiaiiiuiiiuuDiiniuiMiiDMiiiuiiiJiQiiiiiiiuinDiininiiiuaniiuiiiuiaiuiuiiiiunniiumiuaininiJW Page TVo ©■5^. THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 ■.<^ f CONSENSUS Harrison's Reports : Motion Pictures Today : The Film Mercury: The Times: An excellent drama! The interest is kept tense all the way through. It was adapted by Harry Carr and Paul Sloane, and has been directed by Sloane with great skill. This is the best L^atrice Joy picture for a long time. Paul Sloane missed no opportunity to take advantage of the highlights in t(ie story and as a result he has produced a pic- ture that should be well received by audiences everywhere. "The Blue Danube" has more distinction and quality than any picture that has come off the De Mille lot in many months. The direction, both in the handling of players and subtle ef- fects, is especially noteworthy. New York, May 5. — "The Blue Danube" at the Strand is a light, graceful romance, conspicu- ous for its distinguished and beautiful produc- tion, its convincing foreign atmosphere and its brilliant acting. More could not be desired to make Leatrice Joy's last picture for De Mille, which is, appropriately enough, her best. Paul Sloane's Latest Production GLadstone 1096 t T>- -K=^^5^- May 26, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Editorial Office : 7213 Sunset Boulevard HEmpstead 2801 Advertising and Circulation Departments: 411 Palmer Building - Gladstone 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that w-restles with tts strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, MAY 26, 1928 Box-Office Can't Tell When Public Is Satiated THROUGHOUT its career the film industry has been handicapped somewhat by the fact that it was born without reasoning faculties and has failed to develop any. Since birth it has allowed the box-office to do its thinking for it. The weakness of the box-office is that it has no imagination. It can tell you a lot about to-day's events, but can not guess correctly what is going to happen to-morrow. When The Spectator first said that Metro was spoiling Bill Haines as a box-office attraction, the box- ofiice itself was telling an entirely different story. Now the box-office agrees with The Spectator. No real advance that has been made in the technical branch of screen art has been thought out within the industry. The industry's only contribution to its own advancement has been belated development of an idea that originated outside it. Sound and color as picture adjuncts were not originated by the industry itself, nor is the industry playing any important part in their present development. But in spite of its own mental shortcomings it has advanced tremendously along paths down which mechanics can lead it. Photography has improved amazingly, thanks to the steady development of the camera and lights; and sound and color will give the art new dignity. Where mechanics can not be applied to it, the screen has stood still. The treatment of stories is not improving, and I see no indication of any future move- ment towards improvement. Only along lines of which producers will acknowledge they are ignorant has any for- ward movement been made. The producers can not under- stand the camera, nor the processes by which sound and color are reproduced. They freely admit their ignorance of such matters, and do not retard by their own interfer- ence the development of these things that they do not un- derstand. But no producer will acknowledge that he does not know all about stories. Uneducated people who can not speak grammatically will discuss with you gravely the works of great writers, and will tell you exactly how the stories of such writers must be prepared for the screen. They interfere most with the one department of making pictures that they are equipped least to touch at all. And this one department that is not mechanical, they are mak- ing the most mechanical of all. They listen to the box- office when it tells them that a picture showing a storm at sea made money, and they insist that the taste of the public has veered to storms at sea, and that there is no hope of a picture without one being received kindly by the people who support the industry. The fact that the characters in one of their stories can not be dragged to sea logically disturbs them not at all. Mechanically it is possible to send the characters to sea; the public is crav- ing storms at sea — voila! The public taste is definite and fixed on only one point, and no other should give producers any concern. It is the one ingredient that should be com- mon to all screen mixtures: logic. And all that logic is is applied common sense. Common sense would dictate that the story is supreme and that everything should be sub- ordinated to it. At the present time a director who has no ability for story-writing is allowed to dictate how one he is going to direct should be written. It must contain only what he can "feel". If he cannot "feel" the author's characterization of the hero, the characterization is changed to come within his range of feelings, which is exactly the opposite of what should be done. When a director cannot "feel" a story, it is the director, not the story, that should be changed. The average program pic- "TRUST HER NOT, SHE IS FOOLING THEE!" By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN The above line from Longfellow's "Beware!" is suf- ficiently elastic in its application to encompass motion pic- tures. They, like his coquettish girl, can be both false and friendly. We all knew the charm of a worth-while picture — and therein lies the joker, as every picture is press- agented as the 'greatest ever". Beware! lest the fair garland of their ballyhoo prove "a fool's-cap for thee to wear". "Trust her not, she is fooling thee"! — unless, of course, you read The Film Spectator. 0 boys, beware! The upward trend Of woman's thought to-day Is exemplified by ultra styles — A most ingenious way. The balance of power goes up and down — Well may all he-men tremble. Hygienic clothes! The female knows That to win she must dissemble. So, taking her cue from that great molder of styles and manners, the motion picture show. She hitches her hose to circumstance. Reefs her skirt above the knee. Crosses her legs in an omnibus. And the cock-eyed male can't see Her cerebration comprises things Too utter for words to tell. But the initiate know she's a dynamo — She's a radioactive SELL. Page Four ture is as bad as it is to-day because directors without imagination or a sense of logic are assigned to the task of putting on the screen logic applied to imagination. * * • Screen Should Get Busy And Develop Imagination SCREEN art should be the world's richest field for the exploitation of the imagination. Almost anything that man can imagine can be caught by the motion picture camera, and yet the lack of imagination that they display is responsible for the world-wide charge that pictures are getting worse. Instead of conducting itself thus far in its career in a manner that would develop imagination, the most noteworthy accomplishment of the screen has been its proficiency in developing habits. So faithful is it to these habits that given a certain situation on the screen, the public knows at once what is going to happen. When the hero arrives and finds the heroine being treated roughly by the villain, the public knows there is going to be a fight in which one of the combatants will fall over a table, the other is going to hurl a chair savagely aside, and eleven other standard parts of film fights are going to be used; and it knows also that the heroine is going to mug hor- ribly while she places one hand over her left breast and the other above her head and uses her teeth in a frantic effort to change the design of the portieres. Let us give directors the best of it and agree that the film fight has been developed into an example of cinematic perfection. Is it not possible that the public has grown tired of this reiterated perfection? A little imagination applied to a fight would give the public much needed relief. Despite the fact that in real life no woman would smear the wall- paper with her lipstick while the man she loves was being beaten up by a rough fellow whom she hates, it seems to be against the accepted traditions of the screen to give us such a woman. Yet all the screen needs is a departure from its conventions, the ridding itself of those things that audiences have learned to anticipate. Audiences wish to be surprised. The best picture is the one that gives it the most surprises. I have no ambition to direct a picture, but if I had to, and were given a script that called for a fight between the hero and the heavy in the presence of the heroine, here is how I would direct it: I would make the preliminary stages conform to standard, even to having the terrified heroine clutching the portieres. In this way I would give the audience the impression that it was going to see the regular, furniture-destroying affair. But when the villain circled near her as he was getting ready for his opening leap at the hero, I would have the heroine remember suddenly that her lover was in danger, quickly snatch up a candlestick and with it knock the villain un- conscious. Thus we would have a fight in which but one blow was struck, and that by the person who, in striking it, would surprise the audience most. I would approach the direction of the fight with uppermost in my mind the thought that no matter how commendable was the usual manner of doing it, I had to evolve something different to give my picture the individuality that would make it re- freshing. I would proceed on the assumption that the public wanted a new creation, not an imitation. This imitative weakness is one of the fundamental ills of the screen. It will persist as long as those who do not know how to make pictures continue to dominate their making. THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 The "front office" alibi that all directors advance as an excuse for faults in their pictures, has some reason in it, although not as much as the directors would have us believe. But the majority of those who control production would object to my direction of the fight sequence on the ground that no table is overturned in it. They have seen a table overturned in every screen fight in pictures that made money, and they are afraid to risk a dollar on the supposition that the public may have become tired of that particular piece of action. On account of this fear the screen clings to old habits that retard its growth and which give the public the impression that screen art i8 getting worse. The truth is that the poor old thing is too terrified to move far in either direction, forward or back. * * * Screen Does Not Keep Pace With Public Taste THE way to make most money in any line of venture is to forget money and to concentrate on the quality of the output. This applies to the practice of law, shoemaking, the production of motion pictures, and writ- ing The Spectator. It is a fundamental truth about busi- ness that the film business has not learned yet. The men who control the industry had forced on them by an enter- tainment-hungry public, millions of dollars which they honestly believe they earned by the exercise of business acumen far above the average. Nothing can disturb their belief in themselves or their methods. Having made their millions in spite of the fact that they ignored every busi- ness principle that has contributed to the success of all other established industries, they believe they have dis- covered something new in economics, that they have evolved a perfect system of assuring success. Their men- tal attitude is a solid wall which screen art encounters when it would try to advance. The millions that the pro- ducers own now were made by their present methods, and they are content with the methods. Tell them that possi- bly the public is tiring of the standard fight in pictures, and they will produce figures showing the profits made by pictures containing fights. Instead of centering their at- tention on the minds of the public, they keep their eyes glued on the box-office. Any progress that screen art has made has been forced on it by the public. The screen has trailed behind a public that it should have led. Because Metro made money out of pictures showing Bill Haines as an impossible pest it considered that such characteriza- tion would be popular forever. When the third picture of the series appeared, I said in The Spectator that Haines' box-office value was being lessened and that no matter how much money such pictures made, making them was poor business because they were giving Haines no perma- nency as an asset. I happened to be one picture ahead of other reviewers. When the fourth Haines' film appeared and he was revealed in it as once more the pest, almost every paper in the country asked to be delivered from further Haines wisecracks. Metro was forced to change its plans for Haines, and hereafter he will be presentee as a chastened, normal human being. But he has lost mil- lions of friends solely on account of Metro's inability tc measure its doses properly. I, a very dull person nol even in the business, predicted precisely what happenec to Haines. It is surprising that Metro could not do it; own predicting. It proceeded on the well established filn May 26, 1928 THE FILM convention that the public must not be surprised, that picture patrons go to theatres to see Bill Haines in a wise- cracking role, and such a role must be provided for them. That the public wants nothing to go on forever is some- thing that producers can not grasp. Suggest to Para- mount that Jannings should now and then play a part that is rich in comedy, and unquestionably you would be faced with the argument that the public expects to see him in the kind of roles he is playing now, and that you must not disappoint the public. This reasoning is wrong, although producers consider it sound. Anyone watching Jannings' performances can not escape arriving at the conviction that he should be able to give a great performance of a light role, and the friends he has made would like to see him in such a part, for it is the actor, not the character, that pulls at the box-office. Widening his range of characteri- zations would lengthen his screen career, for the public can not tire of something that has variety in it. Metro has just about killed Bill Haines by refusing to recognize the box-office value of variety. And what applies to wise- cracking, applies equally to tragedy. * * * Too Bad Producers Can't See That System Is Wrong MORE discouraging than the fact that the method of making pictures is grotesquely inefficient is the ab- solute absence of any indications that there ever will be an improvement We know, of course, that there will be, for nothing unsound can continue to exist in anything of itself inherently sound, but it would be more encourag- ing if we could see some signs of realization on the part of producers that their system is wrong. We never will have uniformly satisfactory pictures until there is a revo- lution in the manner of preparing stories. When we con- template how most of the screen material is prepared for shooting, we only can wonder why pictures are not worse than they are. Let us consider one case, with the details of which I am familiar. I read a play and in casual con- versation with a producer told him he should read if. He both read it and bought it. He saw in it what I did, clever scenes and brilliant bits in a well constructed plot that should make a scintillating comedy when transferred to the screen. He selected a director who used to be an actor, and who, like all directors, thinks he can write stories, although he has had neither training nor experience to justify his confidence in himself. A girl in the scenario department who makes notes in story conferences and later types them, was assigned to the director. A super- visor was appointed, a man who is connected with pictures by the grace of God, and not by virtue of any qualifica- tions he possesses. These three began the task of prepar- ing the clever comedy for the screen. They pulled in three opposite directions. No two could see the characters alike. As the play, of course, was all conversation, they had, in effect, to write a new story, and not one of the trio had had any experience in story writing. When they had completed their treatment my producer friend asked me if I would read it, and I told him I would if he would pay me for it. He did, which has nothing to do with the case, and I read it, visualizing it and criticizing it as I would a picture on the screen. I told my employer that in my opinion it was a hopeless mess. He informed me that its creators thought it would make a notable picture. SPECTATOR Page Five and that as there were three of them to one of me, he would be guided by the majority. He made the picture. Every reviewer in the country panned the life out of it, and it was a box-office flop. The weaknesses mentioned by those reviewers who criticized the picture constructively, were the weaknesses that I had pointed out to the pro- ducer, but which ceased to be weaknesses to him when they were approved by three people who knew nothing about story construction. The play had everything in it that a screen story needs, but what the producer overlooked was the fact that the story should have been handled by one person with a story-telling mind, and not by a number of persons with purely mechanical picture minds. Picture mechanics were applied to it while it still was a piece of literature. It was given no chance, being doomed from the first to be merely another movie. It should have been prepared by one person skilled in writing for the screen, as a novel is written by one person skilled in writing fic- tion. Instead of being written down to come within the narrow limits of the director's ability, it should have been kept on the high plane of the original and given to a direc- tor to shoot as written. We never will have good pictures until this method is adopted. We have writers now who can turn out perfect scripts, and others can be trained, but as long as pictures are dominated by people who know nothing of the literary end of the business, but who think they do, the screen will maintain its present low standard. Producers give no evidence of appreciation of present writers or the necessity of training others. What bewilders me about their stupidity is their failure to realize that they would double their profits if they reformed them- selves. Their confidence in their own knowledge of story construction is costing them millions of dollars each year. * * * Should Cease Being Same Old Thing Always in the Same Way PROOF that the minds that dominate production have become standardized is established by the fact that all pictures end in the same manner — ^with the girl in the boy's arms. I can not conceive how any writer, director or supervisor can take such small pride in his work as to be satisfied with a lack of originality in any part of his picture. Every time you see that stereotyped ending you may be sure that the people responsible for the picture did not have brains enough to think up any- thing new; and you may be sure also that they will tell you that they had something pretty clever figured out, but that the audiences demanded clinch endings, therefore art had to be sacrificed to public demand. How is it that these people, so profoundly ignorant on everything else that pertains to pictures, are so profoundly wise in esti- mating the public taste? (I could make better progress with this paragraph if my cat would cease biting the end of my fountain pen.) They know nothing whatever about the public, not having grasped even the elemental fact that all humanity likes variety. The fact that practically all pictures end in the same way shows that the minds that make our screen entertainment are not the kind of minds that should be assigned to the task. In order to make directors realize that the final fadeout is important enough to receive some thought, I announced that I would present a gold medal to the director who gave the screen the best closing scene during this year. With the year over one- Page Six third gone I have seen nothing that deserves recognition as a possible prize-winner; and the same is true of love scenes, for the best one of which I also offered a medal. Screen art has become stagnant and stupid, to match the mentalities of those who have it in their keeping. Occa- sionally a Lubitsch breaks through with a Patriot, a Bor- zage gives us a Seventh Heaven, a Ford gives us Four Sons and a Hangman's House, a Vidor gives us a Crowd, and one or two others distinguish themselves, but such pic- tures are exceptions. They have this important effect, however: they show the public just how fine screen enter- tainment can be made, what wonderful results can be obtained by intelligence applied to story-writing, acting, direction and photography. Such pictures should teach the industry something, but the industry is too stupid to learn. One of its greatest follies is that it does not put on the screen what it buys from an author. Paramount bought Gentlemen Prefer Blondes because it was so unus- ual as a book that it commanded wide attention, and made from it a picture that was such a usual sample of screen entertainment that it commanded no attention. The in- dustry claims that audiences are stupid, buys clever and sophisticated books and plays for it and makes out of them pictures more stupid than any audience possibly could be. It buys a book because a certain quality in it gave it wide popularity, and makes of it a picture that does not contain that quality. It buys a play that was successful because it differed from other plays, and makes of it a picture that is like all other pictures. If the industry intends to pursue its policy of curbing whatever imaginations it has at its command, it might get somewhere without them if it would issue forthwith a ban on senseless close-ups, stereotyped love scenes, clinch endings, and ignorant punctuation of titles. That would be enough to start on. Of course, stripping production of these hard and fast conventions would leave many of our writers, directors and supervisors without any ideas whatever, but perhaps others with ideas could be found to take their places. * * * How About Foreign Audiences When Pictures Speak English? DUNHAM Thorp writes me a letter which I quote in full: "There is an aspect of the talking picture that I have not yet seen discussed; an obstacle that seems to me quite formidable, and yet to the overcoming of which no thought seems to have been given. You say that the Warners' experiments have shown the use of doubles to be impracticable; if this is so, how are we to pass the bounds of our own language ? And even if doubles could be used, how are we to do this with a device such as Movietone that records directly on the film, a device that on all other counts seems the best of the lot? With sub-titles eliminated, and with the story carried entirely by dialogue in English, how is our poor Abyssinian to enjoy Tom Mix? And, too, are we to be deprived of German, French and Russian work? In sum: is the market for a talking picture to be confined within the limits of the language spoken by its makers? I do not advance this as an argument against the sound devices; but I do think that it is a problem to be solved." Mr. Thorp raises a point that I have heard mentioned several times. Although I have heard no one offer a solution of the problem, I do not think that it is one that will present any difficulties THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 when the time comes to tackle it. At present titles in English have to be translated into the languages of the countries where the pictures are sold. The same thing will have to be done with speeches that will be reproduced by sound. In the not distant future all pictures will use sound devices, and settling the merchandizing problems that the innova- tion will present will be a task that the industry will ac- complish because it must. Let us consider first a picture made in Germany. The speeches, of course, will be in German, and care will be exercised by the producers in securing perfect synchronization of the words and the lip movements of the artists speaking the lines. German- speaking audiences would insist upon this perfection. But when the picture is shown in this country the speeches will have to be in English, making synchronization impos- sible. Our audiences will appreciate this fact and will not insist upon the lip movement matching the words. In other words, allowance will be made for the fact that the picture is a foreign-made one. When one of our pictures is shown in a foreign country, such allowance will be reciprocated, but when the same picture is shown here no allowance will be made and perfect synchronization will be insisted upon. There is no mechanical obstacle to the reproduction of the words of a speech in a voice other than that which first spoke them. The difficulty lies in obtaining someone to speak words to match the lip movement of the original speaker. It can't be done. When a foreign picture is screened in this country the speeches in it will be accepted frankly as translations of the originals, and the lack of relationship between the words and lips will be looked upon as a regular feature of a picture made abroad. And if this solution of his problem doesn't satisfy Mr. Thorp, I'm sorry. I can't think of a better one. I Grouping Characters to Make Them Face Camera THERE is one shot in The Golden Clown, the initial picture at the Filmarte theatre, that should convey an idea to our directors who are in the habit of turn- ing all their characters to face the camera. In this Nordisk film the director apparently wanted two characters to face the camera while they are conversing. He accomplishes it by having one of them seated on a bench-like affair when the scene opens, and having the other enter and seat himself by the first. Sitting side by side, naturally they face in the same direction. In most of our pictures the directors make their characters face the camera by the simple expedient of turning them around until they face it, no matter how unnatural the scene is made thereby. In Gentlemen Prefer Blondes there is an exhibition of flagrant disregard of common sense in grouping characters. Ruth Taylor, Alice White, and Ford Sterling are shown seated at a round table in a restaurant. Instead of forming a triangle, they are squeezed together so closely that Sterl- ing in the center, scarcely can move. They do not occupy more than one-third of the table. They are seated in this fashion in order that all three of them at all times face the camera. In medium shots embracing the three their arms are shown overlapping one another, so closely to- gether are they sitting. In the inevitable but unnecessary close-ups the arms are shown free from all contact. Para- mount is a big producer. Blondes is a big picture, and Mai St. Clair is one of our big directors, yet the film contains May 26, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven such utterly absurd stuff. Golden Clown escaped this stupidity, but did not escape others. Regge Doran, the intelligent young woman with a charming personality and an alluring suggestion of an Irish brogue, who selects the programs for the Filmarte theatre, is doing Hollywood a service in bringing to it such films as Golden Clown, even though its entertainment quality is no higher than that of most of our own productions. As I viewed it I was im- pressed again with the fact that the Europeans are dupli- cating our best efforts. This Nordisk production might have been made in Hollywood. It possesses both the virtues and faults of our pictures. The direction throughout re- flects too much exuberance. Husband and wife, married long enough to have a married daughter, are as extrava- gant in the expression of their love for one another as we would expect the bride of a week to be. Once, when there is a knock on the door, the American habit of "taking it big" is followed, always a silly thing. But one thing we can thank Golden Clown for is the fact that it ends logi- cally with the suicide of the heroine. The story is a trag- edy based on the triangle theme, and it is worked out to its logical end. The picture will not be an outstanding suc- cess in this country, and producers will ascribe its lack of box-office strength to the unhappy ending, thus putting a prenatal blight on some of our own pictures that should end logically. But it is not on account of the ending that the picture will not make a lot of money over here. It will cause no furore because it has no outstanding merits to offset its lack of people vdth whom American audiences are familiar. The ending is one of its strongest points, but I'm afraid no producer will believe it. * * * Joe von Sternberg Slips Up on His Latest Job JOE von Sternberg apparently set too hot a pace for himself. He came from away behind with Under- world, the direction of which he must have approached in a diffident mood, for his background was composed of nothing but failures. While still more or less in this chastened spirit he directed Emil Jannings in The Last Command. Apparently the cheers with which the populace received his first two pictures were ringing in his ears when he tackled his third, and created within him a de- termination to show Hollywood peasants just how a mo- tion picture should be made. Instead of accomplishing this worthy ambition, Joe has managed to demonstrate to us just how a motion picture should not be made. The Drag Net is so proud of being a movie that it advertises the fact in every scene. It shrieks it, something that a nice, mod- est movie would not do. The story and the production are commendable, but the direction is terrible. The only convincing sequence is the opening one which plants the story in a gripping and businesslike manner. Then the thing goes blooey, if this picturesque word means what it sounds like. The characterizations are impossible. The same people who made Underworld a notable picture are in this one: George Bancroft, Evelyn Brent, and William Powell. In Underworld George was an underworld char- acter; in Drag Net he is a movie actor who pretends that he is a great detective. Evelyn Brent in the second pic- ture is a movie actress who pretends that she is a terrible person, and Bill Powell is a non-moving movie actor acting ■ superbly Joe's conception of an utterly unreal person. For good measure we have Fred Kohler mugging frightfully, and Francis McDonald continuously laughing uproariously at nothing whatever. Such characterizations would ruin the best film story ever written. Scenes that I would gather are plausible in the script are handled on the screen in a manner that makes them ridiculous. Bancroft, a cap- tain of detectives, kills a man in a cafe, and there is neither official nor social recognition of a fact that one of the merry party has been transformed into a corpse. With crooks to the right of him, crooks to the left of him, behind him and in front of him, George mugs and thunders. In real life he would have lasted just as long as it would have taken a score of bullets to reach him. He goes to a table at which are seated some peaceable people in evening clothes, drops into a chair without removing his hat, and insults a woman. And he is a captain of detectives! Later he goes alone to a mysterious house in response to a call so obviously a ruse that it should not fool anyone with as much brains as a trafiic signal, is deluded into the belief that he has killed Leslie Fenton, that excellent actor who is more nearly human than any other member of the cast, and becomes a drunken bum. Any hero loses all his heroic qualities the moment he becomes a drunkard. It makes no difference what tricks fate has played on a man, what mis- fortunes have been his — -the moment he becomes sodden with drink to forget his sorrows he reveals himself as a character too weak to be the hero of anything, either in real life, in a book, or in pictures. Von Sternberg's idea of comedy is doleful. He has George Bancroft and Evelyn Brent jawing at one another, their noses almost touching. It is very silly. In a cafe scene so much confetti is used that the revellers have to wade through paper streamers. Scores of people are smoking. The greatest precautions against fire must have been taken when the scene was being shot, for one misplaced cigarette might have made the set a mass of fiame. Apparently no one thought of the fact that on the screen the impression would be given that the same thing might happen in the cafe. * * * Apparently Bert Glennon Is a Reader of The Spectator MANY motion pictures have been enriched by the fine quality of Bert Glennon's camera work. He has photographed many Paramount pictures, some of them having been supervised by William Le Baron. Bill sized up Bert. He noticed that the cameraman seemed to have an intelligent grasp of the story and of everything else that entered into the making of the picture he was photo- graphing. When Bill started to uplift F. B. O. pictures he remembered Bert. The other day I saw a picture directed by Glennon, the story being an original by Le Baron. The cameraman has become a director, and unless I miss my guess he is going to be quite a notable one. The picture is called The Perfect Crime, and is interesting as a narra- tive, as well as being a medium that allows that splendid actor, Clive Brook, an opportunity to give the screen an extraordinarily clever characterization of a doctor, brilliant professionally, but just crazy enough to cut a man's throat for no other reason than to see if he could fool the police. Brook's performance is a brilliant example of intellectual screen acting. But to me the most interesting feature of the production is the direction given it by Glennon. A man's first adventure in any conspicuous field of endeavor Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 is something to command attention. The dominant note that this new director strilies is the application of common sense to his work. When someone knocks at Brook's door, he registers that he hears the knock simply by glancing at the door, a fleeting glance that is little more than a flutter of the eyelids, but it registers the knock as com- pletely as if he gave the violent start and looked terrified, the usual method of doing the scene. By the use of a shadow Glennon continues the action when a character moves out of a scene. This method eliminates one cut, and every cut eliminated makes any picture just that much bet- ter. When he feels that individual close-ups are necessary, Glennon groups his characters far apart, thus making the close shots seem more plausible. Readers may remember that recently I classified close-ups of kisses among the m.ajor vulgarities of the screen, and generally condemned the method of handling love scenes, contending that love is sacred and should not be made so blatant. In The Perfect Crime Glennon — I think he must read The Spectator — shows us a love scene in a decidedly clever manner. Irene Rich and Clive Brook are in love with one another. They enter a room, closing the door after them. The camera is lowered to the keyhole and through it we see the two kiss| I am not going into the ethics of keyhole gazing, but I contend that in this instance it conveys an ideal of the privacy that should surround a love scene. I have touched on only a few of the little things that Glennon has done in his first venture as a director. All the way through he displays intelligence, no more marked than in his method of telling his story. He seems to have realized that that was the biggest part of his job, and he has given us a thoroughly entertaining picture, quite good enough to be shown anywhere. Also he introduces to us Gladys McConnell as a dramatic actress. I believe I have seen the young woman slapsticking about the place, but I never received the impression that she has such talents as Glen- non uncovers. I recommend her to producers. Miss Rich has little to do. Tully Marshall, Edmund Breese, and Car- roll Nye contribute entirely satisfactory performances. All in all, Bert Glennon's debut as a director may be num- bered among the auspicious occasions. But I insist that he must be a reader of The Spectator. * * * Why Must We Have a Close-up of a Harp? LOIS Moran, ably abetted by Neil Hamilton, Henry Kolker and Claire McDowell, make a merry affair of Don't Marry, a comedy directed for Fox by James Tinling. It is the business of any motion picture to catch the attention of the audience with its first se- quence, which should suggest that some interesting de- velopments are to follow. Don't Marry does this. Tin- ling opens his story briskly and proceeds to tell it without any dull interludes. The story is interesting. It is an answer to those who view with alarm the fun our modern misses are having, and who can see no virtue in a girl's knee, which prompts the reflection that even a comedy might as well be about something. To provide us with an opportunity of satisfying ourselves as to the relative merits of the old-fashioned and the modern girl, Lois Moran plays both kinds, portraying a flapper who mas- querades at times as an innocent creature of the old type. I vote for the miss of to-day, although I confess that the girl of the masquerade is the sort I used to love, undoubt- edly because of the lack of anything else to love. It is sometime since I have seen Lois on the screen, and it was a pleasure to rediscover her in a part that allowed her such wide latitude for the displaying of her talents. She is an accomplished young woman, and proved equal to the rapid transitions that the role called for. I always have im- agined her as only in sweet-girl characterizations, but am willing now to accord her rating as the latest model flap- per. She has a fine sense of comedy, and in the serious and sentimental phases of her part is equally convincing. Neil Hamilton in this picture proves himself a comedian of parts. He is another whom I could see only in serious roles, but he surprised me by the easy and entertaining manner in which he carries off his lighter scenes. He is one of the few young men who never fail to please me. Kolker and Miss McDowell make valuable contributions to the general charm of the picture. In general Tinling's direction is commendable. He knows how to tell a story, a detail that is important. In one scene he shows a too great regard for screen conventions. Hamilton comes to the office of his father (Kolker) and converses with him. The son stands with his back to the father as the two talk, a position made necessary by the director's convic- tion that he would be arrested if he did not keep the faces of his principal characters always towards the camera. Why directors cling to this stupidity is beyond me. What if Hamilton had to stand with his back to the camera while he spoke titles to Kolker? Is there any law against it? Must ordinary common sense in grouping characters always be sacrificed to the crazy notion that the audience insists upon seeing only faces ? The close-up pest does not afflict Don't Marry greatly, but it is applied in one instance in a manner that deserves comment. Lois Moran sings while she plays her accompaniment on a harp. A pretty girl at a harp always is an alluring picture. We get a glimpse of Lois and the harp in a nicely framed long shot, and then the scene goes into the inevitable close-up. Will someone kindly tell me why under the sun we need a close-up of a girl singing ? And must we have such a close-up at the expense of a most attractive picture? I like Don't Marry, and recommend it to exhibitors, but I refuse to forgive Tinling for refusing to show me Hamil- ton's back and for insisting upon showing me a close-up of a harp. * * * Arthur and Dane in One That Misses Fire METRO has made another pitiful attempt at comedy. Detectives, in which Karl Dane and George K. Arthur are starred, has nothing to recommend it. It is a farcical comedy that is not either good farce or good comedy. It is lacking totally in cleverness and originality. Every piece of business in it has been borrowed from pro- ductions that went before it. I can understand how a producing organization can slip up now and then in mak- ing a comedy, but I can not understand how an organization as important as that of Metro can keep on making such i indifferent comedies as it is giving us now. As each ap- pears it emphasizes the fact anew that the M.-G.-M. peo- ple do not know what comedy is. We laugh at situations that are made funny by their relation to the thread of a well told and plausible story. Such a comedy of situations May 26, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine must be played straight. We laugh also at scenes that are absurd and which take their places in a long line of absurdities. We tnow they are presented frankly as ridiculous fancies, and if they are played with a rollicking humor that makes them irresistible, their lack of logic does not disturb us at all. I think the heartiest laugh I've had in a picture house since I've started The Spectator was prompted by the appearance of George Sidney on the wing of an airplane while it was above the clouds. He was standing up, wearing a nightshirt and carrying a hot water bag. Nothing more wildly impossible could be imagined, yet it was one of the funniest scenes I ever saw on the screen. Illogical humor is just as funny as logical humor, but the two can not be mixed. M.-G.-M. is falling down with its comedies because it mixes them. Detectives opens in a hotel lobby. Every care is exercised to show it as the lobby of an important and well conducted hotel. Chester Franklin's direction emphasizes the matter-of- factness of the scene as a normal manifestation of the hotel's routine. Marceline Day is a public stenographer whose desk stands in a position that can be seen from any part of the lobby. Dane, house detective, character- ized so extravagantly that it makes his employment in the hotel unbelievable; and Arthur, a bell boy, whose char- acterization is satisfactory, conduct themselves with Marceline in a manner completely out of place in such sur- roundings. They throw things at one another and do other violent things without attracting the attention of hotel guests standing within ten feet of them. When a picture opens in this way, how can anything that hap- pens in it appeal to a person of intelligence? What is it, anyway ? You can not superimpose farce on a background of the moving drama of every-day life. Only straight comedy can have such a background. In this picture the whole lobby should have been given farcical treatment or our main characters should have produced their comedy by making it consistent with the background. Detectives never recovers from its bad start. Even the generous contributions made by other producing organizations do not relieve it of its sadness. When I saw it in preview I was aware of the fact that some scenes in it provoked laughter, but not once during its screening did it cause one of those roars from all over the house that should greet a comedy at least once in every reel. I will give you one more sample of the silliness of the thing. The gang escapes from the hotel with the jewels. Dane, the house detective, gives chase to the thieves. They are in a high-powered automobile; Dane is riding a bicycle. A title says they go miles into the country. It is a stormy night, but Dane, on his bicycle, arrives at the mysterious house as soon as the racing motor. That is the kind of stuff that Metro asks us to take seriously. And it is only one of a score of incidents equally absurd. • * * Atmosphere in This One Is Drab and Uninteresting THEY still credit Mauritz Stiller with the direction of The street of Sin although I believe it required a couple of months in time and much argument in con- ference to get the thing far enough away from the direc- tion he gave it to make it safe for release. I understand Joe Von Sternberg tinkered with it, and I think Lothar Mendes finished it. I am not presenting the foregoing for its gossip value, but solely to establish the fact that I don't know whose direction to praise or blame when commenting on the picture. Barney Glazer supervised it, and I would hop on him except for the fact that the supervision, editing and cutting are the most commend- able features of the production. Street of Sin gains its importance from the fact that Emil Jannings is its star. It will not disappoint those who go to a picture house solely to see Jannings act, even though in this film h« enacts a role for which I would have cast George Bancroft or Wally Beery, either one of whom probably would have done more justice to it than Jannings manages to do. To keep Jannings for an entire picture within the drab and sordid atmosphere of the slums of London is to deny us sight of him in a setting that seems were suitable to him. I want my Jannings to have heroic moments, to wear uni- forms and war decorations. I do not want to see him with one greasy-looking sweater for an entire picture, and to come mighty close to wearing one expression for the same length of time. What I want, however, is important to Paramount only to the extent that the public shares my taste, and perhaps the majority will have no objection to Jannings remaining in the slums. But I can not see how his performance is going to satisfy anyone. Jannings played in this picture prior to his appearance in Th« Patriot, and I saw the latter first. Jannings is so truly magnificent in The Patriot that by comparison his per- formance in Street of Sin is dull and uninteresting. The most intriguing performance is that of Olga Baclanova, the talented Russian actress who is showing herself equal to the growing importance of the parts assigned to her. Her characterization of a street-walker in love with Jan- nings and fiercely jealous of Fay Wray, is an intelligent and brilliant exhibition of screen acting. Fay has a part that is too much a monotone to make a great impression. She is a patient, long-suffering Salvation Army lass who is played according to the screen's conception of such a person — one with an angelic coating so thick that her humanity does not show through it. While Street of Sin is well worth the time of those who like Jannings, I am not sure that it will be a popular picture. It lacks in con- trasts. During its entire footage it makes but two brief excursions from the confining, gruesome, seamy side of London, produced on the screen with so much sincerity and candor that the viewer almost thinks he can smell it. This is hard on stomachs already upset by an early scene which is so disgusting and nauseating that I refuse to describe it to you. I can not imagine how Paramount ex- cuses its sponsoring of such filth. To offer in extenuation THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 that it is art is to indulge in an idiocy, for on the samo plea everything disgusting in life could be offered as screen entertainment. There is one feature of Street of Sin for v/hich, no doubt, Stiller deserves thanks. It is that rich quality of photography and lighting that foreigners first suggested to us, but which we do not avail ourselves of as much as we should. * * * Funny Way in Which the Industry is Fooling Itself THE fellow who copied the script had an agreeable personality. Everyone liked him. So many people had helped with the adaptations of the story that it was found difficult to apportion the credit. Someone sug- gested that the fellow with the agreeable personality be given the credit. He had contributed nothing to the adap- tation, but on the screen he was given credit for all of it. The picture was a big success, and another studio did a quite clever thing. It found that this new writer was not under contract and it snapped him up — and it spent nine thousand dollars on him before it learned that he knew nothing about writing, and trying to get rid of him a'fter it made such discovery. Everyone connected with pictures knows of scores of similar cases. If the present system of distributing credits consisted merely of flattering people, the idea that it is based on, it would be only funny, but it has its financial side and has been responsible for the loss of a considerable amount of money. As long as the credits fooled only the public it maJe no diflFerence who received them, but when they fool the industry itself it would seem to be time to change the method. The motion picture business has not learned the fact yet, but it is a fact that the safest and most comfortable way to run any business is to be absolutely on the square even with the smallest details. It is a cheap and paltry habit, this one of giving people credit for things they have not done. One writer wrote me complaining that I did not give her credit for the adaptation of a story screened by a famous star. The screen gave her credit for it, but I happened to be calling on the famous star when she dropped this writer's adaptation into the waste paper basket and sought my advice about the employment of someone who could make a useable adaptation. Because the screen gave the woman who wrote me credit for the adaptation she has been kept busy since the release of the picture, and as she is not worth what is paid her, a considerable amount of money wasted on her. I believe the greatest joke, how- ever/ is the credit for supervision. People who have not read the script or visited the set often are given credit for having supervised successful pictures, thereby improv- ing their standing in the industry. In this respect Metro has the only sensible method. It gives no credits for supervision. The idea should be carried a little farther in all the studios. It is a waste of footage to give credit to anyone except the director, and I can not see that it makes much difference if he be overlooked. No on6 outside of Hollywood pays any attention to the credits. Cameramen have been given credit for the past fifteen years, yet my idea of an easy way to make money would be to bet that no picture fan not engaged in the industry could write a list of the names of five cameramen. But the name on the screen pleases the cameraman and his wife, and it does no one any harm when the credits are distributed hon- estly, but the industry will have to do one of two things: it either will have to stop believing its lies or it will have to stop telling them. At present it is making a perfect donkey of itself. Someday, perhaps, the film business will become ethical. When this stage is reached even those in it now who inaugurate, encourage or tolerate unethical practices will find that it is a much nicer business to be in. At the present time it has an outward appearance of breeding and culture, but at heart it is a cheap lowbrow; and it never is going to get all the fun it can out of life until it becomes a highbrow and sticks to highbrow methods. * * * TTTHEN Bill Beaudine first went on the set to make ^^ Give and Take he had Jean Hersholt and George Sid- ney, and a pleasant little story. That ought to satisfy any other director. Apparently it satisfied Bill. He mixed his three main ingredients, folded in Sharon Lynn, flavored with George Lewis and Sam Hardy and turned out a dish that will tickle the palates of picture patrons SECURITY TAILORS AND CLEANERS 1718 N. WILCOX Phone Hollywood 8733 My long experience in tjie tailorins line abroad and In thig country, will secure perfect satisfaction. We make suits from the finest of woolens and best workmanship as low as $75.00. Come and be convinced. HARRY TENNES Tailor and Designer MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF DANCING Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputatiotL 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to keep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GRanite 3S61 No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine May 26, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven everywhere. Although I think it is the height of folly for Universal to put Hersholt in small pictures, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed him in Give and Take. A great deal of footage is devoted to a quarrel between him and Sidney, but owing to the superb acting of both of them the se- quence does not drag for a moment. In less capable hands it could not have gone half the distance before becoming tiresome. Both of them are Germans, and Jean's uncanny mastery of the art of submerging himself in his part was never exemplified more strikingly, nor was the fact that he is a great actor ever more apparent. George Sidney always is a delight. His work gives the impression that he enjoys hugely every part he plays, a valuable asset for a comedian. But even when I laughed at him in this pic- ture I felt that I would like to see him occasionally in a role that gave him an opportunity to display his great human quality. It was my first view of Sharon Lynn in action. She is a fine looking girl who radiates intelligence. There is something about her that convinces me that she has a future. Studios are grooming young women with- out half her promise. In good hands she should become an asset of any producing organization. George Lewis again gives a capable performance as a young man who gums up his father's business. Sam Hardy plays a char- acter part with vim, vigor, and intelligence. His breezy performance provokes many laughs. Beaudine directed Give and Take with his usual appreciation of comedy values. But I don't understand why he has a bank presi- dent wearing his hat in the home of a man upon whom he is calling. The titles in the picture are excellent and will be responsibly for many laughs. * * * /^ NE of the queer complexes of motion picture producers ^— ^ is their indulgence of a fault on the screen because they themselves know how it happened. After viewing a picture in a projection-room the other day I tcld its di- rector and supervisor, who sat through the screening with me, that a certain library sequence lacked conviction be- cause the characters did not seem to be in it logically, that they were dragged in without reason, particularly one man who in no previous sequence even had made the acquaint- ance of the host, but who in the library scenes was on terms approaching intimacy with him. The director and supervisor acknowledged that the criticism was just, but they were not at all perturbed by it. They even smiled indulgently at me as they explained that they had so much footage that a lot of cutting had to be done, and among the scenes eliminated were some that would have made logical everything that happened in the library. When they viewed the completed picture the library sequence was plausible to them because they knew how each char- acter got into the room, and they did not seem to grasp the fact that on account of its lack of inside information Topeka might think the sequence illogical. "Where did the bucket come from?" I asked on another occasion when viewing a picture. "Oh, that's all right," chirped up the director in a contented voice. "We had to cut out a scene showing the man picking it up." The serious feature of this case was the director's absolute contentment with his explanation. He knew where the bucket came from, so what the devil difference did it make if all the rest of the world did not understand it? When we have perfect scripts we will have no more such stupidities. * * * ■pRACTICALLY all women are housekeepers. All of -■■ them do not do it, but most of them have the instinct. They have unwritten housekeeping laws, and men, particu- larly married ones, are acquainted with them. Throwing burnt matches on the floor is one of the crimes, and throw- ing a burning cigarette on a rug is a capital offense. Yet in one picture the other day I saw both done. You often see it. Before the villain makes his dastardly suggestion to the girl he must throw his cigarette savagely from him. AVIATION STORIES ADAPTIONS LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON oxford 3753 OLympia 3806 TITLES 1. FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 Vine Street, South of Sunset Miss Resffe Doran, Director "Theatre of Unusual Films" Pictures to Be Shown Include "Crime and Punishment" "The Last Moment" "Secrets of the Soul" Sponsored By West Coast-Hollywood Theatres "THE Wright IDEA" A First National Picture now in production by JOHNNY HINES is an original story by JACK TOWNLEY MIRIAM WILLS, REPRESENTATIVE 1220 TAFT BLDG. GRANITE 4677 Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR and he must be indifferent to where it lands. It is one of the screen's silly habits, and it is not good characterizing. To start with, the greater the stress under which a man is laboring, the greater is the hold that his instinct has on him, and the more prone is he to conform to his estab- lished habits; therefore, no matter how intent he is upon his villainy, he would dispose of his cigarette in a con- ventional manner, which does not include throwing it on the floor. In the second place, sliowing him calmly dis- posing of his cigarette in an appropriate manner would add point to his villainy. You have something in the way of a character when you give us a man who would ruin a girl, but not a rug. Every time a cigarette or a match is thrown on the floor in a film scene you may put it down as a flaw that every woman and nearly all the men in the audience notice. No director will be a really good one until he is as careful about the disposal of a burnt match as he has to be about the manner in which his male and female leads do their big love scene. * * * QUOTED from Film Daily: "The latest point that has arisen since the new free lance actors contract has taken effect deals with a producer who wished to know whether he could require an actor, engaged for a specific role in a picture, to also work in another picture during his engagement on the first picture. In this case, the actor's services would not be needed for a period of ten days on the first picture, a period, of course, on which he is on pay. It is the general belief that the producer cannot require the actor to appear in two pictures while engaged for only one, but that the producer might make such a May 26, 1928 request." The closing words are illuminating. If the pro- ducers put that over, they can congratulate themselves upon having taken a further unfair advantage of actors. They "might make such a request"! You may imagine the fate of the free lance player who refused the request. There is only one way to handle such a situation. It is for screen actors to join Equity and make that organization strong enough to enforce its demands on producers — and to make them recognize Equity rules. One of these rules should be that Equity would not allow any of its members, when called to work in one picture, to play in another dur- ing the term of the contract. This would relieve free lance players of the necessity of making the decision for them- selves, and would relieve them also of the consequences of the refusal that they would be justified in making. * * * ONE of the things that the Academy should devote attention to is the cost of glycerine. While I have not been in the market for any, and have no direct infor- mation regarding its cost, I am convinced that the price is higher than it should be. K this were not so, I feel that directors would allow their players to wipe away their glycerine tears, as in real life a crying person always does with his natural tears. If the price were more reasonable VOICE TRAINING FOR VITAPHONE and MOVIETONE By Teacher of 30 Years' Experience MADAME MIRIAM NELKE GRanite 4306 1739 McCadden Place HAROLD LIPSITZ FOX Scenario Editor 19 2 7 HAROLD LIPSITZ FOX Supervising 1928 DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER May 26, 1928 THE FILM then it must be, I am sure that Herbert Brenon would have been much more daring in his use of glycerine in Sorrell and Son than he apparently thought he could be and keep within his budget. Harry Warner, with a handkerchief sticking out of his up-stairs pocket, wore the same glycer- ine on his face for an entire sequence, but in another sequence when he shed real tears he wiped them away as soon as they fell, which shows how reckless some people are in squandering the resources of nature. In the same picture Nils Asther, having at his disposal as a tear- wiper only a comforter, sheet, pillow cases, pajamas, his wife's nightgown and a handkerchief, was unable to make a choice, consequently wearing his glycerine tears even though they were dripping oflF his chin. If I were a director I would endeavor to save money by eliminating unnecessary sets. In this way I could wipe away glycerine tears and still keep within my budget. AT one time during the shooting of The Patriot I was a visitor on the set. Emil Jannings was doing some magnificent acting before the camera and Lubitsch was demonstrating how a great director works. There were about fifty extras waiting for their scenes. Some were playing bridge, some chatting in groups, a few reading, and a couple stretched out asleep. One girl, possibly eighteen years old, was watching intently every move of Jannings and Lubitsch, and she was the only one of the lot similarly engaged, the only extra in the fifty who realized that she had an opportunity to receive free tuition in the art that she had adopted as a career. She is going to get somewhere. The others, who were paying no atten- tion to what was going on in front of the camera, and who failed to take advantage of a chance to learn something, may turn out to be pretty good bridge players, but they probably never will cease to be extras. Extras who are called for work on sets where they can see real artists in action, are in a position to learn something that will help them get out of the extra class. They should not over- look it. * * * T ET us consider No. 128 of Silly Screen Habits. Bed- ■'-' room scene. A in bed, B fussing about. B leaves the room for a moment, of course expecting to find A still in bed when he returns. But the audience sees A scamper from the bed and leave the room. B returns and is amazed when he sees the bed empty. He stands in the doorway as he registers his amazement. We know he is looking at the bed, and we knew in advance that he was going to be SPECTATOR Page Thirteen DR. EDMOND PAUKER 1639 Bmodway, New York representing LAJOS BIRO Author of Hot«il Imperial The YeUow Lily The L.ast Commaad, etc. The Way of All Flesh (adaptation) In the Night Watch (adaptation aad continaity, now in preparation) K* C* B* desires to announce that he is now free of contractural obligations that have con- fined his activities solely to writing a newspaper column which for the past sixteen years has appeared daily in many metropolitan news- papers throughout the coun- try, and which continues, through the Bell Syndicate, New York, to keep the in- itials before the public. He now is at Hberty to write Dialogue for Oral Pictures Titles for Silent Pictures He may be reached by addressing : Kenneth C. Beaton 2716 Westwood Drive Hollywood Phone: GLadstone 3798 Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR amazed when he saw it. But film editors do not give us credit for having that much sense. They insist upon show- ing us the empty bed. Like scores of other screen habits, it is one without any sense in it. No opportunity to allow the audience to use its imagination should be overlooked, and no quick cut that can be avoided should be in a pic- ture. The characters in a pictiire, not the camera and the cutter, should provide the action. These objectionable cuts are little things, but they are silly, and silly things on the screen are big things. * * * ALL the other directors in Hollywood should consider seriously the case of Eddie Sutherland. I do not like to stir up trouble, but I feel it my duty to inform directors generally that Sutherland is untrue to their best traditions. He absolutely ignores the alibi. The other day he asked me if I had seen Tillie's Punctured Romance, which he di- rected. I told him I had not, as I did not view pictures that I knew in advance I would roast, and that I under- stood that this one was very bad. "It is lousy," agreed Eddie. "I suppose it is impossible to turn out a good comedy by the Christie system," I added in the way of com- fort. "The system had nothing to do with it," said the di- rector. "All the fault was mine. I was given everything I wanted, was not interfered with in any way, and the picture is a rotten one solely because I got all balled up and didn't know where I was at." I presume now that I have related the incident as it happened, all self-respecting directors will shun Eddie. Imagine confessing that a di- rector CAN be wrong! * * * A QUESTION comes to me on a postcard: "Which do ■^*- do you prefer — that an admirer of your paper and a believer in its policy should buy it at a newsstand or 'T^rinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 FIRST WEEK OF "TheQueen'sHusband" — with — Edward Everett Horton and Lois Wilson D irected by Ma u de Fu It on ■ A Rollicking Romance of Royalty Eves. 50c to $1.50. Mats. Thurs. and Sat., 50c to $1.00. Phone GLadstone 4146 Downtown Ticket Offices : B road- way Dept. Store, The May Co., Birkel Music Co. Mail orders given special attention. VINE ST. THEATRE Between HolK-wood and Sunset Buollevards May 26, 1928 subscribe for it by the year? Which helps you most?" Subscribe by the year, by all means. If the thousands of people who read newsstand copies of The Spectator really vrish to do something to help it they should have their names enrolled on its list of paid yearly subscribers. I suppose there are three or four thousand people in Holly- wood who intend sometime to subscribe, but who never get around to it. If they had any idea of the tremendous encouragement their subscriptions would be to me, they 7 JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 The El Camino Motto : "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Holly^vood Phone GRanite 0202 D= =11®^ Qurrait Releases "Hell Ship Bronson" <>i(]iiiiiiiiiiiinMniiiiiiii[]niiniiiiiiaiiniitiiiiii]iiiiiiiiiiiiuit]iuiiiiiiniaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiininiiinitiiiHiiiiic]iiiiiiiini iiciiiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiriiiriiiiuiiiiiiiuiniiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiriiiiiaiiiiiinniiniiniiiiniraiiiiiiiiiiiicO Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR REVIEWED IN THIS NUMBER Detectives— A Metio-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Chester M. Franklin; story and continuity by Robert Lord and Chester M. Franklin; titles by Robert Hopkins; ward- robe by David Cox; photographed by John Arnold; film editor, Frank Sullivan. The cast: Karl Dane, George K. Arthur, Marceline Day, Tenen Holtz, Felicia Drenova, Tetsu Komai, Clinton Lyle. Drag Net — A Paramount picture. Directed by Josef von Sternberg; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Oliver H. P. Garrett; adaptation by Jules Furthmann; screen play by Jules Furthmann and Charles Furthmann; photographed by Har- old Rosson; editor-in-chief, Louis D. Lighten; assistant director, Robert Lee. The cast: George Bancroft, Evelyn Brent, William Powell, PVed Kohler, Leslie Fenton, Allan Garcia, Harry Semela, George Irving, Alfred Allen. Don't Marry — A William Fox picture. Directed by James Tinling; story by Belz Szenes; adapted by Sidney Lan- field and William Kernell; scenario by Randall H. Faye. The cast: Lois Moran, Neil Hamilton, Henry Kolker, Claire McDowell, Lydia Dickson. Give and Take — A Universal picture. Directed by William Beaudine; taken from the stage play written by Aaron HoflFman; adaptation and contin- uity by Harvey Thew; production super\isor, Julius Bernheim; cam- eraman, Charles Van Enger. The cast: George Sidney, Jean Hersholt, George Lewis, Sharon Lynn, Charles Hill Mailes, Sam Hardy, Rhoda M. Cross. Glorious Betsy — A Warner Bros, picture. Directed by Alan Crosland; assistant di- rector, Gordon Hollingshead; story by Rida Johnson Young; scenario by Anthonv Coldewey; cameraman, Hal Mohr. The cast: Dolores Costello, Con- rad Nagel, John Miljan, Pasquale Amato, Andre Segurola, Michael Vavitch, Paul Panzer, Clarissa Selwynne. Golden Clown — Released by Pa the; produced by Nordisk Film Co. Directed by A. W. Sandberg; photographed by Christen Jergensen. The cast: Gosta Ekman, Karina Bell, Maurice de Feraudy, Ed- monde Guy, Robert Schmidt, Eric Bertner, Kate Fabian. Noose, The — A First National Picture. Directed by John Francis Dillon; photo- graphed by James Van Trees; adaptation and continuity by James T. O'Donohue; titles by Jar- rett Graham; produced by Harry Hobart. The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Lina Basquette, Alice Joyce, Thelma Todd, Montague Love, R. E. O'Connor, Jay Eaton, Ed Brady, Fred Warren, William Da\-idson, William Walling, Robert E. Haines, Ernest Hilliard, Emile Chautard. Patsy, The — A Metro-GoldwjTi-Mayer Picture. Directed by King Vidor; based on the play by Barry Connors; con- tinuity by Agnes Christine John- ston; titles by Ralph Spence; set- tings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by John Seitz; film editor, Hugh Wynn. The cast: Marion Davies, Orville Caldwell, Marie Dressier, Dell Henderson, Lawrence Gray, Jane Winton. Perfect Crime — An FBO picture. Directed by Bert Glennon; story by William Le- Baron; based on "The Big Bow Mystery" by Israel Zangwill; as- sistant director, Charles Kerr; cameraman, James Howe. The cast: Clive Brook, Irene Rich, Ethel Wales, Tully Marshall, Carroll Nye, Gladys McConnell, Jane LaVerne, Edmund Breese, James Farley, Phil Gastrock. May 26, 1928 Street of Sin— A Paramount picture. Directed by Mauritz Stiller; associate pro- ducer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Josef von Sternberg and Benjamin Glazer; scenario by Chandler Sprague; photographed by Victor Milner; assistant director. Bob Lee. The cast: Emil Jannings, Fay Wray, Olga Baklanova, John Gough, Ernest W. Johnson, George Kotsonaros, Jack Burdette, Johnnie Morris. BALZER'S CONTEST A contest that will interest writers and artists as well as amateurs is be- ing held by Oscar Balzer's Hollywood Gift Shop between May 15th and June loth. The purpose of the con- test is to obtain a card known as the "Holh-wood friendship card." A $50.00 cash prize ^all be given to the one who designs and writes the greeting card selected as being the best "Hollj^-ood friendship card." If the card design selected and the sen- timent are submitted by different persons, $25.00 will be given to the artist and §25.00 to the writer. The contest is open to all people residing or working within Los An- geles county, but all those wishing to enter must call at Oscar Balzer's Annex, 6330 Holl>-wood boulevard, and register as a contestant and secure the information and details necessary. The judges will be representatives from some of the civic organizations and local publications. Order The j^iptct^itor Sent to you every issue. You may not always agree with it, but you will like its courage and frankness. Annual subscrip- tion (26 issues) in the United States, |5.00 ; Foreign, $6.00. THE FILM SPECTATOR 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California Please enter my subscription to The Film Spectator, and herewith find my check in payment. Name Address. Citv State lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli lay 26, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three At Lakeside golf course the other day I saw AL COHN playing golf with his new bosses, Charlie and Al Christie. Soft for Al. It is the contention of ALEXANDER MARKY Now on his way back from his Sooth Sea Exi>edition for Universal That nioti(Hi picture directors are bom, not made, and that the bom director is appre- hensive of subjecting his screen effort to the uninspired, thoug^h well-meaning ministra- tions of the standardized cutting room. That is the reason why Marky has developed, and is now cutting, editing and titling his own picture With the Help of Lew Collins Wilfrid M. Cline Harold I. Smith Zoe Varney JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT GEORGE SIDNEY SAYS: "When this is printed, I'll be East having fun, to say the least." About time George was say- ing something else. GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate 4 CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat Foreign Legion Symphony In Preparation A Girl on a Barge For Universal Demmy Lamson Management ALFRED HUSTWICK Film Editor Titles Since 1919 with Paramount Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR May 26, 1928 FREDEBICE A. GOETZB Praident BUGH FRAYMB Vice'Prttidsnt EDWIN P. GROSVENOB Treasurer B. STACG WHITIN Executive Director JULIA K. JAFFRAT SeeretOTH DIRECTORS Mr3. Francis C. Barlow Chairman. Committer oo Care and Training DeljD- Quent Women and Girb Behtram DbN. CRUGOt Cbalmian, Parole Commis- iion of the City of New York Hugh Fbaynb General Oriranlzer, Ameri- can Federation of Labor Fekderick A. GOCTZB Treasurer, Columbia UiU- veralty Edwin P. Grosvcnox Member. CadwaJader, Wick- ersham & Taft LEROY H0DCF3 ManasiniT Dircctor.Virginla State Chamber of Cou- merca Mft3. Helen Hartley Jenkws President, Hartley Corpo- ration. BuROETTE G. Lewis Vice-Prcaident, J. C. PeB- ney-Gwinn Corporation SAMtJEL A. LewisoHN Vice-President and Treaa- nrer, Miami Copper Co. and President, Americao Management Association. Charles J. Liebuak President, Herald Eteetrto Company ikDOLPH LEWISOHlf HcmoTary PreMideitt National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor CiRCLB 9011 4 WEST S7th STREET NEW YORK April 30,1928, Mr. Alfred E. Green, Fox Film Company, 850 Tenth Avenue, Uevf loTk City. Dear Mr. Green: I want to congratulate you on the excellent picture ''Honor Boxind" . This organization is naturally interested in the picture as it plays up the abuses against which the Committee hs,s laeen working for many years. It is also timely as there is legislation pending in Congress which will do away with certain of the abuses which grov/ out of private exploitation of prison labor. I should be glad to Icnow how you became interested in the subject and v/here the suggestioncame from; also whether you would feel that this picture could be followed by another taking up the present abuses in the north in contrast to these' abuses existing in the south. I should be glad to hear from you. Sincerely jtoucs. Executive Director An Alfred E. Green Production for William Fox Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 ^55!! FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood, California, June 9, 1928 NoTs <>]iiinNiHiininiiiiiMiinniiiiiiiiiiainiiiiiiiriaiiiinMiiiiainiiiiiiniE]iiiniiiiiiinniiiiiMiiic]iiiiiMiniiniiiiiiiiiiji[]iuiiHiiiiiaiiiinniiii[]niiiiiiiinaiiiiiii»n = = Actors needn^t worry about their voices Exhibitor hands us a very large job Future of sound, not present, is important The Spectator and some of its readers DRAG NET WARMING UP THE PATSY BRIGHT LIGHTS TRAIL OF '98 WALKING BACK BIG KILLING DIVINE WOMAN WHEEL OF FATE SMOKE BELLEW MAGNIFICENT FLIRT TELL-TALE HEART DANCING DAUGHTERS LION AND MOUSE 4iiQiiiiinuuiaunuiiiiiiuiuiiiiuiiiDuiuiiuiut»iuiiniuiiauimuiiiuiu«uiuuQUiminiua«uuHuiii»)iuiiuiajimijnuomiuiiuDinim Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 fLY SCHOOL OF ITS KIND IN HOLLYWOOD Broadcast announcement Saturdays over KFI, 2:45 P. M. For full particulars and interviews: GLadstone 2943 June 9, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen The Spectator And Some of Its Readers ABOUT one-half of the circulation of The Spectator is in and around Hollywood. For these readers it is appropriate that I should discuss pictures tech- nically. Such discussions are suitable also for the large number of subscribers among film people in England and Continental Europe. But there are two other large classes among Spectator readers: exhibitors and financial houses. They are not interested in the close-up curse. The former want to know how a given picture assays in entertainment value, and the bankers and stockholders in the big pro- ducing companies want to know how their money is being spent. It is a difficult job to satisfy these diversified de- mands. I proceed on the theory that unless I selected subjects that please me, I could not write in a manner that would please those who read what I write. I constantly am receiving letters from exhibitors urging me to cut out everything but reviews of pictures. And at the same time the circulation of The Spectator is growing rapidly in spite of the fact that no concerted effort ever has been made to gain circulation. This suggests that it would be unwise to change its policy. If I have any theory about the contents of The Spectator, it is that those who read it, occasionally may find something in it to increase their knowledge of pictures generally, thus equipping them fo understand better what they read about them elsewhere. This is true particularly of exhibitors. If I can give them a better general idea of pictures, they can read more in- telligently the reviews which other papers carry. Most of the exhibitors who write me urge me to make no change in the policy of The Spectator. They feel that a virile paper in Hollywood constantly advocating improvement in pictures is of greater service to their box-offices than a paper would be by containing reviews written only for exhibitors and eliminating all general discussion of pic- tures. I have assembled some paragraphs from letters received recently. Their publication will suggest to Holly- wood how The Spectator is regarded elsewhere, and it will serve to introduce the outside readers to one another. I want those exhibitors who think that the paper should be run differently, to know that other exhibitors do not want it changed. And to all of them, and also to Hollywood, I serve notice that The Spectator is going to ramble along exactly as it has done thus far in its career. No effort will be made to please one class of readers at the expense of another class. Now we will hear from others: A very interesting and valuable magazine for any ex- hibitor.— M. MAYER, Manager, Tower Theatre, St. Paul, Minn. The Film Spectator is apparently popular in the read- ing-rooms, judging by its being in constant use. — J. H. McCarthy, Librarian, Winnipeg Public Library. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your Film Spectator and look forward with interest to each new issue. — TERRY McDANIEL, Manager, National Theatre, Greensboro, N. C. Here is one instance where cold facts are HOT. The question is, how do you get away with it ? — HOMER GILL, Oshkosh Theatre, Oshkosh, Wis. The Film Spectator is read with the greatest interest by almost everyone in the Stoll studios. — THOS. G. LEWIS, Publicity Director, Stoll Picture Productions, Ltd., London, England. Your criticisms are not only thorough, but well rounded. While we appreciate that your articles must be supercrit- ical, we do not feel that they are radical. — BALABAN & KATZ CORPORATION, Chicago. Personally, I enjoy reading The Spectator. The reviews are splendidly written. As bits of English composition, they are a joy.— ROBERT W. BENDER, Manager, Colum- bia Theatre, Seattle, Wash. I do enjoy The Film Spectator. I enjoy your reviews and also feel that you are a fine leavening influence in the picture industry. Keep up the good work. — J. J. RAY, Y. M. C. A., Hamilton, Ohio. The Film Spectator is passed right along down the line to our employees who, I believe, read it with interest. — H. H. MALONEY, Managing Director, Loew's Kansas City Theatres. In my trips throughout the country, I have found that your magazine is very highly thought of by exhibitors of all classes, and that they are very largely guided in their bookings of product by your reviews.— J. C. DAVIS, Zenith Pictures, Incorporated. I consider The Spectator a very good paper for the ex- hibitor. You hit him straight from the shoulder and you call a spade a spade; you pick out the flaws and give us an idea of what a picture is worth, which helps a great deal. — SAM CARLTON, Owner and Manager Strand Theatre, Frankfort, Indiana. The chief of our division of current periodicals informs us that The Film Spectator is used a great deal by our readers. The staff of that division feel that your periodi- cal is very worth while and that it enjoys a very good reputation with our readers. — CHARLES J. SHAW, Exec- utive Assistant, New York Public Library. Your articles have been intelligent and constructive, and while fearless, have been within good taste. And how badly do we need in this business the publication of state- ments that we may depend upon as being truthful! We wish you most continued success. — H. E. HUFFMAN, The Aladdin Theatre Corp., Denver, Colo. I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate the worthiness of your publication and that it has supplied me with a source of information extremely valuable to every exhibitor. I trust that yours will be a continued and long-lived success, for the industry is needful of the honest material you supply. — B. BERGER, Manager Berger Amusement Company, Grand Forks, N. D. The head of our periodical division reports that The Film Spectator is used a good deal by readers and that she has found the reviews of motion pictures very help- ful. Our publicity representative says that the reviews are very good, they are so "up-and-coming". It is an in- teresting and useful periodical. — MARILLA W. FREE- MAN, Librarian, Cleveland Public Library. I assure you we enjoy The Spectator very much and really look forward to receiving it. A lot of the matter contained in it is enlightening and instructive as well as intensely interesting. The reviews of pictures we find very interesting and quite generally very correct. Occasionally, of course, our viewpoint differs from yours. — WILLIAM E. KEATING, House Manager, Lyric Theatre, Minneap- olis, Minn. You are a rare critic, inasmuch as you not only tear down; you construct, you point out an ill and suggest a remedy. Keep that same fearless editorial attitude; re- view pictures as you are doing, giving us your frank opin- ion. You have the dramaturgic faculty and box-office sense combined with artistic common sense. Keep on as you are writing and your instructive little paper will grow and grow.— DAVID F. PERKINS, Manager, Merrimack Square Theatre, Lowell, Mass. Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 I want to say that I look forward with a great deal of interest to the various numbers of The Film Spectator. You are to be complimented on the publication you are putting out. — M. P. KELLY, Advertising Manager, Mid- wesco Theatres, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis. There are so many angles on the picture industry that you bring out, that are not found in the ordinary trade journal. We realize the abuses that you are trying to rectify, and appreciate the fact that there is urgent need to encourage new ideas and the getting away from the stereotyped in production. No one is aware of this more than the exhibitor who notices that his patrons are losing interest and drifting away. We all have too much at stake not to try everj-thing possible, so keep up the good work. — J. D. 6'KEAR, Manager, Wilmer & Vincent Theatres, Bethlehem, Pa. Every issue of The Film Spectator is read carefully and enjoyed thoroughly. It is a pleasure to read a con- structive criticism in frankness to the film industry and its products. Every issue thus far has been relayed to various friends interested in either motion picture criti- cism or exhibiting, to the end that your subscription list has profited thereby. My only suggestion for the improve- ment of your publication would be the possible shortening of reviews in order to increase the number of pictures covered in each issue— RAY WHITTAKER, General Man- ager, Shubert Kansas City Theatres. We enjoy reading The Spectator very much, and agree with many of the reforms you are constantly advocating. Sometimes a criticism of yours on some particular picture does not coincide with our opinion, but your frankness and fearlessness are admirable, and as long as you keep free from entangling alliances The Spectator will be worth while. If you should happen to see Mr. Martindel, will you please say to him, that whenever we see his name in the cast of a picture to be played at the Palace, we give it special mention in our newspaper advertisements and publicity.— HARRY SILVER, Palace Theatre, Hamilton, Ohio. I wish to advise you that I have enjoyed The Film Spectator a great deal. It contains considerable food for thought. The only real handicap is the possible lack of time with the majority of theatre managers which would prevent them from reading it from cover to cover. Personally, I would suggest shorter paragraphs and some- what more condensed reading. Make it short and snappy. Eliminate a lot of the unnecessary words. Give a little more thought to your reviews with intelligent criticism on the productions that you are reviewing and I am quite sure The Film Spectator will be much more acceptable to the average manager. — T. W. McKAY, Strand Theatre, Rutland, Vermont. We have been receiving The Spectator and find that the reviews are very helpful as advance knowledge. Many of the features of the paper are attractive and we enjoy reading the various articles and note with interest the Howard Bretherton Director Current Releases "One Round Hogan" "Across The Atlantic" Warner Bros. Features «]onninninnnnninic»niiiiiHiimiuiiiiuiaiuiiiiiiniaiiiiiiiiniiuiiiniiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiuuniiiiiiiiiiai.> £ — I Morosco School j i .vf *Ur» Tl.««*^« 3142 Wilshire Blvd. I I ot the Iheatre phone wash. 6353 | I MOVIE STARS AND I I MOVIE ARTISTS | j The Talking Picture Is Here! | I If You Have Had No Practical Stage Experience i I YOU MUST BE TAUGHT | I Intonation, Transition of Speech, Poise, | I How to Laugh, Make Your Audience Cry, i I Repose, English and Every Essential as | I Used on the Legitimate Stage. i I Foreign Artists Need Our Method. § I Private Lessons or in Class | g I I Under Personal Direction of i I OUVER MOROSCO I I The Man Who Produced and Directed 25 N. Y. | = Successes in 9 Years g I Dancing — Ray Randolph | SiamininiiininniiiiinniiinmmiaimiininiaMiuuiHnaiiminiiiianmiiiiiiinnnunuuauiunnniiO "THE Wright idea" A First National Picture now in production by JOHNNY HINES is an original story by JACK TOWNLEY MIRIAM WILLS, REPRESENTATrV^E 1220 TAFT BLDG. GRANITE 4677 June 9, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen frankness of your items. We are of the opinion that you likewise appreciate the importance of the film industry as an industry and its position in the field of entertainment today. It seems you do, and are one of the papers to ful- fill the obligation of telling the constructive features of our industry, and how through the chain system of the- atres the small town sees the product almost on equal dates as the city. — J. A. O'BRIEN, Manager, Strand The- atre, Rumford, Maine. The Film Spectator as read and viewed from every angle of the motion picture industry, is one of the best trade publications that the writer has had the opportunity to observe. I mean by this, that logic and sound business judgment take the place of slip-shod methods and fool- hardiness, and again, the courage of conviction as dis- played by the editor cannot be measured by dollars and cents, nor can it be bought outright. The writer is of the same opinion with Mr. Beaton, that silent pictures will not satisfy the public very much longer, and the writer's forty years in the show game prompts me to predict that inside of one year there will not be a first-class theatre showing silent pictures. — JAS. CUNINGHAM, Golden State Film Co., Huntington Park, Calif. One of the very many community activities that I have a part in as a representative of the library is in my mem- bership in the Better Films Council of Jacksonville, where I am chairman of its committee on review. Because of that fact I have quite a close contact with most pictures, and I am glad to say that I consider your magazine the most valuable critical and analsrtical publication that has any reference to motion pictures. I appreciate the fine points that you stress in your consideration of pictures, and because of the fact that many of your comments come to me in advance of the showing of pictures I find them extremely valuable. In addition to that I have frequently referred members of the organization to use the copy which we are now receiving in the library. — JOSEPH F. MARION, Librarian, Jacksonville, Florida, Public Library. •■ AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's l7-Year-0ld Critic -.-- --.---:: SOUND in connection with the production of motion pictures has now become something to reckon with, and the day of the silent picture is about over. I dare- say that there always will be soundless pictures; but they will always be in the minority, and will be made chiefly for people who like silence and for those who can't hear. The other afternoon I sat in a projection-room at the "Warner Brothers studio and witnessed the most amaz- ing thing I ever have seen. "Witnessed" is not exactly the right word, as I heard as well as saw Bright Lights, which is the first motion picture to contain all spoken dialogue. Everything is Vitaphoned, even to the street noises and other incidental things. The tense drama in the sequence where a man is murdered attains a power which no titles ever written by any one could equal. The characters are no longer just shadows on a screen; they are living, breathing human beings; and their joys and sorrows naturally come much closer to the hearts of the audience. Hitherto, a scene which could make an audi- ence cry has been considered unusually good; but sound is going to make such scenes common, although why peo- ple go to shows in order to cry themselves and their hand- kerchiefs sodden is a mystery to me. Humor won't be so hard to put over when sound becomes general, but I be- lieve talking motion pictures will develop a different type of comedian from the one now creating laughs for the screen. Some of our present comedians probably will be in the new class, but it will be made up mostly of men who have to have sound to put across their stuff. Stage plays and novels will be put into motion pictures with much greater success, because sound will permit closer translations of the things which are responsible for the popularity of the shows and books. There is scarcely any limit to the possibilities of speaking pictures. one has seen better or more of it, saves the picture. Lionel Barrymore dominates the whole thing with his splendid voice and his clever acting. He is soon going to command the big parts his talents entitle him to. Alec Francis is going to be benefitted by the general introduction of sound, also. William Collier and May McAvoy have quite pleas- ing voices, for which they should be thankful. WHEN Bright Lights is released, it will revolutionize ;he motion picture industry. Two more like it will :reate a demand for talking pictures which will be impossible to overlook. No person is going to be satisfied with flat, uninteresting titles when he can hear human voices which put over the same thing as the titles in a more adroit, more natural way. Neither is anyone going to be satisfled with half-breed things like The Lion and the Mouse, because they are even worse than no sound at all. After the dialogue, written titles are such a flop that the interest is lost. The Lion and the Mouse is not a very good picture, due chiefly to Lloyd Bacon's adherence to the custom of shooting nearly everything in close-ups. He p.lso has a couple of what are supposed to be comedians wandering around, with no very definite purpose. The story is old; and only the spoken dialogue, which is good unless BRIGHT Lights had a perfectly good alibi if it had been a poor motion picture, because what it achieved in its Vitaphone stuff would make it a great piece of work regardless of whether or not the rest of it had any merit. However, Bryan Foy, who is responsible for all Vitaphone work, and who personally directed Bright Lights, made a crackerjack film, anyway. The fact that Foy is head of the Warner Brothers Vitaphone makes him one of the most important men in the motion picture industry. Hugh Herbert and Murray Roth wrote a very good story and some splendid dialogue. The cast was headed by Helene Costello, CuUen Landis, Wheeler Oakman, Gladys Brock- well, Robert Elliot, and a comedian whose name I didn't get. There wasn't a disagreeable voice in the entire assembly. AFTER pictures glorifying football, baseball, basket- ball, and track have come and gone, Pathe-De Mille honors, in Walking Back, one of our greatest national sports. Rupert Julian was given the directorial assign- ment on this picture, and he did a very good job. He seemed to be in sympathy at all times with the modern young people he worked with, so naturally, he got them on the screen well. Julian has some very good ideas on direction which would put him among our biggest directors if he only could get a chance with bigger stories. To get back to Walking Back, however. The picture opens with a lot of short shots of all the diversions of 1928. It is good stuff, and shows thought upon the part of Julian and Bertram Millhauser, the supervisor. As a rule, I don't give supervisors credit for anything; but I under- stand that Millhauser is one of the few who actually con- tribute something to the pictures under their guidance. The whole picture gave evidence of ha\'ing been worked out carefully in advance, an appearance which very few pictures attain, no matter how much time has been ex- pended on them. There was one sequence which I didn't care for particularly. The two rivals for the girl's favor decide, by running their cars together, which shall take her home. The hero of the picture wins by turning over his rival's car, but the whole thing seemed rather silly. However, when one considers that Sue Carol is the girl in question, a wrecked car doesn't seem much of a price Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 ^^ No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine >4 *■ ;<]iiiiiiiiuiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiuiiiDiuiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiimiiuuimiiiiiiDiiiiiiuiuoiiiiiiiiiiini.; I WHIPPET RACES i I SEAHLE, WASH. I I AUGUST 9, 10, 11 I Under Auspices Pacific Coast Racing Whippet Association = f- = If interested, communicate "With = D. B. DUNCOMBE, Mgr. I Press Club | Seattle | >iuiiiiiiiniiit]iiiiiiuiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiHaiiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiniiiiiuiiiiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiiiE>> ■TWnters of The film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 SECURITY TAILORS AND CLEANERS 1718 N. WILCOX Phone Hollywood 8733 My long experience In the tailoring line abroad and In this country, will secure perfect satisfaction. We make suits from the finest of woolens and best workmanship as low as $75.00. Come and be convinced. HARRY TENNES Tailor and Designer An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to zvear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard "TheQueen'sHusbana" — with — Edward Everett Horton and Lois Wilson Directed by Maude Fulton A Rollicking Romance of Royalty Eves. 50c to $1.50. Mats. Thurs. and Sat., SOc to §1.00. Phone GLadstone 4146 Downtown Ticket Offices: Broad- way Dept. Store, The May Co., Birkel Music Co. Mail orders given special attention. VINE ST. theatre Between HoUyft-ood and Sunset Buollevards June 9, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen to pay for the privilege of taking her home. Another thing about Walking Back which was poor was the amount of titles used. There were far too many. Julian, for no good reason, introduced his heroine with one of these underwear scenes which I detest so heartily. Beside those few faults, the picture was good entertainment. The cast of Walking Back was highly satisfactory. Richard Walling had the featured part, and his work was fine. He is a new one to me, but I think he will go quite a way on the screen. Sue Carol, had she been given a little more footage, would have stolen the picture. As it was, she made her performance stand out. Sue has one of the finest screen personalities I ever have seen, and she is progressing rapidly with her acting. One of these days she is going to be a big star. Robert Edeson gives his usual finished performance. Ivan Lebedeff, another new face to me, does a heavy characterization which de- serves credit. OUR Dancing Daughters, although it takes consider- erable time to get under way, is a pretty good pic- ture. Without a doubt, it is the best M.-G.-M. has made in some time; although that sounds like "damning it with faint praise." Its most outstanding faults were a superabundance of close-ups, and a set of titles which must have been punctuated by a man who left school as soon as he found out what a dash was. I hadn't realized how much better the punctuation of titles was until I saw those of Our Dancing Daughters, which were punctuated in the simple style of a couple of years ago. If I may be excused a terrible pun, the writer just dashed from one title to another. K I cracked that around the house, I'd probably lose my job; so I'll make my public listen to it. He won't mind, because a padded cell takes the fight out of anyone. The thing which contributed most to the success of Our Dancing Daughters was the beautiful production which was given it. Every set was a pleasure to behold, and Harry Beaumont grouped his characters so as to get the most out of them, pictorially speaking. Howeverj as soon as he had a beautiful scene, he would cut it up into close-ups which ruined the effect. An interesting thing about the sets was the fact that they were furnished in the modernistic style, which is more or less of a departure from the usual screen conventions. The weak spot in Our Dancing Daughters was the story. The two girls in it threw themselves on the neck of the same young man, and he would have been feeble- minded to marry either of them. One acted as though she were insane; the other pursued him so persistently that anybody with sense would have steered clear of her. The man was a sort of half-baked character any way, because he never seemed quite sure as to ' which one he loved. Eventually he found out where his affections lay; and from then on, the action moved more smoothly. All in all. Our Dancing Daughters was pretty good entertain- ment. A newcomer to the screen, Anita Page, gives quite a remarkable performance in this picture. She has a tend- ency towards over-acting, but when she gets a little more experience, that will be overcome. Any way, over-acting is a sin only in the case of a veteran trouper who is old • ROWLAND V. LEE Director "THREE SINNERS" PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY enough at the game to know better. As she had a very unsympathetic part in Our Dancing Daughters, I don't know whether or not Miss Page has a good screen per- sonality; but I do know that she has plenty of acting ability. Joan Crawford reveals an ability for dramatic acting which I never believed she possessed. She has one trait which I approve of heartily, and that is the fact that she puts over her emotions with repression. John Mack Brown, who has a splendid personality, does good work. Edward Nugent, another newcomer, gives a very clever characterization. Dorothy Sebastian and Nils Asther are highly satisfactory. HARRY D'Arrast, who is our most brilliant comedy- drama director since Lubitsch deserted that field for something more serious, again makes a splendid picture in The Magnificent Flirt. It is something on the order of Serenade, although it has a much frailer story. The success of the picture lies in the superlative clever- ness of D'Arrast; and, as he was credited with part of what story there was, I suppose he deserves the greatest amount of credit for its merit. He has these directorial touches down to a science, but he does not let them inter- fere with the story and its screen recital. There was only one thing in The Magnificent Flirt which I did not like particularly. D'Arrast opens the picture with a lot of composite and semi-futuristic shots of Paris at sun-up which are very beautiful and striking, but they look as though he were trying to impress his audience with his own cleverness. He didn't have to resort to trick shots for that, because after about a reel that was plain enough. There was one scene in a bedroom which contained some of the best comedy I ever have seen. Only D'Arrast could direct a scene like that and get away with it, because some of the action bordered on slapstick. A little less finesse in the direction would have ruined it entirely. When The Magnificent Flirt is released, Albert Conti is going to be sitting on top of the world. His charac- terization in this picture is one of the finest bits of acting turned out from Famous Players lately, and he is going to establish a new type on the screen. Florence Vidor does very clever work. She and Conti make a very good team. Ned Sparks, a really brilliant comedian, makes his part stand out. Loretta Young does even better work in The Magnificent Flirt than she did in Laugh, Clown, Lauglu .--* HERE IS AN EXHIBITOR WHO ADVERTISES THE WRITER— THE PALACE GRAND STARTING TODAY REGINALD DENNY — in — "ON YOUR TOES" BY EARL SNELL Absolutely the best story by the author who gave you "The Busher", with Charles Ray; "Let It Rain", with Douglas Mac- Lain, and a succession_of notable feature comedies, always combining Romance - Action - Laughs Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 There is one scene where she talks over the telephone to her lover which stands out by reason of its cleverness. If she continues to improve at her present rate, she is going to go a long way in motion pictures. Matty Kemp, who is one of the rare younger actors with both ability and personality, is very good. A man named Mankievicz wrote the" titles, and they were good. He always does good work, but this is the first time I have had the courage to try and spell his name. ALTHOUGH it was made for about one-twentieth of the cost of The Trail of '98, Smoke Bellew, a Chad- wick Big Four production directed by Scott Dun- lap, is every bit as good a motion picture. Naturally, it hasn't the tremendous spectacles which were The Trail's only claim to distinction, but it does pretty well without them. Dunlap uses no unnecessary close-ups during the entire sixty-three hundred feet. His reason for not using them, aside from the fact that they hurt the picture, is that they cost too much money. That should interest pro- ducers, because it is a practical reason why close-ups are not good. The fact that they harm pictures does not seem to matter much, but the money angle may make some im- pression. Smoke Bellew contains the return to the screen of Conway Tearle. His work in this is better than usual, because he doesn't meander around all the time looking as though the responsibility of the world were on his shoulders, a habit which he was getting more and more all the time. He puts a little life into his characteriza- tion of Smoke Bellew. Barbara Bedford, one of the few beautiful girls who can really act, does some very good work. The supporting cast is quite adequate. DOUBTLESS, if he had possessed any sense of humor, the organist would have played "What Does It Mat- ter?" during the showing of The Divine Woman. Of the many poor M.-G.-M. pictures I have seen lately, this is the only one to come anywhere near Detectives in lack of any interesting quality. There was not a moment during the whole thing when I cared whether the charac- ters lived, died, or became supervisors. Victor Seastrom, who directed The Divine Woman, used close-ups here, there, and everjTvhere, for little or no reason. There was no story to speak of. There may have been originally; but by the time it was translated into the screen's lan- guage it was most uninteresting. The hero of the story was a soldier who deserted because the girl he loved did not want him to leave her. It is impossible to make a hero out of a weakling, and any man who deserts his regiment for a woman's whim is about as strong as a drink of diluted milk. Besides, any woman whose love couldn't stand a separation is not worth worrying about. A story based on two unsympathetic characters is bound to make a poor picture. Greta Garbo and Lars Hanson headed the cast of The Divine Woman, and both gave adequate performances. However, the acting honors all went to Lowell Sherman, who gave another one of his brilliant heavy characteriza- tions. He does splendid work at all times. Polly Moran did very well in a small part. WHEN The Wheel of Fat« is released, Richard Barthelmess is going to go back where he belongs, among the biggest stars. The Noose started him oflF again, after a series of poor pictures; and his latest is going to establish him firmly. Al Santell directed The WTieel of Fate and he did a very good job. His charac- terizations, or the direction of them, were excellent, par- ticularly the scene where the hard-boiled roughneck sug- gests to the street woman that they join forces. Nine directors out of ten would have had him grasp her hand, look soulfully into her eyes, and say, "Darling, I love you. Let us forget the past and walk forth into the da^^•n of a new tomorrow." Santell keeps his roughneck in char- acter, aided by a good set of titles. During the scene, Margaret Livingstone and Dick Barthelmess do some of the most brilliant acting of their careers, so the scene naturally is very powerful. It was its absolute faithful- ness to life which made it good. The Wheel of Chance was a Fanny Hurst story; and while I did not read it, I imagine that it has been put on the screen much as it was written. At least none of the power was missing; and as a result, the picture is destined to be a success. A good picture is the natural result of a good story. Al Santell has one habit which gets on my nerves, since they haven't returned to normal yet after the strain of sitting through The Divine Woman. He clutters up the screen with too many non-essentials. Barthelmess plays two parts in The Wheel of Fate, a ; respectable young lawyer and a dirty roughneck. As the | lawyer he wears a diamond ring which is much in evidence, and up until the final fade-out, I was looking for the significance of the ring to be established. Nothing ever was done about it, and it only managed to make things confused. Little things like that were the picture's only faults. Barthelmess, as I have said, does splendid work in The Wheel of Fate. He is a truly great artist. Margaret Liv- ingstone does very well also, a habit of hers. She is one of the few good feminine heavies. Bodil Rosing gives a very good performance. Warner Oland and Lina Bas- quette are quite satisfactory in smaller parts. PARAMOUNT again makes a bum sequel to a great | picture in The Drag Net. Underworld is the great picture which is copied, and there is no reason why the second picture shouldn't be just as good. It has the same director, the same principals, and the same writers; but it is not a good picture. Joseph von Sternberg, who directed, managed to leave out all the realism which made Underworld such a success and substituted a lot of arti- ficial motion picture stuff. There was only one place where the action attained the tense drama of its predecessor, and that was the sequence where the gangsters shot up police headquarters ^nth a machine gun. Among other faults, <>]iiiiiiniiiiaiuraiiiiiiaiHiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiijiainiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiniiiiiaiiiiniiimaiiniunniai« I THE OTHER SIDE OF I I THE PICTURE | = Films are entertainment. They are, also, | I and inevitably, culture and education. | I Theatres are one thing — the non-theat- = I rical field is another. i I The Educational Screen | 5 (the only magazine of its kind) i I treats the whole field from this broader | I standpoint. On the theatrical side, a not- | I able service for the intelligent public is f I our regular department of the | I Film. Estimates i I giving thoughtful judgments by a national | I committee on about 50 films each month, = I as to which are worth while, and which i I are not, for "Intelligent Adults", for | I "Youth", and for "Children". | I The Educational Screen | g $2.00, One Year S3.00, Two Years g s 5 South Wabash, Chicago 1 ^■□iiiiiiiiiiiin!iiiiiiiiiiiQiiiiii!iiiiininiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiniMiimaiminiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiuiiiiiit>> une 9, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one ["he Drag Net had a hero who should have been dead about he third reel instead of living merrily on for seven. Jeorge Bancroft was the hero, and he was supposed to 16 the best two-gun detective on the force. He went into , cafe full of gangsters, shot two of them, turned his back everal times on the assemblage, and walked out, unhurt. Jangsters as tough as they were supposed to be would lave filled him so full of lead that it would have taken I truck to remove the body. Another silly thing was the ray Bancroft and Evelyn Brent engaged in terrific quar- els whenever they happened to meet. Bill Powell is a angster who never misses his man, yet he shoots at both Jancroft and Miss Brent and only damages them slightly. :4ie high point of artificiality in The Dag Net is reached irhen the gangsters have a banquet, during which Powell, a a bored sort of way, kills a man. Every set used in the lieture was cluttered up with the bodies of men who had iffended Bancroft and Powell. Bancroft, who kills men by the score with delightful •bandon, accidentally shoots a fellow policeman. He is xonerated of all blame, but he is so overcome with re- aorse that he resigns and takes to drink. That was ,bsurd for two reasons: First, as hard-boiled a killer as he ?as supposed to be wouldn't have been upset by a death yhich wasn't his fault; and second, he was doing such food work in his drive against the underworld that he lever would have been allowed to quit. Anyway, a man ?ho drowns his troubles in liquor is too weak to be a hero. The Drag Net is another picture where the cast gives ood portrayals, but does not put any feeling in them. Jancroft gives a splendid performance, as does Evelyn Jrent. Those two are always good, but in this picture heir work contained little feeling. William Powell does irilliant work as the heavy. Fred Kohler and Leslie j'enton are good, also. Reviewed In This Number JIG KILLING— A Paramount picture. B. P. Schulberg, associate pro- ducer; directed by F. Richard Jones; story by Grover Jones; screen play by Gilbert Pratt and Grover Jones; photographed by Alfred Gilks; editor-in-chief, B. F. Zeidman; assistant director, Archie Hill. The cast: Wallace Beery, Raymond Hatton, Mary Brian, Gardner James, Lane Chandler, Anders Ran- dolph, Paul McAllister, James Mason, Ralph Yearsley, Ethan Laidlaw, Leo Willis, Buck Moulton, Robert Kortman, Walter James, Roscoe Ward. BRIGHT LIGHTS— A Warner Bros, picture. Directed by Bryan Foy; written by Murray Roth and Hugh Herbert; photo- graphed by Ed Du Par. The cast: Helene Costello, Cullen Landis, Mary Carr, Wheeler Oakman, Gladys Brockwell, Robert Elliott, Eugene Pallette, Tom Dugan, Tom McGuire, Walter Percival, Guy D'Ennery, Jere Delaney. DIVINE WOMAN— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Victor Seastrom; treatment by Gladys Unger; based on her play, Starlight; scenario by Dorothy Farnum; titles by John Colton; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Arnold Gillespie; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by Oliver Marsh; film editor, Conrad A. Nervig. The cast: Greta Garbo, Lars Hanson, Lowell Sher- man, Polly Moran, Dorothy Gumming, John Mack Brown, Cesare Gravina, Paulette Duval, Jean De Briac. DRAG NET— A Paramount picture. Directed by Josef von Stem- berg; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Oliver H. P. Garrett; adaptation by Jules Furthmann; screen play by Jules Furthmann and Charles Furth- mann; photographed by Harold Rosson; editor-in- chief, Louis D. Lighton; assistant director, Robert Lee. The cast: George Bancroft, Evelyn Brent, William Powell, Fred Kohler, Leslie Fenton, Allan Garcia, Harry Semela, George Irving, Alfred Allen. LION AND THE MOUSE, THE— A Warner Bros, picture. Directed by Lloyd Bacon; from the story by Charles Klein; scenario by Robert Lord; assistant director, Frank Shaw; cameraman, Norbert Brodin. The cast: May McAvoy, Lionel Barrymore, Alec Francis, William Collier Jr., Emmett Corrigan, Jack Ackroyd. MAGNIFICENT FLIRT— A Paramount picture. Associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; directed by H. D'Abbadie D'Arrast; screen play by H. D'Abbadie D'Arrast and Jean de Limur; suggested by "Maman" by Germain and Moncousin; photographed by Henry Gerrard; production super- visor, B. P. Fineman; assistant director. Art Jacob- son; titles by Herman Mankievicz. The cast: Florence Vidor, Matty Kemp, Albert Conti, Loretta Young, Marietta Millner, Tom Ricketts, Hazei Keener. OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Harry Beaumont; story and scenario by Josephine Lovett; titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings; settings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by David Cox; assistant director, Harold S. Bucquet; photographed by Greorge Barnes; film editor, William Hamilton. A Cosmopoli- tan production. The cast: Joan Crawford, John Mack Brown, Dor- othy Sebastian, Anita Page, Kathlyn Williams, Nils Asther, Edward Nugent, Dorothy Gumming, Huntly Gordon, Evelyn Hall, Sam de Grasse. PATSY, THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Picture. Directed by King Vidor; based on the play by Barry Connors; continuity by Agnes Christine Johnston; titles by Ralph Spence; settings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photographed by John Seitz; film editor, Hugh Wynn. The cast: Marion Davies, Orville Caldwell, Marie Dressier, Dell Henderson, Lawrence Gray, Jane Win- ton. SMOKE BELLEW— An I. E. Chadwick picture. Produced by The Big Four Corporation; directed by Scott Dunlap; super- vised by David Thomas; photographed by J. 0. Taylor; technical director. Earl Sibley. The cast: Conway Tearle, Barbara Bedford, Alphonz Ethier, Mark Hamilton, William Scott, J. P. Lockney, Alaska Jack. TELL-TALE HEART, THE— Unreleased. Directed by Charles P. Klein; from the story by Edgar Allen Poe; continuity, titles, trick photography and all sets designed by Charles F. Klein; cameraman, Leo Shamroy. The cast: Will Herford, Charles Darvas, Kurt de Surberg, Otto Matiesen. TRAIL OF '98. THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Clarence Brown; from the story by Robert W. Service; adapta- tion by Benjamin Glazer; continuity by Benjamin Glazer and Waldemar Young; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Merrill Pye; wardrobe by Lucia Coulter; assistant director, Charles Dorian; photographed by John Seitz; film editoi", George Hively. The cast: Dolores Del Rio, Ralph Forbes, Karl Dane, Harry Carey, Tully Marshall, George Cooper, Russell Simpson, Emily Fitzroy, Tenen Holtz, Cesare Gravina, Doris Lloyd, E. Alyn Warren, John Down, Ray Hallar, Ray Gallagher. WALKING BACK— A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by Rupert Julian; associate producer, Bertram Millhauser; from the story, A Ride in the Country by George Kibbe Turner; scenario by Monte Katterjohn; cameraman, John Mes- Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 call; assistant director, Fred C. Tyler; film editor, Claude Berkeley; costumes by Adrian; imit production manager, John Rohlls. The cast: Sue Carol, Richard Walling, Ivan Lebe- deff, George Irving, Jane Keckley, Billy Sullivan, George Stone. WARMING UP— A Paramount picture. Directed by Fred Newmeyer; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Sam Mintz; adaptation and scenario by Ray Harris; editor- in-chief, J. G. Bachmann; photographed by Edward Cronjager; assistant director, Ivan Thomas. The cast: Richard Dix, Jean Arthur, Claude King, Philo McCollough, Wade Boteler, Billy Kent Schaefer, Roscoe Karns, James Dugan, Mike Dohlin. WHEEL OF FATE, THE— A First National Picture. Directed by Alfred Santell; produced by Henry Hobart; cameraman, Ernest Haller; titles by Garrett Graham; adaptation and( continuity by Gerald Duffy. , The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Bodil Rosing, Warner Oland, Ann Schaefer, Lina Basquette, Mar-, garet Livingston, Sidney Franklin, Martha Franklin. MORE NOTES ON PICTURES By WALTER KRON If I were a big producer, there would be in my employment a special- ist in the detection of charlatans. In this way I would endeavor to eliminate the latter from the films which I pro- duced. I would have on my staff at least two directors as pure experi- menters, whom I would allow to fol- low their fancy in production, with no regard for the box-ofiice. If they were not too wasteful and if they could show results within one year, they would be retained. To the one who had really unearthed something, his prod- uct would be on display to the other directors. If, on the other hand, with his freedom and latitude, a director remained a rubber stamp, I would throw him back in with his commer- cial brothers and replace him with a discovered aspirant. I understand that some of the more prominent studios do retain directors free from taint, who frequently turn out commercial winners. These semi- commercial directors who have to maintain big homes and uniformed servants, besides catering to gushing candidates of society columns, cannot be blamed entirely. But to manufacture wares of moronic appeal comes easy to most directors, as they are incapable of do- ing otherwise. * * * The film impresario has pushed his showmanship beyond all decency. The shrewd man "a la Barnum" with the democratic way necessary to the type, puts his films over in a blare of trumpets, lights, fire wagons, and police machines. These men are very skilled manipulators of the mob. The brazen qualities of these men are ex- pressed by their gaudy architecture and decorating. Take the Chinese Theatre, of Hollywood, for example. The immortal hand-and-foot-prints of our di\'ine artistes are now cast for all time in concrete paving, where the gullible morbid from points east, west, north, and south may view these im- prints ^^ath awe, and then write home to Gopher Prairie about it. Are the immortals flattered? Are they!! Showmanship, no doubt a necessity !SEE Wm. Fox - Howard Hawks Production , FAZIL i With Charles Farxell and Greta Nissen I Carthay Circle Theatre } Daily 2:15-8:30 j Carii Ellinor's Orchestra in the subtle arts, reaches to-day in the motion picture a status in hailing distance of the sawdust ring. While the circus lacks the bourgeois refine- ment in its advertising, it is obviously more honest. Discrimination and taste should reigTi in the theatres that pretend to cater to the civilized element of their audiences. Blatant colored concrete, splashes of gold and red, wax dum- mies, costumed ushers — this ballyhoo impresses the vulgar and the simple. Its appeal is mainly for the super- ficial middle class. 1 ISIorman^s ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard SLIP COVERS Finest Workmanship— All Corded Finish Will give lasting ser\'ice and add pleasure and beauty to your home. We have a large assort- ment of colors and patterns. Call, write or phone. Estimates free. WEST COAST SLIP COVER Co. 1425 W. 8th St. DRexel 6728 Gifts and Greetings For All Occasions Gifts of Distinction ' «J326 H^LLyWUC'C7-BLV[7- MVUyW7y7-^UF' SHOP AT BALZER'S— "TWO SHOPS"— JUST WEST OF VINE niiiiiiniuiiiiiiiniiiaiMiiiiiiiiianiiiniiiiiQiiniiiiiiiiniiMiiiiiiiiciiMiiiniiiniiiniiiiiiianiiiiiiiiiiuniiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiMiiinir THE FILM SPECTATOR 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California $5 Per Year $6 Foreign Please enter my subscription to The Film Spectator, and herewith find my check in payment. Name Address City State iiiiiiijiiiEJiiiiniiiiiiaiiiiimuiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiDuiMiiiiiiiniiiiJiiiiiiiaiMiniiMiiHiiniiiiiiiiaiiiniiiiiiiaiinmiiiiiDiiiiiiimiiaiimiiiiiiia^ une 9, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three Film Rights on Famous English Plays Available The screen rights for a large number of successful English plays from the pens of Sir Arthur Pinero and George R. Sims are now available to Hollywood producers from Mrs. Edgar Norton. In Sir Arthur's plays there is wonderful material of the drawing-room and sophisticated type. His works make splendid vehicles for the "talking picture", which now unquestionably is here to stay. The Pinero plays available are: THE SQUIRE THE CABINET MINISTER IN CHANCERY LADY BOUNTIFUL THE ROCKET THE TIMES THE SCHOOLMISTRESS THE SECOND MRS. TANQUERAY THE HOBBY-HORSE THE NOTORIOUS MRS. EBBSMITH DANDY DICK THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THE THUNDERBOLT THE PRINCESS AND THE BUTTERFLY MID-CHANNEL A WIFE WITHOUT A SMILE THE FREAKS PRESERVING MR. PANMURE For additional details on any of the above, address : MRS. EDGAR NORTON, 1861 Whitley Avenue Telephone GLadstone 0221 Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 ^jiinniiiiiiniiiMiiiniiniiiMniiiiiDiiHiiiiiiiiaiiHinrijnaiiiunuiiiHNiiiniiiiiaiiiniiuiiiHJiiHniiJiiaiuininuiaiiiinnniiDiniiiMnjiuiHiiJiiiiiiaiuuiiiii^ j CHARLES KEN YON I Completed I "SHOWBOAT" I Pollard-Universal-Special j IN PREPARATION I 'THE WRECKING BOSS" I FIRST NATIONAL DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER Inc. Q< <&i[]niiiiiiiiiiniimniiiiiannniiinit]iiiiMiniHaiiiiiMiiiiriinnniiiiiiuaiiiiiiiiiiuE](nuiiiiiiiaHiiiiiiiiiiuaniwuiiaiiniiiiiiiiniiiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiMiiinii^ <om time to time I have criticized the firm for its manner of conducting its business, and I have seen little merit in most of its pictures, but I am ready to pay it homage now for its leadership in the greatest step for- ward that screen art has taken. * * * First All-Sound Picture Immense Stride Forward FROM the moment I saw Will Hays step forward on the Egyptian screen two years ago and heard the reproduction of a speech he had made in New York, I never lost my faith in the inevitability of all-sound pic- tures. I went on record in The Spectator at the time. I knew nothing about the process then, and know no more about it now, but that the screen would fail to embrace such an available ally was something I could not admit. When I saw Bright Lights I realized that my faith was justified. It is an underworld story with nothing new in it, but it is fascinating screen enertainmert because each member of its long cast is alive. I heard their voices as they moved through the various scenes, and as there are no silent sequences in the picture, the char- acters never become shadows. Bryan Foy directed it, thus gaining a permanent place in screen history as the first director to give us an all-sound production. His task was simplified by the fact that continuous talkinj» reduced the necessity for action. In the opening sequence two characters stand in the middle of a room and carry on a long conversation, every word of which is interest- ing for its promise of later developments as the story progresses. The feature of the picture that interested me most was the striking manner in which it supported my argument advanced in the last Spectator that Holly- wood was attaching too much importance to voices. The cast of Bright Lights is not a notable one, and its mem- bers were not chosen on account of the quality of their voices. As it was the first venture in an oral picture, Warner Brothers could not know that it was going to be successful, consequently not too great a sum of money was risked. It was cast as any unpretentious program picture would be cast. The important talking parts are taken by Helene Costello, Cullen Landis, Mary Carr, Wheeler Oakman, Gladys Brockwell, Robert Elliott, Eugene Pallette, Tom Dugan, Tom McGuire, Walter Per- cival, Guy D'Ennery, and Jere Delaney. In addition to them, talking is done by policemen, newsboys, taxi drivers, doormen and many others. And there is not one voice that fails to put over every word it utters. Altogether I suppose we hear twenty voices, and even if I had not been told that no great care was exercised in their selec- tion, I would have known that such was the case, for had it been diflicult to secure satisfactory voices among the general run of artists and actors, it would have taken weeks to pick those that were used. The fact is that Warners were making an experiment, and for their pur- pose any voices would do. That they did not happen to use one unsatisfactory one is due to the fact that any ordinary voice is adaptable to reproduction. Those artists who enact parts which carry a presumption of education and culture must speak like educated and cultured people, but the character actors have no such restrictions. The news- boy crying his wares may have dropped his final g's. I did not notice. The voice of Bob Elliott, the peerless detective of Broadway, came to me with all the intriguing drawl that it carried across the footlights. And he wa« just as real to me as he was on the stage. In the largest picture house he will be more real to the person in the back row of the gallery than he possibly could be to anyone that far from him in any house in which Broadway was played, for the stage has no such medium as a close shot to bring an actor closer. When sound devices are per- fected and their use thoroughly understood, dramatic entertainment will be more vivid to the entire audience than it ever has been when presented on a stage. Oral pictures will have many advantages over the stage, and I can not think of one advantage that the stage possesses that will remain something peculiarly its own. * * • Audiences Will Be Spared Reproduction of Sound Effects THE Warner Brothers pictures to which sound has been applied offer the industry an opportunity to form some idea of what the future holds. The Jazz Singer will gross millions. There is nothing in the story or in Jolson's acting to account for the success of the picture. Its popularity is due entirely to Jolson's singing. Tenderloin has not enough talking in it to help us form an estimate of the future of sound. I have not seen it, but the reviews I have read are not particularly enthusi- astic regarding its excellence as entertainment, conse- quently we can attribute what success it is having to the amount of talking it has in it. The Lion and the Mouse is going to gross several times what it would if it were silent. The story is interesting, but not unusually so. As the first picture to contain several long sequences in sound it is notable for marking a long forward step for screen art. It will have great box-office value as a nov- elty, and is interesting enough as screen entertainment to repay those who view it. Glorious Betsy is distinguished for the quality of its production, acting and direction, but its interpolated bits of sound will be the feature that will gain for it word-of -mouth advertising. Bright Lights, the poorest picture of the lot, will be a tremendous financial success. It is more than a novelty. It is epochal; per- haps the most momentous individual thing that has hap- pened to pictures. No exhibitor with reproducing equip- ment in his house can afford to ignore it. A score of years hence it can be reissued and will attract attention as the first production entirely in sound. No one who has any intelligent interest in the screen can miss Bright Lights and still claim to be abreast of screen progress. As a demonstration of the applicability of sound to pic- tures it is a brilliant success, and it would be an unkind reviewer who would attempt to dim its scientific luster by expatiating upon its conventional story treatment. It is a monument to the enterprise and foresight of Warner Brothers, and one does not chip holes in monuments. Bright Lights is an answer to those who predict that sound will be used sparingly in pictures. As far as any- one will go to minimize the importance of sound to the screen is to predict that its use will be confined to repro- June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR ducing: effects: the whirr of wheels, the exhaust of auto- mobiles, steam whistles, etc. They contend that it never will be used generally to reproduce speeches. I believe that when sound settles down it will be found that the reverse of these predictions will be true. I so far disagree with these prophets as to predict that after the novelty wears off we will have all the talking done in sound and none of the effects. One of the great problems with which civilization has to contend is the elimination of unneces- sary noises. In the past score of years we have made extraordinary progress in adding to the comforts and lux- uries of the human race — but we still have street cars dragging horrible dins between sidewalks crowded with people and along lanes between buildings filled with people doing work in stores and offices. Out into our otherwise quiet residential districts the same cars drag the same dins until it is a wonder that any of us possess unfrayed nerves. And street cars are but one item in noise pro- ducing atrocities that must be subjugated before we can claim to be civilized wholly. Heretofore picture houses have offered a retreat from noises that infest us else- where. To predict that the public will pay to hear noises dragged into these retreats is to take an exaggerated view of the tolerance of humanity. The picture of the future, as I see it, will leave to the imagination that which can be imagined and will present in sound only what can not be imagined at all, exactly what the characters on the screen are saying. Some effects should be used, such as the ringing of a telephone bell, the sound of a buzzer, the occasional honk of a horn, but when a fire engine plunges down a screen street, the audience is going to derive satisfaction from the fact that it can see the monster without hearing the awful noise it makes. If I were a producer I soon would be known as one whose pictures contained no unnecessary racket. * * * Writers WiU Be Ones to Get the Big Money HOLLYWOOD accepts sound as something that has arrived to stay, and interests itself now in specula- tion regarding what effect its general adoption will have on those engaged in making pictures. While it must remain a matter of speculation until the new order has established its own routine, there are some things about it that we may take for granted now. There is more or less uneasiness among actors who are under the impres- sion that only those with stage-trained voices will com- mand the sizable salaries when there is sound in all pic- tures. Producers themselves seem inclined to share this view and the more foolish among them are looking to the stage for a new supply of picture talent. There are as many poor voices among a given number of actors as there are among the same number of taxi drivers. The only difference is that actors have learned to use the voices they have. Screen actors can learn to use theirs as rapidly as their individual mental capacities will per- mit. Under the new order there will be no place in pic- tures for the wholly unintelligent actor or actress. That is a boon that sound will confer on screen art. But the percentage of those lacking brains enough to get by in sound pictures is small, for the difference between the star and the extra is one of mentality, and as wide a range of mentalities always will be used. The general run of SOME years ago. * * * Page Five UNIMPORTANT IF TRUE By K. C. B. "TO RACE for the lunch. BEFORE either of us. * * * "I'D SOONER you'd walk. * * * MOVED to Hollywood. "AND LET me buy it. + * * * * * I WAS in the office. "AND AFTER lunch. * * * * * * OF SAMUEL Goldwyn. "WE'LL GO up to the park. IN NEW York City. * * * AND SAM said to me. + * * WE WOULD go to lunch. "WHERE there isn't a crowd. * * * "AND I'LL race you there." BUT HE didn't hear me. * * * AND I said all right. * * * AND HURRIED on. AND WE rushed down * * * stairs. AND JUST as I yelled. * * * * * * IN THE elevator. "TELL ME where we're go- * * * ing. AND out through the door. * * * * * * "AND SAVE me a seat." ONTO Forty-second. * * * * * * HE WENT into a glide. AND UP to the comer. * * * * * * AND A sharp left turn. OF FIFTH avenue. * * * * * * RIGHT into Sherry's. AND whatever Sam does. * * * * * * AND I followed him. IT LOOKS like a walk. * * * * * * AND THAT'S the last. BUT IT really isn't. * * * * * * AND THE only time. IT'S A sort of a float. * * * * * * I ATE with Sam. IN WHICH the body. * * * * * * AND NOW he's asked me. WEAVES in and out. * * * * * * OUT TO his studio. AND DRAGS the legs. * * ♦ * * * AND I'VE bought me a PERMITTING the feet. pair. * * * * * * TO TOUCH the pavement. OF RUNNING shoes. * * * * + * AND RUNNING trunks. JUST often enough. * * * TO MAKE it appear. ^ ^ 4= HE IS using" them. * * * V V :ti AND SAM was floating. I'LL RUN that bird. * * * * ^ ^- AND I was running. AND IF I never do. * * * ANOTHER thing. AND I said to him. * * f "IF IT'S your idea. ALL OVER that lot. * * * TILL HE can't even float * * * I THANK you. screen actors need not disturb themselves too greatly about the prospect of finding no more work, but they must not overlook the fact that the new order requires more intelligence than the old. There are some who contend that our present crop of actors is going to be supplanted by a new crop garnered on the stages of New York and London, predicating the prediction on the supposition that the sound picture is going to require better acting. There are limits to the revolution that sound devices will cause. About one picture out of twenty made now has any acting in it, and I fail to see why we should expect producers to Page Six THE FILM so far revolutionize the business as to prov-ide acting in all pictures. We always will have our small percentage of pictures that contain notable performances, but the great majority will be, as the great majority are now, straight narratives told by people who walk through parts and who really think they are acting. We have now plenty of former stage artists thoroughly trained in the technic of screen acting, and I fail to see any reason why producers should bring to Holljnvood a flock of present stage artists who know nothing whatever about screen acting. The spread of sound will affect directors and writers more than it will actors. One thing that im- pressed me as I viewed Bright Lights was the number of scenes in which the characters scarcely moved at all, mak- ing their lines hold the attention of the audience as action had to be made to do in the silent pictures. Such scenes require practically no direction, and as they do not call for any particular display of acting, it follows that they are the work of writers, for they consist almost solely of a recital of words written by the author of the screen story. Directors always will increase the eflfect of the author's words by supplying action to accompany them, but they gradually will cease to occupy the prominent position in the industry that is theirs at the present time. Those who follow the stage intelligently are interested more in who writes a play than they are in who directs it. The name of the director is important only to stage people, not to the people who support the stage. It is different with motion pictures. The fact that De Mille or Lubitsch directs a picture is what is stressed in its exploitation. The film industry has functioned for thirty years without establishing with the public the name of one author of motion picture stories. This condition wiU change. Within a few years who wrote a screen story will be a matter of great importance to the public, just as it now is a matter of importance when O'Neill writes a play. The greatest individual change that will be made by the general use of sound will be the promotion of the writer to a place of major importance in the industry. Ultimately he will be the highest salaried person in the industry. * * * Will Have to Ram Benefits Down the Producers' Throats WHILE pictures are undergoing a technical revo- lution it is an appropriate time for those who work in them to give consideration to the ques- tion of the improvement of their working conditions. If this disturbed era be allowed to pass without necessary reforms being effected, the crazy hours which now prevail in the industry will become a permanent feature of screen work, and all the other harrassing conditions that inter- fere with the efforts of actors, writers, and directors will be fastened on the industry for all time. Producers are organized. They have their association presided over by the discredited Hays, and they have the Academy of which they are a twenty' per cent, part with a hundred per cent, influence. Those who work for the producers have no organizations that function beneficially to their members in their relations with their employers. The workers should be organized, not in a spirit of antagonism to the pro- ducers, but for the purpose of being placed in a position to demand certain reforms that will benefit the producers SPECTATOR Jane 23, 1928 quite as much as they will make life more tolerable for the workers. Any thing that helps the writer and the actor must of necessity help the producer. Take reason- able working hours. All other industries have learned by experience that eight hours is the maximum time that a man can work in one day at maximum efficiency. Those who control the screen industry honestly believe it is like no other. This belief is the product of their egoism. They regard themselves as supermen and they refuse to believe that the tasks that they perform are like those which all other executives in all other industries perform every day. To acknowledge that the film industry could operate on working hours similar to those that prevail in those other industries would be their confession that their business is not a mysterious one that could be conducted only by the massive brains that they possess. In view of this producer complex being impenetrable by common sense, actors will continue to make the same fools of themselves that they are making now by accepting a salary for a week's work and permitting enough hours to be crowded into the week to constitute two ordinary weeks' work. Not all studios indulge in this practice of stealing time from artists, but enough of them do it to make it one of the many grievances which actors are suffering and which they will continue to suffer until they form a strong or- ganization whose representatives can sit down with the producers' representatives and talk things over. One of the first things for such an actors' organization to do would be to prohibit any of its members from being on the set more than eight hours in any one day. Suggest that to any producer and he will prepare a blueprint dem- onstrating to you that an eight-hour day would ruin the i business, make the production of pictures impossible, give I extras Kleig eyes and directors flat feet, and bring on a : war in the Balkans. All these things the producer would prove conclusively. He proved it conclusively when there was some talk a year ago about an eight-hour day. My very good friend, Mike Levee, abetted by the wise nods of others, proved conclusively to a committee of actors that if an eight-hour day were forced on the industry it would be but a short time until actors were hired by the hour and paid only when they were in front of the camera. It was so easy that I'm quite sure Mike got no fun out of it. Apparently it did not occur to this committee that an actors' organization could stipulate that no call could be for less than a day's work. An eight-hour day ultimately will have to be forced on the industry. The pressure behind it will be economic wisdom, but the producers never will recognize its strength as an argument. They will resist the reform, and in two years will erect a monument PRIVATE - INSTRUCTION - ONLY SPEAKING VOICE Francis Korbays Famous Method of Placing the Voice Emphasis - Tone Color - Inflection CLAUDE FLEMMING From Principal Theatres England, America, Australia At Suite 212, Chateau des Fleurs Franklin Avenue — or by special appointment at student's residence. Ring GRanite 5101 for appointment. June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR to the man who forces it upon them. Not until the motion picture industry is run sanely will it make its maximum profits, and sane hours will mark the first step towards sanity. The producers will profit enormously from the adoption of an eight-hour day, but tell it to one of them and he will laugh at you — "the loud laugh that bespeaks a vacant mind." * * * We Still Will Have Our Silent Productions THERE are those who bemoan the passing of the silent picture. It is a little early to feel bad about it. Until we know how satisfactory oral pictures are going to be, we can not measure accurately the grief it would be appropriate to expend on the memory of the pictures they supplant. Screen art has advanced until it has yielded some products of an exquisite beauty that the stage could not match, and with as highly developed drama as the stage has given us. It would be sad to watch the passing of this exquisite art which parades shadows before us with the silence in which shadows always pass; which leaves to our senses the conjuring up of sweethearts' voices, and to our imaginations the song a screen brook sings; which makes a graceful, silent gesture of a tree branch yielding to the pressure of a driving gale, and which brings up sloping beaches billows that are as quiet as clouds of foam. Must we lose all this? I don't think so. We will not have hybrid pic- tures such as The Lion and the Mouse, in which part of the dialogue is reproduced in sound and the other part related in printed titles. And when we hear the honk of a horn in the first reel of a picture, we must hear the factory whistle when it blows in the fourth. As I have set forth already, I believe that when sound pictures assume their permanent form they will give us only dialogue in sound, but they must pass through a noisy phase before dismissing sound effects, which we can imag- ine, and reproduce only dialogue, which we can not imagine. Whatever permanent form they adopt, they will have to be true to that form; they will have to be all talk or no talk, all noise or no noise. And I believe that the lovers of the silent drama will not be denied the silence they love. There is no reason why sound should have been applied to The Last Laugh, for everything in it was so obvious that titles were not necessary to explain anything. Paul Fejos, in The Last Moment, gave us another titleless picture, and we have no difficulty in understanding it. Sound could have been of no assistance to it. When nearly all our films go out with sound attached there is going to be a market for silent pictures without titles. There always has been a market for them, but producers hold the weird notion that the public wants titles, an asinine supposition, but one that has done great injury to screen art by preventing it developing along a line that would have led to the achievement of the full measure of its potentialities. But even the blight of ignorance that the mass producer mind has cast over pictures since their inception can not afflict them perma- nently. The perfect productions of the future will be oral pictures with all the talking reproduced, and silent pic- tures in which the stories will be told without the aid of either sound or titles. The one thing common to both classes will be the mechanical reproduction of the musical Page Seven scores. Fejos recently completed for Universal his second picture. It is called Lonesome, and while it is not as bold in conception as The Last Moment, it is a departure from the routine, and further strengthens my conviction that Fejos is a director of great ability. It would have been a better picture if it did not contain some totally mean- ingless titles that now mar it. There is no story, wherein lies its strength. A girl and a boy, unknown to one another, are lonely in a great city. They come together and fall in love. That is all. Every step taken until the paths of the two parties to the romance converge is directed admirably. In a beach sequence, and in one show- ing the concessions street of a resort, Fejos has too much animation in his backgrounds, the only flaw I can find in the picture. It was too long when I viewed it, but I assume that fault has been corrected. What surprises me about the production is that it was made. There is nothing in it that producers insist must be in every picture to assure its success. In trying to discover how it happened I learned that Carl Laemmle Jr., battled everyone on the lot on behalf of the script and finally won his father's consent to its production. The result is a picture of which Universal has reason to be proud. I think it will make money, but in any event, it is a fine thing to have done. It would have been finer if the studio had been brave enough to leave out all the titles. * * * Metro Produces Splendid Picture in the South Seas NOTHING finer than White Shadows in the South Seas ever has come to the screen. It is a Metro picture, directed by W. S. Van Dyke and featuring Monte Blue. Frederick O'Brien's charming book of the same name was the inspiration for the screen story. All the charm of the book is put on the screen. It is a sooth- ing picture that makes one lazy, and instills a desire to dwell on a South Sea island and pick a living off a tree. We see stately palms waving their branches, languidly yielding to a lazy breeze; crescent beaches turning back rolls of foam which the sea sends to them; quiet pools which reflect the riot of foliage that droops over their rims; brown gods of grace who glide through crystal-clear water in search of pearl oysters. We go into the homes of the natives and see how they live, how they eat and work and play — all things that we visualized when we read O'Brien, but which now come to us to alter our imaginings to square with facts. It is a photographic idyll of surpassing beauty, a poem which nature wrote and which the camera caught. And with it all we have a story, gripping, dramatic, that saddens us, for it shows how white men — the White Shadows — grasping, debasing, went down there, destroyed the poetry in the name of commerce, and for a life gay, sweet, and innocent, traded a "civilization" that was sodden, immoral and corrupt. It was a splendid thing for Metro to do — the making of this picture — and splendidly has it done it. In it cinematic art touches one of its greatest heights. It was a big thing to do to send a company all the way to the South Seas, a venture in screen commercialism to make a great example of screen art, and so magnificently has the ven- ture succeeded in its artistic quest that it will prove to be a commercial triumph. White Shadows in the South Seas will be one of the outstanding financial successes of Page Eight film history, and as such should encourage Mr. Mayer to send forth more expeditions of the sort, and other pro- ducers to consider the advisability of emulating him. The picture will be a success, not because of its scenic beauty, not as a lesson in geography, not by virtue of its sociolog- ical value, but because it is a regular motion picture that makes us interested in people who move through it. It was wise of Metro to stress the story. Reduced to its essentials, it is nothing but story, the embellishments being things it picks up as it goes along. The viewer who is not intrigued by its pictorial splendor will follow with interest its romance and its drama. The viewer who can see nothing interesting in the life of the natives, will see much to interest him in the acting of Monte Blue. Monte gives a superb performance, one that is sincere and powerful. It is a characterization of many different phases, and he is brilliant in all of them. I have seen nothing finer on the screen in a long time. This picture wiU bring to the front a young woman who is destined to become a great favorite. She is Raquel Torres, a Mexican I believe, whom Hunt Stromberg discovered some- where and gave her her opportunity. She is splendid. She has a spiritual quality that makes her screen personality charming. It is the same quality that Janet Gaynor has in such abundance, and Loretta Young, and a few others, the quality that suggests sweetness and goodness, and instills in the viewer confidence in a girl's integrity and intelligence. Robert Anderson very capably plays the part of heavy, and there are many satisfactory perform- ances given by natives. Van Dyke's direction is masterly. The story, splendidly written, brings out graphically the misfortune that befell the South Sea Islanders when they were "civilized" by traders. I wish it had gone farther and shown the evil done by meddling missionaries, the unconscious accomplices of greed and alcohol in destroy- ing a life a thousand times purer than the one that set forth to purify it. * * * Colleen Moore's Air Epic Is a Mighty Fine Picture BY long odds a greater picture than Wings is Lilac Time, Colleen Moore's contribution to the air epics of the screen. It is greater than the Paramount picture because it is equally thrilling and, in addition, has what Wings lacks, a connected, coherent and dramatic story from which it does not depart for as much as one foot of film. Lilac Time might be taken as a model for pictures that are planned as supers. From the opening scene until the last it seems to concern itself only with telling its story. As it lets nothing interfere with the telling, the story moves swiftly along its logical course and holds our interest in it as a story. The same story set in any other environment would hold our interest. That is the test that any story should pass before it is screened. If it does not have enough inherent strength to keep us interested when it is told in a shanty, it lacks strength enough to warrant it being told in a palace. Lilac Time has strength enough to warrant it being told in any setting. But it is told in France, and it is war time when young fellows take their seats in planes and grin as they fiy towards death; when foes meet above clouds and have it out up there until one combatant falls through a cloud, and the other wipes his wounds and looks for THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 another fight; when romance remains alive though nations pass away. Lilac Time is a romance possessing all the terrific trimmings that war could adorn it with. I saw it before it had some of the trimmings that will be added prior to its release. It was strictly silent when I viewed it, but when it is released it will have talking sequences and sound effects that should improve it im- mensely, for it is a picture that will lend itself admirably to the application of sound. But it is great, even as s silent picture. Colleen never before has appeared in anything with such dramatic and pictorial sweep. And she never gave a better performance. She is in the story logically by reason of being a French girl at whose farm aviators are stationed. At no place does the story strain itself to keep going. It is quite unlike the story of Wingt which commits suicide when it takes Clara Bow to Prance. George Fitzmaurice directed Lilac Time. The last previoui picture of his that I viewed — Rose of Monterey — was so beautiful that it was not true, and I had grown to look upon Fitz as a director who had no peer in spreading beauty on the screen, even if he had to sacrifice dram* to get it. I take it back. Fitzmaurice has done a mag- nificent job with his direction of Lilac Time. At no time does he sacrifice drama to beauty, but in several sequences he mixes the two, gi'snng us scenes of exquisite beauty and dramatic strength. In some shots showing a road crowded with people who are evacuating a village, Fitz- maurice uses a row of eucalyptus trees as a gorgeous frame for the action. The shots above the clouds are not as impressively beautiful as those in Wings, but George did not have as much latitude in framing them. A direc- tor on the ground can not control very well the work of actors on the other side of a cloud. I am surprised, though, that a director with such a highly developed art- istic sense as Fitzmaurice possesses, should give us in close-ups a love scene set among lilac bushes. He had everything at hand to combine into a love scene of sur- passing beauty and tenderness, but he throws all of it away and gives us the kind of shots that the public is tiring of. There is another scene that is weakened greatly by close-up treatment. Gary Cooper is leaving on a flight that means almost certain death, and is saying farewell to Colleen, whom he loves. The leave-taking is shown in an exceedingly stupid closeup. It should have been a medium shot, with the line of planes showing dimly in the background, thereby retaining as part of the scene the grim thought back of it. Gary Cooper gives a splen- did performance in Lilac Time. He is more human and likable than I have seen him in most of his pictures. Eugenie Besserer is fine as Colleen's mother, and several others in a long cast distinguish themselves. The picture is one that I recommend without reservation to all exhib- itor readers of The Spectator. * * * Salaams to the Messrs. Milestone and Wolheim THE Racket is notable for two things: the direction of Lewis Milestone and the acting of Louis Wolheim. Of less importance, except to the gentleman himself, is the fact that it brings Tom Meighan back with a bang. The story revolves around the character that Tom plays, keeping him in countenance as star of the picture, but not allowing him to give an arresting performance that June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine stands out like the picturesque gang leader of Louis Wol- heim. The Racket is exactly the kind of picture that Meighan needs to restore his value at the box-ofEce. It is a good picture and is going to be a great success, con- sequently it will revive interest in Meighan at a time when he needed something to save his screen life. He lost the prestige that used to be his, through asserting his conviction that he knew all about pictures; he will regain it by doing exactly as apparently he did in the case of The Racket: forgetting his own part and being anxious to appear in the best possible picture. And Lewis Milestone has given him a mighty fine piece of screen entertainment. A few months ago I listed Milestone among the young directors from whom pictures of im- portance might be expected. I had seen only two films that he had directed, but I could see in them enough merit to give me confidence in his future. The Racket justifies the confidence. Milestone is a good director because he is endowed richly with common sense. I once wrote that good direction merely was applied common sense. When a character walks into one of Milestone's scenes, he does not turn to face the camera, as practically all the rest of the directors would make him do. When an ambulance dashes up to take away a woman who has been injured on the street, Milestone does not cut a lane through the curious onlookers to enable the camera to catch her, as all the other directors do. All we see in the Milestone scene are the back of the ambulance and the backs of a large number of people crowding around it, which is exactly what we see on the street every time an am- bulance is called. No added story value is derived from a scene showing ambulance attendants picking up the injured woman. In a night sequence gangmen are sta- tioned on the roofs of buildings overlooking a street which the audience is sure is going to be the scene of a battle. Ordinarily we would have a number of quick cuts show- ing us each of the lurking gunmen, and we would have to guess at their positions in relation to one another. As far as we could tell from the succession of individual cuts, the roofs might be attached to buildings miles apart. Milestone first shows us the street, and then swings his camera from one roof to another, not stopping it until he has given us a complete and comprehensive grasp of the whole situation. When he sends his characters out of rooms, they go out without stopping at the door to turn and smirk at the camera. I have mentioned only a few of the things, small in themselves, that Milestone does to this picture to make it an unusually good one. Not one of those things will be noticed by the average audience but they will be responsible for the average audience liking the picture. And each of them is something that any director with common sense should do. Among the performances of the year that will stand out will be that of Wolheim in this picture. The man is an artist. He can express as much with his back as most actors can with their faces. To an uncanny extent he makes his physical actions part of his characterization. His walk is eloquent, and his attitude when he is standing has meaning. Marie Prevost is the girl of the pictiire, and gives a very satisfactory performance, as do also Skeets Gallagher, Lee Moran, George Stone, Sam de Grasse, John Darrow and some others whom I do not know. The Racket brings Tom Meighan back to us, which will please all of us, and shows us that Lewis Milestone stands quite near the top of our list of competent directors. * * * Metro Gives Us Quite a Nice Little Picture OUR Dancing Daughters, directed for M.-G.-M. by Harry Beaumont, has something in the way of a theme. It establishes the fact that all our daughters who stay out all night, drink cocktails and paint their lips are not really bad. Many of them, the picture shows, are sweet youngsters who merely are full of the joy of living and give expression to it in a way that the world often misinterprets. It is a nice looking picture, filled with beautiful girls and handsome boys, all smartly dressed and appearing as if they belonged in the places which we see them. Another asset of Dancing Daughters is Joan Crawford. Joan is coming along rapidly and when Metro begins to feature her brain instead of her body, I think we will find ourselves with another capable dramatic actress on hand. Also in this picture is Anita Page, whom I never saw before. I feel now that I know her quite intimately as she had practically nothing on when I first met her. The first view we get of her is one that shows the depths to which motion picture producers will sink to provide what they consider good box-ofEce stuff. She is shown in her bedroom in a state of dishabille that had nothing whatever to do with the story. The shot was inserted solely to cater to the degenerate taste of those who like to gaze on the almost undressed form of a young girl. It is a disgusting habit that all the studios have. I believe we are going to hear from Anita as an actress. She has a big part in this picture and gives a perform- ance that promises much for her future. She seems to have the necessary ability and when experience has rounded off the rough spots she should become a favorite. From the time the camera opens on the legs of Joan Crawford until she is shown in a final embrace with John Mack Brown, the story interest centers around her, but satisfactory contributions to the entertainment value of the picture are made by Dorothy Sebastian, Kathlyn Wil- JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 The Only Picture of Its Kind Ever Made Universal '8 TARANGA Conceived and Produced in New Zealand with an all-Maori cast ALEXANDER MARKY NO ACTORS . NO STARS ^ NO EX,EIG LIGHTS ^ NO SCPEK^TtSORS S NO STUDIO FACtUTIES Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 liams, Nils Aster, Huntly Gordon, Dorothy Cummings and Edward Nugent. I understand that this is Nugent's first picture. He will be heard from. It was good to get even a brief glimpse of Huntly Gordon, who I hope has re- turned to the screen to stay. We can do with a few more of his well-bred type. Our Dancing Daughters is a pic- ture that is going to give satisfaction to the majority of those who see it, and no exhibitor need be backward about booking it. I am going to find some faults with it, but they are the sort that have no great effect on its enter- tainment value. It has several large close-ups of people kissing, quite the most vulgar manifestation of a rather vulgar and lowbrow art. A director who can't tell a story without using half-clad young girls and huge close-ups of clinging lips should be in a business that lends itself more appropriately to the exploitation of vulgarity. Screen art would be quite refined and decent if most of those in it now were out of it. One veteran mistake that Beau- mont makes is having some of the characters in a scene fail to react to what others in the same scene are doing. The host and hostess at a party have to register their feelings in a way that the audience will get, but guests in the scenes with them notice nothing. Although the entire picture deals with sophisticated people of the upper social level, Johnny Brown comes to dance in a business suit. Every other man at the function is attired properly. The defense for Brown's outfit undoubtedly will be that he was very much disturbed about his love affairs and that it was desirable to show him too absorbed in his troubles to think of putting on his evening clothes. This absurd reasoning governs scenes in many pictures. A character such as Brown plays could be worried so much that he would stay away from a social function, but he would have to lose his mind completely before he would attend one in a business suit. To people used to dress suits, wearing one or not wearing one is not a matter that taxes the mind. It is a habit dictated by good taste, and good taste is something that a gentleman can not forget under any circumstances whatever. To characterize a hero as being so troubled as to forget good taste is a con- fession that those responsible for the characterization don't know what good taste is. * * * Major Credit Goes to Miss Beryl Mercer ONE thing I can't understand about most of the metropolitan picture reviewers is the unanimity with which they jump on pictures that have some human interest in them. "Hokum!" they cry, and they refuse to tolerate the hokum no matter how well it is done. Personally I believe that hokum is the best screen material we have. I love it. The fact that no picture with good hokum in it ever fails at the box-office indi- cates that a whole lot of people agree with me. As a matter of fact, I think it requires more brains to direct hokum than it does to handle scenes free from it. The director who can wave the fiag in some new way that brings a lump to the throat is doing something bigger than the director does who interests us in something we never saw before. Ted Sloman deserves the greatest credit for making We Americans such a good picture. He had to make it out of old stuff, and he makes us like it. He uses close-ups only where they are needed, and shows us some striking groups that bring out the drama in scenes better by the arrangement of the characters than could be done by showing us large close-ups of facial expressions. But I am not going to give Sloman all the credit for the success of We Americans, nor will I give the credit to the hokum in it. If we subject this picture to a searching analysis I think we will discover that it is made by Beryl Mercer. She plays the wife of George Sidney and the mother of Patsy Ruth Miller and George Lrewis; there are many other notable names in the cast, but this little bit of a woman moves through the picture as its dominant force. She's all hokum — just a human, sweet little mother who always can be counted on to remain cool and kind and compassionate no matter what happens. Her reaction when she learns that her son was killed in France is a fine bit of acting. I understand this is Miss Jlercer's first picture. She has ability and a screen per- sonality that should make her a tremendous success. I think that if I could see Theodore Roberts and her play- ing man and wife I would be content, no maTter how punk the rest of the picture was. All the members of the long We Americans cast do well. Al Cohn made good jobs of the adaptation and continuity, but was faced with the usual difficulty of having to write seven reels out of about five reels of action, the result being that the story takes some time to get under way. Al Cohn is a lazy devil when it comes to filling his advertising space in The Spectator, but as a writer of nice sentiment, and feelings, and honest emotions, and checks to pay for his advertising space, he is one of the most satisfactory screen authors in Hollj^vood. Ted Sloman indulges in that major vulgarity: a huge close-up of a kiss, something that never, under any circumstances, is justified. It never has story value, and always is the height of poor taste. A kiss on the screen should suggest the sentiment that surrounds it in real life. The parties to it usually seek privacy, something that always should be suggested when we see it in a picture. The weakness of most of our directors is that they have no souls. They should concern themselves more than they do with the spirit of a scene. They give all their attention to the physical side of it and none to the thought back of it. The greatest contributions to KENNETH ALEXANDER Spe< icial Art Stills Production Stills 5th Avenue Portraiture 1927-28 Engagements For D. W. Griffith "Drums of Love" "Battle of the Sexes" For Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. "The Two Lovers" "The Awakening" "The Rescue" Available on or before July 30 for suitable engagement Address 6685 Hollywood Blvd., HO. 8443 June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven screen art are made by the directors who give their cameramen thoughts to photograph instead of actions. In her close-ups in We Americans Pat Miller's lips are made up too heavily. They photograph black. Surely that is something that should be as apparent to those viewing the rushes as it is later to the audience. We see the same thing in many pictures, and it is an exhibition of carelessness for which there is no excuse. And while discussing Pat I would like to protest against her hair being plastered down on her pate. She is a beautiful girl, but her beauty does not register in this picture. When girls play character parts they can take liberties with their appearances and make them a part of the charac- terizations, but when they play straight leads they should be careful to preserve the features that made them popu- lar in such parts and which their friends will be disap- pointed to find missing. Pat's fluflfy hair always has been one of her charms, and she should not trifle with it. * * * Bill Seiter Does a Good One for Colleen Moore ONE feature you always can look for in a Colleen Moore picture is a cast without a weak spot in it. This young woman is one star who seems to enjoy extending herself to keep someone else from galloping off with one of her pictures. In Happiness Ahead, directed by William A. Seiter, she carries her fearlessness past the point of having a good cast: she gives the supporting players all the acting, and contributes little except her personality, until the picture reaches its last couple of hundred feet. But so potent is her personality that we do not lose sight of her when the story excludes her from active participation in what is going on. On the whole, Happiness Ahead is a thoroughly satisfactory picture that will hold all Colleen's old friends and perhaps make her a few new ones. It picks her up as a high school girl, and she retains her naivete and girlish sweetness even after she marries Edmund Lowe and moves with him to a big city. Prior to meeting her Lowe was a crook, and his sins find him out after his marriage. It is when she learns that her husband is in jail that Colleen grows up, and thenceforth the picture is hers. In the closing sequence she does some dramatic acting that will send the audience home with her good work as its most definite impression of the picture. This production is the first that Bill Seiter directed since leaving Universal. In his more expansive surroundings he apparently worked to advantage. His introduction of Colleen is refreshing. We see four school girls going down the street arm-in-arm. Their backs are to the camera. A truck shot follows them until one after the other leaves the group, and when only one is left she turns around and we find it is Colleen. Thus she comes into the picture naturally and only when she should. The only technical flaw I can find in Happiness Ahead is the ridiculous use of close-ups. I was on the point of taking Bill to task for it when I recalled that all Colleen's pictures contain the same weakness, and she has had many directors. Is it possible that she, or her husband-man- ager, has the crazy notion that a star is helped by close- ups? The only thing that will help any star is a good picture; too many close-ups prevent a picture from being good, consequently unnecessary close-ups harm a star. Colleen is established so well now that we can visualize her quite well without the assistance of huge reproduc- tions of her features. One scene is ruined by close-ups. Colleen and Lowe have their first love scene in beautiful surroundings, an exceedingly brief long shot revealing the setting as ideal for the purpose. Instead of holding the camera on the entire setting and making it part of the scene which could have been tender, beautiful, and romantic, we are treated to a series of close-ups, con- cluding with a huge one of a kiss, which make the whole scene common, vulgar and disgusting. However, the whole picture strikes a healthy note. Two sterling artists play Colleen's parents, Edythe Chapman and Charles Sellon. Robert Elliott, the detective of Broadway, seems to be doomed to play in pictures roles similar to the one that attracted Hollywood's attention to him. In Happiness Ahead he is exactly as I saw him on the stage and in two other pictures that I have viewed lately. He should en- deavor to get some different sort of role before producers get the idea that he is just a one-role man. That idea has ruined many a good actor in Hollywood. "At least put a line in each review telling us if you think the picture worth booking," writes a New Orleans exhibitor. Very well. Happiness Ahead certainly is worth booking. It is good entertainment, and it has one of the most popular stars now before the public. The things in it which I criticize will not lessen its drawing power. * * * Tom Terriss Gives Us a Few Refreshing Departures CLOTHES Make the Woman would have attracted great attention if it had been turned out by one of the big studios, to the products of which the doors of the big houses swing open automatically. It is a TiflFany-Stahl picture and it is much better than ninety per cent, of the program productions that the bigger fel- Howard Bretherton Director Current Release "Caught In The Fog" Warner Bros. Feature Columbia Buys Directors HEN Harry Cohn, the producing genius of Columbia Pictures Corp., wanted to be assured of the suc- cess of his first two pretentious pictures for the 1928-1929 progi'am he did not merely buy names, he had to have di- rectors who have and can deliver — IRVIN WILLAT was one of the directors chosen. — Harry Lichtig. Page Twelve THE FILM lows are making. The direction of Tom Terriss is intelli- gent. He apparently is enough of a showman to know that one formula for picture making can not go on for- ever, no matter how perfect the formula may be, and he introduces a little variety by giving us a sweet and tender romance without a kiss in it, and he does not show us one unnecessary close-up. In every scene in which the boy and girl come together they are not separated by the camera. Terriss seemingly realizes that two parties are necessary to a romance, and when his picture is con- cerning itself with its romantic phases we are not allowed to lose sight of either party to it. Such reasoning should be obvious to the most elemental mind, and when the minds of all supervisors and directors grow strong enough to be classed as elemental, no doubt we will have more departures from the conventional methods of shooting pictures. But Tom Terriss, director, is not responsible for all the novelty that distinguishes Clothes from the majority of pictures. Tom Terriss, author, makes a great contribution to it. He writes for the first time into a motion picture a story of a romance that develops during the making of a motion picture. The locale of the story is frankly the Tiffany-Stahl lot, and love scenes are played on sets built for sterner purposes. I can not make a complete check of my memory every time I write a review of a picture, but off hand I can recall no other production in which motion picture studio scenes are handled as intelligently as Terriss handles them. No effort is made to distort anything. We see the inside of a studio exactly as it is, and we see it functioning as if it were totally unaware that it was being photographed. There is an air of sincerity about all the scenes that will make them believable anywhere. The picture opens with a gripping sequence dealing with one of the most pathetic moments in history: the assassination of the Russian royal family. For me, it is not good screen material. I rather enjoy crying in a theatre as Seventh Heaven made me cry, but I do not like being depressed; and I have known so many fine Russians both here and abroad that the political significance of the Russian trag- edy is submerged by the feeling of sadness any reference to it engenders in me. Perhaps if Terriss had directed it less impressively, thus making it necessary for me to criticize him for doing it, I would have looked upon it more favorably as screen material. Liberty is taken with history when the author saves the life of Princess Anas- tasia and brings her to Hollywood to work in pictures. The role is played by Eve Southern, whose performance in Wild Geese evoked my warmest praise. I am not quite sure what she does in Clothes, for her eyelashes drew all my attention. They had so much mucky make-up on them that they fairly flapped. A handsome young chap who sat in the projection-room with me assured me that Miss Southern had put no extensions on the lashes with which nature had endowed her so extravagantly, which puts the blame for her distracting appearance on the fact that she went to the unnecessary trouble of starting where a generous nature had left off. I hope that in her future pictures she will restrain herself. Walter Pidgeon makes a manly hero, and Adolph Millar a convincing mo- tion picture director. Evelyn Selbie, a fine character actress whom the big producers are overlooking, has a small part. I have seen her give some splendid perform- SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 ances that entitle her to more frequent appearances before the camera. George Stone, another capable artist who apparently is not kept busy, makes a considerable contri- bution to the picture, and we also get a few glimpses of the beautiful Corliss Palmer, who I believe would get somewhere if she were given the opportunity.. There are many others who do their bits towards making Clothes Make the Woman thoroughly acceptable. I commend it to all exhibitors from Roxy down. * * * Trying to Interest Us in Something Uninteresting THE Actress was underway when I sank into a loge at the Westlake, and I don't know how much of it I missed. The tempo of the sequence that began as I arrived was so slow that it was irritating, then as I re- called the story I presumed that Sidney Franklin, the director, had opened the picture at a brisker rate and in the country home sequence had slowed down to emphasize the difference between the Bohemian life and that of gen- teel England in the mid-nineteenth century, the period with which Pinero's play deals. Quality Street goes back farther, but when he directed it Franklin had the same problem on his hands that he found in The Actress: that of putting on the screen something inherently uninterest- ing, and which became more uninteresting in ratio with the degree of faithfulness with which it was presented. Quality Street was directed beautifully, but it bored me because it dealt with perhaps the silliest era in the devel- opment of man. For about fifteen minutes while viewing a picture I can enjoy good direction, but I wish to spend the time in excess of that in becoming interested in the story and the performances. In both these stories of a past English life Sid Franklin commits the crime of doing them too well. A martinet grandfather such as that por- FRED STANLEY (In collaboration with James Gruen) Original Story "NONE BUT THE BRAVE" Now in Production at FOX Winifred Dunn is contributing to the support of the Spectator in the hope that Welford Bea- ton, the Spectator's papa, will eventually contribute to the support of the writer by rec- ognizing him-and-her in his re- views. June 23, 1928 trayed so capably by 0. P. Heggie, is so out of tune with the present mode of thinking that I doubt if he ever could be made suitable screen material. Any motion picture sequence is weak when the action in it is predicated on something which the audience thinks is in itself ridiculous. Heggie resents Norma Shearer's sneezes while he is play- ing whist, and registers his disapproval ponderously, frig- idly, and slowly. That the sneeze of a person sitting across a room should break up a whist game is silly, and I can not see that it has any value in a motion picture, no matter how well it is done. That it follows the play closely is no excuse for it, for the play was written pri- marily for English audiences at a time when the mind of the public was in tune more with the period with which the play deals than it is now. A glimpse at the old-fash- ioned life is interesting, and Sid Franklin can present it more delightfully than any other director has shown evi- dence of being able to do, but about one reel of it is enough. Everything about the production reflects credit on M.-G.-M. The production is artistic and beautiful, and the star was surrounded by a splendid cast. Norma her- self never previously pleased me quite as much as she did in this picture, and I'm quite sure that never before did she look so well. Ralph Forbes was the perfect mate for her. I believe he really is a comedian, as I notice that he always is more convincing in the lighter phases of his characterizations. I was glad to see Cyril Chadwick again. He is a splendid artist who should be seen more frequently. Another person whom I was glad to see was Owen Moore. I don't believe that producers are cashing in on half the box-office value that the Moore boys have. Gwen Lee, who never gives a poor performance, does some clever work in The Actress. The titles are punctuated with that delight- ful disregard for educational mandates that the Metro studio affects. There is a hint of the future at the end of the picture — a sequence done in color, a beautiful touch that shows that there was no reason why the whole thing was not shot in color, as all pictures will be in a year or two. Nothing is surer. The only people who don't know it are those who in a year will be making the colored pictures. * * * Esther and Gary Spend Time on a Desert Island WHEN Gregory La Cava was making a picture out of Half a Bride he was faced with the intriguing problem of making it interesting in spite of the fact that most of the story is told with Esther Ralston and Gary Cooper together on an otherwise uninhabited island. A storm carries them to the island and they remain there for three or four months. The island sequences have only the two characters in them, one crude interior and rather bleak exteriors, but the director was not hampered by the scarcity of material, for these sequences are the most interesting in the picture, being more logical and better acted and directed than those before and after the island episode. The fact that a pretty girl and an eligible youth are forced to live to- gether on an island devoid of all modern comforts is in itself romantic, but it takes good direction and acting to make it interesting on the screen. As the picture opens we discover Esther in bed after a particularly large night. There is someone under the clothes with her, and she THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen has no idea who it is, and until she pulled down the covers and revealed Mary Doran, quite a nice looking girl with an engaging screen personality, I was harbor- ing the awful thought that perhaps it was Gary, which would have opened the picture with a terrific scandal. Through titles spoken by Mary we learn that Esther was soused to the gills when she got home the night before. I do not believe that it is wise to cast any girl star in such a part, and particularly one with the screen person- ality of Esther Ralston. There is an air of sweetness about her, a suggestion of staunchness, of true-blue girl- hood that make it impossible for us to take seriously any scene that tries to make us believe that she ever went on a bat. The picture got a bad start with me because the opening sequence carried no conviction. Accepting the situation, however, I have no quarrel with the manner in which Esther gets away with it. I always like her on the screen, and her performance in this picture is among the best of hers that I have seen. Cooper is appealing to me more every time I see him. He reflects on the screen the same qualities that have made Lindbergh a world char- acter, the qualities of sterling worth, modesty, and de- pendability. A weakness of the story of Half a Bride is that it assumes that an effect is excuse enough for its cause. The aim of one sequence is to get Esther in jail for a night. She swerves her car to avoid hitting a dog, bumps another car not particularly roughly, and goes to jail for the night. I wonder where Paramount expects to CARLOS DURAN Sophisticated Types Current Release "Happiness Ahead" with Colleen Moore HE. 4161 $]iilinfinM[]ininmiiiaimiiiiniiniiiiiiiiini[]iiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiMiiiC]iiiiiiiinnaiiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiiiiiiii[]iO I THE SCHOOL OF ENGLISH AND I I DRAMATIC ART | I Principal, D'Arcy Corrigan, Ph.D.Litt.D. (Madrid) g i Late Professor of English, University of = I Buffalo, N. Y. I = Classes Already Started 1 i Course: Voice Culture | I Dramatic English and Dialects | I "Dr. D'Arcy Corrigan a brilliant exponent of the | I English language, both spoken and written." — = = Fred S. Hogue, Editor Los Angeles Times. S n "I have full confidence in his ability, which it has M I been my good fortune to test." — Frank H. Viz- s = etelly. Editor Funk and Wagnalls' Dictionary. g I Phone GL, 2943 | Oinniiiiiiiiii[3miiiiniiiuiiiiiiiiiiii[}iiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiijiiiiijniiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiniiimiE.]iuiuiiiiiuiiiiiijmi|E>^ Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 find an audience dull enough to consider such a sequence of events plausible. It is an astonishing thing to find in an otherwise sensible and logical picture. The close-up curse afflicts the picture. La Cava had a scene which apparently he did not know how to handle, consequently he resorted to the close-up, that unfailing haven for baffled directors. Two people are seated side-by-side on a couch, drinking. We are treated to a succession of indi- vidual close-ups of them just drinking. I wish some one would tell me why it is done. And we have one of those disgusting huge close-ups of a kiss, something that we find in nearly all pictures, and which shows us, more than any other one thing, how vulgar the producer mass mind is. However, we have to thank Half a Bride for not hav- ing Esther's hair marcelled all the time she is on the desert island. And we have to thank it also for being a bright and entertaining picture, in spite of the few frail- ties that I have pointed out. Esther Ralston pictures have a definite market which can absorb this one and do no damage to a box-office. I recommend it to exhibitors. although I had my little book open under the red desk- light. I don't know how Chuck Reisner directed it, whether he had senseless close-ups that should make me mad or huge kisses that oflFend me. I don't know the name of the nice looking girl who played opposite Buster Keaton. All I know is that Donald and I laughed or giggled all the time the picture was running, and that it kept me so amused that I forgot my little book. I am satisfied that Reisner must have made a good job of the direction, for I am pretty sure that I would have noticed any serious lapses. I know that Buster and Ernest Tor- rence gave mighty fine performances and that Tom Mc- Guire was quite satisfactory. The important thing, how- ever, is that I laughed all the way through it and forgot that it was my business to search for flaws in it. As the purpose of a comedy is to make us forget business and have a good laugh, I must put Steamboat Bill Jr. down as perhaps the best comedy of the year thus far. Exhibitors should go after it. ■p OBERT Welch, who holds some important executive ■'•^ position with Universal, was quoted in the papers a month or so ago to the effect that Arthur Lake was put in a series of one-reel comedies to cure a fit of tempera- ment that he gave evidence of having contracted. When Welch made that statement he knew that he was lying. Lake is a nice, modest boy, absolutely lacking in the qual- ity that Welch attributes to him. He refused to renew a contract with Universal fourteen months before the expiration of the one under which he now is working. He felt that several pictures to be released might increase his box-office standing. Universal felt the same way about it, and wished all the benefit of such increase to accrue to it, and none to him. He was subjected to every sort of bulldozing that the studio could conceive, a threat to keep him in one-reel comedies until his contract ex- pired being one of the devices that Universal used as an argument. Lake stood pat on his right to conclude one business arrangement before entering upon another. He did it pleasantly and without any show of temperament. If Welch had adhered to the truth in making his public statement, he would have said that Arthur was being pun- ished for standing on his rights, and thstt he was accept- ing his punishment gracefully and without a display of the rancor he would be justified in feeling and making appar- ent. Ordinary fair play does not come within Universal's conception of business ethics. Because it could not brow- beat Lake into submission it resorts to an effort to ruin his career, and then lies about him in the public press. It's a strange way to run a business. * * * GENERALLY when I view a motion picture I peer at it intently arTd find things in it to make catty remarks about. I laugh at funny things, but I do it sternly and judicially, and keep my eye peeled for faults the directors commit. When the picture ends I have notes in a little book, and I go home and sit in my backyard, hard by the hollyhocks and near the swing that is under the peach tree, and my two dogs and two cats gather around me while I write profoundly, elaborating the notes in my little book. Donald and I went into a projection-room and viewed Steamboat Bill Jr. I never made a blessed note, "11^ HEN talking pictures become universal the close-up curse will be less evident. I have contended persist- ently that it is idiotic to show the moving lips of an actor alone on the screen talking to some one whom a medium shot has shown standing close to him. It will seem more idiotic when we hear what the lone actor is TOM TERRISS TIFFANY-STAHL STUDIOS NOW IN PRODUCTION "THE NAUGHTY DUCHESS" By SIR ANTHONY HOPE Last Production: "Clothes Make the Woman" Original Story by Tom Terriss F. de MioUis Accredited Correspondent of "LE FIGARO", of Paris Technical Advisor on All Matters Pertaining to NAPOLEON Thoroughly Conversant With PARIS AND ALL PHASES OF PARISIAN LIFE Writers' Club June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen saying. In both The Lion and the Mouse and Bright Lights individual close-ups of people, whose voices we can hear, are shown, a habit which I am sure talking pictures will not form, for the absurdity of it is too readily apparent. But I am not inclined to be meticulous in criticizing these Warner Brothers pictures, or am I inclined to search for technical flaws in them. They were experiments which the Warners are to be commended for making, and the fact that they were made at all is of much more import- ance than any faults that were committed in the making. I hope, however, that the new era in pictures will not borrow all the absurdities of the old. A screenful of head jabbering at nothing is an absurdity that we might be spared. * * * BOB Edeson in Walking Back is shown living in a pre- tentious home. He has a maid, an automobile and a bootlegger, yet a title reveals that his salary is sixty dollars a week. The dullest person in an audience would know that he could not keep up such an establishment on such a salary. It was not necessary to state the amount. Before any specific statement is made in a title care should be taken to show that it is in keeping with what the audience can learn from the sets and action. * * * /^ NE of the interesting minor features of oral pictures ^-^ is that you will lose nothing when the man in front of you stands up and puts on his overcoat. You may miss seeing an expressionless close-up or a view of a detective chewing a cigar, but you won't miss any of the story as that is something you can hear. * * • npHE individual feature of pictures that wiU be en- * riched most when sound is used universally is the love scene. Voices will put life into them, and allow screen sweethearts to put tenderness, sweetness and romance into these moments of pictures that have the widest appeal. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's \7 -Year-Old Critic WHITE Shadows in the South Seas, taken from Frederick James O'Brien's book of the same name, has been put on the motion picture screen by M.-G.-M.; and it is one of the best pictures produced yet this year. Moana, a picture produced some time ago, was something on the same order as White Shadows, al- though the latter is a vastly superior motion picture. Moana had no story to speak of. It was merely a part of the life of a young I:;lander. White Shadows has a very definite story which enables the Polynesians to dem- onstrate what marvelous natural-born actors they are. The two principals, Monte Blue and Racquel Torres, and the heavy, whose name I didn't get, are the only white people of importance in the cast. The whole picture is shot on the authentic locations mentioned in O'Brien's book, and it is one of the most remarkable films ever made. It was directed by a man named Van Dyke, who deserves a great deal of praise for having sense enough to defy motion picture conventions in order to get a true version of South Sea life. The picture was probably longer than the average, but it was so engrossing that it seemed short. The sequences picturing the perils of the pearl divers, the gathering of food for the feast, and the feast and dance itself were very interesting. There also was a great scene where Monte Blue brings the chief's son back to life. That scene, more than any other, proved what marvelous actors the natives were. They put pust as much feeling and power into it as any bunch of trained performers could. Van Dyke made ?ome beautiful shots, Scott R* Dunlap Director of "SMOKE BELLEW" Now Making "THE MAN HIGHER UP" For GOTHAM PRODUCTIONS since the scenery lent itself perfectly to his artistry. The main trouble with the White Shadows was that it wasn't shot in colors, which would have made it perfect. As it was, the scenes were merely studies in grey. Van Dyke killed his hero and ended the picture unhappily, yet I'm willing to wager that it will be one of the biggest box- office successes of the year. The ending was logical, and logic appeals to the great majority of people. White Shadows in the South Seas stars Monte Blue, who gives a superb performance. He is the one man in NEELY DICKSON Director HoMywood Conunnnity Theatre Studio Special Coaching for Talking Pictures Natural Method of Voice Production "The actor with the wonderful voice will have the edge on '. actor with the ordinary one."— WELFORD BEATON Voices Tested Without Charge Telephone for appointment HBJmp. 1471 — 5279 Address 1731 N. Bronsoo Ave., Hollywood JAMES GRUEN (In collaboration with Fred Stanley) Original Story "NONE BUT THE BRAVE" Now in Production at FOX ->-~4 Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 the business to play the part, so he is naturally splendid. His work deserves only the highest praise. IMonte, how- ever, is established as a fine performer. The big acting discovery of the picture is Eacquel Torres, a girl who in addition to striking beauty has a capacity for clever acting which should make her a tremendous success. She has the same wistful appeal as Janet Gaynor, and as I have said, she has a lot of ability along the acting line. She is going to be a sensation if she is handled correctly. HALF a Bride, in spite of its title, is a pretty good picture. Gregory La Cava directed it, and Esther Ralston was starred in it. They both did good work, and the story was well done; so they naturally made a good job of it. La Cava's direction gave evidence of a sense of humor at all times, although Half a Bride was not just a comedy. It had its more dramatic moments, and they were well done, except for the fact that La Cava persists in breaking up his scenes into close-ups. Miss Ralston and Gary Cooper, who played opposite her, did some very good work. Cooper is becoming a better actor all the time. The thing about Half a Bride which made it so good was the fact that it was sensibly done. The girl spent three months on a desert island, living in the most primitive circumstances. The average director would have had her beautifully marcelled and made-up, but La Cava made her look as though she were roughing it. There were little things all the way through it which were well done. All in all, Half a Bride (what an awful name!) is very good entertainment. SOME people may like Westerns, and I suppose The Vanishing Pioneer was a pretty good one. It bored me stiff, because it was all about water rights, and I wouldn't know a water right if I met it in the street. Jack Holt was the hero, and he owned a lot of water rights which Bill Powell and Fred Kohler were trying to steal from him. It seems that a big town suddenly ran out of water and was expecting an epidemic or some- thing or other. Don't ask me why a big city suddenly runs out of water. I don't know, although I suppose it was due to sickness or something among the water rights. Bill Powell was commissioned to go buy some more from Holt and his friends. Bill couldn't be nice about it and drive down the main drag shouting, "Rags, bottles, water rights." No, he sneered himself a faceful of sneers and took Fred Kohler into partnership and started out to fleece the ranchers. Most of them could have stood a little fleecing, because they had beards which would have driven an honest beaver addict into hysteria. Well, Bill and Kohler managed to gyp quite a few of the ranchers out of their water rights. They didn't get away with it, though. In between periods of chasing his dog and mak- ing love to Sally Blane (which must be a very pleasant occupation), Jack Holt contributed the information that he would cut the heart out of any man who stole his land. You'd be surprised how angry this made Powell and Kohler. They charged him with murder and let him escape, so they could drill a few holes in his manly figure. It was sure lucky for him that he was the hero; because if he hadn't been, he would have been shot dead several times in the subsequent chases. Finally Powell's hire- lings went and seized the dam, and the ranchers gave them a very interesting little battle. In the meantime, Holt called on Bill for the pleasant purpose of cutting his heart out unless Bill gave him the incriminating deed, which was a tribute more to Powell's genius as a forger than to his honesty. Holt very neatly cut off Bill's shirt and coat; and pressing his knife into his enemy's stomach, demanded the deed. Powell, who had some further use for his entrails, gave it to him. Everything turned out all right, of course. Bill tried to escape and not being the hero, got shot. Holt very nobly agreed to sacrifice everything and sell his land for only three times the market value. John Waters directed this, and Zane Grey wrote it. P. S. — What's a water right? CARL Laemmle Junior and Paul Fejos deserve credit for having courage enough to make a motion pic- ture out of a story like Lonesome. It is a simple lit- tle thing with only two people in the cast and probably will be a financial failure, as it is not the tjT)e of picture HARRY of Tiffany- Stahl titled THE TOILERS A Reginald Barker Special Production "THE Wright idea" A First National Picture now in production by JOHNNY HINES is an original story by Jack townley MIRIAM WILLS, REPRESENTATR^E 1220 TAFT BLDG. GRANITE 4677 June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen to appeal very strongly to the average audience. There were a lot of titles, although it could have got along quite well without any. Tom Reed wrote them, and he did a good job, although they were unnecessary. After taking such a chance on the public's intelligence by producing Lonesome, they should have given it credit for sense enough to understand the picture without the aid of titles. The main trouble with Lonesome is that Barbara Kent, who played the girl, is not yet a good enough trouper to carry half of an entire picture upon her shoulders. She failed to establish any sympathy for her- self, so that nobody minded much when she became sep- arated from the man she loved. That part should have been given to a girl with more experience. Glenn Tryon, as the man in the case, gave a splendid performance. He always has been a clever comedian, but he demonstrates in this that he can handle dramatic parts, also. Before I go on and mention the good points of the picture, there was something I didn't quite understand. The girl and the boy, both dying of lonesomeness, live in the same boarding house and never meet. That's peculiar. Paul Fejos directed Lonesome and Laemmle supervised, and they both did very well. There was nothing overdrawn or impossible in the picture. The characters were well done and true to life. Just when one begins to wonder how the factory hand can afford to spend so much money on the amusements, there is a shot which reveals that he is running out of money. Incidentally, the love scene on the beach after the crowd has left is splendid. The light- ing of that scene was excellent, although the lighting of the whole thing deserves credit. Lonesome is a pretty good piece of work. in the South Seas. Up until I saw Lilac Time and Happi- ness Ahead, I thought First National was hopeless. Happi- ness Ahead stars Colleen Moore, with Edmund Lowe play- ing opposite her. Both of them are above the average in acting ability, and with a good story and some clever direction by William Seiter, Happiness Ahead becomes a very good picture. It is different from the usual run of Colleen Moore pictures in that it looks as though some one with some sense had been responsible for it. It is not a comedy, and it becomes quite dramatic at times. Lowe and Miss Moore work very well together; and when the picture reaches the dramatic scenes, they manage to infuse them with a lot of power. Seiter's direction was Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 EVERY time I see so many poor pictures from one studio that I decide they never will do anything good again, along they come with a bunch of good ones. A year or two ago I had come to the conclusion that Fox would never make a good picture again. Then they made Seventh Heaven. M.-G.-M. struck me the same way. Then they made Our Dancing Daughters and White Shadows <<]iiiiiiiiiiiinuiiiiiiiiii[]iiiimiininiiiiiimiii[2iMiiiiiiiiiHimiiiiiinc]iMiiiiiiiiiQiiiiimHnE]iinMiiniiniliiMiiimniiMiiimiinim iiiiii[]iiiiiiiuiiie]iiiiiiuiiioiiiiiiiiiiic]|i<« I HUGH HERBERT I j Dialogue | I "BRIGHT LIGHT S*' j I The First Full Length All Talking Picture j I also I i "Lion and The Mouse" 'Tenderloin" i I = I A score of short Vitaphones | FOX Mow 'With MOVIETONE •>i[]iiiinimiic]iMiiiiiiiiii:]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiniiiiniiE]iiiiiiiiiiiinc]iiiiiiiiniiniiiiiiiiiinE]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiit]MiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiK Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 very good, and revealed a genius for drawing characters ^ which I did not know he possessed. There was one scene where the girl was about to leave home after her wedding. Seiter made her just as silly as all girls are under those circumstances. However, the fact that he was good in the lighter moments did not keep Seiter from doing well in the heavier scenes. All in all. Happiness Ahead is pretty good entertainment. Lilyan Tashman gives a good performance. Charles Sellon and Edj^the Chapman are good, also. SOUND and color would have made Lilac Time one of the finest motion pictures ever produced, because it was good, even without them. Lilacs, of course, fig- ured prominently in the story, but they were shown on the screen in a dull, uninteresting grey. There are several beautiful garden scenes, also done in a nice, sombre bat- tleship color. The roaring engines and machine guns of the airplanes are silent, although I suppose those will have sound later. Lilac Time manages to overcome those disadvantages to a certain degree, for it is a very good picture. George Fitzmaurice directed, and did some very fine work. First National, with Alexander Korda and Fitzmaurice, seems to have a corner on the directors who can paint beautiful pictures on the screen, so it ought to give them a decent break and shoot pictures in colors. As is customary with him, Fitzmaurice makes Lilac Time a succession of beautiful shots; but he also puts power and force into his direction, a quality he hasn't displayed very strongly before. The air stuff in Lilac Time is splendid, coming closer to Wings than any other picture has so far. The air battles are great, particularly the one between Gary Cooper and the German ace. Strange to relate. Cooper, although he was the hero of the piece, did not win the fight. It was more or less of a draw. There was nothing particularly new about the story of Lilac Time; since it is the same, practically, as all the war stories since The Big Parade, only airplanes are used. Colleen Moore was starred in Lilac Time; and, as usual, she gave a superb performance. Gary Cooper, who played opposite her, did better work in this than he has in any- thing so far. For the first time, he gave evidence of a sense of humor, without which no screen hero can be expected to wholly win the sympathy of the audience. The young flyers, although there were too many to keep track of, were good. The rest of the cast, which included Burr Macintosh, Katherine McGuire, Owen Moore, George Cooper, and Arthur Lake, was quite satisfactory. ' — AVIATION STORIES ADAPTIONS TITLES LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 OLympia 3806 THE Actress is quite satisfactory as a motion picture. It isn't either very good or very bad. One's interest is mildly excited during its unreeling, but the interest never becomes very much aroused. Sidney Franklin di- rected The Actress, and I have yet to see one of Franklin's pictures which I have not enjoyed. He has a faculty for putting beautiful production into his stuff, and this pic- ture is no exception to the general rule. There is one sequence in color which is beautiful. Color adds so much to motion pictures that I can not see how producers keep on ignoring it, because it is as inevitable as sound. After enough color education, audiences are not going to be satisfied with dull greys. However, I must get back to The Actress. Franklin has ideas about direction which I think are fine. He always puts his camera in a logical place, something few directors do. A group of his char- acters are sitting around a fireplace, enjoying the heat. The average director would have shot them with just the glow of the fire on their faces. Their feet would have been stretched out for no apparent reason, since the fire would not be in the range of the camera. Franklin shoots through the flames in the grate. That's good stuff. Ramona in England **Ramona has discovered an artistic conscience in Hollywood. "It is the best work of screen-art that America has yet produced. "It is terribly tragic, beauti- fully sincere, starkly sim- ple, and altogether unfor- getable. "It is assuredly one of the few productions that make cinema history. "It is one of the greatest of great films, marvelous in its historical sweep, scenic panorama and narrative glamour. "The scenario by Finis Fox is a model of constructive development." G. A. Atkinson London Daily Express June 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen Time after time he does that, so naturally he has no weird, distorted groupings. Norma Shearer is starred in The Actress, and she gives quite a satisfactory perform- ance. Ralph Forbes is adequate. 0. P. Heggie does splendid work, and so does Owen Moore. Cyril Chadwick is fine, as usual. The rest of the cast, Lee Moran and Gwen Lee, is quite good. WHILE Dressed to Kill was very entertaining, well directed, and well acted, I wasn't impressed a great deal by it. There is no doubt but that it is the best crime picture since Underworld, the first and still the best of the whole string of films glorifying the great American gunman. However, the drama didn't reach any great intensity at any time. The picture owes most of its credit to the fact that none of the characters did any- thing which seemed unreal. They acted as though they were human. Irving Cummings, who directed, deserves plenty of credit for that one thing, even if he did use too many close-ups and did group his characters unnaturally so the camera could see clearly. When two people are in a dramatic scene, the effect of each statement on both of them should be seen. The natural way of doing that is to arrange them so they will both be in the shot. The unnatural, clumsy way of doing it is to cut up the scene into close-ups. The interesting thing about Dressed to Kill is the amazing performance of Mary Astor. Her work before, while satisfactory, has never even hinted at the power and dramatic ability which she displays in this picture. With this bit of work she has earned the right to bigger acting parts. Edmund Lowe does splendid work, of course. Ben Bard makes a satisfactory heavy. The rest of the cast is entirely adequate. FOR a long time I have been trying to make up my mind to report Edward Everett Horton to the S. P. C. A. He has been guilty of an atrocious piece of cruelty to animals. Our adjoining back yards on Sunset Boule- vard are inhabited by many large and famished flies. The flies in our back yard are quite plump and happy, since Dad and 1 do most of our writing out in back. Mr. Horton never sits in his yard, so his flies are always nearly starved. I'm telling this so that when you go to see his play. The Queen's Husband, your heart will be hardened against him. If it isn't, he is bound to win your sympathy, for he gives one of his finest perform- ances in this comedy-drama. Incidentally, The Queen's Husband is the best play he has put on yet, and everyone should see it. Reviewed In This Number BRIGHT LIGHTS— A Warner Bros, picture. Directed by Bryan Foy; written by Murray Roth and Hugh Herbert; photo- graphed by Ed Du Par. The cast: Helene Costello, Cullen Landis, Mary Carr, Wheeler Oakman, Gladys Brockwell, Robert Elliott, Eugene Pallette, Tom Dugan, Tom McGuire, Walter Percival, Guy D'Ennery, Jere Delaney. THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY John Waters Director "BEAU SABREUR" Just Completed "THE VANISHING PIONEER" The Eighth Zane Grey for Paramount FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 Vine Street, South of Sunset Miss Reffge Dorao, Director HOLLYWOOD'S 'Little ^eatre' of "^e ^ilms One C-raning Performance 8:15 Matinees-- Wed., Sat., Sun. 2:30 ' Telephone -J 1 A A Gliadatone ■^•'•'T'T' Sponsored By West Coast-Hollywood Theatres {•jiiiiimiiiiuiiiimiiiiiQiiiiiiMiiiiDiniiiiniiiamiiiMiiiiQiiiiiiniiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiimiiiciiiiiiimiiiaio I THE OTHER SIDE OF I I THE PICTURE j I Films are entertainment. They are, also, | I and inevitably, culture and education. | I Theatres are one thing — the non-theat- = I rical field is another. | I TKe Educational Screen | K (the only magazine of its kind) i I treats the whole field from this broader | I standpoint. On the theatrical side, a not- | I able service for the intelligent public is | I our regular department of the | I Film Estimates | I giving thoughtful judgments by a national | I committee on about 50 films each month, | i as to which are worth while, and which | 1 are not, for "Intelligent Adults", for | I "Youth", and for "Children". | I The Educational Screen | g $2.00, One Year $3.00, Two Years g I 5 South Wabash, Chicago 1 ?iniiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiuiiiiiaimiiniiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiit]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiincC> Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 CLOTHES MAKE THE WOMAN— A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Directed by Tom Terris; photographed by Chester Lyons; dressings by George Sawley; art director, Hervey Libbert; edited by Des- mond O'Brien; titled by Lesley Mason. The cast: Eve Southern, Walter Pidgeon, Charles Byer, George E. Stone, Adolph Millar. DRESSED TO KILL— A William Fox picture. Directed by Irving Cum- mings; story by William M. Conselman; scenario by Howard Estabrook; photographed by Conrad Wells; film editor, Frank Hull; supervised by William M. Conselman; titles by Malcolm Stuart Boylan. The cast: Edmund Lowe, Mary Astor, Ben Bard, Robert Perry, Joe Brown, Robert E. O'Connor, R. O. Pennell, Edward Sturgis. HALF A BRIDE— A Paramount picture. Directed by Gregory La Cava; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Arthur Stringer; screen play by Doris Anderson and Percy Heath; photographed by Victor Milner; production supervisor, B. P. Fineman; assistant director, Russell Mathews. The cast: Esther Ralston, Gary Cooper, William J. Worthington, Freeman Wood, Mary Doran, Guy Oliver, Ray Gallagher. HAPPINESS AHEAD— A First National Picture. Directed by William A. Seiter; original story by Edmund Goulding; scenario by Benjamin Glazer; cameraman, Sidney Hickox; titles by George Marion Jr. The cast: Colleen Moore, Edmund Lowe, Lilyan Tash- man, Edythe Chapman, Charles Sellon, Arthur Hous- man, Robert Elliott, J. Edwards Davis, Virginia Sale, Dione Ellis, Carlos Duran, William Worthington. LION AND THE MOUSE, THE>— A Warner Bros, picture. Directed by Lloyd Bacon; from the story by Charles Klein; scenario by Robert Lord; assistant director, Frank Shaw; cameraman, Norbert Brodin. The cast: May McAvoy, Lionel Barrymore, Alec Francis, William Collier Jr., Emmett Corrigan, Jack Ackroyd. LILAC TIME— A First National picture. Directed by George Fitz- maurice; based on the play by Jane Cowl and Jane Murfln; scenario by Carey Wilson; adaptation by Willis Goldbeck; film editor, Al Hall; art director, Horace Jackson; aerial photographer, Alvin Knechtel; cameraman, Sidney Hickox; assistant director, Cullen B. Tate; titles by George Marion Jr. The cast: Colleen Moore, Gary Cooper, Burr Mcin- tosh, George Cooper, Cleve Moore, Kathryn McGuire, Eugenie Besserer, Dan Mason, Emile Chautard, Jack Stone, Edward Dillon, Richard Grace, Stuart Knox, Harlan Hilton, Richard Jarvis, Jack Ponder, Dan Dowling. All established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard s Tnnters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, CAi.n». Telephone GRanite 6346 The EI Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 ^iiiiiiuiunaiiiiiuiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiMiuuiDiiiiiiiiiiiiDiuiHiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiuiiniJiniiiiiiicsiiiiiiiiiiiiai^ I WHIPPET RACES I I SEATTLE, WASH. I I AUGUST 9, 10, 11 I Under Auspices Pacific Coast Racing Whippet Association = 1/ inXeye^tedi, commumcate "with = j D. B. DUNCOMBE, Mgr. I I Press Club | I Seattle | OiaiiiiiiiiJiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiimniiiiimiiiiaiiiiiiiMiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii(.> June 23, 1928 THK FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one LONESOME— A Universal picture. Directed by Paul Fejos; author, Mann Page; adaptation by Edward T. Lowe; con- tinuity by Edward T. Lowe; photographed by Gilbert Warrenton; titles by Tom Reed; film editor, Frank Atkinson ;art director, Charles D. Hall; production supervisor, Carl Laemmle Jr. The cast: Glenn Try on, Barbara Kent, Fay Halder- ness, Eddie Phillips, Gustav Tartos, Fred Esmelton. OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Harry Beaumont; story and scenario by Josephine Lovett; ^ titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings; settings ' by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by David Cox; assistant director, Harold S. Bucquet; photographed by George Barnes; film editor, William Hamilton. A Cosmopoli- tan production. The cast: Joan Crawford, John Mack Brown, Dor- othy Sebastian, Anita Page, Kathlyn Williams, Nils Asther, Edward Nugent, Dorothy Gumming, Huntly Gordon, Evelyn Hall, Sam de Grasse. RACKET, THE— Produced by The Caddo Company and released by Paramount. Presented by Howard R. Hughes; di- rected by Lewis Milestone; scenario by Del Andrews; photographed by Tony Gaudio and Dewey Wriggley; edited by Eddie Adams; art director, Julian Fleming; titles by Tom Miranda; assistant director, Nate Watt. The cast: Thomas Meighan, Marie Prevost, Louis Wolheim, Henry Sedley, Sam De Grasse, Lee Moran, Lucien Prival, Pat Collins, George Stone, Skeets Gal- lagher, John Darrow, Dan Wolheim. STEAMBOAT BILL JR.— A United Artists Picture. Directed by Charles P. Reisner; story by Carl Harbaugh; photographed by Dev Jennings and Bert Haines; technical director, Fred Gabourie; assistant director, Sandy Roth. The cast: Ernest Torrence, Tom Lewis, Tom Mc- Guire, Marion Byron, Buster Keaton. THE ACTRESS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Sidney Franklin; from the play, Trelawney of the Wellr, by Sir Arthur Wing Pinero; screen play by Albert Lewin and Richard Schayer; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; assist- ant director, Hugh Boswell; photographed by William Daniels; film editor, Conrad A. Nervig. The cast: Norma Shearer, Owen Moore, Gwen Lee, Lee Moran, Roy D'Arcy, Virginia Pearson, William Humphrey, Effie Ellsler, Ralph Forbes, 0. P. Heggie, Andree Tourneur, Cyril Chadwick, Margaret Seddon. VANISHING PIONEER, THE— A Paramoun't picture. Directed by John Waters; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; adapted by John Goodrich and Ray Harris; screen play by J. Walter Ruben; photographed by C. Edgar Schoenbaum; editor-in-chief, B. F. Zeidman; assistant director, George Crook. The cast: Jack Holt, Sally Blane, William PoweU, Fred Kohler, Guy Oliver, Roscoe Karns, Tim Holt, Lillian West, Marcia Manon. SECURITY TAILORS AND CLEANERS 1718 N. WILCOX Phone Hollywood 8733 My long experience in the tailoring- line abroad and in this country, will secure perfect satisfaction. We make suits from the finest of woolens and best workmanship as low as $75.00. Come and be convinced. HARRY TENNES Tailor and Designer WE AMERICANS— A Universal picture. Directed by Edward Sloman; from the stage play by Milton Herbert Gropper and Mark Seigel; adaptation and scenario by Al Cohn; production supervisor, Carl Laemmle Jr.; cameraman, Jackson Rose; titles by Walter Anthony. The cast: George Sidney, Patsy Ruth Miller, George Lewis, Eddie Phillips, Beryl Mercer, John Boles, Albert Gran, Michael Visaroff, Daisy Belmore, Rosita Marstini, Kathlyn Williams, Edward Martindel, Josephine Dunn, Andy De Vine, Flora Bramley, Jacob Bleifer. WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. From the story by Frederick O'Brien; adapted by Ray Doyle; continuity by Jack Cunningham; directed by W. S. Van Dyke; titles by John Colton; edited by Ben Lewis; photo- graphed by Clyde De Vinna, George Nogle and Bob Roberts. A Cosmopolitan production. The cast: Monte Blue, Raquel Torres, Robert Ander- son. "TheQueen'sHusband" — with — Edward Everett Horton and Lois Wilson Directed by Maude Fulton A Rollicking Romance of Royalty Eves. 50c to $1.50. Mats. Thurs. and Sat., 50c to $1.00. Phone GLadstone 4146 Downtown Ticket Offices: Broad- way Dept. Store, The May Co., Birkel Music Co. Mail orders given special attention. VINE ST. THEATRE Between Hollywood and Sunset Buollevards No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine G/^ROE^^I MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF DANCING Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputation. 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to keep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GRanite 3561 Page Twenty-two > THE FILM SPECTATOR June 9, 1928 JEAN HERSHOLT DR. EDMOND PAUKER 1639 Binadwsy, New York representing LAJOS BIRO Author of Hotel Imperial The Yellow Lily The LAst Commaiid, etc. The Way of All Flesh (adaptation) In the Ni^ht Watch (adaptation and continaity, now in preparation) JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT < »~ CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate JOHN F. (^^OODRICH SCENARIO EDITOR COLUMBIA PICTURES (^ c/^ c^ Jnne 23, 1928 WORTH CONSIDERING To the Editor: On reading a scenario, we take it for granted that we have visualized the story as it is meant to be; but do we ? For argument's sake, let us say that ten persons have read the same script. There is no question that these ten have learned what the story is about; but every one has formed an entirely different mental picture depending upon his or her own fancy, which may tend to minimize certain incidents or aggrandize others according to per- sonal reactions, impressions and ex- periences. It is obvious then, that much would be accomplished if a device which would assist an author in conveying the same mental pictures to all of the readers of his script were known. The following idea may solve this problem to a large extent, but in order to make it comprehensible, here is an analogous illustration: If we were to attend a lecture where the speaker would tell us about his travels in Africa, each of us would tend to form a mental picture of Africa in accord- ance with our own fancy, some of us visualizing the natives as fat and as jolly as those in the Katzenjerman cartoons; while others would have them as ferocious man-eaters, and so on. But suppose that he illustrated his talk with slides; every pair of eyes would see the same thing, and as result, the whole audience would form identical mental pictures as those shown on the screen. Of course, there would remain the tendency to slightly distort mentally what we see. But as a whole, our mental pictures would be the same as the rest of the audience. An impossible thing to accomplish by merely reading or hearing a story. Let us say that we apply this idea to a motion picture script, so when production starts, all on the staff, in- cluding the actors, have the same men- tal conception of the story, and thus avoid individual interpretation. First: Have every scene in the script made into a drawing. As each scene tells something of value to the story, that something must be concentrated into the drawing. These drawings would not only give us a clearer idea as to how the fin- ished picture is expected to look, so that we may all work in unison to obtain this end, but it offers still greater advantages, for instance: with these drawings we could more readily tell whether it would be necessary to shoot all of the scenes that the script calls for by simply stacking the draw- ings in sequence as in a deck of cards, and eliminating from the deck those drawings which appear superfluous and of little value in telling the story. Then, by passing the remaining draw- ings to some one who hasn't read the script, we may judge from this last person whether he can follow the story without confusion. And if he does, we know then, that the draw- ings— which really are scenes that were left out — are unnecessary to the picture. This subtracting and adding THE FILM SPECTATOR of drawings may be kept up until everyone is satisfied that only the drawings which remain in the deck are the scenes that should be in the picture. Thus avoiding in time the ex- pense of shooting useless scenes, which would be the equivalent of "cut- ting the picture before it is made". These drawings would also make ex- cellent mediums from which one may judge and approximately estimate the footage for each scene, thus keeping the picture within the bounds of ex- hibition length throughout production. It wouldn't be necessary to make drawings for every picture, as there is another method which accomplishes the same purpose and specially fits up-to-date stories, and this is still photographs. As all of the studios have sets already built, with the aid of a still photographer, an assistant di- rector may take a script and choose a cast from the extra ranks, more or less selecting types which resemble the principals that are to interpret the story in celluloid, and thus prepared, he may photograph every scene into a still picture, the same as the draw- ings. If mobs are required, he can go to a company who may happen to be shooting a similar mob, and by cheat- ing he may obtain the effect de- sired, which after all would only be a matter of a few minutes, and the whole expense of this last procedure wouldn't amount to very much. As mentioned before, the still photo- graphs are more suitable for up-to- date stories, and the drawings may give better service in depicting cos- tume pictures, while in some cases a combination of the two may prove more desirable. We do not have to go far to see how this idea may work, a peep into a slot machine showing little stories in stereoscopic still photographs may dispel whatever doubt we may enter- tain as to their practicability. EDWARD LE VEQUE. MOUNTAIN GRANDEUR Along the Rugged Sierra, Nevada, Bishop, California. My dear Beaton: Our country has so much in varied soil and climate that choice need only be by what the heart desires. There are towns and cities that give one pause to try to fathom why they should be where they are; there are spots that make ohe wonder why they are neglected; there are, here and there, locations with a sweep of earth that should, with all that nature freely offers, be a paradise for living and level-headed enterprise, but are in- stead, because of civilized greed, a something far removed from paradise. A little town nestling in a fertile valley, the rugged and majestic moun- tains, snow-capped at times, close at hand and not so far away the desert with its Valley of Death. A strength- ening beauty in the mountains; a soothing charm from the desert. For- ests of grandeur and service and fresh, running water from the rain and melted snow of the mountain tops. Page Twenty-three the little drops of life that quicken the valley into verdant loveliness and life-sustaining products. Fertile soil and running water in plenty to grow and build a paradise, but cursed, rav- aged and despoiled by the selfish greed of a city three hundred miles away. The greed for gold is the curse of humanity. It is murderous and short- sighted. The dirty dollar of the pres- ent and "after us the deluge". That would be so very nice and such a sat- isfaction if it were always true, but often, perhaps more so than other- wise, the deluge comes before the shroud, and even though greed may prosper in this life no man can "jump the life to come". A money mind is circumscribed by fear of losing something which is nothing and love of gold is the coward- liest cur that was ever whelped by greed. There is, perhaps, no enterprise or industry in the world that offers safer investment with surer dividends than the motion picture. It is not a four per cent, savings nor a five per cent. bond. It is a gamble, the same as all enter- prise and all industry, but it figures a percentage to win the equal to or greater than any other enterprise or industry. It is new, its development is unlimited and the whole wide world is its market. It has been fumbled and foozled, kicked in the stomach and smashed in the jaw, and is still on its feet needing only proper handling to come through for a big win. Not so very long ago capitalists could not see the automobile and were afraid to take a chance; now they are sorry and want it. Perhaps the motion picture industry will repeat. Figures and a little reasoning should convince the great and noble minds of finance and industry that there is profit in the motion picture. A little common sense should tell invested capital that the safest security and protection for the currency with which its heart is in- folded is an intelligent and educated public, capable of thought and fit to SEE Wm. Fox - Howard Hawks Production FAZIL With Charles Farrell and Greta Nissen Carthay Circle Theatre Daily 2:15-8:30 Carli Ellinor's Orchestra ISIorman's ART SHOP The Home of HARMONIC FRAMING Paintings Restored and Refinished VISITORS WELCOME 6653 Hollywood Boulevard Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 George R* Sims^ Plays Now Available For Pictures More than twenty sparkling English plays from the pen of George R. Sims are now available to Hollywood producers. Sims (famous "DAGONET" of the London "REFEREE") was for many years the most prohfic and successful of the English playwrights. Some twenty dramas are credited to him, many of which are still to be seen in England. As a novelist and poet he also shone. His comedy and melo-dramas contain an everlasting punch while his dialogue is most force- ful, combined his works make splendid vehicles for the "talking picture" which now unquestionably is here to stay. '=^h^ Tlays : LONDON DAY BY DAY: London Life; Thames and London scenes. SILVER FALLS: Picturesque; England and 1 act Texas. LIGHTS OF HOME: Sea piece; 1 act in U. S. A. BLACK DOMINO: English life; Mrs. Patrick Campbell in original Adelphi cast. WHITE ROSE: CromweUian. LIGHTS OF LONDON: Melo-drama. ENGLISH ROSE: Very good romantic play. GIPSY EARL: Gipsy Story; Romantic scenes in England. GOLDEN LADDER: Re-written; War with Germany. LAST CHANCE: Dock Life; England. WHEN THE LAMPS ARE LIGHTED: Character comedian hero — English scenes and character. IN LONDON TOWN: Domestic drama; London scenes. STAR OF INDIA: Semi-Military; 1 act India. WOMAN FROM GAOL: Prison life; English scenes and characters. JACK IN THE BOX: Show life; "Boy" character part. England. SCARLET SIN: Domestic; Reformation of a burglar — English scenes. IN THE RANKS: Military. MASTER AND MAN. HARBOUR LIGHTS: Drama of the sea. TRUMPET CALL: Military Drama. THE GREY MARE: Farcical Comedy. THE GUARDSMAN: Farcical play. DANDY FIFTH: Military Comic Opera. STAIRCASE OF FORTUNE. For additional details on any of the above, address : MRS. EDGAR NORTON, 1861 Whitley Avenue Telephone GLadstone 0221 (June 23, 1928 reason, weigh and consider. A step further in the way of sense and rea- son should tell that same invested cap- ital that at this time, and for some time to come, the motion picture is a medium of force and power, perhaps the greatest, to help insure the safety and security of its wealth. Propaganda has been played to ex- cess and has little advantage because the public has learned to discern it and pass it by. The old, old method of subjection in ignorance has ever failed in its purpose to continue se- icurity. Enlightenment is the safest . security and the motion picture is one I' happy medium. If that particular Invested capital ■ which is dominant in the affairs of the country and exerts a controlling influence is timid and afraid of the motion picture as an investment there should be something to give it courage in the reasoning that if a trader whose ; instinctive bent is to tui^ a suit of clothes for, maybe now, an over- coat can make a profit in the produc- tion of motion pictures, certainly an executive trained to build a smooth- working organization and to produce at the lowest cost consistent with the highest quality, certainly such an ex- ecutive should be able to show more profit in a motion picture than the trader. It is a proper time to discard the old nonsense, featured from time to time, that only those who have a sense of art developed to a temperamental imagination and extravagance can win success and profit in the theatre and now in the motion picture. A circus, similar in its purpose to the theatre and to the motion picture, is an enter- prise in art and exhibition, but, dif- ferently from the motion picture, it is backed and operated by hard-headed, hard-boiled business and is one of the smoothest-running organizations that was ever established, operating at the lowest cost consistent with getting the work done right. It would seem that the dominant capital of the nation should be able to see money profit in motion pictures, together with opportunity to serve their own kind and benefit their coun- try. JAMES BRANT. GETTING BACK My dear Mr. Beaton: May I give a wail of anguish, fol- lowed by a chortle of joy? I am very fond of reading your criticism and up to date have taken it quite seri- ously, so it upsets my equilibrium to have you spend a whole column of ex- cellent writing upon a wrong premise. In your criticism of Easy Come, Easy Go you state that the conductor is only put in to furnish Richard Dix with a disguise. To quote exactly. . . . "He gets a hurry up call and leaves the washroom in his shirt sleeves. This is the last we see of him". Now, as a matter of fact, we see him several times after that. The emergency that calls him forth is the sudden stopping of the train at a non- stop station. He turns and speaks two THE FILM SPECTATOR quite important titles to the men in the smoking compartment. He then, as you say, dashes out. A few shots later we see him coming out, breath- less, on the rear platform and meet- ing the detective who shows a most important telegram informing him that there are bank robbers on the train. We then get a shot of the conductor assisting the detective to line up the passengers. For a moment we stay with the lovers, then the conductor comes into the shot and orders them to their seats ... a bit of action which is most important for our story. Pre- vious to the washroom business we used him in two quite necessary shots. Really, Mr. Beaton, unless we made him either the heavy or the character lead, I don't see how we could have used him much more ... do you? As a matter of fact, the conductor was already an extremely necessary part of the cast when we had the idea for using his coat. Previous to that we had planned quite a different bit of business in that spot. I wouldn't ex- plode this way if I didn't hate to see something go into print which is so absolutely unjust . . . especially in your paper! Now for the chortle! Your remarks about Something Always Happens and the way the story begins, squarely in- stead of "easing in" for a reel or so, delighted my soul. I've been making futile efforts to write that sort of story for several years, and Para- mount is the only place I've found where they don't want their hero and heroine's pedigree through three gen- erations. . . . You noticed, didn't you, that we also used the "crash in" method in Easy Come, Easy Go? FLORENCE RYERSON. Page Twenty-five THE OTHER SIDE My dear Mr. Beaton: When I read Upton Sinclair's Profits of Religion some years ago I was tremendously impressed by it. When I read his Brass Check and saw him distort facts of which I had first- hand knowledge, my confidence in all of his deductions was shaken. I have read practically every num- ber of The Film Spectator. Sometimes I have thought that you twisted facts slightly to suit your ends. But not un- til the issue of March 3, did I see an instance which would lead me to ques- tion you. You know newspapers thoroughly. Do you honestly believe that The Times would deliberately attempt to harm the business of a consistently big advertiser like the Carthay Circle Theatre because a possible one-time advertiser like John Ford refused it a contract for |250 worth of space, or because two or three or four members of his company refused it such con- tracts ? Notice that I am not arguing Ed Schallert's intellectual honesty. Like you, I have had enough experience around newspapers to know that even an honest man sometimes has to choose between his income, his future and the wishes of his publisher. Schallert's review sounded sincere to me. I have not seen the picture, but I have talked with several people whose opinions I respect, including one critic who praised the picture, who agreed with Schallert. Personally, I don't believe that damning criticism interferes with the making of good pictures nearly as much as indiscriminate and gushing praise. I wanted to see what sort of performance Gloria Swanson and Gifts and Greetings For All Occasions ^ '7'Aousamt (Bifis of Distinetiat' SHOP AV BALZER'S— "TWO SHOPS"— JUST WEST OF VINE iiiiiiiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiniimiiiQiiiiiiiiiiHHiiiiiiiiimniiiiii iniiiiiiiiiiiKiiiimiiiiiiHiiiiiiHiiioiitiiiiiiiiEJiiiiiiiiniiniiiiiiniiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiEiii THE FILM SPECTATOR 7213 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, California $5 Per Year $6 Foreign Please enter my subscription to The Film Spectator, and herewith find my check in payment. Name Address City State iniiiiiiiiEiiinniinuDiuuiiiuiiDinniuiHinniiiiniiiiEiiiiiiiiiiinDiiiiiiiiiinEsuiiiMiiiiiDiiiiniuiiiiiriiiniiiniDiiiuiiiiiiiciiuiuiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiulun Page Twenty-six Lionel Barryniore had given in Sadie Thompson. If critics had damned the picture I would have been surprised and delighted. Instead I was disap- pointed in the picture, though satis- fied with the performances I went to see. In this week's Film Spectator I find another, lesser, instance of what ap- pears to be insincerity. You are fight- ing the cause of the actor against the producer, so you declare Universal a leech (I am not at all sensitive, but I do shrink at the word you used) for making a profit on Jean Hersholt. But do you honestly think that any pro- ducer employs any actor for any other reason than to make a profit on his ser^nces? If it can not make a profit by using him in a picture and can make it by leasing those services, is not the profit just as legitimate, even though it be a bit more harrowing to the actor? Universal risked, at a guess, §150,000 on its belief that Her- sholt would make money for it. If it had risked that amount on its belief that a piece of real estate would in- crease in value you would not object to any profit it might make, would you? Please do not infer from what I have written that I believe that Uni- versal, or any producer, or The Times, is not properly subject to other cen- sure that you have visited upon them. Sincerely, C. S. DUNNING. (I quarreled with Universal because it accepted pay for Hersholt's services while he was laid off without salary. Mr. Dunning overlooks that. — W. B.) THE HIGH PRICED CONTINUITY WRITERS By MADELEINE MATZEN YOU see strange legends printed about them — these writers of Hollj'wood who are drawing down, each month, salaries far in excess of those who are artists in other lines. The continuity writer as a rule re- ceives more for his continuity than the writer of the original story — un- less, of course, the WTiter of the story happens to have a well-known name. Just why this happens is a mystery — one of those weird mysteries that only Hollywood could sponsor. The continuity writers are supposed to be a very cultured, much-traveled group of people — Students of Psychol- ogy— and to have at their finger-tips great knowledge of that strange tech- nique— photoplay continuity. But many of them have never been abroad and know only California, Chicago and New York. When the motion picture was in its "infancy" some twelve years ago the writing of continuity was a tre- mendous, a most odd and unsual un- dertaking. People in the industry were just beginning to realize the possibili- ties of the screen. They were all ex- plorers and the language of a photo- play continuity was a new language. The -ivriters (connected with the in- dustry) were just beginning to learn THE FILM SPECTATOR the A, B, C of it. Those who knew how to write continuity considered themselves very important. They were important, and the outsider re- garded them with awe. Writing con- tinuity in those days was a feat — just as flying five miles in an aeroplane was considered a feat some years ago. But since then the children of America have been growng up, their main entertainment has been the mo- tion picture. Who was it that said we were a movie-fed nation? Well, we are! Haul out the old statistics and prove it! The child of the pre-movie days regarded life from quite a differ- ent angle; his thought processes were different. But the child who is a fre- quent movie-goer begins to look at life and the happenings around him from the angle of the camera. * * * How often have you heard a high school youngster exclaim: "Gee, that would make a swell motion picture!" just after he has read or heard of some particularly dramatic happen- ing? Trained by constant attendance at the picture theatre the young mind is growng quick to perceive drama when he meets it. The comic-strip wit tells us that we are raising our chil- dren to be flagpole squatters. Maybe! Maybe! But we are also raising our children to be photoplay and continuity writers. What the trained writer of twelve years or more ago laboriously sweated over and figured out in continuity form, most young men who grew up viith the movies (using the screen's evolutionary efforts for their main en- tertainment) know instinctively to- day. The hocus-pocus, the mysterious mystery of writing for the screen is no longer a mystery. Many young men and women of to-day know as much about the screen value of material as the old-time and now exorbitantly overpaid continuity writer. To be sure they do not know the fine ins and outs of screen technique, but a year or two of training could teach them what it has taken the old- time screen T\Titers years to learn. Why? Because we have been feeding the coming generation on movies. * * * Why should we train young writers when we have plenty of old, well- trained ones to take care of the work? Because the new writer has a fresh and an unbiased point of view. He is not saturated by politics — or, perhaps I should say, not so busy playing poli- tics that he has no time left in which to concentrate upon his work. The new writer has new ideas and, God knows, new ideas in stories and con- tinuities are as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth. What is going to happen? There will be scores of new young ^vriters clamoring at the studio gates, willing to work for very little for the chance to prove themselves. And they are far better equipped to prove themselves than some of the highly paid names June 23, 1928 of to-day. Why? Because they were movie-fed children. What is bred in the bone is apt to be stronger and more lasting than what is learned with difficulty through experience. The instinct for screen expression is bred in the new writers — all some of them need is a chance. This will mean that the old-timers will have to scratch hard to maintain a pace and a quality and originality superior to those who are crowding in — if these old-timers hope to keep their jobs. Most of the old-time wrters are well fixed financially — they can afford to retire gracefully, but not one of them will retire gracefully. They stoop to all sorts of petty tricks to keep the old pot boiling and these tricks are the pitfalls into which the new writer is apt to be caught. For example — last year several of the bigger studios engaged new writers. In all the industry I believe about forty new ones were tried out (though I can not vouch for the ac- curacy of this total). In many cases this meant a year's contract at any- where from fifty to one hundred dol- lars a week. The new writers were so enthusi- astic, so grateful to the producers, that they literally "burst their souls" writing for them. They poured out all their ideas, their dreams, their stories, their talents into the scenario department. They were praised and goaded on. At the end of the year most of them were dismissed — and hardly one of them received screen credit for any work that he had done. SLIP COVERS Finest Workmanship — AH Corded Finish Will give lasting service and add pleasure and beauty to your home. We have a large assort- ment of colors and patterns. Call, write or phone. Estimates free. WEST COAST SLIP COVER Co. 1425 W. 8th St. DRexel 6728 fnne 23, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-seven The Haldeman-Julius Monthly is Printing "THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICAN LIFE" The MOVIES Why Writers Hate Hollywood, by Don Gordon (June). Our Mad Movie Magnates, by George Pampel (June). Will Hays: Ignorant and Dis- honest, by Louis Adamic (August). The Bedlam That Is Hollywood, by Don Gordon (August). (Other articles presenting the facts about the film industry will appear from time to time as part of the magazine's policy to print the truth about Amer- ican life in all its phases.) The DEBUNKING Magazine Not only is the Haldeman- Julius Monthly printing candid articles about the movies, but it is giving space to debunking, sham - smashing, truth-telling contributions dealing with every phase of contemporary Ameri- can life. Clarence Darrow says of it: "I read your magazine diligently; I carry it with me wherever I go; no one is doing for freedom of thought and ac- tion in this country what you are doing." Business, politics, religion, literature, etc., all have their place in the Monthly's candid program. Yet the maga- zine is low in cost — size 5%x BV2, 128 pages each issue, from 20 to 25 fact articles each month, all for $1.50 yearly. In May began the series on the notorious Sacco-Vanzetti case, and also the beginning of the whole story of the Britton- Harding ("The President's Dsiughter") affair, suppressed in most publications. For a lim- ited time we can start all new subscriptions with this import- ant number. Use the blank be- low NOW. Only $1.50 for a year (12 issues) The Haldeman-Julius Monthly costs so little that readers who once subscribe are never with- out it. Only $1.50 ($2.00 Canad- ian and foreign) for 12 issues — and we include a copy of "Studies in Rationalism", a 128- page book by E. Haldeman- Julius, FREE and postpaid. (Note: For single copies of the Monthly remit 25c each.) CALIFORNIA Other Articles of Interest to Every Alert Reader I Debate With John Roach Straton (in San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego), by May- nard Shipley (June). We Meet Dr. Brown, M. D., CM., F. R. C. S. E. (in San Rafael), by Maynard Shipley (July). Another Moral Rampage ("The Captive" in Los Angeles), by Charlotte Dantzig (July). Upton Sinclair answers Jim TuUy's ungrateful article in the American Mercury in the August Haldeman-Julius Monthly. Many famous writers are mentioned. Exclusive Interview with Nan Britton and President Hard- ing's Daughter, by Fred Bair (June). How and Why I Wrote "The President's Daughter", by Nan Britton (July). Gene Tunney Speaks on Shakes- peare at Yale (June). Are Americans Afraid of Sex? by E. Haldeman-Julius (with statistics — May) . Miami's Reign of Violence, by Gerard Harrington (June). Is Coffee Drinking Harmful? by T. Swann Harding (June). President Harding's "Illegiti- mate" Daughter, by Isaac Goldberg (May). SOME OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS JULY AUGUST How and Why I Wrote "The President's Daughter", by Nan Britton. The Crime of Church Liberal- ism, by Eric Heath. The Magic in Those Ultra- violet Rays! by T. Swann Harding. Dean Inge: Ah Honest Church- man, by Louis Adamic. Some Reasons for Dishonesty in Advertising, by a Newspaper Publicity Director. Evolution of an Agnostic, by John Mason. The Candidates, by E. Halde- man-Julius. The Decline and Fall of Poker, by Sanford Jarrell. Shall We Go to the Gutter for Sex Knowledge? by Isaac Goldberg. The New Sacco-Vanzetti Evi- dence (part of a series begun in May: a post-mortem re- view), by W. P. Norwin. "You're Pretty Bad, America," Says Canada, by Ruben Levin. Is Republican Government Breaking Down in America? by Clay Fulks. The Shame of Fort Scott, Kan- sas, by Marcet Haldeman- Julius. And other truth-telling articles. Jim Tully: A Study in Ingrati- tude (Answering Tully's "American Mercury" article), by Upton Sinclair. Immoralities in Public Offices, by W. G. Clugston. Will Hays: Ignorant and Dis- honest, by Louis Adamic. The Real Thomas A. Edison, by A. L. Shands. The Next War, by Sanford Jar- rell. What Fundamentalists Believe and Preach, by L. M. Birk- head. Henry Field: A New God in the Middle West, by M. E. Stanley. Public Criticism of Sacco and Vanzetti, by W. P. Norwin. A Dinner With Billy Sunday, by Wm. Bedford. Putting Punch in Your Person- ality, by Ballard Brown. A Soldier's Return, by G. V. Morris. One of God's Families, by Don Lewis. No Tears for Babbitt, by David Warren Ryder. What Preachers Believe, by E. W. Hutter. The Memphis Commercial- Appeal, by Pierre Martineau. And other sham-smashing arti- cles. PLEASE USE THIS SUBSCRIPTION BLANK Haldeman-Julius Publications, Dept. M-62, Girard, Kansas I enclose $1.50 ($2.00 Canadian and foreign) for one year (12 issues) of the Haldeman-Julius Monthly. Start with the May issue if possible, and send me "Studies in Rationalism" free. Name Address City State Page Twenty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR June 23, 1928 | CAM. ED TKIBUNC CHICAGO Kay a8 192 8 Hjr dear LeRoy- The lon& awaited premier of "Harold Teen" happened yesterday at the Oriental, one of our leading loop theatres and I was there for the first performance. I had anticipated a fine picture through the good notices given the film, but what I saw exceeded ali ex- pectations. It was simply G-REAT Mervyn. I can't tell you of the emotions I went through as I sat there and saw the creatures of my own imagination in flesh and blood on the screen, and so true to my own ideas. There was not a flaw in the cast, not one and Arthur Lake was Immense. Had you scoured the world over you could not have found a more true type. Out of practically nothing you concocted a worth- while comedy, clean and fast moving. I venture to say there will never be another comic strip feature film to equal it. No one, I imagine, is better qualified to pass on the trueness of the types than I- and I cannot say more than they were perfect. If nothing else- the film is an improvement on my cartoon and will give me a mark to .shoot at. I predict a fine future for you as director, Kervyn. I expect soon to have an original drawing to you in colors . UUo{2Jc Coortially Creator of Harold Teen NOW DIRECTING Colleen Moore in ^^Oh Kay" c5\ John Q^cCormic}{ '^rsh^ VS(ational Troductioru, «eiV I Edited by VVELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cente FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood, California, July 7, 1928 No. 10 <<>]iNiiiiMiiiDiiinHninaiiiiMiiniiDMiiniiniiDniniiiiinDiiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiniiiniQMiiiiiinnc}niuuiininiiiiiiiuiiiE]iiiiMiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiuiaHn)innijaiijniiiiiii^^ Mr — Ti Producers commit another idiotic act Bewildered exhibitor getting a lot of poor advice Stagnant minds leave their mark on pictures Nothing alarming in th( foreign situation FAZIL SPEEDY POWER THE COP CLEOPATRA THE RACKET THE BARKER LIFE'S LIKE THAT VIRGIN QUEEN STEAMBOAT BILL JR. HIT OF THE SHOW TELLING THE WORLD LADIES OF THE MOB PATENT LEATHER KID «ut»»iiiiMiiiDiiiiiiiiiiii[]iimiiiiinaiiiiiiiiiiiiuininiiiHiiE]iiiiiii»iiiQiiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiiniiinMiininiiniiiuuiDniiiiiiiiii[]iiniiiiuuaiHniiiniic]inHini^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 c^nnouncing f>o EXCLUSIVE WILSHIRE-BEVERLY HILLS REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE FAMOUS HALLET & DAVIS HENRY F. MILLER CONWAY BRAUMULLER GRANDS AND REPRODUCING GRAND PIANOS EHJBOWEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 IWMMWMW9MWMW} ITMgM^J July 7, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three Ithe film spectator EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 411 Palmer Building GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles zvith us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, JULY 7, 1928 Spectator Circulation WE receive many requests from prospective adver- tisers for information regarding the circulation of The Film Spectator. We have one hundred per cent. 2ircuIation among the most prominent picture people in Bollywood, Beverly Hills, and adjacent territory. There are more financial institutions and public libraries among the paid subscribers to The Spectator than we believe there are among the subscribers to any other screen paper published in America. The Spectator is the most widely :iuoted screen paper published anywhere. Only one Amer- ican publication has a greater paid exhibitor circulation than The Spectator. In the local field The Spectator has a greater bona fide paid circulation than the combined circulation of the Filmograph and the Film Mercury. A Holiday — and a Brook DURING these two summer months there is going to be a little less of my stuff in The Spectator, and in two issues I will have nothing whatever. I'm going away somewhere to look at a brook. I don't know whether to blame the calendar or my labors, but I'm getting tired. Perhaps a fishing rod which hangs on the wall of my bedroom, has something to do with it. Anyway, I'm going, even though I could not advance one good reason why I should. The first of the two Spectators that will be issued while I am looking at the brook will be edited by my brother, K. C. B., and the second will be edited by Tom Miranda. God, alone, knows what kind of issues they will be. The K. C. B- issue will be a Contributors' Number, for which a lot of kind people have written articles. Tom will preside over an Advice Number, in which will be published brief messages from several hundred screen people telling me how to run The Spectator for the fol- lowing year. In this connection, I would urge all those who have not done so yet, to get their messages of advice into the mail at once. You can get a lot of fun out of this number if you provide it. Undoubtedly I will ignore ROMANCING By GEORGE F. MAGOFFIN This is gonna be a motion picture pome- What I mean is it'll be about motion pictures without havin' to add a post script or a "prologue", as the picture people say, to explain what it's all about. The picture part wall come in natural. It won't be drug in by a leg like comedy-relief just a get a laugh and keep you from forgettin' it's a movie you're lookin' at. You may even forget it's a pome, for if your mind goes galivantin' off on a little adventure of its own, like it does sometimes in pictures, it won't hit you in the eye with a close-up. "Hell!" you say, "that ain't my girl" at all." Why you couldn't make love to a girl like that if she was tied — you bein' just from the sticks and maybe needin' a shave. She ought to be in a glass case, for the label on her reads "hands off." When she was away back in the distance j^ou could sort of imagine the freckles on her nose and her hair done up careless like and a look in her eyes — ^well, anyvvay, you know what I mean — if you've ever felt that way, a sort of upliftin' feelin' like you was somethin' more than just part of the scenery. Well, that's the way with this pome. It aims to sort of suggest the idea and leave you to make th( poetry to suit yourself, and not do nothin' to spoil the romance. The girl you're thinkin' about maybe wouldn't take a prize in a bathin' suit, but when you've been imaginin' yourself as the hero riskin' your life and endurin' hardships all for her it shorely does disillusion you to find out she ain't the girl you thought she was. Now for the pome. "One crowded hour of glorious life is worth a world without a name." Close-up, close-up, close-up, Cuddle up. Sweet. For a sentimental close-up We've got the screen beat. Your lips are crimson berries. There's powder on my coat. Still, this sentimental close-up Don't get my goat. "One crowded hour". Sweetheart . . • The joys that lovers know . . . And every sequence meaning, O, I love you so! Then come, the Dark Archangel My sinful soul to shrive: For life is not mere living. But feeling all alive. In glamorous romancing. Alone with you. Where fortune showers favors, And dreams come true — 0, I'm a handsome hero; You are a hero-een. And all the world's our oyster — Upon the silver screen. all the advice, consequently you need not be worried about its practicability when you proffer it. I am going where there are no motion pictures, and where the trees differ from ours, where the breeze comes laden with the virile perfume of the north, and where my brook will be a turbulent thing of vast importance to itself, leaping from Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 cliffs and rushing over rocks in frenzied haste to get some- where, only to spread out placidly and loiter in a pool which brings the sky to its depths and stretches tree branches above it to give us a pool's-eye view of heaven. And I'm going to sit by that damn pool, smoke my pipe, and fish. Producers Should Engage Someone to Think for Them THE film industry can be wrong more smugly and more complacently than any other industry on earth. Most of our producers are not perfect types for a creative art, but one would think that after being years in the business they would have at least a slight idea of the kind of business it is. I don't know of one major problem that has arisen in film history that the producers have disposed of promptly, wisely and finally, something that in other industries competent executives are doing every day. Producers are bungling this sound business as they have bungled everything else. The prize bit of insanity is Paramount's action in opening its Long Island studio for the making of sound pictures, on the supposi- tion that it is going to draw its talent from the New York stage. Various trade papers have discussed solemnly the prospect of production going East again, as "the princi- pal supply of talent for sound pictures is in New York," as one paper puts it. The film industry should hire some- one to do its thinking for it. It probably could pay such person one million dollars a year and make money on the transaction- A little thought would lead to the conclusion that all that the screen is borrowing from the stage is sound. It is not borrowing stage technic, nor is it selling out to, or being absorbed by, the stage. The only connec- tion between the stage and the screen will be the fact that actors whom the stage has trained to use their voices properly, will have a slight advantage over those who have received no such training. If an actor becomes famous through his work on the stage, picture audiences would be curious to see him and would patronize a film in which he appeared, but I do not think he would draw quite as much at the box-ofiice as a man who became famous through winning a championship prize-fight. What the public always will look for in pictures will be screen art- ists— people thoroughly trained in how to act in front of the camera. Those with the best voices and a knowledge of how to use them will have the edge on the others who are not so fortunate, but the man with the superlative voice, but without screen training, will get nowhere. The supply of talent for talking pictures is in Hollywood, not in New York. We still will have motion pictures which will continue to use everything that they have developed. All that has happened is that they have reached out and embraced something that happens to be common to thunder, brass bands, and the stage: sound. They will take sound to themselves and fashion it to suit their re- quirements. Sound will alter screen technic, but it will not borrow technic from the stage. Film acting will con- tinue to be a pantomimic art. Those stage directors who are congratulating themselves that their day in pic- tures has come are doomed to disappointment. A man who before sound was introduced lacked the experience to direct a motion picture, will not be able to direct one now that sound has come. It will take him just as long to learn the business now as it would have taken him before pictures began to talk. And actors whose only recommendation is that they know how to talk, will be as much at sea in talking pictures as they would be in silent ones. After Paramount has squandered a few hundred thousand dollars on a contrary assumption, it will close its Long Island studios and will return to Hollywood where picture people make pictures. Sound will cause a readjustment, but the readjustment will be kept within the film industry as it is constituted now. The film indus- try has a peculiar faculty for becoming stampeded, but its present brainstorm, like so many it has had in the past, will not be long in duration, and pictures will return to that degree of sanity that has characterized them in the past. I see no reason why actors and directors should worry about the situation- Those who will be affected principally will be screen writers. I Telling Exhibitor Where the Hell He Is Heading SOME weeks ago a man who found himself going broke as an exhibitor of motion pictures purchased a lot of space in the Eastern film trade papers and asked in large type the question, "Where the hell am I heading?" He analyzed the exhibiting business as he found it and confessed that the situation stumped him, hence his appeal to the wide, wide world for advice and comfort. Very promptly he received much advice, but of a sort that I do not think would give him any considerable degree of comfort. Advertising departments run by people who lack resourceful minds, advised the bewildered exhibitor to buy their pictures as a cure for his ills, advice that loses some of its value by virtue of the fact that the ills were caused in the first place by the very pictures that their makers now offer as a remedy. In one issue of the Film Daily Joseph M. Schenck and E. W. Hammons occu- pied two-page spaces in which they proffered advice. As an expression of sympathy, the purchase of so much ex- pensive space was a generous gesture, but I do not believe that the amount of constructive advice in either adver- tisement justified the expenditure that it necessitated. My friend Joe slapped the exhibitor on the back and whispered soothing words in his ear, but all the con- structive advice he offered was to eliminate presentations and show only pictures. It is too bad that producers, as a body, lack a sense of humor. If they were endowed with that valuable attribute they could get an immense amount of fun out of surveying their own actions. They are the people whose blundering incapacity got the advertising exhibitor into his mess, yet they come to his rescue with oracular and patronizing pomposity that ignores com- pletely the reason for the condition that the exhibitor complains of. The slump that is eating up the financial resources of the exhibitors throughout the country had its origin in the studios of Hollywood. Because pictures are made in an insane way exhibitors have to pay twice as much for them as they should; and because they are made very poorly the public is paying only half what it should to view them. It would take all this Spectator, and the greater part of the next, even to touch on the specific ills that make pictures expensive and rob them of quality. CARL Laemmle, Jr. * * * UNIVERSAL City. * * * OR anything. * * * July 7, 1928 TH^ ^^^ SPECTATOR I will mention only one thing thai suggests itself to me as one of the chief reasons why the exhibitor doesn't know where the hell he's heading. Not more than one in forty seven-reel motion pictures have plot enough to justify them being more than five reels in length. At least two, and sometimes three, reels are added to them solely to bunk the exhibitor into the belief that he is getting a big picture. The result is that the picture drags when it is shown in his house, and it takes so much of his regular show time to project it that he has no room for a diversi- fied program that would give his patrons two hours of high class entertainment, even though the feature picture had its weaknesses. If producers wished to be true to the stories and on the square with the exhibitors, they would keep their five-reel pictures within five reels- This would enable the exhibitor to obtain better pictures for less money; it would provide better programs, and it would stem the present drift of the public away from their support of the film industry. Since pictures started it is a question whether the producer or the exhibitor has been the greater fool. The former is injuring his busi- ness by not being honest with the latter, and the latter is cutting his own throat because he swallows all the bunk that has been handed him since pictures came into being. The trouble has its origin in the fact that neither the producer nor the exhibitor knows what a motion picture is, but is so sure he does know that he refuses to learn. * * * Shouldn't Worry About the Foreign Situation UNNECESSARY concern, I believe, is being expended on the status of the foreign market for motion pic- tures. European countries seem to be proceeding on the assumption that pictures that will satisfy their people can be legislated into being. A country that can not make acceptable pictures when no quota law is in effect can not make them after such a law is enacted. The American film industry is proceeding wisely in doing what it can to block the passage of restrictive legislation, but it should not take it too much to heart when its efforts prove unsuccessful. For a time quota laws will limit the foreign market, but no permanent injury will be done if American producers concentrate on making the best possible pictures. If they always had given their chief attention to the quality of their product, there would be no quota laws. The chief trouble with our pro- ducers is that commercialism enters into their activities at too early a stage. They sell a picture before it is made, and consider the making of it as of less importance than selling it. As I pointed out in a recent issue, making a picture is an art and selling it is a business. Business should start where art leaves off. Producers reverse this order and try to make art square with business, which produces poor art and which is bad business. No art has achieved its potentialities by thinking in terms of busi- ness. The only way to make art a commercial success, which is the chief mission of the film industry, is to con- centrate on the art, and forget commerce. Concentrating on the art would result in leaving artists unhampered, and only unhampered artists can produce products that will be most successful commercially. Producers hire artists and presume to teach them art, with the result that they have no friends among those who make their Page Five UNIMPORTANT IF TRUE By K. C. B IN SOMEBODY'S kitchen. * * * SITTING around. * * * MY DEAR Junior. ON THE draining board. * * * * * » IT'S NONE of my business. SOME ONE in the cast. * * * * * » WOULD spill the story. * * * BUT I want to tell you. AND THE grand denoue- * * * ment. THAT I'VE just read. * * * * * * AND everythmg. IN MY m^orning paper. ^^^ littLE by little. WHERE Paul^Leni. ^^^ ^^*^^ ;^ ^^^ WHO IS directing. * _ * * _, * * * AND WORD by word "THE LAST Warning" ** tj thriller. THE STORY would go- * * * * * * HAS HIDDEN away. FROM mouth to mouth. * * * * * * ALL BUT three of the AND everybody. * * ^ * * * WOULD know about it. WHICH is one apiece. * ,* * , ""^^ * * * AND WHAT'S the good. FOR THE camera man. * * » * * * OF A mystery story. THE SCENARIO writer. * * *. , * * * IP IT isn't a mystery? AND FOR Paul himself. * * » * * * AND THERE you are. AND NOBODY sees them. * * ^ * . * * * AND LISTEN, Junior. BUT THESE three men- * * * * * * I WANT to ask you. AND WHY he has done * * * it IF PAUL has fixed it. IS BECAUSE he knows. WITH ALL the people. * * * * * » THAT ACTORS are gabby. WHO SAW the play. » * * * * * AND TELL everything. IN NEW York City. * * * * * * AND HE'S afraid. AND everywhere. * * * * * » FOR IF he hasn't. * * * HOW THE mystery. HOW DOES he know. * * * * » » IS FINALLY cleared. HE CAN keep everybody. * * * * * » AND WHO did the murder. FROM telling your actors. * * * « * » AND THE dirty work. WHAT IT'S all about? * * « * * » THAT MAYBE some night. I THANK you, pictures, those who buy them, and those who view them. The objection of exhibitors to block-booking is the out- growth of their dissatisfaction with what they have to buy. If they were satisfied with what they are getting, they would find no fault with the manner in which they get it. Producers are harrassed abroad by quota laws and at home by official charges of unfairness. They are not capable mentally of grasping the fact that all their commercial misfortunes are caused by the inferiority of the art they have to sell. In seeking to cure their ills they are not attacking them at their source. It is in their studios that they can conquer the markets of the world, THAT IF they knew. * * * Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 not in the markets themselves. If the producer mind functioned efficiently it would appreciate this, it would arrive at the conclusion that only an inferior article can cause dissatisfaction in a market, and that any obstacle raised by such inferior article could be lowered by a superior one. The producers will argue that in the coun- tries passing quota laws the quality of American pictures is not an issue; that the agitation is an economic and social one, and that no charge has been made that our pictures are inferior works of art. On the surface the argument sounds plausible, but it is wrong fundamentally. American pictures captured the markets of the world be- cause they made friends for themselves. We do not quarrel with our friends; we allow them liberties. When we have grown tired of them we resent their continuance of the liberties we previously viewed indulgently. Although the liberties themselves contributed nothing to our dis- satisfaction, withdrawing them is the method we adopt to show that dissatisfaction exists. Foreign countries have grown tired of American pictures and have decided to go into the film business for themselves, a movement which had its inception in Hollywood where the poor pic- tures that made Europe tired came from. The American industry has no ills that good pictures will not cure, and we will get good pictures when picture brains are allowed some latitude. At present an author is hired to write a story, and producers and supervisors rewrite it; a skilled man is hired to direct it, and the same incompetents re- direct it. Only in rare instances do picture brains reach the screen without distortion, and those rare instances are outstanding pictures. When producers give picture brains latitude they will recapture the markets of the world. * * * Mr. Charles Francis Coe, and, Incidentally, "Fazil" WHEN I viewed Fazil it was its opening night at the Carthay Circle, and immediately following the final fade-out a gentleman whose voice is none too robust came out and told us what a remarkable fellow Charles FYancis Coe is; and then out came Mr. Coe him- self and corroborated what the other chap had said. It was getting on to midnight, and a large audience had sat through a not too-stimulating picture, but Mr. Coe pro- ceeded to tell us how we had enjoyed the picture, to give us his views on the future of sound, and to apologize for going back to New York and leaving us flat just when he was getting used to us. He was so pathetic about his leave-taking, and revealed so poignantly his realization of all that it meant to Hollywood in the' way of sorrow and gloom, that I could not stand all of it. I left when he was at his best, and on the way out tried to find someone who could tell me who Mr. Coe is, who selected him as master- of-ceremonies, and why he presumed that along about midnight we were interested in his views on sound and himself. The incident of Mr. Coe disturbs me as I begin to comment on the evening. The startling suddenness with which we were switched from the picture to Mr. Coe may have been a manifestation of this midnight-master-of- ceremonies business reaching the peak of its insanity, or it may be that he is as important as his speech implied. With the spirit of true Southern California hospitality strong within us, we will assume the latter, and humbly will beg Mr. Coe's indulgence while we make a few re- marks about the picture that came on before his act. He may remember it — a motion picture, I mean, with Charlie Farrell and Greta Nissen in it, and directed by Howard Hawks. Although the gentleman who introduced Mr. Coe, and Mr. Coe himself, seemed to think that the picture was of no importance whatever, I found it quite the most interesting item on the evening's program, although it does not measure up to the standard set by the Carthay Circle and will have the shortest run that any picture has '■ had at this most attractive and comfortable house. Fazil is rich in that quality that Fox pictures have been dis- tinguished for of late — beautifully composed pictures shot , sympathetically by master cameramen. The production is in every way adequate. The sound effects assist the pic- ture greatly, particularly in the Venice sequence in which the generous Movietone bestows upon John T. Murray a fine voice which adds immeasurably to the romance of the scenes and enhances considerably the fine performance that Murray gives in a small part. I found Venice much more attractive in this picture than I found it when a large and unprepossessing gondolier conducted me along its rather smelly canals. Charlie Farrell's performance did more to convince me that he is a real actor than did other parts which he has acted admirably. As an Arabian prince he found himself in a strange atmosphere in which he could not play himself and could not depend upon his boyish charm and sincerity to make himself convincing. We might expect these handicaps to be reflected in his performance, but such was not the case, Farrell carrying the part with an assurance that would be a credit to a much more experienced actor. The performance of Greta Nissen surprised me with its depth of understanding, its lights and shades, and consistency. I was not aware that the young woman was such a capable actress. It is too bad that a girl so talented persists in the practice of eccentricities of temperament that make her such a nuis- ance that producers are reluctant to engage her. Fazil's weakness is that it is a cold and almost scientific exposi- tion of the thesis that an Occidental girl should not marry an Oriental man. As an exposition, Hawks has handled it splendidly, but it is a subject in which we are not inter- ested, and when a director is given a story about some- thing uninteresting, he has a very hard job ahead. That Hawks did so well is to his credit. Products of More or Less Stagnant Minds A SCENE in White Shadows in the South Seas shows Monte Blue distraught because white men were coming to pollute the paradise that he had found. In a fine bit of acting Monte hurls imprecations at the ship in the distance. He implores it to stay away, to go back where it belongs and to leave him and his native friends in peace. Blue rises to dramatic heights and makes the scene a powerful one. What he exclaims as he raises his hands to heaven is reproduced on the screen this way: "Stay away, you ships — stay in your cursed world — leave us in peace." That is not what Monte said, for a man does not talk that way when he is under great strain. What he said was: "Stay away, you ships! Stay in your cursed world! Leave us in peace!" On the Metro lot, and on other lots where more or less stagnant mental- ities dominate production, punctuation is looked upon as July 7, 1928 THE FILM an affectation, as something that a spoken title might wear as a frill, but without which it could get along very well. I don't suppose that such mentalities can be reached by an argument, but I would venture to point out to them that it is the punctuation in a spoken title, and not the words, that shows exactly what the speaker said. There is a vast deal of difference in meaning between " — stay in your cursed world — " and "Stay in your cursed world!" In recording speeches punctuation is not optional. A man utters a question mark when he concludes a sentence with & rising inflection, making it just as necessary in order that we can get his meaning to put down the question mark as it is to present the words to us. When Monte Blue made his speech in the Metro picture he punctuated it properly, for spoken language always is punctuated perfectly, and in recording it, Metro had no option. Of course we know why the punctuation of the titles in this picture, in Our Dancing Daughters and in other M.-G.-M. ^productions I have seen recently, so flagrantly disregarded all literary rules. Those in charge of production on the lot simply do not know. They lack education themselves and resent it in others. Their disdain of punctuation is a pose to mask their ignorance of its significance. I do not contend that only college graduates should be in pic- tures. I have never spent an hour in a class-room since I graduated from the grammar school, for there was no money in the family to send me farther, consequently I hardly can look down upon all those who have had much more schooling than I had, but I do condemn those who have forgotten what they learned at school and have learned nothing new since they left it. Also I condemn studio executives for not hiring competent people to do what they themselves can not do. If I were in Irving Thalberg's place I would not bother my head about punc- tuation. I would allow my stenographer to punctuate my dictation, and to advise me on the punctuation of titles I would hire someone who knew something about it. Next to Metro, Universal is the greatest offender in pre- senting the screen as a lowbrow art, but all studios are afflicted more or less with the same complex. Paramount makes fewer mistakes than any other producer. Until The Spectator began to yell about punctuation. Paramount was the greatest offender. My interest in the matter springs from the fact that I am jealous of screen art, that I want to see it put its best foot forward when it goes out to meet the public. But I won't have to worry about punctuation much longer. Sound devices will pre- sent spoken language properly. The new order will elimi- nate those title writers, so numerous now, who are too ignorant to show with punctuation marks exactly how a John Waters DIRECTOR ORegon 7767 SPECTATOR P*K^ ^''"'' speech was made. Writers for the screen will be people with the ability necessary to record a speech as it should be made. That is done by punctuation, and the writer who knows nothing about it can not get far. Which eliminates most of our present title writers. * * * Now We Have Clara as a Nice Little Crook rE are getting so many crook pictures that they soon will reach their saturation point. Under- world started the vogue, and many inferior imita- tions are killing it. The screen merely is repeating itself. It always has ridden a good horse to death. Only a notable picture starts a vogue for others of the same sort, and it is because none of those that come later have any not- able qualities that the public tires of them. We always have had crook pictures, but it took one with the raw and virile qualities of Underworld to attract attention to them as a class and to set the imitators at work. Most of the imitations have been so poor that the public is getting fed up on crook dramas of any sort. Paramount followed Underworld with Drag Net, a very poor imita- tion of it, and now gives us Ladies of the Mob, an excellent picture that should do well at any box-office if it has not come too late in the procession. William A. Wellman directed it, and Clara Bow is the star. Wellman's direc- tion is flawless throughout. The picture opens with a terse statement in a title : "A man was about to be killed." It is followed by a series of pan shots and dissolves which show in a graphic and gripping manner the preparations for the execution of a criminal. No titles are used and as there are no photographic breaks in the entire sequence, the drama in it flows along on a steady course, accumu- lating tenseness as it proceeds. Bodil Rosing, the wife of the man who is executed, contributes some splendid acting. At the end of the sequence she dedicates her life to revenging the death of her husband, and the story moves ahead eighteen years to show Clara Bow, as Bodil's daughter, leading a life that makes the guardians of the law her natural enemies. All the stages of a bank rob- bery are shown, the treatment following that which made the opening sequence gripping. I don't think I ever saw a sequence on the screen that sustains its drama as the bank robbery does. A couple of months ago I asked Bill Howard why the camera could not be swung from one character to another when titles were being spoken, in- stead of having jerky cuts to each one who speaks. Bill said he saw no reason why it could not be done, and promised to try it sometime. Bill Wellman beats us to it. He avoids cuts by panning the camera exactly as I suggested to Howard. A man speaks, and from him the camera is swung to the man who replies to him, carry- ing the interest of the audience with it, and making it something smoother to view than the succession of sharp cuts that usually are used in connection with titles. Clara has a new characterization in this picture, and in every one of her scenes maintains her reputation for being a superb little trouper. It is a characterization of moods with some dramatic high spots in it, and Clara is convinc- ing in every phase of it. To Richard Arlen goes a big share of the credit for the picture's high acting average. Dick, also, is a trouper. I don't think any of our young fellows ever gave a more commendable performance than Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR he does as the confirmed crook who is in love with Clara. He is sincere and convincing throughout. Helen Lynch, whom I saw first in The Showdown and whose work in that picture I praised highly, justifies in Ladies of the Mob all the nice things I said of her. She has another fine performance to her credit and gives every indication of going a long way on the screen. These three and Mary Alden compose a quartette of crooks, and I would call them good types for their parts as they do not look like our standard conception of crooks, thereby adding a re- freshing touch to the picture. Crooks, I might add, do not look like our standard conception of them either. I am sorry that Paramount did not go all the way and make its crooks unlike all others by making them talk straight and moderately correct English. It would have heightened the effect of the characterizations. * * • Melo at Both Ends and Romantic in the Middle A SOMEWHAT denatured Bill Haines appears in Telling the World, which Sam Wood directed for M.-G.-M. He still is a wisecracker, but not such an obnoxious one as usual. There are several scenes in this picture handled in a way that give me the impression for the first time that Haines really can act. He is clever at superficial comedy, but he can strike a sterner note when he has to, and can make it convincing. Telling the World is not so offensive as his other pictures because it is not all wisecracking. It is melodramatic at both ends and has a romance in the middle. The romance sags a little and is directed poorly, but we forget all its weak- nesses when the main show opens in the last reel or so. For the first time in a couple of years Haines appears in a part that did not irritate me. He might have been toned down a lot more, however. Care was taken to plant Bill as the scion of a great family, a polo player, yachtsman, tennis and golf player, and all that sort of thing, yet he is given the manners of an East Side assistant barber who never was taught anything and who has no powers of observation. A man moving in the circle in which Haines was placed does not force his way insolently into a girl's apartment and survey it sneeringly before he re- moves his hat. The sense of humor of such a man might lead him to indulge in wisecracks, but his training would not permit him ever to do anything that was not in the best of taste. Making the principal character an impossi- ble one, as always has been done in the Haines pictures, throws the whole thing out of time. The love story was made unconvincing because no girl could love the pest that Bill's characterization made him out to be. In Tell- ing the World it is not so bad. It is conceivable that Anita Page could fall in love with the kind of boy Bill is. Also it is conceivable that any kind of a boy could fall in love with Anita. Unless I am mistaken badly, this young woman has a brilliant future before her. She is an actress, not just a pretty girl with a sweet personality. She has charm and beauty, but back of it all is a dynamic power that will take her a long way as a dramatic actress. William V. Mong appears in Telling the World as a city editor, and as one who has been a city editor, who has bossed city editors and been bossed by city editors, I will give Mong credit for behaving like one. He is an excellent July 7, 1928 actor, and when screen art comes into its own, I suppose players of his ability will be seen more frequently on the screen. Bert Roach, Matthew Betz, Polly Moran and Eileen Percy enrich the picture with adequate perform- ances. Sam Wood's direction is spotty. All his big, im- portant scenes are handled capably, but there are a num- ber of little things in the production that keep you from forgetting that it is a movie. For instance, Haines pro- ceeds to wash his face. He fills his eyes with soap and gropes wildly for a towel. That is childish direction. In another scene he is shown walking rapidly along a crowded street, en route to his sweetheart. He stops in the middle of the moving throng, gazes rapturously at the engage- ment ring he is carrying, makes an ecstatic speech to high heaven, and no one pays any attention to him. A man behaving that way on the street in real life would be carted off in the hurry-up wagon. But we have to thank Sam for a remarkable demonstration of how news travels around the world. There is a long series of dis- solves to and from traveling shots, the whole sequence being one of the most striking bits of camera-drama that I have seen in a long time. Telling the Wofld is full of entertainment value and is a picture that no exhibitor need be afraid of booking. 1 Henry McMahon Asks Us to See Arch Reeve's Picture HENRY McMahon did it. If Arch Reeve doesn't like it he can take it up with Henry. I received one of Henry's telephonic please to go to the Carmel theatre and see a preview of Power. I seldom go to pic- ture houses, projection-rooms being my usual haunts, but in this instance I yielded because it so happened that about preview time I would be near the Carmel anyway. Donald and I arrived early. Drag Net was underway. While waiting for Power, we had to sit through consider- able footage of the Paramount picture, which both of us had criticized severely. I was glad of an opportunity to see it again. In my review of it I stated that the story was all right, but that the direction was terrible, and that all the people on the screen were movie actors pretending that they were something else. After I had written my review I read some criticisms of Drag Net that appeared in Eastern papers whose reviewers I hold in some regard. I was surprised at the number of favorable notices that I read. In fact, so many people praised the picture that I began to wonder if it possessed virtues that I had over- looked. That is why I was glad to see it again. Instead of hidden virtues, I found sins I had overlooked. There is a scene in a night club. Revelers throw paper streamers about the place until the dancers have to wade through it. The air is so full of it that the camera can not pick up the wall across the room. At all the tables people are making merry. Cigarettes and cigars are being smoked. One carelessly waved match would have set the interior of the place afire vrith the suddenness of an explosion. No sane patron would have remained in the place a minute, and no sane proprietor would have permitted such exces- sive use of confetti. When the scene was shot, Joe von Sternberg must have exercised extraordinary precaution to avoid someone endangering the scores of people on the set by carelessly dropping a burning cigarette on the July 7, 1928 THE FILM floor, or doing any other of the many things that can be done with a cigarette or a match to start a fire. If Joe did not exercise such precaution, insurance companies should cancel Paramount policies. If thought had been expended on the sequence the conclusion would have been reached that it would look just as dangerous on the screen as it must have looked when it was being shot. The dullest person in any audience would see the impossi- bility of the whole thing, yet it is not a whit less con- vincing than all the rest of the picture. When I saw it the ; first time I thought that Bill Powell's performance was a good one of its kind, even though I did not approve the kind. Now I think it was a punk performance; and the same thing goes for the work of my other friends in the cast, Evelyn Brent, George Bancroft, Fred Kohler and Francis McDonald. McDonald is an excellent actor — so good that it is a shame he is overlooked so consistently — but Von Sternberg handed him a characterization in this picture that is utterly absurd. Now, Arch Reeve, who promotes publicity for Paramount, no doubt is sore at Henry McMahon, who does the same thing for Pathe, for putting me in a position to take a second whack at Drag Net. It will appease Arch somewhat when he reads that I think Henry's picture is much worse than his- It is so bad that I'm not going to review it until it receives its final cutting. I do not blame Howard Higgin, who di- rected Power. The direction is all right in every particu- lar, but the story being about nothing whatever, it was a tough one to make anything of. Jackie Logan, Alan Hale and Bill Boyd are wasted in the principal parts. * * * Raymond Cannon Shows Us Several Intriguing Shots RAYMOND Cannon is a lucky dog. For years he has been writing screen stories that received the reg- ular screen treatment which has standardized mo- tion picture art. Being an intelligent person, Cannon must have shed bitter tears over the things he was forced to do. "You can't do that," has deadened many ambitions and blocked paths along which screen art may have advanced. It is a dictum born of ignorance, but one to which this creative art must make obeisance. I call Cannon lucky because he managed to break through. He not only found a producer who would let his story be produced as it was written, but in the same producer he found a per- son who was willing that he should direct his story. There's luck for you! Fanchon Royer is the courageous producer. Judging by what I saw on the screen I would say that Life's Like That will be a successful venture, but any ordinary producer could prove that it would be a flop. It does so many things that a picture simply can not do. For instance, the characters are not introduced. We don't know who they are or where they came from. That's something that isn't done. When Grant Withers prevents Wade Boteler from drowning himself, I found the scene quite gripping, but one of our standard supervisors would tell me that I must be mistaken in thinking I enjoyed the scene as there was nothing to reveal Withers' name, his birthplace, or whether he was vaccinated and was going to vote the Republican ticket; also the scene must have lacked interest because Boteler's lodge affiliations, his wife's age, and any birthmarks either of them had SPECTATOR Page Nine were not enumerated on the screen. When Cannon selected his location he did not search for places that would make pleasing pictures. In every instance he made the loca- tion match the mood of the scene. A street scene in which the action is rather drab had a lean looking tele- phone pole rising from the center foreground; when the mood of a scene is gayer it is played in a flower garden, or on a street that looks comfortable and satisfied with itself- The story itself is a departure. The mind of the audience, in the form of a spiritual being, goes forth on the street, meets Withers and Boteler, who come together and who have adventures. In trying to break away from family conventions, Boteler sets out to have an affair with a girl, and complications arise which eventually make him mayor of his city. That's an interesting idea, and Cannon has made it most interesting on the screen. But Life's Like That will be noted principally for the fact that it makes a valuable technical contribution to picture- making. In some mysterious manner Cannon, in what looks like an ordinary pan shot, swings the camera from the interior of a residence to the interior of a road house miles away; he swings from the interior of a building to the curb and back to the interior of some other build- ing. This innovation marks a distinct step forward for screen technic. Anything that will reduce the number of cuts helps the art, and this traveling shift shot does that. It will prove invaluable for use in those spots in pictures where it is doubtful whether to fade out or cut. Another extraordinary shot that startled me was one that made a complete circle. With the camera stationed in the mid- dle of a circle, what's going to happen to the reflectors when the lens picks up the entire circumference? Cannon tells me that they had to be moved with the camera as it swung steadily around. The ordinary picture audience will not be aware that it is looking at something new in screen photography, but it will get a sense of continuous action of a smooth and sustained narrative, that it would not get if the usual number of cuts were in the film. Another thing that Cannon does is to play intimate scenes in front of plain, black drops. He proceeds on the theory that if the audience is interested sufficiently in the action, it will not notice the lack of conventional background. Apparently he is right, for he had to point out to me that there were no backgrounds. Life's Like That is really a notable picture and in the person of Raymond Cannon it brings to the screen a creative artist who should go far. * * * Picture Distinguished by a Lot of Good Acting QEORGE Fitzmaurice, over whose success with Lilac Time I expressed mild surprise in the last Spectator, having considered him more a pictorial than a dramatic director, comes to bat with another success that is practically all drama. The Barker is a splendid pic- ture, one of the best that First National has produced in many a day. The most notable feature of the production is the acting- There are four excellent major perform- ances, and several exceedingly well done bits and small parts. Betty Compson, Dorothy Mackaill, Milton Sills and Douglas Fairbanks Jr., are the four who distinguish themselves. Possibly for sheer artistry, Betty's charac- terization would carry off the acting honors, but it is only Page Ten a hairline that distinguishes her work from Dorothy's. This young Mackaill person seems to be advancing rap- idly. She has one scene in this picture that makes me enthusiastic over her future. She is in the arms of young Doug, whom she loves, but she wants to disillusion him. She determines to let him think she has been playing with him for pay. The look on her face changes from one of love to one of disdain, an3 the whole thought process that produces it is photographed. Dorothy's eyes tell the story as plainly as it could be told in printed titles. You know exactly what she is thinking, and you know what she is going to do as soon as she knows it herself. That is screen acting. As we have so many pictures with no acting in them, The Barker comes as a novelty and should be a great success. I like everything about it except the titles, many of which were written excellently, but the punctuation of all of them was vile. Isn't there at least one educated person on the First National lot ? The titles also commit a strong fault. Young Doug is being educated by his father (Sills) and the story practically is built around the idea that the boy's world differs abso- lutely from the circus world of the father. Yet when the educated young man comes into the show world he speaks with the same degree of illiteracy and carelessness that characterizes the speech of those who have been in the show business all their lives. If the people responsible for the production had been alert, the boy's titles would have been vn-itten in perfect English. That in itself would have established the fact that the boy was from another world. A clever idea was used in the narrative titles- Much of the action takes place on the carnival company's train, and all the time-lapse titles are super- imposed on moving locomotive wheels, an effect that keeps the mind of the audience on the fact that the story is moving along. Fitzmaurice's direction makes the most of the pictorial possibilities of the production without sacri- ficing any of the drama. Particularly brilliant is Fitz in his grouping. The arrangement of his characters in his intimate shots, particularly on board the train, is the best work in that line that I have seen on the screen recently. There are some close-ups that I think are unnecessary, but the abuse is not too flagrant. The opening atmos- pheric shots are graphic, illuminating and photographed splendidly, giving the picture an intriguing start. The characters are not introduced by titles. We never learn more than their first names, and we learn them from spoken titles. This is in keeping with the disposition THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 TALK — that is, comedy talk in pictures, is NOT cheap un- less it gets laughs. No one has a better-earned reputa- tion for viTiting loud, honest-to-goodness laughs than myself. Ask Al Jolson, Howard and Howard, Rooney and Bent, Sophie Tucker, Klein Brothers, William Lord Wright, Eddie Kane, Hugh Herbert, Florence Moore, etc. For years I have analyzed audiences and know what will make them laugh. My services will save you experiment. Am also a top-notch constructor of orig- inal scenarios, gags and titles. Let's T-A-L-K it over. JAMES MADISON 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 pictures are showing of late towards eliminating non- essentials, a trend along the right line, and which will reach the peak of perfection when it gets to supervisors. Exhibitors may be assured that The Barker is a picture they should book. I believe there is a market for good acting, a commodity of which there is an abundance in this First National production. * + * /~^ LORIPYING the American cop is the chief mission ^-' of The Cop, which Donald Crisp directed for Pathe. Bill Boyd is the star, and Jacqueline Logan, Robert Arm- strong, Alan Hale, Tom Kennedy and others appear in the cast. It is a crook drama, but it does not move with the snap that characterizes such dramas when they are made in a way that realizes all their possibilities. I be- lieve that in its first couple of sequences a motion picture should indicate what it is about. The Cop proceeds for nearly thi-ee reels before you know what kind of a story it is going to be. That means that during the first three reels the audience does not know what it should become interested in. After a while it begins to perk up, and moves along rather briskly, but it commits the fatal mis- take of trying to drag a love story along with it. Love stories have no place in the majority of crook dramas. They serve to divert the mind of the viewer from the thing that the picture is about. In The Cop what we're interested in is the struggle between Boyd and Robert Armstrong, and this is slowed up every little while to make us give attention to a girl who really had no place in the story. Crisp was up against an unconvincing story, but has managed to make quite an entertaining picture out of it, even though he frequently makes inexcusable use of close-ups. In one of them he brought the camera so close to Jackie Logan and Bob Armstrong that to get both heads within the frame Jackie and Bob had to stand so close together that he put his nose in her eye. Arm- strong's performance in this picture is an excellent example of screen acting. He plays a crook, and is con- vincing and sincere throughout. It is the finest thing I have seen him do on the screen. Alan Hale also contrib- utes a fine performance, and Tom Kennedy is good- He passes out of the picture by being shot down by Arm- strong, and the manner of his dying is one of the best bits in the picture. All Boyd's characterizations are pretty much alike. He has a pleasing screen personality, but I think he uses his grin too much. * * * JOE E. Brown has the soul of a Romeo, although he does not possess that degree of manly beauty that the stage and screen deem to be the necessary endowment of the ideal lover. Joe started when a boy into the serious business of being a comedian, and in course of time reached Broadway, which is the last stop that the actor makes before ending his season in Heaven. On the advice of friends, or in spite of the advice of friends — I don't know which — Joe made a plunge into pictures, and I think he's going to make a splash. I have seen him on the screen but once, in an FBO picture, The Hit of the Show, directed by Ralph Ince, and having in its cast Gertrude Olmstead, Gertrude Astor and Daphne Pollard, whom I will dispose of now by stating that each of these girls does very nicely indeed, and contributes her share towards making the picture the satisfactory hit of screen enter- July 7, 1928 THE FILM tainment that it proves to be. Next I will get rid of Ralph Ince by stating that he has directed this picture just a little better than he ever directed a picture before, and quite a lot better than the vast majority of pictures are being directed. He gives us but few close-ups, is not afraid to point his camera at a player's back, cuts no lanes through his people to allow the camera to reach its objective, and refrains from doing any of the silly little things that other directors constantly are doing and which Ralph himself has been known to do when he was younger and more foolish. He also shows us two love affairs, but no kissing. But with all its other virtues, the feature of The Hit of the Show that interested me most was Joe Brown's screen debut- I think he is an excellent actor. He is an unusual type. He seems to be an agile acrobatic dancer, which should help him in some of his parts. But it's the human quality in him that attracted me most. I can recommend Hit of the Show to the exhibitors. * ^ * A S we progress farther with sound we are going to -^*- discover that the lines spoken by a screen actor are of more importance than the exact manner in which they are spoken. This fact, of course, has limits. The best lines spoken by an unintelligent actor with an impossible voice will be ruined, but we have to assume that such actors will not be used. I have argued recently that a trained voice and stage experience are not essential to an actor who hopes to be successful in talking pictiires. Robert Benchley's Treasurer's Report, done in Movietone, is proving to be a big hit wherever shown- Benchley has had no stage or screen experience. He is just a writing fellow like a lot more of us. He wrote something funny, speaks it before the microphone, and it makes a hit. It is what he says, not how he says it, that makes it funny. All of which points up the fact that the writer will be the big man in pictures from now on, and that the super- visor, who supervises the life out of nearly every picture that he touches, will disappear. I do not mean to dis- courage screen actors from cultivating their voices. It is essential that they should do so, for the man with the best trained voice always will get the best break. The quality of the voice is not as important as the manner in which it is used. Ethel Barrymore has a wretched voice, but because she knows how to use it she has re- tained her popularity for a quarter of a century. Thje important thing about the screen voice is that it must reach only the microphone. It does not have to carry tb the man in the back seat in the gallery. Amplifiers attend to that. Cultivating carrying power, the chief considera- tion of the stage actor, need give the screen actor no concern. * * * I I TJ ROBABLY on account of the change in the thouglit •*■ process of the nation, drunk scenes, always sure-fire comedy stuff In the past, seem to be disappearing from the screen. The only excuse for them now is when they are done particularly well, as Monte Blue did one in Sp This Is Paris! and Ned Sparks in The Magnificent Flirt. Apparently we grant privileges to a man in a dress suit that we deny the man in overalls. In rich surroundings a mild bun is amusing; in a meaner setting it is sodden. I do not see Sparks on the screen very often, but when I do I always see an excellent performance. He is one of SPECTATOR Page Eleven the funniest comedians we have. No matter what dra- matic phases the screen goes through, comedies hold their place as the favorite entertainment of the public. Some astute producer could take Sparks and make him a sen- sational success over night. He is one of the greatest pantomimic artists in pictures, has a trained voice and a rich sense of comedy. In suitable stories he could be made one of the best box-office bets in the business. I would like to see him do Sherlock Holmes, which would be new entertainment with sound applied to it. Such an excellent actor could give a humorous touch to the famous detective, without sacrificing any of the dramatic qualities of the part. * * * 'T^HERE are some shots in Ladies of the Mob that I -*- would recommend to directors generally. I have ar- gued that directors rely far too much on the facial expres- sions of their actors to put over scenes, and do not use TOM TERRISS TIFFANY-STAHL STUDIOS NOW IN PRODUCTION "THE NAUGHTY DUCHESS" By SIR ANTHONY HOPE Last Production: "Clothes Make the Woman" Original Story by Tom Terriss <<>]imiiiijiiiuiiiiiiiiiiii»uiiiiiiiiiiD iiiiiiui iiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiinii iiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiii[]i>:« I IZOIA FORRESTER | j AND j I MANN PAGE j j LONESOME j I Original Story — Universal | I ooo^ I I CHICKEN A LA KING | I Adaptation and Continuity — Fox | OiQiiiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiriiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuMiiiiiiiiiitiiniiiiiiiiiQiiiniiiiinRiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiii:^ Page Twelve bodies, and arms and legs enough. In this picture William Wellman presents numerous scenes as I think they should be presented. In long shots he shows Clara Bow kicking and clawing the officers who are arresting her. In similar shots we see her physical actions when she pleads with Dick Arlen to go straight. To none of these scenes is her facial expression important, but they are scenes which most directors would have put over in close-ups of Clara's face. The chief thing, of course, is to put a scene over, and the manner in which it is done is of secondary im- portance- But close-ups have become such a pest that directors should avoid their use whenever possible. And THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 shooting scenes as Bill Wellman shoots them is one way of avoiding close-ups without sacrificing drama. * * * r^ RETA Garbo establishes the fact in The Divine Woman ^jr that it is all right for a young Parisian washerwoman to have carefully plucked eyebrows. In many pictures we see our screen girls, desperately poor, toiling in a squalid home, with carefully manicured nails and the latest thing in marcels. Don't they make eyebrow toupees which our girls can wear when they're poor and discard when they get rich somewhere along in the fourth reel? A washer- woman with plucked eyebrows is rather unconvincing. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's \7-Year-0ld Critic THE Barker would have been a sensational success had George Fitzmaurice, the director, used some intelli- gence in the matter of close-ups. He had them all over the place, and the great majority of them were un- necessary. They made the picture seem slow in spots. However, The Barker is good anj'way, due to the fact that Fitzmaurice got brilliant performances out of everyone of his principals. Milton Sills, who had the title role, did some work which was splendid. It is, without a doubt, the best piece of work he ever has done. Betty Compson, who, in my estimation, is one of the cleverest women on the screen, gave a performance which was outstanding among all the other good ones. Dorothy Mackaill was excellent. Her work showed an ability for dramatic act- ing which I did not know she possessed. Now that she has demonstrated that she can handle such parts, she should be given them instead of the silly things she has been playing. Douglas Fairbanks Junior does very good work, but he is handicapped by being poorly cast. He isn't the type for the part, because he doesn't look as though he would fall for such a girl as Dorothy Mackaill was supposed to be. An instance where a close-up was used senselessly was the scene where the barker is intro- duced. The scene opens with a huge close-up of just Sills' head. That was a poor way to do it, because it did not explain what he was. He might have been a banker or a lawyer from all that close-up told. In The Barker, Fitzmaurice had hardly any chance to make the scenes works of art, because the background did not lend itself to any attempts at beauty. However, there was one sequence in a peach orchard which was very pretty. The free-masonry of the show world was very cleverly de- picted, also its petty squabbles and jealousies. Fitz- maurice made the whole thing intensely human. That is why the picture is destined to be a tremendous success. It shows how the troupers, under the tinsel, are just the same as other people. Their emotions and feelings are just the same. To any one who knows show people, this Howard Bretherton Director Current Release "Caught In The Fog" Warner Bros. Feature picture uill not have as great an appeal as it will for the great majority of theatre-goers who know nothing about them. Whoever punctuated the titles needs some one to explain to him what a question mark is. Several questions in the titles were not marked. ONE thing kept The Patent Leather Kid from being a fine motion picture. The cheap, silly ending ruined it. The hero is so damaged by the war that he becomes a hopeless cripple, unable to move arms or legs. Just as he has resigned himself to his lot, the American flag comes along, and he gets up and salutes. These cures which result from great emotional strain are poor motion picture stuff, anyway. They demand too much of one's credulity. However, the main reason the ending was weak was because no soldier during the war got bet up enough by the flag to perspire several quarts trjing to salute- They were fed up with that stuff. The Patent Leather Kid should have ended with the hero just beginning to get well. All the picture needed to have a happy ending was just some little hint that he would be all right eventually. Another thing I did not care for particularly was the way the hero showed his cowardice. He announced the fact that he was scared in a loud tone of voice, and it stands to reason that if he had enough courage to tell of his fear, he would have been brave enough to go through with the fighting. He should have been characterized as the loud-mouthed, aggressive type, until he reached the real shooting. Al Santell did a good job of the direction, although among his KENNETH ALEXANDER Special Art Stills Production Stills 5th Avenue Portraiture "your real talents as a photographer, your knowledge of putting DRAMATIC ACTION into stills — better still than we ever before have been able to get on a picture and we feel this is high praise since some very fine work has been done in the past." Sincerely, D. W. GRIFFITH. Available on or before July 30 for suitable engagement Address 6685 Hollywood Blvd., HO. 8443 July 7, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen numerous close-ups he used one in which the hero makes a tremendous effort to move his paralyzed hands. Instead of shooting the scene so as to get both his agonized face and his dead hands into camera range, Santell made a close- up of just his face. Therefore, the terrific struggle he was making was not connected by the camera with his paralyzed hands. One thing about The Patent Leather Kid which I liked particularly was the fact that the atmos- phere was perfect. The story was laid in 1917, and the surroundings were typical of that year — not 1928, as some of these war films have been. The boxing stuff was very good. Richard Barthelmess was starred in The Kid; and of course, he gave a superb performance. There is no one on the screen who can touch him when it comes to a certain tjrpe of characterization. Molly O'Day, who played opposite him, was quite satisfactory. Arthur Stone, one of the cleverest actors in the business, gives a characterization which is outstanding by reason of its brilliance. Matthew Betz and Lawford Davidson complete a highly satisfactory cast. RADICAL ideas on direction make Life's Like That a notable picture. Raymond Cannon wrote the story and did the direction, so it is his picture absolutely. It was produced by Fanchon Royer. Jack and Clark Murray had something to do with it; I think they edited it- Now that all the preliminaries are dispensed with, I can go on and talk about the picture itself. The most unique feature of Cannon's direction was the shift shot which he used instead of fade-outs. He could travel miles with just a few feet of film. It was very remarkable stuff, and did away with the sensation of time lapses which fade-outs and fade-ins give. Another revolutionary move on Cannon's part was the fact that he just picked up his characters off the street and did not indulge in long accounts of their names, pedigrees, and political affilia- tions. Had they been characters in a novel, it would have been different, but they were in a motion picture where their looks were enough to identify them- That's some- thing that a lot of directors should take up. Cannon used very few close-ups, another point in his favor. Incident- ally, he had his young couple make love as young people do these days, not as they did back in the eighties. This love in a garden stuff is out of date. Modern methods may not be as pleasing to the eye, but they are more direct and to the point. Wade Boteler and Grant Withers headed a competent cast. ANYONE who doesn't believe that color in motion pictures is here to stay should see the two latest Technicolor two-reelers. The Virgin Queen and Cleopatra. In addition to being well written and well directed, they have some beautiful photographic value. This talk about color being hard on the eyes is a lot of rot. The eye is used to seeing colors all around it, so it naturally expects color in anything it sees. Therefore, how can anyone's eyes be strained by seeing colored mo- tion pictures? After one is used to them, they are no different from the regular dull gray, except that they r U\[grman's c^rt 5hop The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME .^ FRED STANLEY (In collaboration with James Gruen) Orfginal Story "NONE BUT THE BRAVE" Now in Production at FOX F. de MioIIis Accredited Correspondent of "LE FIGARO", of Paris Technical Advisor on All Matters Pertaining to NAPOLEON Thoroughly Conversant With PARIS AND ALL PHASES OF PARISIAN LIFE Writers' Club EARTS OF "Romany" "THE LITTLE PICTURE THAT'S DIFFERENT" was written and directed by Alphonse Martell Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 VIOLA BROTHERS SHORE ORIGINALS Now With Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Management DEMMY LAMSON— RUTH COLLIER •>]iiiiiiijiiiiniiiiiiiiilli[]iiiimiiiiiauuiiiiMiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiC]iiiiiii »u> AS A BOX-OFFICE PICTURE 'The Racket = is going to break many records § 1 It was produced by a farsighted man of 5 n courage 1 = It was directed by a man of unusual directorial 3 I ability 1 I IT WAS TITLED BY | I TOM MIRANDA j s whose titles always help to bring results at the 1 s box-office i I "The Good-Bye Kiss" | i "Resurrection" i I and hundreds of other successful I productions I ^iniiiiiiiiuiiniiiiiiiiiiiiDiiuiuiiiioiiiiiiiiiiini iiiiiiuiiiiiimiiiidii iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiimiiiiio: AVIATION STORIES ADAPTIONS TITLES LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 OLympia 3806 <«]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiniiiiiniiuiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiii[]i>> "THE MAGNIFICENT FLIRT" (Harry D'Arrast — Paramount) "DRY MARTINI" (Harry D'Arrast — Fox) i HE. 9915 HO. 2627 :«iniiiiinniii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii[]iniiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiniiiiniiiiiniiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiii» JAMES GRUEN (In collaboration with Fred Stanley) Original Story "NONE BUT THE BRAVE" Now in Production at FOX i <«]iiiiiiiiininiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiik]iiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiic]i4> I George Nicliollsj Jr. □ Film Editor S Paramount >i[:i!iiiiiiiin;]iiinnriiii;]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiriiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiMiniiiiiiiMiiiniiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiic<-> ^ ROWLAND V. LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY July 7, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen offer more treats to the eye. It stands to reason that no one is going to be satisfied with the present film when he can have color. It is like asking a person to admire the first rough sketch when the finished painting is handy. Technicolor is the best color process I ever have seen, and their historic two-reelers are veritable gems- A man named Neill directs them and Leon Abrams writes them. Natalie Kalmus is responsible for all the beautiful color effects, and her husband, Herbert Kalmus, produces them. He is the nominal head of the company, but I have it on good authority that Mrs. Kalmus is doing all the work until his golf game gets good enough for him to go around in about ninety. AS a rule, I go to Harold Lloyd's comedies merely to be amused. There never is anything in them to criticize, so I go and enjoy myself. His latest, Speedy, left me cold, however. It didn't seem to reach the heights of humor to which The Freshman and The Kid Brother attained. It was funny enough in spots, but there were no long, sustained laughs as there were in the previous comedies. Nevertheless, it was a far better picture than the majority being released these days. Its main trouble was its double plot. At the start of the picture two themes were begun: one, Speedy's attempt to get a steady job; and second, the big traction company's efforts to squeeze out its smaller competitors. When about half the picture was run, it settled down on the street car plot. A lot of time which might have been spent in making gags was used up in developing the stories. That, I think, was the reason Speedy did not go over so well with me. STEAMBOAT Bill Jr. is one picture where Buster Keaton's frozen face did not grate on me. As a rule, I don't think it is a good idea to go through an entire seven or eight reels and show no expression at all, but it fitted in beautifully with the gags in his latest opus. Steamboat Bill is a very amusing comedy; and Charles Reisner, who directed, deserves a great deal of credit for his clever work. Ernest Torrence, who is teamed with Keaton, gives a performance which can be placed on a par with his superb work in The Covered Wagon. Between the three of them, they managed to keep their laughs well distributed through the picture. There weren't any long pauses between the funny things, some- thing in which Steamboat Bill stands alone. As I re- member the last Keaton comedy I saw, there would be a laugh, then a long period in which nothing amusing happened, then another laugh. Steamboat Bill did not strain for laughs at any time, another comedy quality which always appeals to me. The cyclone sequence de- serves lots of credit. That was the funniest part of the picture. The sequence where Torrence goes to buy his son a hat was also very amusing. Tom McGuire and a girl whose name I did not get formed the sup- porting cast. I have seen McGuire dozens of times on the screen, and every time he does good work. I can't understand why he is not given larger parts, since he certainly is capable of handling them. SOMEONE should present Lewis Milestone with a medal for his splendid direction in The Racket. It is one of the best pieces of work turned out by anyone this year. It is his stuff and the superb performance of Louis Wol- heim which make this a great picture. The Racket starred Thomas Meighan and was produced by Caddo. Meighan did quite satisfactory work, but his role did not offer the opportunities of Wolheim's. There was no artificial, motion-picture atmosphere to the picture. Everything seemed true to life, so naturally, the dramatic scenes attained tremendous power. One sequence in particular was very good. It was a cafe where Wolheim, the gang leader, was giving a party- The rival gang leader and his men came in and took seats at nearby tables. 'The suspense became terrific; and at just the right time. Mile- stone ended it by having Wolheim kill his rival. Inci- dentally, the man died with his eyes open. Another good thing about The Racket was the fact that it was logi- cally worked out. Everything turned out exactly right. PRIVATE - INSTRUCTION - ONLY SPEAKING VOICE Francis Korbays Famous Method of Placing the Voice Emphasis - Tone Color - Inflection CLAUDE FLE MMING From Principal Theatres England, America, Australia At Suite 212, Chateau des Fleurs Franklin Avenue — or by special appointment at student's residence. Ring GRanite 5101 for appointment. THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Scott R* Dunlap Director of "SMOKE BELLEW" Now Making "THE MAN HIGHER UP" For GOTHAM PRODUCTIONS Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S, GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 Trinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications Ihe OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 Vine Street, South of Sunset BQ^ Regrg^e Dorao, Dlrect 'V='**.«K-***«M» ' GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J/1 '7'Aousanel Gifts of Disfinction ' 6326 H^LLy^^VP-BLVP- HVLL/W7VI7-WUF' Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops" — Just West of Vine The El Camino Motto : "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 SECURITY TAILORS AND CLEANERS 1718 N. WILCOX Phone Hollywood 8733 My Ion? experience in the tailoring Una abroad and In this country, will secure perfect satisfaction. We make 3ults from the finest of woolens and best workmanship as low as $75.00. Come and be convinced. HARRY TENNES Tailor and Designer ^^IMES^ No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine Gi^ROe^ July 7, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen something' that probably was due in a great measure to the picture's close adherence to the play. Logic in a motion picture always appeals to me. In spite of its being slightly more than average length, The Racket does not seem to be long. Every reel is so tightly packed with action that length never enters the head of the person viewing it. Milestone demonstrates that he can handle humor, also; two reporters are the comedy relief, and they're very good. Lee Moran, who always has been a brilliant comedian, is one; and Skeets Gallagher, a new- comer to me, is the other. Gallagher is a good actor and a very clever funmaker, and I hope he will be given bigger parts. Marie Prevost, in a new sort of charac- terization for her, does fine work. George Stone and Lucien Prival, two character men, give very good per- formances. John Darrow was quite satisfactory, and the men who played the policeman, who was shot by Wolheim, and the shyster lawyer deserve praise. TELLING the World has achieved something notable in that it presents William Haines as even more of an impossible ass than he has been hitherto in his pictures. Aside from the silliness with which Haines was characterized, the picture is pretty good. The story was quite satisfactory, although there were things in it which rather strained one's credulity. Sam Wood's direction displayed intelligence in everything but the matter of close-ups, which he used indiscriminately and unwisely. There were little touches of humor all the way through which were very amusing. In them Haines demonstrated that he could be a clever comedian if he were only allowed to do something besides these half-baked things he plays now- It isn't possible to make a hero out of a man who hasn't the sympathy of the audience. In Telling the AVorld Haines was supposed to be the son of a wealthy banker, and was presumably a gentleman. His actions gave so little hint of it that when there was a cut to some pictures of him taken prior to his father's throwing him out, I was rather surprised to find that he was supposed to have some breeding. Again, during the scene where he marries Anita Page, he answers one of the questions of the wedding ceremony with a wisecrack. He is supposed to be in love with her, but he apparently doesn't care enough for her to be serious during the wed- ding. Another evidence of his gentlemanliness is the sequence where he takes Anita home to her boarding house and follows her right up to her room and falls asleep. Had any fellow behaved like that in real life, the girl would have batted him in the eye and thrown him out, instead of falling madly in love with him. I don't think Haines is to blame for his silly parts, because no actor is going to deliberately ruin his drawing power. Anita Page plays opposite Haines in this picture. She is going to be a sensation if she is cast correctly. In the two pictures I have seen her in, her work shows promise; but she should not be given parts such as she had in Our Dancing Daughters, where she was a hard-boiled little fortune seeker. I don't know Miss Page at all, having seen her only on the screen, but she seems rather young for such roles. In my estimation, she would be a bigger box-oflice success if she were given parts into which she fitted more naturally. Joe Farnham's titles were as ex- cellent as usual. BEAUTIFUL production made Fazil a noteworthy pic- ture, although there wasn't much else to it, except Howard Hawks' splendid direction of the love story. The love scenes between Charles Farrell and Greta Nissen were very well done except for the many and squshy kisses. "Squshy" is probably not a word, but it is the only thing which can describe the lovers' osculatory inter- vals. The lack of gooey love scenes was one thing I liked about Street Angel. A great love can be put over just as well without a lot of promiscuous necking, and it cer- tainly is not quite so disgusting. There is no doubt but that Charlie and Greta are great lovers, although Charlie is better at it when he is not hampered by having to be a passionate sheik- In Seventh Heaven and Street Angel, Charlie was just himself. In Fazil his mind seemed to be occupied by the thought that he was making a silly fool of himself. Not that his performance wasn't good. He made a fine sheik, and it was only momentarily that he dropped into his real self. Farrell is, without a doubt, one of the finest actors the screen ever has known; but I think he should be given parts which suit him better. To do Fazil justice, it contained the thing without which no picture can be good. It was logically done and logi- cally ended, and logic is a quality which I always enjoy in a motion picture. There was no hope for any lasting love between the sheik with old-fashioned ideas and the modern girl, so the story killed them both in order that, theoretically at least, they would find peace and a solu- tion of their difiiculties. That was good stuff. Fazil un- covered a new acting discovery, Greta Nissen. She has been on the screen some time, but never has she givn a performance like her work in Fazil- Her beauty and cleverness contributed a great deal to the picture. Mae Bush and John Boles were quite satisfactory. FOR consistently good program pictures, De Blille wins the prize. About the only one with which I have found any fault was Skyscraper, and it had many redeeming features, including Sue Carol. The latest good one is The Cop, which is a very entertaining little picture. It is a crook story, and Donald Crisp, who directed, did a good piece of work. Bill Boyd was starred in The Cop, and he gave one of the best performances of his career. For the first time he let some of his intelligence reach the screen. Hitherto, he has given the impression of being too dumb to live. The plot of The Cop has the merit of being very original, and the crime which is committed is very cleverly worked out. It is very interesting when the job is pulled. Another thing about Crisp's direction which I liked was the way he had of creating natural looking street scenes. None of them looked like a motion pic- ture set. He used too many close-ups, however. Alan Hale and Robert Armstrong, both fine troupers, gave excellent performances. Jacqueline Logan was quite sat- isfactory, as usual. THE next picture I saw after saying that Pathe-De Mille made fine program pictures was Power, which is among the silliest pictures ever made. It hasn't a sane moment in it, but it has the unique distinction of being the first picture ever stolen by the title-writer. John Krafft, who always turns out satisfactory work, does a magnificent bunch of titles in this. They contribute the only laughs which appear in Power. Krafft is one titler JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to zvear. BOLGER'S THREE stokes: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR July 7, 1928 i who should welcome sound pictures, because he can write dialogue. All of his titles would be very funny if spoken, a quality which few titles possess. Howard Higgin, who directed Power, is more to be pitied than scorned. His direction was highly satisfactory, but the story was too silly for any use. He managed to insert a few touches which were rather amusing. Skyscraper, the first of the industrial opuses which Pathe turned out, at least had some dramatic stuff on the building. The great dam, which was the reason for this picture being called Power, figured in the story hardly at all. All in all, it was pretty poor stuff. Bill Boyd, Alan Hale, and Jacqueline Logan attended to the acting end of the picture- BARKER, THE— A First National picture. Directed by George Fitz- maurice; adaptation by Benjamin Glazer; from the play by John Kenyon Nicholson and the stage produc- tion by Charles L. Wagner; photographed by Lee Garmes; Cullen Tate, assistant director. The cast: Milton Sills, Dorothy Mackaill, Betty Compson, Sylvia Ashton, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., James Bradbury Jr., George Cooper, John Irwin, S. S. Simon. CLEOPATRA— A Technicolor picture, released by Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. Directed by R. William Neill; story by Natalie Kalmus; scenario by Leon Abrams; photo- graphed by George Cave; art direction by Andre Chotan; settings by Tec- Art Studio; edited by Aubrey Scotto; production manager, J. T. Reed- The cast: Dorothy Revier, Robert Ellis, William Walling, Serge Temoff, Ben Hendricks Jr., Evelyn Selbie. COP, THE— A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by Donald Crisp; produced by Ralph Block; art director, Stephen Goos- son; photographer, Arthur Miller; film editor, Claude Berkeley; assistant director, Emil De Ruelle; produc- tion manager, Harry Poppe- The cast: William Boyd, Alan Hale, Jacqueline Logan, Robert Armstrong, Tom Kennedy, Louis Natheaux, George Stone. FAZIL— A William Fox picture. Directed by Howard Hawks; from the play L'lnsonmise by Pierre Frondaie; adap- tation by Philip Klein; continuity by Seton I. Bliller; sets by William Darling; technical director, Jamiel Hasson; cinematographer, L. W. O'Connell. The cast: Charles Farrell, Greta Nissen, Mae Busch, Vadin Uraneff, John Boles, Tyler Brooke, Eddie Sturgis, Josephine Borio, Erville Alderson, Dale Fuller, Hank Mann, John T. Murray. HIT OF THE SHOW— An FBO picture. Directed by Ralph Ince; from the story. Notices, by Viola Brothers Shore; screen play by Enid Hibbard; photographed by Robert Martin. The cast: Joe E. BroviTi, Gertrude Olmsted, William Norton Bailey, Gertrude Astor, Ole M. Ness, Lee Shumway, William Francis Dugan, lone Holmes, Roy Mason, Frank Mills, Daphne Pollard. LADIES OF THE MOB— A Paramount picture. Directed by William Wellman; associate producer, B. P. Schulbei-g; story by Ernest Booth; adapted by Oliver H. P. Garrett; continuity by John Farrow; supervised by E. Lloyd Sheldon; photographed by Henry Gerrard; assistant director. Otto Brower. The cast: Clara Bow, Richard Arlen, Helen Lynch, Mary Alden, Carl Gerard, Bodil Rosing, Lorraine Rivero, James Pierce. LIFE'S LIKE THAT— A Fanchon Royer picture. Unleased- Dii-ected by Raymond Cannon; scenario by Raymond Cannon; J photographed by Owen Huggins; editor, Jack Mur- r ray; assistant director, Clark Murray. The cast: Wade Boteler, Grant Withers, Ebba Angelus, Beatrice Prentice, Mike Tellegen, Anielk; Elter, Paul Ralli, Vesey O'Davoren. PATENT LEATHER KID— , A First National picture. Directed by Alfred Santel!; i from the story by Rupert Hughes; adaptation by [ Adela Rogers St. John; continuity by Winifred Dunn; cameraman, Arthur Edeson. ' The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Molly O'Day, Law- ford Davidson, Mathew Betz, Arthur Stone, Raymond Turner, Lucien Prival, Nigel de Brulier. POWER— A Pathe picture. Directed by Howard Higgin; asso- ciate producer, Ralph Block; story by Tay Garnett; adaptation by Tay Garnett; cameraman, Peverell Marley; assistant director, Robert Fellows; produc- tion manager, Harry Poppe; titles by John Kraffi; film editor, Doane Harrison. The cast: William Boyd, Alan Hale, Jacqueline Logan, Jerry Drew, Joan Bennett, Carol Lombard, Pauline Curley. RACKET, THE— Produced by The Caddo Company and released b^ Paramount. Presented by Howard R. Hughes; di- rected by Lewis Milestone; scenario by Del Andrews; photographed by Tony Gaudio and Dewey Wriggley; edited by Eddie Adams; art director, Julian Fleming; titles by Tom Miranda; assistant director, Nate Watt. The cast: Thomas Meighan, Marie Prevost, Louis Wolheim, Henry Sedley, Sam De Grasse, Lee Moran, Lucien Prival, Pat Collins, George Stone, Skeets Gal- lagher, John Darrow, Dan Wolheim. SPEEDY— A Harold Lloyd picture. Story by John Grey; gag men. Rex Neal, Howard Rogers, Jayne Howe; titles by Al de Mond; directed by Ted Wilde; photographed by Walter Ludin. The cast: Harold Lloyd, Ann Christy, Brooks Bene- dict, Bert Woodruff. STEAMBOAT BILL JR.— A United Artists picture. Directed by Charles P, Reisner; story by Carl Harbaugh; photographed by Dev Jennings and Bert Haines; technical director, Fred Gabourie; assistant director, Sandy Roth. The cast: Ernest Torrence, Tom Lewis, Tom Mc- Guire, Marion Byron, Buster Keaton. TELLING THE WORLD— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Sam Wood; story by Dale Van Every; scenario by Ray- mond L. Schrock; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark, photo- graphed by William Daniels; film editor, Margaret Booth. The cast: William Haines, Anita Page, Eileen Percy, Frank Currier, Polly Moran, Bert Roach, Wil-j, liam V. Mong, Mathew Betz. m VIRGIN QUEEN, THE— A Technicolor picture, released by Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer; directed by Roy William Neill; scenario by Leon Abrams; photographed by George Cave; art director, Andre Chotan; color art director, Natalie Kalmus; sets by Tec- Art studio; supervised by Aubrey Scotto- The cast: Dorothy Dwan, Forrest Stanley, Armand Kaliz, Aileen Manning. i KORA M. NEWELL TUTOR - -GOVERNESS, resident or visiting; free to travel; certificated, 8 years local experience Telephone DUnkirk 2071 3006 Belevue Avenue uly 7, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen JEAN HERSHOLT AL CORN DR. EDMOND PAUKER 1639 Bnmdwa;, New Torfe representing' LAJOS BIRO I AnttMr of Hot«l Imperial I The Yellow Uly Tbe Ijoat Command, etc The Way of All FleA (adaptatloo) In the Nieht Watch (adaptation and oontlnalty, now in preparation) JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Denuny Lamson Management 1 ^ 1 ^ >4 *■ GEORGE SIDNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue (Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate . (^]^OODRI JOHN F. l*- GOODRICH FREELANCING Tel. 597-861 <^ u[]umiuiuiauiiiuuinuiuiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiii jinniiiiiiiiuDniiiiiiiiiiHiiiniiiiiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuuniiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiitiMiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiimiiiiuiiiiiiiiniiaiiiniN^^^ I Page Two m m THE FILM SPECTATOR j^T^^T^rT^tT^^T^tT^t^^fcTzET^tT^ The Famous Radiola 30.A m Eight-Tube Super-Heterodyne Light Socket Operated formerly $495,00 ^= reduced to 2. €Lsk for demonstration No ohlmation EH.IBOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 uly 21, 1928 THE FILM FHE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor ■il Palmer Building GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. ie that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. lOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, JULY 21, 1928 By Way of Apology A last-minute rush brought in so many articles for 'he Contributors' Number that it was not possible to . lublish all of them in a single issue. A number are pre- ented herewith, and the remainder will appear in subse- (uent issues of The Spectator. Conrad Discusses the "Talkies" By CONRAD NAGEL OFF the coast of Norway lies a huge rock inhabited by millions of birds. Many, many years ago the iirst vessel to sail that way passed this rock. The )irds, startled by this unexpected sight, rose in the air — lundreds of thousands of them. So vast was their num- jer that the people aboard the vessel were amazed and :hrilled by the sight, and each time the vessel passed that way its passengers looked forward to the moment when i;he startled birds would take wing. ' But the birds soon became accustomed to the vessel md were no longer frightened from their rock as it passed by. Someone conceived the idea of firing a gun when the Doat appeared off the island — thus startling the birds into flight again. The gun, becoming familiar, was soon ignored. By this time steam was used to propel the vessel, and a sudden blast of the whistle once more sent the flocks skyward. But the whistle, naturally, soon was disdained and the feathered myriads retain their perch to this day. Entertaining the public is exactly like frightening the birds off the rock. A variety of methods must be em- ployed or the birds and public alike will ignore that with which they have become too familiar. * • • The public's hero one year is Babe Ruth — next year he is forgotten and the mobs are hysterical over Valen- tino— Valentino gives way to Red Grange — Grange to Jack Dempsey, and so on. But always there must be change — ^variety, something new. Because the motion picture was so entirely new it .dominated and held the field of popular entertainment as SPECTATOR Page Three nothing else has ever done. That hold has been weakened somewhat because variety and newness is less and less a part of each production. Stories have become such fa- miliar formulas, and casts so stereotyped, that a picture- wise audience can tell just what will happen after seeing the first reel of an average production. Years of great prosperity have softened the mental and physical muscles of the motion picture industry until the industry has allowed itseK to slip into a rut so deep that a cataclysm is needed to jar it free. The talking picture has provided the necessary up- heaval, and every man and woman connected with motion pictures is being aroused and stirred into new and greater activity that will be productive of much progress. * • * The talking picture has not been welcomed by the industry, but like all things new and different it has had to batter its way in. Even now when it is well in, its presence is resented by most of those secure in established positions. Actors, writers, producers and directors — all make up the great majority of those who argue against it, and the arguments advanced against the "talkies" are word for word the arguments used against the movies twenty- five years ago! At any gathering of from two to fifty picture people these days one will find the debate on in full force. A small group of enthusiastic supporters of the "talkies" will be doing battle with an overwhelming majority of those who see nothing in the sound pictures. The human mind because it is human, resents anything new and will not judge it fairly. The average individual is so constituted that he will not view progress through the open window of the mind, but prefers to squint out at it fearfully through the narrow slit of his prejudice. This unfortunate state of mind is exemplified by the little old lady Who stood watching the first steam train endeavoring to get under way. "It'll never go! It'll never go!" she declared. When the test was successful and the train disappeared down the street she cried, "It'll never stop! It'll never stop!" ♦ * ♦ Regardless of those who, because of their lack of vision, oppose the "talkies," the talking pictures are here to stay. They are going to rouse every person in the picture industry from stagnant self-satisfaction and revive a sadly waning interest of the public in screen entertain- ment. Edison gave to the public the first silent moving pic- ture over thirty years ago. The cold silent moving pic- ture has had breathed into it the breath of life and has become a living vibrant thing. Vast new fields of material are opened up. Writers struggle over every story to eliminate long talking scenes. Now those scenes are desirable. Greater demands will be made on players and directors resulting in a greater measure of effort put into each production. Many changes w-.ll occur and much that is good and healthy and normal will come to motion pictures. But all this will come gradually and will come without affect- ing greatly the vast organization of the industry itself. Just as the self-starter and the pneumatic tire caused a flurry in the automobile industry, and then sold more cars than ever before; just as the radio upset the talking machine industry and then sold more talking machines than ever before, because of the loud speaker and electrical Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 recording brought by radio developments — so will the talking picture slowly make a place for itself without disrupting the motion picture industry. The silent picture will always be made — at least for many years — to supply the great foreign market and the thousands of small theatres that cannot afford talking equipment as it is now installed. Nor can producers afford expensive all-talking productions when these can be placed in only a few hundred theatres. The talking picture after much abuse, many trials and experiments, will find its proper place without disturbing greatly the scheme of things other than to bring new life to the industry and revived interest from the public. Let those who doubt that the "talkie" is here to stay, go into any theatre that is running one of the latest talking pictures. Watch the audience lean forward and listen with rapt attention while the players are speaking. Watch the audience relax — sit back and whisper comments when the talking ceases and the old familiar printed title is flashed. The picture is once more a dead thing — with- out life, until another talking sequence occurs. The birds will sit on the rock until frightened by some- thing new. Mr. and Mrs. Public will sit at home unless they are lured to the theatre by a constant variety in their entertainment. Not only is the "talkie" new, but it will afford an endless variety of entertainment. It will become as established a part of our everyday life as the moving picture itself. Those who welcome progress and rejoice in that which is new will welcome the talking picture and plunge eagerly and enthusiastically into the task of promoting it. Those who fail to see its possibilities and stand on the sidelines emulating the old lady watching the first steam train, will find themselves where she found herself — left behind in a cloud of dust. Talking Pictures and Foreigners By ROD LA ROCQUE MY Dear Welford: I have religiously followed your Spectator and have, therefore, read everything that you have written regarding the so-called talking pictures. You have treated the subject most cleverly and I have nothing more interesting to report than that I agree with you as far as you go, but I don't think you go far enough. You have signed off at the most interesting point. You have ignored our greatest problem. Now it is generally agreed that the European, or for- eign market for pictures is thirty percent., or forty per- cent, (or something like that) of the American market. The percentage really doesn't matter. Pictures should be international in their appeal regardless of the market. Anyway, let's say that our pictures should be run in for- eign countries, or that foreign-made pictures should be run in America. It works both ways. At any rate, the average successful American picture, I am authentically informed, is translated" into seventeen different languages. In my opinion, this fact presents the talking pictures with a pretty problem. I cannot help but feel that it would be bad policy to just do our pictures with English spoken titles and then be satisfied to release the same pictures to the non-English speaking world as ordinary old-fash- ioned silent pictures. On the other hand, something tells me (very probably innate premonition) that we might experience a degree of difficulty in obtaining a cast that spoke seventeen lan- guages. And even if that were possible it would be too laborious and expensive to make seventeen takes of each scene. Furthermore, Europe will very probably make several talking pictures. I am sure that we will want to see them. Also hear them. Will we be content to listen to a language that we do not understand in the hope that the action will explain itself? Many European-made pictures have already proven a great success in America, but with English titles. Therefore, I firmly believe that some method of syn- chronizing a voice (any voice so long as it is pleasant and suits the character) in any language, to the action of the picture at any time after the picture is completed is neces- sary. Suiting the word to the action would be compara- tively simple. Is there not a possible solution to this problem in the general mechanics that made possible the production of the opera Le Coq D'Or? Rimsky-Korsakoff, when he wrote this famous opera, was intent upon ha^^ng it done by a cast of opera singers. There was, however, a great amount of dancing in it, and it finally proved difficult to find a cast of singers who could do the ballet work. It proved, likewise, difficult to find a cast of dancers who could sing. At the time that Le Coq D'Or was first given produc- tion at Petrograd M. Fokine ingeniously de\ased the plan of having all the singers seated at each side of the stage, while the dancers interpreted, in pantomime, what was sung. This proved a great success, and has stood the acid test. * « • Of course, as far as the pictures are concerned one might easily argue against the above mentioned method. But will the objections eclipse the advantages? For instance, one might raise the already worn-out lip-reading objection, on the ground that what words another person would speak would not perfectly synchro- nize with the movements of the lips of the player who was in the scene. Well, the answers to this objection are obvious. In the first place, the titles of a finished picture have never been what we said when the scene was played. Secondly, the only people who are proficient at lip-reading are deaf persons, and fortunately, in comparison to the population there is a very small percentage of them. Thirdly, I have seen many American pictures exhibited in France, Ger- many and Hungary with French, (Jerman and Hungarian titles respectively and particularly noted (I believe the box-office receipts also record the fact) that the audiences enjoyed the pictures in spite of the fact that the French, German or Hungarian titles they read contained no words, as far as lip-reading was concerned, that were spoken in the scenes in the picture. Also the only time that the lips of a player can be read are in the very large close-ups. And the exaggerated close-up is rapidly becoming passe. Observation and deduction, therefore, convince me that the lip-reading objection is nil. • • • The next objection is very likely the cost. Starting any- thing is exi)ensive. But after the thing would be organized July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fire and the method perfected it would cost very little more to make an extra record in any one language than it would to have the titles translated. And wouldn't the end justify the means ? * ^ * In addition to whatever other advantages the method I suggest possesses it would also permit such foreign artists as Emil Jannings to make talking pictures for the English speaking world. Should we be robbed of the art of Jannings merely because he does not speak our lan- guage? And that's that. Now, you big stiflF, go to Alaska and enjoy your vacation. I've done my bit. ROD. Feeling and Acting By IVAN LEBEDEFF IT became almost an axiom — even for the non-profes- sionals— that the screen acting is very different from the stage acting. The stage has its different estab- lished schools and theories, classic principles and exam- ples. The screen is too young yet, and has not had time to establish it nor time to systematize and classify. The aim of this article is only to trace what we consider the essential roots of acting generally, and screen acting especially. The author does not flatter himself with the idea to know sufficiently to attempt an academical analy- sis of different theories of screen acting as terra incog- nita with all possible deductions and details. Besides, we think that only the introduction for such a work must have much more space than this entire study. The stage has two principles — almost opposite schools. The first — ^the so-called classic school, represented by the Comedie Francaise — says (speaking synthetically) that the acting is composed by ten to twenty-five per cent of emotions (feeling) and ninety to seventy-five per cent of technic; everything else is amateurish. The second — which, at least, for the author of these lines — is represented by certain great individuals of the Russian theatre generally and the Moskow Art Theatre particularly — supposes the acting to be composed differ- ently. Technic is important, but feeling is still much more important. "An actor" — used to say the great Russian dramatic actor, Davidoff — "must make definitely clear for himself every step, gesture, poise and modulation of voice, then go and feel and live his part as deeply and sincerely as he can. The art of an actor is not in impersonating and imitating to perfection a created by his imagination type of character, but to become for a few hours in his mind and soul the character itself, remaining always the type (it means bringing out and underlining the distinc- tion of the type), and think and feel as the character should. He must not act, but live his part. A technically finished and polished performance without feeling, I call miserable; but a sincere performance without technical pex'fection will only be an unfinished performance." Davidoff was an educated, well read and cultured man. He could analyze his characterizations to perfection, but we have another striking example of what a power of feeling can do. An ignorant plain and illiterate man with a great soul, by the name of Edmund Kean, became a century ago one of the greatest actors of all times and UNIMPORTANT IF TRUE By K. C. B. MR. JACK Warner. A GREAT big sign. * * * * * * "PINE LODGE Hotel." HIS Studio. * * 4= MY DEAR Jack. * * * WHAT I want to tell you. OVER OUR driveway. AND STUCK it right up. * * * IS THAT your Bill Guthrie. AND THEY worked all * * * day. CAME TO Lake Arrowhead. * * * * * * AND WE enjoyed it. WITH ROSE Lederman. * * * * * * AND everything. AND RIN Tin Tin. * * * * * * AND AT 2 a. m. AND A lot of people. + * * * * * ON THE morning after. AND A lot of trucks. * * * * * * WHILE Bill and his gang. AND MY wife's mother. * * * * * * WERE sleeping soundly. HAS A house up there. « * * * * * AT YOUR expense. AND IT'S some swell house. * * * * * * IN THE Arrowhead Tavern. AND I was there. * * * * * * I WAS awakened. AND I knew Bill. * * * * * * IN MY pajamas. BACK in Washington. * * ♦ * * * BY A couple of people. AND HE came to me. * * * * * * WHO HAD seen your sign. UP AT Arrowhead. * * * * * * OVER OUR driveway. AND HE said to me. * * * * * * AND THEY wanted a room. "MAY WE use your * * ♦ house?" IN THE "Pine Lodge * * * Hotel." AND I said to him. * * * * * * AND IT'S four days now. "THE HOUSE ain't mine. * * * * * * AND BILL'S going to be "BUT I'LL see about it." here. * * * * * » AND SO I did. FOR ANOTHER two weeks. AND OF all the trucks. * * * AND SUN reflectors. * * * AND SUN burned actors. * * * I EVER did see. * * * THEY WOKE us all up. * * * AT 7 a. m. AND WHAT I want. IS JUST to ask you. * * * IF YOU'LL please send up. * * » A HOTEL night clerk. * * ♦ AND I'LL drive 'em off days. * * * * * * AND FIRST thing they did. AND HE'LL drive 'em off * * * nights. WAS UNLOAD from a * * * truck. I THANK you. shook London "on Wednesdays and Fridays" by the three- minutes agony of "Hamlet" in the last act, and by the words "And buried, gentle Tyrrel?" from Richard III "on Mondays". Now, what is the essential principle of screen acting: feeling or technic? A famous diplomat and one of the cleverest men — Charles Maurice de Perigore, known in history as Prince de Talleyrand — once remarked that the tongue is given us to conceal our thoughts. Paraphras- Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 ing this paradox we should say that as screen acting con- cerns— the technic is necessary for use only to control the expressions of feelings on our faces. Before we go further, let us establish one and the most important axiom that not only the expression of the feel- ing or thought photographs, but the unexpressed on facial or bodily surface functions of the soul and mind registers too, and are transmitted as some kind of immaterial power to the corresponding antennae of the audience. For most of the actors there is nothing new in it. They believe in it, discuss it and, strangely enough, take it very little in consideration and do not apply it in their work. Many actors know even that "the camera" registers not only the actual emoitons and thoughts, but very often* brings out the hidden sides of the whole character and personality of the actor. The much discussed 'it" or "personality" is to us to a great extent nothing else than the natural, inborn (or artificially developed) capacity and depth of feeling. If an actor or actress does not register, it means that the strength of his emotions is very little — or none. Only extraordinary photographic qualities of his face and very polished technic can save him in such a case, but such an actor will never be a "hit". On the other hand, we all know that there have been examples, when playing with their backs to the camera, that actors and actresses have registered and transmitted to the spectators their emotions with full strength and distinction. Another — still more extraordinary phenomenon in the sphere of the photography of feeling — is the performance of Janet Gaynor in Seventh Heaven. It is hard to suppose that a young girl like Miss Gaynor could know either by life experience, or theoretically as much about such a great, beautiful, all-absorbing and all-conquering love, as she has given us uath such a plain and terrific power in this picture. It is hard to believe that she could know enough about the transient and vain, about the great sad- ness and hopeless grief in earthly existence and the suf- fering of the human soul, to be able to portray something, that we never before have seen on the screen; the photo- graph of an absolutely empty human soul, and she did it to perfection. We consider those two things as great examples of photoplay of one hundred per cent condensed and one hundred per cent discharged feeling. Janet Gaynor does not need "to learn to act" — in com- mon sense of this expression. Her inborn tactfulness in measuring the strength of her facial expressions is also extra ordinarj^ — and is there anybody who can teach her how to feel? At the same time there are several quite prominent players who have never learned to feel. Few of them, whose technic is perfect, whose performances are always an example of "finish", have never been able to move the audience. They are admired for their cleverness, but never felt by spectators. In a few scenes from Seventh Heaven, a little girl, Diane, has brought out of the souls of the audience more reactive emotions than these stars put together during /their "big" and long careers. Why? Because in these few scenes she has given to the audience more than they will ever be able to give. Is it possible to learn to feel? In a great majority of cases, we think — yes. Feel- ings— as the functions of soul (or spiritual beginnings of human beings) can be trained just as the capacity to think — the function of reason or mind. Life itself usually is doing it automatically — ^with ex- perience, but it requires time and opportunities. It can be accelerated artificially*, just like the training of the mind by education. Music, art, good reading, thinking — and generally- — corresponding (or sharply paradoxical) envir- onment helps the awakening of the capacity to feel. Gen- eral development of mind is very important for the de- velopment of the strength, depth and refinement of feel- ing. (Although we know that the animals can feel — and very strongly, indeed; often stronger than many human beings). To teach a young actor or actress "to plair" is first to teach him or her to feel, and then to express it in certain measure on the surface, lea%'ing the rest of the feeling to be caught by the camera behind the facial expression. (Here is the point of certain particular difficulties of screen acting: different tempo of action, limitation of space, more artificial than the stage surroundings, dis- connected action and necessity to be able in repeating the scenes to awaken several times the feeling with all re- quired strength and sincerity.) The screen is recruiting its new contingents almost solely among the youth — and the youth mostly does not know how to feel. They are inexperienced in life, their emotions are sudden, abrupt and quick-passing; their minds react on their emotions — without analyzing them. It's very difficult for them to awake or provoke emotions and feelings — and it is almost impossible to control the abrupt eruption of an active one. Therefore, the most necessary experience for the screen acting consists in controlling and timing the expression of feeling — after one knows how to feel. It must not be understood, as the complete denial of *Voltaire told that many people would probably never have fallen in love if they had not heard about it con- stantly. *Not always! Because otherwise many of our screen actors should either retire from the screen — or at least change sharply their types. To Producers! Talking pictures are still experimental as far as permanent audience popularity is concerned. Cut out one element of chance by having your dialogue written by a man who has been for twenty years a successful vaude\ille author, a field by the way, where every line has to click. Am also an expert writer of original scenarios with box-oifice ideas, comedy relief that doesn't seem dragged in, and titles that induce audible laughs. Let's T-A-L-K it over. JAMES MADISON 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven teclmic. There are in every characterization and every part (especially comedy) many moments which cannot be felt — and should not be, too. Those parts of scenes, little effective tricks, should be done purely technically, and as an elaborate frame surrounds the beautiful pic- ture of really, deeply and sincerely lived through charac- terization, a great performance still can be done without this frame — but it cannot be filled up with anything but soul and feeling. The Effect of Talking Pictures By DARRYL ZANUCK THE talking motion picture is here to stay. This fact is unquestionably demonstrated in the box-office perform- ances of the following Warner Brothers Vitaphone productions: The Jazz Singer, Glorious Betsy, Tenderloin, The Lion and the Mouse, Lights of New York, formerly known as Bright Lights, and Women They Talk About. The achievement of the Warner Brothers theatre in Hollywood is only a duplication of the hundreds of other theatres throughout America that have broken box-office records with sound and talking photo-dramas in the last six weeks. Naturally the question arises as to the adaptability of the motion picture scenario and title writer, the niotion picture director and supervisor, into the talking picture field. It is reasonable to expect as many changes in per- sonnel of the men behind the camera as there will be changes in personnel of those who appear before the camera. Actors and actresses will be judged riot only by their beauty or personality, but by their speaking voices : and stage experience. Likewise, the trained dialogue writer I will supplant the title writer of to-day, providing the title ' writer has not the qualifications and the adaptability to change his "silent technique". Personally I believe the title writer will make a bet- ter dialogue writer than the experienced stage dramatist for the reason that the title writer has been taught brevity and condensation of speech which allows many talking incidents to be injected into a limited amount of talking film. ... In other words, the title writer, when he adapts himself, will get to the point quickly, for he has been taught to do this through the system of the "silent tech- nique". * * * The scenario writer will also be supplanted by the dramatist unless he studies Vitaphone, as scenario writ- ing will be revolutionized and is right now being revolu- tionized in the preparation of our forthcoming Warner Brothers talking pictures, such as: The Terror, The Sing- ing Fool, My Man, The Redeeming Sin, and Conquest. These are all extended run specials which are being made talking pictures employing both voice and synchronizing effects one hundred percent. The silent picture director will also be forced to alter his views and accept a technique that he has heretofore avoided. It was once advisable to avoid as much talking or as many title situations as possible. It is now necessary to invent and properly direct clever dialogue incidents as demonstrated in Glorious Betsy, where in the last reel of the picture Conrad Nagel tells Dolores Costello, in four spoken lines what would take one reel of film to pic- turize. And this is only a trivial example. However, I feel that the motion picture director will in most cases be a more successful talking picture director than the experienced stage director, for the reason that the movie director knows the value of pantomime, camera angles, and picture technique in general. If he is will- ing to accept and learn, he will appreciate that Vitaphone has given him opportunities for effects which he could never before employ. » • • The motion picture supervisor will have to adapt him- self as well as others. He must study the scenario as well as the directorial talking effects. It is up to him primar- ily, whether or not sound effects are properly taken advan- tage of and he must have the courage of his convictions and be willing to experiment and instruct his writers and directors to take advantage of Vitaphone and all that it offers. Unless he is a good judge of dialogue, a good judge of stage presentation, he will be a backward number, as upon his shoulders rests the responsibilities of the undertaking. In closing may I not say that if the Warner Brothers, in their entire career, have never done anything for the motion picture industry heretofore, they deserve the greatest appreciation that we can give them for sponsor- ing talking pictures? They are the originators of Vita- phone, which has financially saved the life of the exhib- itor and the motion picture industry. After two years of ridicule and an expense of four million dollars, they may now sit back and rest on their laurels while the rest of the industry scrambles frantically in an effort to catch up. The day of the "silent picture" is a day far in the past. The black shadow of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer, was the well-known "hand-writing on the wall". . . . A New Species of Writer is Discovered By MADELEINE MATZEN THE Wampas, that enterprising association of mo- tion picture publicists ("publicist" is merely a fancy name for the good old press agent), have turned ex- plorers— and they have been exploring the motion picture industry. In the course of their activities they unearthed a new and interesting species — the illegitimate writer. Now most of us write and as many of us are paid for what we write, and what we write is printed and distrib- uted via the magazines and newspapers, we consider our- selves legitimate writers if we think about the matter at all. But the Wampas seem to have discovered a fine hair- breadth of difference between publicity writers — a differ- ence that places the defenceless writer either in the legiti- mate or the illegitimate class. To call anyone a bastard is a breach of etiquette and good manners (see Mrs. Post's book) — to be called illegitimate is to be called a bastard. To be dubbed such a thing personally is a fearful strain upon your sense of humor, but to have one's "Art" called that — well, it is too much! If you are a member of the Wampas (or their femi- nine contingent, "The Wasps") you are a legitimate pub- licist. If you are not a member of either of these unions you are a "scab" or an "illegitimate writer". It makes no difference how many articles you have had printed in the various fan magazines and papers — you are illegitimate. And yet some of the best fan writers, some of our most skiUful publicists are not union mem- Page Eight bers. I never heard of a union of portrait painters or of sculptors, or of virtuosos, or of novelists — did you? It looks a good deal as though a publicity trust were being formed, as though a "freeze-out" were in progress. It looks a good deal as though the fan magazines would eventually be controlled by the Wampas and Wasps, and this means a deluge of publicity about the Wampas "Baby Stars" and a dearth of recognition for the old stars. It means that this organization can make or break a star or player — or for that matter make or break almost anyone in the industry who depends upon public acclaim for their success. This is giving the Wampas and the Wasps far too much power — and they are apt to do a lot of damage to the industry unless their wings are promptly clipped. They may grow arrogant, and there is far too much arro- gance in the industry now — too much arrogance and assur- ance and too little real ability. I went to see Mr. Barrett Kiesling, who is chairman (or something very important) of the Wampas "Creden- tials Committee". I asked him about the new ruling. It seems that one must either be a staff writer or un- der contract to a magazine, or paper, in order to obtain stories or interviews. If you are not under contract (or a staff writer) you must get an order from the editor of the magazine or paper for that special interview or story — then this assignment has to be O. K.'d by Mr. Kiesling ■ — then, and then only, will the studio doors be opened to you. This means that the free lance will have an almost impossible road to travel before arriving even in the outer provinces of success. For almost every editor buys an article or interview from a free lance after it is written because the manner in which it is written or treated is usually what sells it — not the subject matter. * * • Real news stories are naturally the first right of the staff vsrriters — but a unique style of writing, a different treatment accorded an old subject often sells the free lance's story. For example — last year a free lance was told by the editor of a fan magazine that only the contract writers would do interviews. He was told to submit only sympos- iums or feature articles. Following this the editor bought every interview the free lance sent him. He virrote these Interviews so well that they were accepted in spite of protests from the staff and contract writers who resented furiously his "crawling in under the fence". He is still writing and selling interviews, for which he had a peculiar flair — and has yet to do a symposium or a feature. But with the new Wampas ruling the best writer can no longer win out. It is all in the hands of the staff or contract writers and the Wampas who stand behind them. And yet the editors of the different fan magazines are asking for and anxious for contributions from the free lances. But what chance has a free lance of obtaining an inter- view under the new arrangement? I asked Mr. Kiesling (very meekly) if this condition did not savor of a publicity trust. He told me it was an arrangement "for the protection of legitimate writers". It seems odd to me that "legiti- mate writers" should need protecting — I should think the standard and excellence of their work would be their pro- THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 tection against upstarts who imagined that they could write. I asked Mr. Kiesling if this new ruling was not a little hard on the free lance. He shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if it was not true that the free lance had to write far better than any staff writer on a magazine in order to have his story accepted — and he said "Yes!" Inasmuch as all the free lance writers who have been appearing regularly in different fan magazines for the last few years in spite of the protests of the staff writers and because they must have written rings around these same staff writers — the new ruling seems very unfair. Inasmuch as there are Wampas and Wasp members in every studio publicity department it will be next to im- possible, from now on, for the free lance to get a story, or any "stills" or photographs, to illustrate it. What possible chance has a bright idea, if it is the idea of a free lance, or an illegitimate writer, in this case ? Let us take a look at the array of fan magazines and the motion picture sections of the newspapers and see what is offered in the way of interesting reading. Very little— just the usual hooey about this sweet young thing and that. Most of the magazines give much space to "society gossip" in screenland. And inasmuch as "society" in cinemaland is very new, rather absurd, and constantly changing as the contracts change, we, or the fans, can not take it seriously. Yet we read over and over again about the "nice buffet luncheon" that this star or that served, about who went to who's bridge party, or how happy so and so is with her husband, or what a sweet girl such and such an ingenue is. And who cares? Nobody! They read it because it is embellished with pictures of the players and scenes from the screen plays. • • » The producers complain because a star is losing his following; he blames the star — he never thinks of blam- ing the writer of articles for the fan magazines. Recently the editor of one of these magazines told me that his whole staff of writers were making a try at writ- ing an article on the new talking picture. And all attempts so far had been colorless and dull reading. It was, he told me, too big an assignment to hand over to a free lance or to entrust to an "illegitimate writer" — so doubtless he will publish a dull and colorless story. And yet talking pictures should offer one of the biggest and most colorful subjects as well as a romance of achievement to almost any writer. No wonder the legitimate writers need pro- tecting! We read again and again that Marion Davies appeared at such and such a first night "looking blonde and radiant" and "wearing an ermine coat." Every fan knows that Miss Davies is blonde and radiant — and ermine coats are worn by every star. Why comment upon the obvious ? The public have grown to love Miss Davies because of her rol- licking humor, her mimicries — she is an excellent comedi- enne. Added to this she is a real personage in Hollywood — she has a brittle, splintered-glass personality that will make itself felt in spite of the bonbon, yellow curls and pink marshmallow coating which they continually smother her in. The fans love her in spite of this gooey coating, in spite of her poor screen plays. Marion has brains, she has something to say, is she allowed to say it? She is July 21, 1928 not! The legitimate writers keep harping on the ermine coat, the blondeness — and the fans are beginning to weary. « » * But lately one of our popular stars returned from a trip abroad. The comments which she made about this trip and which were printed consisted of two remarks. One — that she had "bought a lot of clothes in Paris." The other — ^when questioned as to what she saw in Europe she answered, "Oh, a lot of night clubs and I don't know the names of any of them!" Moronia? Yes! And yet this star is clever, witty and observing. There is such a thing as censoring publicity too closely, so that it becomes puerile. There is such a thing as a contract writer who can not write or who does not know news when he meets it. Give the fans real, interesting and amusing informa- tion and they will be twice as happy, twice as loyal. The days of "Pollyanna" and of "Elsie Dinsmore" have passed; Freud and Havelock Ellis are here; the word "moron" is known by everyone. The public — even the fan public is growing sophisticated. But the fan magazines remain in the same stale and innocuous rut. No wonder these maga- zines are not making money! As for the publicity trust — so far it has done one thing: it has discovered for us the "illegitimate writer". THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine Equity's Offer to Motion Pictures By FRANK GILMORE FOR fifteen years the Actors' Equity Association has represented the actor of the legitimate stage. In that time other organizations have presented claims to represent the actor and, one by one, their claims have been tried by experience and they have passed on. To-day no one questions the right of Equity to represent the legiti- mate actor. During its existence Equity has acquired a tremendous store of knowledge about producing managers, about con- tracts, about what requirements are practical and what would upset the balance of the theatre. Since 1924 Equity has been in a position to obtain any concession upon which it might insist. But so fair and so tolerant has been its attitude toward the producers that among the serious and established managers there is not one who is unfriendly to Equity or Equity Shop, or would voluntarily dispense with either. "But," say certain motion picture actors, "the motion picture field is different from the legitimate and the ex- perience gained by Equity in one is not applicable to the other." Let us see what Equity wants of the motion picture actor and what it has to offer him; and also what Equity wants of the motion picture producer and what it is pre- pared to offer him. For Equity does not demand everything and offer nothing in return. * * • Primarily Equity wants an Equity Shop in motion pic- tures such as exists in the legitimate theatre. Equity Shop is the term for the policy under which every actor or actress coming into the motion picture field would im- mediately join the Actors' Equity Association; would maintain himself in good standing in the Association as long as he remained in the field; and would play only in such companies as were composed of Equity members in good standing. There is nothing in that policy, you see, which would tell the actor or the manager what actor might play any part, or for what salary, or in what sort of picture, or how. In none of those vital functions would the control of the management be disturbed. How, then, would equity bene- fit the actors in return for their dues? In the first place, with all motion picture actors in ita ranks, Equity would be able to negotiate a satisfactory basic agreement and standard contract with the producers. There is not such an instrument in existence now. The contract for free lance players now issued by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is better than the original contract issued by that body, but it is not a sat- isfactory contract and can not be while the power of en- forcing any arbitration handed down under it is lacking. No actor dependent upon the good will of his employer is in a position to fight his own battles; nor can any actor, no matter how important, or any small group of actors prevent a conspiracy among his employers to establish a black list or regulate salaries and conditions of employ- ment. It has been tried, but never successfully. When Equity has all screen actors in its ranks it can establish a basic working week with pay for overtime, such as exists in the legitimate theatre. All the arguments denying the possibility of such an order only parallel those advanced by legitimate producers and since dis- proved. * » * Then, the Actors' Equity Association is the only body in existence which is devoted primarily to the welfare of the actors. Where there are divided interests there is divided allegiance. Through its alliances Equity is stronger than any other body could be which would not have the backing it has. In many states where actors are few and without influence, Equity's friends are strong. That has been proven in Texas and Wisconsin where legislation inimical to the actors has been beaten by that help — and even in California where three years ago laws which would have worked a direct hardship on the motion picture actor were headed off by Equity. Now, it is true that Equity has been able to do all this for the legitimate actor, but only because it has had all the actors in its ranks, and because when it has spoken, it has spoken for them all. It needs all motion picture actors in its ranks before it can do equally splendid things there. If there is one thing which Equity has learned in its fifteen years' dealings with legitimate producers and its ten years' negotiations with motion picture producers, it is that the best intentions and the most logical reasons have little weight in the scales against determined self- interest. When a stubborn producer or body of producers declines to recognize the representative of the actor; to listen to a request for arbitration; or to abide by the decision of a Board of Arbitration, the most just of causes can not proceed if it depends solely upon moral suasion. These things the Actors' Equity Association offers to the motion picture actor in exchange for its initiation fee and dues: a standard contract which will be negotiated by experienced and devoted executives, and secured by ade- quate guarantees; an executive staff and Council which has been in close touch with and made a close study of motion picture actors and their problems for ten years; a strong: Page Ten and fearless representative which will stand between him and managerial aggression, as it has with the legitimate actor, (and if such a representative is not necessary now, it will be in the near future). If Equity is prepared to promise these things to the actor what can it hold out to the producer of motion pic- tures? Is it not hopelessly prejudiced in favor of the actor ? • • ♦ There is Equity's record for scrupulous fairness and strict adherence to its word for which any reputable legiti- mate producing manager will vouch. That is a good foun- dation upon which to build any negotiations. There is, further. Equity's promise that it will see its members live up to their contracts and give the best per- formances of which they are capable. That promise has been amply demonstrated only recently, and should carry considerable weight with producers of motion pictures. And, although Equity has been able to require almost any change in the terms of employment, its actual requests have only been for such things as were fair and workable. And when there has been a question as to whether or not any particular item has been fair or workable. Equity has invariably been willing to submit the dispute to an im- partial board of arbitration. That procedure Equity now offers to the motion picture producers, also. Actually the stabilization of working conditions is a help to the responsible producer and is a hindrance only to the irresponsible one. It will eliminate the driving of actors, the unfair conditions of labor which at present permit the unfair and the unfit to compete on even terms with the best men in the field. Far from being antagonistic to producing managers Equity has worked with producers and dramatists to com- bat inimical legislation. The repeal of the war tax on theatre admissions was due, in part, to Equity's long and courageous campaign for it. And the force behind the formation of the American Theatre Board, in which at this moment, actor, manager and dramatist are working peace- ably and harmoniously on the solution of common prob- lems, was the Actors' Equity Association. To manager and actor, alike. Equity offers peace and stability in motion pictures such as it has brought to the legitimate theatre. Its record is plain for all to see. Equity believes that it is to the best interests of both actors and managers to cooperate in the establishment and maintenance of an Equity Shop in the motion picture field. THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 Vitaphoning the Beaton By TOM REED AUTHOR'S NOTE— The last time Welford Beaton asked for articles so that he might hie himself away for a vacation and look at brooks, I schemingly waited till he had safely passed the city limits and then sent in my offering. Being a title writer, and zealous one, I naturally extolled the dot and the dash and bellowed for paragraph after paragraph. I was positive that I had closed to my self for ever the columns of The Spectator, but here I am again. And if Welford can stand it I can. The following outburst is an allegedly humorous Vita- phoning of the amazing Beaton, with but a modicum of close-ups. We will pick him up at the breakfast table awaiting the appearance of Mrs. Beaton and Donald. He is peering out of a sunlit window and envying Edward Everett Horton the ownership of pink and purple pansies with red and yellow stems. FADE IN ON LONG SHOT. Welford stands as Mrs. Beaton and Donald seat them- selves. He is the first to speak. FULL MEDIUM SHOT AS WELFORD SPEAKS. Welford (with furrowed brow still pointed in general direction of Horton's pansies) : "Dash it! I didn't sleep well. Had bad dreams — no coherency — and an atrociously bad ending." Mrs. Beaton (with affectionate understanding): "Well, you insisted on seeing a picture last night and I knew if you did you'd be mad this morning." Donald (sipping coffee): "Dad, this coflfee gets worse and worse. It's evident we'll never have better product unless the producers find themselves — in their present fog of inefliciency." « • • TROLLEY SHOT MOVING UP RAPIDLY TO WEL- FORD AS HE REGISTERS REACTION, THEN BACK TO FULL MEDIUM. Mrs. Beaton (paying no attention to offspring and addressing Welford): "What did you dream about, dear?" Welford (in half whisper) : "The Vitaphone — the Vita- phone. It seemed as though I was looking at thousands of reels of it. I heard voices — hundreds of voices. I was searching for a title to criticize and dash it — I couldn't find one. I visualized the pages of The Spectator bereft of criticism. It was horrible!" Mrs. Beaton (trying to conceal a show of alarm) : "Perhaps it was that caviar at Sam Goldwyn's last night — that imported caviar." Donald (tilting nose): "Imported from Seattle! Welford (with finality) : "Imported caviar is all right — you can't fool me on foreign fish. The Russians have a Winifred Dunn Writing for First National I'Xn'ERSAfS ARANGA qA Tale of ^MaonUnd WRITTEN DIRECTED EDITED A>-D TITLED BY ALEXANDER MARKY One of the moat unique attempts in the history of the motion picture July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven certain grouping to their product which is unmistakable. H you noted the caviar last night you'll remember that each tiny globule was in perfect harmony with its neigh- bor. The light and deft handling of those eggs bespoke a master touch. American makers of caviar can leam a lot from Europe." CLOSE-UP OF MRS. BEATON BREATHING SIGH OF RELIEF, THEN BACK TO MEDIUM FULL. Welford (cracking one boiled egg and eyeing other speculatively): "Dear (to Mrs. Beaton, not egg), you know I'm not critical — that is, as far as eggs are con- cerned. But it seems to me that you could get some nov- elty into the presentation of my eggs every morning. Mind you, I know there are only twenty-seven original ways of presenting them, but if you'd concentrate I'm sure you could offer some new thought. Gracious, if the Amer- ican public is as tired of seeing eggs served in the same old routine way as I am, I feel awfully sorry for the chicken business." » « * Mrs. Beaton (a bit concerned): 'For eighteen years I've served you eggs every morning. I've scrambled them and I've fried them, and nobody, not even you, can tell me how to cook eggs!" Welford (scornfully): "You're just like Louis B. Mayer!" Mrs. Beaton (really concerned now) : "Donald doesn't mind eggs — in fact, he likes them." Donald (after having polished off last of eggs) : "Mother, I hate to say it, but I have always been opposed to eggs. They have been foisted on an unsuspecting public so long that they have lost their charm and are obnoxious and commonplace." Mrs. Beaton (resigned) : "Well, I don't know what I can do about it." Welford (firmly) : "Do you mean to tell me there are no cook book visiters in the great culinary industry? There are plenty of talented persons constantly devising amazingly clever recipes — it's illogical that you should plead inability to find originality. With the assistance of a trained cuisinere there is no reason for not mastering the technic of egg cooking. The trouble with you is that you wouldn't follow a good cook book if you had one. You'd go ahead and shoot from the cuff — completely dis- regarding what a trained writer would plan for you. Believe me, you wouldn't find an architect planning a building that way." Donald ( yawning as he turns his eyes back from Hor- ton's pansies): "Don't forget we're due at Lasky's in a half hour. Dad. They're going to show us "Interference" — and Lord, how I hate football pictures." » * *■ DISSOLVE TO EXTERIOR, WHERE THE THREE MAKE THEIR ADIEU. Donald (surveying grey haze which is enveloping land- scape): "My what an inefficient fog." Welford (eyeing waiting car with critical orb) : "I cer- tainly don't want to see a picture this morning. Those dreams — they still bother me. I wish I were looking at a rippling brook." Mrs. Beaton (waving a cheery good-bye as they step into car): 'Good-bye, boys — don't lose your tempo." Welford (turning back): "G-r-r . . ." Donald (turning back) : "G-r-r . . ." FADE-OUT. Getting It Off His Chest By WALTER KRON THERE are moments in a writing man's life when his venom becomes exhausted. I realize this when I aim my shots at the sad machinery behind the mak- ing of the motion pictures. I have been shooting elephant bullets at canary birds. My attitude, I have decided, shall be one of a little more patience. Some day when the great movie Renaissance arrives, the following stories should be picturized: Dostoievsky's White Nights, Harvey Furgeson's Blood of the Conquerors, De Maupassant's Bel Ami, Galsworthy's Justice, John Doe Bassos' Three Soldiers, and a little-known story called Chanet by a little-known writer, J. W. De Forest. This THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY ^lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllli^ m The Screen Story For THE METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER PRODUCTION "White Shadows in the South Seas" WAS WRITTEN BY RAY DOYLE Management LICHTIG & ENGLANDER m Page Twelve last writer is undoubtedly dead, as I found the story in a book published in 1895, and possibly no one else possesses the book. It is a fine moving tale of love and typical movie material. I could mention a dozen good stories, excellent even in box-office angles, but that is not my business. A revival of Jack London's Martin Eden or Bret Harte's "Outcasts of Poker Flat" would make good in capable hands. The familiar wail of producers, "We can't find stories," is a gimcrack for the ears of dubs. The producers should connect with a library votary for information. Instead of sending scouts to view Broadway plays, why not send the office boy to the public library? It requires search- ing, undoubtedly, to find screen material, because artists do not write originals. None of the stories I have men- tioned would be costly in production. Martin Eden, Bel Ami, Justice and White Nights are all intimate tales with great civilizing themes. » • * That cynical tale of the World War, Three Soldiers, would not be costly. The Blood of the Conquerors would be questionable as far as the great American censor and the petty interference of club women are concerned. We will probably not see these stories in the films for some time, with the exception of Galsworthy's Justice, as Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer, I believe, holds the rights. I have been told that they are waiting until 1950 before they start production, as they must first finish a large consignment of bed-time stories. That is not a witticism, either. A worker that moves in the seven arts can leave some- thing to posterity. Even a writer of essays leaves his mark. If the work is puerile, the generation following will THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 gauge the creation and place its creator in a frightful position. But in the poser of the arts, the motion picture, posterity can not measure the worth of a serious effort. The genuine author knows as long as printed words are in use, his works will live; the sculptor, through production in granite; and the painter, in the gentle hands of a nation or a connoisseur. But who cares about the great motion picture? The much-talked of Birth of a Nation has to-day lost its force. It does not even quicken the pulse of a Kansan. The reason is plain. The thing was full of the mechanics found in the low-grade Western picture of to-day — the pictur- esque shots of the man on horseback, last-minute rescues, the assault of virtue, theatrical battle-smoke, thunder, and hysterical acting, every act in high tension, not a subdued note — this opus, directed by a man not filled with artistic justice, but motivated by subconscious propaganda. The negro was a despoiler, the white man, prompted by the Almighty. A sympathizer of witch-craft would be just as admirable. « * « Griffith, the real father of the movies, can produce a fine motion picture. Broken Blossoms revealed this. It is difficult to discover the man's actual ideas. He can con- ceive the most delightful of pastoral scenes. He has a vivid, individual imagination and a detached insight into the characters of his players. To-day it is regretable. The advance of directors less gifted but more worldly is leaving the label, "Griffith", as a name only. If there are any connoisseurs of films containing merit, I have never heard of them. The Last Laugh, if a good Roy Del Ruth ^Directing All Talking ^^HE Vitaphone ___^hh= Special TERROR amer Bros* Pictures, Inc. July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen preserving process has been discovered, should bring a few thousand on the auction block. It is artistically per- fect in all points. It contains the stuff that defies the years and man's mind. It is superior to the humdrum think- ing of a thousand writers. It remains to-day a formidable example of the art of the motion picture. A thousand movies will be made this year. Yet, The Last Laugh will remain a Sphinx, head and shoulders above a mess of garbage. A Murder in Hollywood By JOSEPH JACKSON IT was difficult to believe that this polished, well- groomed gentleman had committed such a brutal mur- der. This Wenwood Alden, with his Greek profile, his long, white, artistic fingers, and his dreamy eyes. As he sat in the crowded courtroom awaiting trial, hundreds of movie fans, who had come to know Wenwood Alden on the stage and screen as the soul of gentleness, wondered if he really could have done such a ghastly thing. Alden looked completely calm as he awaited his turn to take the witness stand. There was none of that nervous- ness, that biting of fingers, that heaving of chest which he would have used had he been playing this scene before the camera. At last the actor was called to the stand in his own defence. He walked steadily to the witness chair and looked confidently at his attorney for his cue. "Is it true that on June eighth last you killed Miss Winona Semple?" The lawyer spoke triumphantly, victoriously, almost as though he were establishing his client's innocence with this damning sentence. "It is," the prisoner answered. "Would you mind telling the Judge and the jury in your own language just what happened?" "It was like this," Alden began. "I had just finished making a picture, 'The Gentle Gentleman', in which I played the leading role. I had worked very hard and had gone away for a week's rest in the mountains before starting another film." » # » The listeners strained forward on the edge of their seats. Alden spoke in a low, well-trained Voice which carried easily throughout the room. "On the third day of my vacation I received a telephone call from the publicity department asking me if I would come back and devote one day to the interviewers of the fan magazines. I had been so busy on my last picture that I had not had time to give any interviews for sev- eral weeks. The publicity man agreed to arrange all of the appointments for the one day, so I consented to come back. "I arrived at the studio promptly at nine and received the first of the journalists — a young lady. She asked me if, in leaving the stage, I didn't miss the applause of the audience. This question had frequently been put to me before by young lady interviewers, so I gave her my pat answer. I told her that I did miss the warmth and the contact of my dear public, but that the screen offered great advantages which the stage could not — the oppor- j tunity to play to millions of people in all corners of the EVE UNSELL Playwright and Scenarist II ANNOUNCES 'I Have Just Completed and II SOLD TO WARNER BROTHERS my first VITAPHONE DRAMATIZATION II ^Conquesf from Mary Imlay Taylor's Book 'The Candle in The Wind' From Stage to Screen and Now Back to the Stage With Talking Pictures!" Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 •world, to bring joy and entertainment into dark places Alden looked at the Judge rather apologetically and said, parenthetically: "Terribly trite stuff, your honor, but those are my lines and I must speak them as though I were taking part in a play — the interviewers expect it, you know." * * * Then he resumed the main thread of his story: "The next interviewer was also a young lady, and she asked me the same question. I answered it in the same way — I shall not bore you with repeating the words — and showed the girl every courtesy, although she did have on a most unbecoming hat and had a disturbing habit of giggling nervously as she questioned me. "To summarize, your honor, all day long I gave inter- views to young ladies, all of whom asked me the same question. Along about five o'clock when I was getting pretty tired. Miss Winona Semple, the young woman whose name has been frequently mentioned at this trial, came into my dressing-room. "Miss Semple was an interviewer for 'The Gush' — the star of the staff, I believe. After I had poured tea for her and given her a gold-tipped cigarette, which she slipped into her pocketbook as a souvenir, she took out a pencil and notebook. She paused significantly and I felt sure that she was going to ask a deep and penetrating question. "'Mr. Alden,' she began, 'do you miss . . .?'" "Something inside my head snapped. I lost all my senses. There was a pearl-handled paper knife on the table. I grabbed it and plunged it into the girl's heart. Then I cut out her tongue" — he turned to the jury — "but I shall not bore you gentlemen with the details." Suddenly the foreman of the jury stood up and re- ceived the court's permission to ask a question. "What I want to know," he asked, "is why you didn't kill the others also?" "I did," replied the actor simply. About Some English Pictures By OSWELL BLAKESTON THE first question the interested American visitor puts to me is: "How seriously must I take the Quota?" And I tell him that he must take the Quota very seriously indeed, because the British studios have acquired the regrettable knack of spawning cheap and nasty pictures so long the monopoly of Poverty Row. There is now no difficulty in flooding the British market with these lamentable productions, and it only remained for the law to step in and coerce the exhibitors. More am- bitious efforts are attempted by the British International Studios at Elstree, but one is apt to wonder why. All the time and money wasted on lavish Moulin Rouge, all the fame of Dupont, its director, failed to make it a picture from which the spectator derived anything. Strange to relate, it is booking remarkably well for foreign coun- tries; while other efforts of this firm, almost as expensive and stupid, have been less commercially successful. What need is there to speak of such indiscretions ? Rather would I speak of the one white hope of the British screen — Anthony Asquith. • • * Shooting Stars, the first production of this young direc- AVIATION STORIES ADAPTATIONS LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 OLympia 3806 TITLES John Waters DIRECTOR ORegon 7767 Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 F. de Miollis Accredited Correspondent of "LE FIGARO", of Paris Technical Advisor on All Matters Pertaining to NAPOLEON Thoroughly Conversant With PARIS AND ALL PHASES OF PARISIAN LIFE Writers' Club July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen tor, was intelligent; mind you, I do not say intellectual. I believe that the director must be blamed for everything in his pictures. If the sets are inartistic and garish it is his fault, he had no right to pass them; if the story is feeble or non-existent, it is his fault, he had no right to accept it. Therefore, I became conscious of the guiding intelligence of a cultured mind throughout Shooting Stars when I found the actors playing in rooms which might be discovered in the homes of people with aesthetic sensi- bilities, when I found a story that was a story and all the better for the unblushing tinge of melodrama. Clever production touches are almost taken for granted nowadays, and brilliant lighting, in this case the work of a German expert, and photography are conspicuous only by their absence; for that reason I refrain from pointing out the technical excellence of Shooting Stars. It is chiefly on account of this gloss that it deserves comment, but the picture was by no means perfect. Languors in the story, especially in the so-called comedy sequences; some sets which were lit a little too hardly; and the uncompromis- ing features of the leading lady, might profitably be for- given to a young director. The fact that the nominal director was Mr. Bramble may have hampered the young man's ideas, and Underground — the next picture which he is making entirely unaided — should prove the true worth of a long-looked for British discovery. On the other hand, Mr. Asquith may prove himself to be not so much a shoot- ing star as a falling meteor. * * * The Film Society has closed an uneventful season. This year it has given us nothing to compare with the linger- ing power of Joyless Street, a picture of poverty-stricken Vienna which thrilled the Society's members last year. The best items were the short films by Lotte Reiniger, which managed to recapture the fascinating elegance of The Adventures of Prince Achmed, a full-length silhouette film. The creations of Miss Reiniger should certainly be screened in America. Her art is truly cinematic and her fantastic little paper figures do bizarre things which could be translated to no other medium. You may scoff and say: "A cartoon film taking itself seriously," but you must see the marvelous backgrounds, the breath-taking poses, before you can grasp the fragile beauty of the whole con- ception. Among the foreign films shown recently in London, two deserve to reach New York. One, The Loves of Jeanne Ney, by G. W. Palst, the director of Joyless Street, is a Jack Cunningham wishes to announce: The adaptation of — "The Thrall of Leif The Lucky" (in 8 to 9 reels) for The Technicolor Motion Picture Corp. The First Sound and Color Picture and recently — DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS^ Next Great Feature — a Sequel to "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" Written in Collaboration With Mr. Fairbanks Also the continuity for — Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's "White Shadows in the South Seas" one of the Outstanding Pictures of 1928 HAVE YOU SEEN Hearts of Romany Pa^e Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR milestone in the history of our art. Here is a film which is true, true to men and things. It is acted by a perfect cast; and Fritz Rasp, the sinister footman of Warning Shadows, is deservedly hailed as a genius. Should the "Art" guilds of America overlook this film they no longer have any right to their titles. The other picture. The Jackals, has not the strength of unity found in The Loves July 21, 1928 of Jeanne Ney ; the interest is centered mainly on the act- ing. Jenny Hasselquist bums with the inward fire; at any moment she appears about to "blow up". ("Blow-up" of course is too undignified, but it conveys the violence of her beauty). Olga Tschechowa is wantonly poised as the courtesan. An interesting picture worthy of notice, but The Loves of Jeanne Ney is great. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's l7-Year-0ld Critic THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES is very good enter- tainment, and is one of the best pictures D. W. Grif- fith ever made. It certainly is more human than any- thing he has done in years. It has humor and pathos, both well done; but Griffith's management of his dramatic scenes does not appeal to me. He makes them too violent and theatrical where they should be repressed and human. Average human beings don't go through the contortions which Griffith characters suffer. However, The Battle had less overacting than any of the late Griflith pictures, due perhaps to the superb cast. There is one scene where Jean Hersholt and Belle Bennett, as husband and wife, do a bit just after Hersholt has given her a very valuable birthday present. They both cry, and the highest com- pliment I am able to pay that scene is that it is the first piece of motion picture work since Seventh Heaven to get a rise out of me. There were several other little bits through the picture which deserve favorable mention for that same human note. The Battle was rather eccentric. It would leap from these touching little scenes to shots which reached the height of motion picture artificiality. The humorous parts of the picture were very cleverly done. Phyllis Haver was responsible for them, and in all the clever performances she has to her credit she has never done anything as good as this. I did not like the way Griffith characterized Belle Bennett after her husband left her. She was supposed to be stunned with grief, but it didn't seem right for anyone to remain stunned so long as she did. It did not seem the right reaction somehow. Jean Hersholt and Miss Bennett headed a very power- ful cast. Hersholt, of course, gives a performance which is a classic. It is a worthy successor to his other master- pieces. Miss Bennett does a splendid piece of work, ex- cept for the thing which I mentioned and which was prob- ably not her fault. Phyllis Haver's portrayal has already been mentioned. Sally O'Neil is excellent. She always is good, but the last few pictures I have seen her in did not give her so much chance for sympathetic work as this role did. It is certainly the best acting she has done in a long time. Don Alvarado gives a finished performance. Wil- liam Bakewell has a smaller part. I think he has great possibilities and that some producer is overlooking some- thing in not signing him up. John Batten completed the cast. AMONG the numerous quaint motion-picture super- stitions, perhaps the strangest is the weird idea that homely men do not fall in love. All the love affairs on the screen are participated in by people of godlike beauty, which is all right scenically but is not so good where logic is respected. I don't suppose it ever occurred to the production moguls that the average man is going to regard these love scenes in an "Interesting if true" attitude. He doesn't take so much interest in them as he would if the principals came nearer to his own case. Also, the great lovers of history were no beauties. The ma- jority of them were just homely, and some were down- right ugly. Dante, who is credited with being one of the great lovers of the world, looked as if he just had eaten his first raw oyster. He had a rather strained expression JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 TOM TERRISS TIFFANY-STAHL STUDIOS NOW IN PRODUCTION "THE NAUGHTY DUCHESS" By SIR ANTHONY HOPE Last Production: "Clothes Make the Woman" Original Story by Tom Terriss f' iiniaiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiD I □ ]iiiiiiuiiiidii iiiit] niiidiiiiiiiiiiiiu iiiii(]iiiiiiiiiiii[]i iiiniaiiiiii iniiiiiiiiiMiui.> I I i ^ I George Nicholls, Jr. j | Albert Conti j Film Editor | 3 S gotten Faces j I Paramount I g £ •>iniiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiniiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiE]iiiiiiiniiiE]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiMiiniMiiiiiiiuniimiiiniianiuuniiic> "THE MAGNIFICENT FLIRT" (Harry D'Arrast — Paramount) I "DRY MARTINI" § = (Harry D'Arrast — Fox) | I HE. 9915 HO. 2627 I i 5 »>injmiiiiiiiiE]iiiijiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiit]iimiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiniiit^ July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen which made him hard to look at. I have proof of my statements; because I took out my well-thumbed volume of Elbert Hubbard's "Little Journeys to the Homes of Great Lovers", and after cutting a few pages arrived at his picture. Nevertheless, I would like to see a homely man in a great love story. HOT NEWS isn't very sensible; but it is pretty good entertainment, anyway. It has all sorts of action and production and is judiciously sprinkled with laughs. Clarence Badger, who directed, used intelligence in his work; although there were moments when the pic- ture went joyously insane. George Hosier contributed a set of good but terribly punctuated titles. When sound comes in generally, poor punctuation of titles will vanish; but it probably won't until then. Hot News opened with a very thrilling airplane sequence, and the action man- aged to remain quite speedy up until the end. There was one thing about the picture which was not so good. A newsreel cameraman enters the office and says he lost out on an assignment because his rival, the hero, stole his camera crank. Now, stealing part of your competitor's machine may be perfectly ethical in the newsreel busi- ness, but it seems like dirty dealing to the layman. No motion picture hero should be guilty of underhand prac- tices, so his action should have been explained some way. Badger put over everything he wanted to very unobtru- sively. On the yacht, when the hero operates the wire- less, his knowledge of that science is planted early in the picture. Another good thing was his getting a ride from the policeman who arrested him. All in all, Hot News was good entertainment. Bebe Daniels was starred. She is a quite clever come- dienne and her work is highly satisfactory. Neil Ham- ilton, who is capable of handling far bigger parts than he gets, gives a very clever performance. Paul Lukas makes a good heavy, and the rest of the cast is entirely adequate. A SUPERB performance by Pola Negri makes Loves of an Actress an outstanding motion picture, al- though Rowland Lee's brilliant direction would have made it a good film in any case. The picture is eight reels long, and the story is scarcely big enough to stand all that length without a let-down of some kind. There are mo- ments when the action seems to drag, but on the whole Miss Negri's great acting manages to keep everything fairly interesting. Lee handled his camera intelligently, although there were instances where he cut aisles through crowds in order to reach his main characters. His light- ing was very good and also displayed thought. Lamps cast light where they would naturally, and shadows were cast in the right direction. It is a peculiar commentary on the art of motion picture making that natural lighting has to be hailed as something unusual and excellent. In addition to Miss Negri's splendid work. Loves of An Actress contained other good performances. Paul Lukas was excellent, as he always is. Nils Asther was quite satisfactory, and so were Nigel de Bruher and Richard Tucker. We were given a short glimpse of Mary McAllister. She is pretty and talented, and I can't see why she doesn't get bigger parts. THE thing which Love Overnight needed most was a title at the end of it stating that the producers of it didn't know what it was all about either. The story was nothing but a very thin string of plot with a lot of 'unrelated incidents hanging from it. Its chief fault lay in its story, because E. H. Griffith directed it well enough. He did his best with it, but it remained incoherent in spite of everything. The humor was clumsy and poor, because it had to resort to vulgarity. The surest sign that the men behind the picture are at a loss for something funny is when they start putting in "off color" things. The ques- tionable parts of Love Overnight were put in with ab- solutely no other reason than to cater to the lover of very poor stuff on which to try and build permanent popularity. Love Overnight contained a pleasant surprise in the person of the strikingly beautiful Jeannette Loff, who played opposite Rod La Rocque. This is the first picture I % George Fitzmaurice First National Production With COLLEEN and GARY COOPER LlLALcarthay Circle Theatre T T IVI F ^^*^^ 2:15-8:30 Carli EUinor's Orchestra GEORGE SCARBOROUGH CONSULTING DRAMATIST STAGE AND SCREEN GRANITE 1S70 ®. (M. -Sower "Wishes to announce^ that her exclusive^ representative is.^ LES W. FEADER 2535 Glen Green GLadstone 0983 Hoot Gibson Now Making "Rodeo" Howard Bretherton Director In Production "THE REDEEMING SIN" starring Dolores Costello A Vitaphone Feature Scott R. Dunlap Director of "SMOKE BELLEW" Now Mal\ty kNIi/' ;>ir^' Mi/^ iMi/" '■\tl/' -Mi/ 'Mi^ iMV Mi/ Mi/" Ml/' Mi/" Vl&" Mir MW" Mi/ Mi/" Mi/ MW" Mi/ Mi/ Ml/ MW Mt/ Ml^ Mi/Mi/ MV Mi/ Mi/ MW Mi/'Mi/ >4i/ \ti/ Mi/ Mi/ Ml/ w^:^f5eOT w^^ 5u^ m,*M^ i^< sJr* M^' *^ ^^T^ Mv' w ^p« w w sT* M^ m^ m^ ffi s^* sS^ m M^«:»u:f m m m sT^ sSt* ssp ^' ^\ -^ ^T^ ^T«,»T^ fV^ v#W./rtw j/W,rfVw .rfW L/«i v«v ^-* 4r(V» ir^irft'A-o-tk ^ik*. 4ity*. A-jfA. 4fif-* 4^iy*. « |V« 4tif*. «(r* ^if* tftf* ^if^ *'U'* «'Ur* ^rif^ tfW*. A-or* «4r«- ^tt*^ «ir^ ^UC*' ^t^~*. A-II^^ «'4f«' «U~a aiv* « 4>'* 4tif*. tfis*. *wt. «u-* «t^ «(|-« ^K*\ cAa cAa cAs cAo c^ cAs cAs cAd cAd cAd cA^ July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen have seen her in, and I think she is going to get some- where, because, in addition to her looks, she has the ease and poise of a veteran trouper. As a rule I speak of the star of the picture first; but I know Rod, whose popularity is so well established, would not mind giving precedence to a promising newcomer, particularly one as charming as Miss Loff. Tom Kennedy, who is a good comedian, does his best to be funny in a bunch of gags which preclude any possibility of humor. John Krafft again wrote a good set of titles, one of which was responsible for my only laugh during the entire picture. RIP-ROARING action characterizes Tenderloin per- fectly. There is everything in it from mayhem to murder, including several sequences which were done in sound. The scenes after the Vitaphoned sections fell terribly flat. There was no earthly reason for Ten- derloin's not being all sound, as a complete spoken set of dialogue would have raised the picture from merely aver- age rating to the ranks of first class film. Michael Curtiz directed Tenderloin, and his work was quite satisfactory. He used a lot of closeups and had a lot of scenes which were almost too melodramatic; but on the whole, the direc- tion was good. There were times when the pictiire dragged considerably, but once the action got under way it moved furiously. Tenderloin starred Dolores Costello, who is one actress whose work I always enjoy. The effect of her great beauty is not destroyed when one hears her voice; because, to me at least, it is splendid. She can act very well, too; and she is one of the very few actresses I would go out of my way to see. Conrad Nagel plays opposite her in Tenderloin. His perfect voice, in addition to his clever acting, made his characterization stand out. George Stone, who is a very talented actor, does superb work in this picture. His performance is the most out- standing one of all. Mitchell Lewis, as usual, is splendid; but he appears so rarely on the screen nowadays that I scarcely recognized him. If ability counted in this busi- ness, he would be working steadily. FORGOTTEN FACES is a tribute to the directorial skill of Victor Schertzinger. It is one of the finest motion pictures turned out by Famous Players lately, and is a remarkable piece of work, judged by any stan- dards. Clive Brook, William Powell, and Olga Baclanova have the leading roles, with Brook being featured. The story of Forgotten Faces is well done; since it contains what is to me the best quality of all — logic. There is nothing overdrawn or impossible in the entire picture. It is human, so it naturally will appeal to the greater ma- jority of fans. Schertzinger retained all the power of the story in the picture, and his intelligent use of the camera made it very impressive. He gets his crowds by shooting them in the only sensible way, no matter how or where he has to plant the camera. As a result, all his characters and crowds are real-looking and don't re- semble puppets. Another thing about Schertzinger's direc- tion which appeals to me is his regard for the intelligence of his audience. He leaves something to the imagination, since lapses are very deftly put over, another point in the director's favor. The dramatic scenes were well done, although with troupers such as I have mentioned they could not help but be good. They had power and force and also gave the impression of being real, not acted, which is a quality very rarely attained on the screen. There was nothing artificial or motion-picturish about Forgotten Faces. The production was rich and carefully done. The camera and lighting work were perfect, and amounted almost to genius on the part of whoever was responsible for them. Although the picture was eight reels long, there wasn't a moment when the interest flagged. It seemed like about six. As I have said, the acting was excellent. Clive Brook gives an intensely sympathetic characterization; and is the dominant figure at all times, although the cast is composed of superb per- formers. Miss Baclanova has the leading feminine role. She does very good work, but she has a tendency toward over-acting. Repression is something which I think es- sential to a good performance. William Powell, at last in a part worthy of his talents, gives a perfect perform- >'V^**:.XK-=«*'=»ir" GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J/J 'Thousand (Sifls of D/sfinction " 6326 HVU,ywC"?[7-ELVt7- HVLLyV/7VI7-WUF« Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops"— Just West of Vine . e/V=x*»^SK-=«*cr„^ c MADAME DA SILVA SCHOOL OF DANCING Madame Da Silva has been a stage dancer since the age of five and has a world reputation. 1606 Cahuenga Ave. Dancing does more than anything else to eep one young. Madame Da Silva instructs all her pupils personally. GRANrrE 3561 Edward Everett Horton LOIS WILSON MAUDE FULTON ITU. "(Mary s Other^usband" VINE ST. THEATRE |:L="Se°ids"' Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Mats. Thursday and Saturday, .50c to $1.00. Eve., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to zvear, BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulev.\rd 7615 Sunset Boulevard Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 ¥ ^\K. d!c^hhadie^ d^cArrasp-^ PARAMOUNT ^1 . . July 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one ance. I always have mentioned and always will mention that Powell is the cleverest heavy on the screen, and should be given bigger parts. Mary Brian lends her sweet and charming personality to the general strength of the cast, since she had no acting to do. Jack Luden, Francis McDonald, and Craufurd Kent are glimpsed; and Fred Kohler appears briefly and strenuously. Reviewed In This Number BATTLE OF THE SEXES— A United Artist picture. Directed by D. W. Griffith; from the story by Daniel Carson Goodman; adapta- tion by Gerrit J. Lloyd. The cast: Jean Hersholt, Phyllis Haver, Belle Ben- nett, Don Alvarado, Sally O'Neil, William Bakewell, John Batten. FORGOTTEN FACES— A Paramount picture. Directed by Victor Schert- zinger; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; adapted by Olive H. P. Garrett; from a story by Richard Washburn Childs; screen play by Howard Estabrook; photographed by J. Roy Hunt; editor-in-chief, David O. Selznick; assistant director, Russell Mathews. The cast: Clive Brook, Olga Baclanova, Mary Brian, William Powell, FVed Kohler, Jack Luden. HOT NEWS— A Paramount picture. Directed by Clarence Badger; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Monte Brice and Harlan Thompson; adaptation by Lloyd Corrigan and Grover Jones; screen play by Florence Ryerson; photographed by William Marshall; produc- tion supervision by B. P. Fineman; assistant director, Paul Jones. The cast: Bebe Daniels, Neil Hamilton, Paul Lukas, Alfred Allen, Spec O'Donnell, Ben Hall, Mario Carillo, Maude Turner Gordon. LITTLE SHEPHERD OF KINGDOM COME— A First National picture. Directed by Alfred Santell; story by John Fox Jr.; adaptation and continuity by Bess Meredyth; produced by Henry Hobart; photo- graphed by Lee Garmes. The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Molly O'Day, Nel- son McDowell, Martha Mattox, Victor Potel, Mark Hamilton, William Bertram, Walter Lewis, Gardner James, Ralph Yearsley, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Bob Milash, Buck, Claude Gillingwater, David Torrence, Eulalie Jensen, Doris Dawson, Walter Rogers. LOVE OVER NIGHT— A Pathe picture. Directed by Edward H. Griffith; produced by Hector Turnbull; original continuity by George Dromgold and Sanford Hewitt; photographed by J. Joseph Mescall; assistant director, E. J. Babille; production manager, R. A. Blaydon; art director, Mitchell Leisen. The cast: Rod La Rocque, Jeanette LoflF, Richard Tucker, Tom Kennedy, Mary Carr. LOVES OF AN ACTRESS— A Paramount picture. Directed by Rowland V. Lee; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Ernest Vajda; screen play by Rowland V. Lee; photographed by Victor Milner; editor-in-chief, E. Lloyd Sheldon; assistant director, Dan Keefe. The cast: Pola Negri, Nils Asther, Mary McAllis- ter, Richard Tucker, Philip Strange, Paul Lukas, Nigel de Brulier, Robert Fisher, Helene Giere. TENDERLOIN— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Michael Curtiz; from the story by Melville Crosman; scenario by E. T. Lowe, Jr.; photographed by Hal Mohr; as- sistant director, John Daumery. The cast: Dolores Costello, Conrad Nagel, George Stone, Dan Wolheim, Pat Hartigan, Fred Kelsey, G. Raymond Nye, Dorothy Vernon, Evelyn Pierce. THE FUTURE Dear Mr. Beaton: Aren't we all inclined to get just a little bit ahead of ourselves in forecasting about sound pictures? The invention of photography did not cause a crash in the prices of the oil paintings of the old_ masters. Neither has the invention of the airplane and its subse- quent development to its present remarkable state ruined the automobile industry or the railroads. In fact, I wish I had bought a little Gfeneral Motors and a little New York Central here a while back! I am afraid we in the motion picture atmosphere are inclined to be "jumpy". Here we have at hand another very wonderful combination in mechanics: we can now combine sounds with photographic motion. Like your- self, I also believe we will soon combine color with the other two. And who knows, perhaps some futuristically inclined fellow will combine only sound and color, and let your imagination do the rest. I should dislike to believe that the quiet beauty of some of the great motion picture productions I have seen in magnificent theatres was immediately to be disturbed by noises. I don't always want noise; neither do you! Neither do we always want silence. By the same token, if you have a fine steel engraving in your home, you don't rush out to have someone daub a lot of water color on it. Yet you like good water colors, good oils, too, don't you : Then along comes another "jumpy" one who sees a 'iJ\[grman^s c5^rt 5hop The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME .^ The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine G<^R[^tA 1 i;. iii^ Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 menace to the theatres erected by the cinema in the home projection of 16 mm. films. Nonsense! Not since the first two shepherds got together around an evening camp fire in the ancient hills have men failed to foregather. They never will. There is a magic in large gatherings, even when they are Democratic national conventions. Stage productions, silent cinemas, talking cinemas, cinemas accompanied ty real orchestras and others accom- panied by phonographic orchestras, colored photoplays, pictures done in lovely black and white, pantomime — stage and screen — unvisualized music projected by picture machines — oh, what's the use ? We are growing, that is all. We are living in an age when television and second sight and hindsight are apt to get all messed up with an attempt at foresight. Why can't we saw wood? I am inclined to believe that the great heart of humanity will respond to good music, good pictures, good voices, good color, good air- planes, good automobiles, good paintings, good sermons and George M. Cohan just as long as they are offered, and whether separately or in combination. It doesn't seem to me to be so much a matter of for- getting what we have learned, nor of abandoning what we know, but rather of watching and studying and absorb- ing these new possibilities as they are developed LEO MEEHAN. WILL SOUND BE A SUCCESS? Dear Mr. Beaton: We hear and see lately a great deal about the Movie- tone and Vitaphone which is of great interest to me on account of being a large stockholder in two of our large companies; their success or failure means a great deal to me. I will admit, both are marvelous, but I have my doubts whether they would be an entire financial success. Our actors speak only English; could such spoken movies be shown in foreign countries, for instance, in Japan, Russia and others, whereas if English sentences are translated into the different languages and thrown on the screen it would mean and does mean financial suc- cess. In Paris at the Gaumont theatre they give both the English and French translation. I do not know what would be needed in the line of instruments and if they cost much would the smaller theatres be able to buy them? Again, every movie star or actress has not a soft and melodious voice. This has been forcefully brought to my knowledge when I saw Lion and the Mouse. Lionel Barrymore and Alec Francis both having been on the speaking stage showed it during their speaking lines. Years ago every actress or actor before entering that profession took a course in elocution and that cultivated their voices and made them soft and melodious. I distinctly remember Sarah Bemhardt's voice in her early days; it was of a most wonderful timbre, and never again but only once did I hear such a voice from a Spanish actress in Mexico. How would the gin voices of some of our actors or actresses sound? (I am told some drink gin.) It seems to me movie artists should take at once vocal culture and get their voices in shape, for it may come to it that in casting, the actor may be told to "get your voice on a record", and beauty and a cultivated voice will be a great asset. If some of them are hard drinkers (there may be some) such gin voices would be harsh and rasping. How would the English of some of our foreign artists sound with their foreign accents, and would America take to them? I shall carefully watch for their success, but in case of financial failure get out of my investments, which are of a considerable amount. I would be glad to have some reply through your valuable paper. LEO GALITZKL SHE HOPES WE'RE VERY WRONG Dear Mr. Beaton: You are so right about excessive use of close-ups and a lot of other ideas you are so consistently promulgat- ing— but about talking pictures — oh, I do hope you are very, very wrong! In the first place, in theatres so large as most of our picture houses now are, in only a small section can the mechanically reproduced spoken lines be clearly distin- guished even by people with keen hearing. While, for anyone whose eyesight is good enough to enjoy pictures at all, printed titles can be read anjTvhere in the house. In the second place — and, Mr. Beaton, I wonder if you have any idea how many people in the country there are in this second place ? — the movies as they are now are practically the only form of entertainment at which the hard-of-hearing or totally deaf person does not feel ter- ribly handicapped. The most devoted and most intelligent picture fans I know are, many of them, among these un- fortunate folk who would have their last chance at theatri- cal entertainment taken away from them by the spoken lines. I do not know how many deaf or hard-of-hearing people there are in this land, but I am sure their number is large enough to be seriously considered. The hearing people still have their radios, their concerts, their vaude- ville and their stage shows — don't try to make the motion pictures, too, their exclusive property. For the reproduction of orchestration, of songs inter- polated as in "The Jazz Singer", and of sounds which may increase the interest of big scenes — as in the earthquake in Old San Francisco, which, otherwise, was a very bad picture — the new de\'ices may well be used. We have had the Vitaphone only a few weeks here, but most of the comments I hear are adverse on the subject of the spoken lines. Please — please — Mr. Beaton, don't urge the pro- ducers to take away the printed lines — only to make them few and brief. Sunrise was noticeably splendid in that respect- LEAH DuRAND ("L. D.J."). Motion Picture Editor Register and Tribune, Des Moines, Iowa. {•iiiiiiiimiiaiiuiuiiiHniiiiiiiuiiiaiiijiiuiiiiDiiuiiitiiiiniuiiiiiuiinuiiimuiiauiniiiiiiiniiiiiiiuiiiDi,:. WHIPPET RACES SEATTLE, WASH. AUGUST 9, 10, 11 Under Auspices Pacific Coast Racing Whippet Association B If interested, communicate Ivith = j D. B. DUNCOMBE, Mgr. | I Press Club | I Seattle | SiaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiQiiiiimiiiiuniiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiimiDiiiiiiiMiiiaiiiiiiiiminiiiimniiiDiiiiiimiiic*:* fuly 21, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three AL CORN DR. EDMOND PAUKER 1639 Bn>adwB]r, New Tsik representine LAJOS BIRO Aatbor of Hotel Imperial The TeUow ILUj Tbe Last Conunjuid, etc The Way of AU Flesh (adaptattoo) In the Night Watch (adaptatioa and canttBoltr. DOW in preparatloa) JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Denuny Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO '■\> Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate JOHN F. {^^OOBUIC H FREELANCING Tel. 597-861 (^ <^ (^ Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR D D IT IS NOW IN LOS ANGELES CARTHAY CIRCLE THEATRE Edited by VELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents PILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Hollywood, California, August 4, 1928 No. 12 inniiiitinanMniiniiariininiirianiiiiinriiuniiiiiiiinDnjiiMiiiiinnniMiiinaniiininiinaiuiiiiiiiainiiiiniiiniiiriiininaiiiniiiininiiniMnniDMii^ 3 3 Advice Number Readers Take Charge While Editor and Fish Hobnob Bigger and Better Magazine Assured ---IF Editor Takes Advice EDITED BY TOM MIRANDA ■*s 'iuinininiiiDimiuiuiiauinuuuiamiiiwuiQiuiuuu3iQinumiinainuiuiiiinimiiiiiiiiQiiiuuuiu[]UuiuuiiiaiiiiiiuiiiiC]iiHiiiiiiiianiiiiiiiuit]in Page Tw» m m m m THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 Trade it in on an all m Electric Radiola s Deferred Payments if Desired A call will bring a representative to explain the features of these new receiving sets EH.BOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 lAngnst 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three ^HE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 411 Palmer Building GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST 4, 1928 Temporary Editor Addresses His Readers THERE were a number of reasons why I consented to edit the Advice Number of The Spectator, one of them being that it sounded like such a simple and easy task. But I find that running a magazine is just like conducting any other successful business. It requires ability and plenty of hard work. Another reason which prompted me to help Welford get a much needed rest, was, that during his absence, I could get a look into his Holy of Holies, where he files away all his secrets, and learn the truth about how the world really appraises him. Also, since I am getting no salary for this work, and believe me, it is work, I thought it would be a great joke on the old boy to take advantage of the opportunity and tell all the producers about my work, especially the titling of Lewis Milestone's marvelous production. The Racket, which the Eastern papers have hailed as the fin- est crook drama ever produced, and about which Variety, in referring to the titles said: "Tom Miranda was given wide latitude with slang and gun chatter and the result is the most authentic set of titles that have graced an un- derworld picture to date. The gorillas talk as they should and not as some lame-brained obstructionist thinks they should. They don't go to jail — they go to the can — and without those diagrams the average super wants with any title in vernacular." But, lo! today I received six spark- ling trout from a chilly mountain stream and a nice let- ter of appreciation from our good friend Welford, so I've decided not to say anything about my work, but to wait until he gets back, and in the next issue to tell it all in advertising for which I shall pay, as others do for theirs. But getting back to the Holy of Holies and the secrets I expected to find. This morning I made a thorough search and after a time I came across a large envelope (carefully hidden behind numerous letters of praise from divers theatre owners all over the country), which contained newspaper clippings about The Spectator from Sydney, Melbourne, Siam, Bombay, Tokio, Paris, Rome, Madrid, London, everywhere. Many of them were printed in Eng- lish, many of them I couldn't translate. But here's one from the leading paper of Berlin. Referring to Welford Beaton, it states: "The most brilliant genius that screen journalism yet has produced." I know I shall catch hell from him when he sees this, but after spending several hours reading over such notices of his ability and recognition of his genius, I determined to "tell it to the world". And if he gets sore about it, well, it won't be the first time we've disagreed. I've done my part to help him get a rest, and if he comes back with a better understanding of golf, I shan't have to win so much money from him every week. Then perhaps he'll stop worrying and we'll get a better Spec- tator, if that's what you want. As for myself, The Spec- tator is all right as it is, and after playing golf with the editor for almost a year and taking away considerable of his hard earned cash, I am convinced that whatever his policy may be, that he is a square-shooter, prompted only by that which he sincerely believes will aid the motion picture industry as a whole to accomplish bigger and bet- ter things, and, as such, is worthy of the combined sup- port of every one in the industry. TOM MIRANDA. * * * How I Would Rim "The Film Spectator" By PETE SMITH Publicity Director, M.-G.-M. Fancy an editor asking a press agent how he (the press agent) would run his (the editor's) paper. This surely proves the height of something or other. I have heard people refer to Welford Beaton in lan- guage unfit to print. I have heard words of warm praise for him. I admit to indulging in a little of both. This business of Beaton asking me how I would run his sheet proves one thing. The goof has a sense of humor. There is always hope for such a person. If I were boss of The Film Spectator I would first of all discover a cool, shady brook containing oodles of trout. I would then solicit funds from the producers for the pur- chase of a fishing rod. The fishing rods that could be purchased from the amount thus gathered, if placed end to end would reach here to there and from there to thence — and back again. With Beaton safely up to his ears in fish and mumbling to himself about the size of his latest catch, I would then proceed to move in various members of the M.-G.-M. publicity department. I would freely print publicity about Paramount in every ninety-seventh issue provided said publicity could be con- fined to three lines. I would place on the cover of each edition of every issue, photographs of M.-G.-M. executives, stars, directors, players, cameramen, electricians, property men — in alpha- betcila order. I might even go so far as to print a photo- graph of myself once in a while — say, in every issue. I would pan the pictures of every company regardless of merit provided those pictures were not produced or dis- tributed by M.-G.-M. I would indulge in personal attacks upon everyone con- nected with anything pertaining to the motion picture art, business, or what is it. On second thought, I might omit Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 panning persons associated with M.-G.-M. pictures. In fact, I am sure of it. I would not write for the Mercuries — American or Film. I would not use the personal pronoun — much. I would get out a Wampas Number at the time of each Annual Frolic giving each press agent a full page picture — at §100 a page — cash; no checks. I would establish a research bureau to discover a copy of the Wampas Constitution and publish it free of charge — ^provided Tony Martin donated the printing. I would be big-hearted in every way to help further the progress of the fifth, fourth, third, second or first industry of the land, whichever you prefer to call it. I would adopt this big-hearted attitude because it is so typi- cal of our budding industry, art, business, or what not. I would give away copies of The Film Spectator free of charge — to each advertiser who took a double page ad- vertisement. Pro^^ded the advertiser paid the postage. (No charge for licking the stamp and affixing it to the wrapper.) I would then limit the circulation of the publication to two, one copy going to my secretary for my personal publicity file and the other going to Mike, my dog, who simply loves to chew up packages that the mail man delivers. I would adhere strictly to this policy until Beaton could waddle from out of his mess of fish, throw me out on my ear and publish a paper that, reports to the contrary not- withstanding, is read by some people including the very best, in this infantile industry, as some unkind persons And so to bed — if any. call it. P. S. — Dictated — but haven't the heart to read. The Advice My advice to you is not to accept any. — Sue Carol. Dear Film Spectator: Go ahead, tell the truth, always the truth, and nothing but the truth. — Fred De Gresac. Dear Welford: Run yotir Spectator for the next year just as you did in the past and its success will be assured. — Ernst Lubitsch. My dear Welford Beaton: You've blazed trail. Why not follow it? Your policy is progressive and constructive, so follow your own lead. — Ralph and Vera Lewis. Mr. William de Mille says the best advice he can give you about running The Spectator for the next year is not to let him do it. My best wishes to you. Always sin- cerely.— Margaret Ettinger. Dear Mr. Beaton: I am satisfied with The Spectator as it is. You can even make it a little worse next year and I will still be a cash buyer. — Frank Condon. You want my advice as to how I think The Spectator should be run next year? My only suggestion is: Do not change your policies one iota. The Spectator commands the respect of every reader and slowly but surely is as- suming a powerful influence in the industry. Why change that?— Nick Stuart. I think The Film Spectator should be run this coming year exactly as it is being run now. It wovild indeed be difficult to improve upon present methods. Wishing you a grand vacation. — Lois Moran. (A telegram.) How to run The Spectator question mark what a ridic- ulous question exclamation point I refuse to tell you that The Spectator is perfect period — Dorothy Famum. It seems to me that we are already burdened with excess prophets; and, after all, why should I criticize a critic? He, at least, never becomes so lost to the fitness of things that he can't see the other fellow's duty! — Clive Brook. My dear Welford: Regarding the advice you solicit for the policy of your publication for the coming year, permit me to pass on to you an old adage of the theatre: "Never tamper with a success". — Rod La Rocque. Dear Welford: Next year will undoubtedly be your most trying. My advice is that you interest more producers in settling here. You know you've already made the rounds and there's no one left to pan. — Tom Reed. Replying to your inquiry as to how I would run The Spectator, would say that William Haines in Excess Bag- gage, directed by James Cruze, scenario by Frances Marion, titles by Ralph Spence, looks like it will be the talk of the industry. — Harry Rapf. i Dear Mr. Beaton: In view of your predilection for sound and color, may I suggest that The Spectator should abjure the use of silent white paper and appear, in the future, on a multi- hued phonograph record. — Mary Pickford. I My dear Mr. Beaton: Replying to your inquiry of June 6, requesting a note as to how I think The Spectator should be run for the next year, I would say continue as you are doing, even though I don't always agree with some of your views. — David Thompson. Dear Welford and Little Welford: I am writing this to say that I do not agree with every- thing you two write. And your punctuation is all wet. This just to be different from most of your contributors. My advice is to make your vacations your vocations. — Arthur Guy Empey. Dear Welford: If you will continue to devote the same thought and thoroughness in the analysis of motion picture ailments as you have in the past The Film Spectator will undoubt- edly become a most important factor in the education of August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five ilm executives. To counteract some of the criticisms Urected at your herculean efforts why not have an execu- ive write an article each week answering one of your jrevious criticisms? Anyhow I will renew my subscrip- ion. — George UUman. I>ear Welford: Being on location or rather vacation in one of the Kost wonderful spots on earth near Lake George, I flatly refuse to even think of The Spectator. You might call me selfish, but you would do the same thing if you were iere I am sure. — Jean Hersholt. My only suggestion is that you give particular atten- ;ion during the coming year to talking movies. I agree with you that we have nothing to worry about as yet, but [ believe the coming year will bring about interesting ievelopments worthy of critical comment from you. Ifore success to you. — Marian Nixon. Dear Mr. Beaton: I wouldn't dream of advising you to change the method or manner of The Spectator. It's interesting, courageous and full of variety always. I can only say that I hope you have a restful vacation and return to continue The Spectator as before. — Hector Turnbull. A little advice is often like a little knowledge — a dan- gerous thing. Why worry a healthy child with a lot of doctors? The lad is holding his own and going strong not-uithstanding many attempts upon his life. His form is good, his stamina beyond question. Let him alone. He will be there at the finish. — H. B. Warner. Dear Welford: Telling you how to run The Spectator is as futile as you teaching those trout to swim. One might influence a man's opinions, but never his hobby. Honest criticism is scarce in pictures. Continue giving your opinions just as you see them, whether we like it or not. — Frank Capra. The Spectator should make a list of classic gags, onion peeling and tears, pants falling down, etc.; a list of classic symbols of Parisian life, bottle of absinthe, top hat, Apache, Eiffel Tower, etc.; and a list of classic, not little touches, clinch, legs, undies, etc. They would be a great help to tired writers and directors. — Francis De Miollis. My dear Welford: It is a great deal easier for me to accept advice than to offer it. However, if you want a suggestion on how to run The Spectator next year, here it is : Make it a weekly instead of a fortnightly publication! Pardon faulty punc- tuation and accept sincere good wishes. Yours very truly. — Ernest Torrence. My advice, in fact my plea, is to continue in your constructive criticism. My pet abomination is the critic who tries to destroy the industry which is his means of livelihood. All praise and power to The Spectator, which builds two for every one it tears down, and that is some- thing worth while. Candidly, I hope that your request to have me write is not based on your belief that as an actress you think I am a writer. However, I trust that your vacation will net you lots of fish, no pun intended, and a good rest. That's that. — Patsy Ruth Miller. The only advice on "how to run The Spectator" that I can possibly think to offer is to suggest that you make an addition of a sort of roll of honor, containing the names of players, who, in your opinion, gave the best perform- ances of the past two weeks. I think that this would be a very fine addition to an already very fine publication. — William Bakewell. Personally I believe if The Spectator is run in the future as it has been in the past it will always have an interested and eager reader in me. I have learned more about the film racket through your articles and criticisms than by any other medium. Wishing you continued suc- cess and with kindest personal regards, I am very sin- cerely.— Lina Basquette. For once I'm forced to be that which I detest, a Holly- wood yes-man! Tell you how to run The Spectator? Nothing doing! Run it the way you have and keep harp- ing on the perfect script. For only by achieving this end will the picture game ever be made the picture business! Best regards and luck to your rod and reel on your well earned vacation. — Bart A. Carre. My advice regard Spectator's editorial policy for en- suing year guaranteed to hoist circulation. Roast every- body (don't stop). This may annoy victims, but will tickle their friends (why stop). We are all dear friends in picture business. (Stop — my eye.) And just love to buy copies of The Spectator for each other. Moderate vrishes. — C. Gardner Sullivan. I am glad you asked my advice. As an actor I am a great type to play editor of The Spectator during your vacation. You could not find anyone better qualified. My only regret is I must share the job with other subscribers. The Spectator lacks something which I have already tried to remedy through an advertisement: You don't use my name often enough. — John Peters. In attacking the inefficiency of the motion picture business you are peppering an elephant with a pea- shooter, and in the criticism of motion picture art you are hunting sparrows with heavy artillery. You are to be commended and congratulated so long as you refuse to carry water for the elephant or throw crumbs to the sparrows. — Grant Carpenter. Dear Mr. Welford: I suggest that you have a column running in every number of The Spectator listing important pictures as ex- cellent, good or bad. Present system you review pictures month ahead of release making it difficult for those re- specting your judgment to know what photoplays are worth seeing. Best wishes for vacation. — George Lewis. The Spectator has been conducted with a degree of frankness that should compel admiration. Constructive criticism enables people to learn of their shortcomings and Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 gives motion picture people an insight to what the pub- lic wants in the way of entertainment. There is much benefit to be derived from this sort of criticism because of the entire lack of rancor throughout. — George O'Brien. Dear Mr. Beaton: Think you have awful nerve asking subscribers to fill your columns while you look at a brook. How do you get that way? Besides where is this brook? I'd be satisfied to get a peep at a frog pond. You would not take my advice anyway and besides while you're looking at the brook you'll probably be thinking of an ocean instead of The Spectator. Indigantly. — Edward J. Montague. My dear Welford: I wouldn't presume. If you really want a fun number — wouldn't it be great to suggest to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that they have the pro- ducers give to the actors a Movietone record of their final salary agreement and their arguments leading up to same in place of a written contract? Sincerely. — Noah Beery. Dear Welford Beaton: I am quite content to have you run The Spectator ex- actly as you have done and are doing. Personally I want to do things that you and other extremely critical people will like, but when I do things you do not like I want to be told about it from "A to Izard." Truth, no matter how much it hurts, is fine medicine for your friend and well wisher. — Louise Dresser. Dear Welford: It is impossible for me to suggest anything on how you should run The Film Spectator, as it is doing very nicely now and is very interesting. This is for a news- paper man to answer and not a studio manager. Hope you enjoy your vacation and that you will come back all pepped up and let the people know that the world enter- tainment is Vitaphone. — William Koenig. Dear Mr. Beaton: This will acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 5th inst. re the proposed Advice Number of your publication. Thanks for the compliment. Could I give you any suggestions that could possibly improve on the present make-up of your little magazine, I would surely offer them. I enjoy it as it is and the only thing that I can offer is, to "carry on". — Mitchell Lewis. Why don't you launch a red hot campaign against something? There is nothing like a vigorous editorial battle to stir up reader interest. I suggest that you take some vital subject that has not received much attention. For instance, the punctuation of subtitles. Those horrible dashes that the title writers us: Somebody should point a finger of scorn at them! If you have a disengaged finger, there is your target. Yours for the revolution. — Joseph Jackson. My dear Mr. Beaton: Your letter of the 5th at hand in regard to suggestions or changes to be made in your magazine while you are on your vacation. It would be a good idea, I think, to invite different directors and producers who have objected to some of your reviews and give them a chance to "get even" with you in your own publication. Some would be serious, others in a comedy vein. It might be a nov- elty.— Eddie Cline. Dear Mr. Beaton: I think a great Hollywood scandal could be created and a great satisfaction could be registered if in your Advice Number of The Film Spectator you had all of the authors of last year's feature films tell the palpitating public what was wrong with the way the scenarists and directors made the picture version of their stories. It would be a number which they would go out and talk about. — Paul Gulick. The Film Spectator is a one-man dog. It reflects, and is, the Beaton personality. Remove the Beaton quantity, even for one issue, and what have you? You have a Clara Bow starring picture without one foot of Clara Bow. And that, my friend, is not box office. My advice to you is to cancel your vacation plans. Non-creative pleasures are hollow. Find your joy in getting down to your desk an hour earlier in the mornings, and carry on! — Bennie Zeldman. Dear Welford: The best advice I can give you is to write less and take more vacations. Of course the columns of The Film Spectator must be filled, but it is too big a job for any one man. Why not put in a vox pop department same as Liberty magazine is running and let your readers blow off steam? Limit letters to two hundred words and bar nothing but libel. Hope you enjoy your vacation, am still enjoying mine. — Alfred Hustwick. I •| La Rochefoucauld remarks somewhere that old people take pleasure in giving good advice because they can no longer serve as bad examples. That lets me out. I take pride still in being a bad example and I have not yet reached the age of advice. I like your paper as it is and would shudder at any change of policy suggested by your readers who for the most part cherish a salutary fear of you and your candor and therefore entertain for you a wholesome respect. — Milton Sills. Dear Welford: Your letter of June 5th at hand and contents noted. You ask for suggestion to be published in your Advice Number. Our contract people have supported your pub- lication with considerable advertising and my advice is for you to show a spirit of co-operation. I feel that you accept and act upon good advice and will probably offer us a complimentary advertising page at an early date. — Demmy Lamson and Ruth Collier, Inc. Dear Welford Beaton: Having been a subscriber and an admirer of your paper since its inception, I welcome the chance to give my advice as to how to run The Spectator for the next year. I peruse each number diligently, but have had very little success in finding my name mentioned except in the August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven anniversary number; therefore, I advise "an Anniversary Number" or "an Advice Number" once a month, and hope I am asked to contribute. — Otis Harlan. My dear Welford: It is very difficult to think of anything I could possibly suggest that might improve The Spectator for next year. You see, I have always thought your magazine just about all right and would never have presumed to offer any sug- gestions had you not asked me. With many apologies, therefore, I venture the following advice: Keep your eye on the ball and follow through — and I'm sure you will get great results. All good wishes, ever. — David Torrence. Dear Spectator: While looking at running brooks may you find con- tinued inspiration to champion the player; may the growth of every gray hair upon your head continue to influence the friendliness, kindliness and fairness of your critical judgment of his every honest human endeavor. The actor is the guts of the stage and screen, may you never waiver in his cause; may you find "books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything". — William S. Hart. Take my advice and don't take a vacation; Spectator is not The Spectator without you. I will certainly miss your polemics against punctuations and close-ups. For the love of literature please break up your transpacific . paragraphs. How about lunging at the love interest evil ? Hasn't the success of Tol'able David, Miracle Man, Covered Wagon, Beau Geste, Big Parade, Patent Leather Kid proven that men don't go through life doing great deeds for the sole purpose of winning the love of a hank of hair ? For God's sake stop exclamation point. — Joseph Henry Steele. My dear Welford Beaton: So you are going away to look for a "brook"? While you are "feasting" you intend to refuse us our "daily bread", and as for writing for you, that is adding "in- sult to injury". However as generosity is one of my great faults, I really wish you a very happy vacation. Don't look to deeply into the "brook". Come back to us with your own fresh, charming, frank personality and run The Spectator as you always have. Good luck. — ^Al- bert Gran. Dear Mr. Beaton: Run The Spectator just as you have in the past with ! due consideration for the rights of all. Continue to be j impartial, open-minded, quick to condemn abuses, to praise ■ innovations, to recognize new talent, to expose injustice, to ; harmonize all discordant elements, to lead the industry I onward and upward to greater artistic achievement. I feel if you do this you can go away on your vacation with the thought that The Spectator will have a successful year and many more equally successful after that. — Dolores Del Rio. My dear Welford: Run The Spectator without fear or favor, without malice, without hope of reward; dare to tell the truth; fight not against personalities, but for principles; stand up for the rights of artisan, actor, writer, director, pro- ducer; denounce all who seek to profit by injustice or special privilege. To do this you will need the crust of a producer, the ego of a director, the fortitude of a scenario writer, the audacity of a press agent, and the clear vision of Ben Turpin! — Finis Fox. You can't please me or anyone. You can interest me and everyone, so run The Spectator as you damned please; make your subscribers pay your profits; double your rates if you have to, but don't let a lot of big-headed advertisers tell you what your opinions should be. I'll stay on your books just as long as you don't give a whoopee whether or not I like what you publish. Your ego may sometimes annoy me and I may think you are sap-headed, but I am perfectly willing to support your right to be both egotistic and sap-headed. — C. S. Dunning. My dear Welford: Inasmuch as the movies, which have heretofore been gloriously silent, now have become "talky", I believe it would be a good retaliatory idea for The Spectator to become gloriously silent. I am sure this would be more than satisfactory in the industry, especially among the supervisors. Hail the silent Spectator! For the coming year may your snow white sheets be untainted by the blur of printer's ink or the opinions of Donald. Yours for more silence in expression. — Fred Niblo. I am up here vacationing myself, but am moved to earn that gratitude you speak of. I think The Spectator is run very well azis, but if you must inject new faces sug- gets that you join with Hearst in effort to put over Boulder Dam. I have some property near Palm Springs that this measure won't hurt, so you will be serving the motion picture industry by helping me to stay in it. I also sug- gest that you continue to review me charitably during the next year as I am running out of good advertising copy. Wishing you a merry and prosperous flag day. — Hallam Cooley. My dear Welford Beaton: Anything to earn your gratitude, and do my bit to send you out in God's great outdoors. How should you run The Spectator for the next year? In the same un- daunted, straight from the shoulder way in which you have hertofore conducted it, and thus earned the respect and admiration of your many readers. I could go on in- definitely, but I happen to be familiar with the cutting room floor — so — silencium. Best wishes to Mrs. Beaton and yourself, happy vacation, hope the trout are plenti- ful.— Bodil Rosing. Dear Mr. Beaton: As I happen to be suffering from a severe attack of ptomaine poisoning, any attempt on my part at the pres- ent writing, of being "gay" would, I feel, be a ghastly affair. Nor can I be "grave" — that, too, is out of the question. One would have to be very "gay" indeed before venturing to "advise" you how to run The Spectator — Nol No! Mr. Beaton, only a Will Rogers might be expected to tackle a job as "grave" as that. So, I am afraid I Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 can be of no practical assistance, but I would like to quote from a letter written you by Mr. Harry Silver, Palace Theatre, Hamilton, Ohio: "... and as long as you keep free from entangling alliances The Spectator will be worth while." Anyway, I do hope that you will enjoy that "brook", and be very sure that you always enjoy my warmest regard and appreciation. — Marc McDermott. Dear Mr. Beaton: I think you should keep up your penetrating, sharp comments on pictures and players in your worthy maga- zine for next year. I know that the majority of players and directors greatly enjoy them. However, I am an ex- ception. I imagine I am the only one in Hollywood with this peculiar turn of mind — I am always pleased to read flattering things about myself. Doesn't that seem strange? Remember these facts and success will always keep with you — so far as I am concerned. With good wishes, sin- cerely.— Victor Varconi. If I ran The Spectator I would make it twice as powerful as it is by having it come twice as often. K you weren't such a lazy devil you would publish a weekly. If you worked for me I'd make you do it. This is how I would run it: Each week it should contain half the amount that you give us every two weeks; it should have a department written by some person discussing general subjects — not pictures; Donald's department should be each week about as big now as it is every two weeks, and you should encourage letters from readers. There's my advice to you. — Antonio Moreno. My dear Mr. Beaton: How can I write an article when I am thinking of you under a shady tree alongside some rippling brook, laugh- ing at the futile attempts of those of us who are his- trionically inclined attempting to become Shavian in our old age ? What do I care how you run your paper ? It's all right most of the time and your batting average way above the middle, so why worry? Go up into younder hills, think of those who are earning their bread by the sweat of their brow, and as you cast your line just say, "The poor fish!" Have a good time! — Ben Bard. You might tell us, for a change, how to make the mov- ing picture business a better, more economical and more artistic industry. The trouble with your magazine in the past has been that you haven't dwelt upon these subjects at all. Oh no, you haven't! The effectiveness of The Spectator resides in its highly individualistic viewpoint. The force of its critical and inspirational comment would only be diminished if that viewpoint were to be colored by suggestions from others. You can serve the indus- try best by continuing to maintain your purely personal and well considered outlook on its problems. — Paul L. Stein. The Film Spectator has been a fearless, unbiased, con- structive force in the production of motion pictures. It is published without partiality or prejudice, its reviews are always intelligently presented, and without any doubt it is one of the most meritorious and valuable publications dealing with the motion picture industry. While I do not always agree with The Spectator, I am always amply rewarded for having read it. My advice as to how to run The Spectator for the coming year is to adhere to your policy as carried on heretofore, and you will have accom- plished something of real value to the industry. — Adolphe Menjou. My dear Welford: In view of the fact that I am going to make quite a lot of pictures this coming season, I am more than de- lighted at this opportunity of tell you how you should run The Film Spectator this year. If in reviewing a picture, you should happen to see my name thereon as supervisor or producer, you must not criticise the story, direction, titles or punctuations, but merely compare these pictures favorably with Seventh Heaven, Underworld, Sadie Thompson and others of the same caliber. This to my mind will be the proper way for you to run The Film Spectator next year. — Samuel BischofF. I hope you will continue to run The Spectator intel- ligently and constructively. You have accomplished much not only in improving the quality of our work, but also have been a great influence in correcting any weaknesses in and around the industry. Your outspoken candidness, sincere criticisms and splendid knowledge of the drama have been invaluable. Your utter disregard of person- alities in your endeavor to write what you believe, may not make you rich nor be the foundation of great friend- ships, but you will continue always to retain the respect and admiration of all and any whose opinion is worth a deal — Rupert Julian. Dear Welford: I accuse you of cleverness. I don't believe you are going on a vacation at all — I think your offer to let Holly- wood tell you how to run The Spectator is merely an insidious plot to convince us that your job isn't so easy after all. Telling a Spectator how to Spectate would seem, at first glance, to be a golden opportunity for a motion picture producer, but it has served to convince me that you know more about my job than I know aboat yours. If you actually do go away somewhere and "look at a brook", I hope the brook has been cut and titled to your entire satisfaction. — John McCormick. Dear Mr. Beaton: Since advice is cheap and I for one prefer not to give it unless I am certain that what I propose is better than what the man has been doing, I would say that The Film Spectator continue on the same lines as heretofore. It is true that you may not be satisfied and want to improve constantly; that is natural for every progressive, success- ful man, but as far as I am concerned The Film Spectator suits me first rate. If you got your inspiration last year in a certain spot and from a certain brook, my advice is that you take your holiday at the same place. — M. H. Hoffman, vice president Tiffany-Stahl Productions, Inc. If I was running The Spectator I wouldn't make many radical changes. I would, however, put on the front cover a photo of Vera Gordon and follow that with an editorial about her. Then, I would have a few squibs about the :l Lngnst 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine jdy who played the mother in Humoresque. On the back jover I'd have drawing of the party who appeared so jrominently in The Cohens and Kellys series, then I'd use ;he inside cover for a glorification of the person who works with John Gilbert in Four Walls and I'd finish with i double center spread about the actress who has been shosen to do Mrs. Feitlebaum in Milt Gross' Nize Baby, rhese are my stories and I'll stick to 'em. — ^Vera Gordon. The so-called talking pictures have developed so won- ierfully in the past few months that I want to reverse the ipinions I expressed six months ago. I am so convinced )f the ultimate success of this form of entertainment that believe within two years it will double the present notion picture audiences in the United States and will win )ack millions who have been fed up on the mediocrity of he average pictiire of to-day. I doubt that the average ictor who has been worrying about his voice and living in fear of talking movies need worry much about them ihanging all the well-known screen faces. — James R. juirk. It is not the mischievous in the movies that do the nost harm, it is the mistaken. This lies with those creat- ng or directing. Experience teaches that what is wanted s, for the "best minds" to concentrate on Hollywood; and that it is ridiculous to think for one moment that such minds will not prove to be the most popular. You should emphasize even more about this being done in the future than you have in the past; because it is the chief means of raising motion picture standards. But above all, keep emphasizing that the present rate of advance in improv- ing the industry is far too slow to be effective. — J. Tarbot- ton Armstrong. Dear Mr. Beaton: You flatter me by even suggesting that I might be capable of offering any advice that would tend to improve The Film Spectator. All I can think of it unbounded commendation. I am sincere when I say that it is a text- book to me and every issue is read diligently from cover to cover. Instead of being destructive and meaningless as most criticisms are, yours always are constructive and intelligent. If you do find fault, you oifer a remedy, which, after all, should be the basis of any criticism. I hope some day that you will be able to increase the size of the publication. With all good wishes for your continued success. — Renee Adoree. Dear Welford: What's the good of all this, anyhow? Nobody ever takes advice, least of all a magazine editor. Mark Twain knew that when he had Pudd'nhead Wilson say that advice and castor oil were two things no one wanted to take. Yet I have no doubt that you will be flooded with pieces like this one, offering you advice. For everyone likes giv- ing advice ever more than he hates taking it. Isn't that, in fact, one trouble with the industry? Isn't everyone in the business wasting a lot of valuable time by flinging out advice too promiscuously? Maybe that's the reason everybody is always "in conference". Maybe folks are so busy advising each other that ideas don't get an ade- quate hearing. So why don't you level your critical shafts at Advice? It's as worthy an adversary as supervision, or title punctuation, or superfluous close-ups, or ineffici- ency, or any of your other pet targets. Spit on your hands, and have at Advice. That's my advice. — ^Arch Reeve. My dear Welford: Criticism? I'd feel like trading bites with a bulldog. But I do smile over this dissertation anent voice in the "speakies". Anomalous as it may seem, voice is the least of the pre-requisites. And those who know the least talk the loudest and longest and with the greatest assumption of authoritativeness. Dramatic instinct, pre-natal articu- lation, post long training, observation, instinctive and continuous, and, above all, a knowledge of how to "put it over" that only comes with long and arduous experience. The layman doesn't understand. I think I'm talking Greek to you. But the humblest of my brothers and sisters knows exactly what I mean. — Theodore Roberts. Dear Mr. Beaton: Who am I, an humble scenario writer, to tell Sir Wel- ford how to run The Spectator for the coming year ? Inas- much as scenario writers should be neither seen nor heard, I can only quote as other good subtitlers do, and suggest that bearing in mind the uncertainty of credit or blame for the completed picture, the policy of all good motion pic- ture critics and editors should be: "Hew with your might, let the chips fall where they may," with justice toward some, mercy toward many and malice toward none! In the words of the little girl writing her uncle: "I am well and happy, and have lots more sense than I used to have. Hoping you are the same, and with lots of love." — Eve Unsell. In answer to your letter of June 5, may I suggest that to use the "paragraph" sign more frequently would make reading of The Spectator easier for that portion of us whose eyes give occasional trouble ? Similarly, I would wish for a trifle more orderly arrangement of material. Your editorials and reviews are so mixed together that it is difficult to find a specific article quickly. Outside of that I would not presume to give "advice". You are "you" and to attempt to persuade you into some other style would be a silly procedure. AU that I ask in return for this letter of mine is an exact diagram of the trout streams to which you are able to go because of this diabol- ical scheme to get your friends to do your work! — Barrett C. Kiesling. My dear Mr. Beaton: I have been away for over a month, so my answer to your request of June 7th has been delayed. Having just returned from a vacation trip to Honolulu, I am all out of touch with the movies, but my only suggestion for next year, is to keep up the good work of this year. Oh yes! And please always tell the truth about these new sound pictures. I think most of the voices are terrible when reproduced, and I sincerely hope I am not called upon for my untrained elocutionary efforts until perfection has been reached in reproducing methods so that I will not sound any worse than I really am. Then, too, I wonder would Warner Brothers' Theatre draw so well with talkies were Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 they to discontinue the elaborate and costly review? I mention this because everyone refers to the enormous business that Vitaphone is doing at that theatre, and I, personally, attended last week solely to see the revue. So, I wonder? Best wishes for a pleasant and extended holi- day.— Esther Ralston. Keep hammering away at stupidity and astigmatism in high quarters as well as sycophantic knee bending of film workers; unmask parasitical film journalism and their sounding board lackeys; emphasize insistently overwhelm- ing importance of individuality of story, acting, direction only road to public favor; give a little thought and atten- tion to film art with no box-oliice objectives; a word of encouragement always to the experimenter, the pathfinder. Tell the world and Hollywood that film-making is not merely another way of grabbing a meal ticket, but a serious problem in moulding a new art form, to project a new medium of world expression, and find the rhythm of our age. More power to your typewriter and best wishes for your well-earned respite. — Symon Gould. (From Washington, D. C.) Dear Mr. Beaton: Just received your letter here. I think the greatest energy next year should be expended in discovering what the public really does want, not whEit we think it ought to have, and not necessarily what is being given it, because we do not produce pictures from altruistic motives, but to make money and much is wasted through this uncertain knowledge. If it is impossible to ascertain what the public does want, at least it could be discovered what it does not. We are told it won't accept an unhappy ending and yet Flesh and the Devil was a great success. We are told comedy relief is essential and yet Street Angel is drawing capacity. Could j'ou not get the truth and guide us poor authors? — Elinor Glyn. Establish method of understanding between supervisor and director and earn Nobel Peace Prize. Great publicity in this. Devote comedy department to directors who want to publish how they would have improved other fellows. Publish as serial same method of delivering talking pic- tures in all languages; this will make all producers sub- scribers. Find one good title writer and promise to pub- lish his name and don't; this will bring in the deadly enemies five. Above all, give plenty of space to con- structive criticism, good or bad. Time will bring results. Stick to pictures and avoid personalities and boost; balance of policy O. K. with me for coming year. P. S. — A Special Number printed in all languages will find ready sale in Hollywood and add considerably to prestige and bank roll of magazine. — James W. Home. Dear Mr. Beaton: Sorry, very sorry to be unable to comply with your request. Hardly knowing how to run my own business, you want me to tell you how to run The Film Spectator for the next year. No, sir. None of my business. Go on fishing. Have a good, deserved vacation, and let The Film Spectator get one as well. There we are. You wanted a foolish idea. Here is one. As stores, theatres, ofiices, etc., are closing a while at this time, why not close your office and put on the score of The Film Spectator a blank number? And away you go without worrying any more about your subscribers, or the "talkies", etc. Yours very truly. — August Tolleaire. Dear Mr. Beaton: Now that titles are punctuated correctly to the extent of becoming obsolete, I would suggest that The Spectator advocate or produce an All-Hollywood masterpiece. All these ideas sent you by writers, directors and supervisors could be scrambled into a continuity without a story. This should make a good comedy yet have dramatic moments. I would also suggest that all long-shots be taken in slow motion so as to give the extras a chance to steal the pic- ture and at the same time give the featured players an opportunity to act as reflectors — ^which should prove that men are men in five reels or more. The rushes should prove the cutting-room floor is no place for actors to lay around. It should click, as I am positive that The Spec- tator would take it big if stars would refrain from close- ups. — Eddie Quillan. Dear Spec: What! Going away again? I thought you already had a brook. H you think I'm going to tax my alleged brain filling your magazine while you go into your impersona- tion of Wordsworth's primrose by the river's brim . . . well, you need the rest and quiet. As to how your maga- zine should be run . . . who cares? It's not necessary for you to canvass the Industry (?) to learn in what esteem The Film Spectator is held. My only squawk is the weekly waste of news print on the feature, "How They Appeal Scott R^ Dunlap Now Directing for WARNER BROTHERS Attention! Producers! I have just completed a new underworld story without gangsters, stool pigeons or "gats". It is called "THE GO-BETWEEN" and the lead- ing character is a famous female fence — "the most wicked woman in New York", but who nevertheless has a heart. I believe Vera Gor- don could make it another box office "HUM- ORESQUE". Incidentally, she has read it and thinks it's a great story. May I submit it to you? JAMES MADISON (Scenarios — Gags — Titles — Talk) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven to a Twelve-Year-Old". However, the California legis- lature has repealed the law which compels me to read sections of magazines I do not like ... so there you are. You said to keep our letters down to night-letter length. This is the length I usually send mine . . . collect. No regards . . . too many words. — Paul Perez. My dear Editor: You have got a fine idea of journalism when you ask me, a supposed "comic", to tell you how to run your paper. Well, now that you have asked me, and don't get sore if I happen to tell you the truth. From my observation I have concluded, after pushing my way through your Spec- tator, that all a man needs to be a successful editor is a lot of nerve, a copy of Madison's Budget, a continual flow of words that nobody understands (including the Editor's son), a perpetual antagonism against all pictures that are previewed. Just conduct the next year's Spectator as you have in the past, for anything I could say wouldn't change the subscription list one weeney bit. Yours for bigger hearts and smaller heads in journalism. — Charlie Murray. My dear Beaton: It certainly takes an ink-slinger for gall. Here you propose to go away and loaf by some quiet stream with " a fishing rod while we poor devils sweat in Hollywood, and you coolly expect us to get out a number for you. Pretty soft! I hope you lose your bait just when they are nibbling good. Then of course we will have to listen while you discourse on the "big ones that got away". Perhaps you do require a vacation, for you seem to be losing your pep, and haven't been lambasting the poor producers of late. So during your exploits with the other fish you may catch a few new ideas with which to refresh us on your return. Yes; you need your vacation all right when you request a night-letter from a Scotchman, while a two- cent stamp does the trick. Just another instance of your sense of humor being slightly out of focus. — James H. Finlayson. Dear Welford: Do you mean to tell me you can gaze into a brook and see yoxir reflection in those pirrified waters and still think about running The Film Spectator for another year ? How can you look yourself in the face in a babbling brook and enjoy a vacation with the knowledge that you have filled your waste-paper baskets to the very brim with press- agent copy among which is a fair share from the writer? I hate you for your good fortune in daring to sit beside a brook and enjoy a vacation. I hope the trout will swim right past your hook; I hope the mosquitoes bite you hard and often; I hope the heat is unbearable — ^because all of these elements will serve to bring you back to your desk, where you fill a far greater capacity in the film world and to those engaged therein, than you do sitting beside any babbling brook in the land. Always a pal. — Harry D. Wilson. My dear Mr. Beaton: I've just got a new tsrpewriter, and I think one of the best things I could use it for would be to tell you how to run The Film Spectator. I'd suggest that you and Donald go to different shows, because you write about the same plays all the time, and I have an idea you talk them over, too, because he says the same things; and I would like to know just what Donald thinks, for I always read his reviews. And if you say a show is good I usually get to see it, because mother likes the same pictures you do. I wish you would have a comic strip about motion pictures only, no one has ever done that. And a different kind of interview with stars, a short one each month. Gee, this is pretty slow work because I have to hunt up every letter, TITLES — DIALOGUE — EDITING Alfred Hustwick Formerly Supervising Title and Film Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 -^ Now Freelancing Management of Lichtig and Englander II eiter ^Productions Latest release "Happiness Ahead" - Qolleeri-^ cMoor^ Now shooting" Waterfront Sadie" oMulhallcMackaill In preparation "The Outcast" - - - - Qorinne^ Qriffith Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 so I think I will stop. Hope you are having a nice vacation while we write your paper for you. Your friend and admirer. — Philippe de Lacy. Dear Mr. Beaton: Well Sir, Beaton, my butler ran all the way from my house to my place of business, the apple stand across from Hershey's boarding house, to tell me a letter had come for me at last. I was so tickled to know I had a letter that I ran all the way home and the butler fella ran after me — I beat him by a head. Well Sir, Mr. Beaton, there it was sure enough, your letter I mean, just like he said — on the library table. Well Sir, Mr. Beaton life is strange. I've been trying to get into the newspaper business all my life. Irvin Cobb once told me if I started at the bottom and worked up I would be a corker. Well Sir, Mr. Beaton, I couldn't find out just where the bottom was so I had to give it up — but your invitation to join you is just what I have been looking for and as soon as I have the handle of my valise fixed and get my vici kids haM soled I will be right on hand. Hysterically yours. — Ned. A. Sparks. P. S. — A boy's best friend is his mother. as "yes men" who could not make a living as good street sweepers. Fourth — Get a square deal for competent people and those who love the industry for what it will mean to mankind. Last, but not least — Call attention to the fact that a building is only as strong as its foundation and that the foundation of the industry is the story, and that the writer, who is responsible for the story, should be given a square deal. More power to you and may you catch the limit every day. — Bernie (Isadore Bernstein). Dear Welford: This is the way you should run The Spectator for the coming year: First — Do not change your policy of frank- ness and fearlessness that has earned you the respect of every honest and thinking man in the industry. Second — Open the eyes of the financial interests of Wall Street to the incompetency of ninety percent, of the executives hand- ling their millions. Third — Expose the weaknesses and rottenness that is brought about by those jackals known Dear Welford Beaton: I am pleased to get a chance at you through your invitation to help get out your next issue. You are all wrong on your showman, or Frank Newman, article. When the producer will allow an exhibitor to have a voice on the staff of the studio, mountains of present blunders and flops will be eliminated. You go on the theory that at present producers and directors are sho'mnen. They are not, and there is the keynote of the trouble. The pro- ducers do not know what the public wants; they only think they know. K one studio makes a hit with an Indian picture — presto! — a flood of Indian pictures follows, a financial success if a crook picture brings a deluge of the same kind. If the showmen could all speak in a chorus they would cry out against such mistakes and say: "Give us innovations, not imitations; novelties, not copies." Your henhouse example in your article is "all wet". A show- man would sense instanter its relation and its value to the effect of the scene. A true showman is ever alert to changes — instant and constant changes. Memories figure not at all, to an up-to-date showman. The studios will some day realize the value of a true showman's viewpoint, ^aiiiiiniDiaiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiuiioiniiiiiiiianiinuiniaiiiiuiiiinuii mDiiiniiiiiiiuiinuiiiiiiaiiiiniiiiiiEiuiiniiiiiiDiininimoiininiiiiaiiiinmiuunuiiniiiiiDiiiiniiunQiiiiiiiiniiDiniinrnDaiiiiinHiiiun^ "HERE'S A THRILLER" I (Motion Pictures Today) I Playable in the Better Class Houses — (Billboard) I If movie thrill stuff is your meat see ! "THE MICHIGAN KID" i 1 -this film abounds in all the things that make life worth living — (N. Y. American) At the Roxy Thea- ter— the audience groaned and exclaimed — at one point, the noise of the exclamations became a roar — (Harrison's Reports) IRVIN WILLAT 5 B directed the picture, which speaks immediately — for the splendor of its photography and settings — (N. Y. Daily News) Conrad Nagle and Lloyd Whitlock engage in one of the most exciting fist fights that we have seen in a long while — (N. Y. Telegram) A number of exciting events occur, among them aforest fire that's a humdinger — (Chicago Tribune) — then comes one of the most thrilling scenes I have witnessed in many a day — (New York Sun) Showing the plunge of the girl and her loved one down a raging stream (New York World) and a dash in a canoe over a water falls, that is a pip — (Film Daily) '^loimiramDDiBnuniaiiHmnBninuiniimiinuinirac; Dnimmnimiii iiiinnnniimiEntniniiiiiniiimnininnii iirnrFninrniiniuiiiiniiinuiuiiunininiriiiiinnniiniiinii^ ■J August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen The Spectator to the contrary, notwithstanding. You speak, too, in your article about the artistic aim of the director and writer being smashed by the showman. But as Kipling says, "That is another story." Hope to cover that point when you go fishing again. Yours for Art and Chink at the box-office. — Jed Buell, Mgr. Westlake Theatre. Mr. Welford Beaton: (Somewhere in the wide open spaces, the more open the better) Of all the sublime nerve: to request my assistance to fill space in The Spectator, while you tread the path of dalliance. Don't you know that Jimmie Walker is in town, and that we are all attending dinners given to His Honor ? Not that we want to attend them any more than he does. It means that we must dine early at home before going to the banquet, for some darn fool is apt to pull that "We have with us" — about the time we have our mouth full of soda crackers. Then there's this talking picture business that is intiguing us and occupying all our atten- tion. It was bad enough for an actor to keep his eye on the placement of the camera, but now! one has to hunt these confounded little microphones all over the stage, so as not to have one's voice trail oflf into space and > sound like the last gasp of a seltzer water bottle. Will Hays is in town, Jesse Lasky is putting flowers on the grave of the silent picture and you are crying for a vaca- tion. "Now is the time for all honest men to come to the rescue of their party", or words to that effect. — Robert Edeson, Vitaphoner. Dear Mr. Beaton: You ask for my advice. Yet the reason I read The Film Spectator with such zest every other week is because .1 feel you never take anyone's advice. You are the best , wordsmith in Hollywood. But I really wish you would develop this idea: A great classic drama at that. But when transferred to the screen, this practical screenable drama is lost. Its mutilation is defended as a box-office necessity. But is it profitable ? Love, the Gilbert-Garbo picture, has no right to the name of Tolstoi, or Anna Karenina. I can not understand why Count Tolstoi per- mitted this distortion of his father's masterpiece to bear his na-ne. Only three shots from the hundreds making up the picture were from the book at all. And it has been an artistic and box-office non-success. So why do it? On the other hand, the film version of Resurrection was as faithful as the spirit of the book as a mirror. It netted GEORGE SCARBOROUGH CONSULTING DRAMATIST STAGE UNO SCREEN GRANITE 1S70 gJiirinininDniiiiiiimEiuininiiiiniiirniiniiDniniiinnaiiiinniinnniiiiinnouiiiniinnniiiimniaig 3 = ! WANTED I I I I Thrilling Dramatic Story | j Suitable for Operetta. | i Will Buy Outright or I = ti I Royalty Basis. Must be | I as vital as "Desert Song", | i "Rose Marie", etc. Send I I a I synopsis to | I LILLIAN ALBERTSON | j 801 Majestic Theatre Bldg. j ^iaiiniii[iintiiniiniiii[ciiinimiiiiniMiiiinniniiiiiiniinQiiiiiuinnniniiniiinnniinnniiQininiiiiiit$ <«]IIIIIIIIIIIII]IIIIIIIIIIII[]llllllllllliailllllllllllDIIIIIIIIIIIIQIIimillll|[]|||||IIIIIIIBIIIIIIIIIUIE]|IIlllllllllE]|.:. I Now in Production I RED HOT SPEED i I Universal Movietone | i Original Story | I by I I Gladys Lehman j Oiniiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiimiiiiDii iiiioiiiiiiiiiiiaiiimiimiaiiniiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiicf Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 — m Warner Brothers Vitaphone Production "Lights of New York" Directed by BRYAN FOY story by MURRAY ROTH Chief Engineer COL. NUGENT SLAUGHTER Edited by JACK KILLIFER Photography ED B. DuPAR WILLARD VanENGER Revue Numbers by LARRY CEBALLOS Assistant Director Doc Salomon Props Pinky Weiss Makeup Man Walter Rodgers Electrical Effects Leo Green Recording Engineer Chas. Althouse Assistant Chas. E. Wells Acoustic Engineer George Groves Electrical Engineer Frank N. Murphy Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ B ngust 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen iOO,000 (six hundred thousand dollars) in Europe alone. amona rings true to the novel and is on its way to make lother fortune for Edwin Carewe. D. W. Griffith took le old throbbing love drama of Paolo and Francesca and storted it. Is this mutilation paying? I doubt it. — ucile Erskine. In reviewing a picture I would endeavor to ascertain far as possible who was really responsible for many the so-called directorial touches, particularly worth Vhile and novel, so that proper credit might be given for lie same. In the majority of cases these touches are the ork of a clever continuity writer, unless the director one of those rare individuals who happens to write his wn scripts. Then, too, I would give the cameraman bet- ;r prominence. I would supply another gold medal for le finest photographed picture of the year, foreign or omestic. Without first class camera work the greatest director's work will count for naught. I wonder how (iany people realize this — ^very few of us are grateful. ,V^e certainly should be, so many of these great artists ho, through their artistic and painstaking efforts, make ictures mainly what they are to-day. In reviewing a icture I would ascertain the time it took to make it and 18 approximate cost. The work of a director taking a ear and spending a million, assisted by a corps of tech- ical experts, being thoroughly discounted as against that t the director who turns out something meritorious in couple of weeks at a limited cost. I would also keep better touch with foreign production. The time has ome when Hollywood is no longer a movie dictator of 18 universe. If we are to retain some of our strong hold n the world's markets, try to copy or improve upon it. \t present all we see are productions made abroad four T five years ago. The latest and best never seem to rrive. I would make affiliations in London, Paris, Berlin ind Moscow. For the exchange of ideas, reports on re- views and general knowledge of what is going on in the •arious studios. I am sure all this would be intensely nteresting to everyone connected with the motion picture ndustry. — Tom Terriss. Dear Papa Spectator: Sincere advice is to include every possible line from {omseli, resorting to telegrams to your publisher from foUT vacation spot. Also, enroute, consult the small town jxhibitor and astonish Hollywood with the names that do, and do not, draw away from here. Find out why the Hollywood success is a flop in the sticks and the stick TOM REED Motion Picture Aeronautics LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 EARLE SNELL Wrote the Continuity THE NIGHT BUID starring Reginald Denny Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 F. de MioUis Accredited Correspondent of "LE FIGARO", of Paris Technical Advisor on All Matters Pertaining to NAPOLEON Thoroughly Conversant With PARIS AND ALL PHASES OF PARISIAN LIFE Writers' Club Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 ^llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll^^^ I Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllHIIIIIII^ Qomphtedl "The River Pirate'^ William K. Howard Production for William Fox! 1 Illlllllllllllllll Illlliii August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen success a flop here. Picture folk (and you) understand suggestion on the screen, but do the small town and out- side-of-Holl3rwood audiences want the effect by sugges- tion or realism and every "if" and "but" photographed? In two-reel comedies does a director fulfill the desire of the B. 0. with slapstick and "gooey" finishes, or is the comedy as much appreciated by finesse ? Do the audiences relish a pie in the face or a pin in the pants better than harmless pranks or situation comedies ? I'm not asking for your opinion. I can guess it. Also, the student of Hollywood theatres knows the Hollywood opinion, but I have a great belief that pictures are frequently made for the Hollywood reaction, and my greater belief is that the reaction is provincial, not universal, and that 95 per- cent, of pictures should be made for those outside of Hollywood and Broadway, N. Y. When companies send their director and cutter to Seattle, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City for previews they will come closer to the public pulse than previewing on our sophisticated and "padded" boulevards or suburbs. Then we vtIII be making pictures for the public and not for employees or "the preview section". Damn it, all this isn't the kind of a letter you wanted for your issue; however, deal on the subject some- time, and the writer is not after any publicity. Now, re- garding your issue, here is my answer: The less there is of you and your criticism, the greater will be my own disappointment and the greater the loss to the progres- sive part of the industry. However, "all work and no play," etc., so be off, catch a lot of trout, don't forget a flush beats a straight and I hope you get to see one five reels of long shots only! — Wallace McDonald. ■i My contribution must be verse, It may not then seem quite so worse As if I tried a long harangue Half interspersed with latest slang. You ask advice on how to run The Film Spectator, that's a pun. Imagine such a worm as I Suggesting "how" to one so high As Welford Beaton whom we know Has mastered ideas long ago Of plays, the screen, and actor lore. To you they are an open door. But I'll advise this little much: Keep on roasting all those such As may deserve to feel the fire Of righteous wrath and critics ire. Don't weaken; just keep up the fight 'Till companies treat their people right. Reverse it, too, for well we know Some troupers act like those below. They rave and give their feelings vent And please to call it temperament. Just deal it square and tell them all If they don't troupe they'll surely fall Like Humpty Dumpty from the wall. And all the pull and all the yen Won't put them back with reg'lar men. — Mary McAllister. George Ficzmaurice First National Production With COLLEEN MOORE and GARY COOPER ______ Carthay Circle Theatre I I IyI p Daily 2:15-8:30 1 1 ITl Ma carli ElUnor's Orchestra Howard Bretherton Director In Production "THE REDEEMING SIN" starring Dolores Costello A Vitaphone Feature TOM TERRISS Director of Pictures in Russia, Germany, England, Spain and Hollywood Actor and Producer of Plays in London, Paris, and New York Tiffany-Stahl Studio Wallace Worsley OR. 5419 CARLOS DURAN Sophisticated Types Current Release "Happiness Ahead" with Colleen Moore Just Finished with Bebe Daniels in "Take Me Home" HE. 4161 Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 Scenario by John F. Goodrich Adaptation by John F. Goodrich FILM DAILY S 700 RELEASED "^ork of the Ten Best PICTURESXon which the ten best dire^t&rs of 1927-28 were chosen ^e: Herbert Brenon — -IJeau Geste, SorreU and Son ; l/6ugh, Clown, Laugb. King Vidor — The Big Parade, The Crowd, Tl^ Patsy. Frank Borzage— Sevimth Heaven. / Raoul Walsh — WhatNPrice Glory. Loves of OSrmen, Sadie Thompson, Josef Von Sternberg— CThe _Last Command^ JJnderworld. Victor Fleming — Hulaz'The kough kiaersyThe Way of All Flesh. Fred Niblo — Camille, Ben Hur, ine linemy. The Devil Dancer. Ernst Lubitsch — The Student PHn<-» James Cruze— The City Gone Wild.jSld IronsidS^ On to Reao, We're All Gamblers. ^ Continuity Collaboration John F. Goodrich 6683 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 6111 August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen My dear Mr. Beaton: Before departing for your fishing brook, let me tell you that your many "friends" would gladly pay your vacation trip, if you would accept a complimentary one- way ticket to Chicago, minus a bullet-proof vest. I find it difficultly easy to say that there is a certain wisdom about your paper, which renders it quite stupid — if you mean what I know. It is seldom that I show such selfish generosity and yet retain what I give; so if you do not want this advice, take it. I will now voice these silent words, which mean a vast deal of nothing, to-wit: The Film Spectator could be greatly improved if you went on a permanent vacation. Just take your favorite messenger boy and put him in full charge. Publish your Spectator once yearly, and use only seven pages in the publication. Then tear the last five pages away, bum the sixth and keep the other one blank; thereby allowing the folks to use same for a scratch pad — (in case they have the itch). Or, your paper this way would always come in handy anyhow. If this seems inadvisable, print the paper in Greek. It is a dead language, and will match the head of the editor. Then we will loan you some of our title writers to punctuate it for you. When you run out of ideas, re- print a few pages of Sears, Roebuck & Company's cata- logue, and give the public some clean entertainment. Hop- ing you can't swim, and enjoy your vacation by acci- lentally falling in the brook, I beg to remain, your most ievoted "friend in need". — Paul Kohner. P. S. — Did you aver notice that I produce mostly dramas ? So if my sense rf humor does not appeal to you, blame my gag man. Dear Mr. Editor: It seems to me you would have facilitated the job you Slave unloaded on us downtrodden subscribers — that of ?etting out your paper with the sweat of our brow (and such ink as may be required) while you dangle and dip fish-hooks into babbling brooks — by definitely assigning as subjects on which to write — or try to. For instance, to the American feminine stars who are on your list of readers you might have allotted the theme: "Why we are happy to welcome Lila Damita, Camilla Horn, Greta Garbo, Greta Nissen and all the other Lilas, Camillas and Gretas to our hospitable shores?" To leading character actors who of late have lost some characterization plums you might have propounded: "Give us a critical analysis of the art of Jannings, of Veidt and of any other brilliant foreign newcomer of whose talents you are especially enamored." And to that type of histrionic talent which is peculiarly of, for and by the movies and whose expon- ROWLAND V. LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY ent has just had his or her first experience with television, you might suggest an essay on: "Why the Vitaphone is vital to my continued career in the silent drama." Also many mysteries of movie making could be explained (per- haps) in your subscribers' number if, for instance, you could prevail upon the so-called production "supervisor" to explain his function, a few movie directors to write some "true confessions" of their rise in the industry, and to wring from film cutters the awful truth as to how they gained their devilish dexterity in wielding devastat- ing shears (by which I don't precisely infer that their talent was developed behind ribbon counters, or might be there applied at the present moment). However, why obtrude weighty themes at a time when your thoughts already dwell on meadows with lowing kine, a brimming tankard of — oh, say sarsaparilla (since I can spell it), at a wayside tavern, and a tumbling mountain stream pop- clous of trout — and spiritive of reveries? I do hope and bespeak for you a vacation that will repair all the nervous wear and tear of a long year of concentrated and im- portant peculiar critical work, in which you stand quite alone — a beacon to the intelligent cinematic playgoer. Happy to help you fill space in this issue — if these lines are deemed sufficient excuse to serve that purpose. — Prank Campeau. Dear Mr. Beaton: Your appeal for advice suggests an opportunity for The Spectator to simulate interest in a problem which at one time or another must have touched the life of every member of the moving picture business (as we sometimes sternly describe the most ephemeral of the arts). I refer, of course, to the problem of visiting relatives — or, more specifically, how to keep green the picture of Hollywood social life which is theirs when they arrive eager and THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY •MiiiiiiiiimniuiiimiiiciiiniiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiimiciiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiHini iniiii ciiiiiiiiiiiiiu!^ George NichoUs^ Jr □ I □ 5 Film Editor E i S Paramount <>iniiiiniiiin:]Hiimiuiic]iiiiiiiiiiiit]Hiiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiniDiiiiiiiiiui(]iiiiiiimiiE»iiiimniit« Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 ♦JiiiiuiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiiHiiuimiiiiniiiiiiiiiuiaiiiiiiniiiiQiiiiimiiiininmiiiiiiciiiiiiuiiiicsiiii mniiii inaiiiiiiimiinnniinniiniiiiiinininiiiiiiiiiintiiiiiniiiiiiuiniiiiuiiiiiiniiiiiiuuiiniimiiiiiiiniimniiinnij I JOE E. BROWN i i Scores an Unanimous Hit in Film Debut i "Joe Brown gives one of the best performances I have ever seen. His work, which ranges from comedy to pathos, is truly remarkable. He holds your riveted attention every moment he is before the camera. "Brown has one of the most appealing personalities that has reached the screen in several years and with proper handling there is no limit to how far he can go. He is a natural comedian, yet superb in moments of sen- timent or tragedy. He can undoubtedly be made one of the biggest favorites on the screen today. "Brown should score an immediate and immense hit in "Hit of the Show." From then on it will only be a matter of getting the proper stories and roles for him. Brown has a personality different than any one on the screen and some care will be necessary in selecting the right sort of material for him. "Brown is ideal for a box-office favorite in the silent drama because his quaint personality quickly wins its way into the spectator's heart. For the Movietone or Vitaphone, Brown is the best bet in the business to- day!— Tamar Lane, The Film Mercury. "Joe E. Brown as "Twisty" does an eccentric comedy pathos role of the 'Laugh, Clown, Laugh' order, only he plays it straight. He is the whole picture. . . . Bro^Ti does a very interesting characterization of the homely order and holds the interest nicely." — The Film Daily. "Joe E. Brown's performance under the able direction of Ralph Ince is one that will long be remembered and must indeed be gratifying to himself as he covered him- self with glory. No doubt we will hear in the near future Joe E. Brown signing a long time contract un- der the F.B.O. banner." — Hollywood Filmograph. " 'Hit of the Show' at the Roxy is a good picture which introduces a new star, Joe E. Brown, of vaude- ville and the musical comedy stage. ... It is Joe Brown who makes the pictures. His work is fine. — New York Daily Mirror." "Joe E. Brown makes his film debut at the Roxy this week. This popular comedian caused many a laugh and his gift for pantomime and funny facial contortions are developed to the full .... he establishes himself as a film comedian full of possibilities Brown makes his own character a thoroughly human one." — N. Y. Morning Telegraph. "Joe E. Brown makes an unusually auspicious debut before the Kliegs. With years of song and dance ex- perience behind him it is hardly to be wondered at that the stage star's characterization is more than skin deep." — N. Y. Telegram. "Joe Brown goes through his part of the gullible, big hearted hoofer, 'Twisty', with all the aplomb of a mo- tion picture veteran. He makes the somewhat garish little story almost believable." — Geraldine Fitch, N. Y. American. "A song and dance man, without a job or a cent, but with a heart of gold, is admirably played by Joe Brown." — Jeffrey Holmesdate, N. Y. World. "Mr. Brown's acting is good .... he imbues his part with some of the wistfulness of the also-ran." — N. Y. Times. "Yet it is not as bad as it might have been, thanks to Joe E. BrovsTi's genuine characterization and the stage atmosphere that Ralph Ince managed to in- ject."—N. Y. Herald-Tribune. "Joe E. Brown has the soul of a Romeo. On the ad- vice of friends Joe made a plunge into pictures, and I think he is going to make quite a splash He is an excellent actor. He is an unusual type. He seems to be an agile acrobatic dancer, which should help him in some of his parts. But it's the human quality in him that attracted me most." — Welford Beaton, The Film Spectator. "With the aid of good direction, acting and photog- raphy, the task of transferring Joe E. Brown, acrobatic comedian, from the stage to the screen is here accept- ably accomplished. Drawing upon what might have been material from Brown's o^vn pro-cinema career, the story gives the newcomer ample scope to display his peculiar talents."— N. Y. Daily News. "Despite the familiarity of the material with which he is furnished. Brown manages to be sincerely affect- ing .... he is a new face to look at in the cinema, a new clown for critics to watch and predict about." — John S. Cohen, Jr., New York Sun. "Making his debut as a screen actor, Joe E. Brown is a real success at the Roxy this week. ... It may be a little early to prophesy. But judging by this picture the motion picture world has a new, real comedian, with a touch of pathos that is true art. . . . Brown should go far in his new venture." — William O. Trapp, N. Y. Evening World. "This week a new star arrived on Broadway. Not a 17-year-old star forced to the top because somebody thought she was pretty. But a real trouper, who ar- rived by knowing how to do his work. Joe E. Brown in 'Hit of the Show' at the Roxy. . . . This actor's performance as the sentimental, impulsive hamhoofer, who killed himself trjnng to save his show, made it. Broadway, which knew him in his vaudeville and mu- sical comedy days, forgot professional jealousy to pro- nounce him an inevitable star." — Bland Johaneson, N. Y. Mirror. "Joe E. Brown and his 440-yard grin involve a very great deal of humor and — what is more remarkable — the phenomenon of honest pathos. . . . 'Hit of the Show' is none the less effective .... and Joe Brown is almost entirely responsible." — John Hutchens, N. Y. Evening Post. "A new screen star burst into the cinema firmament over the week end. . . . Right now we want to go on record as saying that Joe E. Brown gets our vote this week for his outstanding performance as 'Twisty', the valiant trouper of small time. That guy Brown can jam more humor and pathos into one qirk of his eye- brows and twist of his lips than any other guy we've seen in a long time. ... He has that rare combination of the tragic-comedian such as the screen has seldom had."— N. Y. Graphic. "Joe E. Brown gets this week's hand picked laurel wreath for his work in 'Hit of the Show.' He gives a performance which is at the same time tragic and hilarious." — N. Y. Evening Journal. "Movie break promising the greatest general public good and entertainment is the cinematic advent of Joe E. Brown .... now a full fledged screen star facing success as great as he enjoyed in his golden days in musical comedy. ... He gave a performance so many- shaded humor and really moving pathos that the sen- timentality became honest emotion." — John Hutchens, N. Y. Evening Post. I IVAN KAHN, Manager | Oi[]Uiiiiiiiiiic}iiiiiiiiiiiic]uiiinMiiiaiuiiuiini[]iiiiniijiiiiii[]iiiiiiiuiiiDiiiiiiiiiiiit]uuiiiiiiHainuiiuHi[iiiiiuiiiiiiaiiiiHiiiiiiuuiiMiiiiiiaiiuiii^ August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one aggressively broad-minded from some sleepy little hamlet like Chicago or greater New York. I am sure there is not a Tom, Dix or Gary in the industry who has not shared the mortification which was mine the other eve- ning when I was forced to take Aunt Minnie home sober and at ten thirty-seven because the host was working the next day and had to get his eight hours. Nor were ex- planations of any avail. That was made brutally plain in the car on the way home. Aunt Minnie was frankly and bitterly suspicious. To this day, in fact, she is secretly convinced that as soon as she had retired my wife and I stole silently into the night and rejoined our host for the real party. It seems to me that the situation of which the above incident is typical calls for immediate and drastic action. We can not any longer allow our desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of sleepiness to stand in the way of a plain duty. The visiting firemen demand the sort of thing from Hollywood which they have been led for years to expect, and we must give it to them. The answer is systematic and unselfish organi- zation. A club must be formed. Its object will be the entertainment of Aunt Minnie and her ilk. In fact, I suggest as a title for the organization, "The Brotherly and Protective Order of Ilks". The club will employ those members of the industry who are temporarily out of work to stage parties (five hours notice demanded) for the benefit of outsiders who want to see Moving Picture Life with a capital "L". It will probably be necessary in the interests of authenticity for the biggest stars and direc- tors to lend their presence occasionally to the organiza- tion. After all, one night a month of simulated revelry is hardly too much to ask in support of a scheme which must obviously appeal to every thinking man and woman in pictures. Surely, Mr. Beaton, The Spectator will give ^^IWES^J No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine G/^Roev^ The EI Gamine Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood (at Fuller Ave.) Phone GRanite 0202 its support to a venture of this character — a venture which touches the lives and institutions of all of us. Unselfishly yours. — Frank Tuttle. Dear Welford: Replying to your request of the 5th instant, inasmuch as I have never had any experience in running a news- paper or a magazine, it is rather diflBcult for me to dic- tate a policy for your paper. However, I would suggest that in view of the many valuable technical criticisms and suggestions you made during the past year, that you adhere to the same policy, particularly at this time when a new technique has come into the industry, which is more or less of a problem to both the administrative and tech- nical ends of the business. There is no doubt but that the studio and executive staffs require advice regarding the application of sound to motion pictures; they will be inclined to consider it in the light of a "cure all". Unless careful study is given to the proper application of this invention to the motion picture, a great injury will be done to this innovation, as well as to the picture industry, John Waters DIRECTOR ORegon 7767 Edward Everett Horton FLOBELLE FAIRBANKS MAUDE FULTON iru "e^ary^s Other husband" VINE ST. THEATRE ^^'- h°">-™<' ^-^ Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Sunset Boulevards Mats. Thursday and Saturday, .■iOc to $1.00. Eve, 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. J c)/«**a^5:(j^^,^*i«^ c GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J4 17/iou$atid ^ifts of DisHnction 6326 HVLL/WC^P-QLVP- hVLL/M/VW-WUF- Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops" — Just West of Vine ..---4 Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR August 4, 1928 and instead of the public reacting to it favorably they may be turned against it. The lack of knowledge of this in- vention does not apply alone to the administrative and technical forces of the industry; it applies to the trade press also. As you know, the writer has spent several years studying and experimenting in this latest inven- tion, namely, "photography of sound", and from the many refinements possible in this art, I can see for it great possibilities for the future. I also feel that if this in- vention is used with discretion, it will be the greatest improvement that has ever come into the industry since the inception of the motion picture. Powers Cinephone Equipment Corporation have obtained some wonderful results in the recording of sound and as soon as it is practical to manufacture this device for the reproduction of sound from the fihn, commercially, it will have the interest of the entire industry, and instead of making sound for pictures we will produce pictures for sound. — P. A. Powers. Dear Mr. Beaton: You ask me how you shall conduct your paper in the future. Flattered by the request, and being, as ever, eager for a bit of effective publicity, I hasten to tell you. Please to note that I am thoroughly partisan and wholly preju- diced, which is a good beginning. Being a writer, I can, of course, see nothing but vain asses in screen actors, and nothing but ruthless, bludgeoning pirates in screen pro- ducers— ^neither with a scintilla of intelligence or artistic appreciation. By that I mean appreciation of the artistic. But enough of this rough satire. I have always rather (get the "rather") liked the policy of The Spectator. Therefore, there can be no good reason for changing it. Again, enough of this cheap satire, this smart-Alec at- r U\(grman^s c^rt 5hop The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard tempt at cleverness, this so-called wise-crackery. So far as I can deduct, the policy of The Spectator has been to be honest and fearless, which is much the same thing. Of course, you haven't always been right in your critical judg- ment. For you have damned many a picture that I liked and you have praised many a picture that I deemed rotten, But that isn't sajring there is no health in you. One thing, you have damned and praised without fear or favor. You damn a certain producer's picture almost — I was going ; to say — ^blasphemously; you praise his next one to the skies; and then damn the next one. And so on. Also, you have roasted writers and players where they needed it and praised them quite as generously where they deserved it. You have done this all all along the line, which indicates to me a fearless spirit of impartiality. Beyond every other motion picture critic in America — and this I have told you again and again when I had a favor to ask — the editor of The Spectator is exceedingly able and, best of all, to one none too gifted with powers of apprehension, exceedingly clear, definite, specific. Therefore, I say, why the devil should I instruct you to do anything but continue on as you have been doing? — Henry Iving Dodge. JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 I I J 1 OJiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiciniiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiniiiui iiiitjiiiiiiiiiiiiraiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiimnniiimiiiiiin!.; I "TEMPEST" I I A Sam Taylor | Production starring John Barrymore I In its eleventh week at the Embassy I Theatre, New York, at $2 prices 1 Now Playing at the United Artists I Theatre, Los Angeles •:'i::iiiiiiii!iiiuiiiimiiiiiaii iiiiHiiimiiiiiiai iiiiuiiiiiiiiiinaiiiiiiLiimuilllLHiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiio August 4, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three AL COHN B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER 2535 Glen Green GLadstone 0983 Next year's novel, RODEO, now being filmed in Chicago under the auspices of the Chicago World's Championship Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue (Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 — » r TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLB STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate •Miiiiiiiiiiiiaiimiimiiciiiiiiiniiiiuiiiii iiniiiiimiiiiniiiiiimiiiEiii iiiiniiuiiiiuii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiui>> I "THE MAGNIFICENT FLIRT" I i (Harry D'Arrast — Paramount) | = C I "DRY MARTINI" I 1 (Harry D'Arrast— Fox) • | I HE. 9915 HO. 2627 j < Page Twenty-fonr THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 Making the By Geo> Ade A Movietone Feature Directed by Alfred E* Green for Film Corp Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 5 Hollywood California, August 18, 1928 No7l3 ^32miiitiiMnniii»iunHiMiiiiMiiiniiMiiiiMiiniiiniiiii)inniiMiiiiii[jiHiiMiiinCTMiiiiiiiiic3iniiiiMiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiit}iuiiimiuniiiiiiiiiiHaMinm^ niiHiiiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiinnniinnniiniLinumiiPiig The Editor Is Back on Job With a Momentous Idea Why Talking Pictures Are Here To Stay Doug McLean's Contract With Sue Carol A Number of Other Catty Paragraphs HOT NEWS LOVE OVER NIGHT TENDERLON LOVES OF AN ACTRESS FORGOTTEN FACES BATTLE OF THE SEXES LITTLE SHEPHERD OF KINGDOM COME Oii{]niiHiiiiHaiwiiiiuiuc]iiiiiiiMiiiniiiiiiiiuiiuiiiniiiuHiUMiuiiiiiiiDiiuiuiuiiE]iiiiiniiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiniiinuuinuiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiuiuiiiii^ >4 Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 m m Trade it in on an all Electric Radiola Liberal Allowances Deferred Payments if Desired A call will bring a representative to explain the features of these new receiving sets EH.BOTOEM 3inLiUdr][c conDLP/jirTfY 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 img.WlWm^jygm^JLlMg.^.qg.W.qgmqg.qP.gm^^ August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and F.ditor 411 Palmer Building GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, AUGUST 18, 1928 A Weekly Spectator and a Hold-Up Number WHETHER there be wisdom in gurgling brooks, in limpid pools, in tree branches or the shade they give, in views from hill-tops, or in the intimate embrace of small valleys with farms in them, and cows, and dogs that bark lazily at you — whether business decis- ions arrived at in such a diverting atmosphere will stand up under trial is something that only time can tell. At all events, I'm going to give them a chance to justify them- selves. I'm not quite sure what the Oregon trout had to do with it, but it was at the exact moment that I had I brought him to the surface and was leaning over to slip 1 the landing net under him, a moment when my chief con- ' cern should have been to keep the canoe balanced, that I made the decision that The Spectator should be a weekly. I've known always that it should be, but I've dodged it because I didn't see how I could do any more virriting than I am doing now and attend to the details of two publica- tions in the same length of time that I now have to devote to one. I had no intention of joining the army of fools who work eighteen hours a day and regard it as some- thing to boast of. The only difference between The Spec- tator and a producing organization is size. The same remedy applies to the difficulties of each. All either needs is organization. I have The Spectator organized, and I could turn out a daily, weekly, and monthly without doing any more work myself. For the present, however, we will be content with a weekly. I am going to follow the advice that Tony Moreno gave in the Advice Number. He told me to make The Spectator a weekly and to include a de- partment dealing with general matters. I have interested K. C. B. in contributing regularly. I will keep the motion picture industry as my special care, while K. C. B. will deal with any subjects that he feels he can make interest- ing. Donald will continue to give us his views on pictures. And I hope that we will receive enough letters from readers to make an interesting department. It was when I was making myself comfortable for the night beneath a redwood tree that I made my second startling decision. I would publish a hold-up number! I know I've said sev- eral times that The Spectator never would do such a thing because these annual editions are nothing but petty graft- ing, and all that sort of thing, my chief argument being that advertising in them never did the advertisers any good. I still am of that opinion. That is why I am going to call it the Hold-Up Number. It will differ from all other special numbers of film publications only in name. Its advertising pages will be open to screen people with a sense of humor. I don't see what good it will do any of them, but they seem to fall for every special number that comes along, and I don't see why they can't help me finance my weekly. I'm quite sure that it vdll be the only Hold- Up Number I'll ever get out. It will be the first number of the weekly which will appear when I think I've milked the industry as dry as it will stand, which should take four or five weeks. I am going to make the milking process as painless as possible. The rate will be one hundred dollars a page — not because it is worth it, but because one hundred is divided so easily into sections. All that a victim need do is to send in a check for one hundred dollars or any fraction of it, and when advertising copy does not accom- pany the check I'll v^rite the copy myself and make a heroic attempt to give the victim all the value I can for the amount of loot that I extract from him. Of course, there is a possibility that the advertising will do some advertiser some good, but it will astonish me greatly if it does. I should do the thing properly by getting Lon Chaney to make me up as a highwayman and to make threats of what will happen to the prospective advertiser who will not come through, but I'm afraid I couldn't make it stick. My fountain pen refuses to be corrupt. I can't get it to write anything I don't think. * * * Sound Is Something the Industry Can Out-Think NEARLY two years ago I claimed in The Spectator that talking pictures were a reality. An issue or two later I stated that if I were a producer I would put someone on my staff to work on sound, his duties being to watch developments and to keep me posted on the progress being made. I am not surprised at the producers for not taking my advice, but I am amazed at their failure to think out the thing for themselves. What was apparent to me surely should have been as apparent to those with a greater interest at stake. But more to be amazed at than their failure to recognize the inevitability of sound when it first appeared, is the failure of the majority of producers to consider It constructively even now. They are baffled by what is clear as crystal to a man on the sidelines. Those with whom I have talked recently tell me that they are not sure how much sound there will be in the picture of the future, whether all the dialogue or only a portion of it will be reproduced in audible speech. They seem to be waiting for someone to tell them, and while waiting are losing valuable time. And who is going to tell them? The public? What does the public know about it? Of all the producers, Warner Brothers are the only ones who are going about the business in the right way. They don't know any more about it than anyone else, but they are plowing through the middle of it and learning something from every furrow they turn. The problem of the industry is not to discuss the desirability of Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR Augrust 18, 1928 sound or to hesitate to move forward through fear that the public will not like sound when it gets it. The wise producer is the one who will give it sound and make it like it. That is what Warner Brothers are doing. For perhaps the first time in its history, the industry is faced by a situation that it can out-think. Likes or dislikes do not enter into it. Many people have muddied the water by hurling verbal missives at the innovation, but nothing can blind the clear-thinker to the inevitable conclusion that all- sound pictures will be the universal screen entertainment of the future. People go to picture houses for entertain- ment. They desire relaxation, and entertainment produces it. The simpler the form of entertainment, the more relaxation can be derived from it. A talking motion pic- ture is the simplest form of entertainment ever devised. It can be enjoyed with a minimum amount of mental effort, providing thereby the maximum amount of relaxation. The voice can be projected mechanically to the ear of the person in the most distant seat; the most fleeting expres- sion of the artist can be brought to the same person by means of the close-up. The patron of the talking picture does not have to strain himself either to see or to hear, an advantage that no other form of entertainment possesses. In the silent picture there always is a moment of specula- tion on the part of the audience between the moment when the actor's lips move and that when the title appears on the screen, and there is left to the imagination of the audience that part of the conversation that is not reduced to titles. There is no speculation, no work for the imag- ination, in an all-sound picture. It is perfect entertain- ment to the extent that perfection is achieved in the mak- ing of the picture. It is obvious, therefore, that producers, instead of sitting around and wondering what sound was going to do to them, should grasp the fact that a wonder- ful new entertainment device has been made available to them, and that it is their duty to make the best of it in order that it vdll yield them the greatest possible returns. Every moment they take their minds off the fact that noth- ing but all-sound pictures will return the largest profits is a valuable moment wasted. Enough time already has been wasted in a lot of wild talk that is getting the indus- try nowhere. Also many worthy silent pictures are being spoiled by the inclusion in them of snatches of conversa- tions in sound. Abie's Irish Rose was a fine motion pic- ture, even if New York did not like it. With some of the speeches in sound and the remainder silent it will be neither fish, flesh nor fowl. The sound era is not one of hybrids. * * * When The Spectator First Discussed Sound TWENTY months ago is a long step backward in the history of sound devices. At that time I vsTote for The Spectator my first comment on the advent of sound in pictures. Perhaps what I said then will make interesting reading now. In the issue of December eleven, 1926, I had this to say: "The effect of the Vitaphone on motion pictures is a subject for interesting speculation, both on its own account as a mental exercise and because anything affecting pictures is of vast importance to Holly- wood. I approach the question with difiidence for the reason that Harry Carr already has disposed of it in his column in The Times. In terms of finality that forever remove it as a matter for argument, he states bluntly that we never will have talking pictures, thus closing the debate and permitting him in his next paragraph to settle the financial affairs of Europe. Like all those of us who must write so much a day, Harry can not escape writing rot now and then, and arbitrarily dismissing the Vita- phone as something that will affect the screen comes under the heading of rot. In this swiftly moving age he is a brave man who dares say that anything is not possible. I can not see upon what hypothesis those who say we will not have talking pictures base their predictions. We have them. Will H. Hays appeared in one at the Egyptian. In spite of that, many of our leading screen people gravely state that the public will not accept articulate movies, thereby adding more superfluous testimony to the fact that such people know nothing about either the pictures or the public. Whereabouts along the course of the history of mechanical advancement can you find X's marking spots where invention brought anything up to the point of reali- zation and then stopped? Talking pictures are possible to-day. Our producers of silent dramas refuse to prepare to make their products articulate, and imagine that no one else will. This paves the way for really intelligent people to enter the film business and dominate it. A few good talking pictures would put the others out of business. We are going to have them because they mark an advanced step and because they are practical. How anyone can leave the Egyptian theatre with a different impression I can not understand. The present custodians of screen knowledge admit that for a time their novelty may appeal to the public, but that it soon will wear off. Exactly the same thing was said when automobiles first were introduced and again when motion pictures appeared. My own mem- ory goes back far enough to embrace the time when we laughed at the machine that sets these words in type for you to read. As I write, the radio brings the voice of a guttural baritone who is singing of a lost love. And they say we never will have talking moving pictures. * * • Much more profitable is it to consider the effect the Vita- phone will have on pictures. It will put a premium, but not a big one, on those actors who can read lines intelli- gently, but it will not banish the rest. * * * xhe Vita- phone vrill affect but slightly the process of making pic- tures. But it will revolutionize the writing of screen stories. They will have to be what they would be now were it not for the lack of ability by production authorities — perfect. When a story has to be written with intelligent dialogue running concurrently with the action the scripts will be so far above the present production mentality that a new era in pictures wOl be born. The Vitaphone really is a joke on pictures. It is going to force them to be in- telligent. They will come under intellectual domination and be free from the present financial domination. It will bring to them the best writers in the world, and the works of these literary men will reach the public with their merits intact and free from the scars of ignorance and inefficiency with which so many of our present pictures are afflicted. The scripts will have to be perfect because the members of the cast will have to speak the actual words the audiences hear. It will be necessary for the lip movements to conform to the uttered word. This will entail upon directors the necessity of shooting scripts as written, which alone will improve pictures by eliminating August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five one of the deteriorating influences they are struggling ' under now. With the voice attachment pictures will im- prove what they now possess, and acquire in addition all the virtues that the spoken drama owns. It will make the screen the world's most intelligent as well as its most popular diversion. When, as is inevitable, the glory of color is added to the magic of the voice and the beauty of the scenes, there will be no other to match its power to express and its ability to entertain. It is not a prospect that only the far distance holds. It is something for an early to-morrow that even the inability of the screen mind to grasp the imminence of it can not long retard." * * * Proving That Intelligent Audiences Are Available THERE is some significance in the warmth of the re- ception tendered Adolphe Menjou in Europe. The interest that Paris has taken in him as an artist no doubt was accentuated by the French flavor of his name, but this is not true of London which received him with more enthusiasm than the French capital displayed. Jack ! Ford and Ernest Torrence, who were in London at the time, tell me that Adolphe was given an extraordinary re- ception, much to even his own amazement. The Menjou pictures have peculiar appeal to the European, not because he is a European, but because he is a cosmopolitan. Adolphe, with his smartness and his sophistication, appeals most to the class that attends picture houses least, but which can be recruited in greater strength when it is given more of the kind of screen entertainment that it prefers. The low standard that pictures have maintained has estab- lished for them an audience equipped mentally to enjoy mediocrity without being able to recognize it. It is an audience that is the screen's own by right of conquest, and does not include as a class those who demand that their mental recreation must reflect mentalities that match its own. Many of the best minds in the world are num- bered among the patrons of pictures, but they are drawn to them more by the persistency of their belief in its potentialities than by their satisfaction with the quality of the mental relaxation that they now provide. All over the world, however, the great mass of intelligent people shun the cinema for the reason that it has nothing to offer them. A picture acted by a Menjou, or one directed by a Lubitsch has in it that which would satisfy the keenest mind, but its salesman, the screen, is discredited and such a picture is not given the opportunity of impressing those whom its merits would impress if they viewed it. We don't hear so much nowadays about the low standard of the audience mind, but I believe the impression still pre- vails that the picture audience has the mentality of a four- teen-year-old child. The audience mind is, and always must be, on the same level with the producer mind, and pictures always will interest intelligent people only to the extent that they themselves are intelligent. And they never will be more intelligent than the people who make them. A distinguished French writer spent an evening with me recently. He related many experiences he had had with picture producers, experiences that were sending him back to Paris with a rather poor opinion of Holly- i wood. He had called by appointment on the head of one I of the greatest producing organizations, to whom he had 1 submitted his credentials, together with a letter explain- ing that he desired to interest the producer in a plan to make pictures from some of the De Maupassant stories. The French writer told me that the interview was fruit- less, largely because throughout its entire duration the producer insisted upon addressing him as "Mr. de Mau- passant." "And he couldn't even pronounce it," patheti- cally protested my visitor. Less than one week ago the same producer — he will identify himself when he reads this — told me that one of his difficulties is keeping pictures dovim to the mental level of their audiences instead of making the kind he himself would like to see. The truth of the situation is that every picture made reflects the full mentalities of those who make it. No producer since we've had pictures deliberately has tried to keep a picture down to the supposedly low mental level of the audience, but if that level be low it is the fault of the pictures and is not due to any mental deficiency on the part of the screen's potential audience. With the Menjou pictures Paramount is making a direct bid for the highest intelligences, and when Adolphe goes to London, the most intelligent center on earth, he nearly is mobbed by those who have responded to the intelligent appeal of his screen offerings. * * * In This One Pola Gives Her Greatest Performance A TRULY magnificent performance by Pola Negri is the main feature of The Loves of an Actress, di- rected by Rowland V. Lee for Paramount. In my opinion it is the greatest portrayal that Pola ever has given the screen, and it is the finest directorial job that Lee has turned out, and he has many fine pictures to his credit. There is a sureness and a compelling force about the acting and the direction that makes the picture out- standing. The story is largely biographical. It sketches the life of Rachel, born a Swiss, but who became a tragic actress who had all France at her feet, and whose art earned her the plaudits of audiences in England, Russia and America. She was bom in 1821 and died in 1851, which places the period of the picture. The story deals only with her life in Paris and does not concern itself with her tours abroad. It is a mixture of fact and fancy, being authentic as to her origin and her early years, but resorting to fiction in the manner of her death. She really died of consumption some years after she left the stage, which is undramatic, but the picture shows her taking poison in a great death scene on the stage and expiring shortly after, which is exceedingly dramatic and sufficient excuse for a departure from facts. It is a characterization that allows an actress to display the full range of her talent, and Pola is superbly equal to all its demands. Before she left for Europe she told me she thought I would like the picture as her performance in it was the greatest she ever gave. I did like it, and I agree with her own estimate of her work. No other woman in screen history ever has done better. It may not prove to be her most successful picture, for such a degree of art as she achieves will not be appreciated by the masses, but it is one that exhibitors everywhere should be proud to show. Paramount has pro- vided an elaborate and colorful production, a fit setting for one great artist's characterization of another. There are several scenes showing Rachel before the French audi- ences that loved and admired her, and so magnificently does Pola enact these scenes that the adoration becomes Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 understandable. It is seldom that these performances within performances are convincing. To be convincing, they must give the picture audiences the same reason for being enthusiastic as they give the audiences in the pic- ture, and this is accomplished by Pola's acting and Lee's direction. I have but one major fault to find with the direction. There are too many close-ups of kisses, more out of place than usual in a picture otherwise so artistic. In all other respects Rowland handles close-ups reasonably. He makes effective use of medium shots in dramatic se- quences. In a scene showing Pola breaking down after denying the man she loves, a scene of tremendous dramatic force, Lee shows her in a deep medium shot, registering her grief by the despair of her attitude as she sinks into a chair in front of her mirror. I thank him for that shot. The conventional treatment would have shown us only Pola's face with agony written all over it, one of the scores of things that the screen has done to death. It was said of the real Rachel, "She does not act — she suffers." The same might be said of Pola. Nils Asther plays oppo- site her and also does splendidly. There are other sterling artists in the cast — Nigel de Brulier, Paul Lukas, Richard Tucker, and Philip Strange, as well as several others who are not named. A woman who plays Pola's maid is par- ticularly good, and her father and mother give worthy per- formances. I noticed that the theatre orchestra in the picture played all the time Pola was reading her lines on the stage. I wish Paramount had been more careful with the punctuation of the titles. The picture is one that will make its greatest appeal to the kind of people who will notice such a defect. The punctuation is below the stand- ard that Paramount recently has set for itself. But I almost can forgive any title-writer who puts such a title as, "After all, the only realities are dreams," into the mouth of the great Rachel as she lies on her death bed. The Loves of an Actress is a credit to Ben Schulberg's production staff. And I make my obeisances to Pola Negri and Rowland Lee. » * * D. W. Shows That He Knows How to Be Quite Up-to-date DW. has given us what I think is the best picture he ever made. The Battle of the Sexes lacks the * epic sweep of The Birth of a Nation, and is with- out the romantic atmosphere that assisted in the success of some of his other pictures. It is an ordinary story about ordinary people, but so superbly has Griffith directed it that it is a notable example of screen art. Its appeal will be general. Women, particularly, will find it engross- ing. It is made a great picture by the quality of its per- formances, yet there is not a broadly sketched character in it. Griffith's facility for handling numerous people and for grouping a few in intimate shots is much in evidence. He introduces no arresting light effects, contenting himself solely with telling his story directly and briskly, and with- out any frills. D. W. has shed all but one of the old fash- ioned ideas that he has clung to throughout the years. In The Battle of the Sexes there are no stilted titles that tell what is going to happen, and in only one instance did I see a close shot that did not match its medium shot, a weakness that has been a feature of all Griffith pictures. The one habit that remains is that of defying convention by fading out in the middle of a sequence instead of cut- ting. It is odd to see a return to a scene that has faded out, but I hope that D. W. sticks to it. He will, if he has a sense of humor, and he must do something eccentric to show that he is no ordinary director. He has some ex- quisite touches in this picture. It deals with a family. Belle Bennett being the mother, Jean Hersholt the father, Sally O'Neil the daughter, and Billy Bakewell the son. I think D. W. will agree with me that with such talented artists in one group almost any director should give us some fine scenes, but I think there are few who could make them as compelling as Griffith manages to. In the opening sequence Hersholt gives Miss Bennett a jeweled bracelet as a birthday present, and it is done with such tenderness and feeling that it brought a tear to my eye, for I am an emotional old ass. Another beautiful touch is in a scene showing Belle reading a letter from Jean in which he tells her that he is leaving her. The strength of the scene lies in the fact that while she is reading the letter she is stand- ing directly below a photograph of her and Jean in their wedding clothes. When she finishes reading she looks up at the photograph, and anyone who would not be moved by the scene has no place in a picture audience. Miss Ben- nett gives a superb performance, and Hersholt's is one of the best of his career. For the first time we see the real Jean on the screen. He plays the part straight, and it was a brilliant bit of casting to put such a talented char- acter actor in such a role. Sally O'Neill is an actress. I said that once before, and I am even surer" of it now. She does magnificent work throughout. Billy Bakewell is the same ingenuous boy as usual, a capital trouper with a rare screen personality that should be on the screen much oftener. Phyllis Haver is in the picture. In a field with less talented competitors she would be the picture. As the unscrupulous gold-digger she is simply great, again demonstrating that she is one of the most capable girls on the screen. Don Alvarado has a mean sort of part which does not allow him much latitude, but the acting excellence of the production suffers no relapse when it is his turn to sustain it. In a few places Griffith uses close- ups where I think medium shots embracing all the char- acters in the main scene would have been more effective, but the fault is not aggravated sufficiently to prompt me to become catty about it. The picture is a splendid one, human and entertaining, and that is all that matters. 01 interest to Hollywood, but of none to audiences, is the fact that Griffith shot it nine days under schedule and for quite a few thousand dollars under budget. The United Artists production department, under that wise youth, John W. Considine Jr., is working efficiently and is turn^ ing out some of the best pictures that we are getting. I Schertzinger Trots Out a Few New Ideas in Shots EXCEPT where cuts are used to increase tempo, thei should be as few of them in a picture as possible That is something so obvious that it always shoulc have been part of the directors' creed, but it is only dur- ing the past few months that I have noticed any distinci evidence indicating that those who make pictures are be- ginning to realize it. In some situations either the dra- matic or comedy effect is heightened by quick cuts frcn one character to another, but such a situation does nol arise once in a score of pictures. In all other cases wher August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven The Spectator to Become A Weekly Readers persistently have urged the more frequent appearance of The Spec- tator. Advertisers demand it because it will give them a better service. Business judgment prompts it because it will put the publication on a sounder commercial basis. As a weekly it can urge more effectively the adoption of the reforms it believes the picture industry needs. The first number, which will appear in a few weeks, will be the only one in its history, as far as it can see now, that will accept purely complimentary advertising that it is sure will profit no one except itself. The advertising rate for the initial number will be $100 per page, fractions of pages at proportionate prices. Space is all the check of the advertiser will buy. As a weekly The Spectator will continue its policy of telling what it thinks about the industry and its output. Pubhshing the paper is a business proposition, and its idea of good business is not to permit business considerations to color its opinions. In the future, as in the past, the man or woman who refuses to advertise will be treated exactly as will the advertiser. The new subscription price, to go into effect October 1st, will be $7.50 per year, $8.50 foreign. Until October 1st, renewals or new subscriptions will be received for any num- ber of years at the present rates of $5.00 and $6.00. Irrespective of when your subscription expires, it will be extended for as many years as the size of your check indicates your desires. Fill out the coupon now. If you delay it, you are liable to keep on forgetting until it is too late. Read the announce- ment on page three, this issue. THE FILM SPECTATOR, 411 Palmer Building, Hollywood, California r enter Enclosed is my check for $ , for which | extend ™^ subscription for years. Name Street City Phone No.. Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 it is possible a pan or a traveling shot should be used in order that the eye of the audience can move smoothly with the lens and not be taxed by the jerk that always comes with a cut. Care will have to be exercised in grouping for these moving shots or considerable footage will be taken up with walls, space or whatever else is between two characters when the camera moves from one to the other. That is something that will have 'to be worked out. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note the progress that is being made towards the elimination of unnecessary cuts. In his latest picture. Forgotten Faces — a very good picture, by the way — Victor Schertzinger by his method of hand- ling one scene, avoids the use of cuts, inserts and titles. We see Clive Brook being arrested for murder. Next we see him in jail. We need to know how long he has been there, and what has happened to his baby who was about one year old when he was arrested. How are you going to put over all that without cuts, inserts or titles? When we discovered Brook in jail he is facing the camera, gaz- ing at something in his hand. The camera moves around behind him without a cut and we look over his shoulder and see that he is looking at a photograph of his baby. From an envelope he draws one photograph after another, each showing the daughter's progress from babyhood to maturity. It is an effective scene and tells a whole story in itself without one break in the photography. All the way through his picture Schertzinger shows a refreshing dis- regard for most of the traditions that have been hamper- ing screen art. Brook has the leading role, but we are not told what his name is or who he is. We learn from spoken titles that William Powell plays a character called "Froggy", but we don't know where he comes from or where he goes to. There are no introductions in the entire picture, and no footage is devoted to telling us anything that we do not need to know. Victor's direction brings out all the pictorial value of the scenes and the dramatic quality of the story, and would have been flawless if he had averaged his performances more evenly between too much repression and too much animation. This is purely a technical complaint, however, as neither sin is com- mitted so flagrantly as to lessen the entertainment value of the gripping but human story that the director has told on the screen with admirable directness, feeling and force. It is one of the best pictures that have come from the Paramount lot this year. The value to a picture of cast- ing real artists in small parts is in evidence here. There is a brief scene in which Hedda Hopper finds Brook's baby on her door-step. We do not see Miss Hopper again, but ■when the picture is over we remember still the sweetness. MICHAEL CURTIZ Directing Next: "MADONNA OF AVENUE A" With Dolores Costello Story: By Mark Canfield Warner Brothers Production the tenderness and the mother love that she puts into her t one short appearance on the screen. Crauf irrd Kent appears for but a moment as a butler, but during that moment makes his bit so convincing and real that it is a consider- able contribution to the sincerity of the production. Brook is too repressed. I do not know how the public will take it, but I think he has carried his impassiveness just one performance too far. There is no screen entertainment in a man who can light a cigarette or commit murder with- out a change of expression. Baclanova — ^no other name on the screen — shows a tendency to go too far in the other direction. K there be any truth in the report that Para- mount is grooming her to succeed Pola Negri, I would like to suggest timidly that it will be time wasted. Miss Bac- lanova is a superb actress, but she does not possess the quality out of which stars are made. Forgotten Faces is a picture that I can recommend unreservedly to all exhib- itors. * * * "Heads I Win; TaUs You Lose," Doug's Contract With Sue Carol SOME weeks ago I made reference to Sue Carol's con- tractural relations with Douglas MacLean. My re- marks brought forth a letter from a studio official, who does not wish me to use his name, who stated that while I had not expressed myself very definitely, he wished to take issue with what I intimated were my views of the case. People who sign contracts and try to wiggle out of them are welchers, this ofiicial writes, and they make him very tired indeed. MacLean, says my correspondent, gave Sue Carol her chance; he signed her on a long term contract, agreeing to pay her every week, before anyone had heard of her; he gambled on her future and because he is winning, Sue tries to break away from him, and I aid and abet her. The Spectator, my correspondent writes, should not always presume that the employer is wrong in any dispute with an employee, and that in this case, if it were an unbiased publication, it would be on the side of Douglas MacLean. Let us see. "He gave her her chance," is applied to the Carol-MacLean case as it is applied to every such case. Motion picture producer have the slave-trader mind. If by some blunder an un- known is cast in a part and becomes one of the hits of the picture, the unknown is put down as an ingrrate if he or she does not immediately sign a contract agreeing to work forever for the maker of the picture at whatever salary he pleases to name. If the complaint is made that the salary is too small, the producer trots out the old stand-by: "I gave you your chance, didn't I? Where's your gratitude?" Let's see how much Sue owes Doug. More as a lark than for any other reason. Sue played a small part in a picture. Guy Cobum spotted her and after many long arguments persuaded MacLean to sig:n her for the female lead in Soft Cushions. Coburn told Doug that Sue would get somewhere, so Doug, knowing nothing whatever of Sue's ability, told her she could have the part if she would sign a five-year contract with him. She knew nothing whatever about contracts or about any- thing else pertaining to motion pictures. Doug advised her to do it if she wished to get along — and handed her the contract to sign. She wanted to take it home and show it to her mother; he said she had to sign it right there and then or pass up the opportunity to make a name for her- August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine self as his leading woman. There were several closely typed pages in the contract, and no time was given to Sue to read them. The impression was given her that she merely was being asked to do what anyone would have to do to get a start in pictures, and Sue signed the con- tract without reading it. By the salary terms she would be getting in five years about half what she is worth now. And in case you feel that Doug took a chance when he agreed to pay her anything, it would interest you to know that there was a clause in the contract which said, in effect, that if Sue did not make a hit in Soft Cushions Doug could tear up the contract, but that if she did make a hit, she would have to work for him for five years. That's how much of a chance he took! Now he wants one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the contract. Let's see how that would work out. Say for the next three years Sue is worth fifteen hundred dollars a week. The producer who bought her contract at Doug's price, would charge one thousand dollars a week against Sue's over- head and pay her the remaining five hundred. And Doug for the same three years, would roll over the boulevards in comfortable cars while Sue would be kept busy night and day earning for him the thousand dollars each week that made the comfortable cars possible. K MacLean has risked a dollar on his judgment, I would not begrudge him his heavy winnings. But not only did he not risk a dollar, but he did not even risk his judgment. The whole busi- ness principle underlying the transaction was, from Doug's standpoint, "Heads I win; tails you lose." And for five years almost all that Sue Carol earns must go to him because he refused to let her take the contract home and consult her mother. * * * It Entertains and Also Satisfies Our Curiosity ANEWSREEL will show us a steelworker strolling along a narrow metal strip at a dizzy height and an accompanying title will tell us what a hero he is. Nothing is said of that other hero who climbs to the same dizzy height to photograph the man whose regular busi- ness it is to work that far above ground. All of us have seen hundreds of shots in newsreels that made us wonder more about the men who made them than we did about what was photographed. There seems to be a simultan- eous decision on the part of our leading motion picture producers to explain some of the things we have been won- dering about. The newsreel cameraman, hitherto an un- sung hero, is coming into his own. Now showing, in the making, and in the offing there are a dozen pictures about him. I have seen but one of them, and a rattling good picture it is. Hot News, directed for Paramount by Clarence Badger, and starring Bebe Daniels, should please any audience. Its theme is good screen material because it is something familiar to all motion picture audiences, and something about which the audiences know nothing. Merely as a satisfier of curiosity Hot News will have value. But in addition to this feature, it has one of those excel- lent and exuberant performances that Bebe Daniels knows so well how to deliver, quite satisfactory work by other members of the cast, many thrills that thrill, a satis- factory production, and good photography. It opens clev- erly. The first shot is one of a fishing vessel battling heavy seas, the camera apparently being stationed about midship, which put the cameraman in the very middle of the dangers he was photographing. There are several shots of this sort, and finally the story emerges and takes shape. It is a physically active and pleasantly senti- mental romance between Bebe and Neil Hamilton. Hamil- ton was an excellent choice for leading man, even though I do not agree altogether with his characterization. The newsreel cameraman of my conception is a cool fellow who moves slowly and never gets excited. There is too much of the movie actor in Hamilton's performance. The story pursues its way vigorously and excitingly, with a mixture of comedy, melodrama and farce, until Paul Lukas, a splendid actor, is arrested for stealing a jewel and Bebe and Neil are happy in one another's arms. The picture takes itself none too seriously. Bebe and Neil climb to the top of the Statue of Liberty to photograph a dirigible, a wasted effort, for when the sky is the back- ground it makes no difference how high up the object photographed happens to be. There are several little things like that. But the picture is an entertaining one. Bebe is a delight. She and Hamilton have a rough-and-tumble fight that is supposed to be a dance, and it is one of the funniest things that Paramount has given us this year. Bebe does a lot of the Fairbanks stuff, and it always is a delight to watch her at it when there is a reason for it as there is in this picture. Badger directed with his usual facility for telling a story of the sort. He does not overdo the close-up habit, and commits none of the faults that are so common until the final fade-out is reached, when he rings down the curtain on a close-up of Bebe and Neil kissing. If I were a director I would be ashamed of my- self if I could not think of something more original for a final fade-out than a close-up of a clinch. Throughout Hot News Badger shows considerable originality, only to close his picture with something that every director has used since Griffith inflicted films with the close-up curse. He has one shot, though, that I like. He wanted Bebe to overhear a conversation taking place in the room next to that in which she was waiting. Most directors show us characters hearing through heavy doors. Badger shows us the door between the two rooms being closed, but the latch does not catch, and the door swings open far enough to make it reasonable that Bebe could hear what was said in the next room. Very simple, but not done often. Hot News will please the Daniels fans, and no exhibitor need fear it as pleasing summer diversion. * * » Collection of Old Stuff Without One New Thought A CHANGE of story material is not what is needed to give pictures wider appeal. I see many pictures that are pretty bad, but I don't think I ever saw one with a wholly impossible story. Invariably the pic- ture lacks merit because of the manner in which the story is told, and not because there were no possibilities in the script. Let us take as an example the most modern speci- men of screen art that can be selected — a picture not yet released. Love Over Night recently has been completed by Pathe. It was produced by Hector Turnbull, who gave the authors the idea for the story; was directed by E. H. Griffith, who has some satisfactory pictures to his credit, and has Rod La Rocque for a star. TurnbuU has been a picture executive for so many years that by this time he Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 should know how to turn out one picture that at least would have some appeal to people of intelligence. Love Over Night has no such appeal. It is the kind of pic- ture that keeps the mentality of the audience at a low level, for no one whose mind has been developed above a sub-adolescent state could derive any intellectual satis- faction from the manner in which the producer and direc- tor have related the experiences that occur to La Rocque and Jeanette Loff. The fact that there is not a single new idea in the story did not necessarily constitute a handicap when the picture was begun. It offered many opportun- ities as a new story for deft touches and a virile, spon- taneous treatment that would make the picture bubble over with gaiety and amusement. What we get, however, is just another movie composed of almost all the things that movies have been doing from their inception; a narrative that could not carry conviction to the dullest mind, told with uninspired direction and acting. I don't know whether the picture is offered as a comedy or a farce. A detective (Tom Kennedy) is endeavoring to arrest Rod. Tom be- lieves Rod is hiding beneath some bedclothes. He does not lift the covers; he "builds" the situation by doing things that no sane detective would do, and when the treatment, not common sense, calls for it, he raises the covers and finds that a cat had caused the movement that had made him suspect that Rod was hiding in the bed. The scene is handled in a way that could add nothing to either a comedy or a farce. Rod is fleeing with Jeanette. He carries her when much better progress could be made with her afoot. With a squad of policemen after them in a scene that was supposed to get suspense from the fact that they did not have a second to spare, Rod and Jeanette turn before entering a taxicab, face the camera and calmly talk about something, completely dispelling from the mind of the audience any idea that the hero and heroine are in any danger. In an early sequence Rod escapes in a taxi and Tom Kennedy immediately gives chase in another. In a later sequence Rod again escapes in a taxi. There are other taxis handy, and many private cars with chauffeurs available to give chase, but this time Tom stands in the middle of the road and tears his hair. If Love Over Night had been produced for a few thousand dollars on Poverty Row we might excuse some of its faults, although I have not seen a Poverty Row production that is as bad as this Pathe picture. TurnbuU no doubt had a reasonable allowance of both money and time, and he had plenty of talent available, yet he turns out a pic- ture that is totally devoid of merit. Frankly, I can not understand the reason for it. I can not see why anyone John ^. Qoodrich 6683 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 6111 with half the experience Tumbull has had can not make an entertaining little picture out of the material there was in Love Over Night. It may have some appeal for childish minds, and the Pathe people no doubt will sigh and say that they must keep their pictures down to the low audience level. This one could have been raised to a level that would have amused intelligent people without sacri- ficing any of the appeal it now may have for half-wits. * * * Al Santell Makes One Without Standard Parts HOLLYWOOD is inclined too much to measure all pictures with the same yardstick. It almost has made the screen an art with standard parts — menace, conflict, love interest, and comedy and dramatic relief, at regular intervals, and placed thus and so, being considered as essential to all pictures, no matter how widely the stories differ. When we get a picture that refuses to use the standard parts the critics compare it with those that do, and find fault with it. I read many reviews of The Little Shepherd of Kingdom Come and aU of them agreed that it was a poor Dick Barthelmess pic- ture. When a film that I missed seeing before it was released, is condemned generally by reviewers, I pass it up, for there are enough new ones appearing to keep me busy. I had no intention of seeing this Barthelmess pic- ture, for I presumed that all the adverse criticisms were justified, but when I found it showing near me one night recently when I had nothing else to do, I viewed it and thought it one of the finest things that Dick has appeared in. What it lacks in standard parts it makes up in beauty of sentiment, superb photography, charming at- mosphere and fine performances. The story is old fash- ioned perhaps, but so are the hollyhocks that are induced by the morning breeze to nod at me as I write, and the honeysuckle that sends its perfume to me on the air that stirs in my garden. The Little Shepherd of Kingdom Come is like the hollyhocks, and the honeysuckle, the mignonette and lavender. Its sentiment is homely, clean, and sweet. Barthelmess gives us a character study of a mountain boy as only such a splendid artist can. I think he is the only actor we have who could do the part justice. He had a thorough grasp of the character and gives an understanding performance that is delightful to witness. All the acting is of a high order, worthy characterizations being to the credit of Claude Gillingwater, David Torrence, Nelson McDowell, Gardner James, Victor Potel, Walter James, Molly O'Day, Doris Dawson, Eulalie Jensen, Martha Maddox, and several others in small parts. There are a number of colored people in the cast who acquit them- selves creditably. Molly O'Day, as Dick's mountain sweet- heart, is splendid, and Doris Dawson, new to me, is a cute youngster whom I hope to see in many more pictures. Al Santell's direction is of a high order where real skill was required, but he was careless with several small details. He shows a keen regard for the pictorial possibilities of groups, but betrays a lack of system in his use of close- ups. The composition of some of the exterior scenes is strikingly beautiful, and the whole picture is a succession of artistic treats. In a night sequence we have a rain- storm of the exaggerated intensity that characterizes all screen rains. I do not understand why some technician does not invent some doohickey to put on hose to provide wL ugust 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven a shower that looks like a shower, not a deluge. The vol- ume of falling water in The Little Shepherd would have washed the mountains into the valleys. During this se- quence Molly O'Day sets forth on foot to warn Dick of an attack by a body of horsemen. Molly starts after the horses have dashed away. Every time we see them they are galloping furiously, but Molly, stumbling along on foot, gets to Dick first. Perhaps she took a short cut, but no mention of it is made. During a fight Dick takes shelter behind a tent to escape the bullets of his attackers. It may have been a bullet-proof tent, but no mention was made of that, either. After all the good taste that was displayed throughout the production, it is too bad that the final fade-out was a huge close-up of a kiss, which, as I have pointed out frequently, is the most vulgar and disgusting thing the screen does. Even if it were not, the same fade-out has been used so often that no good direc- tor should resort to it again. This Paragraph Is Particularly Catty ONE thing that I can count on regularly is a long letter of abuse, principally of a personal nature, from F. Hugh Herbert — the Herbert who writes laughless comedies for Metro, not the one who wrote dia- logue for the Warner talking pictures and who now is doing the same thing on the Fox lot. In his latest vitup- erative missive, the Metro Herbert takes me to task severely for my occasional use of the designation, "Mrs. Spectator". Herbert wants to know what I would think if Mr. Zukor referred to his wife as "Mrs. Paramount", or if Mr. Mayer referred to his as "Mrs. M.-G.-M." I am not going to argue with Herbert, all of whose letters are as silly and trivial as the comedies he writes, but I think that this one glimpse of his mind process is interesting for the light it casts on the reason why Metro comedies are such puerile things. I do not know if Herbert gets one of those ridiculous salaries that the industry pays — paying him a salary at all is quite ridiculous enough — but what- ever he gets is for his services in writing comedy that will appeal to people of intelligence, and the presumption must be that he has a sense of humor, even though what he writes establishes a contrary fact. It must be this sus- pected sense of humor that he sells to his employers, yet he can see no difference between "Mrs. Spectator" and "Mrs. Paramount". I conduct a small, intimate, personal journal which brings me close to my readers; Zukor heads an enormous organization that stands between him and personal contact with any of his customers, yet this poor fish out on the Metro lot thinks that if it be all right for me occasionally to quote "Mrs. Spectator's" opinion of a picture, it would be quite as appropriate for Zukor to cable his Paris office that he and "Mrs. Paramount" would arrive on a certain date. Herbert's comedies give evidence of having sprung from exactly that kind of comedy sense. To Herbert also has fallen assignments to write sophisti- cated comedies. The chief quality of such a comedy is the good taste it reflects. In his latest letter to me Herbert states blandly that he watched me all the time I was at dinner at a restaurant, and from his seat at an adjacent table listened to my snatches of conversation with the waiter, who, by the way, proved to be quite an intelligent fellow who interested me with a recital of the manner in which the restaurant secures, cuts and serves its steaks. Herbert's comments on my relations with my waiter re- veal him as one of those unfortunates who are so totally lacking in qualities that can be gained either by heredity, deduction, or observation, that they think it is an exhibi- tion of poor taste to be on friendly relations wath a waiter or any other kind of servant. Because I never have been able to see any virtue in any of Herbert's work that reaches the screen, he vrrites me his letters of personal abuse. It is a situation for interesting contemplation. A great organization pays this man a salary to turn out work based on a sense of humor, and reflecting gaiety and the best of taste, yet his letters prove him to be totally lacking in any idea of humor, so totally devoid of any knowledge of what constitutes good taste that he boasts that he watched me and listened to remarks not intended for him, and so narrow-minded that he resents my honest criticism of his work to the extent that he regularly in- sults me through the mail. But I am grateful to Herbert. I had to write one paragraph this morning. It is a hot morning outside my walled garden; I had nothing to write about, and was on the point of phoning some studio to show me a picture, when Herbert's letter came along. Fine! I stay in my garden and write my paragraph. And as soon as I finish it I will slip into the pool and swim around, and feel grateful to Herbert. * * * Will Hays' Idea of Weighty Utterances THE czar had arrived. It was at the time of his last visit. All Hollywood was talking about talking pictures. The Spectator telephone rang. Mr. Hays was among his subjects, was the tenor of the message, and was pleased to mutter something about sound in pic- tures; would The Spectator send some fleet person to the office of the great man and get an authorized copy of his conclusions? Will Hays gets one hundred and fifty thou- sand dollars a year from producers for thinking in terms of motion pictures. Such high priced thoughts must be taken seriously. The fleet person was despatched forth- with, and he came back with the pearls of wisdom. As far as I am concerned, what Hays thinks about anything does not interest me, for I never have knovra him to utter a thought that was not as shallow as his explanation of his connection with the oil scandal. But who am I that I should close my columns to the comments of such an authority on all that pertains to the screen? Months previously sound had passed the stage when platitudes concerning it might hold our interest, and the time had come when even the dullest persons on the lots were say- ing something constructive about the great revolution in pictures. And what did our great man have to say? Listen. "The development is as yet in the formulative stage, of course, but there is no doubt about its future. It will be universally adopted — that is, it will be used universally to the extent that it is used. Sound will be dramatized when such dramatization adds to the total dramatic value of the picture. Great new interest will be created, prob- ably great new audiences. George Bernard Shaw to-day lectures in America. Blussolini has been making speeches in New York. The Prince of Wales will soon speak in Los Angeles. The motion picture has always brought the remotest outposts of civilization to Main Streets every- Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 where. Now the greatest personages will be heard, as well as seen likewise, everywhere. Think what this means historically to posterity. Think what it would mean to us to-day to hear as well as see Lincoln speaking at Gettysburg. Great values, too, are involved in connec- tion with educational and scientific films. Again it is dem- onstrated that no story ever written for the screen is as dramatic as the story of the screen itself." Did you ever in your life read such absolute rot? There were many problems arising out of the advent of sound that Holly- wood was considering seriously, and this platitudinous egoist, who is paid an absurd salary to bestow upon the industry an integrity that he himself has lost, lands among us, breathlessly notifies the papers that he has something momentous to say — and feeds us utterances that have not in them one thought that would do credit to a mature mind. And take this: " — as well as seen likewise"! There's a gem of literature for you! I hope Will has rewarded substantially the man who first said, "No story ever writ- ten for the screen is as dramatic as the story of the screen itself." If the original owner of that thought had copy- righted it, Will would be speechless. He can't open his mouth without saying it. There was a time when I thought I'd scream if he quoted it again, but I have reached a point where I would regret its passing from his speeches, for there would be nothing left to appeal to my sense of humor. C OME months have elapsed since Vanity Fair carried '-^ Jim Tully's dirty and cowardly attack on Jack Gilbert, but I still am receiving letters asking me why I do not comment on it, the writers apparently being under the impression that The Spectator's position is in the front line to repel any attack on the personnel of the motion picture industry. I do not so regard it. But I can throw an interesting sidelight on Vanity Fair. I happen to be in a position to know that it does not want the truth about Hollywood. It employed me to write a series of articles, and I submitted the first, which presented some truths about producers and their methods of making pic- tures. You should have read the letter Vanity Fair's attor- ney wrote me about my article. One of my incidental statements was that Frank Lloyd was going to direct Jack Barrymore, which, at the time, was true, although later the director was changed. The studio had made the state- ment that Lloyd was going to do the job, and every screen publication on earth had published it, but it was one of the hundred or so facts in my article which the attorney seized upon and demanded that I support with evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Can you imagine me trotting about Hollywood making an ass of myself getting a lot of people to make affidavits that Frank was going to direct Jack? I told of the amount of money Metro had squandered on The Mysterious Island, and the meticulous attorney wanted another bunch of affidavits to support that charge. Of course, the whole idea back of the attorney's letter was to give Vanity Fair an excuse for not printing the articles it had ordered. It must have been prepared for my invitation to it to go to the devil, which invitation it received in the return mail. Producers, you see, represent Big Business, and Vanity Fair respects Big Business too much to publish the truth about it. It does not respect screen actors, and would rather lie about them than publish the truth about their employers. It engaged Tully to lie for it, a wise selection for the job. A congenital lowbrow, with a queer, distorted thing that functions as a brain, enviously regarding possessors of graces that he has been denied, by instinct a character assassin, and in action a coward who hides behind, "I have been told," Tully was exactly the kind of man for the kind of paper that Vanity Fair is. His cowardly and gratui- tous attack on Gilbert was the expression of his anger at nature for making him so unlike Jack. I would be inter- ested to know what comment Vanity Fair's fussy attorney made when he read the Tully article. But I must say for the publication that it is no tightwad. It paid me for the article that it did not publish, and it let me sell it to another paper. I have respect for its business principles, but none for its moral character. TT7HEN the New York critics saw Tenderloin they ^^ didn't like it. The Warner boys took the criticisms to heart, sent the film back to the cutting-room, made some retakes, Vitaphoned some more sequences, and sent the whole thing out again in the form in which we saw it at the Warner theatre in Hollywood. It's a pretty good picture now, and aside from its entertainment value, is valuable to the industry as an argument for all-sound pictures. It is idle now to discuss the best method of making partly-sound films, for in a very short time we won't have any, but if any producers still are thinking of reproducing only a portion of the talking in sound I would suggest that they put all of it at the tail end of the pic- ture, and that when they once start, they keep up the talking until the end. After the sound sequences in Tenderloin the silent ones seem unreal and flat. These hybrid pictures won't do because they do not square with IT IS INEVITABLE that spoken laughs in talking picture must adjust them- selves to audiences of widely varying mentality and culture. In order to click, these laughs should hit an average standard of humor, and be neither too high- brow for the provincials or too provincial for the high- brows. This sounds simple but is rather difficult of accomplishment. My many years of successful writ- ing experience in the field of vaudeville, musical comedy and burlesque has given me the necessary "audience hunch". My services are available by the week or pic- ture. JAMES MADISON (Scenarios — Gags — Titles — Talk) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 Winifred Dunn Writing for First National ugust 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen ason. If the first sequence can be done in sound, the second, and every succeeding one, can be treated in the same manner; if we hear the fine voice of Conrad Nagel, why are we denied the equally fine voice of Mitchell Lewis in the same picture ? Such thoughts as these come to one as he views Tenderloin, and interfere with his considera- tion of it as screen entertainment. I find it a difficult one to criticize, for it is neither a talking picture nor a silent one. In those features that are common to both it has much to recommend it. The direction of Michael Curtiz leaves little to be desired; the production is on an am- bitious scale, and the photography is excellent. Both Dolores Costello and Conrad Nagel give excellent per- formances, and competent acting also is provided by George Stone, Mitchell Lewis, Pat Hartigan, Fred Kelsey, Dorothy Vernon, and several others whose names I do not know. As was the case with the other sound pictures that I have seen, the voices of all those who spoke before the microphone were clear and distinct, supporting the argu- ment in a recent Spectator that screen actors need not fear the advent of sound. * * * WHEN I started The Spectator, I was assured by many people that it would not succeed because screen people did not want frank criticism of their work. They would resent it, I was told, and it was predicted that before a year was out I would have no friends in Hollywood. One of the pleasantest things about the career of the paper has been the emphatic manner in which these prophesies have proven untrue. The Spectator has been an extraordinary success, and those whose work it has criticized adversely are among its staunchest supporters. It has been a pleasant job for me because until a couple of weeks ago I did not encounter one director or actor who resented anything I wrote. But at last I have en- countered one — Joe von Sternberg. Two years ago mine was the only voice in Hollywood raised in his behalf. At a time when he had only two box-office failures to his credit I claimed that he had the makings of a fine director; When he made The Last Command and Underworld I praised his work warmly. When I viewed Drag Net I thought its direction was terrible, and said so. I still am of the same opinion. And now Joe won't speak to me. Fancy that! I am disconsolate. Joe is known on all the lots as the most conceited person in pictures. He hon- estly believes that he is above criticism. He told me one time that he knows all about pictures, thus acknowledging that he is the only man in the world wto knows all about anything. He is the unfortunate possessor of a complex that is the only thing that will interfere with his steady Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing for WARNER BROTHERS rise as a director. The sorry exhibitiofi of his skill that he gives in his direction of Drag Net does not lessen my respect for him as a director, and I believe that he will give us more good pictures, but his tremendous supply of egotism will keep him from becoming great. He is an objectionable little person, but I hope his next picture will be an outstanding success. I yearn for the pleasure of praising it warmly. It would appeal to my sense of humor. Poor little Joe hasn't any. * ♦ * TT 7 HEN this year started The Spectator announced that ' "^ it would present a gold medal to the director who gave us the best love scene during 1928, and one also to the director who gave us the most original and appropri- ate fade-out during the same period. I see a majority of the principal features and thus far this year I have not seen one love scene or one fade-out that I consider is a contender for one of the medals. Directors continue to pour their love scenes from the same old mold and to adhere to the same old clinch ending. I have been told of two or three endings that directors have attempted, and which might have run a race for the prize, but they were ruled out, two of them after being shot, by producers who refuse to see any virtue in anything that has not been done before. Another director told me ruefully that he had planned to capture the medal for the best love scene. He shot the scene in a way that he knew would appeal to me — a deep medium shot which retained the romantic background, and to preserve the suggestion of privacy Wallace Worsley OR. 5419 "KENNETH ALEXANDER" Special Art Stills Now at work on the third production for Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., "The Rescue", directed by Herbert Brenon, starring Ronald Colman. Address 6685 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD Telephone HO. 8443 Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 that I maintain should surround a love scene, he kept the backs of the sweethearts to the camera. He was proud of the scene, and in the projection-room awaited the con- gratulations of his producer and supervisor. "We pay that guy eighteen hundred dollars a week for his face," said the producer, "and we want his face, not his back, on the screen. And the bigger you make the face, the more we get for our money." "And the same thing goes for the girl," chimed in the supervisor. "Shoot it over again and give us close-ups." If I don't see a satisfactory love scene on the screen by the end of the year, I may present the medal to this director for his good intention. * * * MAY I put in a word for avoirdupois? Molly O'Day, if we may judge from what we see in the papers, is afHicted with it, and there is tragedy for her and for those who employ her in the fluctuation of the scales. In short, Molly's weight is news. But why harrass the poor girl? Let her get plump. There are plenty of nice plump girls in the world, and there is no reason why they should not be represented on the screen. Molly is a clever girl. She is an excellent little trouper, but she is not being assisted in keeping her mind on her work by the undue import- ance that is being given her weight. How does anyone know that a plump girl who can act would not be popular with the public ? No palate can stand a steady diet of any one thing. The screen heroine has been a svelt creature since there have been pictures. Why not a change ? If I were a producer, I wouldn't be afraid to take a chance with a plump girl if she had sufficient acting ability to keep the attention of the audience from wandering from her art to her avoirdupois. I have no way of knowing if the stories of Molly's expansion are true, for I am not acquainted with the young woman, but if they are, I would advise her to keep striving to be a better actress and it won't make so much diflFerence if she turns out to be a plump one. * * * A SEQUENCE in some picture I have seen recently — I can't recall which one it is — ^has a number of cuts in it showing an automobile traveling along a street. There are a few feet in the first cut, followed by at least one hundred feet of the main scene. In the next cut to the street the automobile is shown in the same block in which we first saw it. In the interior scene the action indicated that possibly a quarter of an hour elapsed, dur- ing which time the motor apparently made no progress whatever. You see the same thing in many such sequences. Forty or fifty feet of an auto traveling along a road are taken, and the cutter is limited to the one strip of film when he inserts several cuts of the road scene. Some day a brilliant genius is going to shoot the automobile in several different streets, and each cut to it in the pic- ture is going to make it look as if it kept on traveling while other action was taking place. It will be quite a novelty. * * * HUGH Lafferty I have known, baby, boy and man, for thirty-nine years, which is his age. He has been visiting me. He's a railroad engineer — bridges, tunnels, and things like that — and has fixed tastes in screen enter- tainment, which he discusses intelligently. He has his favorite players and runs off their names as glibly as a casting director. He thinks that Lionel Barrymore is a better screen actor than Jack, that Janet Gaynor has a spiritual quality, not only greatel- than any other actress, but of an entirely different kind, and that Louise Fazenda stands at the head of the women whose business is to pro- duce laughs. He believes that among the young fellows, Charlie Farrell will go farthest, but that Dick Arlen and George O'Brien will press him closely. After about an hour of this kind of talk, I told Hugh that in Hollywood we rated the director as of more importance than the actor, a rating with which the director agreed, and I asked him to name as many directors as he could. Here is his list, given after due deliberation: Zukor, Suther- land, Considine, and Griffith. "It will please Eddie Suth- erland to be included in your weird and limited list," I remarked. "Well," said Hugh, "you see, my mother's name was Sutherland." * * * ly yfOST of the arguments against the use of sound in ■'■^^ pictures will not stand analysis. Harry Carr wrote in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago: "U they are going to turn movies into dialogues, it naturally follows that most of the charm of the movies will be gone." Scores of other writers have taken the same stand. Carr goes so far as to assume that dialogue will take the place of "the cliff-jumping, train wrecks, etc., etc.," thus depriv- ing audiences of the thrills that the screen has given them. All such arguments apparently are based on the assumption that to the extent that producers adopt sound, they will lose their common sense. The mission of the sound picture will be the same as that of the silent pic- ture: to provide entertainment. Where charm is possi- ble, we will have charm, and producers will not sacrifice PAUL PEREZ .... has completed titling "The Grain of Dust," his fourth conse- cutive production for Tif- fany-Stahl; and "The Wright Idea," his fourth successive Johnny Hines feature. He is now titling E. H. Griffith's current Rod La Rocque starring vehicle, "Captain Swag- ger," for .... PAT HE Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & Englander August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen it to dialogue. The only way the stage can give us a train wreck is to have a character describe it. The sound picture will give it to us in all its realism, allowing us to hear the thunder of the impact, the hiss of escaping steam, the shrieks of the victims, and everything else that will help to make it more horrible. Instead of de- priving us of thrills, sound pictures will give us a more vivid idea of what a thrill is. With sound we will have better pictures, not poorer ones. * * * COME to think of it, Johnnie Considine generally man- ages to give us a good picture. So does Winnie Shee- han. The Irish seem to be coming into their own in the industry. We have no one who does such daring things as Considine does. He's young yet, but he has given sev- eral people the initial boost on their climb to success. He gave Clarence Brown his first big picture, started Lewis Milestone and gave Sam Taylor his first dramatic assign- ment. He made a comedian out of Louis Wolheim, famous on the stage as a heavy, and discovered both Gilbert Roland and Don Alvarado. George Marion Jr. wrote his first titles for Considine, who also gave Hans Kraly his first opportunity to write for the screen. Wm. Cameron Menzies, the man responsible for the artistic sets that dis- tinguish United Artists pictiures, was another discovery of Considine. * * * OHOWING a shadow on the screen when there is no ^ reason for not showing the substance, always has appealed to me as a rather childish trick. Michael Curtiz resorts to it frequently in Tenderloin. He several times shows a parade of shadows which finally are succeeded by a parade of characters. These shots would be all right if the shadows themselves had dramatic significance, but they are all wrong when there is no drama in them, the reason for them being purely pictorial. * * * EVERYONE, so it seems, seems to agree that New York is the greatest "boob" town on earth. Close contact with Jimmie Walker, whom it selected as its mayor, is the strongest proof that yet has been advanced in sup- port of the charge. * ♦ * WHEN I reviewed The Man Who Laughs a couple of months ago, I criticized it for a lavish expenditure on a set that appeared on the screen for only a couple of seconds. It showed an elaborate bedroom of a French king. I take it back. The set cost less than one huiidred dollars. Universal used a portion of an old set built orig- inally for The Hunchback of Notre Dame, consequently I must retract my charge of extravagance and give credit to the producers for practicing economy. * * * NOT as an indication that The Spectator is going into politics, but to get it in before it becomes so obvious to the whole country that it would do the prophet no honor, I would like to predict that Herbert Hoover is going to be elected president by an enormous majority. You'd feel sorry for me if you knew how much I feel the urge to argue it out at length. But it's The Film Spectator. * * * THE titles in Bringing Up Father bristle with mistakes in punctuation. There are several questions with no interrogation marks after them, but the prize for illiteracy may be awarded to a title which reads: "I'd like a word OiiiiiiiiiiiiiEjiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiamiiiiiimuiiiiiiiiimniniiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiHimiiiiiiiiu'^' I ONE AFTER ANOTHER | ! Box Office Hits | I "Resurrection" | I "The Good-bye Kiss" | I "The Racket" | I NOW TITLING | I "The Romance of a Rogue" f I No matter who writes them, | I No matter who acts in them, | I No matter who directs them, | TITLES BY I always means success at the box-office n I ORegon 0308 | <>iC]iiiiiiiiinit]iiiiiiiiiiiiDiiHiiiiiiiic]iiiiiiiiiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiii[] iiiiiii[:iiiiiiiiiiiic*> The Screen Story for WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEAS Was Written by RAY DOYLE Now under contract to Warner Brothers to write "Madonna of Avenue A", a Vitaphone Special Management of LICHTIG and ENGLANDER m m Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 with you in private?" Just why Metro goes to such excessive lengths to show its ignorance of the use of the English language always has puzzled me. * * * Up to the hour of going to press Joe von Sternberg still was mad at me. sub-titles or script. The commercial side claims that the words help padding the film in an inexpensive way; but the loss from an artistic standpoint is tremendous. I hope you will find the trout if not the walrus. — Thomas W. Slocum. CROWDED OUT OF ADVICE NUMBER Dear Mr. Beaton: In answer to your letter of June 5th, your idea is cer- tainly a new one and therefore worthy of attention. I have always admired your independence in stating the facts in regard to moving pictures no matter how many enemies you made— when the truth is spoken, an enemy is an endorsement. My general criticism of pictures to- day is that there is a lack of genuineness, and there is too much evident artificiality — too much studio. The other night I saw the pictures taken on Mr. Putnam's trip to Northern seas that were as refreshing as a sea breeze, owing to their honesty. The little schooner has a rough voyage through heavy seas, that is vividly shown, and a pleasing contrast to the toy ship that would appear in the studio production. An eskimo harpoons a two-ton walrus and plays him as easily as he would a trout. A polar bear is lassoed and the fight that ensues is marvel- ously vivid. After a fierce struggle, the bear bites the rope and escapes. As he climbs on to a cake of ice to rest after the encounter, there is a natural simplicity about it that is charming. Again, the breaking up of the ice and the schooner's eventually reaching open water is graphically shown. Fundamentally, I have always claimed that a well-directed picture needed little in the way of (With apologia s to K. C. B.) Dear Mr. Beaton: I HAVE enjoyed. CARRY ON the same. * * * * * * READING The Spectator. AS LAST year. * * * * * * SINCE coming. AND PLEASE don't. * * * * * * TO Hollywood. MAKE ANY change. * * * » * • BECAUSE I know. BECAUSE I want. * * * * * » IT SPEAKS its mind. TO LOOK forward. * * * ♦ * * ABOUT folks. EVERY OTHER Saturday. * * * * * • AND things. TO RECEIVING it. * * * * * * AND IF you want. AND TO know. * * * * * * BIY advice. THAT I will enjoy. * * * * ♦ • ON how. READING it. * * » » * * TO RUN it. AS I always have. ♦ * * » * » NEXT year. I THANK you. I SHOULD say. — June Collyer. I American Sound Recording Corporation Beg to announce they have engaged PAUL GERSON Greatest Living Authority, Expert and Teacher of the Development of the Speaking Voice and the Elements of Speech To supervise a series of Voice Recordings for professionals and non-professionals at THE PAUL GERSON STUDIO Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street Telephone HEmpstead 6077 Beginning Monday, August 13th. Every day and evening. WE WILL MAKE A GENUINE RECORD OF YOUR SPEAKING VOICE FOR $10.00 Upon request, we will send your record to any studio and record it for you, or have it recorded at our studio at any time. We can make records for you on as large a scale as desired. We can rehearse and record entire scenes for you. Special Private Arrangements Can Be Made for Stars, Feature Players and Others DON'T BE IN DOUBT ANY LONGER. FIND OUT WHERE YOU STAND ON THE TALK- ING MOTION PICTURE QUESTION. YOUR CAREER MAY DEPEND ON IT. OUR LIBRARY OF VOICE RECORDS WILL CONTAIN ALL THE AVAILABLE VOICES IN HOLLYWOOD. Appointments for recording must be accompanied by a deposit. No telephone appointments made. "HEAR YOURSELF, AS OTHERS WILL HEAR YOU." J August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen dear welford in reply to your letter asking me how i would run the spectator if i were the editor i think it is always so nice to be asked your advice it's human to simply adore it so i offer it here though you i have fear will be human and merely ignore it now were i the creator of your movie spectator i venture this since you invite it i would change the whole "run" fire both you and your son and revamp and rehash and rewrite it i would be like the reformers pan all the performers they would fill my whole soul with abhorrence but i would praise without stint though this is only a hint that paragon grant first name lawrence on directors technicians writers gagmen musicians i would level my heartiest strictures but producers got bless 'em i'd keep in with the mannon of pictures I've ha "Ih Bet. Hollywood and X LLCr\. X. SXIJ Sunset Boulevards Mats. Thursday and Saturday, 50c to $1.00. Eve., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. % George Fitzmaurice First National Production With COLLEEN MOORE and GARY COOPER LILAC ______ Carthay Circle Theatre 1 1 M E "^^"^ 2:15-8:30 Carli Ellinor's Orchestra > =V=*«^S{K,<**'=\P ' GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J>f ■yAousand Gifts of DUfinction " 6326 HVLLyWWt7-BLV7- HVLiyWVVP-WUF' Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops"— Just West of Vine , dV«j*'S{K'=ccn„/>b <; 'Printers of THE FILM SPECTATOR and other high-class publications "No The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 ^^ No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Holly^vood Phone GRanite 0202 Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 market, may be amended to read, that they do not care for it any more than for their right eye. I think Mr. Nagel mistakes natural curiosity for en- thusiasm, in his description of the reaction of the audience at a talking picture, and his statement that dialogue brings life to the picture, might well come from a blind man. I would ask him if he ever saw Seventh Heaven and if he considers it needs dialogue to make it live? The brain reacts far more quickly to visual impres- sions than to aural ones, for the simple reason that what the eye sees is almost simultaneously interpreted by the brain, while sounds, especially words, require an appreci- ably longer period for interpretation, which depends on the intelligence of the hearer. Moreover, the thrill obtained from action is never equalled by that derived from words. Most of us could read of the revolting slaughter of Hick- man's pitiful victim, with a fair degree of composure, but how many of us could have watched it? As to Mr. Zanuck's contribution, I think he fooled you, and slipped a good publicity stunt over on you for his company. Also it contains about as much truth as the average publicity article. With the exception of the Jazz Singer, ninety percent. Jolson — all the pictures he names are distinctly mediocre, while every review that I have read of The Lights of New York brands it as one of the worst pieces of "fromage" ever made. And we would have him remember that no one save producers and press agents regard box-office records as a criterion of excellence. If as Mr. Zanuck states, the talk- ing pictures are to save the lives of his own and other producing companies, it only goes to prove that these companies should be making concrete instead of pictures. Pictures have received the whole-hearted support of the public, as silent pictures. If they do not continue to do so, it is the fault of the producers alone. F. ELY PAGET. (My views on the above letter are that Mr. Paget is wrong in all his conclusions. — W. B.) THE FIRST SOUND PICTURE Dear Sir: In your issue of The Spectator of June 23rd, you say you would boast that you saw the first oral picture ever produced. Permit me to inform you that it is not the first oral picture ever produced, by a long shot. Two years ago last December the DeForest Phono-film Company produced a one act melodrama called "Retributioti", which was equivalent to two reels in length, running thirty minutes. It was entirely a "talking" picture, no sub-titles. The story was by Hans Alene, in collaboration with Arthur Donaldson, a well-known actor, who played a protean part — five characters. Others in the cast were equally well-known, Aubrey Seattle, Wm. Cameron and myself. The director was a Mr. Phillips, who came from England to direct. The same players also put on another picture — a "talker" — for the American Bell Telephone Co. depicting Prof. Bell testing his first phone in his labora- tory, and later showing it to Don Pedro, Emperor of Brazil, at the Centennial in Philadelphia, in 1876. This picture followed almost immediately after the DeForest production, filmed by a different process, however, large disks being used instead of film. This latter picture was part of the company's exhibit at the Sesqui-Centennial in Philadelphia. WM. B. CALHOUN. New York. UNABLE TO ACCEPT OUR VIEWS My dear Mr. Beaton: Your comments on pictures are interesting, always, even when one doesn't agree with them. What you have said lately regarding talking pictures is especially so, even though I find myself unable to accept your views. I admit, of course, that sound-films are an important step in advance, but I cannot agree with you that they are going to revolutionize the industry. For "specials", and near-specials, sound-synchronization is truly an advantage (or would be if English were a more universal language); but for the program picture and the western — ^the real backbone of the industry — such a change is almost incon- ceivable. This is not due to any one cause, but rather, on account of a combination of them. The producers, of course, would be reluctant to go to the extra expense necessitated by the addition of sound; but that alone is no great obstacle. That the voices of established favorites might be unsuitable, is also unimportant, for there are plenty of actors with good voices, to replace them. But it is when you consider the small exhibitor, who, like the program picture, is the real support of the industry, that you encounter a real problem. The average small exhibitor, like most small business- men, is most conservative; probably because he can't afford to be otherwise. He is doing business on the proverbial shoestring, or less. He cannot afford to invest in any- thing uncertain, or likely to become useless to him. To date there are, I believe, three basically different systems of sound-films, with more coming. Granting that their amplifying apparatus is interchangeable and that the con- tracts would permit the use of one amplifier for all three, there is still the fact that our exhibitor could not afford the bare cost of the installations. He is not making enough. His expenses are high, and the income small. Credit? It's already stretched perilously near its limit. Raise the admission fee? Don't suggest it; he's had to do it often enough, when he was forced to play a special (they don't draw overly well on Main street), either to protect himself, or to live up to contract requirements. In either case, his public grumbled, or, worse, stayed away. A nickel is still respected in the "sticks", and a 10 cent increase in the local theatre's charge is of more moment than all the farm-relief legislation ever written. I re- call a report of a personal survey made by a president of the Michigan State M. P. T. O. A., which concluded with the statement that the average small exhibitor could be nothing more or less than a philanthropist, for he cer- tainly was not, could not be able to make anything like a living! Could you expect such men to invest several thou- sand dollars apiece in two or three sets of complicated, new equipment, whose ultimate value is entirely prob- lematical ? Then, as pointed out by a correspondent in a recent issue, the foreign field would be ruined by the extensive use of such devices. At a time when the rest of the world is straining every effort to surpass the American film industry, such a step would be suicidal. Your sug- gestion of translation by doubles seems rather far-fetched, and presupposes a cosmopolitan mentality quite lacking in the average audience. Ignoring the fact that the foreign audience is inclined to be more critical than the domestic, and that it is just being won to the conclusion that the films are really deserving of serious considera- tion, the fact remains that to have a speaking film translated, without changing, or at least approximating the lip-movements, would give a most ludicrous effect. Audiences will stand a great deal, but not such a blatantly ridiculous thing as that. The quick passing of the earlier attempts at "talkies", which were badly synchronized, as a rule, bears witness to that. Incidentally, consider the difficulty of trying to translate a given speech in English into, say, German or Russian, giving even nearly the same shades of meaning, and taking the same time! Or, fancy having a character continue speaking quite perceptibly after his lips had finished moving! It would rob the screen of its atmo- sphere of realism, or actuality, which is one of its chiefest charms. It would do more to kill the screen art than all the imbecilities of ignorant producers, zealot censors, and immature, highbrow journalists ever could. Undoubtedly, sound-films have their place. The indus- try is big enough to hold them. But their importance should not be over-estimated. Once technically standard- ized they will have their own special niche. For newsreel, novelties, accompaniments, and domestic feature-produc- tion they will never be displaced. But I cannot agree with your statements that they will revolutionize pictures. If they try to, I fear they'll come nearer to killing them! FILLIAM STULL, A. S. C. August 18, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three JEAN HERSHOLT Next year's novel, RODEO, now being filmed in Chicago under the auspices of the Chicago World's Championship Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson •« B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER 2535 Glen Green GLadstone 0983 i— «-4 JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY GRETTA TUTTLE Ingenue Leads Telephone GRanite 5151 TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 ALBERT CONTI In ^The Magnificent Flirt" cA ^arry d'c^rras^- "Troductioru Now Playing West Coast Boulevard Theatre Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 CenB FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 6 Hollywood, California, September 1, 1928 No. 1 yjinniiHiiaiinMniiH[«iiiiiiiiinain»iinriinniiiiiiiiiiaiHiiiiMitie3iHiiiiH»iaiiinniiHi[a[iiinniMinHiiniHiiianiiiiitiiiiniiiiHiiiniaiiiiiiiiiiii^ a What Good Is Joe Kennedy Doings Anyway? Schenck Has Strange Ideas About Sound Brady et a! Are Going to Lose Some Money Hold-Up Number Is Growing Fat FOUR WALLS CELEBRITY CRAIG'S WIFE THE TERROR THE COSSACKS THE TOILERS JUST MARRIED RAIDER EMDEN MIDNIGHT LIFE HOLD 'EM YALE! HEARTS OF ROMANY THE PASSION SONG HAWAIIAN LOVE it-....--.--....--.------ ..-.--..- - , OuwiiHuiiiiiuiiuiuuiuiiuniiHHaHimmiiit]uuiiuiiitiumiiiuiuiD»iiiniiiii[]iminiuiiDiiiiiiiiiiii[wiuiuiiiiuiiHiiiuiiiuiiHimiiiiDNiinrniiiuiiiMiiimiaHNiuii^ Page Tyro THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 I'lCI I cAnnouncing RCA Radiola 60 The famous Super-Heterodyne Now Witli Powerful A C Tubes No matter what set you now have you owe it to yourself to hear this new Radiola — one of the greatest advances made in radio to date. Come in today and let us demionstrate it to you — no obligation. EH.BOTOEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor 411 Palmer Building GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, SEPT. 1, 1928 Joe Kennedy Doesn't Know It Is An Art (The three following paragraphs, dealing with the activities of Joseph P. Kennedy in pictures, were written and in type before the announcement was made that the Boston banker had severed his con- nection with First National. I make this explana- tion as I would not have any of my readers imagine that I was emboldened to discuss him only when he had lost some of his power. In any event, in the following comment I treat Kennedy more as a type than as an individual.) RICHARD Rowland, in his swan song after thirty years in pictures, says that the two great problems facing the industry are the high negative cost and too many theatres. Rowland proceeds to intimate that Joseph P. Ken- nedy, with some help from others, will solve both these problems. Other people seem to hold the same view, that we can expect great things from Kennedy, and the importance that film publications of the East attach to him is reflected in their faithfulness in recording his every word and move- ment. Kennedy is the type of man that pictures need. He is young, alert, energetic, clean, and has a sound knowl- edge of finances. He enters a business that is a peculiar one, an industry that manufactures art. The excessive negative cost, which all agree is the main affliction of the industry, is merely another way of expressing the fact that the art is costing too much. The first duty, there- ' fore, of a bold crusader like Kennedy should be to strike at the roots of the main trouble and find out why the art product was being manufactured at a price that made rea- sonable profits impossible. To do this he would have to study the art; he would have to learn first how pictures I are made, and why they are made that way, before he could ! consider with complete intelligence any problem that the ' picture industry presented to him. We, of course, must presume that Kennedy is as aware of that as we are. For over two years we have read what the energetic young banker has done in the way of merging companies and acquiring control of organizations that had no common point of contact before his appearance on the scene. He I has done a lot of this, but what good it has done anyone is not apparent. That the industry was in a bad way has been apparent for half a dozen years, but I do not recall anyone having suggested that it needed mergers to cure it of its ills. The only thing it has needed, or needs now, is an improvement in the standard of its output. The pres- ent pictures have no ills that better pictures will not cure. They will cure even over-seating, for it is not lack of population that is causing empty seats; it is lack of en- tertainment quality in the pictures the theatres are forced to offer. Kennedy has been held up as the man who was going to show us how the business should be run, the man who had studied the business — this business that deals with art — and knew what it wanted. Edwin Schallert interviewed him during his last visit to Hollywood, and this is what Kennedy said to him: "Art is the other fel- low's game; business is mine, and I'm not mixing them — at present." Thus after more than two years in pictures Kennedy acknowledges that he knows nothing about them, but the presence of the dash before the last two words may be an intimation that when he has merged every- thing mergeable he will go back over his course in an effort to find out if what he has done has been of any value to anyone. So far in his activities Kennedy, a decent chap, a fine type of young man, and with the best intentions in the world, has not to his credit one action that will be of permanent good even to the people with whom he is as- sociated, much less to pictures generally. His presence in the industry merely has added one more to those in it already who have no notion whatever what it is all about. Half of every dollar that Kennedy's associates are spend- ing for pictures is being wasted and he has not the re- motest idea how it is being done. He acknowledges his Hold-Up Number Getting Along Fine ! THE weekly Film Spectator is going to weigh quite a lot at birth. The first issue is to be the Hold-Up Num- ber, and the manner in which screen people are allow- ing themselves to be mulcted of various sums on the pre- tence that advertising in it will do them some good, shows promise of producing an initial paper that will be quite pudgy. I repeat what I said in the previous Spectator, that I can't imagine how the advertising in my Hold-Up Num- ber can do advertisers any good, but that fact does not per- turb me in the slightest. Confidentially, I am more inter- ested in the bulk of the number than I am in its morals. I think I am keeping within the law, but this is an election year and if the authorities proceed against me I will switch Joe Schenck and Louis B. Mayer, and the three of us will deliver the entire vote of the motion picture industry to the prohibition ticket. That threat should be sufficient to secure me immunity. Every mail brings me in a batch of orders for space, accompanied by checks, and my banker is expending upon me a degree of cordiality that is startling. Bankers don't care how you get it, as long as you put it in. One thing that pleases me about the inflow of checks is that the idea of a weekly Spectator pleases those who have read it as a bi-weekly. This display of confidence in the publication is something that entails upon it the obliga- tion of living up to it. It will endeavor to merit the con- fidence. Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 ignorance when he says that "art is the other fellow's game." When Kennedy realizes that art is his sole business, when he gives attention to how pictures are be- ing made and realizes the shocking waste that attends their making, he may be able to accomplish the great things that are expected of him. * * * Kennedy Overlooking Some Obvious Truths EXTRAVAGANCE and inefficiency always go hand in hand ; likewise economy and efficiency. When we have economical pictures we will have better ones. Thus the two ills of the industry will be cured with one treat- ment. Since the inception of pictures they have been dom- inated by people who have looked upon them solely as something to exploit. Salaries beyond all reason were paid to executives who knew nothing about the motion picture art, but who had to do something in an effort to make the salaries look reasonable, consequently they mussed up everything the skilled picture people did, and under them inefficient and most grotesquely extravagant methods were fastened upon the industry and became a part of it. The salaries are just as absurd to-day as they always have been, and so thoroughly have the majority of people in pictures learned only how to make them inefficiently, that it ■will take a long time, even with a Kennedy leading the crusade, before conditions can be improved. But the trouble is that Kennedy can not lead the crusade, for he can see nothing at which to lower his lance. Not knowing how pictures are made, it obviously is impossible for him to cast any light on how they should be made. And he is be- coming a big figure in an industry whose only business is the making of pictures. If I were to tell Joe Kennedy that the perfect script would strike at the root of every ill that affiicts pictures, that it would lead to big dividends for the shareholders of the companies he is shaking so violently, and finally produce smiles on the faces of the bankers who now are wondering why they went into pictures — if I were to present to this Boston banker a true statement of the value the perfect script would be to the industry, he would tell me that it is art, which is the other fellow's game and he would continue to merge with renewed energy. If he consulted production staffs about the per- fect script, it would be demonstrated to him that while it is a nice thing to talk about, it is impractical because it would stifle inspiration. Every month I see perhaps a score of pictures without an inspiring moment in one of them, yet we must deny ourselves the perfect script on account of the possibility that some day one of the di- rectors of these pictures might have an inspiration if it were not there to stifle him. And Kennedy could not meet In the Next Spectator Further comments on the usefulness of Joseph P. Ken- nedy and his kind to motion pictiires. We suggest to the Academy that it grives heed to the interests of the majority of those it represents. Conditions under which Spectator's advice should not be taken. Other general comment and reviews of The Godless Girl, Oh, Kay!, Submarine, First Kiss, The Fleet's In, Cossacks and others. such an argument, because business is his game, not art. Not until he realizes that art is his game, not business, will he be of the slightest good to himself or his asso- ciates. When he learns enough about the art not to be fooled by any argument against the complete planning of a picture in advance, and when he applies this knowledge practically, he will be in fact as great a figure in the in- dustry as he is now by reputation. And I will say this for him: I think he'll do it. If in the meantime his com- panies do not succumb to the rough treatment he is ac- cording them, the chances are good that he will prop their now trembling frames into a fair degree of rigidity. If the industry had started with perfect scripts and had de- veloped i)€ople who could prepare them, it probably could have continued to stagger along even under the terrific burden of the unnatural salaries it has paid, and it would not have needed sound which has come so opportunely to revive its dwindling favor with the public. On accoimt of the lack of proper scripts, scores of millions of dollars, which should have gone to shareholders in the form of dividends, have been thrown into the refuse cans in cutting rooms. The practice still continues. The advent of sound offers an opportunity to the industry to turn over a new leaf, but there is nothing to indicate that the producing organizations are aware of it. Sound pictures apparently are to be made as absurdly as the silent ones have been made, and wastefulness, inefficiency and incompetence will continue to rule. Nothing is more feasible than the per- fect script, and there is nothing that the industry needs so badly, but those who rule its destinies will continue to disregard these obvious truths. * * * Something Even a Banker Should Be Able to Grasp THE screen will achieve success as an industry only in the degree that it attains perfection as an art. That is so obvious that it should be apparent even to a banker whose vision usually can not reach beyond the dollar mark. When a director pleads with a producer for the retention in a picture of a certain sequence be- cause it is artistic, the producer decries art and says that making motion pictures is a cold-blooded business propo- sition. When a banker asks the same producer why it costs so much to make a picture, the producer points out that the film business is an art, that it is unlike all other businesses, and that waste can not be avoided. When you mention "art" you scare all other bankers as Joe Kennedy has been scared by the word. They think it is something whose mysteries are plain only to the gifted people who stand at the head of the producing organization. In the history of American finance no set of bankers has been fooled as completely as those who are backing the motion picture industry are being fooled. In his annual report to his organization, a report written purely for the benefit of bankers, Will Hays says that, "advance reports from a nationally-known firm of accountants making a survey at Hollywood confirm that the production end of the busi- ness gets a dollar in value for every dollar spent." When Hays wrote that his mind was playing him the same tricks it played when he was on the witness stand in the oil inquiry. Any man connected with pictures who does not know that half of every dollar spent on production ili | wasted, is an idiot, and any such man who makes a state- ' September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five ment to the contrary, as Hays does, is either an idiot or a liar. But the bankers believe the statements, and keep on putting up their money. When they ask why it is necessary to eliminate so much of a picture after it is :' shot, they are told that it is done for art's sake, that waste i is an inherent part of the business. The truth is that there ■ is no more excuse for waste in the picture business than : there is for a corresponding waste in the boot and shoe ■ business. Naturally those surrounding Kennedy are not ■ going to tell him that. They have learned to make pic- .' tures only by the wasteful method and are honest in their '■ belief that it is the only way that they can be made. ■ Kennedy can not consider the matter intelligently because : he regards the making of a picture as an art, and he : boasts that he is ignorant of art, because it is "the other : fellow's game"! No doubt it has been demonstrated to : him to his satisfaction that when a seven-reel picture is ; desired, at least a dozen reels must be shot. Yet it is not : necessary to shoot more than seven reels for a seven-reel picture. A properly prepared script would call for the ; exact footage required, and the story would be told per- ; fectly within that footage, thus providing better art and : great economy. Every foot of film that remains on the ;■ cutting-room floor is a tribute to the incompetence of the ; makers of the picture. The fact that directors are allowed : to shoot without restraint and trust to luck to make a : picture out of the miles of film, is what is the matter with the movies. Besides being a criminal waste of money, J it also is an artistic crime because it is a system that will not produce good pictures. K bankers, who really have the whip-hand, would inquire into the artistic end of the business, they would discover that there is nothing mys- terious about it, that mortals with ordinary brains can run it, and that if a picture were planned as carefully as it should be, it would be a much better picture and cost half what it costs by the present prevailing method. * * * Joe Schenck Has Some Strange Ideas JOSEPH M. Schenck was interviewed by Cinema, Lon- don, about talking pictures. "The danger is," said Joe, "that the public may be poisoned by talkies." That is an extraordinary statement for a showman to make — that there is danger of the public liking a form of entertainment so much that it will insist upon getting it. Wherein lies the "danger"? Joe should be glad that the public is demanding something that it is in the power of the motion picture industry to provide, for it was get- ting very tired of what it was getting. If Joe lives as long as the talkies do he will be too old to be interesting. The Daily Film Renter, also of London, quotes the head of United Artists as saying: "The essence of speaking in a dramatic form was that it should carry sincerity, and the mechanical nature of the reproduction robbed the (Utterance of the sincerity it needed to make the picture I a success." The argument that such a defect would pre- vent talking pictures becoming universal is childish. The most enthusiastic champion of sound devices will go Joe one better and acknowledge that they have several other defects to-day, but making talking pictures perfect is a trivial task compared with solving the problems that arose while they were coming into being. There is enough brains in the engineering end of talking pictures to take the mechanical nature out of voice reproduction, even though there were not enough brains in the production end to realize that it can be done. But, to get back to the Schenck interviews; the wildest statement that Joe made to the London newspaper men was that talking pic- tures are a fad that will not last more than four or five months. That they will prove to be a fad is a matter of opinion, and on a subject that all of us know as little as we do about the ultimate application of sound to pictures, Schenck is entitled to his opinion as any of the rest of us are to a contrary opinion. Facts, however, not opinions, will determine if talking pictures will be a fad. If the public supports them they will not be a fad in the sense that Schenck classifies them, for there are some fads that go on forever, like Wrigley's gum gives promise of doing. It will take four or five years, not four or five months, to determine the fate of the new pictures, for not until that time has elapsed will there be enough houses equipped with reproducing apparatus to give the public an adequate opportunity to register its approval or disapproval. Even if Joe Schenck's opinion ultimately is proven sound, talk- ing pictures in only four or five months will not even have begun to demonstrate that they are a fad. Then there is the financial side of the situation to consider. The group of bankers who control sound devices and television rap- idly are gaining financial control of the motion picture industry. Joseph P. Kennedy is active in their behalf, and although he has declared publicly that a knowledge of what he is doing is no part of his equipment for doing it, his feverish, but aimless, activity is a manifestation of the bankers' anxiety to do something, even though they are not clear as to what they are doing. There are hun- dreds of millions of dollars to be made out of manufac- turing sound reproducing equipment for the picture houses of the world, and these hundreds of millions can not be made unless sound pictures are made. When the same capital controls both ends of the business it is obvious that talking pictures would be forced upon the public even if it were reluctant to accept them, which will not be the case. When the picture interests of the bankers are placed in the hands of someone with more sense than Kennedy apparently possesses, and who will approach the business for what it is, an art, talking pictures will attain a degree of entertainment value that will make the public's ap- proval a certainty, not a matter of speculation. It was not the attractive appearance of its phonographs that built up the Victor company; it was the quality of the enter- tainment the Victor people provided for those who bought them. The quality was so high that all of us had to buy phonographs. The quality of talking picture entertainment will be made so high that the public will pay for it. Within a year Schenck's organization will be making only talk- ing pictures or no pictures at all. * * * Industry's Thanks Are Due Billy Brady et al AFTER Will Hays tells his organization the next time that no story that has been screened is half as dra- matic as the story of the screen itself, I trust some member of his organization will rise and propose that gold medals be presented to those New York stage producers who so kindly are to spend their money to demonstrate to the motion picture industry that transferring a play Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 bodily to the screen, using a sound device to reproduce the dialogue, is an exceedingly silly thing to do. The film business is the luckiest one on earth and it is time it was taking official action to show its appreciation of its own good fortune. Conducted since its inception in defiance of all accepted rules of industry and finance, it blundered along for a quarter of a century and then began to sink under the weight of its accumulated stupidities. Exhibi- tors were complaining that they could not sell half their seats — and along came Sound. Immediately some of these unbelievably incompetent people who drew enormous sal- aries while they were driving the industry towards bank- ruptcy, turned their backs on all they had learned about stories during the past twenty-five years, forgot the tech- nic that had been developed, ignored the hundreds of thor- oughly trained artists already in Hollywood, and reached out frantically to the stage for plays, directors, and actors. They would have spent several millions of dollars demon- strating what any person with ordinary brains can tell them now: that the public does not want to see stage plays transferred to the screen, that it wants simply mo- tion pictures with voices speaking the titles that hereto- fore have been shown on the screen in print. And when the blind and blundering industry was about to add this financial folly to the long list it previously had com- mitted, A] Woods, Billy Brady, and some others who were supposed to have sense, decided that they would embark on the wild adventure, and refused to let our Hollywood magnates buy the plays that would have added a few more million dollars to the waste that the public already has had to absorb. The action of the New York producers, however unwise from their standpoint, is the best thing that could have happened to the motion picture industry at this time. It probably will force it to turn to motion picture stories, from which it never should have strayed. For thirty years an industry that depends on literature has groped blindly along without developing a literature of its own. It has spent money with reckless disregard for sanity and economy and there is not to its credit one name that stands out as that of a great screen writer that the industry may call its own. In spite of its own inca- pacity, however, it has at its command many people who are skilled in writing for the screen, and upon these people it turned its back as soon as it became excited over sound. It is too bad that there is no way of getting into the heads of our production chiefs that no great revolution is coming with the introduction of audible passages into pictures. The public still will want just motion pictures. And they will have to continue to be directed by motion HELL'S KITCHEN (title registered and protected) is my original story that dramatizes this notorious but colorful section of New York. It depicts the career of a gangster who be- comes rich, respectable and respected, but the ghost of his past stalks him like a shadow. The principal character would admirably fit Emil Jannings, Jean Hersholt or any male star of virile personality. Offers from producers invited. JAMES MADISON (Scenarios — Gags — Titles — Talk) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 picture directors and acted by motion picture actors. The raid on the stage for directors and actors is one of the most absurd things the crazy industry has done. There are in Hollywood now more artists with fine voices and years of training before the camera than all the studios could keep busy if every one of them were making sound pictures and nothing else. Directors with experience only in producing plays will spoil more pictures than they will help. Producers have made pretty much of a mess of the motion picture business, but, even so, they had better stick to it and not get stampeded. * * * Sound Already Is Taken for Granted WHEN I viewed Lights of New York some weeks ' before its public showing, I was engrossed with it as an indication of what the future held for talking pictures. I was aware that it was a terrible motion picture, but that did not disturb me, for all my thoughts were concerned with what had been done in putting con- versation on the screen. When I viewed The Terror I found that sound did not intrigue me, and I regarded it only as screen entertainment. The earlier Warner Brothers pictures have worn the edge off the novelty of talking films and hereafter sound will have to stand up as entertainment and not as something new. The situa- tion is peculiar. The public has responded generously to the first timid ventures the Warners made in experiments with sound, and through the box-office went a long way towards paying for the experiments. Warners enter- tained the public with their first weak and wabbling steps and the public paid for the entertainment. No other pro- ducer will have a similar experience or will be accorded a similar privilege. Paramount, Fox, Metro and the rest will have to come upon the screen with full-blown sound pictures which will be criticized as such and not as ex- periments. All the public's tolerance has been expended upon Warner Brothers, and now there is none left, ever for them. Other producers are making a frantic attempt to catch up to the Warners by holding back their silent pictures not yet released and putting little dabs of noist into them. "I could have been a lot better if I had thought of this sooner," virtually is the message that each of thesf patched-up pictures will take to audiences. It is going to be ridiculous for Paramount to release Abie's Iris! Rose with a few talking sequences months after Wameri have released pictures composed entirely of talking se- quences. Fox seems to be the only studio that is not panic stricken. I have not heard of it trying to murdei any good silent picture by poisoning it with sound tha does not belong in it. In a few places where sound hat been introduced in White Shadows the picture is benefited but in others the fact that it was forced on the defense less film is most apparent. The big studios would be bet ter off if they would release all their silent pictures ai such and give the public no sound until they were read; to release one hundred per cent, talking films. Pictur patrons are paying for one series of experiments, and don't think they'll pay for any more. With the advent o The Terror Warner Brothers have their talking pictttr formula pretty well set, and they will have to proceed t make much better pictures or yield the place of leader ship that they now hold. The Terror is in every way ■ September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven much better picture than Lights of New York, and from the standpoints of acting and voice reproduction leaves nothing to be desired, but it seems to be a case of the vista widening as sound advances. The Terror does better with sound than any other picture has done, but it demon- strates more than any other picture does just what a lot there still is to do. The effect it will have on screen technic is something that will develop slowly, but the manner in which sound will be used is something that will have to be settled at once. In The Terror people stand in the middle of a room and talk. We hear every word distinctly. They run up a stairway that is devoid of carpet, and we do not hear a footstep. A man closes a door and we do not hear it; he advances a few feet and whispers, and we hear the whisper. Such things as these are among the problems that must be solved quickly, for they are too obvious to escape the alert mind of the public. But what remains to be done is trivial in comparison with what already has been done. * * * It Demonstrates that Actors Needn't Worry About Voices SINCE the talkies have become an engrossing topic of conversation I have maintained that the importance of the voice has been exaggerated greatly. The voice, after all, is an attachment that works automatically. When you on one corner ask a man to give you a match, and on the next corner ask a highwayman to spare your life, you do not concern yourself with the fact that you must put more fervor into your second plea than into the first. The situation in which you find yourself takes care of the fervor. It will be the same with screen acting when all pictures talk. There will be no place on the screen for elocutionists. The actor who can not feel a love scene enough to make it convincing to any audience, can not put conviction into his words because some elocution teacher has taught him how to pronounce the suitable words. All the screen actor need do to equip himself for the new con- dition of things is to develop the lower register of his voice and to practice speaking distinctly. The emotion he puts into his speeches is something that is felt, not learned at school. And as I say some other place in this Spectator, in a short paragraph written before I saw The Terror, good screen voices can be developed rapidly. May McAvoy's voice was not satisfactory in Lion and the Mouse. I imagine the poor youngster was scared stiflf by the realization that her voice was going out. One evening recently I told her that she had nothing to worry about, for her voice had the necessary quality, and that it was not difficult to learn how to use it. Next day I saw her in The Terror. She certainly has progressed, which pleased me, for May stands very high on my list of favorites whose photographs adorn the walls of my library. Warner Brothers cast The Terror intelligently. They went after motion picture artists and did not commit the folly of raiding the stage as other producers are doing. In addi- tion to May the cast is made up of Louise Fazenda, Edward Everett Horton, Alec B. Francis, Holmes Herbert, Matthew Betz, John Miljan, Otto Hoffman, Joseph Girard, and Frank Austin. The majority have had stage experience, but they are trained thoroughly in screen acting. Louise Fazenda surprised me most. I am told that she has never been on the stage, but she has a perfect voice, and uses it most intelligently. Otto Hoffman has appeared in a great many pictures without attracting attention, but his is one of the most notable performances in The Terror on account of the excellent use he makes of his voice, which demonstrates that sound is going to bring to the front much of the latent talent in Hollywood. All the voices heard in this picture are satisfactory as voices, but in future pictures they will have to be speeded up. They talk with unnatural slowness, which makes the story drag. Roy del Ruth's direction, for a first attempt at something new, is surprisingly good, but there is a suggestion of timidity about the whole production that no doubt will wear off rapidly. There are many traces of Joe Jackson's wit in the dialogue, indicating that he is destined to be one of the high lights of the new art. I was glad to see that the picture makes no attempt to change the volume of a voice when its owner moves from a medium shot to a close-up. The first duty of a sound picture is to bring every voice with equal distinctness to the last seat in the theatre, which is the one great advantage the sound screen will have over the stage. Viewers of silent pictures are asked now to take some things for granted. By a fade-out and a fade-in we transport a man in a second from his home to his office. We are so used to it that we overlook the fact that it is something that can not be done in a second. We will grant the same indulgence to the repro- duction of voices in the same volume for close-ups as for long shots. It is something that we will become used to and is a valuable feature of sound devices that should not be monkeyed with. * * * Too Many Close-Ups Make It Irritating ONE thing that Jack Gilbert has to thank Metro for is the diversity of characterizations assigned to him. We have seen him as almost everything that a young man can be. And he is such an excellent actor that he is convincing in every role he plays. In Four Walls he is a gang leader, jailbird and lover, the last being the only feature that is common to all the parts given him. As usual, his performance leaves nothing to be desired. He is equally convincing as the crook, the repenting convict, the repentant mechanic, and the weak young man on the verge of returning to his life of lawlessness. But Four Walls is by no means all his. Joan Crawford is a big part of it. Several times I have urged Metro to feature Joan's brain instead of her legs, and in this picture this is done. She takes her place now among our leading young dramatic actresses, and her work should impress her employers with the fact that they need not be hesitant about assign- ing big parts to her. She has youth, good looks and in- telligence, and that is all that any girl needs to be suc- cessful on the screen. That rare artist. Vera Gordon, who in the Advice Number urged me to feature the woman who plays Jack Gilbert's mother in Four Walls, is a critic of some discernment. The woman is worth featuring. I believe it would be quite impossible for Miss Gordon to give anything but a superb performance. In this pic- ture Carmel Myers comes back to us in a role that is drab pictorially, but which permits her to remind us that she is a talented young woman. She has one big moment, the biggest in the picture, which she handles splendidly. Louis Natheaux, Robert E. O'Connor and Jack Byron are Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 thoroughly satisfactory. The story is an interesting one, although it wanders away from the theme that the first reels indicate will be developed. It is good entertainment as it is, but it would have been a better picture if the theme — "Four walls do not a prison make" — had been handled more sympathetically. There is much in the con- tinuity to praise, particularly the businesslike way in which it tells the story. In one shot we see Gilbert being carried to jail in a patrol wagon which, by a dissolve, seems to land him in a penitentiary cell. We are spared the trial. No effort is made to introduce the characters, their discovery being left to the audience. This is as it should be, for no character is important to a picture until he does something important to the story, and when he does this something he is identified sufficiently. In many places in Four Walls there are evidences of capable direc- tion by Bill Nigh. In the brief glimpses we get of en- semble shots we have only enough time to begin to ap- preciate the capable manner in which Nigh handles his crowds, and then we are treated to a long succession of close-ups that alone are responsible for the fact that at times the picture shows a tendency to drag. Four Walls is too good, the story too engrossing, the acting too ex- cellent, the direction too intelligent, and the production too interesting to be spoiled altogether by an insane parade of close-ups, but I must credit the editing with doing its best to make the picture as uninteresting as possible. In a production handled so intelligently in every other re- spect, it is amazing that so much stupidity could be dis- played in the selection of shots for the completed picture. Gilbert and Joan Crawford sit so near one another that a playing card could not be dropped between them, yet they are divided into individual close-ups. Perhaps a score of scenes that would have been much more effective in deep- medium shots, are subjected to the same jumpy treatment, which is wrong both optically and dramatically. With proper editing. Four Walls would have been a splendid picture. As I saw it, it is interesting, but irritating. * * * Two Love Scenes Are Candidates for Medal Two love scenes now compose the list of candidates for The Spectator's gold medal for the best such scene shown on the screen during the present year. One of them is in The Toilers, a Tiffany-Stahl production directed by Reginald Barker. In it Douglas Fairbanks Jr. declares his love for Jobyna Ralston. It is a beautiful scene, exquisitely acted and splendidly directed. Barker keeps his two characters in the same shot whenever they stand close enough together to make such a shot reason- able. At first they stand on opposite sides of a room and look at one another. This part of the scene is shown in a series of permissible close-ups. When the sweethearts move towards one another they are picked up in a medium shot, and thereafter the scene is played out with the full figures of both characters showing, which is a treatment that I have contended is the proper one for love scenes. Both Jobyna and Doug put much sweetness and tender- ness into their acting. The other contestant is the scene in White Shadows in which Monte Blue teaches Raquel Torres how to whistle. Here is another bit of exquisite acting and direction. It is shown in a big close-up, which is as it should be as it is necessary to show the lip move- ments of the two characters. I believe both these scenes will be among those I will have to ask the producers to let me look at again at the end of the year. The medal I am presenting for the most original final fade-out of the year still is going begging. Reggie Barker might be a candidate for that prize also if he had shown his fade-out in The Toilers in a deep-medium shot instead of in a close-up. Doug is helpless after being imprisoned in a coal mine, and Jobyna rides on the stretcher with him when he is brought to the surface, but the shot is so close that its novelty is obscured. The Toilers is an excellent little picture, being one of the best directed jobs of the year. It is strong in both comedy and drama, and all the comedy touches have the virtue of being parts of the story. Barker composes his scenes most effectively. Particularly impressive is this feature of his direction in underground sequences when the mine is on fire. He also makes lib- eral use of traveling shots which always appeal to me. And he does not use close-ups senselessly, as most direc- tors do. There are four excellent performances in the picture. Harvey Clarke is amazingly clever in a character role. It is one of the finest bits of acting I have seen on the screen this year. It was obvious that he made a big hit with the audience of which I was a part. He would be a gold mine for any producer who would present him in a succession of strong character parts. Jobyna Ralston appeals to me in The Toilers as she does in all her pic- tures. She has the same kind of wistful appeal that has made Janet Gaynor such a favorite. As I have watched her work during the past few years I have wondered why her obvious fitness for strong featuring, if not for star- dom, is not as apparent to producers as it is to me. The organizations that bemoan their lack of a Janet Gaynor might profitably consider Jobyna Ralston. In The Toilers young Doug Fairbanks gives an admirable performance, one that satisfies me that he has a brilliant future on the screen. In one sequence he innocently and gradually ac- quires a bun, and he acts it superbly, putting just the right amount of reserve into something that so easily could have been spoiled by over-acting. The whole per- formance is the best that the young fellow has given us and makes me enthusiastic about his future. Wade Boteler completes the quartette that is responsible for the acting treat that The Toilers gives us. When I see a picture as good as this one come from a studio that spends little money and works its artists up to the point of exhaus- tion, I wonder what the same director and cast would have done in a studio with plenty of money and a few minutes longer in which to finish the job. That Barker and his players could have done so well working as they did is much to their credit. * * * Meet My Friend, Mr. Alfred Grasso ALFRED Grasso is one of the few picture people ' happen to know intimately. It is quite possible yon never heard of him, but if you will stage a general screen intelligence test and enroll the entire population of Hollywood, I will enter Grasso and back him to the limit against the field. He's not very big, but he packs around more picture common sense than anyone else I know. When he is managing a production he knows just what each sack of stucco costs and where it should be September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine unloaded; how the set built with it and its fellows should be lighted; what it is going to contribute to the drama of the story; and when the story is over he goes to the cut- ting room and cuts and edits the picture himself. The only thing he doesn't know about pictures is how to sell himself to them. Born in this country of Italian parents, he inherited a love of all things beautiful, and this coun- try contributed a lot of common sense not always char- acteristic of the artistic Latin, but not enough common sense to conquer an inborn shyness or to overcome the self-deprecation that makes him tongue-tied when anyone asks him what he knows about pictures. But if Louis Mayer turned over to me the job of running the Metro lot, or if any other of the big producers did the same astounding thing, the first thing I would do would be to send for Alfred Grasso; then I would get Dick Arlen, Tom Miranda and Dave Torrence to make up a foursome and I would settle some of the serious business of seeing how much money I could win from them at golf. As I apparently am the only person in Hollywood who knows Grasso well enough to put him in charge of a lot, and because at the moment I do not happen to have a lot, he has been left to his own devices and has made a picture almost all by him- self. He wrote the story, adapted it, prepared the contin- uity, directed the production and did the editing and cut- ting. Having a lot of spare time on his hands, he handled all the business details of the venture, and as a final gesture persuaded me to punctuate the excellently written titles. The picture, Hawaiian Love, is not the kind of picture you would expect one man with a particularly pinched pocketbook to make. It is a picture that Para- mount or Fox should be quite proud to have its trade- mark on. Or Metro might put it out as a companion to White Shadows. Because every dollar had to be stretched [ as far as possible, it was an exceedingly abbreviated com- pany that went to the Hawaiian Islands. It included one actor, a man with one previous picture to his credit. When you view Hawaiian Love you will see several hundred [ people on the screen, and several excellent performances, but unless you happened to have seen the one picture in i which this lone actor worked, you will not see one face that you or anyone else ever saw on a screen before. Grasso impressed into service a complete cast of natives, most of whom could not speak English, which was but one of the hundreds of difficulties that he had to overcome. j There are some striking underwater scenes in the picture. There was no money for diving apparatus so Fred Weller, a member of the organization, contrived a covering for a De Vry camera, dived into the water with it, shot the ROWLAND V. LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY swimming native as long as he could hold his breath, then came up for air and did the whole thing over again. As there is no laboratory on the islands, the company could not see the rushes, but when it got back to Hollywood it found that it had some great stuff on hand. Hawaiian Love is a very fine picture, an extraordinary scenic and an engrossing drama. Two native girls give excellent performances, and the lone actor, Lavn-ence Barber, is a thoroughly satisfactory leading man. The picture is a product of a bold adventure, a glorious result of an under- taking that only dauntless men would have attempted. But I regard my friend Grasso as the hero of it. I would like to see him go forth on other similar expeditions, but I would like still better to see one of the big organiza- tions recognize him for what he is — a picture genius who can make good, no matter how difficult the task. * * * Lowly Toothpick Plays Quite an Important Part SEVERAL times I have referred to the lack of -wisdom in featuring some eccentricity or idiosyncracy in an effort to give definite personality to a character on the screen. In several pictures I have seen characters eating peanuts or popcorn continuously while they are in front of the camera. They keep it up until one disregards what they are doing and speculates only on what their per diem consumption must be. A new picture which I saw recently has a striking example of this evil. I went to see a preview of it because it was to accord me the first op- portunity I had had for a long time to see Francis X. Bushman on the screen. Frank is one of the best actors we have. He should be a sensational success in the talkies. He has a magnificent voice, as well as a magnificent pres- ence and ability to act. I went to Midnight Life, a Gotham production directed by Scott Dunlap, supervised by Harold Shumate, and written by Scott Dunlap and Harold Shu- mate, which makes it quite impossible for Scott Dunlap and Harold Shumate to dodge responsibility for any faults I may be able to find, however much they may protest about being held up as horrible examples. The picture is another tribute to the underworld phase through which the screen is passing, and by no means is the worst of the lot. Bushman is a detective of the variety that Bob Elliott introduced in Broadway. Frank plays the part excellently, and every scene in which he appears is di- rected capably. In fact, I have no fault to find with any of Dunlap's direction. He is an alert and intelligent fellow. However, it is apparent from the picture that he and Harold put their heads together and tried to figure out something that would make Frank's performance a positive knockout. One of them may have suggested ear- wiggling or looking cross-eyed, but whatever differences of opinion that may have arisen were composed in favor of the lowly toothpick. Not for one instant during the picture is Frank seen without it. Every time he speaks you see it wiggle, and when he smiles it shifts position. After about the second reel the toothpick was to me the whole picture. I am not arguing against it now on the obvious ethical grounds that the use of a toothpick in public is an unforgivable vulgarity which, apart from any consideration of motion picture technic, would offend the sensibilities of a greater portion of an audience; but I am interested in it as an example of what can be done in Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 the way of detracting from a performance when overdoing an effort to find something that would add to it. In mak- ing a motion picture there is only one thing that should be photographed — the story. Anything that is not a part of the story diverts the attention of the audience. An offending toothpick could have a proper place in this pic- ture if the detective's penchant for it became involved with the story. I do not mean that personal idiosyncracies have no place in pictures. They have, decidedly. The munching of an occasional peanut gives us a clew to the muncher's character. Theodore Roberts' cigar is part of his characterization, but he does not use it offensively. A nervous twitching of facial muscles can be part of the story that tells us the kind of life the character has led. But when we get an actor of the capability of Frank Bush- man in a part that dominates the story, what can a tooth- pick contribute to the whole ? Characterizing him as a lowbrow who is unfamiliar with the ways of polite society was no part of the story. If it were thought desirable to give him a touch to distinguish him from other detectives, why not do something nice, such as dolling him up in evening clothes ? On Frank such clothes would have pic- torial value, something which the portrait of a toothpick can not boast. * * * Tay Garnett Makes His Bow as Director TAY Garnett is an intelligent young man. No greater proof of the truth of that statement could be ad- vanced than the fact that he shares with that other intelligent young man, John Farrow, the distinction of being the most persistent advertisers in The Spectator, now being on his third year of continuous space-buying. As a customer, Tay endears himself to me by his prompt- ness in paying his bills. All our advertisers string them- selves out between Tay, who pays on the first of every month, and Paul Schofield, who never pays at all. Tay has done good work for De Mille and Pathe as a writer, and recently became a director. I have seen his first pic- ture. Celebrity, and there is enough merit in it to indicate that he is going to be a credit to his new profession. First he must get over his timidity. In his initial effort he relied too much on the conventions established by those who have gone before him. Clyde Cook hands Robert Armstrong a paper. While he is reaching for it, and for an appreciable time after he secures it. Bob keeps his eyes in a steady gaze on Clyde before dropping them to the paper. This is a screen habit that always has appealed to me as a stupidity. When A hands B anything in real life, B's gaze goes directly to the object handed to him. What possible reason could he have for looking fixidly at A, particularly when he has seen A every day for years, as the presumption is in this picture ? Lina Basquette and Armstrong are walking together across a street. Bob throws up his arms, shouts, and falls half way through a manhole. Lina does not hear him, although he is not more than a foot from her. She misses him, and looks elaborately over his head before she discovers him. This is another old screen absurdity, quite as absurd as putting a character in Champ de Mars and having him look in all directions before discovering the Eiffel Tower. Garnett is a young man, and it is from such as he that the emanci- pation of the screen must come. He has the necessary ability, and no doubt will acquire the courage to strike out for himself and follow where his intelligence leads. The first thing he must do is to inquire into every hoary habit the screen has and to satisfy himself as to the reason for it. When he can find no reason he will find something that he should not do. The director is the one person behind the scenes who must lend his personality to his production, and he can not do this by planting his feet in the footmarks of those who have gone before him. A screen trick that was silly when it was performed first does not get its silliness rubbed off by repetition. I am aware that the director is not responsible for the harm that is done a great many pictures by the inclusion of old stuff that was born without reason and adhered to with less. Most of those who dominate production can not see virtue in anything not done before. This is true particularly in the case of close-ups, with which Celebrity is afflicted more or less. Too many producers judge the value they are getting from an actor by the magnitude of his nose when it is reproduced on the screen. The close-up may have been sane when D. W. gave birth to it, but it since has gone crazy. My interest in Garnett as a director should not mislead you into the belief that Celebrity is without merit. It is a nice little picture in which Bob Armstrong, Clyde Cook and Lina Basquette give excellent performances. It gave Armstrong his greatest chance and establishes him as an excellent actor. It always is a joy to watch Cook on the screen. We have no more sin- cere artist. ARRIVING home early one morning during the fishing- trip days of my vacation I found a telegram that had been waiting for me for three days. It was from a friend with whom I had spent several notable months on the French and Italian Rivieras and asked me to meet him in San Francisco, from which port he was continuing on his way around the world. Unfortunately he was sailing at four o'clock in the afternoon of the day upon which I re- ceived his message. But five hours after I read the tele- gram in my home in Beverly HiHs I was sitting opposite my friend at a luncheon table for two in the Mark Hopkins hotel in San Francisco. Over the modern telephone in my home I had learned that if I would step into my more modern automobile and hustle to the Maddux Air Lines airport, I could catch one of their most modern three-motor planes. I did all this and dropped out of the sky to greet my friend whom I would have missed if I had tried any other means of reaching him. There was novelty in the thought, both going and coming — I flew both ways — that I was ten thousand feet up in the air. Leaving San Fran- cisco we looked down upon a bank of clouds we had pierced^ on our upward flight, and I don't think I ever saw any^ thing more sublimely beautiful. But it was neither tha thrills nor the beauty that occupied my thoughts most ol the time I was in the air. The practical side of aviation was what appealed to me most. If I were a producei^ with a production costing me a few thousand dollars a daj I would use nothing but planes for location trips. Hi would be an easy way to save money. The Maddux people have planes that will carry twelve passengers and soot( they will have others that will carry more. It would no take much figuring for a production manager to compute" how much money he would save if his company could \ September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven leave the studio at eight o'clock in the morning and be shooting in San Francisco harbor after lunch on the same day. * * * SPOTTING good voices for sound pictures is not a dif- ficult job. A dark chapter in my past is that for eight months I was a radio announcer. At that time it was a fascinating occupation. I learned to detect good radio voices in ordinary conversations, not by listening to them coming into the control room, for it takes some time for candidates for broadcasting honors to overcome their fear of the microphone. Their nervousness is picked up by the microphone and is apparent to listeners-in. There is not any difference between radio and sound devices for pic- tures. Screen people should not be judged by their first appearances in front of the microphone. They must be absolutely at ease before their voices sound to the best ad- vantage. The voices of a number of screen artists come to me as I write, there being a noisy party in progress in my swimming pool. I can hear Janet Gaynor. Her voice has exactly the quality that will make her a success in talking pictures. It has a rich and pleasing quality and she knows how to use it. Another splendid voice for re- cording is Mary McAllister's. It is placed in the lower register, which is what the microphone demands, and the finnunciation is clear and distinct. Mary is a capable little actress, and if producers will take my tip they will give her a chance in the noisy drama. But to repeat what I had in mind when I started this paragraph, I want to urge producers not to attach too much importance to first tests. The first time I spoke over the radio I was scared stiff, and my voice must have betrayed the fact. I know scores of people whose voices were strained and thin when they first came to the radio station, but who de- veloped into satisfactory broadcasters when they got over their nervousness. The other day I listened to Herbert Hoover's voice as it came over the radio. I was alone in a room with him when he made one of his first speeches to the microphone. He was exceedingly nervous and I had to whisper instructions to him; when he lifted a glass of water his hand trembled. Under such circumstances his voice could not have been natural. To-day he has a fine radio voice. AN altogether pleasant comedy is Just Married, a Para- mount picture directed by Frank Strayer and having in its cast Ruth Taylor, Lila Lee, Ivy Harris, James Hall, , William Austin, Harrison Ford, Arthur Hoyt and Tom Ricketts. It is a comedy of complications, handled so deftly by the director that it is possible that everything I might have happened. Every scene gathers comedy value i from what has gone before it, and I predict that when the picture reaches the public it will be received with a con- i tinuous gale of laughter. The production establishes the > fact that Ruth Taylor's pleasing performance in Gentle- men Prefer Blondes was not a flash in the pan. I liked her in that picture, and I like her in Just Married. She has an attractive screen personality and soon will gain ► recognition as having a definite place in polite comedies. Although not setting myself up as an authority on the subject, I believe Ruth knows how to wear clothes. She has an air of smartness that must be attributable to the possession of such a talent. This picture brings Lila Lee back to us. It is a shame the way the screen is neglecting this splendid little trouper. Both her art and her beauty have matured during the last few years, though she still looks young enough to play a miss in her teens. Para- mount tried to make a star of her before she was ready for it, and now when she is ready, no one seems willing even to feature her. Both Hall and Ford give excellent performances as sophisticated young fellows, and Bill Austin is capital in the characterization that has made him popular. In Just Married George Marion's titles detract from the effectiveness of Austin's performance. Some of them are entirely out of character and many others are patterned after those which the same title vnriter attributed to this actor in previous pictures. Austin is talented enough to give varied performances, but all of them are brought to a common level by his spoken titles. * * * TT/HATEVER measure of success Camilla Horn has * *^ achieved in The Tempest, whatever degree of fame it has brought her, would have been Dorothy Sebastian's if Camilla had remained in Germany. The other day I had the unusual experience of viewing a long performance that never reached the public. When United Artists, for no good reason that seems to have been founded on artistic or economic considerations, substituted Camilla for Dorothy in the Barrymore picture, Johnnie Considine did a graceful thing in making up two reels of the action in which Dorothy appeared and presenting them to her. They make the most elaborate test owned by any girl in pictures. It is a shame that what I saw in the two reels was not included in The Tempest when it was released. It would have hastened the moment of Hollywood's realization of the fact that Dorothy Sebastian is one of the few beauti- ful girls who really can act. She would have made a more striking looking princess in the Barrymore picture than Camilla Horn. She has beauty, grace and an air of good breeding that are essential to the characteriza- tion of an aristocrat. And in addition to these superficial qualities, she has an intelligent grasp of drama. Dorothy will be heard from. When one looks at the two reels and realizes what an enormous sum of money it took to shoot all the action over again, he wonders anew at the grotesque wastefulness that is a part of the picture business. All the wild extravagances are passed on to the public to as- sume as a charge against its entertainment fund. To ask the public to underwrite the whim of a producer when it is as costly as the substitution of Camilla Horn for Dorothy Sebastian in The Tempest without giving the public in compensation something greater in the way of artistic expression, is an imposition on those who pay to keep the picture industry alive. ALPHONSE Martell is a screen actor who shares my conviction thac there is a great deal of screen talent being overlooked in Hollywood. Martell has a number of other ideas, one of them being that the screen needs short dramatic subjects to fill out programs that feature full length comedies. He has made one such short subject, Hearts of Romany, and in it he is given fine performances by people who never have earned screen credit. Martell wi'ote the story, directed it, and plays the heavy. That it is a first effort is apparent in places in the picture, but as a whole it reflects considerable credit on the author- director. He has a strongly developed sense of composi- Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 tion, some of the scenes being of great beauty without losing any of their dramatic values. There are other Martells in Hollywood — gifted young men and women who are yearning for expression. Occasionally one breaks through, as Klein did with The Tell-Tale Heart, and now Martell does with Hearts of Romany, and because there is no one hanging over him continually, he puts on the screen some of the artistic ideas that are consuming him, attracts attention and is put to work in a big studio where a super- visor, whose idea of a good story is the one about the traveling salesman and the dressmaker, tells him just how a motion picture should be made. I hope Martell escapes this fate. But even if he doesn't, he has Hearts of Romany to his credit, and that is something. fide correspondents. This does not happen to be true, but even if it were, it does not alter the fact that the dinners arranged by the Hafco are among the most entertaining and most intelligently conducted that I ever have attended in any country, and no one can have a newspaper career as long as mine without his memory being dotted with public dinners, most of them frightful. I have attended two Hafco dinners and was impressed by the intellectuality and good taste they displayed. I know of no American organization that commands so much brains. The or- ganization is a credit to Hollywood, and as long as the neighbors of its members are aware of this fact it makes little difference what the rest of the world is given to believe. A CORRESPONDENT writes to chide me for being fooled into giving Dick Dix credit for pitching superb curves in the baseball picture. Warming Up. He says the cameraman is entitled to the credit for making Dix look like a pitcher. Then the letter goes on to state that, "you have set yourself up as an authority on pictures, but even your fine literary style can not conceal the fact that you know very little about them." I am not aware of having set myself up as an authority, a distinction, in any event, that would have to be conferred upon me by those who read what I write, but to the impeachment that I am deluded easily by screen shots I plead guilty enthusiastic- ally. In almost every picture I view I see shots that puzzle me, but I never try to solve the puzzles. I en- deavor to see a picture as the audience will see it, and I make no effort to peep behind the scenes. I still think that Dix pitched the balls, because it looked that way in the picture and will look that way to the audience, but I don't give a hang if he didn't, and I don't want to know how it was done. The only effect the critical letter has had upon me is to make me feel grateful to the writer for the "fine literary style". I trust I will continue to merit his approval in that respect. Good workmanship even in betraying ignorance perhaps has some claim to being recognized as an achievement. At least I shall content myself with such a thought. * * * CARL Laemmle broadcasts the fact that he paid two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars for Broad- way. Before the pictutre he makes from it reaches the public, a dozen others on the same theme will have ap- peared on the screens of the country. By that time Broad- way as a story wiU be no more valuable to him than some original story along the same lines that he might have bought for five thousand dollars. No play ever written is worth for the screen half what Laemmle paid for Broad- way. Suppose he had spent the money for original stories. If he had announced that he was ready to pay twenty- two thousand, five hundred dollars each for ten screen stories he would have attracted the best writers in the world and would have something for his money. But he prefers to pay the whole sum for one story, and the pic- ture he makes from it will be out of date before it is released. • * » TOECAUSE someone connected with it was not asked to •*-' an affair given by the Hollywood Association of Foreign Correspondents, Variety viciously attacked the organization, charging that few of its members were bona rrfQ all those afflicted with camera shyness I commend •»- the method that Dick Arlen adopted to cure himself of it. Early in his career he had a deadly fear of the camera and it bothered him in his work. Finally he rented a camera and chartered an assistant cameraman. The two of them spent an evening taking the machine apart and examining the parts. Dick discovered that there was no doohickey in a camera that might jump out at any moment and jab him in the eye, nor any squirt gun that might sprinkle him with acid. Every part looked quite harmless. When Dick went to the studio next morning he stuck out his tongue at the camera, and all his fear of it had vanished. * • » 'T-HE Morosco School of the Theatre has this in an adver- -*• tisement which I find in a theatre program: "Movie stars and movie artists! The talking picture is here! If you have had no practical stage experience, you must be taught." I give Oliver Morosco credit for being honest in his belief in what his advertisement says, but I hope Motion Picture Aeronautics LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 I September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen neither stars nor artists — blame Morosco, not me, for the intimation that stars aren't artists — ^will be deluded by his belief. A course in stage acting will do the motion picture actor no more good than he would derive from a course in osteopathy. In fact, it will do him harm. * * * AN inspirational sign posted in a prominent place in the Tec- Art studio reads: "Those who never lay off answer 'present' when Opportunity calls the roll." Per- haps, but the chances are ten to one that for those who never lay off St. Peter will beat Opportunity to it in call- ing the rolL * * * PREDICTING things is one of my weaknesses. This time I would like to predict that Sid Grauman will present us with perhaps one more of his prologues, which will be the last of the long line of notable ones he has to his credit. He will tium then to Thisaphone and Thata- phone for all his acts. In that way he can bring to us the cleverest performers in the world and give us a much more entertaining program than it will be possible for him to provide in any other manner. * * * ■jyyT IKE Boylan claims to be a dog-lover, but he is wiU- ■'■^^ ing to sell one that he has had for ten years. "Bobby", a philosophical terrier with a suggestion of Lord Dundreary side-burns, has been one of the family since he was bom, but Mike told me the other day that the first person who came along and planked down eight million dollars could have him. * * * 'T^HERE seems to have been some misunderstanding. It -*• was forty per cent, reduction that Joe Kennedy sug- gested to First National, not one hundred per cent. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic THE Raider Emden is a very interesting piece of screen work. It was made by the German govern- ment as a permanent monument to the great work this lone cruiser did during the World War, but it is ad- mirably impartial. There is nothing for anyone to object to in it. America never has seemed capable of g^rasping the possibilities for motion pictures in its own national history. Old Ironsides, which might have been a master- piece along that line, was all smeared up with a love story. There are a very few notable exceptions to the general rule, but most of the historical epics have been pretty poor stuff. I don't mean pictures like The Covered Wagon and The Big Parade. I mean pictures which could glorify things which are by-words in America. The story of Nathan Hale, the exploits of Marion during the Revolu- tionary war, the various exploring expeditions would all make excellent material. However, this has nothing to do with The Raider Emden. The picture was short and there was scarcely a moment when the action didn't keep the attention riveted to itself. Various composite shots were well handled and appropriate. I knew none of the actors, but the man who played the captain of the Emden has one of the most definite screen personalities I ever have seen. By all means see The Raider Emden if you want good entertainment. could have proved his innocence, and his name would have been kept out of the papers by the police. The whole thing was very illogical. Irene Rich did very good work in the title role; and Warner Baxter, in a part admirably suited to him, was highly satisfactory. Craig's Wife gives us a chance to see Virginia Bradford again. For the first time since I started reviewing pictures, I am going to make a formal prophecy. K Miss Bradford is given a decent chance, she is going to become one of our leading actresses. She has unusual beauty, a charming personality, and acting ability far above that of the average screen actress of her age. There is my prophecy. Carroll Nye and Jane CRAIG'S Wife was built on an impossible hypothesis, so the picture naturally was a failure. Even if the story had been good, I doubt if it would have been much better, because William De Mille's direction was so ponderous and heavy. The whole thing moved too slowly. The impossible hypothesis is this: A woman dominates her whole family so completely that her younger sister, old enough, legally, to marry, is afraid to marry the man she lovei, because the woman doesn't approve of him. That may have been plausible about the time of the Spanish- American war, but in this day and age it's impossible and really quite laughable. A person who tries to tell a mod- ern girl whom she is to marry is in for something unique in the way of shocks. Another thing in Craig's Wife which contributed to its downfall was the perfectly ridiculous way in which the police sequences were handled. A man kills his wife and himself. In her bag is a key which proves that she has been unfaithful to him, but the police make a frantic search for a man who was last seen with them. Dumb as police are, it is hard to imagine that they couldn't understand that it was a clear case. The man knew he was the one they wanted, but he didn't tell them right away as any sane person would have. He EARLE SNELL Preparing Screen Story "When The Devil Was Sick" For Reginald Denny Collaboration Gladys Lehman TOM REED Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 Keckley are in the supporting cast, and Ethel Wales appears briefly. would make a very good menace. Harrison Ford and Lila Lee completed the cast. JOHN Jones, a motion picture producer, decides to build a house. He gets high-priced architects to spend months of their time preparing the plans. After many conferences, the plans are perfected. John Jones makes the builder of the house follow the plans exactly, even unto the last nail and hinge. Finally the house is com- pleted, on time and within the cost limit set. It is taken as a matter of course that anj^one going to spend that amount of money would make plans and follow them im- plicitly. The producer would be the first to say so, and he would present powerful arguments to prove he was right. John Jones, motion picture producer, decides to pro- duce a picture. He gets high-priced writers, and they work for a long time upon a script. Finally the script is perfected and given to the director, who looks at it as he would at a poor relation. Then he goes ahead and makes his picture, and the several thousand dollar script is never opened, except, perhaps, by the star, who wraps her gum in it while she is busy playing an English duchess. The producer, who has such fluent arguments about not ex- pending that amount of money without some plan, smiles sweetly and approvingly and says that motion picture making is an art, not a business, and can not be judged by the same standards. However, some one with an art- istic or intellectual idea for a picture is turned down by the very same producer, because the public wouldn't come to see it, and motion picture producing is a business with him, and he can't aff'ord to be artistic. Give a producer enough time, question him adroitly, and he will express both views with equal positiveness. IN view of the fact that it was insane most of the time. Hold 'Em, Yale! was pretty good entertainment. I must have felt in a silly mood or something, because every one of the foolish gags and titles got a laugh from me — a very rare occurrence. The story was responsible for most of the faults, as E. H. Griffith's direction was quite satisfactory. He was responsible for several clever little touches. The titles sounded like John Krafft, although I didn't get the credits and can't tell. They were very funny, though. Rod La Rocque was starred in Yale and did highly satisfactory work, and his comedy was unusually good. The attractive Jeannette Loff again makes her part stand out. She has a good future ahead of her if she is handled correctly. Tom Kennedy gave a good comedy characterization. Oh, by the way, pictures should not be woven around one set university. They give the impression of not being authentic. JUST Married is an interesting piece of screen work chiefly because it proves, to me at least, that Ruth Taylor is not one of these stars who go over big in one part and then never do anything else. Aside from that, the picture was a mildly amusing comedy of situa- tions— some good and some not so good. George Marion did pretty well with his titles. All in all, the picture was fairly good entertainment. The settings were luxurious, and all the characters were well dressed. A rich setting, if it is handled by a man who knows how to make it look luxurious, can help a picture a great deal. Frank Strayer, who directed Just Married, did very well with his fash- ionable surroundings. I imagine that Just Married is one of those rare pictures which would go better in a theatre than it did in the projection room. However, we must get back to Miss Taylor, whose work was far more inter- esting to me than the rest of the picture. There is no doubt but that she has a very definite screen personality, although it isn't the sophisticated one which apparently has fallen to her lot. She gives the impression of being a nice young girl rather than a woman of the world. As a comedienne of the Bebe Daniels type, she would become a big box-ofiice success. James Hall I like, because he gives the impression of having a sense of humor. William Austin again turns in a good comedy characterization. I'd like to see him as a heavy sometime, because I think he BEING a Cossack is lots of fun apparently, until a crowd of nasty Turks gets hold of you and trys to make you become a Mohammedan or something. That was about all I gathered from George Hill's Cossacks, except that Hill himself was unusually stupid about his close-ups. He even broke a fight scene into them. Other- wise, the picture was pretty good entertainment, although it was nothing but a glorified Western. Much wonderful riding and much fighting featured it, with The Big Parade scene where the girl runs after the soldiers thrown in for good measure. However, there was no time when one could truthfully say he was bored. Things happened with creditable frequency, although the Cossacks themselves were rather inconsistent. They were shown as not caring anything for what the czar said; yet when he sent a courtier down to them to marry one of their women, they were overjoyed because they said it was a sign that the little father loved them. Quaint people, I think. If the torture scene had not come when it did, John Gilbert would have bounced right out of camera range. He kept getting more and more buoyant as the picture went on, until fin- ally it was hard to keep an eye on him. Gilbert may have liked working in The Cossacks, but I think he got a bad break when he was given it. He has established himself as one of the best dramatic actors we have, and he is given what is really nothing more than a Western as far as acting opportunities are concerned. Ernest Torrence has little to do, but he does it well, of course. Renee Adoree and Nils Asther are quite satisfactory. THE Passion Song, Harry O. Hoyt's personally directed and written picture, may have been good, but the first reel or so was so bad that I couldn't summon up courage enough to sit through the rest. I suspect it was bad, though. I stood for the heroe's kissing another man's wife within ten minutes of his first meeting with her; I stood for the heavy's proposing a toast to himself and kissing another woman in front of a dozen people, while his wife looked on; I stood for a painted back drop which was so painfully obvious that even the actors looked embarrassed; but when they brought on an African chieftain in a frock coat, I got up and went out. The aisles were jammed with people who also were going out to try and recover in the fresh air. Heaven preserve us from any more like that one! Reviewed in this Number CRAIG'S WIFE— A Pathe picture. Directed by William C. De Mille; from the stage play by George Kelly; adaptation by Clara Beranger; assistant director, Morton S. White- hill; photographer, David Abel; art director, Edward Jewell; film editor, Anne Bauchens; production man- ager, Morton S. Whitehill. The cast: Irene Rich, Warner Baxter, Virginia Brad- ford, Carroll Nye, Lilyan Tashman, George Irving, TITLES DIALOGUE EDITING ALFRED HUSTWICK Formerly Supervising Title and Film Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 Now Freelancing Management of Lichtig and Englander ( September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen Jane Keckley, Mabel Van Biiren, Ethel Wales, Raida Rae. CELEBRITY— A Pathe picture. Directed by Tay Garnett; produced by Ralph Block; from the stage play by Willard Keefe; adapted by Elliott Clawson; scenario by Tay Garnett and George Dromgold; assistant director, R. M. Fellows; production manager, Harry H. Poppe; photographer, Peverill Mar ley; art director, Mitchell Leisen. The cast: Robert Armstrong, Clyde Cook, Lina Bas- quette, Dot Farley, Jack Perry, Otto Lederer, David Tearle. COSSACKS, THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by George Hill; from the story by Lyof N. Tolstoi; adaptation and continuity by Frances Marion; titles by John Colton; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Alexander Toluboff; wardrobe by David Cox; technical advisor, General Theodore Lodi; photographed by Percy Hil- burn; film editor Blanche Sewell. The cast: John Gilbert, Renee Adoree, Ernest Tor- rance, Nils Asther, Paul Hurst, Dale Fuller, Mary Alden. FOUR WALLS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Wil- liam Nigh; based on the play by Dana Burnet and George Abbott; continuity by Alice G. D. Miller; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons; ward- robe by David Cox; photographed by James Howe; film editor Harry Reynolds. The cast: John Gilbert, Joan Crawford, Vera Gor- don, Carmel Myers, Robert E. O'Connor, Louis Nath- eaux, Jack Byron. HEARTS OF ROMANY— Unreleased. Produced and directed by Alphonse Mar- tell; story by Alphonse Martell; photographed by Gas- ton Longet and Ernest Smith. The cast: Leilani Deas, Carlos Molina, Helena Ben- da, Alphonse Martell, Ray de Ravenne, Hector Saruo, Mme. Borget, Charles de Ravenne, William Clifford, Jack Hopkins, Mme. St. Pierre. HOLD 'EM YALE— A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by Edward H. Griffith; associate producer, Hector Turnbull; from the play At Yale by Owen Davis; scenario by George Dromgold; cameraman, Arthur Miller; assistant direc- tor, Richard Blaydon; film editor, Harold Holemon; company production manager, R. M. Donaldson; cos- tumes by Adrian. The cast: Rod La Rocque, Jeanette Loff, Hugh Allan, Joseph Cawthorn, Tom Kennedy, Jerry Mandy. HAWAIIAN LOVE— A B-W-G picture. Unreleased. Direction, adaptation, continuity and cutting by Alfred A. Grasso; produc- tion supervisor, Fred Weller; cameraman, H. Lyman Broening; assistant director, Paul Stanhope; title writer, Edwin Meyers; location manager, Val Ceder- lof. The cast: Lawrence Barber, Winona Love, Libby Keanini. JUST MARRIED— A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Strayer; associate producer, B. P. Schulberg; story by Anne Nichols; screen play by Frank Butler and Gilbert Pratt; photographed by Edward Cronjager; assist- ant director, Ivan Thomas. The cast: James Hall, Ruth Taylor, Harrison Ford, William Austin, Ivy Harris, Tom Ricketts, Maude Turner Gordon, Lila Lee, Arthur Hoyt, Wade Bote- ler, Mario Carillo. TERROR, THE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Roy del Ruth; from the stage play by Edgar Wallace; scenario by Harvey Gates; dialogue by Joseph Jackson and P>an- cis Powers; titles by Joseph Jackson. The cast: May McAvoy, Louise Fazenda, Edward Everett Horton, Alec B. Francis, Holmes Herbert, Mathew Betz, John Miljan, Otto Hoffman, Joseph Girard, Frank Austin. MIDNIGHT LIFE— A Gotham picture. Directed by Scott Dunlap; pro- duced by Sam Sax; supervisor, Harold Shumate; as- sistant director, Eli Dunn; cameraman, Ray June A. S. C; screen play by Scott Dunlap and Harold Shumate; titles by Delos Sutherland; production man- ager, Don Diggins; editor, Ray Snyder. The cast: Francis X. Bushman, Gertrude Olmstead, Cosmo Kyrle Bellew, Eddie Buzzell, Monte Carter. PASSION SONG— An Excellent picture. Directed and produced by Harry O. Hoyt; photographed by Andre Barletier; titles by Camille Collins; assistant director, Helge Stur-Vasa. The cast: Noah Beery, Gertrude Olmstead, Gordon Elliot, Washington Blue. TOILERS, THE— A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Directed by Reginald Barker; story and continuity by L. G. Rigby; photographed by Ernest Miller; titles by Harry Braxton; art di- rector, Hervey Libbert; edited by Robert J. Kern; set dressings by George Sawley. The cast: Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Jobyna Ralston, Harvey Clarke, Wade Boteler, Robert Ryan. WHAT SOUND MEANS TO THE DEAF My dear Mr. Beaton: Your name has been given me by a Boston theatre man- ager as one who might listen to a protest on talking films. I am deaf, sixty-two and a fan. For as many years as the movies have been I have been able to get full and in- telligent entertainment from them, as a deaf person can get in no other way. They have been a God-send and a saving in many ways for me in my affliction. I had to give up the theatre years ago. I soon found the nerve- racking effort to try to hear was too much for my strength, so naturally moving pictures seemed sent by a dispensa- tion of Providence for such as I, and now we have the menace to the silent film of sound. It is quite incomprehensible to me, as it must be to any thinking or half-way intelligent person, how anyone can consider such a thing an improvement on soundless movies. I know plenty of hearing people who hate the new fad and say it "spoils everything", and I firmly be- lieve if I could hear I should be of the same opinion. At best Movietone or Vitaphone is an imitation, and who with intelligence wants imitations? If they want to hear, let them go to the real theatre, the radio and the thousand and one other diversions they can enjoy without handicap, but let them leave the movies alone. Mr. Dupont, director of "Variety", says in the London Observer that he is not over-enthusiastic on the effect the JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 GEORGE SCARBOROUGH CONSULTING DRAMATIST STAGE l^ND SCREEN GRANITE 1870 1-^ Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 invention of sound will have on films from the artistic point of view. He adds: "New inventions, technical im- provements, they all have their day". (I wish I could be sure that this were so.) "They are freely admired for their own sakes. Then they take their proper places . . . Suppose the talking film is perfected what will be the re- sult? We shall have a perfect imitation of a stage play, and who is interested in imitations? The art of the film has had enough of technical advances. What it needs is time to adjust". Very good, only I would make it a hundred times more emphatic. An instance — my first attempt in taking in the horror, was with the "Lion and the Mouse", with those splendid veterans, Alec Francis and Lionel Barrymore, and the younger stars. May McAvoy and Buster Collier. What did I get from it? Nothing! For I heard no word that was spoken and was conscious of nothing but a total lack of inspiration. May McAvoy seemed a stick, and the whole performance was to me unspeakably dull and uninterest- ing. Now, I know it was not entirely because I did not hear. When the captions were on the screen there was nothing to them, no point or artistry. How can intelligent human beings think they are bettering the movies by using the device ? How can they ? I have just seen the film of that exquisite production of Trelawney of the Wells — pure entertainment — perfect ar- tistry. The films are a thing apart, they should not be mixed up with anything, but should stand alone. I have long considered the use in so many theatres of vaudeville and variety entertainment interspersed with the picture, and in many cases ruining the chances of intelligent ap- preciation and enjoyment of the latter, and I, therefore, consider the combining of these two forms of entertain- ment a great mistake. But the menace of sound is far worse, for it means the elimination of many of the finest foreign actors, and the impossibility of the majority of the English speaking people ever learning to talk correctly, though they can and always have acted superbly. Can not a part of what I have written be published in some way so as to reach more people? I appeal to you because I have been told you are interested in this sub- ject from every angle and that while you have decided ideas of your own you are always willing to listen to those of others. I am positively appalled by the publicity the matter is getting. The fulsome and eulogistic encomiums in the latest numbers of movie magazines are fairly sickening. I shall not buy them any more if there is to be so much and probably more of it. What do the people want? They don't know, so why cater to this ignoble and in- sane craze for something new and difi'erent, for that is all it amounts to? To revert to my seeing of The Lion and the Mouse: I sat through the performance, but I do not know the plot yet! Never having seen, to remember, the stage play of the same name in my hearing days. The Movietone News that followed was an utter horror with the faint (to me) and distorted sounds of people cheering, horses hoofs, sounds of bands playing. Will someone please tell me what is gained by having them ? And the pictures had no pep whatever. I assure you, as pictures, they were dis- John Waters DIRECTOR ORegon 7767 tinctly inferior — then followed a jazz band. Why have an imitation jazz band when there are thousands of the real thing to be heard any day in all the theatres? Why? I say. It is no novelty only an imitation, and a shadowed one at that. Ye gods! But words fail me. Will you please pardon me if I do not re-write this? It is very bad and illegible, I know, but I have a some- what lame hand which sometimes refuses its oifice, so I have to let my hand-writing go. I am, therefore, count- ing on your patience, good heart and kindness. Is it too tall an order ? Brookline, Mass. ETHEL M. STEARNS. THE AMERICAN TOUCH Dear Sir: I have been told that The Film Spectator printed an article about The Last Waltz two or three months ago. They told me that this critic of The Last Waltz stated with amazement a certain American touch in this picture and came to some conclusions of film-political character about it. May I tell you that this American touch may perhaps be brought about by the fact that I am a born American from Chicago, though I have spent the most years of my life in Germany and though my mother tongue became kind of rusty. Since four years I am one of the first directors of the Ufa and I have just finished my latest picture. Looping the Loop, which I hope you will see very soon. I haven't yet directed a picture in my own country — 1921 was the last time I was in America — but I hope the day is not too far away that I am coming home for good to work under the California sun. Excuse me for telling you things that probably don't interest you very much. The fact that you detected American traces in a picture I made so long ago and so far away from America made me so glad that I became a bit talkative. ARTHUR ROBISON. Berlin, Germany. "1 OBJECTS TO THE NURSE Dear Mr. Beaton: I wish to commend you for your efforts to improve the artistic quality of pictures. However desirable this is, it seems that even the "commercial minds" of present OJiniiiiiimaiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiQiiiiuiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiEJiJimiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiinig I PLAY FOR THE WIRE. | I NOT FOR PLACE | I Consider theses j I "Resurrection", | The Good-bye Kiss", I 'The Racket", j I "The Romance of a Rogue". | = Just finished: 1 I "The Lookout Girl" | I All Winners at the Box Office | I Edited and Titled by | I TOM MIRANDA | I ORegon 0308 i g At present editing a script i i At liberty August 27th. | ^ □ OiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiMiiiiiEJiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiMniiiMiiiiniaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiinmiiiiiiiiK^ September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen production should be able to comprehend the effects of technical blunders. I viewed The Jazz Singer recently and, being a nurse, was provoked by the conduct of the doctor and nurse in the death-bed sequence. The old Cantor was dying of a broken heart. To begin with he was too callous to have a heart that would break. Any father (and he had not an ounce of feeling entitling him to the name of father) that would drive his child from home would have no heart. But he has a nurse in attendance. The Cantor falls asleep. Now if that nurse were a good nurse, knowing that his life hung by a thread, wild horses could not have dragged her from his bedside; yet she leaves the room for no ap- parent reason, and refuses to allow his wife and old-time friend to enter; but the son, the cause of all the trouble, she allows in with only an admonition not to arouse her patient. This the son proceeds to do. Then, when the patient is dying, she sits with folded arms notwithstand- ing the fact that the doctor is in the room, but paying more attention to the singing of "Kol Niddur" than he is to the patient, who passes out with only his wife to administer to him. Oh, how at variance with facts! Nurses and doctors do not conduct themselves in that way, and it is an outrage that the public should be given that impression. M. T. LA PIERRE. WAMPAS MAKES REPLY Dear Mr. Beaton: In an issue of The Film Spectator published July 21, 1928, Madeline Matzen makes certain charges against the Wampas in general, and the Wampas Credentials Com- mittee and its chairman, Barrett C. Kiesling, in partic- ular. You have always been such a good friend of the in- dustry and of our organization that the members af the Wampas are certain that this article would not have been printed had you been present. The contentions of Miss Matzen are so absurd that they would not merit a reply were it not that her statements are apt to breed misunder- standing and false impressions. The members of the Wampas live by virtue of the amount of material about pictures and picture personal- ities they are able to get into the press of the world. It would be silly indeed if this organization sought to hinder anyone who might add to the total of published public- ity. The Credentials Committee grants credentials to any writer who can show even a remote possibility of getting his material in print. Miss Matzen herself has held cre- dentials for months. The Credentials Committee functions for but one pur- pose: to keep "fake" correspondents from taking up the time of publicity men and the personalities they repre- sent when that time should be devoted to writers who are legitimate representatives of established publications. An amazing number of people have sought admittance to studios, ostensibly to obtain data for publications, when their real purposes have been to sell anything from shoe laces to real estate or to work into jobs on the studio lots. In the past such "fakes" even went so far as to have frau- dulent cards printed, stating that they were staff mem- bers of some publication. Since the appointment of the Credentials Committee such people have seldom gained entrance to the studios via the publicity departments, as credentials are granted only to persons showing definite proof of affiliation with some publication, or clippings of by-line material or other evidence that convinces the Cred- entials Committee that they have a fair opportunity of getting material into print, and are not seeking entrance to the studios as salesmen or job-seekers. The Wampas objects particularly to the paragraph in which Miss Matzen states: "If you are a member of the Wampas (or their feminine contingent, 'The Wasps') you are a legitimate publicist. If you are not a member of either of these unions you are a 'scab' or an 'illegitimate writer'." The Wampas never has made an attempt to freeze out non-Wampas members from motion picture pub- licity work. On the contrary, members of our organization co-operate daily with publicity men not affiliated with the Wampas, and we feel certain that non-Wampas members hold the most cordial feelings toward our organization. Furthermore, no effort ever has been made to restrict the newspaper and magazine writers with whom we co-oper- ate to a selected few. The Wampas has enjoyed a good name in the motion picture industry. It has no objection to honest, construct- ive criticism, but it does object to false, misleading and unfair statements. The organization is sure that your sense of fair play will prompt you to give this letter as much publicity as that given, in your absence, to Miss Matzen's article. BOARD OF DIRECTORS by CHARLES F. WEST, Secretary DISAGREEING WITH MISS MATZEN Editor Film Spectator: In Miss Madeline Matzen's article on "Illegitimate Writers", in the July 21 issue of The Spectator, she makes the following statement: "If you are a member of the Wampas (or their fem- inine contingent, The Wasps) you are a legitimate pub- licist. If you are not a member of either of these unions you are a 'scab' or an 'illegitimate writer'." As a member of The Wasps may I say that Miss Mat- zen is evidently a very mis-informed young lady. Neither fan magazine nor newspaper writers are eligible for mem- bership in the Wasps. Only women who have been ac- tively engaged in motion picture publicity for at least six months may be admitted, according to our constitution and bylaws. And by publicity we mean exactly what Miss Matzen does when she parenthetically explains "publicist is merely a fancy name for the good old press agent." We mean employment in a studio publicity department or in exploiting individual clients through the medium of pub- •>]iiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiDiiiiiiuiiiiaiiniiiiiiiiQiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiniiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiniiDi<« 1 THE OTHER SIDE OF I I THE PICTURE j I Films are entertainment. They are, also, | I and inevitably, culture and education. | I Theatres are one thing — the non-theat- | I rical field is another. | I The Educational Screen | W (the only magazine of its kind) i I treats the whole field from this broader | I standpoint. On the theatrical side, a not- | I able service for the intelligent public is | 1 our regular department of the | I Film Estimates | I giving thoughtful judgments by a national | I committee on about 50 films each month, | I as to which are worth while, and which | I are not, for "Intelligent Adults", for | i "Youth", and for "Children". | I The Educational Screen | I S2.00, One Year $3.00. Two Years | 1 5 South Wabash, Chicago | OiDiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiimii[iiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiuiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiiiiiiiE3iiiiiimiiic<^ Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 licity. We recognize the universally accepted fact that fan magazines and newspaper 'ssTiters have always been dis- tinct from "publicists" or "press agents," nor was I aware that any of them accounted themselves so until I read Miss Matzen's story. At present there are two members of the Wasps con- tributing to fan magazines and one employed on a trade publication, but all were admitted to membership prior to these affiliations and while engaged in publicity work. Con- tract writers on the fan magazine staffs are no more eligible to membership in the Wasps than free lance con- tributors. For our own interests we are as anxious to co- operate with one as the other. I believe that an organization of fan magazine writers was recently formed, but that is something quite as sep- arate from the Wasps as from the Wampas. Undoubtedly Miss Matzen's article was based on in- correct information rather than venom, and she will be glad to be acquainted with the facts of the matter. JANE Mcdonough ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS Dear Mr. Beaton: Several months ago I wrote you complaining of the numerous typographical errors which appeared from time to time in The Spectator. In the same letter I offered you my services as a proofreader. Since then your paper has been pretty well nigh per- fect, and I am glad to see it so. My wife and I enjoy reading The Spectator very much. But in a recent issue Mrs. Albert was very much offended at finding a word which she detests above all others. The word was "lousy". How such a vulgar sounding word could ever find its way into the contents of your great pub- lication is beyond my comprehension. Of course, you were referring to what Eddie Suther- land said about his picture, "Tillie's Punctured Romance". He said it was lousy. But was it necessary to print the word he used ? Is that word used among people of refine- ment and culture ? Your publication just radiates with good taste, yet that word rather tended to be terribly con- spicuous. It might have been a proper English word. It may mean exactly what the word implies. But it seems to me that word is usually classified with other profane words. There is always a corrected word in the English language to take the place of slang or profanity. At least there is a better sounding word, which does not need to stimulate the imagination of things creepy and vulgar. Speaking of Eddie Sutherland and his picture, I played "atmosphere" in the circus sequence, and Eddie certainly was a most likeable chap. I watched him carefully at his work, and sometimes he really seemed to be in a quandary. The actors appeared to lack efficiency and failed to take the work seriously on the set. No wonder the pic- ture fell far below the expectations of the producers. Your ability to pick out the faults and errors in pic- tures is remarkably uncanny. I often marvel at it. Your powers of observation are indeed very keen. A rather un- usual gift for a hearing person. Now that I have remarked about a hearing person, I almost forgot to tell you that I am deaf. Not hard of TOM TERRISS Director of Pictures in Russia, Germany, England, Spain and Hollywood Actor and Producer of Plays in London, Paris, and New York GLadstone 4161 hearing, but stone deaf. Have been so for the past twenty-two years, after ha\'ing lost my hearing at the age of five from whooping cough. Now perhaps you will understand what I mean by a hearing person. A deaf man is trained to use his eyes, and his sense of observation as well as his sense of feeling becomes more acute. The deaf usually observe things the hearing people never would. And they are quick to see the flaws on the screen. Did you have the misfortune to see "Across to Singapore", an M.-G.-M. picture with Ramon Novarro, Joan Crawford and Ernest Torrence? Joan Crawford was forced to accompany Novarro on a journey. He forced her aboard without even stopping to gather any of her belongings — nay, not even a tooth brush. She wore a lovely white frock at that time. She was thrust below. Fade out. Sub-title: (Something to the effect that six months later, after a hard journey, they pull into Singapore, etc.) Joan appears on deck in the same lovely frock, immaculate after six months (?) of hard usage on a sailing ship (mind you). Her hair was intact, her appearance was as if she had just come out of a beauty parlor. 'Tis remarkable the lack of imagination some of these directors have. Another thing that I have always noticed on the screen, and which I have never known you to comment upon, is this: The hand-bags, grips, suit-cases and port- folios on the screen are handled in such a way that any person of average observation can see they are empty. Even porters at railway stations on the screen carry as many as four or five easily. Shades of Samson and Her- cules! I have sat in the waiting room of the Pennsylvania station in New York, waiting for my train to take me back to college after a vacation period, and I have noticed the % George Ficmaurice First National Production With COLLEEN MOORE and GARY COOPER _ Carthay Circle Theatre TIME '^^''^ 2:15-8:30 Carli Ellinor's Orchestra Howard Bretherton Director In Production "THE REDEEMING SIN" starring Dolores Costello A Vitaphone Feature John ^. Qoodrich 6683 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 6111 September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen porters carrying the bags. If they are carrying two, the weight of the bags pull their arms downward, and their steps are short and quick. If they are carrying one, they lean over to one side to counter balance the weight with the free arm extended. The bag knocks against their legs as they walk, or against the leg next to the bag. But in the movies, they carry and handle the bags as if they were inflated with air. May I offer you a suggestion? Would it not be a bet- ter plan for Donald's reviews to be of different pictures than the ones you review? Or, if it is necessary for him to review the same pictures as you have, have them in the next issue from yours. I am sure this letter has occupied much of your valu- able time, but being as you seem to be, a man of system, you certainly devote some of your hours to reading your mail. All big men, no matter how busy they may be, are systematical. In closing, allow me to extend to you my heartiest felicitations on your great little publication, and I hope to scrape together a §5.00 bill and become a proud sub- scriber for one whole year. TOMMY ALBERT. P. S. — I have three ambitions in life. To raise a son to be a chip off the old block; to subscribe to The Spectator and to be able to write English as well as you. P. P. S. — Mr. Beaton, have you ever stopped to ruminate on the effect the "Talkies" will have on the thousands of deaf people who find the movies one of their sources of recreation ? Not all the deaf can read lips like I can, and they would be unable to grasp the plot on a "talkie" with- out any titles. Did you ever think of this before ? No- body seems to have thought about it. Another deaf boy (my pal and buddy), and I went to see "Glorious Betsy" and "The Lion and the Mouse" and enjoyed them because of our ability to read the lips. Lionel Barrymore is a fine lip talker. Some people talk throaty, and these are hard for the lip-readers. But we often wonder about the thousands of deaf mutes who have not been trained in the oral and lip reading method as we have. We shall see! T. A. CIVILIZATION (In the Lobby of a Hotel Somewhere, Anywhere) My Dear Beaton: "Oh, would a power the Giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us". That is from memory and if it be not exactly according to Burns, you will understand it just the same, so why bother to check up on little things when life is so short? The face reflects the soul, so it has been said, and if that be true, then all we have to do to find out what we are F. de Miollis Accredited Correspondent of "LE FIGARO", of Paris Technical Advisor on All Matters Pertaining to NAPOLEON Thoroughly Conversant With PARIS AND ALL PHASES OF PARISIAN LIFE Writers' Club like inside is to look in a plate glass mirror. I wonder if that were what was meant by Scotland's bard, or were there plate glass mirrors in his time ? It could hardly have been that because looks are so deceiving. Here comes a dame who looks like a million dollars. But let the dye grow out, scrub off the rouge, strip, and the million dollars fade to thirty cents. Now comes a slouch hat, dirty necktie, threadbare, baggy clothes and he's a sure enough panhandler or I never won on a fav- orite- But, come to find out, he's packing an elephant roll and has more real estate than any one man can prop- erly handle. The seeing power the Giftie might bestow is some- thing deeper and far more searching than cold, material glass. Even though we may not have the Giftie's favor to see in others the hidden soul beneath the outward mask we can, at least, catch a mirrored reflection, and here is a place which mirrors many types and kinds of human life. Some slink and slide and some move evenly and straight with upright mien, with dozens in between. A preacher or a gentle mother, a con man or a badger woman. An angel-face, demure, with a little sidewise glance that is, oh, so enticing. A cold face with a hard stare and questioning look that dares to come and have a party. A bustling to and fro, a hustling here and there and a loafing the time away. Why the hurry, why the waiting, whence, hence, what is it all about and who cares ? A varied assortment of human beings, varied in race and in breeding, thought and desire, health and sickness, forward ideals and confirmed habit— and the motion pic- ture reaches them all. A hostelry has a set standard, conforms to that standard, and its patrons know to rea- sonable certainty what to expect and what they will get, but the motion picture has no standard, conforms to no standard and its patrons take what they get, anything and everything. In the public schools there is at least the semblance of an effort made to have a certain standard of excellence in teachers and in teaching, which is something in the right PAUL PEREZ .... has completed titling "Captain Swag- ger", E. H. Griffith's current feature star- ring Rod La Rocque; and "George Washington Cohen", George Archain- baud's latest Tififany- Stahl release starring George Jessel. He has been re-engaged by the latter studio to title George Crone's .... "FLOATING COLLEGE" Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & Englander Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 direction, but in the motion picture there is no public interest to establish and maintain a high and excellent standard, in spite of the outstanding, evident fact of the motion picture's educational force and value. The public buys, the public pays and the public is paying the debt for the ignorant, indiscriminate buying of foreign peoples for American citizenship, instead of collecting interest on purchase made by careful, intelli- gent selection. It is equally true that the American pub- lic will pay the debt or collect the interest on the influ- ence exerted by the motion picture. Do hardwood trees grow in the desert or flowers bloom in gutter slime ? Would a dairyman run Longhorns with his Holsteins and expect a milk-producing herd? Would a hunter run street mongrels with his Gordons or Llewel- lyns and expect to breed bird dogs? Would a horseman run donkeys with his thoroughbreds and expect the get to be stake horses and derby winners ? The public buys, the public pays and the debt is never canceled. The public pays its debt in full with penalties attached, or the public builds up interest compounded to capital wealth. The motion picture may be rated as an individual or corporation enterprise to get the money with which to satisfy inordinate greed; it may be rated as amusement to cater to whims and fancies; it may be rated as exhibi- tion to gratify the lowest taste and coarsest humor; it may be rated as a fanciful and extravagant spectacle of empty, meaningless tales of illusion and delusion. If so, then let it ride as it is riding now. The motion picture travels to every point within the country's boundary lines; the motion pictures reaches all, from children to octogenarians; the motion picture has within itself a potential quality of force and power to cultivate refinement in thought and instill nobility in ideals, and without the slightest loss in wholesome en- tertainment. The public rolls its own and makes its choice. The mining of ore is a small matter compared to the begetting of race. The manufacture of steel is of far less importance than the rearing of children- The build- ing of automobiles has little of the worth in the upbuild- ing of character. The seeding and the growing of farm products is not by any means comparable with the plant- ing of ideas and the development of thought. The building of a nation is essentially the generating of a race and its development in physique and character. A nation endures and attains supremacy by virtue of fine ideals and lofty thought; a nation sickens and dies by reason of morbid dreams and practices. The motion picture is a medium that may be used for building and strengthening the nation's polity or sickening it to death. Because the vulture gorges on rotten carrion is that good reason why bob-white should not have grain? Be- cause the weasel kills to suck hot blood, should the squirrel be deprived of its kernels ? Because the wolverene's fierce lust for porcupine meat is suicidal should the beaver fool- ishly play with quills ? Because there are a few with suicidal lust who gorge on rottenness, is that good reason for the public to forsake a high regard for cleanliness ? The motion picture may be viewed as a mine for private exploitation by ignorant and lusting adventurous Edward Everett Horton In "CLARENCE" wi* Ethel Grey Terry VINE ST. THEATRE f^Lftefardr Mats. Thursday and Saturday, Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store. May Co. .■iOc to $1.00. Eve., SOc to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. S{- "K ROY DEL RUTH DIRECTOR WARNERS' 100 per cent All-Talking Vitaphone special productions — "THE TERROR" and a CONQUEST" All-Talking Vitaphone Feature I 5 K 'September 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-one The Spectator to Become A Weekly Readers persistently have urged the more frequent appearance of The Spec- tator. Advertisers demand it because it will give them a better service. Business judgment prompts it because it vi'ill put the publication on a sounder commercial basis. As a weekly it can urge more effectively the adoption of the reforms it believes the picture industry needs. The first number, which will appear in a few weeks, will be the only one in its history, as far as it can see now, that will accept purely complimentary advertising that it is sure will profit no one except itself. The advertising rate for the initial number will be $100 per page, fractions of pages at proportionate prices. Space is all the check of the advertiser will buy. As a weekly The Spectator will continue its policy of telling what it thinks about the industry and its output. Publishing the paper is a business proposition, and its idea of good business is not to permit business considerations to color its opinions. In the future, as in the past, the man or woman who refuses to advertise will be treated exactly as will the advertiser. The new subscription price, to go into effect October 1st, will be $7.50 per year, $8.50 foreign. Until October 1st, renewals or new subscriptions will be received for any num- ber of years at the present rates of $5.00 and $6.00. Irrespective of when your subscription expires, it will be extended for as many years as the size of your check indicates your desires. Fill out the coupon now. If you delay it, you are liable to keep on forgetting until it is too late. Read the announce- ment on page three, this issue. THE FILM SPECTATOR, 411 Palmer Building, Hollywood, California Enclosed is my check for $ , for which subscription for years. Name Street City Phone No.. f enter I extend my Page Twenty-two greed, or it may be viewed as a medium for pnblic growth and progress under the direct control and supervision of constituted public authority. JAMES BRANT. THE FILM SPECTATOR HE DOES NOT LIKE THEM My Dear Sir: Your first enthusiasm regarding audible motion pic- tures I could not share, and I can do so even less now GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS ^ 'yAousand Gifts of Visfinctim Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops" — Jnst West of Vine , tiv«»*'s«r"**=./b < '^■dnters of THE FILM SPECTATOR and other high-class publications 'No The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanfte 6346 Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. I Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) (. nightly in Peacock Court J GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager September 1, 1928 that I have heard more of them. Surely, if any phonograph manufacturer had gone before the public with a product as crude as the present sound devices are, he would have been laughed or sneered into bankruptcy. More than that, these sound devices are responsible for bringing vaudeville (and low grade stuff it is) into theatres that previously had the virtue of giving patrons their movies "straight" — the way I enjoy them most. P. H. PARKE. I U\[grman's c^rt 5hop The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME .^ An Hug silks estabHshed reputation for hand- the greatest variety of the finest and ready to wear. -e>-^ BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard .-.■--..... -.■.--..■■■ A ^^ No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine I. Ill ■■« The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 August 18, 1928 f - THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-three JEAN HERSHOLT 1 »- AL COHN B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing for WARNER BROTHERS TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 ^^:frT©;^;#,i^^###############;##### 4r4^ 4trft «|^ ^r(pk «^f]fc 4r)f« '«(fft 4rir* «irk 4rir^ «-4f» «ll% 4ra» A-ipk «Uik 4rtfik 4^^ cAscAd cAdcAd cftjcAs c^cAd cAdcAs cAs cAs cAs cAo cAacAac^ U Rest and Relax at Lake Arrowhead's Secluded Hotel THE NORTH SHORE TAVERN" American Plan Bungalow Hotel Under Management of Owen E. Coffman of the Desert Inn, Palm Springs, Calif. Telephone Lake 43 OPEN ALL YEAR i!?i ^ m'* jSfi SK« >K »!K ij^f »S'ff ^ ^ iM yAv -'Aw y?K yA^ rf'Aw JAw vAv VA ». VA V JAV > Ak Jf\\. ^ Aw ->-Aw .rfW -fAw VJVl J#W jffW J*W J^^ * Ak, ^'Aw >AiC yA^ jAL ./Ac JsAk. J*K JtAk. JAl JiAk. .W I Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 6 Hollywood, California, September 15, 1928 NoTb »3jiniMiiiMnHMiiiiniiaiininiiinDiiiniiiiniaiHiiiuiiiiaiiiHiiiiiiit)MiiiiMiiiiaiiiiHiiiiiiHii»iiiiiiiiaiiiiiniiiiiiainiiiiniiiaiiiiiiniiiiaiiiiHnii^ More Comments on Kennedy's Usefulness Academy Ignores Majority of Its Members Thing That Matters Most to Film Stars DeMille's Latest Rather A Queer Mixture OH, KAY! COSSACKS SUBMARINE FIRST KISS THE TERROR NEWS PARADE FOUR WALLS MIDNIGHT LIFE GODLESS GIRL THE FLEET'S IN RIDERS OF THE DARK •4 «utiiuiDimuauuuiuuitiiiuiiuiHiaiHiuinui[iiiiiiiiijiaininiiiiuiiiniiiiiiuiiiiE]niiiiniiiiDuiiiiiiiiii(iuiiiuHiuuuiiiiuuii[]iiHuuiiuaniiiiHi^ Pagre Two THE FILM SPECTATOR August 18, 1928 m Hear The New Victrold-Radiola Combinations The last word in tone, quality and beautiful cabinet work Ask for a demonstration EHJBOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 L.?F:i.Tri^?!ri^ September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 411 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price, $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, SEPT. 15, 1928 Wild Dissension in The Spectator Office HOWARD Hill is business manager of The Spectator. He has the comparatively easy task of keeping it going, while I have the tough job of writing it. When I told him that I was going to make it weekly he asked me where, in God's name, the money was to come from. I told him that I had no idea, that that part was up to him, but that if it would help any I would hold up the whole blooming industry and squeeze enough money out of it to keep the weekly going for at least a few months. The Hold-Up Number was born with that idea in mind, and the business manager stopped snorting around and became almost genial. But he's off again. There is no pleasing him. Before the last Spectator appeared he shook the proofs of my paragraphs under my nose and asked me how the hell — he swears dreadfully when he's riled — I could expect to sell advertising space in the Hold-Up Num. ber to Joe Kennedy's friends while I was using up most of one number with a roast of Joe. Again I told him that I had no idea, that that was up to him. "Then," he said, still quite put out, "you have to write a lot of rot about Joe Schenck's nutty ideas about sound and have it appear in a Spectator just as we were rounding up the whole United Artists bunch for the Hold-Up Number. Have you gone crazy?" Once more I told him that I had no idea, but that if he'd shut his damned mouth — I shouldn't have said it, I know, but, you see, by this time I was getting fed up — if he'd shut his damned mouth I'd go to the United Artists lot myself and sell Joe, and Johnny Considine and Mike Levy a page each. "And that should hold you for a while!" I added icily. "Well," drawled Howard — he has an annoying habit of drawling — "if you would hold back your roasts for a while, you would make a lot more money. In the same issue that announces the Hold-Up Number you bawl out one of Hector Turnbull's pictures and roast Turnbull personally for making it the way he did. He's one of our good friends, spends money with us and would have been a cinch as a hold-up victim if you'd only reviewed someone else's picture." The only possible come-back to that was to justify myself by going into Hector's picture with a little more detail, but as long as anyone in the business remains alive there is a chance of my shaking him down for something, and I don't think I'd better repeat what I said to the business managfer about that particular picture. Well, matters went alone for a couple of weeks with Howard opening letters and taking out checks — keeping the checks and sending me the letters — and then he found the proofs of all the para- graphs in this Spectator except this one about him. "There you go again, you blithering idiot!" he ejaculated, as he wildly waved the ribbons of paper in front of me. "Harp- ing on Joe Kennedy again just as I'd got things straight- ened out after your last outburst! And you roast the Academy just at a time when we might get every member of it to take some space. Good heavens, man, haven't you any sense ? Can't you muzzle yourself until after the Hold-Up Number comes out?" Howard is in the habit of stopping at my house on his way home from the oifice and depositing in my lap the accumulated griefs of the day. When he finished the speech I have quoted I told him that he made me sick and that he'd better go home to his wife and child. He said he wouldn't; that his wife and child were dining with her Aunt Sarah, that he hated Aunt Sarah's husband, and was going to stay and have dinner vsrith me. He meandered out of the library and I heard him say something to Prudencio, my Filipino house-boy, about not putting so much ginger ale in it this time. Meanwhile I thought over what he had said, and to humor him I called him in and told him that I would go this far: that I would try to refrain from saying anything more about Joe von Sternberg until the Hold-Up Number had appeared. * * * New York Banker Wants Some Specific Information TELEGRAM from a vice-president of a New York bank which figures largely in motion picture finance, punctuation not by the Western Union: "Greatly in- terested in your comments on Kennedy's usefulness to pictures. Hope to read more along same line and hope you will give us constructive suggestions regarding the methods we should pursue to acquire a knowledge of inner workings of motion picture industry which presents prob- lems difficult for us to solve. Exactly what do you mean by a perfect script and how can it cure the business of all its ills?" Assuming that the oil industry of California wished, as an industry, to become a large borrower, any group of bankers approached for loans would engage an oil expert who would come to California, survey the busi- ness, and submit his report. The banks would be gov- erned by the report. After two years of investigating the expert would not announce publicly that "Oil is the other IN THE NEXT SPECTATOR Hollywood should form a social defense league. The commercial value of the esthetic in pictures. Other comments which we feel will make the number one of the most interesting we have published. Reviews of River Pirate, Scarlet Lady, Uncle Tom's Cabin with synchronized music. Sinners In Love, Forbidden Hours, Rocks of New York, To-morrow and others. Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 fellow's game; business is mine, and I am not mixing the two." Joseph P. Kennedy, a banker, is credited with being the representative of gigantic banking interests. He was thrust into the motion picture industry. Making motion pictures is an art, the only art that has mass production. After more than two years in the business Kennedy an- nounces that art is not his game, meaning that he applies a banker's mind to it and not that of a motion picture expert. A stage producer puts on perhaps four plays in a year; Paramount produces seventy pictures in the same length of time. Instead of condemning Paramount for making so many poor pictures — the number is diminish- ing rapidly — we must praise it for making so many good ones. A banker can understand the financial management of Paramount, but he can not understand the tremendous difiiculties it must overcome in turning out in so short a time so many works of art that will meet with the public's favor. The combined production of the two companies that have passed under Kennedy's control about equals Para- mount's. I admire the frankness of his confession that he knows nothing about the business, but I fear for the wel- fare of the financial institutions that must rely upon his judgment in their dealings with the industry. To trust the interests of so great a production program to a man who confesses that he knows nothing about it, is a departure from a bank's usually safe and sane method of approach- ing a financial problem. The instability of Kennedy's companies was brought about by their failure to manu- facture a product at a price that would yield a profit. That is the chief cause of the instability of any manufacturing concern. The first step towards a solution of the excessive cost should be an inquiry into the reason for it. Only a person who knows how motion pictures are made can de- termine why their cost is excessive. And any man of ordinary intelligence should be able to grasp the funda- mentals of their making in considerably less than two years, the length of time that Kennedy has been creat- ing a disturbance in the business without improving his acquaintance with it. My constructive suggestion, asked for in the telegram I quote, is that if bankers wish to learn something about the film business, they should em- ploy someone who knows something about it, and act upon the report he submits. Above all, bankers should not be deluded into the belief that making pictures is a mys- terious rite that only especially gifted people can perform. Common sense can be applied to it as it can be applied to the making of an automobile. But the combined assets of the automobile industry of the country would dwindle to nothing if it were run with half the waste that charac- terizes the conduct of the motion picture industry. * * * Dr. Kennedy Prescribes the Wrong Treatment THE film business could cure all its ills if it would pause long enough to diagnose them. The Kennedy treatment by mergers will do no permanent good. If the Boston man were a doctor, instead of a banker, he scarcely would prescribe marriage to effect the double cure of a man with mumps and a woman with measles, nor would he put in attendance on either patient a nurse with mumps or measles. Yet that is the treatment he is apply- ing to pictures. Unfortunately for pictures, the habit of wastefulness is fastened on them so firmly that it is not recognized as a weakness. Those who make them are honest in their belief that their methods are the correct ones. Pictures never will be made in a manner that will please those who patronize them as works of art until they are made in a manner that will please those who pay for them as articles of commerce. Money spent on footage that does not reach the screen lessens the artistic quality of that portion that the public sees. And the foot that is left in the cutting-room costs as much as the foot that is put in the can. Obviously the way to save the cost of the unused foot is not to shoot it, for if the script that callg for it be perfect, its elimination from the picture as re- leased impairs the perfection of the production as a work of art. A picture should be made before it is shot, and the shooting should be merely transferring perfectly to film something that had attained perfection on paper. All eliminations and changes should be made before a shot is made. The industry will tell its bankers that this can not be done, but it can not give one intelligent reason for the statement. It recognizes the perfect script as a dream, and refuses to grant that it can be a reality. Under the present system the perfect script can not become a reality. Pictures will not achieve success either as works of art or articles of commerce until the system is changed. Ken- nedy could have been of signal service to the whole indus- try, and of great value to the shareholders of the com- panies employing him, if he had insisted upon at least one of the companies making the experiment of refraining from shooting a picture until it had been put in perfect form in the script, a form in which the story essentials had been reduced to the footage in which the picture was to be released. If he had used the despotic powers he apparently possesses and refused to accept any excuse for failure to carry out his orders, he would discover that the perfect script is not a myth, that it is a practical thing that would make better art and pay enormous dividends. But neither Kennedy nor anyone else with power to do so is insisting upon the experiment being made. No pro- ducer is in a position to declare that the perfect script is not possible until he has given it a fair trial. His sense of obligation to the shareholders of his company should prompt him to ascertain by test if it is not possible to make a better picture for less money by having the story prepared down to the last detail, the footage assigned to each scene, and the complete production on paper handed to the director to be transferred to film exactly as written. This must be done with sound pictures and would have been done with silent ones if the industry had not been obsessed with the idea that the director was a supreme being whose whims became mandates. In the past pictures have been expensive beyond all reason by virtue of the power given directors who lacked the ability to exercise it with either economic or artistic wisdom. The prepara- tion of stories for the screen has been taken out of the hands of story-tellers and given to directors whose efforts should have been confined to the comparatively easier task of bringing to life the scenes as the authors wrote them and not according to his own conception of them. This exaggeration of the importance of the director has led to the shooting of surplus footage, the erection of sets that never reached the screen and the salaries of artists whose work never got beyond the cutting-room. During the his- tory of pictures scores of millions of dollars have been sac- rificed to the conviction of the industry that the perfect Ws< eptember 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five script was not possible. It always has been possible, and with the advent of sound in pictures this fact will have to be recognized. * * * In Any Case, We Don't Want Nosey Bankers Poking Around THE banker who telegraphs me will please give me credit for taking his request seriously. I have been so serious about it that one might get the impression that I thought the bankers who have become involved in motion picture finance really are making an honest attempt to learn something about the business. As a matter of fact they are concerned with only one thing: how to get two dollars back for every dollar they put in and leave the sack for someone else to hold. If Kennedy can mess up two tottering companies, merge them into one with a balance sheet made imposing by the inflation of the value of the merged assets, the bankers can get from under by unloading the company on the public and any subsequent tottering will be a matter of no concern to them. But, again to take the bankers seriously and ascribe honesty to their motives, I would like to point out to them that the industry can contract no financial ailment that a good box-office picture will not cure. Nine or ten years ago there were times when Universal was hard pressed for enough money to meet the pay-roll. The financial giants of Wall Street would meet and ponder over the situation, and while they were pondering along would come a TraflSc in Souls or a Beast of Berlin and settle all the financial problems in a way that would make them stay settled, which is something that can't be said for the Wall Street method of financing. The film business has only one healthy source of revenue: the box-oflSce. If Eastern bankers are approaching the industry honestly and with a desire to be of benefit to it, they should give all their attention to the study of the manner in which the product of the industry should be made in order to attract more money to the box-ofiice. After over two years of exces- sive activity in the industry, Joseph P. Kennedy confesses that he has given no attention whatever to the one thing that should have occupied all of his attention. His sole artistic adventure is his bringing together of Gloria Swan- son and Eric von Stroheim as star and director. When Joe recovers from the effect of this move he is going to be a much wiser young man, and before he is done with it he is going to get some other director to finish the picture while he makes a bewildered effort to tell his banker-backers where all the money went to. A banker's value to pictures can not be measured by the number of mergers he brings about. He can become valuable only when he understands how pictures are made and when he uses the power of his financial position in insisting that they be made with more regard for business common sense. And until bankers are ready to learn something about the business, they had better stay out of the operat- ing end of it. The industry can settle its troubles for itself and render the Kennedys of the future impotent by making entertaining pictures more wisely than they are being made now. However much I abuse our present pro- ducers it is a privilege I retain as my own, and I am willing at all times to line up with them when these nosey bankers start out to show us how to run the film business. I abuse producers for their grossly extravagant way of making pictures because I feel that by abuse I can get under their skins more quickly than I can by taking them by the hand and pleading with a sob in my voice, but at the same time I regard them as the only ones who can continue to conduct the business. But unless they apply ordinary business rules to the industry and get it on a basis that will make it independent of Wall Street, they will continue to have the Kennedys annoying them. Ken- nedy, as an individual, soon will pass from pictures be- cause he has nothing to contribute to them, but there will be more of his type poking around as long as the condi- tion of the business makes an opening for them. When it is conducted so wisely that it can not be criticized, the Kennedys will have to expend their destructive activity on something else. * * * If the Academy Will Permit a Suggestion — THE Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has issued an elaborate report on incandescent illum- ination. I presume it will prove of great value to the technical end of the business. I can not estimate its value myself for it deals with a subject of which I am profoundly ignorant. Producers will be the beneficiaries of whatever practical good it does. The technicians as individuals will not profit from it for it makes its knowledge common to all studios. Another important step which the Academy took some time ago was the decision to establish a re- search laboratory, something that was advocated more than two years ago in The Spectator in one of a series of articles contributed by Alfred Hustwick. The laboratory is something else that will benefit only the producers. Included in the report on incandescent lighting is a list of the members of the Academy. There are fifty-five pro- ducers, practically all that are available for membership. There are three hundred and twenty-five directors, actors, technicians, and writers — exactly five other members to every one producer-member. Now that the Academy has done well by the one member, is it not time it was giving some attention to the welfare of the other five ? It would be only fair if the majority of its members became the object of the Academy's chief solicitude. Thus far, it ap- pears to me, the one has received all the Academy's atten- tion and the five have been neglected. Founded on an al- truistic yearning to be a little godfather to the entire industry, I am sure it will be grateful to me if I point out something it might do in an effort to live up to its ideals. Out of every six dollars that the Academy has spent on its work connected with incandescent lighting and a research laboratory, the producers, who will reap all the benefits of the expenditure, have contributed one dollar, and those who work for them, who will not profit finan- cially, have contributed five dollars. To even things up, and to perform a service for the majority of its members, I would suggest that the Academy spend some money in investigating, and printing a report upon, the benefit that would accrue to the industry by the inauguration of an eight hour day. Such an undertaking really would not be, as it might look on the surface, a departure from the Academy's apparent policy of benefitting only its producer- members, for an eight hour day would profit producers quite as much as the perfecting of incandescent lighting or the establishment of a research laboratory. True, the Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 192S producers will not agree with me in this, consequently I disregard them and make my suggestions to the Acad- emy solely as something that it might undertake in be- half of five-sixths of its membership. Ordinarily five- sixths of the membership of an organization can make it perform any antics it desires, but the majority of the membership of the Academy has been signally backward in taking any step, by virtue of its strength, that the minority did not wish it to take. In some instances no doubt the organization has performed services for in- dividuals, but during the entire course of its existence I do not know of one major act it has performed on be- half of the five-sixths of those it represents. The one- sixth has been the object of its constant solicitude. The acting branch of the screen has more members in the Academy than any other branch. On the Tiffany-Stahl lot — ^to be specific in only one instance — actors and act- resses are treated like cattle. They are made to work almost twenty hours out of every twenty-four, a condi- tion that is tolerated in no other industry, however menial, in the country. Is not that something as important to the Academy as incandescent lighting? As a matter of fact it isn't. The only thing of importance to the Acad- emy is what the producers want, and the only construct- ive things it has done have been done to benefit the pro- ducers. I will believe otherwise when it investigates the advisability of an eight hour day. * * • In Which We Advise You Not to Take Our Advice WHILE I complain of many conventions that are hampering screen art, no one is more aware than I am that, it being an art, there is a place in it for everything, even conventions. I complain frequently of the inclusion in a picture of something that has noth- ing to do with the story, and one of my favorite plati- tudes is that anything that does not help a story, harms it. No inflexible rules can be applied to a creative art. It is art's indifference to conventions, the joyous aban- donment with which it disregards even its own rules, that makes it a more fascinating occupation than making shoes. Finding fault with motion pictures because they do not conform to my notions of what they should be, is to me the most important thing I do, yet screen art would come to a sad pass if it did everything I said it should do. Screen entertainment would be a poor thing if it accepted The Spectator's dictates as rules to be followed in the making of all pictures. I still insist that there should be nothing in a picture that is not part of the story, yet every now and then I see that rule disregarded and I mentally give three cheers. In Serenade Lawrence Grant wanders into the story at irregular intervals and wanders out again without having done anything that is of the least consequence to anything else in the picture, yet it would have been a crime if he had been eliminated xmder the rule that what does not help a story harms it. Grant's performance is so artistic in itself that it is its own excuse. In The Magnificent Flirt there is no place in the story for Ned Sparks, yet his delicious comedy is one of the outstanding features of a meritorious production. Like Grant, he wanders in and out of the story without having anything to do with it, yet so perfect is his acting and so clever Henry D'Arrast's direction, that it would be unthinkable to leave the part out because someone has laid down a rule that a picture must contain only things that advance the narrative. In Submarine, a Colum- bia picture which I review in this number, Arthur Ran- kin's acting justifies the inclusion of a character that would have no place in the picture if it were judged merely for its assistance to the story. Not only has it nothing to do with anything else, but it is a straight steal from the "Mother-boy" idea in What Price Glory? It is a small part that I resented at first because it was bom in iniq- uity and promised to become maudlin, but in the second or third shot I began to notice what a superb performance Rankin was giving, and I forgave the picture even for its dishonesty. He gives such a splendid exhibition of the art of acting that it excuses the story for pausing while we contemplate it. But I still insist that the rule against interpolations is a good one, and that all other rules that The Spectator has laid down with such solemn unction should be followed closely except when they are ignored brilliantly. You can do anything you want to on the screen. When you adhere to conventions you may do things conventionally, but when you depart from them you may travel as far as your art has sufficient strength to carry you. List the things that I have objected to, and you will not find one that can not be in any picture pro- vided it be done well enough to atone for its crime of being an interpolation, or for its presence in the list of things that should be eschewed. Downright cleverness is what the screen lacks most. To-day we must get stories that will hold our interest by reason of the strength of their plots, something made necessary by our lack of di- rectors clever enough to add anything to them. For the future we must develop screen writers and directors who can take a bit of nothing and make it delightful on the screen. * * * Something About the Importance of Stars ONE thing that should be remembered by people who make pictures containing World War sequences is that the war was more important than any char- acter who could be used in telling a story about it. In a sequence in Lilac Time, Colleen Moore bids farewell to Gary Cooper as he is about to go to his plane to take-off for a flight so hazardous that it is doubtful if he will return. The farewell is effective. Cooper goes to the fly- ing field, where the seven planes of his squadron are drawn up in line. He has ceased to be the lover and now is the soldier, and the picture has lost its charm as a romance and has taken on the tragedy of war. No time should have been lost in getting the seven young fellows into their waiting machines and starting them off on their perilous flight. The whole spirit of the picture demanded _ such treatment. But it is not treated that way. Colleen comes running onto the flying field, and the whole fare-^ well is done over again. It is wrong technically becaus a noncombatant would not be allowed on the flying field when a squadron was taking-off, and it is wrong dra-^ matically because it is anti-climactic and repetitious. When Gary leaves Colleen, she is standing disconsolately in gateway. The last shot of the sequence should have been a long one of her, still by the gate, gazing sorrowfully uf at the sky. Her figure should have been a small one, and September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven should have been the only one in the long shot, two fea- tures that would have emphasised her loneliness now that her sweetheart had flown away. All Colleen's pictures are notable for their excellent casts and fine productions, but in each of them there is too much Colleen. All star pictures seem to be made on the assumption that the pub- lic will patronize them merely to see the stars, conse- quently the stars are kept in front of the camera for much greater footage than their importance to the story war- rants. The only thing that the public is looking for at any time is entertainment. Colleen Moore has millions of admirers who flock to picture theatres to see her on the screen, but it is the excellence of her pictures, not the con- tour of her nose, that assures their steady patronage. No screen star ever can become popular enough to hold, alone and unassisted, the attention of an audience for the length of a feature picture, nor can one of them become strong enough to hold his or her popularity with the public in face of a string of poor pictures. No one will deny the truth of these two statements, and taken together they establish the fact that in the final analysis it is the pic- ture, not the star, that is the matter of greater import- ance. Working on this premise, a producer ought to be able to see that a close-up that does not help the picture can not, by any possibility, help the star. Giving Colleen Moore undue importance solely because she is the star of a production can do neither her nor the production any good, and it is a safe rule to go by that what does not help a picture, harms it. In many pictures scenes and shots are distorted to give the star the camera. Only in a business in which ignorance, false pride and egoism are so rampant could such a mistaken policy be followed. We have too many close-ups of our stars as it is, but if we had as many of them as the stars themselves think the public wants, there would be a complete new set of names in electric lights within one year. The reputation for appearing always in entertaining pictures is a thousand times more valuable to a star than credit for possessing long and languishing eye-lashes. Jack Gilbert has the right idea about this star business. His only concern is for the picture. Even he, however, does not go far enough, but probably he can not resist the studio demand for more close-ups of him than are necessary. In the Lilac Time sequence we have huge close-ups of Colleen doing some- thing on one spot that she previously had done on another. We are treated to the double dose because she is the star of the picture. In a given scene the star is of no more importance photographically than an extra in the same scene. The star gets her importance in a picture by virtue of being in more scenes than an extra, and by having the Btory revolve around her. Using the camera to increase her importance by increasing the width of her smile is not good technic. * * * Is Cheap Mentally and Afraid of Its Own Shadow THE fight of the school children in The Godless Girl and the fire sequence near the end of the same pic- ture reveal C. B. De Mille at his best in directing purely theatrical scenes. That, and crediting him with getting good performances out of unseasoned players are as far as we can go in congratulating C. B. on his latest work. It was an unwise venture. In the opening se- quence he puts constituted authority in the form of the school principal and his staff, on the side of God, and leaves the championing of atheism to a number of children and a monkey. This sequence definitely takes sides in a con- troversy that C. B. was not brave enough to follow through to the end. He drops it entirely and takes us inside a reformatory and shows us what a dreadful place it is. When he has worked us up to a state of indignation over the evils he exposes and has us recognizing the picture as a great piece of prison-reform propaganda, he switches to a romance, and apple blossoms, and birds that twitter. Once in a while there is a timid touching of the God-or-no- God theme, a subtle reminder of its existence, and then C. B. hurries away from it as fast as he can. One of these pokes at what apparently was to have been the theme of the story comes in a sequence in which Lina Basquette and George Duryea are shown clinging to a fence charged with electricity. On Lina's palms are burns in the shapes of crosses, and two or three times in inserts C. B. tries to make us believe that there is divine significance to be attached to a pattern that originated in the brain of a manufacturer of wire fences. I suppose that if the pic- ture had dealt with the evil of playing checkers, C. B. would have had Lina burning her hands on a waffle iron. Although the burns retained their photographic vividness to the end of the picture they do not disturb Lina in the least; she uses her hands just as if the divine trade-mark had not been burned into them. Viewing The Godless Girl as a piece of screen entertainment one would give it satis- factory rating, for it is a picture well worth seeing, but estimating it coldly as an example of screen art there is no escaping the conclusion that it does the art little credit. It brings out afresh the fact that De Mille is not a story- teller. The Godless Girl is cheap mentally, and is afraid of its own shadow. No art should touch anything that it can not treat boldly. From a showman's standpoint it was a foolish exploit to introduce atheism in the first of the picture and to take a stand against it. Any anti-God society has as much right to existence as a pro-God society, and, anyway, I don't imagine that the world has been waiting to learn what De Mille's opinion on the matter is. When he passes on to the second phase of his crusade, C. B. shows us how terribly some penal institutions are run. Well, what about it ? What does he want us to do ? He says all his incidents are true, but doesn't tell us where he got them. Then he obscures the issue farther by tell- ing us that all such institutions are not run like the one in the picture. Why does he play on our feelings until we are ready to set out forthwith and reform every reforma- tory on earth, and then fail to show us how we can expend John ^, Qoodrich 6683 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 6111 Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 1 all the energy that has been born of our indignation ? The fact that the incidents are true is what robs them of value as screen material. As long as I thought that the exhibi- tions of cruelty were the children of De Blille's brain I was intrigued by them as examples of creative thinking, but when it was explained in a title that everything was true, which meant that the picture merely was copying old stuff, I lost interest in the scenes and resented being preached at. By his method of treating both atheism and prison cruelties they become only something that he is going to try to sell to the public. There is nothing constructive in the picture for the reason I have pointed out, that if we become excited sufficiently to do battle for the cause, we are not told how to go about it. « • • But the De Mille Opus Will Make Much Money THE Godless Girl is impressive. It will satisfy those who regard a motion picture merely as something to entertain them for an hour or two. This means that it will be successful, thus achieving the first and most im- portant aim of any article of commerce. However to the reviewer, the only one who need remember a picture after he has seen it, De Mille's last work reveals under analysis that the only thing about it upon which its creator need pride himself is the fact that it will make money. The whole construction of the story is weak. Several score high school youngsters engage in a riot during which one of them is killed. Every member of an audience that views the picture is competent to testify in court regarding the manner in which the girl met death; he knows that the mob itself, not any individual member of it, is to blame for the accident, yet he is supposed to accept without protest the fact that three people, no more guilty than any of the rest, must go to jail as criminals. And when these young people, obviously from refined homes, enter the reforma- tory they register no more sense of shame or degradation than they would be expected to display on entering col- lege. C. B. may defend this indifference on the ground that he wished to show that the trio was not prepared for the cruelties that feature the picture so heavily. Any nice girl, as Lina Basquette is characterized in the production, who would not register a sense of the disgrace attached to incarceration for a term of years in any penal institution, no matter how conducted, is poor material for the heroine of any picture. It is up to De Mille to mold his picture around natural human emotions, not to take liberties with such emotions merely to suit the exigencies of the story. The real screen artist distorts nothing in telling his story. The Godless Girl is a series of distortions. Take Noah Beery. I positively refuse to believe that such a character as he depicts ever lasted a month in any institution on earth. C. B. may have proof that every act of cruelty that Noah practices took place in some reformatory in this country, but I'm willing to bet him something that all of them were not performed by one man in the brief time that elapses while the story of The Godless Girl is being told. And when this totally unreal character is dying he urges the release of the four young people in whom we are interested. The recommendation of this brutal moron apparently is all that the authorities need, as in the next shot we see Lina, Duryea, Marie Prevost and Eddie Quil- lan leaving the institution. The grouping of Beery and those surrounding him as he dies makes one of the most impressive screen pictures I have seen in a long time. In this instance De Mille's artistic sense and Peverell Marley's knowledge of the camera combine to give us an exquisite work of art. But C. B. is more brutal than artistic in the majority of his scenes. He is as ruthless as a Dante although his medium is not one that permits of Dantesque treatment. We can gaze without emotion on one of the people of Dante's brain burning in hell, but we can not view with as much indifference one of our own children being tortured before our eyes. Harrowing the feelings of its patrons is no part of the mission of an art as strongly commercial and with such widespread and popular appeal as that of the screen. It takes no brains to shock or disgust an audience. Any director by slaughtering an ox before the camera can make an audience gasp and shudder. A director who is an artist can put over by suggestion the fact of the slaughter and get all the story value out of it without disturbing his audience to such an extent that it sees only the horror and none of the story in a scene. The accident that causes the death of the little girl was directed admirably by De Mille, but he keeps cutting back to the crumpled heap on the floor until he defeats his own purpose. If he had given us but one quick view of that poor, twisted and inert body, keeping the camera away from it for the rest of the sequence, the sadness would have been enhanced by the delicacy and suggestiveness of the treatment. But De Mille chooses to exhibit the dead body as a side-show man displays his tatooed lady. * * * Scenes of Cruelty Have No Real Story Value As the majority of the footage of The Godless Girl is devoted to shocking us by its revelation of prison cruelty, I presume I am justified in viewing the whole production as a piece of prison reform propaganda. That the scenes of cruelty were inserted either for their value as propaganda or to show that C. B. has hair on his chest, becomes apparent when we reflect that the religious and romantic phases of the story could have been played out in an institution that was conducted in a humane and gentle manner. It is not necessary to torture the inmates of a prison to make them wish to see the institution bum down. I never yet have experienced a joy as great as my dream of the pleasure it would give me to see my school- house burn, and no one ill-used me at school. But let us suppose it were necessary for The Godless Girl to show us the drawbacks of reformatory life. Again we find De Mille's ruthlessness, his fondness for broad and sometimes vulgar strokes, defeating his own purpose. The saddest feature of institutional life is the drab duplication of its victims. On her first night in De Mille's inferno, Lina Basquette is assigned to her bed in the dormitory and we fade out on a close-up of her going to sleep in it. That one brief shot betrays C. B.'s lack of knowledge of the subtleties of drama. He should have faded-out on a long shot of the dormitory, a shot that showed the long lines of beds with their maddening likeness to one another, each containing a person who had become a number. Instead of giving us a close-up of one of the inmates, he should have photographed the spirit of the reformatory, and in no place is its spirit more vivid than in monotonous repe- tition of beds that are alike. In other, sequences we see f September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine long shots of the dormitory, but none as effective as one of Lina's arrival would have been. I would not belittle De Mille's ability at drawing performances from his cast, although, as in the case of Noah Beery, I can not agree always with what he draws. I would give the acting honors of The Godless Girl to George Duryea. He gives an even performance throughout, a sincere interpretation of a part that does not permit much latitude in depicting lights and shades. The excellence of the performance might serve to an extent as a vindication of De Mille's viciousness and heartless sarcasm in extracting it from the young man, but it will be interesting to see if he can not do as well when treated by a humane director as an ambitious actor and not as a lowly worm. When the part made its greatest demands upon her, Lina Basquette proved equal to them with a display of ability that indi- cates that she has a future as a dramatic actress, but in her lighter phases and in her love scenes she is not as convincing as she no doubt will be when she has had more experience. Marie Prevost deserves praise for her contri- bution to the acting strength of the picture. Her perform- ance is assisted greatly by the witty spoken titles ascribed to her. Eddie Quillan is a comedian with a future. He has a compelling personality and a natural sense of comedy that should bring him to the front as one of the best box- office bets in the business. I can not recall having seen Quillan before, but he has impressed me more by his work in The Godless Girl than anyone else ever did with one performance. As I could not accept Noah Beery's charac- terization as one that is believable I could not see in it the artistic virtues that no doubt it is to be credited with. However, he has so many great performances to his credit that his luster can not be dimmed by the unreasonableness of but one more. As I have Intimated, I am in doubt whether The Godless Girl is to be considered as an argu- ment against atheism or a plea for prison reform, but of one thing I am convinced, and that is that the picture demonstrates that there is dire need of a reform in the punctuation of screen titles. I can not conceive how C. B. De Mille can strive so much to make pictorial appeal to people of intelligence, only to reveal in his completed pic- ture that he is ignorant of the simplest rules of presenting the English language. A picture is like a person in that the degree of its education is measured by its speech, not by its deeds. In the titles of The Godless Girl capital let- ters are used in a ridiculous and indefensible manner. Sublime heights are reached when the garbage detail as- sumes the dignity of being presented to us as Garbage Detail, thus adding importance to garbage, but lessening somewhat the importance of the picture as a serious work of art. Good, Even in Spite Of Its Terrible Name THE First Kiss is such an excellent picture that it will be successful even though it must carry the load of such a dreadful name. I was indifferent to the name until I saw the picture. Since then I have been indignant. To burden such a superb example of screen art with such a cheap and idiotic name is a cinematic crime that is aggra- vated by the fact that there is nothing in the picture to justify the title. The Last Gasp would have been as appro- priate as The First Kiss. Rowland V. Lee, who directed the picture for Paramount, has made a beautiful job of it. It is a story by Tristam Tupper, adaptation and continuity by John Farrow, jointly starring Fay Wray and Gary Cooper. Gary has three good-for-nothing brothers whom he beats into a sensibility of their obligation to the family name, and to send them through the university he becomes a river pirate, stealing enough money to see his brothers through to their degrees. Thus we have a hero who is a thief, a man who sacrifices both his good name and his great love for a girl. So feelingly does Lee tell his story that there is not a moment during the picture when the audience will lose its respect for the hero and fail to sympathize with him. Although the story is one that easily could have been made over-sentimental, Lee tells it with perfect taste, vigor and intelligence. All the exteriors were shot in Maryland, bringing to the screen some locations that are refreshingly new. There are some scenes showing the oyster fleet in action which will warm the hearts of those who love the water. There is a beau- tiful romance between Cooper and Fay Wray, a sweet love story told with so much sympathy and tenderness that at several places in its screening handkerchiefs will be in evidence among those who see it. Gary is arrested for his crimes and is found guilty. In the trial sequence the pic- ture reaches its greatest heights. Here again Lee's mas- terly direction is in evidence. He keeps the trial moving by suggestion, avoiding a fault common to trial scenes, that of slowing up the story by adhering to court procedure. It is in these scenes that Fay Wray does her best work, her performance being fully up to the standard set by her in that slumbering Von Stroheim opus, The Wedding March. In the earlier sequences the chief demand on her is to be sweet and tender, which she accomplishes with a combination of her ability as an actress and the charm of her personality. But it is Gary Cooper who carries off the acting honors of the production. Some months ago I wrote that I could not see him in robust parts, that to me he was a dreamy sort of person with a poetic side that his directors should bring out. Lee has done it. Only an impractical dreamer could turn robber and make you love him for it. On the ethics of a man resorting to stealing to maintain his reputation for keeping a promise, there may be a difference of opinion, but thanks to the sincerity of Cooper's performance, in this instance any audience will condone the crime. The other brothers are played by Lane Chandler, Leslie Fenton and Paul Fix. All of them do excellently. I always have contended that we do not have enough pictures of a manly sentimental nature. This one, coming as it does in the middle of the underworld phase in screen entertainment, will be like a perfumed Winifred Dunn Writing for First National Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 breeze making the atmosphere less odorous. When we view a picture we like to laugh, to shudder and to feel our spines grow cold, but most of all we like to feel lumps ris- ing in our throats and tears coming unbidden to our eyes. This most desired reaction is the most difficult for a direc- tor to produce, for it entails an exercise of more subtlety and delicacy than most directors possess. Rowland V. Lee possesses both. The First Kiss is a piece of screen craftsmanship of which he should be proud. But he should choke the guy who named it. * * * Chiding George Marion For Overlooking a Bet COLLEEN Moore follows Lilac Time, rich in romantic quality and big because of its war background, with Oh, Kay!, a frothy farce which is as artistic in its way as its more important predecessor. I am sure it is going to delight Colleen's friends. It delighted me, and I saw it — and chuckled all the way through it — in the severe and unrelenting atmosphere of a projection-room. A pro- jection-room always impresses me as a place one must take seriously and in which one must be coldly critical to a degree that makes laughter border on the sacrilegious, consequently when I so far forget my unsympathetic sur- roundings as to laugh in one of them, you may be sure that I am prompted to do so by something worth laughing at. There is a great deal in this gay little farce to laugh at, and nothing from the standpoint of clean entertainment to grumble about. It is by long odds the best directing job that Mervin Le Roy ever did. The youth is coming on. As is usual in all Colleen Moore's pictures. Oh, Kay! is given a sumptuous production. There is a short sequence in an English home, and although I can not conceive of any Englishman living in such a place, I must admit that the art director turned out sets of great beauty and that the cameraman caught all the beauty and transferred it to the screen in an impressive manner. The photography throughout has a rich quality that is a feature of the pro- duction. Le Roy makes the most of the production by keeping it on the screen, only occasionally sidetracking it in favor of close-ups that have no meaning. Some day I hope to see a Colleen Moore picture containing only close- ups for which there is a reason, but at the present rate of progress I am afraid it will not be for some time. Colleen's delicious and impish grin is much in evidence in this pic- ture, and altogether her performance is a delightful one, emphasizing her right to be considered one of the most talented girls on the screen. As usual she is surrounded with an excellent cast, another feature of all her produc- tions that goes a long way towards sustaining her popu- larity. Ford Sterling, always a fine performer, will be responsible for a lot of the laughs with which the picture will be received. Oh, Kay! is frankly a farce, and Sterling carries his part with farcical abandon that is irresistibly funny. Lawrence Gray, Alan Hale, Claude Gillingwater, and Julanne Johnston make large contributions to the joy of the occasion. While many of George Marion's titles are among the cleverest he ever wrote, the picture would have been still better if he had taken advantage of an oppor- tunity so obvious that I am surprised that it was not apparent to him. Colleen takes the part of the daughter of an English earl, but in most of her spoken titles she indulges in typical American wisecracks, and in none of them does she speak as an educated and aristocratic English girl would speak. In other pictures Marion has demonstrated his ability to write titles with an English flavor, and until he began to overdo it, the titles he has written for William Austin played an important part in building up that actor's popularity. In Oh, Kay! he had an opportunity to give Colleen feminine versions of the Austin titles, which would have had the double virtue of keeping her in character and adding refreshing hilarity to the production. Even a farce should be taken seriously by its makers, for it is as high art as any other class of screen entertainment. Casting Colleen as an English girl and giving her typically American titles on the ground that the whole thing is a farce anyway, is not treating the farce fairly as a work of art. One weakness of Oh, Kay I that is common to many pictures with clever titles, and which will disappear automatically when all screen dia- logue will be reproduced in sound, is the failure of the characters on the screen to react appropriately to the titles ascribed to them. In this picture Sterling makes many funny remarks to Gray, who does not register his appreciation of their humor. The fact that in Hollywood we know that the humor was added after the scenes were shot does not remedy the defect in the picture. But it is a defect that will not worry us much longer, for hereafter the George Marions will have to insert their funny cracks in the script instead of sticking them on the film. I * * * Exclamation Point and Miss Clara Bow THE Fleet's In! is Clara Bow's latest. The exclama- tion point is mine. You won't find it on the screen, but I maintain it should be there, for without it the title conveys merely an unexciting fact, but with it, there is much whoop-la! to the announcement, which is precisely what there should be, as the whole story is about what a whale of a time the girls ashore have when the fleet's in. Under the circumstances the exclamation point becomes perfectly devilish, and it is too bad that Paramount could not see it. However, no picture in which Clara Bow appears is without at least a suggestion of exclamation points, for she is a human one. There is no one on the screen quite like her. Her work is absolutely flawless. She is equally at home in light comedy and high tragedy, although half the time I don't suppose she knows what it is all about. She presents an interesting problem. Unquestionably she is going to develop into one of our most spectacular, dynamic and powerful dramatic actresses, but Paramount can not start her on her upward climb without sacrificing almost all the box-office following she has now and losing ^| money in the interval during which she will be accumulat-fl ing a new set of admirers. The Fleet's In — we will humor the producers in the matter of punctuation — ^will have a direct appeal to gum-chewers, but has considerable enter- tainment value for those who like to see young America at play, and much excellent acting and intelligent direction to intrigue those who like to look for merit in a motion picture. But when the world hails her as "the divine Clara," little Miss Bow will recall it with a shrug of her dimpled shoulders and dismiss it merely as something of, the sort she used to do. I hope Paramount soon will begi her march upward, for it is inevitable. Mai St. Clair] directed The Fleet's In and made it one of the funniest September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven things in which Clara has appeared, and he has traced through it an appealing romance that holds it together and gives her a chance to play upon our feelings until we grieve with her when she loses her sweetheart. James Hall is the sweetheart. I can't recall any performance of his that compares with that in this picture. He is con- vincing in both his light comedy passages and in the serious moments when the romance begins to jell. Another excellent characterization is that of Jack Oakie, a cheer- ful comedian whom producers should use much oftener. Bodil Rosing has a short part that she makes stand out. The production is an adequate one, the United States navy being part of it. In several sequences St. Clair was given great mobs to handle, and he displays marked ability in his manner of handling them. He gives us two free-for- all fights that are delicious. The slightness of the excuse for them adds delightful piquancy to the enthusiasm with which they are conducted. The picture is helped immensely by the titles written by George Marion, who is the out- standing wit of the industry. Elsewhere in this issue I criticize him for giving Colleen Moore titles not consistent with her role. He does not commit the same fault in The Fleet's In, for all the characters are alike and are to be expected to indulge in the same variety of humor. The picture fades out on the inevitable close-up of the star, a particularly stupid bit of editing in this instance. Clar» is standing on a float, watching her sweetheart going to sea. For a few feet the camera is carried with Hall, but just as I was beginning to enthuse over the intelligent end- ing, Clara ceases to be a disconsolate figure growing smaller in the distance, and becomes a huge thing, filling the screen and conveying no suggestion whatever of being lonely. The camera should have been carried to sea until the girl he left behind him became a dot that disappeared in the distance. There would have been feeling in such a shot. There is none in the close-up. * * * Suggesting an Effort Be Made to Cut Out Cuts ONE improvement that must come in screen technic is the elimination of unnecessary cuts. Traveling and pan shots are being used more generally and they tend to increase the rhythmic, flowing quality of pic- tures by decreasing the number of sharp cuts which would present in a jumpy way the action they show without a break. Very few directors, however, seem to concern themselves with the problem of getting away from cuts. They ignore it so completely that they give the impres- sion of purposely grouping characters in a manner that makes frequent cuts necessary. An example of this appears in Submarine, a really excellent picture which Columbia soon will release. Jack Holt and Ralph Graves are naval buddies, their love for one another being the theme of the story. They are about to be separated and Graves goes to the cabin he shares with Holt for the double purpose !of packing his duds and taking leave of his friend. Frank Capra, the director, places them on opposite sides of the large cabin, which makes it necessary to show the whole sequence in a number of quick cuts. If he Tiad placed his characters close enough together to permit both of them to be picked up in a medium shot, he would have avoided the annoying cuts and maintained the spirit of the sequence by keeping the friends close to one another. Capra's direc- tion on the whole, however, is excellent and he has given Columbia a production that will rank with Blood Ship and which is good enough to be shown in the biggest houses anywhere. The picture was made with the cooperation of the United States navy and is rich in production value. It reaches its highest dramatic point when it shows the rescue of the crew of a submarine which has been sunk in a collision with a destroyer, but its chief claim to dis- tinction is the manner in which the story is constructed. It is a story of the two men and a girl, and it takes itself seriously as a story, bringing in the navy only when it advances the narrative. While the picture derives most of its pictorial value from scenes showing naval activity, such scenes in reality serve only as a background for the human and interesting story. This is as it should be, for it is the story, not the camera, from which a picture derives its entertainment quality. The acting honors of Submarine go to Ralph Graves who, having no heroic role to live up to, gives a sincere and compelling performance of a likeable chap who unwittingly becomes involved in an affair with his friend's wife. The wife is played by Dor- othy Revier. I can't recall having seen this young woman before. While I viewed her excellent and intelligent per- formance and enjoyed her grace and beauty, I thought of the work of some of the girls whom the big producers feature, and wondered anew at the vagaries of the film business. I have only this one glimpse of her to go on, but I have no hesitation in placing her quite near the top of the list of young leading women. Jack Holt is the star of Submarine, having a role that is conventionally heroic and which he plays like a conventional hero, which is about all anyone could do under the circumstances. Clarence Burton appears as the captain of the unfortunate sub- marine. He plays his first sequences with a brusqueness and harshness foreign to the spirit of the navy, but when his ship is helpless and his crew apparently doomed, he is splendid and helps greatly to make the whole sequence an outstanding one. It is in these under-water scenes that Graves does his best work. Arthur Rankin contrib- utes a little gem of acting which I refer to elsewhere in this Spectator. When I saw Submarine it had not been whipped into its flnal shape, but unless it was mauled unwisely in its final handling it is going to be a big box- office bet. It contains one particularly clever touch. To cover a time lapse during which the damaged submarine is raised and the crew released, a gob stands on the bridge of a naval vessel and wig-wags the five letters, "save d." Somehow I fear for the safety of that shot in the final cutting. I feel that it is just a little too clever for the average motion picture mind and that some one in the studio will think it is a fool of a shot. « • * Obscuring the Romance By Heavy Expenditure OBVIOUSLY it is a waste of time and money to put on the screen scenes which the public does not under- stand when the picture containing them is shown. In Cossacks two opposing forces fight. The screen is filled with fighting — crowded to the frames with squirming masses of men who are trying to annihilate one another. The sympathy of the audience has been created for the side upon which Jack Gilbert and Ernest Torrence fight, consequently the outcome of the fray is a matter of inter- Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 est and importance. Metro went to a great deal of trouble and expense to stage it, but a blank screen would have contributed quite as much in story value. There was nothing in the battle scenes to give the slightest idea how the fight was going. You see such meaningless mass shots in many pictures. They are supposed to contribute pro- duction value. I don't believe they contribute anything to offset their great cost. The only excuse for the inclusion in a picture of a shot that has no story value is the fact that it has entertainment value of its own to the extent that it justifies the viewer in forgetting the story for the moment that he has something else to command his inter- est. There is an example of this in Cossacks. Gilbert's double and others do some extraordinary riding. The camera catches them in some hair-raising stunts, and the shots are carried in the picture for much greater footage than can be excused on the score of story necessity, but they in themselves are so entertaining and so well within the atmosphere of the production that a whole reel of them would not have tired my patience. The battle sequences, on the other hand, being jumbled messes that meant nothing, succeeded only in boring me. They rep- resent something that is too prevalent in the Metro out- put— pure picture mechanics that lack imagination and reason. Cossacks shows us so many feet of meaningless turmoil, followed by a close-up of a selected bit of mean- ingless turmoil, and then it does the whole thing over again half a dozen times during which the story comes to a standstill. The weakness of the picture lies in the fact that the romance is overwhelmed by the atmosphere. Long after it should have settled down to the serious business of telling the story briskly and without interruptions, it PAUL PEREZ . . . has completed titling "The Floating CoUege" for Tiffany-Stahl. He has been engaged by John M. Stahl to title his sev- enth consecutive Tiflfany- Stahl feature "THE GUN RUNNER!" Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & Englander keeps on presenting atmospheric shots of pictorial value, but which do nothing to forward the romance. This pro- pensity for overdoing a thing that the studio evidently thought had merit, is in evidence again in the torture scenes which are carried beyond the saturation point. I can not see that anything is gained by harrowing the feel- ings of an audience beyond what is necessary in telling the story. The fact that Gilbert and Torrence enact the torture scenes with a realism that does credit to them as actors, is no excuse for prolonging them until they harrow the feelings of the audience. A shot upon which the tech- nical department of Metro is to be complimented shows a cliff apparently falling on a troop of horsemen, but much of its effectiveness is lost by reason of the fact that while it looks as if the gigantic rocks crush the riders, they con- tinue their journey as if nothing had happened. Perhaps my attention was wandering, which would account for the fact that I did not know if the imperilled horsemen were friends or foes and whether I should be glad or sorry if they escaped. Cossacks would have been a much better picture if it had cost half as much to make. George Hill, the director, was given too much money to spend. He tried to crowd all of it on the screen with the result that the romance had difficulty in maintaining its presence. The performances of both Gilbert and Torrence are what wo could expect from such excellent actors. Renee Adoree, whom I don't see often enough, is splendid, as she always manages to be. She proved herself such a good runner in Big Parade that Metro has her duplicate her athletic feat in Cossacks, this time substituting a horse for a truck as her running mate. Nils Asther and Paul Hurst also con- tribute excellent performances. fB * * • iy >rISS Myriam Sieve, who writes a nice letter on the ■*■'■'■ stationery of Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., informed me that Carl Van Vechten's latest and gayest novel. Spider Boy, was on the way to me, and she went on to say that she hoped I would agree with the others who had read it and who declared it to be Van Vechten's best to date. The book is about Hollywood, Miss Sieve informed me further. Well, Spider Boy arrived and I settled down to a gay evening with it. I was willing to give Miss Sieve the best of it in the way of anticipation, even though she addressed her letter to "Weefer" Beaton, which, I main- tain, is a truly dreadful name. I read along through some smooth reading until I came to where the conversation began, and there I made the interesting discovery that Mr. Van Vechten is a lunatic. He does not use quotation marks. I don't know where the book is now, consequently I can not quote from it, but this is a sample of the stuff that the fool of an author asks me to grasp in a glance: Yes. She raised her eyes. If you think it wise, and the dinner gong sounding, they rose. Let us go in. (Stop.) No author thus far in the history of literature has made himself great by making his stuff as hard as possible to read. For the convenience of the reader punctuation marks were invented and sane writers use them. Van Vechten no doubt feels that he is such a genius that we will follow him breathlessly no matter how hard he makes the going. I stopped reading where I first discovered his tremendous confidence in himself, and turned to the last couple of pages. The hero, it seems, married someone. She is telling him that she is going to take him to New York, where she wishes to introduce him to a lot of » September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen famous people. The author names the famous people. Among the names is that of Carl Van Vechten. That con- firmed my first opinion that the author of Spider Boy is an egotistical ass. I don't know anything about the story. Read it if you like. I don't care. — Weefer. * * * T^HAT the best always is the cheapest is one of the -*• little economic truths that the film industry appar- ently never will learn. An experienced actor whose salary has been established for a considerable time at five hun- dred dollars a week, was called to a studio a month or so ago. After a lot of bargaining he consented to take a part for four hundred a week, and would not go below that figure. He was the actor whom the director wanted, but finally a man who would work for one hundred and fifty dollars a week was engaged. Even a comedy con- structor can figure out that the supervisor, who did the bargaining, saved two hundred and fifty dollars a week to the production, the difference between the cost of the man the director wanted and the one he got. One of the missions of a supervisor is to save money, and this one performed that mission. The company went on location. Because the director found it almost impossible to get the one-fifty-a-week man to enact his scenes in a manner that would not make the whole picture ridiculous, the company was on location two days longer than the schedule called for. Nearly all of one of these days was spent in trying to get the actor to look as if he were crying. The over- head was around three thousand dollars a day. The super- visor saved his two-fifty a week all right, but his company lost six thousand on the location trip and a few thousand more when the interiors were being shot at the studio. The original actor would have gone through his scenes promptly and saved the company several thousands of dollars, but so weirdly is the business conducted that I have no doubt the supervisor is being congratulated by his boss upon his success in not allowing an actor to hold him up. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH .---..-.--■.-~::^:^ By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic .---------.- -~— >» WARNER Brothers is making no attempt to rest on its laurels. The Terror, their latest all sound picture, makes Lights of New York look like an amateur attempt. The picture is more pretentious than the first all sound feature, and the Vitaphone itself is very much improved. The dialogue in Lights was good, but it didn't have the advantage of being so carefully planned as that of The Terror. However, both pictures had in common the ability to tell the whole story very entertainingly. Sound is the natural way for pictures to be made; because after about a reel, one forgets that he is seeing anything un- usual. Silent pictures are the ones that are out of place. However, that has nothing to do with The Terror. The mystery which is the main theme is clearly worked out and no one is likely to guess tne real man. One silly thing is perpetrated, however. The house in which the action takes place is situated in a lonely spot, the night is dark and rainy, yet Eddie Horton appears on the scene in a golf suit and says that he has been playing golf. No one appears to suspect him, but none but an idiot would try to solve a mystery in a disguise which was obviously false. The musical score which accompanied The Terror was highly useful whenever there were incidental noises to be covered up. Those who experiment with sound are going to find that music is far better than every little unimportant noise. It increases the drama of the scenes remarkably. Roy Del Ruth gave the whole thing intelli- gent direction. Edward Everett Horton has the principal part in the picture; and strange to relate, I never realized before how perfect his voice was until I heard it on the Vitaphone. His performance was brilliant, although he was given a characterization which was impossible at first. May McAvoy, who had the feminine lead, did very good work. She has developed a very good voice — not to mention a most soul-rending scream. Louise Fazenda, although she has never had any stage training, has a voice which seems very well trained. Of course, her act- ing was splendid. Alec Francis again scores heavily. John Miljan and Holmes Herbert contribute interesting char- acterizations, and Matthew Betz was good. The man who played the butler was clever, but I didn't get his name. reels which motion picture traditions seem to demand. It had five reels of story and five reels of picture were put upon the screen. Practically any fault may be for- given a picture when those back of it are intelligent enough to know when to stop. It was a long time getting under way and several of the opening scenes were rather vague as to what they were trying to put over. The more I think about it, the more I realize that Scott Dunlap, who directed Midnight Life, deserves a great deal of credit for doing as well as he did with the slender story given him. There was scarcely anything to it. The cas- ualness with which the underworld and the police accept crime and murder was so elaborate in some places that the person viewing the picture can not sense the drama in it. The detective, who was the main character, rounded up a whole gang of murderers and thieves which had com- pletely baffled the whole force before. He caught them red handed at murder; but failed, so far as I could see, to pin any robberies on them. The picture didn't seem complete in some places. The "man higher up" in the out- law ring threatened to "break" the detective. Coming from a man as powerful as he was supposed to be, the threat would have meant something. Yet nothing was shown to have happened. Those were the places where the picture could have stood padding. Francis X. Bushman was the detective. Except for an obtrusive and omnipresent toothpick, his characteriza- tion was perfect. Just as Bushman's superb acting was beginning to register, the toothpick would waggle coquet- tishly from the corner of his mouth and take all the atten- tion unto itself. Nevertheless he did wonderful work. There are parts here in Hollywood which are made to order for him, yet they are given to inferior actors. Sound will put Bushman back among the top notchers where he belongs, as he has a splendidly trained voice. It is unique in that it suits him perfectly, something that not many of our screen actors can claim, as we have learned to our sorrow since the advent of talking pictures. Gertrude Olmstead is the only other member of the cast I can recall. Her work was quite satisfactory. CRIME and underworld are beginning to be drugs on the market; so Midnight Life, which was pretty good as that type of story goes, wasn't as interesting as it might have been. However, it was pretty well done, and whoever made it had the sense not to make it the seven ALTHOUGH there were times when the story was rather disjointed and the action dragged. Four Walls, directed by William Nigh, was pretty good enter- tainment. Nigh used a lot of close-ups in the wrong places. They were responsible for the faults of the picture to a certain degree. There is a scene where Joan Crawford Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 tries to keep John Gilbert from entering a gang fight. The action is violent since she was forced to keep him away from the doors. The scene is shot in close-ups; so that all the dramatic value of the violence is lost, be- cause nothing but two shaking heads is shown. It merely looks as if Jack and Joan had St Vitus' dance, a condition which makes them interesting, but not romantic. The impression of Four Walls which is most vivid to me is that it lacked coherence. There were so many unrelated incidents that there were times when I wasn't quite sure just what the picture was trying to put over. Gilbert, who was starred in Four Walls, gave his us- ual good performance. Joan Crawford again demonstrates her ability for dramatic roles. Louis Natheaux, Carmel Myers, and Vera Gordon all contributed excellent work to a strong cast. for comedy. I hope this picture will help him get the breaks he deserves. Earle Foxe did his best with a rather poor part. UNLESS Western pictures are produced with a little more intelligence, they are going to be hopeless as screen entertainment. They are produced for chil- dren, and the children are gradually growing farther and farther away from the Wild West. Their ideas of adven- ture are turning toward other things. Non-stop flights now interest them more than the non-stop six-guns of the average screen cowboy. As a matter of fact, under- world pictures, no matter how poor, are far more ex- citing than the Westerns. They are set in the elements children understand. The average child probably never saw a lot of horsemen in the flesh chasing hither and yon, but he can understand an automobile speeding through city streets while the passengers exchange shots with the pursuing policemen. I suppose there are older people who enjoy Westerns, but there is something wrong with them anyway. Whoever was responsible for Tim McCoy's Riders of the Dark certainly had peculiar ideas. W. S. Van Dyke wrote the story and Nick Grinde directed it. I don't know what came over Van Dyke, whose work in White Shadows in the South Seas revealed that he had unusually sane screen ideas. I strongly suspect that it was something he wrote only under pressure. No one could deliberately turn out such trash. As a matter of fact, the picture looked as if no one was quite sure just what it was all about. Most of the more dramatic scenes brought forth the heartiest laughter I have heard and indulged in since the Gold Rush. THERE Is no doubt but that David Butler is a good comedy director. The way he made the frail story of The News Parade interesting deserves great praise. The picture had marvelous production, as it was shot al« most entirely at various luxurious resorts. Using that atmosphere also helped out the story. Even trivial action was amusing against that background. One gag in The News Parade should win a gold medal or something. The newsreel man props up his victim who can't skate, on the ice and tries to take his picture. The result is very amusing. Nick Stuart has the lead in this picture, a circumstance which did it a great deal of good. Nick has a fine screen personality and an unusually happy flair GEORGE CCARBOROUGH CONSUUTING DRAMATIST STAGE AND SCREEN GRANITE I870 THE Baby Cyclone, now playing at El Capitan, is one of the most amusing little comedies Henry Duffy has put on. The action centers around a Pekingese, which, by the way, has a most definite personality, and later in the play two more dogs are produced. They all have an air of world-weary cynicism which is very effect- ive. Their appearance is a very clever bit of play construct- ion, because the countenance of a Pekingese is sufficient to arouse laughter. However, the whole thing reveals clever work and is most amusing. Harrison Ford, Natalie Nor- wood, Isabel Withers, and a man named Prudhomme, whose first name I forget, were highly satisfactory. By all means see The Baby Cyclone! Reviewed in this Number COSSACKS, THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by George Hill; from the story by Lyof N. Tolstoi; adaptation and continuity by Frances Marion; titles by John Colton; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Alexander Toluboff; wardrobe by David Cox; technical advisor, General Theodore Lodi; photographed by Percy Hil- burn; film editor Blanche Sewell. The cast: John Gilbert, Renee Adoree, Ernest Tor- rence. Nils Asther, Paul Hurst, Dale Fuller, Mary Alden. FIRST KISS, THE— A Paramount picture. Directed by Rowland V. Lee; from the story Four Brothers by Tristam Tupper; adaptation and continuity by John Farrow; photo- graphed by Alfred Gilks; assistant director, Dan Keefe. The cast: Fay Wray, Gary Cooper, Lane Chandler, Leslie Fenton, Paul Fix. FLEET'S IN, THE— A Paramount picture. Directed by Malcolm St. Clair; supervised by B. F. Zeldman; story and screen play by Monte Brice and J. Walter Ruben; photographed by Harry Fischbeck; assistant director, Paul Jones. The cast: Clara Bow, James Hall, Jack Oakie, Bodil Rosing. FOUR WALLS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Wil- liam Nigh; based on the play by Dana Burnet and George Abbott; continuity by Alice G. D. Miller; titles JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS GLadstone 5017 i I. TITLES — DIALOGUE — EDITING ALFRED HUSTWICK Formerly Supervising Title and Film Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 Notv Freelancing Management of Lichtig and Englander September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen by Joe Farnham; settings by Cedric Gibbons; ward- robe by David Cox; photographed by James Howe; film editor Harry Reynolds. The cast: John Gilbert, Joan Crawford, Vera Gor- don, Carmel Myers, Robert E. O'Connor, Louis Nath- eaux, Jack Byron. GODLESS GIRL, THE— A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by Cecil B. De Mille; story and continuity by Jeanie Macpherson; second assistant. Curt Rayfeldt; chief photographer, Peverell Marley; assisted by J. F. Westerberg and Franklin McBride; art director, James Mitchell Lei- sen; properties by Roy Burns; film editor, Anne Bau- chens; titles by Beulah Marie Dix and Jeanie Mac- pherson; costumes by Adrian; technical engineer, Paul G. Sprunck; research, Elizabeth McGaffey; as- sistant director, Frank Urson. The cast: Lina Basquette, Marie Prevost, George Duryea, Noah Beery, Eddie Quillan, Mary Jane Ir- ving, Clarence Burton, Dick Alexander, Kate Price, Hedwig Reicher, Julia Faye, Viola Louie, Emily Barrye. MIDNIGHT LIFE— A Gotham picture. Directed by Scott Dunlap; pro- duced by Sam Sax; supervisor, Harold Shumate; as- sistant director, Eli Dunn; cameraman, Ray June A. S. C; screen play by Scott Dunlap and Harold Shumate; titles by Delos Sutherland; production man- ager, Don Diggins; editor, Ray Snyder. The cast: Francis X. Bushman, Gertrude Olmstead, Cosmo Kyrle Bellew, Eddie Buzzell, Monte Carter. NEWS PARADE, THE— A William Fox picture. Directed by David Butler; from the story by William Conselman and David Butler; scenario by Burnett Hershey; cameraman, Sid Wagner; titles by Malcolm Stuart Boylan; assist- ant director. Ad Schumer. The cast: Nick Stuart, Sally Phipps, Brandon Hurst, Cyril Ring, Earle Fox, Franklin Underwood, Truman H. Talley. OH KAY— A First National picture. Directed by Mervyn Le Roy; adaptation by Elsie Janis; from the musical com- edy of the same name by Guy Bolton and P. G. Wode- house; scenario by Carey Wilson; photogrraphed by Syd Hickox; titles by George Marion, Jr.; art director, Horace Jackson; film editor, Paul Weatherwax. The cast: Colleen Moore, Lawrence Gray, Alan Hale, Ford Sterling, Claude Gillingwater, Julanne Johnston. RIDERS OF THE DARK— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Nick Grinde; story and continuity by W. S. Van Dyke; Titles by Madeline Ruthven; wardrobe by Lucia Coul- ter; photographed by George Nogle; film editor, Dan Sharits. The cast: Tim McCoy, Dorothy Dwan, Rex Lease, Roy D'Arcy, Frank Currier, Bert Roach, Dick South- erland. SUBMARINE— A Columbia picture. Directed by Frank Capra; from the story by Norman Springer; adaptation by Win- CAN CAN (title registered and protected) is my original story of Parisian love and intrigue. She was born in the shadow of the Moulin Rouge, where her mother was a dancer, so they nicknamed her "Can Can". The name part will fit one of the younger screen stars. Any showman will recognize in "Can Can" a sure-fire box-office title. Offers from photoplay producers invited. JAMES MADISON (Scenarios — Gags — Titles — Talk) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 if red Dunn; scenario by Dorothy Howell; photo- graphed by Joe Walker; art director, Harrison Wiley; assistant director, Buddy Coleman. The cast: Jack Holt, Ralph Graves, Dorothy Re- vier, Clarence Burton, Arthur Rankin. TERROR, THE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Roy del Ruth; from the stage play by Edgar Wallace; scenario by Harvey Gates; dialogue by Joseph Jackson and Fran- cis Powers; titles by Joseph Jackson. The cast: May McAvoy, Louise Fazenda, Edward Everett Horton, Alec B. Francis, Holmes Herbert, Mathew Betz, John Miljan, Otto Hoffman, Joseph Girard, Frank Austin. MUSIC AND PICTURES Dear Welford: Our translation from the wilds of Hollywood to the Middle West, has effected many changes, but it most cer- tainly has not dimned our appreciation of "The Spectator." In particular have we been interested in your attitude toward the Vitaphone and its tremendous contribution to the advancement of motion pictures. I wonder if the phase of the simultaneous advancement in the "incidental music" to feature pictures has impressed you as much as it has impressed me. No longer must one anticipate with horror the usual "musical accompaniment" to an excellent picture that one has come to expect in a small theatre. No more must the incidental music consist of certain selections from "Organ Solos for Every Occas- ion", or "Favorite Selections for the Piano." The small theatre musical director, be it said in his defense, with his limited musical background, can not be expected to possess the vast fund of musical knowledge that the director of the large urban theatre commands. But with the advent of the Vitaphone, and the Sym- phonic accompaniment, prepared by musicians of the highest attainments, the musical education of the movie going public can not but be vastly and painlessly aug- mented. The musical score of The Jazz Singer was a joyous revelation to music lovers, who might recognize through- out the picture, woven almost imperceptibly in with the "Kol Nidrei" — that tragic Hebrew lament — the seldom- Motion Picture Aeronautics LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 1, 1928 heard and indescribably lovely theme from the second movement of Lalo's "Symphonic Espagnole". And again and again, in the same picture, we find the wistful beauty of Tschaikowski's "Romeo and Juliet" Overture recur- ring. How much more effective to employ great love motifs rather than the sentimental ballad themes to enhance the beauty of great love sequences! But it is not always the small theatre which may be accused of musical errors in judgment. Only last week I visited the most popular picture theatre in this city, where Greta Garbo's The Mysterious Lady was being presented. In the sequence where she returns from the opera "Tosca" with the young officer, they are both singularly affected by the poignant beauty of the scene in Act II of the opera. In this episode the desperate Floria Tosca, frenzied by her inability to awaken pity in the heart of the ruthless Scaypia, invokes heaven to witness her anguish in that poignant aria "Vissi d'Arte." Allusion is made throughout the development of the story to this celebrated aria, and each time, the moving picture orchestra would swing blithely into the love music of the duet in Act I. Even when la Garbo turns to the young musician and says she will sing Tosca's aria, once again the orchestra conscientiously (?) picks up the cue with the duet passage, — music that is exquisite, but en- tirely unlike the heart-broken desperation of that later theme. It was therefore entirely unsuited to the concep- tion of the scenarist who anticipates in that fateful music something of the desolation in store for his own heroine. To anyone who knows the score of "Tosca" — and a vast number of theatre-goers do— it is as absurd to play the love-motif where the famous aria is indicated as it would be to play "At Dawning" for an Execution sequence! Had the picture had a Vitaphone accompaniment, we should have heard not only appropriate music but authen- tic atmospheric background. It would be interesting to read what you, as an unquestioned authority, would have to say about this in "The Spectator", and of the possi- bility of opera a la Vitaphone. Kansas City, Missouri. MONA MODINI-WOOD PEARSON. LONG ODDS (Across the Border, Tia Juana, Mexico) By JAMES BRANT My dear Beaton: Here's to your good health and future prosperity. Let 'er trickle, it's been a dry season. Ah-h-h-h! One down. When the sky's the limit, why be a piker? Once more. Here's to your eternal fame and ten million circulation. Two down, and isn't it a lovely world? Well, that'll be all for right now. Tia Juana, a foreign oasis for native thirst. Drinks and drunks. Lust and disease. Depravity and suffering. Sorrow and death. Niggers, Chinks, Jews, Japs, Whites, half-breeds up against the bar. Men and women, young and old. Sober, feeling good and half-drunk. Hogs to the trough. Dance girls and cheap music. Sickening sensuality. The little ball rolling on the wheel that's black and red, the light fall of cards, the smooth roll of dice. The inton- Howard Bretherton Director In Production "THE REDEEMING SIN" starring Dolores Costello A Vitaphone Feature ing of the bookmakers, the click of the mutuels. The pounding of hoofs in the stretch, the screaming yell of the finish. The feverish greed and passion of something for nothing. Tia Juana! Legalized robbery and white girls for sale. Aunt Jane, the Landlady of the Brothel. Hell and humanity. Tia Juana! The silent drama of the screen offers to dive-keeping mentalities an opportunity not afforded by the spoken drama of the stage. They exhibit in theatres of the first class picture plays with scenes and stories that would be barred from the same theatres if enacted by principals in person in a spoken play. In the secrecy of the studio the dance-hall, dive-keeping variety of producer films plays WESLEY RUGGLES' Ne xt Picture is "Torh^ of HDreams'' T O REED "'CLOSE-UP' is by far the finest, most artistic publica- tion that I have had the pleasure of reading." — William A. Wellman. — which opinion is now concurred in by Paul Leni, Lubitsch, Murnau, Henry King, George W. Hill, A. Korda, Paul Fejos, and many others who are subscribers to this International Monthly Magazine on the Progress of Films in all the Studios of the World Annual Subscription $3.50 Single Copies 35c Send all subscriptions to FILM ARTS GUILD Symon Gould, Director 500 Fifth Avenue New York September 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen to gratify and satisfy a low desire of degenerate greed and lust. They are exhibited, some of them, in theatres of class because the eye of the general public is unable to see beyond the end of its nose. They belong across the border, such producers and such plays. They have no place in a country that is pleased to boast of its civilization. A dive-keeping lump of scum whose highest and only sense of art is the licentious por- trayal of body and sex belongs in a dive outside the bound- ary lines of a country with a citizenship that calls itself educated. Scum has no place in education nor would there be scum with a truly educated and alert public. The mightiest nation in the world gone mad with money power. A nation so lax in its regard for the future that it permits scum, greed and ignorance to decide the quality of a fine art and to dictate the policy of a great educa- tional force. A travesty on enlightenment. The women in motion pictures are entitled to some consideration. Just why, in order to hold her job and make a living, should a woman be coerced into an act or a por- trayal that will hold her up to scorn and contempt and smear her with an unsavory reputation? What women wear and what they do not wear is their own business. They can wear short skirts above the knees or long skirts sweeping the ground or they can throw the cumbersome things away and wear breeches. It is their own affair, although men, from the beginning of time, including bishops, and cardinals, particularly so, have been rather dictatorial about what women should wear and what they should not wear, not that it is any of their damn business, but just because. The because can be very easily defined, but will be passed this time. Women can bathe in wine, vinegar, milk or water and it is still their own business, and they can bathe in private or in public without the least semblance of immoral wrong, except that in the present state of American so-called civilization a lady bathing in public would start a riot, which would be very undesirable. There is a difference when a woman, a slip of a girl, a maiden, is induced by the bribe of gold in hand or future wages to bathe in public or in private merely to satisfy money greed or gratify the lusting morbidness of degen- eracy. When that type of bribe-giver can slip through with only a slight punishment on the technical charge of perjury, because, forsooth, he made the mistake to lie about it, and no action taken for the insult to girlhood, it is an indictment against the manhood of legislators, prose- cutors and jurists of an utter indifference to and disregard of the decency of girlhood and the dignity of womanhood, and their conviction of an attitude of "Oh, well, it was only a woman", a sneering slur at the womanhood, wife- hood and motherhood of the nation. "Only a woman." Good God! A legitimate commission to a legitimate broker is fair enough and generally good business. What can be said of a salaried employment agent who sticks up women for a piece of change to give them a job when they need every cent they can get for a livelihood, sometimes a bare living ? An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard It would be extreme forbearance and a sweet charity to brand such an animal with the stigma of a street-walker's pimp. It is one hell of a note when white men and white women in their country can not get an outlet for their product or their profession, or both, except through the medium of scum, native or foreign, foreign either in race or in thought, ideals, principles and practices, either, any or all. THE TALKING PICTURE By GROVER JONES IT is the purpose of this article to acquaint you with the mysteries of the talking picture. I will begin by stat- ing that I have been vsrriting talkies for thirteen years which is probably the reason why I make less money than a non-union plumber. The requisites for writing a silent drama are few — a sharp pencil, plenty of stamps and at least ten sheets of paper. The paper should be of heavy texture so that one may write upon both sides. Yes, indeedy! The talky requires only a sharp pencil and a small Edward Everett Horton In "c/4rm5 and thecfMiari^ By George Bernard Shaw VINE ST. THEATRE ?"'• H°i'^^™°d ^"^ Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Sunset Boulevards Mats. Thursday and Saturday, ."iOc to $1.00. Eve., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing \ \ nightly in Peacock Court J GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 drawing outfit, consisting of T square, art gum and not less than two dozen thumb tacks. The simplicity of the new art will amaze you. Let us compare the construction of the word play and the dumb drama : The silent opera. A sequence taken from The Life of Ludwig Halspeffel: Scene 19 A SHADY GLEN. Fade in on full shot of Ludwig Halspeffel and his sweetheart seated on a fallen tree. Lud- wig is holding the girl's hands tightly. He gazes passion- ately into her lambent orbs. Exclaims: Subtitle No. 394 .. . "I love you, Louise " The girl frees her hands. A momentary flash of pleas- ure, then fear. She sobs: Subtitle No. 395 .. . "You mustn't say that! You mustn't say that!" Again he grasps her dainty hands. Breathes heavily: Subtitle No. 396 .. . "I will say that! I love you!" She shakes her head dumbly. A tear courses down her Subtitle No. 397 .. . "Please, don't! — Please!" He crushes her to him. Pants into her shell-like ear: Subtitle No. 398 .. . "I love you! I love you! I love you!" A man appears from the woods and takes his place behind them. He has hay fever and is wearing a Pillsbury flour cap with the bill turned up. Breaks the love scene with a raucous laugh. Says: Subtitle No. 399 .. . "That's the chorus of a song, ain't it?" Ludwig jumps to his feet. Grates angrily: Subtitle No. 400 .. . "No it isn't, you !" The man's eyes glint evilly. Snarls: Subtitle No. 401 . . . "Say that again, stranger, an' I'll turn my pet wolf loose!" Ludwig faces him, unafraid. Subtitle No. 402 .. . "You !" (Note — This is repeated in Scene 22, Subtitle No. 915.) A wolf comes bounding out of the woods. It fastens its fangs in Ludwig's right leg. The latter's eyes widen — then he laughs: Subtitle No. 403 . . . "My, what large teeth you have, grandpa!" The wolf bares its fangs— and takes another bite. Now for the talky! The construction would be exactly the same except for this one improvement: The wolf bares its fangs, but before it takes the second bite it looks up at Ludwig and says: "How about your own teeth? And, further- % George Fitzmaurice First National Production With COLLEEN MOORE and GARY COOPER Carthay Circle Theatre TIME ^^''^ 2:15-8:30 Carli Ellinor's Orchestra No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine Oi^Roe^ more, I've always been referred to as grandma!" — End of First Lesson — Next week I will endeavor to show how the letter "K" can be pronounced in present participles. Until then, children, adios! Order The Spectator mailed to you regularly. Telephone GLadstone 5506 >5^^^KSf-***=V' < GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J/f 'JAousand Gifts of Visfinetion ' e326 HVLL'/WW-BLVP'- Hyuyv/WP-wuF' Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops" — Just West of Vine > e;v««*'XK^*»*r,/b < Trinters of THE FILM SPECTATOR and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 I U\[grman^s c^rt 5hop I The Home of Harmonic Framing i Paintings Restored and Refinished I 6653 Hollywood Boulevard ) VISITORS WELCOME .^ lit El I bn tr V» si''' The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 September 15, 1928 >-■■■■■ -■ THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen JEAN HERSHOLT T »- AL COHN B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management >4 t.. ^ *— GEORGE SIDNEY says: "Now that I am able to sit up again, I think I'd better pay some attention to this ad, for which Welford makes me pay every month." Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing for WARNER BROTHERS TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR September 15, 1928 If You're Qoing to I Held'Up You^ll Have to Hurry! The forms for the Hold-Up Number of The Spectator — its first issue as a weekly — ^will close on September 30. Several score of our friends have told us to see them before we go to press. Announcing the Hold-Up Number took about aU our nerve. We haven't enough left to strengthen us sufficiently to undertake a personal campaign. We don't want to sacrifice our remaining shred of decency by taking to the highways with a mask and a black-jack. Please spare our feelings by sending along your checks and the copy for your advertisements. Rates one hundred dollars a page. Decide for yourself what fraction of that amount you wish to spend. A phone message will do. We'll mail you a bill. THE FILM SPECTATOR 411 Palmer Building, 6362 Hollywood Boulevard "^ Phone GLadstone 5506 Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Other Saturday Vol. 6 Hollywood, California, September 29, 1928 No. 3 «>]iiniJMniiainnniiiiK]niininiiiaHiiHiiiuiaiiiniiniiiannHiiiniC]HniiiiMiiDiinMinriiniiiniiin»DiiiiiiHnii»itMiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiininiiniiiiHuniiiuiiiiinc]iiiiin Mr - * -• Problem of Sound Is Judicious Use of Silence Hollywood Should Cease Entertaining Its Knockers Some Little Things Are Big Things in Pictures Stars Should Be More Sensible About Close-Ups RIVER PIRATE TO-MORROW SCARLET LADY MATING CALL MYSTERIOUS LADY GODLESS GIRL SINNERS IN LOVE UNCLE TOM'S CABIN FORBIDDEN HOURS DOCKS OF NEW YORK Next issue of Spectator will be its first as a weekly m OutiiimmiiiiDiiiiuiimiuuiuiiiiiiiuaiiiniiiuuiuiiniiuiKiiiiniiiiiiiDiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiiiiuiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiii[]uiiiiiiiiii[}iiiiiiiiiiiiC]iiuiuuuiuiiiHiiiii»[]iiuiiiiiHiuii» Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 L«3 4:£ Beauty, appealing to both eye and ear Model Nine-sixteen. Victor Electrola Radiola. Completely electric — both record-music and radio. Uses the new Ra- diola 18 with built-in speaker. $750.00 Not only a wonderful musical instrument, but an excellent piece of furniture . . . typical of the splendid new Victor models which we are anxious to show you. Come in! EHJBOIDUEM ^nLiLJdr][c C€>i3flnP!^im"Y 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 fMWM9lfMMMJfMMW^M.^9M^.WMWMMWMMM^MM!fJ^M9W.WWM September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY OTHER SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 411 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price. $5.00 per year; foreign, $6.00. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Btirke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, SEPT. 29, 1928 The Hold-Up Number Comes Next! THIS is the last issue of The Film Spectator as a bi- weekly. Two weeks from to-day it will make its bow as a weekly. There won't be any physical change. It will look the same, the only difference being that it will come to you oftener. The Weekly is to be born in iniquity. Its first issue will be the Hold-Up Number. It will be filled with the advertisements of people who will derive no benefit what- ever from the advertising, and no consideration of ethics will interfere in the slightest way with our enjoyment of the proceeds of our looting exploit. What should prove to be a popular feature of the Weekly will be a department conducted by K. C. B. He will discuss anything he wants to — perhaps even pictures, about which he confesses he knows nothing whatever. As we wish to make our clean-up as thorough as pos- sible we have advanced the deadline for the Hold-Up Number to the night of Friday, October fifth. And that is the deadline. Anything received up to that time can get in. Anything that dribbles in after that will appear in the succeeding number. Until October first the subscription price remains at five dollars a year; after that it will be seven and one-half dollars. Before the price advances, you may renew for as many years as you like at the old rate. * * * Must Not Eliminate Silence Altogether ASK an expert what is the secret of successful news- paper or periodical advertising and he will tell you that it is the judicious use of white space. An advertisement crowded with type will not attract as much attention as one which has its type matter well set off with a generous quantity of blank space. There is an analogy between effective advertising and the applica- tion of sound to pictures. Sound is going to derive its grreatest value from the judicious use of silence. Pictures in which sound is spaced properly with silence will be those which will express most effectively the new art. My disposition has not been to criticize any sound pic- ture that I yet have seen. We do not criticize a baby's stride when it first stands erect and walks. We applaud the effort for the progress it sigrnifies and the promise it gives. I am interested in the pictures I have seen already because they prove that sound has come to stay, and that ends my interest in them. Of greater interest is the trend of thought as indicated by the discussions that I hear in studios. From what I can gather, it seems to be the prevailing idea that advantage should be taken of every possible opportunity to introduce sound. Within a year we will get entirely away from that idea. Unneces- sary noises never will be popular on or off the screen. It may be all right now to give a wheelbarrow a close-up to allow the audience to hear it creak, but after the fact that creaks can be recorded has been established, we will keep our wheelbarrows in long shots for the sole purpose of not annoying the audience with the discordant noises that are incidental to their locomotion. To-day it is our disposition to move the camera close to a rooster to give volume to his crow; to-morrow the crow will come to us from the deep background, a muffled message that will emphasize the quiet of a rural scene rather than disturb it. The producer who is going to get farthest soonest with his sound pictures, is the one who devotes himself from the outset to the task of eliminating as much sound as possible from his pictures. His success will be hastened by those who are striving so earnestly now to make their pictures as noisy as possible. The first silencer that can be applied is the elimination of unnecessary dialogue. Last week a producer asked me to read his first sound script. In it A, in an incisive and determined speech, threatens to kill B forthwith if B does not agree to leave town at once and never see A's daughter again. B is in the right. He makes a long and well-written speech in which he defies A, whom he accuses of not having nerve enough to shoot. The encounter takes place in B's apartment. The whole script is talky. Apply to this sequence the rule that the first consideration should be to eliminate all unnecessary sound and we find the problem an easy one. Also we are presented with a splendid opportunity for the effective use of silence. Let us do it this way: While A is making his threatening speech, B is filling his pipe; when A concludes, B does not speak, but lights his pipe slowly, looking over the match into A's eyes. B meticu- lously places the burned match in an ash tray, rises, goes to the door, opens it, indicates it to A with a bow of dismissal and with or without a few spoken words. In this treatment, B's silence says everything that is written into the script scene; it breathes defiance, his contempt of his adversary and his rejection of A's terms. Coming as a silent moment in an exceptionally chattering film it would add immeasurably to the dramatic value of the scene. This is a typical example of what can be done with silence to add effectiveness to sound. We can stand less talking on the screen than we can on the stage because with the camera we can bring the characters closer and let them continue the story with the expressions of their faces or the subtle movements of their bodies. The in- dustry may be sure that its sound pictures are what the public wants, but it should not make the mistake of think- ing that the public wants noisy pictures. Page Four We Should Be More Careful In Picking Out Our Guests BECAUSE Carl van Vechten is an eccentric ass who scorns the use of quotation marks, I did not read his Spider Boy, as I explained in the last Spectator. I refuse to follow any author who makes it as hard as possible for me to read his stuff. Apparently Louella Par- sons has no such inhibition. A few weeks ago she com- plained in her column that the book did not give a true picture of Hollywood, and that the author had been un- gracious in his treatment of a community that had been gracious in its treatment of him. Mrs. Parsons intimates that it is time something was done about these writers who come out here, accept our hospitality, and then laugh at us in their pages. I agree with her. We might start by ceasing to fawn on every author who comes within our borders. When a Van Vechten arrives we strive to out-do one another in throwing open our doors to him, and so enthusiastically do we pounce upon him that he gets the impression that we are a lot of brainless hero-worshippers. And that is exactly what we are. The mass mind of Hollywood is sycophantic, and has a strong tendency to- wards publicity madness. While a Van Vechten is with us we reveal to him only our most unprepossessing side, and he has neither wit enough to dig through the surface until he finds our pay-dirt, nor grace enough to treat in- dulgently what he finds on top. Of course, until he has proven that he does not regard our hospitality as an obli- gation upon him to be decent, we can be criticized only on the fervor of our treatment of him and not on the fact. It is when he comes again that we show ourselves at our lowest level. (I do not know of my own knowledge that Spider Boy is a libel on Hollywood, but will accept Mrs. Parsons' intimation that it is. If it is not, substitute for Van Vechten's name the name of any other of scores of writers who have come out here, broken bread with us and returned home to tell the world what hopeless asses we are.) When he comes again we will fawn upon him a little more obsequiously than we did the first time, whereas if we had any community spirit we would tell him that we did not want any scavengers snooping around our social kitchens, and we would let him dine alone and learn further facts about us from waiters. Draw a circle around the picture colony and you will find more brains and culture within it than is brought here during an entire year by those who step across it. It is time we were feeling our oats and developing a disposition to tell the rest of the world to go to the devil if it does not fancy our ways. Al Jolson, not because of a feeling of ani- mosity, but because his mind naturally is muddy, broad- casts to all America a dirty libel on screen people, and when he steps on the stage of Warner Brothers' theatre we applaud him long and enthusiastically. If wo were a community that thought clearly, it could be charged against us that our applause signified our approval of Jolson's radio utterances. We are without either shame or pride, and we are as courteous to our traducers as we are to those who praise us, as considerate of thugs as we are of gentlemen. If we as a community had any sense of decency, the doors of Hollywood would have closed auto- matically against Jim Tully when his cowardly libel of Jack Gilbert reached the public. As we lack such sense, he continues to be a welcome guest wherever he appears. THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 notwithstanding the fact that such a libel of one member of the picture colony is a libel of the entire colony. We will be held up to the ridicule of the world as long as we deserve it, and no longer. Those who come among us, accept our cordial attention and later hold us up to scorn, are people with brains but no breeding, and the presence of the one does not excuse the absence of the other. We should make a practice of entertaining only those who have both. * • * Time We Were Paying Attention to Little Things CLARA Bow and Jimmy Hall occupy a garden seat in The Fleet's In. Jack Oakie approaches them. He enters from beside the camera, and to keep from coming between the camera and the star as he walks towards her, he describes a distinct arc, veering off his course several points to port. When he reaches the two, he takes up his position in such a way that the faces of the star and her leading man are not lost by the camera for an instant. Mai St. Clair will be commended by screen people for handling the scene with strict regard for pic- ture conventions. My opinion is that making a character swerve from a straight line in going to his objective, his only reason being to keep the star's face to the camera, is an exhibition of screen insanity. That it always is done is one of the chief reasons that it is insane. Screen art has advanced until it has mastered about all the major obstacles that it can encounter, but it still suffers from little weaknesses that are of its own making. One of them is the notion that the star's face always must face the camera. It can not be defended on any grounds. Any scene always is of more importance than one of its com- ponent parts, and there is as much distortion of screen art in sacrificing a scene for the sake of the star's face as there would be in doing the same thing for the sake of an extra's face. Any director with sense enough to handle all the old situations in a new way would be hailed as a genius. If I had been in St. Clair's place I would have directed the scene I mention in a manner that would have placed Oakie directly between the camera and the two people on the bench. When he reached them, I would have shown only his back when he began his expostulations, and an occasional flash of the hands of Clara and Hall as they argue with him. This treatment would have the virtue of being a departure from the established routine, and such novelty is something that the screen sadly lacks. Dur- ing the past couple of years pictures unquestionably have been growing better, yet from exhibitors all over the coun- try comes word that their attendance is falling off. The public's indifference to screen entertainment can be as- cribed only to the fact that it feels that it has seen every- thing that the screen has to offer. The art has become so standardized that when you see one ordinary program picture you have seen all of them. The dawning era of sound pictures offers producers a fitting opportunity to throw overboard all the old tricks that the public has tired of. Instead of preening ourselves upon turning out a form of entertainment that is patronized by so many millions of people, we should lament the fact that we are failing to reach so many other millions that are available as patrons. These other millions do not refuse to patronize pictures because they are ignorant of them, for there is September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five scarcely anyone in the country who has not seen one or more of them. Their failure to patronize picture houses is on account of their dissatisfaction with what was served to th^m when they did patronize them. All those malcon- tents will give talking pictures a chance to intrigue them. People who have not seen a motion picture for years will be attracted by the novelty of pictures that talk and to the extent that the talking pictures intrigue them they will become regular patrons of the new art. The talkies there- fore have an opportunity to double the attendance at pic- ture houses, but they will not accomplish it by adhering to all the screen conventions that made the silent pic- tures drive customers away. They should shed all their silly habits. The abuse of close-ups is one of the first things that should receive attention. Exaggerating the importance of the star is another. With the new era should come a realization of the fact that the only thing that matters is the story, that it is of more importance even than the amount of lipstick that the star uses,, or the extent to which the mascaro on the star's eyelashes can be magnified. A realization that the star is composed only partly of face and even more largely of back is another thing that would make screen art more refreshing. No radical revolution is necessary to make our future pictures appeal to the millions we are not reaching now. We are handling the big things all right as it is. Only the little things need attention. * * * Thoughts Suggested By a Visit to an Inn To reach the Inn when you're going north, slow down four or five blocks this side of the business district of Santa Maria and look for a big loquat tree that holds hands with a tremendous palm on one side, and something else tropical on the other. The Inn begins somewhere in the foliage and stretches back so far that when you're inside you wonder why they don't run busses in the corridors. There is a restfulness about the Inn, an unobtrusive beauty that makes you feel comfortable and satisfied with yourself. But it is when you visit the dining- room for the first time that the Inn gets you. You think you've made a mistake and wandered into a flower show. On each of the many window-sills is an immense basket of flowers, and on each table a huge bouquet. The prodi- gality of the display is the first impression you get; then a sense of the exquisite beauty of the whole room comes to you, and you're glad you're there. Frank J. McCoy owns the Santa Maria Inn, and while he assures me that he has a common-sense, commercial mind, I think he built it and operates it merely to have some place to put his flowers. He grows them on various corner lots, lining up the plants like vegetables, caring for the foliage only to improve the bloom, and carrying off the flowers as soon as they are matured. Flowers are Frank's hobby, an esthetic selfishness that he indulges in and shares with those who turn into the curved road that leads to the front door of the Inn. It is a hobby that has made the Inn pros- I)erous. The commercial value of the esthetic is something that I wrote articles about a score of years ago and always have believed in. I commend it to the consideration of motion picture producers. Of course Frank McCoy could not make the flowers in his dining-room pay him dividends if he were careless about his ham and eggs or if his table linen were not spotless and his waitresses neat and court- eous. His dining-room is a gorgeously beautiful place in which to eat one's meals, but one does not eat beauty, nor can it achieve such perfection that it compensates for a flaw in the roasting or the service of a joint of beef. The flowers are a background for the more solid business of appeasing material appetites. They attract customers, but the quality of the food holds them. Unesthetic trav- elers eat the food with no conscious appreciation of the beauty that surrounds them, yet it has a subconscious appeal that brings them back to the Inn and makes the food taste better and the beds feel softer. If Frank Mc- Coy's mind were wholly material, he would save the money the flowers cost him and lose twice as much by robbing his place of the subtlety of its esthetic appeal. There are plenty of satisfactory places to sleep and eat between here and San Francisco, but only one that is prodigal with flowers, and every year fifty thousand motorists plan their trips to permit a stop at the one with flowers. The minds of our motion picture producers are material. They are business men who claim that the public wants ham and eggs, not beauty. Frank McCoy knows that his public wants ham and eggs, not flowers, but he uses the flowers to make the ham and eggs more palatable. If our pro- ducers had a greater appreciation of the commercial value of the esthetic, they could make more money out of their pictures for the same reason that Frank McCoy's flowers help him to make more money out of his meals and beds. Sheer beauty on the screen has a direct appeal to those who can appreciate it, and a subconscious appeal to those who are unaware of its presence. It is a marketable quantity, yet among all our directors George Fitzmaurice is the only one whose work always is remarkable for its purely esthetic appeal. In the great majority of our pic- tures whatever degree of beauty that is achieved with composition and lighting is sacrificed to the obsession for close-ups and quick cuts. We get glimpses of beauty, brief glimpses that move on to give place to gigantic rouged lips and mascaroed eye-lashes. It would profit us to pause a bit and contemplate Frank McCoy and his Santa Maria Inn. * * * This Moral Is Drawn From Popularity of an Orchestra THE fault, I maintained at the time, could not have been mine. I put the note in my pocket after read- ing it sketchily, and a pickpocket must have extracted it. Anyway, we had to join some friends in a hotel restaurant and I couldn't remember which hotel it was. We went first to the Palace — it was in San Francisco — where we found perhaps a dozen couples on the dance floor and not one quarter of the tables occupied. We were pleased not to find our friends there. We went next to the St. Francis, where the restaurant also had a deserted look. No friends there. Then to the Mark Hopkins, our starting point, for that was where we were stopping. Every table was taken and the dance floor was filled, and in the crowd we found our friends. I wondered why of three rather sumptuous hotels, one was crowded and the others almost neglected. Our host explained that it was largely on account of the music of the Anson Weeks orchestra, although the good food and the general atmos- phere of the hotel had something to do with it. But Pase Six THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 chiefly the music. There were orchestras in the other restaurants, but the one at the Mark Hopkins was con- sidered to be the best in town. I studied the faces of the dancers and those seated at the tables. I turned to my host. "I'll bet you a new hat," I said, "that if you ask ten of these people, who think this is the best orchestra in town, in what particular it is better than the others, nine of them would be unable to give an intelligent answer, and yet the whole ten unquestionably are right in their estimate of the relative merits of the orchestras." "What are you trying to get at?" inquired my host. "Merely that the mass mind of the public has a highly developed critical faculty," I replied. "It never is wrong, yet, for the life of it, it could not tell you why it is right. Only someone who knows a lot about music can tell you why this is the best orchestra, yet the room is crowded with diners and dancers who have the unerring instinct for being right and for patronizing the best without know- ing why they do it, for they lack the critical sense to consciously know that it is the best." As I watched the crowd that night I thought of a motion picture producer who argued with me that it was silly of me to keep harp- ing on close-ups and punctuation of titles, for they are trivial things that never in his entire career had he seen mentioned in any re\aews except mine; that if they were of any importance other reviewers would have dealt with them long before The Spectator was born. It is the rule to read in the important dailies and weeklies of the coun- try that the majority of pictures are inferior, but it is the exception to read in one of them why a given picture is inferior. The reviewers merely are a cross section of the public. Now and then I complain that a picture was ruined by close-ups. Check up those pictures and you will find that the public did not patronize them to any great extent. The public knows a poor picture from a good one, and it expresses its preference in patronage, just as the San Francisco dancers express their prefer- ence. Picture producers are making a big mistake in assuming that the public is not critical. The ridiculous use of close-ups is keeping millions of dollars out of box- ofiices every week, yet I will agree with the producers that the public does not know that close-ups are being abused. Nor does the public know that pictures are lowered in quality when common sense in grouping is sacrificed by lining up characters to face the camera, but the box-office knows. In fact, the box-office knows all about pictures, which no human knows, and reacts promptly to any trifling with screen art. The severest critic of the screen is not the man who writes about it. He is the one who has his likes and dislikes without knowing why. * * * How Must One Dress to Transport Garbage? CECIL de Mille goes to great lengths in The Godless Girl to show us what a dreadful place his reforma- tory is. He devotes a lot of footage to showing us how the girl inmates are deprived of their bobbed locks, that they must wear coarse garments of imimaginative design, and huge boots of blister-producing ungainliness; then in close-ups of Lina Basquette and Marie Prevost he lets us know that lipstick was not taboo. We have a shot of Lina manfully propelling a wheelbarrow full of garbage, and there is a cut to a close-up that reveals that her lips were made-up perfectly, which is a detail not to be sneezed at when one dresses appropriately for the task of trans- porting garbage. You can imagine the dismay any care- fully reared girl would feel if she found herself without make-up as she approached a crowd of hogs with their morning swill. One would think that C. B. had been in pictures long enough to have outgrown the foolish notion that our pretty girls always must look pretty, even though the aids to prettiness make many scenes absurd. Half an hour after Esther Ralston is dragged from the sea in Half a Bride and finds herself on a deserted island with not so much as a nail-file to start housekeeping with, her hair is as beautiful and as meticulously arranged as it ever has been in a ballroom scene. In God Gave Me Twenty Cents, Lya de Putti's lips were made up with that perfect bow that proclaims the use of lip-stick. She is taken to a hospital and in close-ups of her in bed the lipstick is just as much in evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the first thing her nurse would have done would have been to wash it off. These three instances are among the thousands that could be quoted to show the extent to which directors sacrifice screen art to the obsession that the heroines always must look perfect. My personal belief is that anyone wearing lipstick, either on or off the screen, looks hideous, but it is used on the supposition that it is an aid to beauty, and as such I regard it for the purpose of my argument. Is it more important to have a girl look beautiful or look her part? In these three cases it would have been much more effective dramatically to have stuck to probabilities. The fact that Lina Basquette was going through an ordeal would have been emphasized if it had been refiected in her personal appearance. The same is true in the case of Esther Ralston. If we had seen her tramping over the island, her hair straight and neglected, it would have helped to create an impression of the seriousness of the situation in which the castaways found themselves. In the case of Miss de Putti, it is obvious that we could believe more readily that she really was ill if her lips had been less li%'id and robust looking. I am not decrying the use of lipstick on the screen. My quarrel with it is on the g:rounds that it is used so heavily in close-ups that it makes its users look ridiculous, and that its dramatic possibilities are overlooked by our direc- tors. With a regularity that suggests the mental stolidity of an ox, girls are moved into close-ups with the same make-up that they used for the long shots, and come to us on the screen with lips as black as coal. And it is done because we have a notion in Hollywood that our screen girls must look beautiful under any and all circum- The Go - Between (title registered and protected) is my original crook story, based on the life of 'Mother' Mandelbaum, the famous New York 'fence'. More powerful than "Madame X". No rubber-stamp situations. I had Vera Gordon in mind when I wrote it. With her in the stellar role, I believe it wiU prove a box-office clean-up. Offers from motion picture producers invited. JAMES MADISON (Scenarios — Gags — Titles — Talk) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven stances. Our conception of feminine beauty apparently is the perfection with which artificial aids are resorted to. No prominent screen girl would dream of going on the set without a maid to pounce hawklike on an erring hair. I should think that some director would awaken to the fact that there are times when a girl is caught without her make-up on or with her hair a trifle awry. I am sure that such a girl would be a refreshing sight to a mo- tion picture audience that is fed up so much on the other kind. I would not go so far as to suggest that we tamper with the style of make-up that C. B. has established as correct for a young woman about to transport garbage. * * * Right Moment at Which to Show Close-up of Star A PICTURE'S first mission is to grip our interest. After it has done that, it can slow up a little and even make a few side excursions. The opening sequences should be all story. Until we know what it is about we can not take any great interest in the people in it. Of course, if Mary Pickford walks into the opening scene carrying a mop and a pail, we take interest in her because we know that Mary Pickford, the person, not the slavey, must be the biggest thing in the picture and the one we should watch. A disadvantage under which screen art labors is that the smooth telling of a story is thrown out of joint by the fact that the minute the star appears on the screen the audience knows his part, no matter how humble may be its beginning, is to be the most important in the story. In this respect the printed story has the advantage over the screened one, for as you read a story you become acquainted with the characters only as their importance grows. It would profit screen entertainment if pictures could be viewed in the same way. As they can't be, because of the public's familiarity with the stars, it might help a little if the makers of our pictures pro- ceeded upon the assumption that it can be done. By our present unimaginative and wooden method of producing films, Mary Pickford is picked out in a huge close-up the moment she steps into her first scene. At the time she is nobody — just a drab little slavey with a mop and a pail. The picture itself should encourage that thought. If no one noticed Mary in the opening scene except to the extent of being subconsciously aware of her presence, so much the better; it would give her an opportunity to grow into the picture in a manner that would be dramatic. When her importance began to dawn upon us we would have reached the point of wanting to know her better, and not until that point is reached should there be a close-up of her. But that is not the way it is done. The very first glimpse we get of her is a huge close-up, which, in effect, says to the audience: "Watch this little girl, ladies and gentlemen! She may not look important now, but, believe me, she is the big noise in what is about to happen." That is not the theory upon which a screen story should be built. In exploiting a picture, naturally the fact that Mary Pickford stars in it is the feature that should be brought out most emphatically, but the picture itself should make its own star; should develop the part that Mary plays until it stands out most prominently and dominates the story. Any chance of reaching this theoretical perfection is dissipated at the outset by the close-up of the star which gives her importance before she has earned it in that particular picture. In a film that opens with a ball- room scene, the star is picked up in a large close-up the moment she puts in an appearance among the other guests. As this is the first time we have seen her, she has done nothing to indicate that she is of more importance than any other member of the crowd, yet we are given a huge view of her merely standing among the others. It is neces- sary to plant her, you will say. Why? Because she is going to do a lot of things important to the story? Then why not let the first important thing plant her? There is no ground upon which that initial close-up can be de- fended. If in the first scene the star walks into the ball- room and cuts the host's throat, she arrests our attention at once and we are anxious to get a closer view of her. Then the close-up becomes imperative. The thi-oat-cutting should be treated in a sufficiently close shot to enable us to identify the parties to it, the deed itself being the first thing photographed. When we have become interested in the deed, we become interested in the parties to it and until such point is reached there is no sane reason why there should be a close-up. The makers of our pictures, however, proceed on exactly the contrary theory, which I contend is wrong. * * * Columbia Does Well by the Russian Revolution jANISHING all close-ups from opening sequences — something that will be done when intelligent people make pictures — ^will assist greatly in overcoming one of the difficulties that the screen has in common with the stage and literature: that of capturing the attention of the audience with the first scene, act or paragraph. As a concrete example, take the opening sequence in The Scarlet Lady, an excellent picture, directed by Alan Cros- land for Columbia. It deals with the Russian revolution. To get the story under way, it is necessary to plant a lot of things, making the capture of the audience's interest a problem difficult to solve. Until the trend of the story is planted it can not escape being somewhat draggy, and until the status of the principal characters is established the audience can not be interested in them to any great extent. The mission of the director in such a situation is to devote all his attention to getting the story under way and anything that retards it should be avoided. As we have it in the picture, the sequence presents many close- ups of Lya de Putti and Warner Oland. There is nothing dramatic in any of the scenes, for the story has not reached its dramatic stages, consequently the close-ups have no story value. They are inserted only because it has become a brainless habit to stick them in at regular intervals quite irrespective of story demands, and in this picture they serve to make the opening draggy. Later in the story when the dramatic episodes are reached close- ups are permissible, for by that time we have become interested in the thoughts of the characters. The Scarlet Lady is one of the best pictures that Columbia has turned out. The fault that I point out is common to practically all pictures, consequently it will not lessen the entertain- ment value of this one. It is rich in production quality and presents several phases of the Russian revolution in a dramatic and colorful manner, and which reveal Crosland at his best as a director. Lya de Putti gives an excellent performance, Crosland bringing her to us to better advant- Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 age than any other American director has succeeded in doing. Don Alvarado proves to be a dashing leading man. He plays the part of a prince of high degree, and carries it off vnth all the grace and good taste that we might expect from such a character. He proves himself to be a clever actor as well as a young man with a charming screen per- sonality. After seeing his fine work in this picture I am confident that he soon will be a big box-office favorite if given chances to demonstrate what he can do. Warner Oland never disappoints. In many of his scenes he is magnificent, and at no time ceases to be a real artist. Otto Matieson is another member of the cast who lives up to the high standard he has set for himself. John Peters and Jacqueline Gadsen also acquit themselves cred- itably. The picture reaches the peak of its drama when it seems inevitable that Alvarado is to be executed. It is dallied ^^'ith too long, a common tendency. Every picture- wise audience knows that a hero never is executed, conse- quently nothing is gained by prolonging the pretense that he may be. In this picture the sequence becomes tire- some, although the several parts of it are acted and directed admirably. Some day I hope to see a picture of the Russian revolution that will show us revolutionists who do not laugh fiendishly all the time. I hope Alan Crosland does not expect me to believe that when they are mowing down their compatriots with machine guns, Bolsheviks always nearly split their sides with laughter, and that they indulge in never-ceasing hilarity while watching the execution of aristocrats. Even if it were true, it is not good technic to show it on the screen. Such scenes should be presented as grim tragedies, and there should not be the slightest indication of emotions that detract from their grimness. The Scarlet Lady presents the revolutionists as idiots, which they were not. * * » Despite His Ego, the Little Chap Makes Good JOSEF von Sternberg, that odd little chap on the Paramount lot who was so shocked by my effrontery in criticizing his direction of Drag Net that he has forgotten that he knows me, rises to truly magnificent heights in his direction of The Docks of New York. He tells a story of strong human emotions in the steam of a stokehole, the fog of a harbor, and the mean, smoky atmos- phere of waterfront dens. All his sets are dark and un- lovely, and the story is as drab as the setting. Only a director with the sublime conceit of Sternberg — Jo Stem- berg was his name before he hung frills on it — ^would have undertaken to make a picture out of such material, and only one T\'ith his genius would have achieved such bril- liant results. He is extraordinarily effective in using the thoughts of his principals to advance his story. It is a George Bancroft starring picture and in it also are Betty Compson, Baclanova, Clyde Cook, Mitchell Lewis and Gus- tav von Seyffertitz — artists all of them. The close-ups of them are character studies that have distinct story value, vigorous portraits of strong, elemental people whose eyes reflect passions that they have not brains enough to control. All through the picture the lighting and photog- raphy are glorious examples of the possibilities of screen art. The picture opens in the stokehole of a vessel, and I can not recall having seen more effective shots in any other picture. By the judicious use of background lighting Sternberg makes the stokers stand out like animated things done in bronze, each so sharply defined as to give the scenes a suggestion of stereoscopic quality. The camera brings out all the ^^gor and brute strength that Stern- berg's grouping and action provide. The chief weakness of Drag Net was the ridiculous manner in which he di- rected his principals, presenting them as movie actors pretending to be something else. In Docks of New York he gets away from this fault. A little bit of the movie actor sticks to Bancroft, but not enough to keep his per- formance from being really good. However, Paramount should give him a change of directors before the strut- ting that Sternberg demands becomes a habit with him. If I wore a hat, I would doff it and make low obeisance to Betty Compson. It's many months since I have seen on the screen anj'thing as notable as her performance. We make her acquaintance when she jumps off a dock to end it all. As Sternberg does not stop his story to introduce any of his characters, we know nothing about her, but we are left to surmise that she has had no great regard for the moral code. Bancroft comes into her life, and in a brilliantly directed sequence, marries her. Her pathetic attempt to hold on to her romance, apparently the only decent thing that has come to her, reveals what a superb actress Betty is. Her performance is purely a mental one, and she tells the story of her tragic hopelessness and lone- liness almost entirely through the medium of her eyes. I hope her remarkable acting in this picture will be res- ponsible for her more frequent appearance on the screen in major parts. Baclanova gives us another of her vigor- ous performances. She is a great actress, with a dom- inant personality and a perfectly functioning brain. Mitchell Lewis and Von Seyffertitz acquit themselves with that rare artistry of which they are masters. Jules Furth- man wrote the story and scenario and to him goes much of the credit for the excellence of the picture. The pro- duction is so perfect in its present form that I trust Par- amount will use discretion in applying sound to it. It justifies my prediction of more than two years ago that Sternberg is a great director. True, he is a quaint little fellow who by no possibility ever can become as grreat as he thinks he is now. When a man considers himself above criticism there is reason to feel dubious about his future. • • * Bill Howard Adds Another to His String of Good Ones THERE are many features of The River Pirate that will please those who like good pictures. It is a Fox production, directed by William K. Howard and starring Victor McLaglen. Again the Fox people prove themselves to be masters of the art of building produc- tions. The picture is presented with extraordinary pictor- ial effectiveness, and even Hollywood is going to find it hard to believe that the whole thing was shot on one stage. I would not have believed it myself if I had not seen some of it being shot. In one sequence we see a po- lice boat with several officers in it giving chase to a motor- boat in which McLaglen and Nick Stuart are trying to make their getaway. Through a fog we see both boats speeding along a line of docks. Every foot of it was shot on a Fox stage. You won't believe me when you see the picture, none the less it is true. But that is the mechanical September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine end of the picture. Something that is not mechanical is Bill Howard's direction. He has succeeded in making beau- tiful the love between a crook and a lad, and in doing so has avoided the slightest approach to the sickly senti- mental touches that most directors have to resort to to advance such a theme. Howard tells the story in a he-man way that makes it both convincing and engrossing. In several places he reveals a rich sense of comedy, and in others a cleverness in avoiding uninteresting time lapses. McLaglen and Stuart enter a clothing store and the for- mer buys the latter a suit of clothes. Nick enters a booth to don his suit. Ordinarily we would have been treated to a fade-out and a fade-in to give him a chance to change his clothes. Howard does it differently and with no ap- parent effort to cover a lapse. He shows McLaglen trying on hats, the scene reflecting a lively sense of humor both in acting and direction. It is a far cry from this com- edy to the tragedy of McLaglen's arrest after he kills Earle Foxe, and likewise there is a great contrast between the thrill of Stuart's escape from a reformatory and the sweetness of the culmination of his romance with Lois Moran, but in all the widely differing phases of the story Howard shows the same sureness and intelligence. Un- questionably he is entitled to a place among our very best directors. For the first time Victor McLaglen has given a performance that satisfies me completely. As the river pirate he is nothing but a big, rough-neck law-breaker, but he succeeds in making the character one that appeals to you on account of its tenderness and sympathy. Nick Stuart is a lad who is destined to have a brilliant screen career. H I remember correctly, I made the same predic- tion about him after seeing him in a small part in one of his first pictures. His work in The River Pirate jus- tifies my early prediction. He has an immense capacity for enlisting the sympathies of an audience, and has an ability that is rare among the youths of the screen — that of playing character roles with all the finish and sin- cerity of an old trouper. Perhaps the individual feature of the picture that intrigued me most was Donald Crisp's return to us as an actor. His part does not permit him to do much more than remind us what a splendid artist he is, and to make me hope that in the future he will be kept in front of the camera instead of behind it. Earle Foxe plays a cringing gangster with the sincerity that has characterized his work since he escaped from two-reel comedies. I understand that Winfield Sheehan has big plans for him, and I have no doubt of his ability to handle them in a big way. Lois Moran does excellently as the girl. She is another who is coming along fine under the Fox Winifred Dunn Current Scenarios "SUBMARINE" Columbia "ADORATION" First National banner. In this picture I was treated to one brief glimpse of Oscar, my favorite motion picture actor. He plays the part of a bootblack, for which he has been rehearsing for years on the Lasky lot. The fruits of his conscientious preparation are apparent in every stroke of his brushes and every inch of his grin. AU my friend Oscar needs ii a real opportunity. « « * Patsy Ruth Miller Has a Picture All to Herself TO-MORROW is all Patsy Ruth Miller. The story picks her up as a coy young flapper and follows her through until she becomes a pathetic old woman who uses cosmetics and hair-dye in a fruitless attempt to make the years stand still. It is rather a remarkable per- formance that the young woman gives. Between our vis- ions of her having a good time at a young people's dance and a scene showing her pleading with a policeman not to arrest her for the murder of her husband, there is de- mand upon her for wide range of expression, and the manner in which she meets the demands indicates that we yet will include Patsy Ruth in our limited circle of beautiful girls who are dramatic actresses. To-Morrow is an interesting picture. It is about something, and sticks to its discussion of it. Companionate marriage is the theme, a social question in which my lack of interest is vast. It probably is all right as a box-office theme, but Tiffany-Stahl did not rely solely on that fact to render the picture commercial; they made it entertaining, and even if you are as indifferent to companionate marriage as I am, you will find the picture is well worth seeing for the pleasure it will give you in watching Pat's perform- ance. James Flood made a good job of the direction; in fact, I think it is one of the best things he has done, but there are one or two things I do not agree with, and which might be discussed profitably. Patsy Ruth comes home from a dance and tells her parents that she is go- ing to enter into a contract marriage. The father stands on one side of the room, the mother on the other side, and Pat in the middle. As the matter is discussed the only way the characters can be shown on the screen is in a series of choppy close-ups. There is no suggestion of fam- ily entity in the grouping or editing. The proper manner in which to handle the sequence would be to bring the group together to suggest the family idea and to enable all the action to be registered in a medium shot, making unnecessary the flickering procession of close-ups. For a brief moment at the end of the sequence we see the whole room, and discover that all the time we were hopping from one close-up to another, Pat's grandmother was in the room. In another sequence Pat indulges in a tirade against her husband in particular and the heartlessness of fate in general. She does it splendidly, taking herself so seriously that she becomes dramatic, which is the manner in which the scene should be handled. It is the sort of scene that gets its dramatic strength purely from its duration; the longer it is held the stronger it becomes. However, it reaches the screen in chunks, a perfect ex- ample of ignorant editing. Obviously no one with author- ity over the picture understood what the sequence was about. But To-Morrow is a worthy picture nevertheless. It shows what dreadful things probably will happen to a young couple starting life on the companionate mar- Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 riage plan, and is an argument in favor of the old-fash- ioned church wedding. Pat and Lawrence Gray start living together on a contract basis, and the picture deals with what Pat dreams is happening to her. It is plenty to scare one off from companionate marriage if one doesn't stop to consider that marriage itself has nothing to do with making two people love one another. It is a long and logical dream. I have had dreams as long my- self, but they have been complicated at intervals by my arrival at large and brilliant social functions at which I attract considerable attention by reason of the fact that I have no clothes on. * * * Joe Kennedy's Help Seems to Know That It Is an Art FORTUNATELY for the shareholders of F.B.O. there are people on its production staff who are not as dumb about pictures as Joe Kennedy, its president, confesses himself to be. Recently I viewed Sinners in Love, a new F.B.O. film, and found it to be a picture that ob\-iously was made by people with picture intelligence. As screen entertainment it has the fault common to practically all of the company's output, that of being about nothing in particular. It is just another crook story with Hunt- ly Gordon repenting in the last reel and taking unto himself as wife Miss Olive Borden, whose good influence prompts him to close a dignified and prosperous gam- bling joint and go straight. The story has been told so often that its power to entertain me is not great, but I was interested in the picture as a nice little example of screen work. George Melford directs with the sureness and effectiveness that characterizes all his work. He first shows us Olive Borden in her childhood home, a place made most uninviting by the squalor, drudgery and pov- erty that characterize it. Melford stresses the drab note so strongly that I was quite sure that he~was building up an excuse for Olive going wrong when she left home, as Fred Niblo did in the case of Norma Talmadge and Camille. But Olive does not go wrong; on the contrary, she is uninterestingly right all the way through the pic- ture. It is good story material to effect the regeneration of a crook through having him fall in love with the inno- cent small-town girl, but most of the plausibility is taken out of the situation when the girl is sho'mi to be a dumb- bell. A crook in love might excuse a girl for being vir- tuous, but he could not go as far as loving her if she were dumb. Too many of our screen heroines are presented as negative characters who would not appeal to the kind of men who fall in love with them when the director tells them to. Miss Borden plays the part satisfactorily, but the circumstance would have been more convincing if she had been a little less innocent. When we see her in the luxuriously furnished rooms of Huntly Gordon's gamb- ling house, we realize the importance of the early scenes showing the meannesses of her home. The fact that she started in squalor lends additional glamour to any sur- rounding in which she later finds herself, thus giving the first sequence story value which lasts throughout the pictxire. When Olive comes to Huntly's place she is wear- ing a drab little dress, and carries the rest of her posses- sions in a cardboard box. When there occurs the split-up demanded by the mechanics of this kind of story, and the girl leaves the young man forever, she wears the same drab little dress and carries the same old cardboard box. When I see something of this sort in a picture I wonder when screen art is going to develop something beyond a single-track mind. The same situation has been in scores of pictures and it has been handled in the same way in all of them. Always the ragged dress is hanging in the millionaire's closet and the cardboard box is at hand. It is silly because in real life the old things would have been carried off by the ser\'ants, and it has no story value be- cause it has been repeated until it has become laughable. Inherently the situation is sound in that the girl must leave the man; but in presenting it always in the same old way we are overlooking a definite opportunity to ad- vance screen art. If we take this one old situation and do something new with it we have made definite prog- ress. Then if we take another old one and put it in new attire, we have progressed a little farther. In Sinners in Love the girl had worked for the man long enough to have earned at least one of her neat street dresses, and to keep the sequence from becoming absurd she should have worn it when she left him. However, the picture is a worthy one that will please F.B.O's regular patrons. * * * Uncle Tom Has Music Now and Is Much Better WHEN I saw Uncle Tom's Cabin the first time it was almost incoherent. The fact that sixteen hundred and thirty-eight scenes were shot — a secret that Carl Laemmle shared only with the readers of the Satur- day Evening Post — and not more than five hundred could be used in the final cutting, precluded any possibility of a satisfactory picture resulting. Every precaution to make the picture as bad as possible was taken by Universal. If it had a script, it must have been one of the weirdest ever written. It cost around two million dollars to make the picture, and it is being exploited as an attraction that cost that sum. By Carl Laemmle's own admission, not one out of every three scenes shot reached the public; or, to put it in terms of dollars, what the public sees cost about six hundred thousand dollars, leaving one million, four hundred thousand dollars totally wasted because Uni- versal does not believe that such a thing as a perfect script is possible. For that much money all the writers in Holly- would could be taught to write perfect scripts. Of course, it may be that Uncle Carl was impressed with the old wheeze that a perfect script curbs the inspiration of the director, and that he blew in the one million, four hundred thousand on the theory that at any moment Harry Pollard might become inspired. If Mr. Laemmle had provided in his budget for the expenditure of one million dollars in making the script perfect, he could have saved about two- thirds of the second million in shooting, cutting and edit- ing the picture. And he would have had a better picture, particularly if he had used two hundred thousand dollars of the amount saved to pay someone to punctuate the titles properly. Even while it is tempting the public to see Uncle Tom's Cabin because it cost two million dollars to make. Universal offers as a reason for the wild expendi- ture the fact that it had a lot of hard luck during the shooting. At the time, every misfortune that the produc- tion experienced was blamed on the fact that Harry Pollard had the toothache, thus raising this particular molar mal- ady to the dignity of being the most expensive in the September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven history of the world. But all the misfortunes that reached their culmination in the director's tooth could not be re- sponsible for the fact that eleven hundred and thirty-eight useless scenes were shot. Even with a perfect script^ a production can have a streak of bad luck to add to its expense, but I can imagine no sort of calamity that will add script scenes which never can be used. I was pre- pared to find Uncle Tom's Cabin as bad as it was when I saw it first, but I did not review it at the time as some- one on the sidewalk told me that they were going to monkey with it a lot more. I have seen it again, the second time with a synchronized score and a restrained attempt at sound effects. It still is a poor picture when considered purely from the standpoint of screen technic, but it none the less is splendid entertainment, if houses are wired fast enough the chances are that the public soon will pay the entire cost of the toothache. The symphonic accompaniment to the picture alone is worth the price of admission. Effective use is made of those fine, old Southern melodies and negro spirituals. They are played beautifully, and they carry you from sequence to sequence, dulling your sensibilities to such an extent that you likely will not notice that the second sequence has no place in the story at all. In the version to which sound has been applied, the story of Eliza and George Harris is given prominence. It stops for a while to give Topsy and Eva a chance to do their stuff, and so excellently do they do it, with so much feeling and tenderness, that the most captious critic could not object to it as being irrelevant. There is much in Uncle Tom's Cabin for which the producers and the direc- tor are to be commended. The musical accompaniment heightens the thrill of the scenes showing Eliza crossing the ice. The whole sequence is one of the most stirring I ever saw on any screen. And those haunting Southern faelodies get you. * * ♦ Pleasantly Surprised to Find It Has Merit FORBIDDEN Hours was released a long time before I ran across it. I was prepared to find it just another of those things. It seems to have been received indifferently by the public, and I could find no critic who saw anything in it to enthuse over. I was quite sure that if I viewed it I would be compelled to find fault with it, and, as I have recorded several times, I much prefer to praise pictures, particularly one produced by Metro, as it is a pleasure that I have but rarely. I avoided Forbidden Ho^rs, but having loafed on the job for a week I had to run hither and yon looking for pictures, and as I could not see them fast enough in projection-rooms, I fell back on this Metro production when it was showing within walking distance of my home. I don't suppose you are curious on the point, but if you would like to know what I consider a perfectly produced motion picture, one that was directed in a manner beyond criticism and acted superbly, view Forbidden Hours and your curiosity will be satisfied. To Harry Beaumont goes the credit for the direction, and to Renee Adoree and Ramon Novarro the praise for the superb acting. Every foot of the picture delighted me. I can understand why it did not create more than a ripple in the cinematic world, for it is too perfect a gem to be acclaimed by a public not trained to appreciate perfection. It is a slim story, but is told by Beaumont with a subtlety, a delicacy, a sense of humor, and a knowledge of human emotion that make it entranc- ing. Good taste is the dominating note of the production, a quality that we see too infrequently. Metro mounted the picture sumptuously. It has many scenes of great beauty that reveal that Beaumont appreciated the pic- torial possibilities of his sets. A. P. Younger was re- sponsible for the story and the scenario, and if his script was follov/ed by the director we must give Younger credit for doing a mighty fine piece of screen writing. Great moments in the story were put over with the lightest touch. A brilliant example of this is the manner in which the audience is informed that his people refuse to accept the abdication of Novarro as king on account of his love for Renee Adoree, a commoner. The two reach the border in a closed car. We do not see them as a sentry tells the chauffeur that the people want the king and his sweet- heart; the car swings around and disappears in the dis- tance— and still we have no shot of the two inside. It is the finest bit I have seen on the screen for a long time. And it is but one of the many fine bits in the picture. For years I have been waiting to see Novarro in a part that allowed him to show us what an excellent actor he is. He was given the opportunity in Forbidden Hours. His per- formance is flawless. He has a sense of comedy that is delicious. He at all times is every inch a king, playing the part with dignity and impressiveness without detract- ing from the impetuosity of his love-making or the light- ness and gaiety of his comedy scenes. Novarro is one of the greatest artists in pictures, much greater than he yet has been able to demonstrate on the screen. I am afraid that pictures will lose him before he goes as far with them as his ability can carry him, for he is blessed -nith a divine voice and it seems inevitable that he will not long resist the call of grand opera. Renee Adoree never appeared to better advantage than she does in Forbidden Hours. She is the only girl on the screen who can tell a whole story by the flutter of her eyelids. I can imagine nothing more delightful in the way of screen acting than the early sequences bring to us when she and Novarro are becoming acquainted. In the big moments of the story, scenes that mark the high spots of Beaumont's JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS Hollywood 1068 RAY DOYLE Scenarist .y^ Just Completed 'Madonna of Avenue A" For Warner Bros. Management Lichtig & Englander Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 splendid direction, Miss Adoree is magnificent. As I watched her work I wondered why Metro does not get suitable stories for her and enter into the serious business of making her a star. She would do more than her share. * * * MANY times I have pointed out that a dying person does not close his eyes when the end comes. If he had enough energy left to perform the physical feat, he would consume it in keeping alive a few seconds longer. Nearly all motion picture directors either do not know how a man dies, or consider the method an old-fashioned one. If we may judge from the death scenes we see on the screen, "Now close your eyes and die" are the usual instructions that wind up such scenes. In Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom closes his eyes so emphatically that if the lids were metalic the action could be reproduced with sound effects. The very thing that a man never does when he is dying is the almost universal screen symbol that he has died. There are some directors who avoid this ana- chronism, but not many. • * * THE Los Angeles Times is fearful that unionism is get- ting an increased grip on motion picture studios. For all there is in the situation to be alarmed about the pro- ducers can thank themselves. Employers always are re- sponsible for the spread of unionism. Take the eight-hour day. Nothing on earth is surer than that some day it will be introduced into all studios and will include all depart- ments. It can be prophesied with assurance for it is inevit- able that the motion picture industry in time will learn what all other industries have learned, that there is econ- omy in promoting human efficiency and that the maximum time that men can work at their maximum efficiency is eight hours a day. Our present producers, lacking the mental equipment to think the thing out for themselves. EARLE SNELL NOW PREPARING "WHEN THE DEVIL WAS SICK" With REGINALD DENNY GLADYS LEHMAN Collaborating READY FOR RELEASE Continuity "THE NIGHT BIRD" With REGINALD DENNY IN PRODUCTION Adaptation and Continuity "THE COHENS AND KELLYS IN ATLANTIC CITY" From Jack Townley's story. resist the eight-hour day on the ground that there is something mysterious about the picture business that makes it unlike all others. It is mysterious to the pro- ducers because they are incapable of appreciating its fundamentals, but to those with ability to think clearly everything about it is as clear as day. From some direc- tion the eight-hour day is going to come, and as the pro- ducers are too backward to introduce it themselves, it fol- lows that the employees will organize and force it on their employers. And the employers will complain of the unions that they themselves have brought into being. If the motion picture industry were run intelligently there would be no necessity for unions, and there would be none connected with it. * * * YOU have heard 01' Man River on the radio. You put it down as just another popular air, a thing suitable for a musical comedy, but neither inspiring nor great. One night recently I heard Lawrence Tibbetts sing it. He stood by a piano in a friend's house, and sang it to please his friend's guests. Don't try to argue with me now that or Man River is not great art, for I heard what a great artist did with it. It is great music, great poetry, great drama. Tibbetts does marvels with it, and although he sang half a dozen or more songs that night, I am confident that when the guests left the Milton Sills residence the one that stood out most, the thrill of which co'ntinued with them as they drove away, was the musical comedy com- position that is murdered on the radio as regularly as it is sung. Tibbetts tells me that he will include it in his programs during the coming season. He will make it a great American classic. Hear him sing it, and reflect again that in art it is not the thing itself that is important, but the manner in which it is done. Before a motion pic- ture director pays scant attention to a scene because It merely is a piece of old stuff that is done in one way, any- way, he should hear Ol' Man River on the radio, and then hear Lawrence Tibbetts sing it. He would learn that art has possibilities hidden in unexpected places, and that even old stuff can be given new life and great dignity by an artist who understands what he is doing. • * * 'T~'HE principal thing that a screen actor or actress has •■• to sell is personality. It is something over which the possessor has little control. It just is. And it can not be hidden. Sue Carol can remain stationary on the screen in a scene showing half a dozen other people, and all eyes in the audience will be directed towards her because she has a personality that shines out even when she is doing nothing. I do not know if her voice has been put through Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F* de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-office records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1674 September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen the sound device mill, but I do know that when it is, its reproduction will be successful. In no way is personality registered more definitely than by the voice. Consider radio announcers. Practically all of them are just voices, cold, emotionless and characterless. Occasionally there is a note in one of the voices that makes you wonder what kind of a fellow its owner is. This one has personality. Motion picture artists who have it need not worry about their voices. Sue Carol could squeak, lisp and stutter and the charm of her personality would shine through it all. * * * A TITLE in Docks of New York introduces a water- •'*• front dive with the statement that it was wiped out long ago. Another title fixes the time of the story as being prior to the introduction of oil as a fuel for steam- ships. Throughout the picture the dresses of the women conform to the latest 1928 model. This anachronism is permissible. If the story had been one of one hundred years ago, the costumes of that time would have to have been adhered to closely, but when a story reaches back only a score of years it in every sense is modern, and to adorn it with the long skirts and other trappings of two decades ago would mean the introduction of an element that would distract the attention of the audience with- out adding anything in story value by way of compen- sation. There is no reason why an ante-prohibition story should not wear post-prohibition clothes. * * * ONE of the many things that I like about Jo Stem- berg's Docks of New York is the fact that he does not introduce his characters nor pick them out in close-ups when they make their first appearances. They come into the story naturally and on the theory that they are not entitled to any prominence until the story develops their importance to it. I liked this treatment because I know the principals, anyway, and it was not necessary to tell me who they were. But how about Buffalo ? How are the people there going to know which player is Mitchell Lewis and which Gustav von Seyffertitz? It is good screen technic to bring the characters in as Sternberg does, but I doubt if it is good showmanship. It is a method that I condemned myself until I became so familiar with screen players that I forgot about it. I believe the majority of picture patrons would prefer to have the names of the principals appear on the screen at the bottom of titles telling who they are in the story. I don't like it myself, but I think Buffalo would. * * * TJARRY Carr said recently in the Times that when ■*■•*■ Vitaphone first made its appearance all Hollywood received it with derisive hoots. Harry should have been more particular with his facts; he should have said that after the first Vitaphone showing two years ago he wrote in the Times that we never would have talking pictures, and that at the same time I wrote in The Spectator that talking pictures were imminent and that the industry should prepare for them. * * * T 7 OWARD Hill, The Spectator's business manager, de- ■»- •»■ sires me to state with emphasis that he is not the Howard Hill who was sent to jail for ignoring five traffic warrants. If you could see our Howard's car you would realize that by no possibility could more than one such charge ever be brought against him — that of delaying traffic. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic FOR the first time since he embarked on his career as chief religion dispenser for motion pictures, C. B. De Mille has let it damage his picture. The Godless Girl is powerfully done and contains some great entertain- ment, but the religious element is silly and brought in clumsily. To begin with, De Mille is far too prejudiced to attempt a picture of that kind, because he never gave the atheists an even break all the way through. Besides, there is no particular harm in being an atheist. It is an evidence of independent thinking which should be en- couraged, but violence, on one side or the other, is a lot of foolishness. De Mille started his own particular vogue for religious pictures, no doubt because they are sure-fire at the box-office. They were good enough to cover up the religious hokum; but The Godless Girl isn't, so, for the first time, it becomes objectionable. However, I en- joyed the picture when it got away from the propaganda. There is no one like De Mille when it comes to spectacles, his fire scene in The Godless Girl being one of the greatest he ever has done. It was a tremendous relief when they all got out alive, although DeMille never makes his char- acters real enough to get much sympathy. Anyone view- ing the picture has to work all the way through it. It certainly is not entertainment for the tired business man. It never lets down for a minute, which is one of the rea- sons I think it a good picture. Even the religion isn't allowed to interfere with the swift action. The only time the picture relaxes to any great extent is the sequence during the escape when the two principals stop for a little while. There are some pretty good love scenes, but always in the background are the pursuing guards and bloodhounds. My only reaction to them was a wish that the two lovers would get up and run, instead of sit- ting and gazing into each other's eyes. De Mille got good performances out of every member of his cast. Lina Bas- quette, who had the title role, did splendid work. Not the least part of Lina's success was due to her powerful screen personality. She was at her best as the dynamic leader of the atheists, although there was never a moment when her work was not impressive. George Duryea is a real find. He, too, has a fine personality; and he has the ease of a veteran before the camera. The Godless Girl should establish him firmly in motion pictures. However, the laurels for the best performance of the picture go to Eddie Quillan, a brilliant actor and a natural-born comed- ian. Even in the gloomy setting of the reform school he contrived to be amusing, and he has a very likeable quality in addition to his acting ability. He has a great future. Noah Beery made a fine heavy although he was almost too cruel to be real. Marie Prevost gave a good performance, and Kate Price and Hedwig Reicher were highly satisfactory. EXCEPT for spots where it dragged, The Docks of New York, Josef von Sternberg's latest with George Ban- croft for Famous, is pretty good stuff. There is some beautiful camera work, chiefly in the handling of lights and shadows, as there were no decent looking sets. Von Sternberg uses very few cuts and usually dissolves from one scene to another, giving an impression of continuity Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 which is very valuable in the telling of the story. Jules Furthmann's story was powerful and adroitly written, al- though his characterizations were a bit uneven at times. There were scenes where the emotions of the actors seemed distorted and abnormal, but I imagine Von Sternberg was partly responsible for that, because he never struck me as being very good at the building up of characterizations. Realism, except for his lapse in Dragnet, is his long suit; and there were moments in The Docks of New York when it was rather too evident. Heavy drama under the kitchen sink of some tenement has few charms for me, and it is to the credit of the picture that only occasionally did the action become so uninteresting that my attention wandered to the setting, which was reminiscent of The Salvation Hunters and The Street of Sin. Two shots in The Docks deserve particular mention because of their cleverness. One is a shot of a woman attempting suicide by drowning. She isn't in the range of the camera at all, but all her actions are mirrored in the water. There was no par- ticular reason for shooting the scene that way, except that it showed a little independent thought. The other shot was a murder, which was put over by the actions of a flock of sea-gulls who were alarmed at the report of the gun. Von's intelligence of direction extended even to his method of ignoring a lot of elaborate introductions for his char- acters. A powerful cast was a big feature of the picture. George Bancroft and Betty Compson, in the two principal roles, gave splendid performance^. Clyde Cook, Bac- lanova, and Mitchell Lewis also were in the cast, and there was a glimpse of Gustav von Seyffertitz. UP until just lately, Dolores CosteUo was the only actress in Hollywood with a "tomorrow". She ac- quired hers in Glorious Betsy, and was rather vague as to details, though she spoke upon it at some length just prior to the end of the picture. However, her exclusive t ROWLAND V. LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 position has been usurped by Patsy Ruth Miller, who has a very definite Tomorrow in the shape of the Tiffany-Stahl picture of that name. It's all Pat's without a shadow of a doubt, and she uses her opportunity to give the best performance to her credit yet. Other members of the cast rush in and out, but Pat goes on forever. There is noth- ing particularly outstanding about Tomorrow, as it is based on a dream which is a strain on one's credulity, and poor dramatic construction, to boot. The best point of the whole thing is that the theme is timely, because it is about the various forms of companionate marriage. James Flood's direction, while scarcely inspired, is adequate. There are times when the action acquires a weight which is very boresome, and the whole thing is not exactly light entertainment. There really is very little to say, one way or another, about Tomorrow. There was nothing very good or very bad about it, although that extraordinary dream still haunts me. If I could have one like that every night, I could cancel my subscription to the Book-of-the- Month Club. On the other hand, the stuff I would have to eat to dream like that would be utterly beyond my small gastronomic skill and endurance. However, this has very little to do with Patsy Ruth's clever characteriza- tions, which were really the big features of Tomorrow. I haven't seen her on the screen for a long time, and during that time, her metamorphosis from a pretty leading woman to a competent dramatic actress took place. Naturally, her work surprised me, and aroused me to a more than passive interest in the picture. I wasn't particularly in- terested up until she started her series of character roles. In every new sequence, she would be a few years older. At first her diary kept us informed aEout her increasing decrepitude; but eventually she aged so rapidly that the diary gave up the attempt to follow her, much as the paint job on the plane of the Red Ace in Lilac Time relinquished its natural position. After the journal deserted her, I al- most lost track of what was going on. I do know that Pat handled her dramatic scenes with that quality which is my favorite, namely repression. For that she deserves great praise, even if the rest of her performance had been terrible. Nine out of ten actresses would have broken all the furniture in sight instead of putting it over with their eyes, as she did. Pat had about five leading men, although Larry Gray had an edge in the footage. The others, the ones I remember at least, were Robert Edeson, Raymond Keane, and Duke Martin. All were quite satisfactory, HARRY Beaumont, with the able assistance of Ramon Novarro and Renee Adoree, has managed to make a rather interesting little picture out of Forbidden Hours. It is the story of the king and his commoner sweetheart. The only original thing about it was the happy ending; and, as I get thinking about it, there seems to be no particular reason why that type of story should end sadly. Judging from the newspapers, most of these royal affairs end happily, if immorally. The main fault of Forbidden Hours was that it lacked the most important component of any drama, a clearly defined crisis. There was no time when the story reached the height of its development. Perhaps A. P. Younger, who wrote the story and continuity, did not put it in his scenario. Per- haps Beaumont and his actors didn't make it clear enough 4 TITLES — DIALOGUE — EDITING ALFRED HUSTWICK Formerly Supervising Title and Film Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 Now Freelancing Management of Lichtig and Englander September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen for my simple mind. Any way, it wasn't there. Beau- mont put in a lot of clever little touches — signs that he is above the material given him. He takes liberties with the weather, however. One minute Novarro and Renee Adoree are paddling across a peaceful, quiet lake; the next, there is a strong wind blowing. John Colton wrote a good set of titles; but in accordance with the usual M.-G.-M. procedure, they were terribly punctuated. They even spelled "impassable" with an "i" instead of an "a". The two main characters, Novarro and Miss Adoree, gave superb performances. I never have liked Novarro so much before. Roy D'Arcy and Dorothy Gumming were the only other members of the cast I knew. in some instances than the people behind the camera, and he has made enough successes to know what he is talking about. THE main fault with The Mysterious Lady is that its leading man is made out to be an idiot, and you'd be surprised how much an idiotic leading man can hurt a picture. It is not customary for Gonrad Nagel to play an idiot, and he's not convincing at it. Of course, Fred Niblo, the director, didn't intend Nagel to be an idiot, but he made him do so many silly things that he became one anyway. He meets a girl at the opera, takes her home, and falls madly in love with her after behaving like a character from Jim Tully's works of art. He is a trusted member of the War Office, but he hasn't wit enough to see anything queer about the woman's instant acquiescence to his whirlwind courtship. I guess he thought that spies were just imaginary bogey men. On top of that, he goes placidly to sleep with an avowed spy in the adjoining com- partment panting to steal his plans. His surprise when he finds them gone is really quite touching. Aside from the impossible part of the leading man, The Mysterious Lady is pretty good entertainment, as it has been given lots of production. Niblo 's direction was very good on the whole, the scene where the hero has his commission taken from him being very impressive. Greta Garbo, Conrad Nagel, and Gustav von Seyffertitz, a trio of fine troupers, leave nothing to be desired in the acting line. THOSE who oppose sound pictures and say that the public regards them as only a passing fad have not reckoned on the fact that the great majority of theatre patrons are young people. Older people may maintain that they like silent pictures, but the younger element, which always welcomes something new, will make the talkers permanent. Incidentally, producers have got to stop playing down to the younger members of their audi- ences. Judging from some of the pictures being put out these days, I would imagine that anyone over the age of twelve would be terribly bored. There are so many dif- ferent ways of acquiring education these days that there is no excuse for a picture to be graded down to the intel- lectual level of the average audience. The way the audi- ence greeted the subtleties of Lubitsch's direction in The Patriot demonstrated that they were capable of under- standing anything, because it will be a long time before we have another motion picture as brilliantly done as Lubitsch's masterpiece. Harry D'Arrast is rated as a suc- cessful director, and his work is good solely because he respects the intelligence of his audience. He told me once that he thought that the audience had more intelligence GEORGE SCARBOROUGH CONSULTING DRAMATIST STAGE ItND SCREEN GRANITE I870 THESE one and two reel freaks which are occupying the spare time of half the motion picture industry are interesting and no doubt provide amusement for their makers during the long winter evenings; but the fact remains that they are freaks, and never will go over with the general public as steady diet. The majority of them don't deal with normal people, and the average audience doesn't feel particularly interested in characters it can not understand. The ones which do deal with normal per- sons are usually so harrowing that they are no entertain- ment at all. Most of them are reflections of their pro- ducers' personalities and opinions; and since everyone holds different ideas from everyone else, they irritate rather than please. Their only claim to merit, aside from their value as hobbies, is that they sometimes give us new ideas on lighting or something like that. If they were always good ideas, these freak pictures would be very valuable; but occasionally they are responsible for weird stuff which is hard on the eyes. I won't be responsible for what will happen the next time I see one of these things where the face of one of the actors suddenly be- comes terribly distorted and elongated due to his catch- ing a glimpse of a loaf of bread in a bakery window. That is one little trick which could be dispensed with quite easily. THE Mating Call, while it is not a particularly bad picture, is the worst Caddo lias done. James Cruze's direction was all right except for the use of far too many close-ups and a tendency to shoot too many trivial things. The story contained these faults: It was scarcely modern, as that special type has rightfully been discarded Motion Picture Aeronautics LIEUT. E. H. ROBmSON Oxford 3753 Howard Bretherton Director In Production "THE REDEEMING SIN" starring Dolores Costello A Vitaphone Feature John ^, Qoodrich 6683 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 6111 ...—.4 Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 for stories with more entertainment value. There wasn't a light moment in it which didn't look as if it had been made to order after the producers of the picture had seen that it was going to be terribly dull without some relief. There were too many unrelated sequences wandering around loose, chiefly because the story jumped around from one principal character to another so much that it was hard to keep track of just what it was all about. Cruze didn't make it any clearer by adding a few trivialities of his own. When a character left his plow to go into th^ house, Cruze followed him all the way in, instead of cut- ting to the interior of the house with the man already there. Another fault of the story's was its peculiar method of developing love themes. One minute, two people loved each other; the next, they didn't. The whole thing was rather a mess. Thomas Meighan was starred in The Mating Call, and gave his usual impassive performance. Evelyn Brent's heavy characterization was one of the high- lights of the picture. I don't know why Famous Players is frantically trying to create a second Negri out of Bac- lanova when Miss Brent is on the lot. She is obviously the correct one for the place. Renee Adoree is also in the cast of The Mating Call, and she gives her usual splen- didj)erformance. _ Reviewed in this Number GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS y1 'JAousand Gifts of Distinction ' 6326 H^LU/W^CP-BLVP- HVLU/WV^P-^^UF' Shop at Balzer's— "Two Shops"— Just West of Vine 5 dVo*»*'«K'"^^b« Edward Everett Horton In ^^cArms and thec^an^^ By George Bernard Shaw VINE ST. Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Bet. Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards THEATRE Mats. Thursday and Saturday, .^Oc to $1.00. Eve., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to zvear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard DOCKS OF NEW YORK— A Paramount picture. Directed by Josef von Stern- berg; suggested by John Monk Saunders' "The Dock Walloper"; story and screen play by Jules Furthman; photographed by Harold Rosson; assistant director. Bob Lee. The cast: George Bancroft, Betty Compson, Bac- lanova, Clyde Cook, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Budd Fine, May Foster, Lillian Worth. GODLESS GIRL, THE— A Pathe-De Mille picture. Directed by Cecil B. De Mille; story and continuity by Jeanie Macpherson; second assistant, Curt Rayfeldt; chief photographer, Peverell Marley; assisted by J. F. Westerberg and Franklin McBride; art director, James Mitchell Lei- sen; properties by Roy Burns; film editor, Anne Bau- chens; titles by Beulah Marie Dix and Jeanie Mac- pherson; costumes by Adrian; technical engineer, Paul G. Sprunck; research, Elizabeth McGaffey; as- sistant director, Frank Urson. The cast: Lina Basquette, Marie Prevost, George Duryea, Noah Beery, Eddie Quillan, Mary Jane Ir- ving, Clarence Burton, Dick Alexander, Kate Price, Hedwig Reicher, Julia Faye, Viola Louie, Emily Barrye. FORBIDDEN HOURS— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Harry Beaumont; story and scenario by A. P. Younger; titles by John Colton; settings by Cedric Gibbons and Richard Day; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; photo- graphed by Merritt B. Gerstad; film editor, William Hamilton. The cast: Ramon Novarro, Renee Adoree, Dorothy Gumming, Edward Connelly, Roy D'Arcy, Mitzi Cum- mings. MATING CALL— A Caddo production, released by Paramount. Directed by James Cruze; from the story by Rex Beach; adapted by Walter Woods; continuity by Ford I. Beebe; photographed by Ira Morgan. The cast: Thomas Meighan, Evelyn Brent, Renee Adoree, Gardner James, Helen Foster, Alan Roscoe, Luke Cosgrave, Cyril Chadwick. MYSTERIOUS LADY— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Fred Niblo; based on the novel War in the Dark by Ludwig Wolff; treatment and continuity by Bess Meredyth; titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings; set- tings by Cedric Gibbons; wardrobe by Gilbert Clark; assistant director, Harold S. Bucquet; photographed by William Daniels; film editor, Margaret Booth. The cast: Greta Garbo, Conrad Nagel, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Albert Pollet, Edward Connelly, Richard Alexander. RIVER PIRATE— A William Fox picture. Directed by William K. Hov ard; story by Charles Francis Coe; scenario by Joh 'Printers of THE FILM SPECTATOR and other high-class publications 77ie OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen Reinhardst and Benjamin Markson; assistant director, Gordon Cooper; photographed by Lucien Andriot. The cast: Victor McLaglen; Lois Moran, Nick Stuart, Earle Foxe, Donald Crisp, Robert Perry. SCARLET LADY— A Columbia picture. Directed by Alan Crosland; story by Elmer Harris; adaptation by Bess Meredyth; ■ continuity by John F. Goodrich; photographed by / James Van Trees. The cast: Don Alvarado, Warner Oland, Otto Matiesen, John Peters, Jacqueline Gadsden. SINNERS IN LOV&— An F. B. 0. picture. Directed by George Melford; from the story written especially for True Story Magazine by an anonymous author; continuity by J. Clarkson Miller; assistant director, James Dilgan; photographed by Paul Perry; titles by Randolph Bart- lett, film editor, Archie Marshek. The cast: Olive Borden, Huntly Gordon, Seena Owen, Ernest Hilliard, Daphne Pollard, Philips Smalley. TOMORROW— A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Directed by James Flood; from the story by Edward Clark; continuity by Fran- ces Hyland; photographed by Ernie Miller; titles by Frederic and Fanny Hatton; cut by L. R. Brown. The cast: Patsy Ruth Miller, Lawrence Gray, Ralph Emerson, Duke Martin, Raymond Keene, Claire Mc- Dowell, John St. Polis, Robert Edeson, Ruby Laf- ayette. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN— A Universal picture. Directed by Harry Pollard; story by Harriet B. Stowe; scenario by Harry Pollard and Harvey Thew; supervised by E. J. Montaigne; edited by Gilmore Walker; photographed by C. Stumar and J. Hull. The cast: James Lowe, Virginia Grey, George Seigmann, Margarita Fischer, A. E. Carew, Adolph Milar, Lucien Littlefield, Jack Mower, Vivian Oak- land, J. G. Russell, Skipper Zeliff, Lassie Lou Ahem, Mona Ray, Rolfe Sedan, Aileen Manning, John Roche, Gertrude Astor, Eulalie Jensen, Dick Sutherland, Tom Armdares. GOES INTO DETAIL Dear Mr. Beaton: On page 15 of your August 18th issue, concerning one John Considine, there are so many misstatements I feel I should call your attention to some of them, believing that you will be courteous enough to publish these cor- rections, giving credit where credit is due. I need not state that the writer deserves no credit on any of these statements, but where there are such glaring discrepancies, I am sure you would like to correct them. No. 1 — Mr. Considine did not give Mr. Clarence Brown his first big picture. On the contrary, I believe the credit belongs to Universal — a picture starring Pauline Frederick, the name I can not recall at the present time. No. 2 — I believe also that credit should be given to War- ner Brothers for Lewis Milestone's beginning. No. 3 — Mr. Wolheim, I believe, was a comedian on the stage long before he came into pictures. Although you call him a heavy, he has played both parts. No. 4 — As for Gilbert Rowland— Mr. B. P. Schulberg gave him his first chance when he took him out of the extra ranks and put him in a "heavy" role in "The Plastic Age." No. 5 — Don Alvarado, I believe, was brought out by War- ner Brothers, who were the first ones to promote his interest. No. 6 — George Marion, as I recall, wrote his first titles for F.B.O. No. 7 — Also, Hans Kraly, I believe, got his start with Warner Brothers during the regime of Lubitsch. Outside of this your article is correct, as far as I am concerned — because I know nothing of the facts regarding Sam Taylor, and William Cameron Menzies. However, I would suggest that you inquire as to their beginnings Cut Out the Coupon Nowl The new subscription price of The Film Spectator, when it be- comes a weekly, effective October 1st, will be $7.50 per year, $8.50 foreign. Until October 1st renewals or new subscriptions will be accepted for any number of years at the present rate, $5.00 and $6.00. Irrespective of when your sub- scription expires, it will be ex- tended for as many years as the size of your check indicates. Some have renewed for 10 years, and many for 2 and 5 years. THE FILM SPECTATOR, 411 Palmer Building, Hollywood, California Enclosed is my check for $ , for which my subscription for years. Name- Street _ City Phone No.. Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 and you will probably find that Mr. Considine had noth- ing' to do with them. As I said before, I deserve no credit for any of this, but just thought that you might want the correct data on these people, and give credit where credit is due. I should advise you, Mr. Beaton, not to follow in the footsteps of Al Smith, but to follow William Allen White —and quote from the records. N. CYCLOPEDIA. THINKS HIGHLY OF KENNEDY Dear Mr. Beaton: It was with great interest that I read your article in The Film Spectator of September 1st, in which a head- % "Wm. Fox' Super Talking Picture Mother With Madge Bellamy Louise Dresser and Barry Norton Kno\VS Carthay Circle Theatre B Daily 2:15-8:30 p C j" Carii Ellinor's Orchestra The El Camlno Motto : "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. j Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) (. nightly in Peacock Court | GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager ing appeared, "What Good is Joe Kennedy Doing, Any- way?" In your article you say that a better picture is the cure for the overseating problem. A better picture will, I grant you, help some, but will not improve this condi- tion enough to overcome it. If there are too many seats in a town, that's all there is to it. There are just so many people in that area to go to the movies, and a better picture can not manufacture unborn film fans. There have to be people enough there; if there are not enough people there, seats must come out. This is nothing but a plain lesson in arithmetic and statistics. This is an age of specialists. Kennedy, you will admit, is a specialist in finance, and organizing big business ventures. His success alone, if nothing else, merits him that much credit. He is a specialist in that line. As for a better pic- ture, in the sense of art, a good director, another special- ist, is the man for that. As to what good Joe Kennedy is doing, ask any F. B. O. stockholder that question, and he will answer that F.B.O. has enjoyed perhaps the best year it ever had. He is the man directly responsible for F. B. O. mounting the place of esteem it has. Kennedy, you point out, is merging companies. This is highly essential toward the furthering of big business problems. It's value is too obvious to discuss. I have been reading your publication for some time, and I want you to know that I think it represents a very high ideal. Mr. Beaton, in my opinion, is not only a writer, but a critic of no small ability. Perhaps it is that your desire for better pictures has influenced your regard for Mr. Kennedy's ability. He is not, and should not be, directly concerned with the making of the picture, because, as you say, he knows nothing about it. But Mr. Kennedy does know about business, and not only does he command respect, but he also is recognized as one of the greatest organizers in the land. This is in answer to your head- ing, "What Good Is Joe Kennedy Doing, Anyway?" He is righting many economic wrongs that are so prevalent in this industry. That is his job, and he is the man for it. In closing, may I say that I am practically "nobody" to criticize your columns, but I am merely stating an opin- ion, and it is in such light that I wish you to read this letter. Once again, congratulations on your courageous attitude, both in the past and also in the present. J. J. GOLDSTEIN. Boston, Mass. I • HOP I I The Home of Harmonic Framing i I Paintings Restored and Refinished \ { 6653 Hollywood Boulevard 1 j VISITORS WELCOME } I U\(grman^s c5^rt 5i No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine G^ROEt^ ^} September 29, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen JEAN HERSHOLT AL COHN B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CQ3 -4 "I CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Demmy Lamson Management ■t r 4 ^ f- GEORGE SIDNEY says: 'If the 'talkies' are 'sound' pictures, then the silent ones must be 'unsound'." Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing for WARNER BROTHERS TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR September 29, 1928 I I Mother Knows Best William Fox's First Movietone Talking Picture Directed by J* G. Blystone -„j Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cente FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday Vol. 6 Hollywood, California, October 13, 1928 No. 4 ^iiunniniiQiiiiiiinMiuiiiiiiriniiaiMiniriHiariiniiiininiinniiUHunnniiiMiaiiiiHuiiiinniinrninninniHmiuHHnHiHiDnHniHtitautiNiNiMDiinuniHiciiiiiiiintn This is the Hold-Up Number It consists principally of Loot But there are things in it written by the Editor, by K. C. B. and by Donald Beaton ti i HEY, RUBE! SAL OF SINGAPORE MATING CALL SINGAPORE MUTINY DO YOUR DUTY STATE STREET SADIE GRAIN OF DUST MOTHER KNOWS BEST MORAN OF THE MARINES ^iRiiHiuiHuiauimHnncniunnmionHiiniintiinimmiHnmHmiinniiiiiinnnnninimnoiiiflniiMciumiiiiiiiniiiNiinHiunHiniuHDnwiHHRniinnnnnn^^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 The New Radiolas are Holding -Up the good reputation of the Radio Corporation of America c5^s/c to hear therru E.HJB01DUEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 m m October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three ^elly if one^ musp-^^ he^ held up at^ ally one^ may as well he held up by a really constructive^ handit Q^Mary Tickford Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 t ■■-...-..----.----....--....-. ^-«-- THK IDEA AND PEaiFOBMANCE OF THIS "HOLD-UP" IS FTIIXY COPYBIGHTED AND PBO- TBX3TE0 FROM FURTHEB USE B¥ THE FILM 8PECTATOB, A PUBLICATION. ONE ISSUE WILL BE PBINTE3> AND THEN TYPE DESTROYED, AND THE IDEA CAN NOT BE REPEATED HERE OR ANYWHEnSE. ANY ENFRINGEMENT WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. (Signed) CLARENCE BROWN. -i October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five r "Qreetings" C^ouise T)resser Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Welford: Understand you are go- ing to use the loot to get out a weekly instead of a bi-weekly, I trust that doubling your output doesn't aftect the quality of your goods. Douglas Fairbanks October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven t --.----■■.....--■■■.---.--..■■■■.-.......-.--■■. .....■■■.....■...... Mr. Beaton is a crabby old thing. At first he said that a whole page was too much space for me to take because it might look as if he were letting me pay him for the nice things he has said about me. Then he said that he thought one hundred dollars was too much for me to pay, taking into account my salary and my expenses. Fancy his saying that! I borrowed the one hundred dollars from Mother and paid him. And now that I have all this space I have no idea whatever what I should put in it. SUE CAROL. P. S. — When The Spectator is a weekly, I'll like it twice as well.— S. C. Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 I am glad of this opportunity to express publicly my deep sense of the debt that screen art owes to Welford Beaton, The Film Spectator is fearless, friendly, con- structive; of great literary charm, and honest, pene- trating criticism. I congratulate the motion picture industry upon the fact that Mr. Beaton's wise counsel hereafter will be available every week. ERNST LUBITSCH. ' October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 411 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $7.50 per year; foreign $8.50. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, OCT. 13, 1928 THANKS! THIS Hold-Up Number leaves me rather speechless. It was conceived in iniquity, with a touch of timidity. I was aware that I was offering the personnel of the screen industry an opportunity to express the extent of its regard for The Spectator, but I never dreamed that the expression would achieve such huge proportions. I dared hope that you would give me twenty pages of advertising — and you have given me over seventy! I knew that the idea of a Hold-Up Number appealed to my own sense of humor, but I could not guess that you would accept it with such an encouraging feeling of good nature. If I did not admire screen people I could not live among them with such content and devote a publication to their interests with so much pleasure. This number increases my admiration for them, admiration that is not bought with the money they have spent so generously, but which springs from the warmth of their approval of The Spectator's adherence to the ideals upon which it was founded. The Spectator is now two and one-half years old, and during its thirty months of existence it has not said one thing it did not believe, nor one thing that was inspired by fear, favor, or flattery; nor was it once deterred for any of these reasons from saying anything that it felt like saying. The generous proportions of this number bear witnesi to the industry's appreciation of a frankness that it could not influence. The response to my serious appeal, which was veiled so thinly with a facetious note, increases my respect for people whom I already had respected most highly. Making The Spectator a success has been astonish- ingly simple. It came automatically. Never once did I weigh the eff^ect that anything I wrote would have; I smiled at efforts to influence me, and continued to tell exactly what I thought about the things of which I wrote — and success came in the form of a constantly increas- ing subscription list until to-day this unpretentious look- ing little paper is among the two or three most widely read technical screen journals published anywhere in the world. As a weekly The Spectator will make no greater effort to achieve success. Its fate, as heretofore, will be in the hands of its readers. It will continue to disregard every- thing except absolute honesty and common decency. It cannot live without advertising, and it was made a weekly in the hope that it would attract more. It is read by everyone whom a writer, player or director wishes to reach with his advertisement, and I often have won- dered why screen people do not make it their sole adver- tising medium and save the scores of thousands of dollars they now spend with publications that do them no good whatever. The fact that this suggestion may sound selfish in no way alters the fact that I offer it sincerely. A small advertisement appearing regularly in The Spec- tator is all that anyone needs to keep his name constantly before those he wishes to see it. Scattered big advertise- ments in papers that make a business of cleaning up at regular intervals do the advertisers no good. And this goes for The Hold-Up Number. * * * Who Ever Viewed a Silent Motion Picture? THE proper pose nowadays is to bemoan the passing of silent pictures. The photodramatic art has achieved such perfection as a silent medium that it is a crime to murder it with sound, says the highbrow poseur. He claims that the motion picture theatre has been the one place where he could resort to to escape the noises that infest all other places, and he weeps because sound has invaded this last stronghold of silence. I'll grant him that one can appreciate a work of art to better ad- vantage when his contemplation of it is wrapped in quietude. The admirable drawing and brilliant coloring of Velasquez's "Las Meninas" are more alluring in the Prado, Madrid, than they would be if the painting were hung in a market place of the Spanish capital. It would be a crime if the noises of Florence penetrated to the Uffizi Gallery when one was admiring the simplicity and beauty of Fra Angelica's "Group of Angels". And the stillness of a moonlight night must add to the amazing spell of the Taj Mahal. The exquisite beauty that the camera recorded for scenes in White Shadows in the TO ADVERTISERS IN THIS NUMBER THE first four or five page advertisements in the Hold- Up Number were placed. When I got that far I realized that if I continued to the end of the book, I would, with each page, be put in the position of having to favor someone in the location of an advertisement. I decided to leave to chance the positions of all the rest of the advertisements. I was making-up with a "dummy" — a book of blank paper the same size as this one — and instead of writing in a space the name of an advertiser, I wrote only "%", "%", "page" as a guide for the make- up man. He had all the advertisements in type piled up near him and he merely reached for one of the right size and put it in without reference to whose ad it was. That is how the Hold-Up Number was made up. Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 South Seas, a beauty as great as other arts have to their credit, could be appreciated best in the uninterrupted quiet of a motion picture house. But who was ever in a motion picture house when it was quiet? From the time when tinny pianos first played "Hearts and Flowers" for screen love scenes, motion pictures have relied upon sound to add to their entertainment value. The silent drama never has been silent. The same man who would have taken up arms against an orchestra in the Prado, an organ in the Uffizi, or a brass band playing outside the Taj Mahal, would have protested if no music were presented with his motion pictures. When talking pictures begin to achieve their possibilities as works of art they will have an air of more repose and quiet than our present silent ones possess. For the first time since they came into being pictures find themselves in a position to control the sound that accompanies their presentation. When producers learn to apportion sound intelligently millions of people who refuse to patronize pictures now will be numbered among those who deposit their money in box-offices. Even those who now wail most loudly about sound coming to the screen will not be able to resist it when sound is applied properly. Condemning sound pictures, as such, is as absurd as condemning cooking or sewing as institu- tions. We do not protest that we are through with all cooking because we encounter an underdone chop, nor do we decide to wear no clothes because our tailors some- times make our vests a little too tight under the arms. We go no farther than changing our cooks and tailors. We will have an endless parade of dreadful sound pic- tures, but no person of intelligence will allow them to disturb his faith in the possibilities of the new art that has come to Hollywood. I have listened patiently to scores of people who have told me how wrong I am about sound and who have endeavored to show me just why the silent picture never will give way to the talking one, and among all the arguments advanced to support such con- tention I have not heard one that would do credit to the intelligence of a ten-year-old child. The problem that faces the industry is not whether to make all-sound pic- tures; it is to study how to make them. As I pointed out in a previous issue, the constant aim must be to eliminate as much sound as possible. I do not imagine that any- one will take this advice. "We're paying for sound, ain't we?" will be the argument of most of the studios, and every effort will be made to make the pictures as noisy as possible. Such pictures will drive away from picture houses again the same people who were driven away first by the monotonous mediocrity of silent films, but ulti- mately Hollywood will learn that blatant and vulgarly loud pictures will not gross as much as those which pos- sess the quality of artistic repression, and when that understanding comes sound pictures will begin to come into their own. * * * Teaches Us That There Is a Market for Good Acting THE Patriot is achieving extraordinary success. I knew nothing about it prior to seeing it by myself in a projection-room, but when I issued forth from viewing it I declared in The Spectator that it was the most perfect picture ever made and that Jannings' performance was the most amazing ever seen on the screen. Since its release every critic who has seen it has been as enthusi- astic in his reference to it as I was. And the public is patronizing it in a manner that shows that as a cold, commercial proposition it was good business for Para- mount to put so much perfection into one picture. While we must not discount the contributions made to it by Lewis Stone, Florence Vidor, Neil Hamilton, Harry Cord- ing and others, there is no disputing the fact that the greatest single factor in the success of The Patriot is the exhibition of inspired acting given by Emil Jannings. Of course always in the background is the evidence of the greatness of Ernst Lubitsch, but what the public sees chiefly, approves and pays for, is the acting of the star. He is not a star with sleek hair and a facility for kissing a pretty girl long and earnestly. In fact, in The Patriot, Jannings is not good screen material. Any supervisor will tell you that. Make a picture with the star part a middle-aged man who is crazy? Kill your star before the final fade-out and give the fade-out to a supporting player? Have no romance between a famous beautiful girl and an equally famous handsome man? Suggest all this on any lot and you'd be thrown over the fence. Yet The Patriot does all of it, and is succeeding because there always is a market for good acting, as I have contended repeatedly. I hope the motion picture industry profits from the lesson this picture can teach it and cashes in on the market value of acting. We have only one Jan- nings, but we have a Lionel Barrymore, Albert Gran, Otto Matiesen, Frank Reicher, Rudolph Schildkraut, David Torrence, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Henry B. Walthall, H. B. Warner, Tenen Holtz, William Powell and scores of others, some of them without fame, who are capable of presenting extraordinary performances even though they have not been elevated to the rank of stars. And I could present as great an array of talented women who are not credited with having box-office value. These artists to- day are the ones screen art leans upon most heavily, for they provide the performances that dignify it as an art, although others with not half their ability earn greater fame and fortune. The real artists are not allowed to demonstrate their capabilities, for it is a capital offence to give a greater performance than a star. The screen to-day presents a quality of dramatic art that is held down to the low level of star mediocrity, even though The Patriot teaches us that the public wants it in its highest form. In presenting great performances we do not have to sacrifice the drawing power of our pretty girls and handsome boys. We still can star Sophie Glutz and John Dolt, but we are unwise to deprive real actors of the opportunity to steal their pictures from them. It makes no difference to the producer what brings the money to a box-office. If the comparatively unknown Tenen Holtz can steal a picture from Sophie Glutz, the producer still has Sophie and perhaps has gained a star in Holtz. And when Sophie is offered to the public again it will remem- ber what a splendid picture she was in the last time, and make the new one a success, which has the same cash value for her as memory of her own good work would have. With the advent of sound the industry is in a position to demand a new deal all around. I hope as it shuffles its roles it will pass out some of the big ones to its real artists. If Emil Jannings, by the sheer brilliance Ha, ha! Tom Miranda October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven of his art and despite the fact that he neither is young nor classicly handsome, can attract the plaudits of the world, there are several scores of others in Hollywood who could do the same thing, perhaps not in such great meas- ure, but near enough to it to make them satisfactory com- mercial propositions. * * * Realizing Importance of Contented Employees THE screen industry since its inception has refused consistently to profit from the lessons other industries could teach it. All other industries learned a long time ago that there is money in the contentment of em- ployees. Henry Ford has become perhaps the richest man in the world by paying the highest wages in the world and adopting the shortest hours. He does everything in his power to add to the happiness of his employees — and he's credited with owning a billion dollars. There can't be anything the matter with a system that produces such a result. It's a system that can't fail when applied to any business. Making its employees contented should be the first principle of the film industry, for it is the only industry in existence that makes a business of selling the personalities of some of its employees directly to the public. And the personalities of all of its employees are sold indirectly. The artist who gets a smile from the gate-keeper, and from everyone else on the lot as he goes to the set in the morning, is going to put all the smiles into his day's work in front of the camera. Tell this to most of the producers and they will laugh at you. I have not told it to Winfield Sheehan, but I think that if I did, he would agree with me. After some golf on the Rancho course a few mornings ago, I crossed Pico Boule- vard and confided to a Fox Hills gateman that I was a person of great importance, getting away with it to the extent of being permitted to invade the forty acres upon which William Fox is spending between eight and ten million dollars for a plant to be devoted exclusively to the making of sound and talking pictures. I found that Keith Weeks, a young fellow with broad shoulders and prodigious energy, was in charge of construction, and I reverted to my almost forgotten reportorial facility for extracting information. The feature that interested me most was the evidence that the Fox organization is alive to the importance of the mental attitude of those who work for it. Elaborate preparations are being made to i assure that attitude being one of satisfaction with the ' organization. No less than three hundred thousand dol- lars is being spent to provide clean air for those who work on the windowless, air-tight sound stages. Summer and winter the temperature of the stages will vary only between sixty-seven and seventy degrees. It will be healthier working on the stages than in the open air, for even the mildest breeze is laden with some dust, an occa- sional odor, and even golf stories, while the only air that can reach the stages is that which has been purified on the way in. A large dressing-room building is being erected, and in it will be provided every convenience that will make life more comfortable for both star and extra. When all the work is completed, the whole place will be landscaped and flowers will grow everywhere. I have no pets among the producing organizations — you will notice that none of them is in this Hold-Up Number — but the fact is being impressed upon me that whatever the Fox people do, they do well. They are going to make the Fox Hills sound studio a delightful place to work. They have spent a large sum of money to assure this. I believe that when they decided to spend the money they were thinking only of those who will work under the conditions procured by the expenditure, but if they had been think- ing only in terms of money, they could not have found an investment that will pay higher dividends. I would not be surprised if the Fox studios before very long would adopt an eight-hour day, half a day on Saturday and no Sunday work under any circumstances. An organization that is so wise in many other ways can not long escape seeing the wisdom of such a step. * * * Demonstrates That It Should Be One Thing or the Other THE program at the Carthay Circle shows Herbert Hoover talking, and Sir Thomas Lipton and George Bernard Shaw. It gives us Chic Sale in a superb offering in which all the characters talk. And then comes the big event of the evening, the main number on the program, Mother Knows Best, the latest word in screen art. It opens with Louise Dresser and Lucien Littlefield trying to talk to one another with paralyzed vocal cords. Previously in the news reel we have heard a camel giv- ing vocal expression to its meditations, but it takes a title writer to inform us what Louise Dresser is talking about. The fact that most of Mother Knows Best is silent emphasizes the inevitability of all-talking pictures. In the setting in which it is presented at the Carthay Circle, the silent sequences give the whole picture an air of unreality. In viewing other pictures that have followed the showing of short talking films, I found that the let- down caused by silence coming so hard on the heels of sound did not persist throughout the feature, but this was not the case with the Fox picture. About the time that I began to get over the sense of something being missing, along came a talking sequence to remind me what every sequence could have been. I don't see how anyone can sit through this entire program and still doubt that all- talking pictures will supplant completely the silent or partly-silent variety. To show Hoover and Lipton and Shaw talking and follow these exhibitions with views of lips moving without any sound issuing from them, is to do something more absurd than the public will tolerate for any length of time. But even with this handicap Mother Knows Best impresses the viewer with its sincerity, and it is a picture that deserves the attention of the most serious student of screen art. It has a great theme and sticks to it — that of a mother making a daughter sacrifice everything to a career. And it is handled in a great way. J. G. Blystone directed the picture with a most intelligent regard for what it is about. He gives us no "types" or eccentricities in the way of characterizations. Louise Dresser might be any mother, and Madge Bellamy might be any daughter, a condition that must exist to give point to the theme. Blystone had pliable artists to work with, and he used them to tell his story in a manner that lost none of its directness or its smooth-flowing quality by its frequent introduction of subtleties that were inserted upon the assumption that picture audiences are intelligent. I cannot see that the talking sequences help the film in any Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 way, for I refuse to admit that a hybrid picture is any- thing but an absurdity. I do not criticize a producer for making them, for sound must be applied gradually, but that consideration does not assist me to enjoy them. As the first appearance of talking in a Fox production the sound sequences are interesting. I have abundant faith in the Fox organization's ability to give us something notable with its Movietone, but it has not done it in this picture. The background noises are too much in evidence and there is a suggestion of a metallic note in all the voices. That the Movietone microphone is sensitive is made apparent when it catches Louise Dresser's faintest whisper. The musical accompaniment comes through splendidly, and for a first attempt at the use of sound in one of its pictures it is quite good enough for the Fox studio to present without any apologies. But it makes me keen to see what Movietone will present next. * * * Louise Dresser Gives Us a Magnificent Performance MOTHER Knows Best is held together and is made great by that great artist, Louise Dresser. Her understanding of the part, her rare intelligence applied to her mastery of the art of acting; and Blystone's intellectual direction, his adherence to the theory that the chief thing to photograph is the story, are the two ele- ments that have most to do with making the picture as fine as it is. Miss Dresser is magnificent in every one of her scenes. While her ruthless pursuit of a career for her daughter, to realize for the girl an ambition that had been denied the mother, ruins her daughter's life, there is no harshness in it, no obvious selfishness, nothing but mother-love. It is a splendid, a wonderful characteriza- tion, and that its merits were appreciated by the critical first-night audience at the Carthay Circle was made abundantly plain by the ovation that greeted Miss Dresser when she appeared on the stage — a great tribute to a great artist. Madge Bellamy will date things from Mother Knows Best. She performs the miracle of giving a positive performance of a negative role. She does her greatest work when called upon to show us what she is thinking of, to acquaint us with her yearning for romance, for love, for babies. These close-ups reveal to us a young woman with brains, who no doubt will develop into one of oiir most capable dramatic actresses. I am sorry that she was given imitations to do. I have heard Anna Held sing "I Can't Make My Eyes Behave" a dozen times, and there was not the faintest suggestion of the Held mannerisms in the Bellamy interpretation, yet there was enough cleverness in Madge's work to make it stand alone. The same is true of her Lauder and Jolson turns. She is talented enough to do something original, and why she was handicapped with the burden of trying to express three other people, instead of being permitted to express herself, is a problem too deep for me. In the past I have taken advantage of opportunities to express my opinion that Barry Norton is an excellent actor, and his per- formance in this picture lessens in no way my apprecia- tion of his artistic ability, but I think he was miscast. If it be the intention of the Fox people to groom him for prominence as a leading man, I am afraid they are going to be disappointed. He should play character roles, par- ticularly polite heavies. He is talented enough to get away with any part, but there is a quality in his work that will shine more brilliantly in definite characteriza- tions than it will in roles that carry the love interest. Throughout the picture Blystone uses close-ups effectively except when he resorts to them to show the fervor of the kisses exchanged by Miss Bellamy and Norton. Such close-ups are disgusting and constitute the only blot on an otherwise fine production. All that the audience is interested in is the fact of the kisses and not the manner of them. Blystone portraj's the growth of the romance with delicacy and sympathy, only to make it ugly and sensual when he blots out his settings to give us an intimate view of the muscular contractions that constitute the mechanics of a passionate kiss. It may be offered in extenuation that there are persons in audiences with sensual tastes that it is good business to cater to. I think it would be better business to cater to the overwhelming majority of those with different tastes, those who regard romance as something tender and sweet. But Mother Knows Best is a very fine pictiire, even with the kissing close-ups. And it would have been better without them. * * * Sound Should Be Applied to the Strongest Sequences THE theory upon which the Warners apply sound to f State Street Sadie does not appeal to me as a wise jl method of using it to assist an otherwise silent pic- ■ ture. They apply it to sequences that have little action, on the theory, apparently, that without it the sequences would drag. In a picture there must be some sequences that are inserted solely to advance the story, not because of their own inherent strength. Their contribution to the story is sufficient excuse for their inclusion, and if the audience has become interested in what the picture is about, such sequences will not drag. Selecting them as the only ones to which sound is applied is a waste of good material. State Street Sadie would have been a much better picture if the dramatic sequence in which William Russell trieis to kill Conrad Nagel had been done in sound. Both men are good actors and know how to use their voices, and they could have made the sequence the most dramatic that yet has been presented in sound. It is not a bad picture as it stands. It is the best that Warners have turned out since they have taken the sound bit in their teeth and run away from the rest of the industry. The story is one of the most interesting that have been told in the long succession of crook pictures that we have been getting. The performances of Nagel, Russell and George Stone are outstanding. Myma Loy not only acts her part convincingly, but she reveals the fact that she has a voice that is charming when repro- duced. The talking in State Street Sadie is a great im- provement on that in The Terror. In the latter picture the characters talk with aggravating deliberation, while in Sadie they use a conversational tempo that makes their speeches natural. An interesting feature of the picture is the manner in which it demonstrates one of the sev- eral advantages it has over the stage, that of carrying a whisper to the back row with the same distinctness that attaches to a normally spoken line, but without dissi- pating the impression that it is a whisper. Several times Bill Russell speaks in a tone that would not carry his voice past the footlights in a theatre, but which the Vita- October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen phone will carry to the topmost gallery in the biggest picture house. There are several places in the picture where sound is applied in a way that Warners should not repeat in their future pictures. When a man taps another on the arm to attract his attention the action makes no noise. In State Street Sadie it does. One can hear two oflF-stage sticks coming together. Myma Loy presses a button, the modem method of ringing a doorbell. We hear the bell ringing with a volume that would indicate that it was attached to the outside of the house. It is not necessary to reproduce any sound when a doorbell button is pressed, for it is seldom that the person on the doorstep can hear any sound, anyway, and the opening of the door is sufficient to register that someone inside heard something. When there is an excuse for eliminat- ing sound from sound pictures, it should be eliminated, as I pointed out in the last Spectator. We won't have many more pictures like Sadie, which makes it a bootless occu- pation to analyze it carefully. Every pictiire soon will have all talking or no talking, and I am inclined strongly to the belief that the all-talking ones will be the only ones that will attract to theatres enough people to pay for their making. * * * Tom Meighan Will Be Helped Some by This One A COUPLE of years ago, when Tom Meighan had slipped about as far as a star can slip without disappearing altogether, I wrote in The Spectator that it still was not too late to bring him back with good pictures. Howard Hughes, the young fellow who is learn- ing how to make pictures wisely by making Hell's Angels crazily, apparently had the same confidence in Meighan'3 latent pulling power as I did. He signed Tom for two pictures. The first was The Rackett, which that brilliant young director, Lewis Milestone, made such an outstand- ing success. The second will reach the public shortly. It is The Mating Call, directed by a veteran, James Cruze, and while it will act as a further leg-up for Meighan, it by no means will repeat the success of The Rackett. It lacks the melodramatic setting of the first picture, but has much more in the way of heart interest to offer. Cruze did not realize all the emotional depths that were avail- able to him, although there is much in his direction to commend. He gets the story under way briskly, bridg- ing time lapses smoothly with a succession of dissolves that lose no time in arousing the interest of the audience. The early sequences are shorn of all non-essentials, but later in the picture the pace is not maintained and there are sequences which have little story value, a weakness that perhaps may be blamed on the script and not on the direction. As a matter of fact, the scenes which make the story drag are directed as well as those which give animation to it. There is an interesting example of the habit of planting something being responsible for the slowing-up of the story. Meighan, through the clever building up of circumstantial evidence, is made to appear to be trifling with another man's wife. "The Order", a thin disguise for the Ku Klux Klan, takes the law in its hands, and brings the offender before it. Previous to Meighan's appearance, two other offenders are disposed of to show how the order functions. We know nothing about these offenders and are not interested in them. Their trials, therefore, retard the story and there was no reason for introducing them, for Meighan's trial in itself would have been enough to acquaint us with the manner in which the order dispenses justice. I can see no virtue in showing on the screen how two extraneous things are done solely for the purpose of showing how a third pertaining to the story comes in logically. In this instance nothing is gained by showing that Meighan's trial was not the only one ever conducted by the order. He is found guilty and subjected to whipping. The whip- ping scene is unnecessary and is weak dramatically. The audience knows he is innocent and that his innocence will be established. The old hokum of his rescue being effected at the moment when the punishment was to begin should have been resorted to. There always is drama in such a situation. But there is a gn:eat deal of merit in The Mating Call and exhibitors whose clientele still re- tains a liking for Meighan need have no hesitancy in booking it. Tom gives a creditable performance, one that is restrained intelligently and convincing. In one sequence that is rich in the humor that sometimes is character- istic of Jimmy Cruze, Meighan throws Evelyn Brent out of his house which she has entered for the sole purpose of vamping him. In conception, acting and direction it is the high spot of the picture. Evelyn's performance is superb. It is smooth, effortless and with an underlying sense of comedy that raises it to the realms of high art. That always delightful Renee Adoree plays opposite Meighan. I never can find much to say about this young woman's screen appearances. No matter how varied the characterization, all her performances are alike in the degree of excellence that marks them. Apparently she is incapable of giving a poor performance. Gardner James is another who maintains the high acting average of the production. Helen Foster, a young girl whom I never saw before, handles her part splendidly, and Alan Roscoe is an altogether acceptable heavy. • • • Interesting Cinematic Study, But Lacking in Entertainment BILL Le Baron, over at F.B.O., undertook an interest- ing job when he decided to make a picture out of The Singapore Mutiny. Seven-eighths of the story is told on an unprepossessing freighter, and the remain- ing eighth in a life-boat in which three people are dying of thirst. There is not a land shot in it. Not only did Le Baron select a story that offered so little in the way of pictorial latitude, but he made it doubly difficult by selecting a story with a theme, not, as we might expect, a blood-and-thunder sea melodrama. And when he had made it as hard as possible, he handed it to Ralph Ince to direct. Ralph, to show that he is a glutton for work, cast himself in the leading part, which is all right with me as I think he is an excellent actor. I believe The Singapore Mutiny will be more interesting as a cinematic study than as screen entertainment. Bill Howard confined himself to unlovely surroundings when he made White Gold, and he told a gripping, dramatic story, but the public did not care a great deal for it. In that picture we had a few eye-rests in the way of views of distant landscapes. In Singapore Mutiny we never see more than a few feet at a time and never look over the side of the vessel for an unbroken view of a stretch of water. In such a set- Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Mr. Beaton: I am glad that I can read your paper twice as often in the future as I have in the past. Wishing you good luck, I am Very sincerely, ALEXANDER KORDA. My dear Mr. Beaton : Naturally you are to be congratulated over the growth of The Spectator. May that success continue. Sincerely, GEORGE FAWCETT. ting Ince unfolds a stark and raw story of the regenera- tion of a girl who has lived swiftly, and a brute with a little less strength and a little more brains than a gorilla. Estelle Taylor is the girl and Ince is the brute. The regenerating influence is a character played by Gardner James, a stowaway who turns the other cheek to the hard- ships he encounters. The girl and the brute apparently see in the stowaway Christlike qualities that I am afraid audiences will not recognize. I could not see how the unresisting surrender of the frail stowaway to the harsh routine of the ship could awaken the love of the girl and the respect and admiration of a man whose only god was muscle and only pride his own strength. The fact of the double regeneration is planted without the cause of it being presented convincingly. No one with picture intelli- gence can view the film without commending the bravery of F.B.O. in making it, and without approving the direc- tion, acting and production, but I believe the general opinion of it will be that it is slow and uninteresting. If this be the general verdict, I am satisfied that the chief reason for it will be the production's lack of pictorial variety. I have said lots of times that you can do any- thing on the screen provided you do it well enough, but I feel that making an entire picture practically in one setting, and that setting an unattractive one, is some- thing that can not be done well enough to be entertain- ing. Picture audiences have been taught to expect variety in scenes and it is reasonable to expect them to spurn a different fare. Too much of this story is told in a stokehole. With his masterly lighting, Jo Sternberg makes his stokehole in Docks of New York a fascinating place, but in Singapore Mutiny the stokehole is just a stokehole, and we see perhaps ten times as much of it as we see of the one in the Paramount production. If I had been making the F.B.O. picture, I would have had at least one sequence ashore. I would have had my ship stop at a tropical island to take on water, and I would have introduced the beauty of a tropical sunset seen through palms and the exotic appeal of tropical verdure to relieve the harsh monotony of the stokehole and the commonplace deck. In such surroundings I would have endeavored to show something that would have strength- ened the plausibility of the regeneration. Miss Taylor, Ince, and James give excellent performances, and except- ing some totally useless close-ups of Ince I can find noth- ing to criticize in the direction. Perhaps the actor de- manded the close-ups and the director was too soft-hearted to resist. * * * It Shows How Bankers Do Not Run Their Banks WHEN David Graham Phillips wrote A Grain of Dust he had the elastic limits of a book in which to develop his theme. When Tiflfany-Stahl under- took to make a picture out of it, it was confronted with definite limits within which things must move briskly with no stops for the elaboration of abstract ideas. It is a long time since I read the book and I have forgotten all about it, but I would judge from the picture that the producers followed the book too closely for good results to be possible. An author unhampered by space limita- tions perhaps can show how the marriage of a man to a brainless and vulgar girl can lead to the ruin of his busi- Octtfber 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen / may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. MALCOM STUART BOYLAN Editorial Supervisor FOX 1926 - 1927 - 1928 - 1929 BY TELEGRAPH New York, October 8. Another day-light hold-up on Broad- way. Bought a Spectator just now and hastened to a Western Union office to tell you that my hands are up for twenty-five dollars. Please squeeze in the fact that The Spectator is a complete answer to the question, "Can anything good come out of Hollywood?" Others of your New York friends join me in enthusiastic welcome to the Weekly which we hope will have a perpetual, prosperous, and pungent life. MOON CARROLL. (Miss Carroll is a talented English actress who captivated New York last season by her performance in And So to Bed.) ELIZABETH MEEHAN wrote the adaptation of Beau Geste, and the adaptation and continuity for Sorrell and Son and The Rescue, all three Herbert Brenon productions, and then actually told me that she was not clever enough to write some- thing to put in this space ! She asked me to write it for her. Fancy that! Of course I refused to do any such thing.— W. B. May First Division Pictures be numbered among those who extend to The Spectator sincere wishes that as a weekly it will have a career as distinguished as it has had already and as prosperous as its owner can hope for? ROBERT FURST. Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 It's all right this time, Welford, but if you try it again CHARLES FARRELL. Quick, Watson, the needle ! CRAUFURD KENT. ness and the suicide of one of his partners; but when a picture has used all the footage necessary to present the bare facts, it has none left in which to make all the bare facts plausible. Ricardo Cortez is introduced as a tre- mendously successful engineer. Partners in his firm are Jed Prouty and Richard Tucker. A contract to erect a great bridge is secured. Banks finance the contract. While work is progressing Cortez, although engaged to Claire Windsor, is fascinated with the lure of Alma Ben- nett, a girl who works in his office, and disappears with her. The strong firm is ruined because the banks refuse to advance any more money. The men on the job quit and Dick Tucker shoots himself. As I have said, in a book all these things might happen logically, but they make poor screen material. Anyone with average common sense knows that when bankers undertake to finance any- thing, they see it through. In this case we are asked to believe that the bankers were willing to lose all the money they had advanced prior to the disappearance of Cortez, and as far as one can gather from the picture, , the reason the bankers stand the big loss is because they are annoyed at Cortez for marrying the wrong girl. I found Grain of Dust uninteresting because I could not believe it. It is full of effects that are established with- out sufficient cause. George Archainbaud apparently appreciated the story weaknesses and sought to compen- sate us with a large display of acting. His men over- act. Possibly if I had been impressed with the sincerity of the scenes, I might have accepted the acting more read- ily. The best performance, because it is the most nat- ural, is that given by Alma Bennett as the vamping stenographer. I don't think I ever saw her before. She is a clever girl and should be heard from. Cortez re- sponded capably to the direction he received, but I could not feel that the character was real. In the end he is little better than a tramp, and I could see nothing in the picture that made such an outcome logical. When pro- ducers buy books out of which they intend to make screen stories they should realize that they can not put on the screen all there is in the books. In the instance of Grain of Dust a better picture would have resulted if Tiffany- Stahl had taken one idea out of the book and developed it without any frills. The moral disintegration of Cortez would have been theme enough, the bridge-building and banking incidents serving no purpose other than to make it impossible to devote sufficient footage to the things that counted. However, I don't wish to convey the im- pression that the picture is without merit. Those who^^ are not familiar with the ways of bankers, of course, canfll find no fault with the sequences that deal with them, con- sequently there will be nothing in such sequences to offend such people. And the same thing probably will be true in the cases of some of the other things that I complain of. • * • s Strayer Adheres to All the Movie Conventions THE highly developed critical faculty of the public will rate Moran of the Marines as poor screen enter- tainment. In the last Spectator I argued that the public has an ability to choose the best even though it can not grive an intelligent reason for its preference. Those who view Moran will like Richard Dix, its star, as much as ever; they will find Ruth Elder to be possessed October 13. 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen Kenneth c^deXander "Special Art Stills" ONE ! TWO ! THREE ! consecutive productions for Samuel Gold- wyn. Inc., and now under contract for the next picture for the same organization. Address: 6685 Hollywood Blvd. Telephone HOIlywood 8443 Dear Mr. Beaton: I play such bad parts — "Shanghai Mabel" in What Price Glory, "Roxie Hart" in Chicago, my current release Sal of Singapore, and The Shady Lady which I am now making — that being in the "Hold-Up" business myself on the screen and making my living that way, I'm in no position to say anything against such a novel publication as your "Hold-Up" num- ber. It is original. I hope it is a success. PHYLLIS HAVER. P. 0. Box 1241, Santa Monica, Calif. September 8, 1928. MR. WELFORD BEATON, c|o Film Spectator, 411 Palmer Building, Hollywood, Calif. Dear Mr. Beaton: I have been tardy in responding to your Hold- Up because after three years in harness with Famous Players I felt that even as you, I was entitled to a vacation. I have been out on the golf links trying to break ninety, and I am not going to leave until I have succeeded. In the meantime, Arthur Landau is handling my affairs. If you hear of anything important, get in touch with him at once. GL:GP Very truly yours, GREGORY LA CAVA. P. S. — I have never played Ojai, so let's get together sometime. L. EDDIE QUILLAN Just one of the Quillan family. Thanks to my greatest pal, "MY DAD", whose guiding hand helped to develop me. Thanks to Mr. Cecil B. De Mille for his faith in me. Thanks to the critics and friends who have said such nice things about my work in "The Godless Girl". Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 IS ZAT SO? James Gleason PAUL LENI DIRECTOR Universal Pictures "THE MAN WHO LAUGHS" "CAT AND THE CANARY" "THE LAST WARNING" of comely features and quite as much acting ability as the majority of our pretty leading women can boast; they will find that the story is an interesting one and the pro- duction adequate — and likewise will they find that the whole thing bores them. They will not be able to tell you why they are bored, for, as I argued previously, the critical sense of the public generally is inarticulate. As we look into this picture, we find that the specifications, as enumerated above, are satisfactory, consequently the success or failure of the whole thing depends upon the manner in which the specifications were handled. The picture lacks that sense of reality that a picture must have to make it popular with the public. It opens with a shot at Dix, at the head of a table, making a speech to a number of guests. He is standing, as is usual with after-dinner speakers. A little later there is a long shot that reveals that the Dix table is merely one in a large cafe and that when Dix was speaking he was within six feet of a stage upon which the cabaret program was being presented. Perhaps the majority of people in audiences would not stop to reflect that speeches are not made at small tables in large restaurants, and that even if they were, they would not be made so close to an orchestra that it would be impossible for the diners to hear a word. In the same sequence, Roscoe Karns rushes to a police- man to protest against the arrest of Dix. Before he begins his protest, Karns turns completely around in order to face the camera, which makes him face in the same direction as the man to whom he is protesting. Dix, Ruth Elder and Brooks Benedict engage in conversation. They stand shoulder to shoulder, all facing the camera. Dix and Miss Elder dance together. They stand in the middle of the dance floor for a long time, their arms around one another, and the other dancers glide past and around them as if there were nothing unusual in their conduct. In giving orders to rookies, a sergeant of marines waves his arms and indulges in other gestures so violent that if the scene were done in sound he would have to scream hysterically to make his voice match his actions. No story written for the screen can be strong enough to stand up under the manner in which this story is told. Frank Strayer, the director, makes it shriek movie. As soon as we see the absurdity of a man making a speech at one table in a restaurant, we feel that there is something the matter, even though we may not be certain what it is; and when we see that all the char- acters all the time face the camera, we feel that some- thing is out of joint, although we may not recognize it as the height of incompetency in direction. Some of the things you see on the screen are unbelievable even when you are looking at them. It seems impossible that a direc- tor should ask us to believe that when a man rushes up to a policeman he turns and faces in the same direction as the officer before conveying his urgent message to him. What possible objection can there be to showing the back of the man? Would some misfortune befall a director who posed three people in a triangle as they converse, ! I GEORGE CHANDLER Universal Star October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen ^ayderu Stevensoru Now Free Lancing 20 Years on Stage Management WM. W. COHILL GLadstone 7290 Good luck to The "Spec- tator"— no matter how, when, or where it is pub- lished!!! Your friend, WILLIAM BAKEWELL. Appreciating the value The Film Spec- tator has been to screen art in general, it is with pleasure that I greet its ap- pearance as a weekly. Charles F. Klein. Hail to The Spectator as a weekly May it never be a weakly ! LENORE J. COFFEE writing for M.-G.-M. WILLIAM J. COWEN directing for Pathe. Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 My dear Mr. Beaton : Accept my best wishes for you and your Film Spectator, weekly, daily and always. Yours very truly, TENEN HOLTZ. With Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. $ Robert Lord (Under Contract to Warner Bros.) Screen plays for the following Vitaphone Specials: 'THE LION AND THE MOUSE' "WOMEN THEY TALK ABOUT" "MY MAN" "ON TRIAL" instead of in a straight line, all facing in the same direc- tion? Moran of the Marines is a sacrifice to movie con- ventions. If the camera had been kept on the story in- stead of on faces, it might have been a convincing and plausible comedy. There are many laughs in it as it is, but no one will believe the story. This One Has Good Acting to Its Credit WHETHER Singapore Sal Kennedy's dictum that was made under Joe j his pictures were to] cost forty per cent, less without sacrificing their J quality, I have no way of knowing, but I do know that it bears upon its surface no marks of having sacrificed any-' thing that would add to its entertainment value. It is a splendid picture, the jMToduction, acting and direction being of uniform excellence. It contains three outstand- ing performances, Phyllis Haver, Alan Hale and Fred Kohler distinguishing themselves by the manner in which they enact their roles. Sometimes we see on the screen stories so interesting that they almost can act themselves, making the contributions of the members of the cast matters of no great importance. Singapore Sal does not have that kind of story. It demanded real characteriza- tions, and the picture has them. Phyllis Haver never did better work on the screen. As the dancehall girl whom Hale carries away on his ship to take care of a baby that was wished on him, she enters into the spirit of her part with intelligence, and handles all its widely differing phases like a real artist. In the dancehall she is the tough wisecracker to the life, and over the cradle of the sick baby she is tender, wistful and pathetic. My convic- tion that Alan Hale is one of the best actors we have is strengthened by his work in this picture. I never have seen him in a scene in which he was making any conscious effort to act. Even when he is indulging in villainy he radiates an air of cheerfulness that earns for him the sympathy of the audience. In this picture he is a tough, direct-action sea captain with a tender spot for the baby he is forced to adopt. When he finds the baby on his ship he goes ashore in Singapore and shanghais Phyllis to take care of it, a funny idea which is directed and acted splendidly. Fred Kohler is robbed of Phyllis by Hale's impetuosity and resourcefulness, and the sev- eral encounters of the two men are enriched by a gen- erous mixture of comedy and drama. Kohler's perform- ance leaves nothing to be desired. There is a comedian in the picture who some day will be heard from. He appears in only three or four scenes and has nothing much to do with the story, but his personality stands out. I have discovered that his name is Jimmie Aldine. He is like that other Pathe prize package, Eddie Quillan, in that he just can't help being funny. My advice to producers is that they should do something about Jimmie. Not in the way of horn-blowing, but to grive point to the advice, I might mention that thus far I have been right when I spotted someone in a mob and led him forward for closer inspection. Howard Higgin directed Singapore Sal just a little better than he ever before has directed a picture. He handles close-ups intelligently, which can not be said of many directors. He gives us sea sequences that are outstanding. In Walking Back, another Pathe picture, Rupert Julian gives us a duel between two automobiles. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR If I hadn't put away my guns! BILL HART. Fancy ME being held up! OTIS HARLAN $ ■ ..4 Page Twenty-one T Flat burglary as ever was com- mitted ! — Shakespeare. JOHN BOLES. X...4 $ We can get The Spectator twice as often, but it's a cinch it can't be twice as good. DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS JR. $ Page Twenty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ Isn't it extraordinary the way some people can think up ideas for get- ting money? HUNTLY GORDON. $ Dear Welford: You will remember that be- fore you started The Spectator you told me all your hopes for it. Please let me tell you how de- lighted I am that even your most optimistic dreams have been sur- passed by the reality of your paper's success. JAMES YOUNG. While watching Singapore Sal I thought for a moment that Higgin was going to outdo Julian by giving us a duel between two large freighters, but he contented him- self with thrilling us with anticipation and then bringing the vessels alongside one another and allowing the re- spective crews to indulge in a most joyous fight, the pleasure of the combatants being lessened in no way by the fact that they had no idea what the fuss was about. In his direction of the fray Higgrin injects some comedy touches that are delightful. When I saw the picture it was not in its final shape and I am presuming that it since has been tightened up in a couple of places where it dragged. Something else that may have been im- proved, although I doubt it, is the punctuation of the titles. It was awful in the version that I saw. * * * PROBABLY there is some sensible reason for a trip to New York by Carl Laemmle Jr. and Paul Fejos, di- rector, but the publicity department of Universal makes it ridiculous by stating that the pair will haunt the night clubs of Gotham in search of new faces for the screen. When Junior Laemmle feels the urge to hunt for new faces he need go no farther than one of his own stages when a number of extras are used. There are enough new faces in Hollywood to supply the demand for the next dozen years. Lately while I have been visiting sets I have chatted with extras, and I have found that the majority of those with whom I have talked are not bub- bling over with enthusiasm. They do not seem to feel that the future holds a great deal for them, yet under conditions that should prevail in the studios, they should be buoyed up with the knowledge that from among them must come the stars of the future. If they could be given such assurance they would have something to strive for. We have thousands of intelligent girls in the ranks of the extras, girls who are being taught how to act in front of the camera, yet they read in the papers every little while that this or that executive has gone some place else to hunt for new faces. If the producers would get together and announce that hereafter they would look for talent only among the picture people now in Hollywood, they would put heart into a large number of disheartened people and assure themselves all the new faces they need. And while on the subject of faces, I would like to express the hope that some day there will arise in our midst a producer with wisdom enough to look for interesting faces, instead of beautiful ones, when girls are being consid- ered. Screen patrons have been so fed up with beauty that there is a great opening for a few girls whose faces run more to personality than to classic features. Hun- dreds of beautiful girls have enjoyed public acclaim be- cause of their beauty, but only those among them who can act have held their popularity for any length of time, which proves that the first thing that the public buys is acting. • * » MY adventure as a hold-up man would have been still more successful if it had been possible for repre- sentatives of the advertising department of The Spec- tator to gain entrance to studios, the only 'places where screen people can be found in bunches. The studios have rules that exclude solicitors of any sort. The Spectator, the only paper published anywhere that is devoted exclu- sively to the betterment of screen art, which is another October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR ?-"■■■--- Page Twenty-three As long as you uphold the mo- tion picture art, it seems con- sistent that you should hold up the motion picture artists. MONTAGU LOVE. Just a plodding writer's com- pliments to the only paper that uses his stuff. Long life and more space to the Weekly! JAMES BRANT. Hail to The Spectator as a weekly! Long life to the man who writes it! EDMUND BREESE. $ $ If my small contribution in any way helps The Spectator to appear twice as often, I feel that it is an investment that will yield great dividends. HARMON WEIGHT. Page Twenty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ Best of Luck to The Weekly Spectator MONTE BLUE. $ $ I've played so many Scotch parts that this is positively ago- nizing. RUSSELL SIMPSON. $ way of saying that it is the only one devoted exclusively to increasing the profits of producers, comes under the rule of exclusion. Variety, which frequently makes men- acing onslaughts on the pocketbooks of screen people, and which never contained one constructive thought on the improvement of the art, does not. Its representatives have free access to all the studios and are undisturbed when they roam around and ply their trade. Personally I have no complaint to make. I am granted the courtesies of all the studios and am appreciative of the considerate treatment I receive in each of them. When I am on a lot I am conscious of the fact that I am the guest of its owner, and I am careful not to transgress its law against soliciting business. But if someone encounters me on a lot and offers me a subscription or an advertisement I do not grow indignant and knock him down. As a matter of fact, it is astonishing how genial I become when such a thing happens. • * « TO those responsible for the Bill Haines wisecracking characterizations is commended the performance of Hugh Trevor in Hey, Rube!, an F.B.O. film directed byj George B. Seitz. Trevor has all the assurance that the! Metro star displays, but he carries it off with an air of I breeding that robs it of offense. In his imi)etuou3 pursuitl of the girl he displays no bashfulness, but he at all timeal is amusing and in the best of taste. The young fellowj is an excellent actor and even though the top of his head! is six feet or more from the ground, he is as graceful asl a dancing master. He has a winning smile and a pleas-l ing screen personality that will carry him a long way inl pictures. The speed with which he advances will dependl on the parts he gets, but it is inevitable that he is to] become one of the most popular leading men in the busi-l ness. Remember my prediction. Hey, Rube! is an inter-J esting little picture. It has a well-knit story which Seitzl handled intelligently, and presents several performancesj that are worthy of a more ambitious production. There! is a young woman in it, Ethlyne Clair, whom I never sawl before, and while I am in a predicting mood I would like! to go on record as hazarding a guess that she will havel a brilliant career on the screen if she be given half al chance. She has good looks and expressive eyes thati appear to have a brain behind them. Only the fact that! Walter McGrail is such an accomplished villain reconciled me to the fact that they call him Welford. Even so, it ] nettled me somewhat when a particularly atrocious bit ! of villainy was followed by the title, "If I find that Welford did this " Perhaps the title writer is someone whom I tried to hold up for this number and who availed him- self of the only medium for reprisal at his command. But __ I trust that if any other character be dubbed with my fli name, he will be a benevolent old gentleman who will do credit to it. A perusal of the advertisements in this num- ber will show that I don't stand any too well in the com- munity just now, and to associate my name with dia- bolical deeds on the screen, is piling it on a bit too thick. However, Hey, Rube! is a picture that exhibitors need have no hesitancy in booking. ■TT 7HEN I reviewed Raymond Cannon's Life's Like That ' " I stated that it struck a new note in screen technic, and I cited several examples of Cannon's departure from h October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-five Dear Welf ord : When you and I used to trot around Seattle together about a quarter of a century ago, I did not dream that you would develop into a hold-up man. If I had, I would have suggested a partnership. I wouldn't mind being the side- kick of a yegg who uses such a fine, clean weapon in his hold-up opera- tions. Hail, Weekly! CHARLES CLARY. 1 $ (Cablegram) Somewhere in France. Greetings exclamation point if I gotta pay you too can't say any more period costs too much per word period NICK STUART. Dear Mr. Welf ord Beaton : I have just received your invita- tion to stand in line for the Hold-Up Number. My hands are up, and I am cheer- ing for the first issue of The Spec- tator as a weekly. Sincerely, Mary Brian. $ $ Dear Welf ord: There's a couplet in Kipling: And Tomlinson, he grabbed the bars. And yammered, "Let me in!" And in regard to your stick-up number — here's another of us yam- mering. DANIEL TOMLINSON. $ Page Twenty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13. 1928 Tell me, Welford — did you get that way by looking at so many underworld pictures? HARVEY CLARK. t- They send people to jail for offenses much more trivial than this! JAMES HALL. screen conventions. Alter The Spectator appeared, Sol Wurtzel sent for the picture, and after viewing it, sent for Cannon. Cannon recently finished a picture on the Fox lot, as a result of his interview with Wurtzel. No one interfered with him. Wurtzel approved the story and then the director was allowed to go it alone. The Fox organization gambled a considerable sum of money on its opinion that a man who made a Life's Like That with a small budget should be able to make a good picture with all the resources of a great organization at his back. But it was not only a good picture that Wurtzel was looking for. He was looking also for a director who had some- thing new to offer. The only way to find out what there was in Cannon was to leave him absolutely alone, to give him an opportunity for unhampered expression. His pic- ture may be a poor one, in which case Fox will charge its cost to justifiable experimenting. It may be a good picture, in which case Fox will have, in addition to its good picture, a new director with ideas, something worth a dozen good pictures. Sol Wurtzel adopted the only method by which screen art will be advanced. It is not the usual method. Ordinarily a new director is not allowed to express himself; he must express a supervisor who does not know what it is he wants expressed. There are many reasons why I hope that Cannon's picture will be a masterpiece. The chief one is that I would like to see Sol Wurtzel's judgment vindicated in order that he will be encoiu-aged to give other men with ideas a chance to demonstrate if their ideas are practical. There are enough geniuses in Hollywood to give screen art a new dignity. But there are not enough Sol Wurtzels. * * * STATISTICS have no part in my life. They are my pet aversion. But I imagine that they would show that more people live in detached homes than in apartments. We would gather from the screen that the reverse is the rule. Right here in Hollywood there are hundreds of bachelors who live in beautiful little homes, but did you ever see on the screen a bachelor who did not live in an apartment? And why has it not occurred to some pro- ducer that it would add to a heavy's characterization to show him living in a flower-covered cottage instead of in the invariable over-stuffed flat? Although we have many pictures with California locales I never have seen one of our attractive sun porches on the screen. Pictures have established standard homes of their own and it would be a relief if they reverted for a time to a dupli- cation of real homes. Flower gardens have universal appeal, but they are presented on the screen only in con- nection with a limited type of characters. Some day a screen genius is going to show us a gangster leaving his bed of roses to sally forth for the purpose of assassinat- ing a friend. There are gangsters of that sort. But I said a long time ago that screen art is one of standard parts. * » ♦ A N art director showed me some sets he had designed, •^*- and I admired the artistic perfection he had achieved. He had lent personality to a drawing-room and a living- room, and had made them so individual that I could imagine the kind of people that lived in them. I hap- pened to visit the sets again when they were being shot. The right kind of people were not living in the house. 1 October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-seven My best wishes for the success of The Spectator as a weekly. GEORGE DURYEA. ._~..4 Zees leetle space costs me $25. Zat ees 625 francs. Oooh, la, la! ! F. DE MIOLLIS. Greetings from HARRY BEAUMONT. M.-G.-M. My best wishes for The Spec- tator as a weekly. VICTOR VARCONI, Now with John Barrymore in production directed by Ernst Lubitsch. Page Twenty-eight . THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ Ben H. Rothwell Artists Representative 516 Taft Building Hollywood, California Phone HE. 5428 $ $ Consider this a loan. ROBERT ARMSTRONG. $ The entrance to the drawing-room was one in which an old butler with an intellectual face and of dignified bear- ing should have stood to announce arriving guests. I was shocked to see a young butler with a comedy face and an athletic frame. The guests were equally out of tune with their surroundings. They were not the sort of people one would expect to encounter in that sort of house. The art director had given the place a definite personality and the casting director had filled it with different personal- ities. If the character.s were the kind the story called for, the art director was wrong in desigrning such sets; if the sets suited the story, the casting was done un- wisely. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter to bring about closer cooperation among the various de- partments that are responsible for a motion picture. * * * ONE of the most extraordinary things about this Hold- Up Number is that those who have permitted them- selves to be held-up by it are those who are constantly held-up by other film papers and who know what a waste of money it is. Many of them have told me that they contributed to this number cheerfully, but that they wish they could withstand the demands of the publications which excuse their hold-ups by claiming that their spe- cial numbers are published for the sole purpose of serv- ing the industry. I would suggest to those who are look- ing for a way out that they tell advertising salesmen that they hereafter will buy space only in hold-up num- bers, and that any publication that so classifies its special number will receive their support. The Spectator's Hold- Up Number is not published with any idea of being of the slightest value to the industry, but if it could be instru- mental in making the personnel of the industry brave enough to resist grafting publications in the future it will not have been born in vain. It would be rather a joke on me if my Hold-Up Number did not have me as its sole beneficiary. * * * WHEN I reviewed Submarine a couple of Spectators ago, I overlooked the mention of one fe&ture of the story which impressed me. In this creditable Columbia production Dorothy Revier gives a fine performance in the leading feminine role. It is a characterization of a no-good, brainless trifler who marries Jack Holt and then is untrue to him. She is responsible for a misunderstand- ing between Holt and Harrison Ford, his buddy. When the misunderstanding is cleared up, the friends clasp hands and depart together for the other side of the world. The picture disposes of its leading woman by the simple ex- pedient of ignoring her. It is a fine bit of screen work chiefly because it is a departure from screen conventions. The universal custom is to "wash up" the unclean hero or heroine. In this picture the woman becomes of no im- portance as soon as the other leading characters become aware of her unworthiness, consequently she is dropped without any ceremony. It is done so naturally that five minutes after I had viewed the picture I could not recall the scene in which I had seen Dorothy Revier last. * * • ON a set which I visited recently a dance sequence was being shot. The floor was covered with young people who acted as an animated background for the two leads who danced on one spot about as big as a washtub. They twisted and turned directly in front of the camera October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Twenty-nine Sincerely hoping that this will be Mr. Beaton's only offense as a Hold-Up man, and that from now on he again will revert to being different. ESTHER RALSTON. My dear Mr. Beaton: You may not know it, but I am after some of your gold medals, and unfortunately I missed the article announcing about your medals at the beginning of the year, otherwise I would have paid particular attention to the two scenes in "Hearts of Romany". But I have still hope, as the year is not over yet. You are in line for a medal for yourself, Mr. Beaton, and I am convinced that if anyone ever oifers a medal to the party that has the most nerve, you will win it by a long margin. First you take a month vacation (with pay) and let all your friends do your work, and now you dare to come and ask us again to help you to hold us up, or in other words, hold up ourselves. Nowhere have I heard of anything like this before. But another medal is due you for the cleverness and frankness of it all, and therefore my heartiest wishes for the weekly Spectator, which cannot help but being a big success. Bien Amicalement. ALPHONSE MARTELL. "Doris cAnderson Under Contract to Paramount Famous Lasky John Stone Since Jan. 1, 1928 THE PLAY GIRL Madge Bellamy ROADHOUSE Lionel Barrymore WESTERN ROMANCE Rex Bell PREP AND PEP David Butler Prod. HOMESICK Sammy Cohen CAPTAIN LASH Victor McLaglen SUBWAY Wm. Beaudine Prod. NOBODY'S CHILDREN All-Star Fox Scenario Staff Page Thirty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Welford: Greetings ! EDWARD T. LOWE, JR. PoKce! KENNETH THOMSON. $ and never once merged with the slowly revolving crowd made up of extras. The director who was handling the scene in this way could visit all the dance halls on earth without finding one in which his grouping was duplicated. He is what is the matter with the movies. The boy and girl playing the leading parts are well known and high priced, and no doubt the director shares the conviction of a lot of people who shouldn't be in pictures, but who are, that the only way in which to get back the money paid for featured players is to keep them in front of the camera all the time. The only sure method of g:etting back the cost of a picture is to make a good picture, and distorted scenes do not make good pictures. * * * BACKGROUND action, we are told, distracts from the action in the foreground. This belief is one of the blights that make screen art languish. There should be as much action in the background as is customary in a background of the sort. The only distracting thing in a pictiire is something that is not natural. In some picture that I have seen recently there is evidence of its director's belief in a static background. A medium shot takes in a man seated by an office door, in front of him the two characters who carry the scene. The man does not move as much as an eyelid. He is frozen to his chair. He is so stationary that all the time he was on the screen I watched him to see if he would move. He fascinated me and I paid no attention to the foreground action. If the man had turned his head to watch the principal charac- ters; if he had dropped his hat and picked it up, or if he had done anything else to demonstrate that he was alive, I would have paid no attention to him. In other words, if the background had been natural, it would have occu- pied none of my attention, and my interest would have been centered on the action that was the excuse for the scene. * • • DO Your Duty is, I believe, Charlie Murray's first starring vehicle. His is the only big name in the cast and First National apparently is relying upon it to pull them in at the box-ofiice. If it has any serious intention of continuing to star Murray it should wake up to the fact that he has not enough acting ability to carry seven reels in which practically nothing happens. Neither has Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, nor any other comedian alive. While the picture is the worst that I have seen come from any of the big organizations in some months, Mvu*ray con- tributes to it the best performance I ever saw him give. In fact, it is the first time I ever really have liked him on the screen. William Beaudine directed and it is evi- dent that his lack of enthusiasm was due to the fact that the scenarist gave him nothing to enthuse over. The picture is too absurd to provoke serious criticism, but I can't help wondering why Bill didn't give us a robbery sequence plausible enough to be entertaining. I presume it was considered to be the high spot of the picture, but it was directed with all the delightful disregard for rea- son that characterized films a quarter of a century ago. * • • SCREEN people who need mental stimulation, and others who enjoy it, should spend an evening playing Kam-ra, a card game invented by Mrs. Tom Miranda, wife of the man who was so reckless with his money in buying adver- tising space in this number of The Spectator. The U. S. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirty-on€ ^ Dear Welford: It isn't a total loss. I quite agree with Shakespeare when he says: The robb'd that smiles, steals something from the thief. ALAN CROSLAND. ^}\e^ ^^nted ^ody It's a Rupert Hughes story to appear in Cosmopolitan imme- diately. It's about an artist who rents a girl's body for thirty days and thirty nights — for artistic purposes only — And remains artistic? Or doesn't? Johru ^, Qoodrich 6683 SUNSET BLVD. GRanite 9525 Page Thirty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ Fleecing? Huhl Dear Welford: Mary had a little lamb; Its fleece was white as snow. Your fleece isn't white at all, But you should worry! Here's our dough. JOBY and DICK. (These traducers, I'll have you know, are Jobyna Ralston and Richard Arlen, whom I have beaten at golf, individually and col- lectively, and who now resort to the low practice of writing poetry at me. — W. B.) $ Playing Card Company thinks so well of the game that it has made handsome cards for it and they are now on the market. Kam-ra has one advantage over bridge in that the poor playing of one person does not penalize a partner. In the new game everyone goes it alone. I am fond of cards and I prefer Kam-ra to bridge. I recom- mend it heartily to screen people because Jo Miranda was inspired in her invention of it by the personnel of motion pictures. The top cards are producer, author, director, star, and hero, and the rest of the suits are extras. Try it and I'm sure you'll like it. * * * AN opportunity to do mankind a service by demonstrat- ing how to make tea, was overlooked in The Mating Call, Caddo's second picture starring Tom Meighan. Evelyn Brent brews Tom a dish of tea, and she does not do it properly. I know, because making tea is my sole kitchen accomplishment. When Evelyn undertakes the task she puts the tea in the cold pot and pours boiling water on it, the usual method of making tea, but not the method of making good tea. The first thing to do, if you want to do it properly, is to pour boiling water into the pot, and leave it there long enough to heat the pot. The next step is to pour out the water, after which the tea is put in, and boiling water poured on it. If I were a Boy Scout, I would put this down as my good turn for the day. * • » You may remember, if you remember things of the sort, that when I reviewed The Fleet's In! I made some caustic remarks about the failure of Paramount to put the exclamation point on the screen. In quite a bright way — rather clever, in fact — I pointed out that the excla- mation point was what the title needed to give it the proper whoop-la! Paramount agrees with me; agrees with me so heartily that it carried out my suggestion long before I made it. The exclamation point was there all the time. I don't know how I happened to miss it, but I did. * • • COME Spectators ago, in my review of The Loves of an *-' Actress, I referred to the worthy performance given by the man who played Pola Negri's father. At the time I did not know the actor's name, but since I have learned it. It is Gustav Schart. I do not know his record, bat I am convinced that he is an artist of great ability. Con- sidering how badly the screen needs real acting, it is sur- prising how little it uses the actors who are available. * * « THE Spectator apparently lacks sex appeal. You will notice that among the advertisers in this Hold-Up Number the men greatly outnumber the women of the screen, although both were given an equal opportunity to come in. I THE more I see of H. M. Walker's titles in Hal Roach comedies, the more am I convinced that he is one of the greatest wits in pictures. »-■■■- -•- II WESLEY RUGGLES' Ne« FIccutt Is ''I'orh^ of T)reams" October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirty-three This Chicago Edition makes Welford Beaton "The (Man "Who Laughs" J. Gnibb Alexander Greetings to the New Weekly and all Good Wishes for its Success. Qlara ^eranger Page Thirty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's IS-Y ear-Old Critic HOKUM may be frowned upon by highbrows, but it's great motion picture stuff and good entertainment at the same time. The hokum in Sal of Singapore is thick enough to be cut with a knife, but Sal is one of the best pictures turned out lately. The story concerns two roughnecks and a baby. Phyllis Haver and Alan Hale play the two parts, and do splendid work. Howard Hig- gfin directed. He seems capable of drawing the characters of ten-minute eggs better than any other director, and with two troupers like Alan and Phyllis, he can hardly help but make a good picture. The most important mem- ber of the cast is a baby, name unknown, who is left to the tender ministrations of the two roughnecks. Every- thing, including a love story, centers around it. Higgrin can make an appealing love story out of practically any- thing, and lack of attractive surroundings appears to make no difference to him. In Skyscraper he made a beautiful romance between a steel worker and a little chorus girl. In Sal of Singapore he works with a tough sea captain and a dance hall girl, and made it just as good. As a matter of fact, there was nothing but a suggestion of a love story in the picture. Roughnecks don't make ardent love to any great extent, and Higgin kept his true to type. Higgin's comedy, when he doesn't descend to the silli- ness which kept Skyscraper from being noteworthy, is very clever and amusing. Though it never arouses any roars of laughter, it is always entertaining, a quality which is better than comedy which is very funny one minute and very dull the next. Fred Kohler contributed one of his serio-comic heavy characterizations, so there was a fight, of course. Whenever Kohler gets in a picture with a hero anywhere near his own size, there always is a tremendous fight. When the ear-biting and eye-gouging are over, Kohler usually is disclosed sitting in the corner in a gory heap with a fistful of his opponent's hair clutched in his hand. He's a good heavy, and I am glad to say that his physique looks as if it could stand the mauling it gets. I saw Sal of Singapore at a preview, so I suppose some of the spots which seemed to drag will be tightened up. They weren't very numerous, and it is to Higgin's credit that there weren't more of them, as the story tends toward slowness. Anyway, it's good entertainment, and could be booked anywhere. * * » WHEN sound pictures become general all over the country, the Babbitt which made Sinclair Lewis famous is going to disappear gradually. Smart sophistication can be put over so much more easily with the voice than by a written title that there are going to be a great deal more of those pictures produced than hitherto. Apparently pictures are the rulers of fashion out where inhibitions and complexes or what have you are unknown, so the talkers will bring in numerous changes in the life to the denizens of the great American wilder- ness. Perhaps they will even do something for the chap in Bakersfield who said: "I just ain't got no time". He was fixing our car and exchanging remarks with the town wise man, who also got off a few weird constructions. They got so tangled up some times that it was almost im- possible to understand them. Anything the talkers can do for them will be deeply appreciated, by me at least, as the next time I stop in Bakersfield, it would be nice to know the language. * • * SINGAPORE Mutiny is the type of picture which I thought had gone out of date a year or so ago, but apparently it hasn't. It is a sea-story which Ralph Ince directed for F.B.O., and it has everything in it, including a shipwreck and a big fight scene. Of course, no picture of Ralph Ince's is complete without a lot of he- man chest heaving and eye snatching, and this one was no exception. They even had the old sequence where the heroine struggles fiercely with the big, bad, bold man who hid in her room for no good purpose. When she is tackling him alone, she puts up a great fight, but when another man enters it to protect her, she seems paralyzed and unable to do anything but stand aside and gasp. In the meantime her protector is being used for floor wax, and is in danger of getting what few brains he has knocked out. He should have known better than to try to beat up the star of the picture, particularly when it is Ralph Ince. * * * THE main fault of Singapore Mutiny was its failure to remain merely a blood-and-thunder sea story with just the amount of absurdities common to such pic- tures. They attempted a theme which was meant to have something to do with brotherly love or words to that effect, and did it very poorly. It was silly. Every once in a while, someone would come along and crack Gardner James over the head, and he always came up smiling and anxious to forgive whoever did it. That's a lot of hooey, because they don't make nuts like that any more. Every time he gave some big bruiser a sweet smile, I felt like walking out on the whole thing. He should have died, anyway. When he first entered the story, he was cough- ing terribly, presumably from tuberculosis. He was put in the stokehold to push wheelbarrows full of coal. In- stead of dying on the spot, as he naturally would have, he lived on and even got better. * « * THERE were many silly things in Singapore Mutiny, every one of which is a relic of the Dark Ages in motion picture making. They all hurt the picture, too. The ship on which the action took place was sup- posed to be an oiler, but it burned coal for fuel. That scarcely seems right. In one scene, Ince is dressing to go call on the girl. He puts on a perfectly white shirt- front effect, I don't know what they are called, and his hair is ungreased. In the next shot, the shirt is stained with oil, and his hair is plastered down. In the same shot, somebody hands him a bottle of hair-oil, which he tries to drink, not knowing what it is. How he got his hair all plastered in such a short time is apparently meant October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirty-five Success and best wishes to Welford Beaton and The Film Spectator from two of your most ardent fans and readers — JUNE COLLYER and LINA BASQUETTE. Page Thirty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ As I consider The Spec- tator the greatest con- structive force that has entered the motion pic- ture industry And its editor the most useful critic pictures have produced It gives me pleasure to greet the publication as a weekly and to congratu- late the industry upon the fact that its most valuable journalistic ally will serve it twice as often as for- merly. Francis X. Bushman. $ to be a mystery, as is the manner in which the shirt got stained. What must have happened is that the scene which was shown was one of the later ones taken, when the hair and shirt had been treated several times. The fault lies in their making no effort to change the shirt or take the grease out of his hair. The whole thing was careless. There is a scene where Estelle Taylor is trapped in her room by some wreckage which has fallen across the door. She stands by a window she could easily get out of and screams for help. * * * WHILE I don't think much of Ralph Ince as a director, I rather enjoy his acting. When he plays a heavj', as he usually does, he manages to make it human; although he is bad enough to satisfy the most fastidious connoiseur of blood-thirsty villains. Incident- ally, he looks very impressive while beating some un- fortunate individual into a state of suspended animation. If he could get himself something beside sea-stories aboard miniature ships to do, he might do something really worth while. Estelle Taylor is the girl in Singapore Mutiny, and her work is quite satisfactory. Her clothes were what fascinated me. She was introduced as a fail- ure on Broadway and bound for Rio de Janeiro to attempt a comeback or something. All through the picture she wore very smart and expensive looking gowns, and I don't see how a girl, who is so poor she has to travel on a third class boat, can have so many different dresses. Gardner James did his characterization again. * * TIFFANY-Stahl seems to specialize in the heaviest sort of stuff, judging from the last two pictures of their's that I have seen. To-morrow and The Grain of Dust were both drama with no light moments at alL The Grain of Dust was adapted from the novel by that name, but I think the adaptation was poorly done and was responsible for most of the faults of the picture. The adapter shouldn't be blamed so much, however, because the story must have been too long and complicated to get it all in the short space of a seven reel picture. The main fault of the whole thing was the failure of a big engineer- ing firm because one member of it left his job. He was the strong partner and all that, but it seems scarcely probable that his dereliction from duty would bring the whole thing to a finish. That was one of the things that the book probably worked out logically and completely, but it couldn't be made clear in the picture without a lot of action which would hurt the entertainment value. * • * THE hero of The Grain of Dust is a poor fish who gives up money, social position, and a potentially happy married life to marry a stenographer in his office. Cleverly acted by Alma Bennett, she was a hope- less little low-brow. Naturally, when the hero marries her, he forfeits the respect and sj-mpathy of the audience. George Archainbaud, the director, was faced with the hard task of making his hero a sympathetic character again; and though he made a mighty effort, he didn't quite succeed. His direction was very good otherwise, however. While the picture was not the best entertain- ment I have seen, it was well done; but I think Tiffany- Stahl will do well to choose more popular themes for. their pictures. They certainly gather together good casts for October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirty-seven Qood Luck to Hold-Up Number! DAVID TORRENCE Page Thirty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Mr. Beaton: They tell me that you are achieving great suc- cess in holding up pro- ducers. Will you kindly tell me how you do it? Bewilderedly, MARY McALISTER. their films, this one being headed by Ricardo Cortez, Claire Windsor, and Alma Bennett. They all gave good perform- ances, and John St. Polis, Jed Prouty, and Richard Tucker, who supported them, were highly satisfactory. * * * AFTER Dad threw Spider Boy aside, I picked it up and made a valiant effort to read it. To my great surprise I managed to finish it in spite of the fact that there were no quotation marks, a circumstance which made it terribly hard to read. Carl Van Vechten, who is responsible for the creation of the book, is just an- other back-biter on the order of Jim Tully; but he is a pretty fair writer, and I'll always maintain that Tully isn't even that. The book deals with a famous author who goes to Hollywood and is madly pursued by the picture people, because they all want a story from him. There is no doubt that Hollywood pursues authors longer and harder than any place else on earth, and if the book keeps one person from going dippy at the sight of the next author who comes here, it will be a success. My chief reason for disliking the book was Van Vechten's clumsy attempt at satire, because he didn't seem capable of being clever or subtle. If an author must be satirical, he ought to do it well. * « * PRODUCERS at times seem to have a peculiar angle on the box-office. They will take a star, one who can really act, and put him in a certain type of pic- tiu-e. The picture is a success, therefore they never give the star anything but that sort of story; and the pictures con- tinue to make money for some time. When told that they are ruining the box-office value of the star, they mention the fact that his fan mail has increased, therefore he must be popular and getting more so every day, due to that type of picture. The reason that the star's fan mail increases is because he has established a new mode, and for a time his popularity will increase. However, when the public swings to something else, the star is left high and dry; because he has nothing to base his reputation on but that one kind of picture, building on sand, as it were. The star is said to be slipping, and is blamed for some- thing which is not his fault at all. If the producer had given him a variety of roles and built up a following which knew that it always was sure of an interestisg character- ization from him, the star still would be flourishing like the proverbial green bay tree. The producer probably is stuck with a contract which runs for some time, and weeps and wails about his losses. It never occurs to him that it was his own fault, but he will protest that it is good busi- ness to cash in on the star's popularity in a certain brand of story. The stars I mean are the ones who can really act, not the ones who made a lucky hit in one picture and are not capable of doing anything else. They can fade gently but firmly into oblivion, and no one will mind much. * * * FB.O. has turned out some very good little pictures, and Hey, Rube! ranks right up with the best of them. It is an unpretentious little story, but it is well told and produced. It is a tale of circus life, and it has everything, including drama, comedy, and a mild love story. There is nothing new about it, but it managed to be very entertaining. George B. Seitz directed and did a October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR I • • $ ril get even with you! Page Thirty-nine Dorothy Mackaill -4 EETI Page Forty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13. 1928 During my career I've been held up sev- eral times, and this is the first time that I have enjoyed it. NED SPARKS. very good job, although there was nothing particularly new or original about his work. Gertrude Olmstead, Hugh Trevor, and Ethlyn Clair were featured. Miss Olmstead had a part which offered no opportunity, so the acting honors of the piece go to Miss Clair, whose heavy char- acterization was unusually brilliant. I never have seen her on the screen before, but it seems to me that if she is in the habit of turning in performances like this one, someone is overlooking a great bet. Hugh Trevor did a good piece of work in a part which was little more than the conventional hero role. Walter McGrail was right there as the menace. * * * THE production of Hey, Rube! was exceptional for such a little picture. The whole thing took place on the fair grounds, and within a day or two. There were two big thrills in the picture, the big gang fight and the sequence where the heroine is trapped on the burn- ing ladder. There was real suspense and drama in the rescue, and it didn't seem silly and impossible, as most of these motion picture rescues do. The assembling of the circus gang at the cry of "Hey, Rube!" was good, as was the ensuing fight. The old story of the operation, and the sudden need for a lot of money, was used. It wasn't bad, either. In fact I took more interest in the acquisition and preservation of the money than anything else. After the battle, when the hero discovered that it was missing from his pocket, I was terribly worried until they got it back again. Hey, Rube! is the sort of story which made motion pictures what they are, and there should be more like it. I U^rman's c5^rt 5hop \ The Home of Harmonic Framing I Paintings Restored and Refinished j 6653 Hollywood Boulevard 1 VISITORS WELCOME ) .^ Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hou-TwooD 2627 October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Forty-one cAt leash^ he might have^ spared the^ Irish. John Francis Dillon Dear Welf ord : Enclosed is my check. I look upon it as an answer to a high- wayman's prayer. FRED NIBLO. p. S. — Of course you know how cheerfully I welcome The Weekly Spectator. — F. N. Page Forty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 ABOUT OTHER THINGS, By K. C. B. No man ever knows thoroughly another man until he has come to know the viewpoint of that other man. And to know the viewpoint of the other man he must know the things that have entered into the making of it. He must know of the man's environment from the days in which his mind first began to gather in its store of worldly knowledge. He must know of the man's asso- ciates in youth and manhood. If politics has entered into his life he must know what have been the political affilia- tions of the man — ^whether he has trained with men of altruistic or egoistic bent. And so, he must know all about the man, and of his reaction to the various situations in which he has found himself, whether they be in business or in politics, or what. And knowing all these things he then has knowledge of the viewpoint of the man, and, having this, he then can tell you pretty nearly what the man will do, no matter what the circumstance. Viewpoint to me, has been, therefore, always the important thing in my determination of the worthiness of unworthiness of men. And so it is that when I am asked to choose between two men, each of whom asks me for my vote in reaching the high oflBce of president of the United States, I ask myself what of the viewpoint of each of them. And having at my disposal various life stories of each, and knowing something of each through per- sonal contact and personal knowledge, or through sources that leave no question as to the truth of what they bring, I find, in this year of Our Lord, 1928, little difficulty in determining what I believe to be the viewpoint of the two men who ask me for my suffrage. A New York Youth Grows Up /^NE of these men was born on a New York East Side ^^ street fifty-five years ago. He was a likeable boy and popular in the parochial school in which he earned his learning. As he grew up into manhood, working for a time in the Fulton Street fish market, he had for one of his good friends a Tammany Hall personage who conducted a saloon in the neighborhood of his home. The saloon man saw in this young man a little more promise than was to be found in most of the boys in the neighborhood and he took him under his political wing to the end that when he had reached his twenty-second year he was a full- fledged member of Tammany and a clerk in the office of the commissioner of jurors of New York City. From his clerkship he was elevated in 1903 to membership in the New York Assembly, in which body he remained until 1915, having served as Democratic leader from 1911 to 1913, in which latter year he gained the speakership of the assembly. In 1915 Tammany determined that he was entitled to the office of sheriff of New York county, wherein the fee system gave legitimate opportunity of enriching the holder of that office to quite a considerable extent. What- ever he got out of the office, two years sufficed him, and in 1917 we find him president of the Board of Aldermen of Greater New York. In another two years he was given the Democratic nomination for governor of New York, to which office he was elected and in which he served three terms and is now serving the fourth. There was an interim in his gubernatorial service when he was de- feated in 1920 by a Republican, who served for two years, during which time he was the nominal head of a truck- ing firm in New York City, the only period during his life in which he was engaged in business outside of politics. We Find the Viewpoint Here THIS, then, is the categorical record of one of the men who asks we to vote for him. And I know, as all who run and read may know, that the political organiza- tion that has sponsored him from his youth, and that still holds him in its fold, has ever been corrupt and has en- riched its leaders from hidden sources of wealth. Prolific of scandals, that have sent men into exile and prison cells, it has continued on its way until to-day it offers to me one of its members for the presidency of these United States. And they tell me that this man they offer to me is an honest man and that his hands are clean. And I know that Tammany's idea of an honest man is one who will take orders and do what he is bidden, even though he may know that he is being sold by Tammany. And while no one ever has come to me with proof that the hands of the candidate they offer me have been soiled with graft, and though there never has been indication that he has corruptily enriched himself, and I must, there- fore believe that he has not, I am compelled to put him down as one who holds the Tammany viewpoint on the ethics of office holding. This One Comes From Quaker Stock ANOTHER man we have, one born in Iowa, of Quaker parentage, a graduate of Stanford University, a holder of honorary degrees conferred by twenty-four universities, nine of them in foreign lands. By profession a mining engineer, who has handled large projects in the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Italy, Great Britain, South Africa, India, China and Russia. A man who served during the great war in a dozen different capacities, who handled millions of dollars of money and food supplies that the starving people of war ridden countries might be fed. Who never was in politics in his life and never was sure whether he was a Republican or a Democrat until a president called him to be his sec- retary of commerce. And so many other things has this man done, and so many honors have been thrust upon him at home and abroad, and always as a reward for services rendered to humanity, that were I to enumerate them I would fa- tigue both my reader and myself. And so, I sit down and search the records of this man for the viewpoint which Motion Picture Aeronautics LIEUT. E. H. ROBINSON Oxford 3753 October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Forty-three JEAN HERSHOLT B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT CHARLES KENYON Free Lancing Recently Completed Show Boat For Universal In Preparation The Wrecking Boss For First National Denuny Lamson Management GEORGE SIDNEY says : Just finished the "Cohens and Kellys in Atlantic City". Looks like its going to be a good eye, ear and throat picture. Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing fer WARNER BROTHERS TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Page Forty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS HOUywood 1068 MY LIBRARY OF SHEET MUSIC is one of the most complete in existence, and comprises ten thousand pieces including practically every popular song since 1880; also the old Harrigan and Hart, Stephen C. Foster, and minstrel show melodies. A wealth of good box-office titles among them; also tunes that are ideal for talking pictures. Negotiation invited. JAMES MADISON (America's Most Prolific Comedy Writer) Original Scenarios — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 TITLES — DIALOGUE — EDITING ALFRED HUSTWICK Formerly Supervising Title and Film Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 Now Freelancing Management of Lichtig and Englander RAY DOYLE Scenarist .y^ Just Completed 'Madonna of Avenue A" For Warner Bros. Management Lichtig & Englander GEORGB «CAfiBOROUeH CONSUUTINC DRAMATIST STAGE >ND SCREEN CRAMITC 1870 I seek. And that's what I'm going to let you do. I'm going to let you find the viev?point of both the men I've told you of and what you do on election day is your own business. • » » I Used to Like Aimee ONCE upon a time I had quite some admiration for Aimee McPherson. I liked the way she stuck to her story of the famous kidnaping, a silly story, to be sure, but having told it she was very wise in refus- ing to change it in any way, even though a few changes would have made it somewhat more plausible. But I don't like Aimee any more. She bores me, and, if I were a citizen of influence, I would form a committee and at the head of it I would march over to the Angelus Temple or up to Monterey, or wherever Aimee happened to be, and advise her to sell her real estate holdings and cash in on everything she had and go away somewhere. It isn't Aimee's preaching that disturbs me. That's quite all right. As preachers go I guess she's good. Any- way, she seems to have done a lot better than the most of them. Not only has she made a good living during her comparatively few years in Los Angeles, but in addition to that she has had a trip or two to Europe, and four or five weeks on her kidnaping trip, and also she owns her own church, which is a whole lot better than even Dr. Dyer has been able to do. And you've got to give the girl a hand for that. But somehow, she just doesn't seem to be satisfied. When she isn't quarreling with her mother she's getting herself tangled up in some real estate venture in which members of her congregation say they were gyped out of their hard-earned savings or their insurance money or wherever they got it. And if it isn't that, we find she has slipped a check into the hands of a venerable judge, just at the time she is trying to explain why she hadn't come right home the night she was drowned. And all the time she keeps on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and telling sinners how they may be saved. It's all very disconcerting to one who was brought up in the Episcopal church and, as a youth, was taught to doff his hat to the village rector. Therefore I'm in favor of getting Aimee out of town. Let her take her congregation and go to Iowa. I understand that's where most of them came from. And she might take Judge Hardy along with her to keep her in trouble. • » ♦ But Why Ask the Mayor? I HAVEN'T a thing in the world against Texas Guinan and not for anything would I lay myself open to the charge that I am ungallant. If Texas wanted to come back to Hollywood it was her right to do so, just as it was the right of her friends to joyously acclaim her arrival in our midst. But whoever it was whose brain conceived the idea of welcoming her in an official way made an ass of himself. Like Will Rogers, all I know is what I read in the papers, and, if the papers inform me correctly, it is my understanding that Texas is under one or more federal indictments for disregarding the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment and its enforcement act. And while I know that many of us have dealings with boot- leggers, and that we don't look upon them as criminals October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Forty-five Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson RICHARD CARLYLE Have even played ill-disposed persons. OL. 8295 HO. 2164 ..-A FREDDY FLECK Paramount Greetings ! Charles S. Dunning Publicity Franc N. Dillon, Associate GOOD LUCK Bradley King BEN BARD To the Film Spectator Q. B. F. R Q. ALBERT CONTI KARL STRUSS CHIEF CINEMATOqRAPHER P. W. GRIFFITH PRODUCTIONS "Drums of Love" "The Love Song" "Battle of the Sexes" 'BEN HUR" "In the Night Watch" "SUNRISE" SCHNAUZER PUPPIES By Illo von Wilram (imported) ex Vitis von Dischmgen. SEALYHAM TERRIER PUPPIES By Rincon Yannon Ali ex Miss Demeanor of Nordhoff. (Sire, best Sealyham Ambassador and Hollywood Shows) All Eligible to Registration $50, $75 and $100 RUTH and ARTHUR RANKIN 10846 Landale St., North Hollywood Telephone 420-W (P- S. — Between puppies, I also act in pictures, and tlie girl- friend writes pieces for the paper.) T r 'sjnoX iCiiBipaoa „-;aB Mau 9q; jo s^^qSii uSiq sq^ jo auo aq o? paupsap SI aq :jBq; 3upB0ipui 'anSoiBip aq:j ui ;im s,uos^oBf qdasof jo sa3BJ:> jtuBVU aJB aaaqx,, rpsaj iCpsaaiB ssq 'asanoa jo 'XpoqXaaAa qDiqM. jojjaj, ^HX JO AiaiAai anoX uiojj a:jonb Xiajara nyA i os 'am o^ jnjdiaq aq nm. qotqM. 3uiq:;XuB ^uud o; ^ubm :>ou op I 'aaqinnu „dn-p[oq„ B aq o:^ si stq:j aouig :pjojiaA\. JBaa Page Forty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 EVELYN HALL Fifteen Years Experience in the English and American Theatres. • ••*•***** Queen Elizabeth in "Richard III", with John Barrymore. Candida in "Candida", by Geo. Bernard Shaw. Margaret in "A Bill of Divorcement". Hecuba in "The Trojan Women". Hermione in "A Winter's Tale". Electra in "Electra". Mirian, the woman spy, in "The Man Who Stayed at Home", etc., etc. Present engagement with Henry King in "She Goes to War". ********** GR. 4415 HO. 4102 Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F. de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-office records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1694 CLAUDE KING During the five seasons Claude King appeared on the New York stage, he was mentioned in the critic's summaries as having given one of the ten best performances of the year on three occasions; with Ethel Barrymore in "Declassee", with the Theatre Guild in "Back to Methuselah", and with Winthrop Ames in "In the Next Room". Also, he is one of the very few actors mentioned by George Bernard Shaw in the prefaces to his plays, see "Fanny's First Play". Management JACK GARDNER, HO. 7950 Howard Bretherton Now Directing ""STie^ Qreyhound Limited'* with Monte Blue A Warner Bros. Vitaphone Feature >— 4 in the same sense as a shop-lifter or a burglar is a crim- inal, it remains a fact, nevertheless, that Texas has been arrested for breaking a federal law and is awaiting trial therefor. And with this thing hanging over her it was proposed that she be given a dinner at the Breakfast Club, and the sponsors of the dinner even went as far as to ask the mayor of Los Angeles and the mayor of San Francisco to join in the welcome to the night club hostess from New York. In the first place it wasn't fair to Texas, and I feel sure that if her nitwit friends had g:iven her time to think it over she would have told them to lay off the mayors and other public officials. Anyway, be it said to the credit of Mayor Cryer, he declined the invitation, and, though it was announced that Jim Rolph had agreed to be present, I have a feeling, knowing him as I do, that a blow-out or some such thing would have delayed him past the closing hours of the dinner. It's some weeks now since all of this happened, but it may be that there will be other visitors who have gained their fame in some such way as Texas has gained hers, and I want to suggest that for the general good of Holly- wood if dinners are arranged for them that there be no fanfare and that invitations be confined to those not under oath to look with disfavor upon all law-breakers. * * * Those Very Silly Cigarette Ads WHEN I was a young reporter in Minneapolis I was one day handed by the city editor a letter from a patent medicine concern containing an offer of prodigious sums of money for testimonials as to the remedial effects of whatever it was they sold. If I remem- ber correctly, the lowest priced testimonial was that of a fireman or policeman in uniform. These were rated, I think, at $10. For one from a priest or an Episcopalian minister, with his collar on backwards, they would pay $25. A mayor or a governor brought $100. There were other classifications, but I have forgotten them. In any event I secured testimonials from some firemen and police- men friends and let it go at that. I gave each of them a bottle of the medicine, but whatever they did with it I don't know. That was long before prohibition, and policemen and firemen never wanted for liquor and so I imagine they threw the stuff away. When my mind goes back to this incident in my early career I am consumed with envy of whoever it is who is doing the soliciting for the cigarette testimonials. Imagine, if you can, what my patent medicine concern would have paid me for a testimonial from Charlie Chaplin blind- folded! Blindfolded and holding in his hand — with the label outward — a bottle of my medicine, and beneath it his quoted statement that the moment his lips touched the spoon, or the neck of the bottle, he knew he had found his favorite invigorator! What a piker I was with my little checks for ten dol- lars each for firemen and policemen! And, too, how silly the whole thing is. Hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent by tobacco concerns for advertising that should properly be a part of the comic page. It surely can't be that anybody takes it seriously. I'm quite sure the Chap- lins and the others who have permitted their names and photographs to be used must know how ridiculous it is, and knowing this I can't understand why in the world I October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Forty-seven Remember your promise — no more Hold-Up Numbers. \ BETTY COMPSON. t I » I » I P. S. — But count me in 1 if you break it. — B. C. i BOBBY NORTH ^irst National Studios BURBANK, CALIFORNIA Page Forty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Not because I think that The Spectator is always right, but because I be- lieve it is always honest. WILLIAM LE BARON. $ they allow themselves to be so used. They don't need the advertising and they don't need the money. But perhaps the fellow who solicited them is a good fellow, and, if he is, I won't say anything more about it. Personally, I smoke Chesterfields which have never im- proved my singing voice and, which, if I smoked blind- folded, would be just as blah as any other cigarette. I've got to see the smoke. * * * A Word or Two About Gene Tunney IT makes me smile when I find sporting writers panning Gene Tunney and accusing him of ingratitude in that he seems not to realize that it was the sporting writers who made him. One might as well claim it was the sport- ing writers who made Tilden and Paddock and Helen Wills and all the rest of the champions. Everyone of them earned with his or her prowess, in whatever the game, all the publicity that has ever been given any of them. Was it the sporting writers who convinced Gene Tunney that he could beat Jack Dempsey and become the world's champion pugilist? Not if you can read, it wasn't. It was Gene Tunney himself who arrived at that conclusion and straightway he went out and proved it. And I, who wanted Jack Dempsey to knock his block off, and whose best wish for Tunney was that he should meet stunning and swift defeat whenever he should enter the ring, come now to say that it is my belief that the prize ring never has known a finer figure than Tunney has proved himself to be. Just as a fighter, it is my opinion, that he has shown a degree of judgment and skill within the ring that few of his predecessors ever have known. But it isn't his work in the ring that has won me y-. .-.---.■....■■■.....,...,■.. ....... The El Camino Motto: 'Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood (at Fuller Ave.) Phone GRanite 0202 An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Forty-nine $ Not a Hold-Up, but a tribute to a most interesting publication and its editor. LILYAN TASHMAN, EDMUND LOWE. LUDWIQ BERQER who directed Ewil Jannings in ^^Sins of the Fathers ns Of m^ jruiJxei'A'^^ and Pola Negri in ^^The Woman From Moscow — will make one picture in Europe before he returns to Hollywood to direct two more productions for FAMOUS'PLAYERS'LASKY Page Fifty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Good luck to the weekly, Mr. Beaton! And as I want to get as much as possible for my fifty bucks, will you please accept now my best wishes for a Merry Christ- mas and a Happy New Year? ARTHUR LAKE. to him so much as it has been his conduct out of the ring. And strangely enough, the things that at first I most disliked in him, add now to my admiration for him. I thought he was a poser. It was my belief that all this talk of erudition was a lot of bunk. In other words I thought he was a truck driver, shaved and dressed up. But I changed my mind. To me now, he is a highly intelligent man, with a superiority complex in the matter of his physical ability, and that, with this belief in him- self, he forced his way through an undertaking that was repugnant to him and made himself two million dollars and quit. And if anyone can prove to me that he owes any of that money to the sporting writers he or she can have my canary. And furthermore, it is my hope that the very splendid outdoor girl who has just become Mrs. Tunney will find him as considerate a gentleman as I think him to be, and that the both of them will live together through many years of happiness. Reviewed in this Number DO YOUR DUTY— A First National picture. Directed by William Beau- dine; from the story by Julien Josephson; continuity by Vernon Smith; photographed by Mike Joyce; art director, Max Parker; film editor, Stewart Heisler; titles by Gene Towne and Casey Robinson. The cast: Charlie Murray, Lucien Littlefield, Charles Delaney, Ed Brady, Washington Blue, Doris Dawson, Aggie Herring, George Pierce. GRAIN OF DUST— A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Directed by George Archain- baud; from the book by David Graham Phillips; con- tinuity by Frances Hyland; photographed by Ernest Miller; titles by Paul Perez; art dealer, Hervey Lib- bert; set dressings by George Sawley; edited by Robert Kern. The cast: Ricardo Cortez, Claire Windsor, Alma Bennett, Richard Tucker, John St. Polis, Otto Hoff- man. HEY, RUBE!— An F. B. 0. picture. Directed by George B. Seitz; from the story by Wyndham Gittens and Louis Sarecky; continuity by Windham Gittens; titles by Randolph Bartlett; photographed by Robert Martin; edited by Ann McKnight. The cast: Hugh Trevor, Gertrude Olmsted, Ethlyne Clair, Bert Moorehouse, Walter McGrail, James Eagle. MATING CALI^- A Caddo production, released by Paramount. Directed by James Cruze; from the story by Rex Beach; adapted by Walter Woods; continuity by Ford I. Beebe; photographed by Ira Morgan. The cast: Thomas Meighan, Evelyn Brent, Renee Adoree, Gardner James, Helen Foster, Alan Roscoe, Luke Cosgrave, Cyril Chadwick. MORAN OF THE MARINES— A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Strayer; story by Linton Wells; adaptation by Sam Mintz and Ray Harris; continuity by Agnes Brand Leahy; photographed by Edward Cronjager; assistant di- rector, Ivan Thomas. The cast: Richard Dix, Ruth Elder, Roscoe Karns, Brooks Benedict, Capt. E. H. Calvert, Duke Martin. MOTHER KNOWS BEST— A William Pox picture. Directed by John Blystone; from the story by Edna Ferber; scenario by Marion Orth; story supervisor, Charles Klein; costumes by Harry Collins; photographed by Gilbert Warrington; titles by William Kernell and Edith Bristol; film editor, Margaret V. Clancy; editorial supervisor. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifty-one e^y ^eartiesi^ Qood IjOishes to the^ Spectator ^rovru MAY McAVOY ATLAS JESSE JAMES Yours for Bigger and Better Hold-Ups TED WILDE SUSPENDERS WELFORD BEATON i Page Fifty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 $ Good luck, Welford! Hope the weekly is as great a success as you deserve. JAMES W. HORNE. (Why crowd success into such narrow limits, Jim? — W. B.) Malcolm Stuart Boylan; movietone dialogue by Eu- gene Walter; staged by Charles Judels and David stamper. The cast: Madge Bellamy, Louise Dresser, Barry Norton, Albert Gran, Joy Auburn, Stuart Erwin, Lucien Littlefield, Dawn O'Day, Annette de Kirby, Ivor de Kirby. SAL OF SINGAPORE— A Pathe picture. Directed by Howard Higgin; from The Sentimentalists by Dale Collins; scenario by Elliott Clawson; photographed by John Mescall; as- sistant director, Leigh Smith; art director, Edward J. Jewell; titles by Edwin Mayer; film editor,, Claude Berkeley; production manager, R. A. Blaydon. The cast: Phyllis Haver, Alan Hale, Fred Kohler, Noble Johnson, Dan Wolheim, Jules Cowles, Pat Har- mon, Harold William Hill. SINGAPORE MUTINY— An F. B. O. picture. Directed by Ralph Ince; story by Norman Springer; continuity by Fred Myton; titles by Norman Springer and Ralph Ince; photo- graphed by Robert Martin; film editor, George M. Arthur. The cast: Ralph Ince, Estelle Taylor, James Mason, Gardner James, Will Irving, Martha Mattox, Harry Allen, Carl Axzelle, Robert Gaillard, Frank Newberg. STATE STREET SADIE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Archie Mayo; story by Melville Crosman; scenario by E. T. Lowe, Jr., assistant director, Frank Shaw; photo- g^raphed by Barney McGill. The cast: Conrad Nagel, Myrna Loy, William Rus- sell, Georgie Stone, Pat Hartigan. ORDER THE SPECTATOR Mailed to You EVERY WEEK Telephone GLadstone 5506 Michael Curtis Directing Now "Madonna of Avenue A" An All Vitaphone Special Starring Dolores Costello Warner Brothers I October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifty-three T-- ■- IT1... ..■■...■■■■...■■■-.-..-■... .----------.- $ liOith my sincere good wishes to both QM,r, Beaton and the l£)eekly Lois liOilsoru $ Attention, Paramount Directors and Supervisors: If you want a Screen Play DEPENDABLE WORKMANLIKE SHOOTABLE ON TIME — Ask — Louise Long or Ethel Doherty Paramount Staff Writers To Do It! Page Fifty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR * -■■ LONG LIFE TO THE WEEKLY SPECTATOR! (I don't see why I couldn't have tele- phoned this to Welford.) FRANK CAPRA. • October 13, 1928 7 Here I am working in Douglas Fairbanks' "Iron Mask", and am held up by a man who wears no mask at all! However, good luck to The Weekly Spectator! We need it. Marguerite de la Motte. Ck:tober 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR PageFifty-five My dear Mr. Beaton : If I must be held up I might as well get something out of it. I will stand for $50.00 worth. Please print the following. With best wishes, Sincerely, Sam Freedman. Watch for my series of one-reel Auction Bridge Pictures in Tech- nicolor, featuring Milton C. Work, zvorld-famous expert. The first of the series will he released shortly. Learn how to trump your partner's ace and get away zvith it. T I J L My dear Welford: Here's hoping that your "Hold- Up" will be as successful as all the recent daylight hold - ups pulled off in Los Angeles and Chicago have been. Yours very truly, WILLIAM SISTROM. (You disturb me, Bill. Do you mean successful from the standpoint of the law or the hold-upper — W. B.) Page Fifty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR I'm nea a Scot but when it comes tae greetin', I will nae greet tae find I'm beat by Beaton. Nigel de Brulier October 13, 1928 A friendly welcome to the weekly Spectator from Dwinelle Benthall and Rufus McCosh who write titles for the 'movies' or the 'talkies'. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifty-seven My dearWelford: "To Beaton or not to Beaton, that is the f ! 1 t" Oh, hell — I give in. Yours, Bill Davidson. T>ear IsOelford could You do it ? Otto Mattiesen Page Fifty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 My dear, oh very dear, Welford Beaton: This is in the nature of a protest against your Hold-Up number. Heretofore you've been so reasonable about those things. I don't Hke to see you falling into those bad Hollywood habits. Anyway, at $6 per fill (statistics furnished by your wife) if I only come over every time your pool is filled, I figure you owe me eight and one- third good swims. But to return to my grievance — I resent it, by gosh. Not that this is the first time I've ever been held up — dear me, no! But it's the first time it has been done so boldly under its own name. Generally it's feebly disguised as a Christmas number, a souve- nir program, or an anniversary edition. Now I want to know when you are go- ing to give me my revenge by coming over and letting me teach you to play tennis. Not that I expect my money back, but I'm going to get Fifty Dollars worth of pleas- ure out of getting you so exhausted you'll have to listen to how I knocked 'em cold in Podunk in the last picture, and how I'm going to panic 'em in the next one. (Names furnished on request.) Anyway, I hope your Hold-Up Number is a success. It will comfort me to know that I'm not the only poor goof who had to come across. Sincerely, PATSY RUTH MILLER. P. S. — I used my trusty Corona to evade your all-seeing eye and caustic comment. If there are any mistakes in punctuation blame the typewriter, not me. I know better. PAT. Good name in man and woman (My dear Beaton) Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands ; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. Which, as I read it, is Shakespeare's way of saying that movie critics had bet- ter be careful. WILLL4M POWELL. Dear Bill: Shakespeare also said: "Come not within the measure of my wrath." Which, as I read it, is his way of saying that movie actors had better be careful. — W. B. I October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifty-nine My dear Mr. Beaton: You are quite a clever critic, but a stupid hold- up man. Ever since you announced your hold-up number I have been stand- ing with my hands over my head. If I buy a half page, may I take them down? BODIL ROSING. I follow with interest your arguments in The Spectator that you can do anything on the screen provided you do it well. But why do you carry the idea into hold-upping? VERA GORDON. Page Sixty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13. 1928 ] 1 $ I've always under- stood that Robin Hood, also, was a pleasant fellow. EDDIE CT-TNE. $ « 1 1 1 1 • 1 Famous Holdups I Have Met • • » j JESSE JAMES PARIS GARTERS BROOKLYN BRIDGE and WELFORD BEATON JAMES A. STARR. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Sixty-one »-■ ■■■■ ....^_-TT. ...--■ A Cablegram Berlin, Germany. My Ufa associates, who admire and re- spect The Spectator as I do, greet with pleasure your decision to make it a weekly. While the menace of your hold-up did reach this far, please enroll me among your willing victims. Draft going forward by mail. ERICH POMMER. Page Sixty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Beaton: I believe so far you have lived up to the advice of Goldsmith ; Blame where you must, be candid where you can, And be each critic the good-natured man. That is why I submit cheerfully to being held up, and it is also my reason for wishing the Weekly Spec- tator a useful, prosperous and endless career. D. W. GRIFFITH. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Sixty-three It might be expected of a paper as cheerful as The Spectator that when it became a pirate upon the sea of its own popularity it would be cheerful about it and make "walking the plank" a pleasant stroll. If we must be held up, let's get a laugh out of it, say I! The appearance of The Spectator as a weekly is a matter of importance to the entire motion picture industry, and I join those who appreciate the value of constructive criticism in extending felicitations to Welford Beaton and best wishes for the success of the paper which I know will continue to be helpful, courageous and good-natured. HERBERT BRENON. Page Sixty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1S28 r- Scirru ^aylor^s Tage^ Respected Sir: I am the house-boy of Mr. Sam Taylor. I have a verse which he says I wrote. I do not remember. But he says I must send it to you and say I wrote it. There was a film critic named Beaton, Whose figure had not so much meat on. He held up his friends To serve his base ends. And now he has plenty to eat on. To me it is strange verse which I do not understand, which makes it most extraordinary that I wrote it. With deep bows, MARCELINO BUSTAMANTE. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Sixty-five ERNEST VAJDA Page Sixty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Et tu, Beaton! Wm- K. Howard Fox Film Corporation October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Sixty-seven Best of luck, Jesse! (Pardon, Welford) The Harold Lloyd Corp. Page Sixty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Jack Warner told me that he would write his copy for this space while on his way to New York and mail it back to me. I said he wouldn't. He said again that he would. I was right. He told me what he gas going to say. He was go- ing to take a crack at Jesse Lasky, Louis B. Mayer, Joe Schenck, and some of the rest of the fellows who a couple of years ago told him he was crazy to spend money on Vitaphone. If he could figure out some way of putting it so he could get by with it, Jack was going to tell those guys where they get off. W.B. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Sixty-nine Roy Del Ruth IDirector Vitaphone All Talking Specials "The Terror" "Conquest" Now in production "The Desert Song'' The First All Talking and Singing Vitaphone Operetta WARNER BROS. PICTURES Page Seventy THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 \ i • $ Beaton is a lot of boloney — - telling how much he's in favor of "talkies". I talked my head off for hours against tak- ing this ad, but Beaton is the "deafest" man in pictures. Wallace McDonald. $ '7 Can you imagine soaking a poor actor one hundred berries for this ad? I wouldn't mind so much if I believed that any of the big shots would see it, but nobody buys the dam paper; I'm never able to find a copy on any newsstand.* Just throwing money away, that's all! Wallace McDonald. $ Since when has using a man's swimming pool constituted a right to stick up a guest for the hundred smackers this page cost? I'm telling you. Wallace McDonald. $ *Why doesn't the silly ass get to the newsstands before they are sold out? — W. B. I tried to select my ad for this page. Wrote the above copy and suddenly received a message from one of my Scotch ancestors telling me to print all three for the price of one and get half a break with this bird Beaton, so here goes, though I still think it's a lot of hooey. WALLY McD. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventy-one Why not the women and children first? IRVING CUMMINGS Page Seventy-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 -^1 wrote me a note in which he said that of course he was willing to be held up for one hundred dollars. Being Scotch, Neil wrote the note on a saltine wafer belonging to the Paramount studio cafe, and, being Scotch myself, I took it home and fed it to my goldfish, in my thrift destroying the only proof I had that Neil really ordered the page. I'm worried. W. B. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventy-three Anyway, the highwayman smiled. "^nald Qolman Page Seventy-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 I understand that the editor of The Spectator is of Scotch extraction. That explains a lot of things, particu- larly the extraction. Qharlie Qhase October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventy-five Darryl Zanuck was the first person to buy a page in the Hold-Up number. He had so much time in which to prepare his advertising copy that he never got around to it. I wouldn't work as hard as that guy does if they gave me the Warner Brothers studios. W. B. Page Seventy-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 y. ..■---.... .■....--.■--.■■■■■■■-■-.■-■...-.-..■. ■ Buffhouse Fables 'Why don't you make this a habit, Mr. Beaton?" d'ARRAST. (With excuses to Paul Fung) October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventy-seven My dear Welf ord : Shakespeare says it: He that is robb'd, not wanting what is stolen, Let him not know't, and he's not robb'd at all. HENRY KING. Page Seventy-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 »■■ . I ...■----.. .... . .... .-.....--^ WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS, WATSON? My dear Welford: Acknowledging receipt of your letter of recent date, in which you solicit my finan- cial support to exploit your so-called "Hold-up Number", all I can say is that for un- adulterated gall you win the "Pussy's pajamas". Just because you hide behind a colloquial wisecrack by calling it a "Hold-up Num- ber" you think you can approach everybody in the industry for financial support, not- withstanding the ruthless manner in which you have assailed us in your magazine. Half the time your opinions which are evidently based upon your own "snooping" ability are silly, because you evidently confine your "snooping" to an eight-hour day. If you would give_your own business the same amount of thought and consideration you are giving the industry's, maybe you wouldn't be in this financial jam. I like you personally so I am going to give you a bit of advice. When I give advice I don't have to take it up with any Board of Directors, so what I say goes. I admit I know nothing about the publishing business but I do understand financing, therefore that quali- fies me to tell you how to run your business. My plan will cut your expenses over forty per cent and still enable you to maintain the same quality of publication. First, hire a "boogey man" to fire half of your organization. That throws the fear of God into the hearts of the other half. For fear that the second half might get fired too, they work twice as hard, therefore you do twice as much work with fifty per cent organization. Simple, isn't it ? You see in this way you cut production cost fifty per cent instead of forty per cent, so I am smarter by ten per cent than other people who have only tried to cut production cost forty per cent. At least I offer a remedy when I tell you to cut production cost fifty per cent. Be careful not to destroy the good will and loyalty of your organization be- cause even you must appreciate that these are two vital requisites of successful busi- ness management. I like the merger idea too. Don't merge with anybody unless they can be of some help to you. I would suggest that you try and merge with the Hay, Grain and Seed Journal of Wheaton, Illinois, because you both have a great deal in common with each other because what you both sell eventually turns into bull. In conclusion, let me say that you haven't courage enough to publish this letter, but if you do I'll contribute $100 for the relief of the starving polecats of Massa- chusetts. Sincerely yours, MIKE LEVEE. Dear Mike: Send along the hundred bucks. It is understood that you are to protect The Spectator in case Joe Kennedy enters suit against it for infringement of copyright. — W. B. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventy-nine Page Eighty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eighty-one $ TAKE IT! I do not choose to run. RICHARD DIX Page Eighty-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 It would not be possible for The Spectator to be twice as good, but it is a matter for congratulation that it will come twice as often. DOROTHY FARNUM. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eighty-three f 0, it is excellent To have a giant's strength ; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant. — Shakespeare. What more can be said? JOHN STAHL, M. H. HOFFMAN. Page Eighty-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 I Here's one hundred dollars worth of best wishes for The Weekly Spectator. May it live long and be proper! HECTOR TURNBULL. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eighty-five Perhaps Welford is making it a weekly in order that he can be twice as fast in rectifying his past errors of judgment as he was in making them. However that may be, I am glad to enroll myself among those who hail The Spectator as a weekly and wish for it a continuous and increasingly prosperous career. JOSEPH M. SCHENCK. Page Eighty-six THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 ! 1 SID GRAUMAN was held up for this page, which is nice, but he failed to write anything to put in it, which is lamentable. P. S. — Just saw Sid at Henry's. He told me to write something about The Spectator being a very fine paper, and about how glad he is that it is going to be a weekly, and to say something about wishing it every success — you know the kind of stuff. But when Sid, or anyone else, spends one hundred dollars to say it, you can bet your life he means it W. B. THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eighty-seven Anything for a quiet life! JOHN BARRYMORE. Page Eighty-eight THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Dear Welf ord : You shouldn't hold me up when I'm directing a pic- ture called The Wolf of Wall Street. The title sug- gests too many things that I might say about an editor who sets out on a looting expedition. I'll resist the temptation and content myself with telling you how genuinely glad I am that The Spec- tator is to be a weekly. Success to both of you! ROWLAND V. LEE. OctoBer 13, 1928 r THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eighty-nine Page Ninety THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Ninety-one .-....--..-.--..- -.-----.--- .... .. -■ T He Wants to Know Dear Welford: Don't you think you're carrying this un- derworld craze just a little too far? JOHN FORD. Page Ninety-two THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 Lewis Milestone extends to Welf ord Beaton sincere congrat- ulations upon the great success that he has achieved with his Spectator, and wishes to express his best wishes for the paper's suc- cess when it becomes a weekly. October 13, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Ninety-three »«■ I I.. ...■---...... .--...--.-.-.--..--..-... No Force Necessary Dear Mr. Beaton: Enclosed is my check, cheerfully written, to make me a member in good standing of your company of victims. Even though I am not connected directly with pic- tures at the present time, I am a devoted reader of The Spectator, and I appreciate its tremendous value to screen art. My best wishes for its continued success as a weekly. ELINOR GLYN. New York City. Page Ninety-four THE FILM SPECTATOR October 13, 1928 itH... Mother With Madge Bellamy Louise Dresser and Barry Norton Win. Fox's jjaiij nwii.v.11 tX'h, Knows Carthay Circle Theatre _^ Daily 2:15-8:30 K g C f Carli EUinor's Orchestra Picture ^ We printed this Hold-Up Number. It's funny that it never occured to us to hold up Mr. Beaton! The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, Edward Everett Horton In "ON APPROVAL"" A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE |=L?°Bo^^.rir' Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birke! Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Sunset Mats. Thursday and Saturday, 50c to $1.00. Eve., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstone 4146. » ».KSf ^rf****sp « GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J/f ^Aousand (sifis of Di^finction' 6326 HVLiyWCVP-BL.VC'- MVLU/V/Wt^-^UF' Shop at Balzer's — "Two Shops" — Just West of Vine ^ eTich. SINGING FOOL, THE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Lloyd Bacon; story by Leslie S. Barrows; scenario by C. Graham Baker; photographed by Byron Haskins; assistant director, Frank Shaw. The cast: Al Jolson, Betty Bronson, Josephine Dunn, Reed Howes, Edward Martindel, Arthur Housman, Da^-id Lee, Robert Emmett O'Connor. STATE STREET SADIE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Archie Mayo; story by Melville Crosman; scenario by E. T. Lowe Jr.; assistant director, Frank Shaw; photo- graphed by Barney McGill. The cast: Conrad Nagel, MjTna Loy, William Rus- sell, Georgie Stone, Pat Hartigan. THE WOMAN DISPUTED— A United Artists picture. Directed by Henry King and Sam Taylor; adapted by C. Gardner Sullivan; from the play by Dennison Clift; art director, William Cameron Menzies; photographed by Oliver Marsh, A. S. C; technical advisors, Capt. Marco Elter and Col. Alexis Davidoff; wardrobe manager, Frank Don- nellan; assistant director, Robert Florey; film editor, Hal C. Kern. The cast: Norma Talmadge, Gilbert Roland, Arnold Kent, Blichael Vavitch, Boris de Fas, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Gladys Brockwell. JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS Hollywood 1068 Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. ( Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) 1 nightly in Peacock Court j GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager October 20, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page NineteM ■ >l ■■ > ■ 11 II Ill 11 > ■■ I I VXprman^s c5^rt Jhop | I The Home of Harmonic Framing I Paintings Restored and Refinished I 6653 Hollywood Boulevard 3 VISITORS WELCOME .^ > cy^'^^^KSf^cq^Va t GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J/f C'Aousand Gifts of Visfinction " 6326 H^Li.rW^W-BLVP'- MVtiyWV^P'-WUf' Shop at Balzer's — 'Two Shops" — Just West of Vine October 27, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Y ear-Old Critic THE Singing Fool is undoubtedly the greatest enter- tainment ever oflfered to anybody, anywhere. It is a Warner Brothers Vitaphone picture starring Al Jolson, and it is something no one should miss. Even if it had been shot without sound, it would have been a noteworthy piece of work, as Lloyd Bacon's direction and Jolson's acting, even without his voice, were exceptional. The Vitaphone itself, as is customary with the Warner sound output, is far better than anything done up to date. Voices are far clearer, and there is not nearly so much mechanical sound in the recording. One scene, New^ Year's eve in a cafe, is impressive just because of the volume of the sound caught by the microphone. Thrill after thrill is piled up, until the auditor realizes that he is seeing one of the greatest things in the development of motion pictures. There is plenty of singing from Jolson, and how that man can sing! He isn't such a wonderful actor until he starts to warble, but he has everybody faded when it comes to putting over emotion with music. The difference between a topnotcher and a dub never has been very tangible, but Jolson, in The Singing Fool, comes closer to making it concrete than anybody yet. He is a star all right, and has an unusual skill at extracting sympathy. I'm going over all this about Jolson, because the picture was wrapped around his personality. I don't think Warners will duplicate their triumph in this picture for some time, since they have put so much into it. It will take them years to work up anough advanced material to outdo The Singing FooL Certainly, they will have to go a long way to equal the entertainment value of this picture. It has everything, including unusually good direc- tion. Lloyd Bacon, to my knowledge at least, never did anything as good as this. Very few directors have. Toward the beginning of the picture, he uses a shot I haven't seen before. A waiter is hunting for someone in a cafe, and the camera is put in his place and moves through the rooms just as the waiter would. It was a very sensible shot, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been done before. I will be eternally grateful to someone connected with The Singing Fool for not having Jolson rush back to his worthless wife and slobber all over her. Most motion picture heroes don't seem to have sense enough to get rid of the women who have broken their hearts. When Jolson finally got away from his last encounter with the woman, and hadn't taken her back, I was greatly relieved. After Jolson, the acting honors go to little three-year- old David Lee, who is going to take the country by storm as soon as The Singing Fool is released generally. Babies are great natural actors, anyway, but this boy has a per- sonality which strikes one the minute he appears on the screen. He must have intelligence, too; because he had to speak lines and do quite a lot of acting, all of which he did splendidly. Josephine Dunn was given a chance at an unsympathetic part, and she did very nicely. Betty Bron- son was good in a part which didn't offer very great possibilities, and the man who played Blackie Joe deserves mention. There was a welcome glimpse of Edward Martindel. He is a fine actor and ought to be used more often. Helene Lynch completed the fine cast, although she had no chance to demonstrate how well she can act. * * * THE main fault of The Woman Disputed was its in- coherency. It never seemed quite sure of what it was all about; and, as a result, it wandered along rather vaguely until it ended. It dragged, too. There were moments when I thought it never would end, but it did, with a very good closing scene. Undoubtedly, the scrambled condition of the picture was due to the fact that two directors, Henry King and Sam Taylor, worked on it. Rhyme or reason can't be expected in a case like that. The more I think about it, the more muddled it becomes. There didn't seem to be one definite plot, and one character who was in the first part of the picture dropped out of sight until nearly to the end. I think it is bad business to lose a character completely if he is to be used again. His significance in the story is forgotten, and his reappearance interrupts the action, because the audience has to stop and think where it has seen him before. Norma Talmadge was starred in The Woman Disp'uted, and she gave a fine performance. Her work always is consistent and good. However, the real acting honors of the picture belong to the late Arnold Kent. It is fitting that such a brilliant artist should leave behind this splen- did performance as a sort of monument to his memory. His death, just when he was winning general recognition of his talents, was a great tragedy. Gilbert Roland was unimpressive in a rather straight role. Vavitch, Gladys Brockwell, Nicholas Soussanin, and Gustav von Seyffer- titz completed an unusually strong cast. * * * THERE was nothing particularly outstanding about Manhattan Cocktail, but it was entertaining; and as that was all it aimed at, it was a worthy little pic- ture. There was plenty of action in it, and never a slow moment. Ernest Vajda's story was well written, and Dorothy Arzner put it on the screen smoothly. It was opened by a rather elaborate prologue laid in ancient Crete, which was very beautifully done. The prologue Spoken Screen Laughs must be able to compete with those uttered by human personalities. Ask our niftiest fun-makers such as Al Jolson. Howard and Howard, Leon Errol, Rooney and Bent, Klein Brothers, etc., and nine out of every ten will volunteer there is no more prolific or experienced writer of sure-fire, up-to-date comedy material and dialogue than the undersigned. JAMES MADISON (America's Most Versatile Author) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR October 27, 1928 helped lift the picture out of the commonplace. The pic- ture deals with show life and contains some rather old fashioned ideas about the people of the stage, but it has one innovation. The producer, just before the curtain on his new play is due to go up, is attacked by a desperate actor whom he has fired. In the ensuing fracas, the pro- ducer is laid out by a neat blow on the head. The actor tries to escape his pursuers and is killed. When the producer comes to, he doesn't even look to see what has become of his enemy; but just sends the show on. That is a very natural and very good bit. Miss Arzner has inserted good bits like that all the way through Manhattan Cocktail. Those are the things which make great directors or directresses. Nancy Carroll and Richard Arlen have the leads in Manhattan Cocktail. Miss Carroll is a very clever little actress; and Dick, while neither little nor an actress, does very good work himself. Paul Lukas is the menace and is quite satisfactory. Lilyan Tashman plays his wife. There was a young fellow in this picture who did splen- didly, but I didn't get his name. He has talent, and I hope Paramount uses him again, so I can get his name. George Marion wrote a great set of titles. * » » JIM Tully's Beggars of Life, which William Wellman directed as a picture for Famous Players, is interest- ing chiefly because of the new aspect of life with •which it deals. Hoboes never have been shown truthfully on the screen before, if this picture is an example of tramp life, as it should be, because TuUy must know what he is talking about. The picture is fully as elemental and violent as Tully's writing, so it isn't exactly screen fare for anyone who is inclined to be squeamish. Whatever one of the tramps wants, he announces it in a loud tone of voice, and starts out to get it. As a result, there are some nice, gory battles and a corpse or two. Wellman put all this on the screen with commendable exactitude and such force that anyone seeing the picture is completely exhausted by the time it is over. Things happen with great swiftness, and one has to keep on the alert to catch all the murders. It had power and vigor, something that most films of this type lack. Wellman had sense enough to kill his characters with their eyes open, and when they were shot, they looked as if they really had been hit instead of inspired to a series of graceful falls. Wellman uses his camera intelligently and sometimes artistically. His opening shot in Beggars of Life is that of a farm house with a tree in the immediate foreground, and it is really beautiful. After that one shot, there was t" ■ DWI .AND V.LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY very little opportunity to get any artistic effects; because the action all took place in locations where there was nothing of any beauty to film. There were a few shots where the country wasn't so bad looking, and Wellman made the most of them. One place where he used the camera cleverly was in the scene where the two principals were walking down the railroad track. He got both of them in camera range, where most directors would have broken it up into individual shots. Another good bit was a scene where Louise Brooks describes a murder. It is much the same way in which Victor Seastrom showed thoughts in the Masks of the Devil. Miss Brooks' face was superimposed upon the action which took place during the murder, and thus the audience got her reaction to everything. It was very interesting. Beggars of Life marked Wallace Beery's return to real acting after his exile to the comedy atrocities he and Raymond Hatton had to commit. He played the type of role which suits him best, that of a sympathetic heavy. His work was good in its serious moments, but his for- merly splendid comedy rather has been atrophied by his recent work. Richard Arlen is beginning to get away from conventional leads, and in this picture he demon- strates that he is amply equipped with the necessary talent for more dramatic roles. His work was so good that I hope it will win him more parts with something to them. Louise Brooks was a great surprise. I haven't seen her before in anything which required any more ability than just the knowledge of how to stand around attractively. In Beggars of Life she became a dramatic actress and a good one. Her work showed unusual power. Roscoe Karns also was in the cast. BILL Howard, formally known as William K. Howard, has made another good picture in The River Pirate. It is different from anything Bill has directed before, but that doesn't make any difference to him, versa'tility being one of his good points. The strong point of his direction lies in the single-minded interest he devotes to telling the story. In The River Pirate he had a strong story, and he never detoured from it for a minute; ( although he worked in many little sidelines, all of which helped the picture. He had a rather interesting shot where two characters walk into the scene from either side. He also swung his camera from one to the other without cutting. The friendship between the boy and the man was very well done, and there was an absence of any mawkish sentiment, which is usually the curse of screen friendships. Victor McLaglen and Nick Stuart played ! the two friends for all they were worth, so naturally it was good. There are very few directors with Howard's ability for injecting comedy which never seems forced or strained. He has one sequence in a clothing store which is very funny, and there are others all through the picture. Victor McLaglen, who is starred, does them very cleverly. Hia I work all through the picture was very good and deserves the highest praise. Nick Stuart is a revelation. I never have seen him before when he had any chance to act, but in The River Pirate, his work is brilliant. Earle Foxe does as well as usual in a characterization which is rather new to him. Donald Crisp is splendid as the detective. The cast of The Pirate also contained one of my favorite Jctober 27, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen ictresses. Whenever Lois Moran is in a picture, I know '. am going to enjoy it, because she always is good. Inci- lentally, she has one of the most likeable screen person- ilities I ever have seen. * * * A NYBODY looking for a good sea story to put upon '!■*■ the screen may read Hate, Arthur Howden Smith's atest book, and hunt no farther. It has everything in t, and could be adapted to the screen very easily. When "he Divine Lady is released, several producers are liable o be killed in the rush to do sea pictures. Somebody ught to get in on the ground floor and buy Hate. Inci- entally, that's a great box-office title. If somebody buys t and butchers it, it will be criminal, because the book as i is has all the elements which go to make up a great lotion picture. * * * BEBE Daniels is being put into more serious things, if we are to judge from Take Me Home, which is her latest. Marshall Neilan directed it, so it isn't ■ ntirely devoid of humor; but the humor is incidental istead of being the main feature of the picture. Strangely nough, it was a story of the stage, and neither of the rincipals became a great star. Can you imagine that? 'he novelty of it made me like it. The story was told learly and logically, and any story which is told that 'ay is bound to make a good picture. The object of pic- ares is to tell stories on the screen and tell them well. 00 many people try to disguise poor story construction ■ith a lot of extraneous bits which have nothing to do 'ith it. Neilan puts in a lot of funny little things; but e is justified, because he tells his story well. He has ne scene in a park, where Neil Hamilton gets the hic- 3ughs. By the time Bebe has him definitely cured of lem, she has them herself. It was one of the funniest its I have seen in a long time. There is a fight sequence etween Bebe and Lilyan Tashman which also is very musing. In Take Me Home, Neil Hamilton was supposed to have Dme from the country to get on the stage. He wears a nit which has been out of date for the past five years, nd which is no more typical of the country than a silk at. In this day and age, people in the country are just s up-to-date as those in the city; but motion pictures ever appear to think of that. It was rather a surprise 0 see Hamilton not perfectly dressed. He wears clothes jetter than anybody in pictures, nearly; but I'm glad to 9e that he is getting parts where he can do something, he ending of Take Me Home was silly. Herman Mankie- dcz always has written good titles, but in this picture. Languages "Dancing in All Its Forms" Fencing ^Marshall ^all Studios of IDancecrafp^ 6757 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood GRanite 4050 Rhythmic Exercises Co-ordination Visitors Welcome he seemed to be seized with inspiration or something, because he never has done such good stuff before. The titles contributed a great deal of humor to the picture. Beside those already mentioned, the cast of Take Me Home contained Joe Brown and Doris Hill. * * * rjnHE individual who protested to Mr. Quirk, who sent •*• it to Dad, that pictures should be abolished must have seen The Passion Song. It would make practically any movie fan see the error of his ways. * » * STARRING a suddenly popular new player always has been a risky business; but in the case of Charles Rogers, Paramount has done the job very well. A couple of poor starring pictures would have ruined Rogers' drawing power, but another like Varsity will put him permanently at the top of the heap. To begin with. Para- mount gave the job to one of their best directors, Frank Tuttle. Then they prepared a strong story, and assembled a sure-fire cast, which was headed by Chester Conklin, who never gave a poor performance in his life. The picture was bound to be a success. I don't mean this as any reflection on Rogers, who is a clever actor himself; on the contrary, I think it is a compliment to Rogers' value that so much care is lavished on his first picture. All the preparations were not wasted, for Varsity is the best college story I have seen. There are none of the usual bromides such as the hero running all the way from the next county to win the football game in the last min- ute of play, and the girl is not the daughter of one of the professors. Because of those two departures, I would have enjoyed the picture in spite of anything else. The college stuflf in Varsity was only incidental, any- way. The main theme of the story could have been told anywhere. I daresay the plot has been done dozens of times before, but it seemed new to me; and certainly it Louise^ 't(gnee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD 7175 Sunset Boulevard GLadstone 0585 Voice Trial Gratis ANNOUNCEMENT The U^rloTL^ Studio of IJoice^ Qidture^ will have its fall opening at 5604 De Longpre Avenue, Hollywood WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 24. 1928 Correct English Pronunciation for Vitaphone and Movietone Trial Voice Test Free Photie AT. 0696 Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 27, 1928 was freshly handled. Tuttle's direction was highly intelli- gent, and there were none of the usual silly things which crop up in this type of story. It struck me as being about the first college picture which real collegians could not object to. Rogers did very well as the boy whose whole career is threatened by his tendency toward drink. Chester Conklin was splendid, of course. His part offered the greatest opportunities, and he made the most of them. Mary Brian played opposite Rogers and did fine work. She always is good. JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS Hollywood 1068 A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE irn^fBo'S^^lrdr' Make your reservations early. Downtoirn ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept Store, May Co. TITLES — DIALOGUE — EDITING ALFRED HUSTWICK Formerly Superyising Title and Kim Editor Paramount West Coast Studios With Paramount 1919-1928 Now Freelancing Management of Lichtig and En^lander Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD H0U.TW00D 2627 Edward Everett Hor ton i""ON APPROVAL" Sunset Boulevar Mats. Thursday and Saturday. 50c to $1.00. Etc., 50c to $1.50. Phone GLadstooe 4146. (fMont^ rice^ has just completed four years with PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS- LASKY CORPORATION and has been associated with the fol- lowing successes: "FORTY WINKS" "HANDS UP" "MISS BREWSTER'S MILLIONS" "BEHIND THE FRONT" "WE'RE IN THE NAVY NOW" "FIREMAN, SAVE MY CHILD" "CASEY AT THE BAT" (Directed) "NOW T\T:'RE in THE AIR" "HOT NEWS" "THE FLEET'S IN" "SOMEONE TO LOVE" DEMMY LAMSON RUTH COLLIER Inc. I October 27, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen ABOUT OTHER THINGS, By K. C. B. AND now comes William Randolph Hearst ■with a private war between himself and France. It appears that Mr. Hearst went to Paris purely in his private capacity as a citizen of these United States bent on doing nothing more than to play around for a little while. Then somebody connected with the Universal Service, a news agency of which Mr. Hearst is proprietor, was given, purloined, or gained through bribery, a copy of a letter being sent by the government of France to its repre- sentatives in foreign lands, the letter having to do with i secret naval agreement entered into between France md England. Universal Service thereupon cabled the etter to the United States and the next morning France and England awoke to the knowledge that they hadn't iny secret any more. England didn't take the matter very seriously, although 1 few of its statesmen on the opposition benches took advantage of it to pan the government, an advantage that s never overlooked in English politics. France, however, "elt that the confidence it reposes in correspondents of :oreign papers, had been imposed upon, and ordered out )f the country the reporter who had secured the letter, i quite fit and proper thing to do, and that undoubtedly ivould be done by this country were the positions re- /ersed. Also, it arrested the reporter and held him for seven hours in an effort to make him tell just how he jot the letter. All the reporter confessed, according to -lis story, was that Mr. Hearst told him to file the letter :or publication in the United States. Of No Importance, Anyway IT really wasn't a very terrible agreement and not, in any way, intended to injure Uncle Sam, but it was a scoop for the Hearst newspapers and so they have gone on bragging about it and stirring up all of the trouble that could possibly be made from it. As a matter of fact, if the agreement had been given out by the two govern- ments, merely as a matter of news, it would have caused but little comment and no excitement at all. But, inas- much as the letter was stolen, or what you will, and secured by a Universal Service representative, it behooves Universal Service to point to it as a remarkable piece of newspaper work performed by one of its bright young men. Anyway, at present writing, Mr. Hearst, in all of his papers, is at war with the French and has threatened them if they ever find themselves in a predicament simi- lar to that in which they were when we sent our great army to France, that very likely we'll tell them we don't know anything about it and it doesn't interest us in the least. But, of course, it's just a private war and if you and I don't want to interest ourselves in it we don't have Mother With Madge Bellamy Louise Dres?er and Barry Norton Wm. Fox's xX'ns Knows Carthay Circle Theatre Pictuxc XA.1.1.V7VVO Daily 2:15-8:30 I 13 e S t ^^'^'' EUinor's Orchestra to. We can just skip over it and go over to the sporting page or the comics. Personally, I'm much more inter- ested in learning what happened to Flint, the clerk in Nebb's hotel, or if Gus is ever going to make anything out of his abestos kimono for hot dogs. * * * Sympathizing With Harold I CAN imagine Harold McCormick seating himseK at the breakfast table, unfolding his napkin and placing it upon his lap, and then reaching for his morning paper and in a hesitant manner drawing it to him. I can then further imagine him half closing his eyes, so that his view of the paper is dimmed, then opening the paper and spreading it before him. With this done, there is then a gradual raising of the eyelids, and if he throws the paper aside before his eyes have been completely opened, the butler will then know that through the Mc- Cormick eyelashes there has come a vision of fogged black head-lines telling of the struggles of Mme. Ganna Walska to keep in the public eye and get her two million five hundred thousand dollars worth of gowns and jewels out of the New York custom house. It's a pretty tough spot for Harold, this being the husband of Ganna. If he crosses to Paris to see her, or she crosses to America to see him, it is never a private affair. Right away the papers make it a great public event, in which enterprise they always seem to be aided and abetted by Ganna. Apparently she likes it, just as much as Harold dreads it, for they do say he is a pleasant gentleman of modest mien and that while Ganna is in Paris looking after her dress-making establishment and her theatre and trying to fight her way into grand opera, Harold is quite content and happy at home in America. Disturbing Messages That Come IT must, therefore, disturb him greatly when he reads in the paper or is apprised by cable that Ganna is on her way to America. If, from a study of her past per- formances, he could find assurance that she would just slip in without causing a lot of commotion and trouble it wouldn't be so bad. But always she does an Aimee All established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 27, 1928 McPherson and there is nothing for Harold to do but rnn around in circles until the storm has subsided and there is, at least, a momentary lull. In the matter of the customs troubles that Ganna's last entrance through the Port of New York has stirred up, and as one of the one hundred and ten million Amer- icans for the protection of whom our custom laws are made, I would be perfectly willing that all the customs inspectors, just the moment they saw Ganna get off the boat, would close their eyes until she was clear of the pier. Not only would this be a kindness to Harold, but it would save the Port of New York and the department at Washington a lot of trouble, and, in addition, would relieve the readers of the daily papers of their constant worry about what is happening to Ganna. * * » Why Worry So About Me? ONE of the closing paragraphs of a letter brought by the postman to me contained the assurance that "this letter is not intended to depress you." Pre- viously, for four paragraphs, the letter had told of the immediate necessity of making cemetery provisions for the hereafter. These four paragraphs had within them a lot of language that surely never could have been written for intelligent persons, any more than was the line of apology quoted above. Any intelligent person would know that all the writer of the letter wanted was that he should sell me some- thing. Whether it was a lot in his cemetery or some stock, I don't know, but there was held out to me the promise that if I would sig:n and return the enclosed card there would be sent to me some valuable information. But instead of just telling me that, the ^^Titer tried to frighten me, or make me cry, or something. He told me "there was no escape from that sad day," and continued with a lot of other information of which I have been pos- sessed since I was a little bit of a boy back in Canada. Selling me a lot or some stock in this cemetery, which the letter says is the largest in California — which could make no possible difference to anyone who happened to be buried in it — is a perfectly legitimate enterprise, but I resent the assumption on the part of the letter writer that he can move me with talk of "silent halls of death" and "consecration of memories" and "permanent shrines," etc. If he had just said: "Dear Sir: If you have made no cemetery pro\'isions for yourself and family, which, you will agree is a desirable and necessary thing to do, we would like to send a representative to speak with you" — if he had just said that, he would not have stirred ' up in me a resentment that will remain with me past the need of one of his lots. And if the man who wrote the letter happens to read this, I want him to cut my name off his mailing list. This is the third or fourth I have received and I am in good health and there is no reason why he should worry about me so much. * • • RoUed Gold CuflF Links THE same mail that brought me the cemetery letter brought one from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. to whom I am indebted in the sum of forty-eighl dollars, the balance due on my new Britannica, and whicl "Just a hell of a big chunk of boloney — that's the picture business. But for the grace of God, the big bums that run it would still be cloak and suit sales- men, street car conductors and such. If I never see one of you swelled-headed, four-flushing producers again it will be too damned soon." — and Richard Clarke tears up a $2,500 a week Contract and leaves the business flat. Pursued per- petually by his reputation, confronted constantly by his own face, he battles in to the heart of big business — and finds it rotten to the core. The people in it are so much meaner, so much more selfish, so much more greedy than those in the picture business that he comes back and starts all over — from a different point of view. It's a humorous, dramatic and melodramatic story called Busting Out. Johru ^. Qoodrich 6683 Sunset^ ^Ivd. Qranite^ 9525 October 27, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page SeTenteen I am obligated to satisfy at the rate of fifteen dollars a month. And the letter, or rather the printed circular, says that if I will send my check this month for the balance in full, that they will then send to me, post pre- paid, a set of Krementz Rolled Gold Cuff Links, guaran- teed by Krementz to last forever! "We have been fortunate," the circular says, "in mak- ing arrangements whereby we are enabled to offer to a limited number of our subscribers this wonderful chance to secure a set of these links." Imagine the Encyclo- paedia Britannica, Inc., 342 Madison Avenue, New York City, doing a thing like that! What in the world do you suppose ever put it into the head of any official of that old organization that a man who had purchased a new Britannica would be interested in gold cuff links? Why, bless their old souls, I haven't worn a pair of gold cuff links for years and years. And try as I may, I can think of none of my friends upon whose cuffs I have seen the color of gold for just as many years. Here I am, therefore, with this wonderful offer before me and nothing I can do about it, excepting, perhaps, to say to the officials of the Britannica Company that if the cuff links really are gold, and I have no doubt they are, that if they'll just send mine back to the manufacturers and get credit for them, and then tell me the amount of that credit, I will be glad to send along my check at onoe for the balance. But not for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., or anyone else, will I go back again to the use of ^old cuff links. * * * Reviewed in this Number BEGGARS OF LIFE— A Paramount picture. Directed by William A. Well- man; story by Jim Tully; adapted and supervised by Benjamin Glazer; photographed by Henry Gerrard; assistant director, Otto Brower. The cast: Wallace Beery, Louise Brooks, Richard Arlen, Edgar Blue Washington, H. A. (Kewpie) Mor- gan, Andy Clark, Mike Donlin, Roscoe Karns, Robert Perry, Johnnie Morris, George Kotsonaros, Jacques Chapin, Robert Brower, Frank Brownlee. INTERFERENCE (Sound Version)— A Paramount picture. Directed by Roy J. Pomeroy; ''^orh^ of ^Dreams'' Setting a pace for 1929 WESLEY RUGGLES' Production from the play by Roland Pertwee and Harold Dear- den; based on a Lothar Mendes Production; photo- graphed by J. Roy Hunt and Farciot Edouard; assist- ant director, George Yohalem. The cast: Clive Brook, Evelyn Brent, William Powell, Doris Kenyon, Louis Payne, Brandon Hurst, Wilfred Noy, Tom Ricketts, Donald Stuart, Ray- mond Lawrence. MANHATTAN COCKTAII^— A Paramount picture. Directed by Dorothy Arzner; story by Ernest Vajda; screen play by Ethel Doherty; photographed by Harry Fiachbeck; assistant director, Paul Jones; titles by George Marion, Jr.; film editor, Doris Drought. The cast: Richard Arlen, Nancy Carroll, Paul Lukas, Lilyan Tashman, Danny O'Shea, Bert Woodruff, Larry Steers, E. Alyn Warren, Richard Cramer, Joe Marba, Fred Esmelton. MICHIGAN KID— A Universal picture. Directed by Irvin Willat; from the story by Rex Beach; adapted by J. Grubb Alex- ander; scenario by Peter Milne; photographed by Charles Stumar. The cast: Conrad Nagel, Renee Adoree, Lloyd Whit- lock, Fred Esmelton, Adolph Milar, Maurice Murphy, Virginia Grey, Dick Palm. RIVER PIRATE— A William Fox picture. Directed by William K. How- ard; story by Charles Francis Coe; scenario by John Reinhardst and Benjamin Markson; assistant director, Gordon Cooper; photographed by Lucien Andriot. The cast: Victor McLaglen, Lois Moran, Nick Stuart, Earle Foxe, Donald Crisp, Robert Perry. SINGING FOOL, THE— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Lloyd Bacon; story by Leslie S. Barrows; scenario by C. Graham Baker; photographed by Byron Haskins; assistant director, Frank Shaw. The cast: Al Jolson, Betty Bronson, Josephine Dunn, Reed Howes, Edward Martindel, Arthur Housman, David Lee. Robert Emmett O'Connor. TAKE ME HOME— A Paramount picture. Directed by Marshall Neilan; story by Grover Jones and Tom Crizer; screen play We printed the Hold-Up Number of The Spectator and got it out ON TIME The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 c$^t Lasf^ 'Walter J. and Sthyle^ Israel in association with Sdward T. ILamhert cAnnounce the inauguration of the cAssodated Qostumers 6356 ^^Hollyivood ^Ivd., Upstairs, directly opposite the Tuhlic Library, Thone Qranite 3577 Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR October 27, 1928 by Ethel Doherty; photographed by J. Roy Hunt; assistant director, Archie Hill. The cast: Bebe Daniels, Neil Hamilton, Lilyan Tash- man, Doris Hill, Joe E. Brown, Ernie Wood, Marcia Hariss, Yvonne Howell, Janet MacLeod, John W. Johnstone. TWO LOVERS— A United Artists picture. Directed by Fred Niblo; from the story "Leatherface" by Baroness Orczy; adapted by Alice D. G. Miller; photographed by George Barnes, A. S. C; assistant director, H. B. Humber- stone. The cast: Ronald Colman, Vilma Banky, Noah Beery, Nigel de Brulier, Virginia Bradford, Helen Jerome Eddy, Eugenie Besserer, Paul Lukas, Fred Esmelton, Harry Allen, Marcella Dalv, Charles Belcher, Phil Sleeman, Lon PoflF, Walter F. Lewis, Andre Cheron, Harry Schultz, Fletcher Norton, Scott Mattraw, Lydia Yeamon Titus. VARSITY— A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Tuttle; story by Wells Root; screen play by Howard Esta- brook; photographed by A. J. Stout; assistant direc- tor, Russell Slathews; editor-in-chief, David O. Selz- nick. The cast: Charles Rogers, Mary Brian, Chester Conklin, Phillips R. Holmes, Robert Ellis, John West- wood, John Cassar. WATERHOLE, THE— A Paramotmt picture. Directed by F. Richard Jones; photographed by C. Edgar Schoenbaum; assistant director, George Crook; editor-in-chief, Albert Shelby LeVino. The cast: Jack Holt, Nancy Carroll, John Boles, Montague Shaw, Ann Christy, Lydia Yeamans Titus, Jack Perrin, Jack Mower, Paul Ralli, Tex Young, Bob Miles, Greg Whitespear. WOMAN DISPUTED, THE— A United Artists picture. Directed by Henry King and Sam Taylor; adapted by C. Gardner Sullivan; from the play by Dennison Clift; art director, William Cameron Menzies; photographed by Oliver Marsh, A. S. C; technical advisors, Capt. Marco Elter and Col. Alexis Davidoff; wardrobe manager, Frank Don- "I t Paul Gerson School America's Greatest School for SCREEN and STAGE 25th Year Enroll Now All branches of training for the screen and stage under the personal direction of Paul Gerson, greatest living authority on Expression. CHILDREN'S CLASSES DANCING CLASSES Evening Class Monday and Thursday Call or Write The Paul Gerson School, Hollywood Blvd. and Gower St. Telephone HEmpstead 6077. ^*c^lME% No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine G/^RDE^ nellan; assistant director, Robert Florey; film editor, Hal C. Kem. The cast: Norma Talmadge, Gilbert Roland, Arnold Kent, Michael Vavitch, Boris de Fas, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Gladys Brockwell. EARL SNELL Writing Feature Comedies For Universal The El Camino Motto: "Qualitj and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7800 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 i m'-i' Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) 1 nightly in Peacock Court | GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager October 27, 1928 ^11.. ....... THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen JEAN HERSHOLT Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F. de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-office records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1694 GEORGE SIDNEY says: Just finished the "Cohens and Kellys in Atlantic City". Looks like its going to be a good eye, ear and throat picture. B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson Scott R* Dunlap Now Directing f*r WARNER BROTHERS JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate Howard Bretherton THE PATRIOT Now Directing "'STie^ Qreyhound Limited" with Monte Blue A Warner Bros. Vitaphone Feature A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Paffe Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR October 27, 1928 1 <>]iNiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiMiMiiiiiainuiiuruaiiinMniiiaiiiiiuiiiiiuiiiinuiiiiDininiiuiiuiHniMiiiiaiiiiiniiinaimiiiiiinaiiiiuiuiMciiniuuiinaiimiuiii^ 1 I = = t 5 i = ♦ LLOYD BACON 'Directed "The Lion and The Mouse" Women They Talk About" U "The Sinrine ¥ooV^ lnJith IjOamer ^ros. I i ''iiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiniiDiiiiiiimiiQiiiniiimoiiii miciiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiii a iiiiiidiiiiiiiiiiiihiiiiiii □ iiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaii iiiii»iiiiiiiiiiiinii iiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiimiiiiiii[]iiiMiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiii(« Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday Vol- 6 Hollywood, California, "November 3, 1928 NoT? ^iiiiiniruiianiiiiiiiiiianrinifHiiDiNinninramiiuinnDiMiniiiiMUMinNiiuuninnHiinniinnniMiniiiiniiiiiiniMiiuiiiiiaiiniiiiuiiainiiiininaiimnjiniuiinnMii^ 3 Up to Warner Brothers to deliver the goods Metro's poor pictures due to their disorganized lot Effect of sound on writers, directors, actors Religion, prize-fights, skunks etc. by K. C B. Reviewed by the Junior Critic WATER HOLE TWO LOVERS RILEY THE COP INTERFERENCE CAPTAIN SWAGGER NED McCOBB'S DAUGHTER WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS SnniuiiuiiiiiaiiiMiiiinininiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiniiiiiuiiniiiiiinitJiiiiiMiniiDiiiMiiiiiiiainiiiininniiiiiiiuiiiniiinHiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiuuminiuiQDHmiiniau^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 Now in stock 'iohe^ ?iew Radiola 60 uper Hetrodyne No Battery Radio For those who want the finest in Radio EHJBOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 I I I I I i B B i s I I November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 411 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $7.50 per year; foreign $8.50. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles xvith us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, NOV. 3, 1928 Up to Warner Brothers to Deliver the Goods WARNER Brothers can buy up all the theatres in the country, and merge everything that there is to merge, but they will never get anywhere unless they make good pictures. As producers they have not been noted for the quality of their output, and until they i get their minds oflp the stock market and away from Wall Street, that quality is not going to be improved. As long as the banks stand by the Warners as they are doing now, the brothers are occupying a very comfortable place in the amusement world, but it is a place that only good pictures, not the friendship of bankers, will maintain. The cold-blooded bunch behind the Warners will sell the brothers out and make a new alignment the moment they find that the Warner products are not satisfying the public. The advantageous position the Warners hold in sound development is what prompted the bankers to make them big figures in the great merger. Whether or not the brothers have brains enough to hold the position probably did not occur to the bankers, or, if it did, it did not disturb them, for Wall Street has methods of unload- ing even dead horses on the public at a figure that returns a handsome profit. There has been nothing in the past performances of the Warners to warrant the belief that they are capable of turning out motion pictures that will maintain for them the high position to which they have been raised by the cupidity of Wall Street. In The Sing- ing Fool they have a fine piece of property, but it was the easiest kind of a picture to make, for it consists almost entirely of Jolson and hokum, two most satisfactory in- gredients, I'll grant them, but capable of being mixed but three times a year. Of course, if the Warners intend to become exhibitors instead of producers, they can buy pictures to fill their requirements, but as I understand it, they are more ambitious than ever to do big things in # the producing line. By the grace of the New York bankers, they have control of First National, a control which they will hold only as long as the bankers deem it wise, and ,they will be expected to produce pictures there that will , yield a return on the investment in the Burbank plant. They have their own large investments in plants to take care of. When they were relying only upon their own picture brains to take care of their finances they con- stantly were skating on the thinest of ice. If The Jazz Singer had not come along when it did, they would have broken through and been immersed in the chill waters of bankruptcy. If their picture brains before the advent ol sound did not keep them in a comfortable financial posi- tion, how can the same brains be applied to sound prob- lems and function with any more satisfactory financial results? To this the brothers probably would reply that they can buy all the brains they need. Obviously that is their way out; they can buy brains, but unless they have undergone a complete change of heart with their eleva- tion to their present proud position, they will not allow these brains to function after they have been bought and paid for. The only wise plan for the brothers to adopt is to thank their lucky stars that they have blundered into an enviable position and to resolve that as they have demonstrated in the past they can not maintain a steady output of pictures of quality, they had better hire people who have the brains to do it, and that they, the brothers, would be wise if they kept their hands oflf and allowed the brains to function. The Warner Brothers are not strong enough to hold their present position, and I doubt if they are strong enough to let others make it possible for them to hold it. * * * Disorganization of Metro Lot Responsible for Poor Pictures THE Motion Picture News of a few weeks ago con- tained an interesting article on stock gambling by executives of the film companies. The fact that so many pictures are of inferior quality is ascribed in the article to the fact that the minds of the executives are on the stock market instead of being on the pictures they are making. I do not agree with The News writer. I believe most pictures are bad because the executives and supervisors do not occupy their minds wholly with the stock market, or something else that will keep them off DON'T WORRY! PRODUCERS are murmuring about the high cost of providing synchronized scores for sound pictures. They won't have to worry about that for any length of time. All their sound pictures will be all-talking, and how are they going to have an orchestra playing while their char- acters are talking? In six months scores for pictures will be among the things that the new screen art has dis- carded. An all-talking picture may have a little music to introduce it, and a little to wind it up, but the day for symphony orchestras playing all through a picture is dis- appearing rapidly. To make the elimination of music gradual the wise producer is going to take advantage of opportunities to introduce musical scenes in his pictures. Of course we will hear the orchestras playing for screen dances, and orchestras in the background at other social functions, but there will be a growing disposition for pic- tures to show groups around pianos, hand organs in street scenes, characters whistling and other things of the sort- Ultimately we will have both grand and light operas on the screen, but meanwhile we will sprinkle music through the kind of pictures we see now. Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 pictures. I do not know of my own knowledge if the stock market is a subject of constant concern in studios, for when I visit one of them I generally smoke a pipe with some nut with a creative brain and a sublime ignorance of bulls and bears, and do not encounter those who would care to talk of anything except pictures. But I do not doubt the truth of the story. Someone has told me that the condition is worse on the Metro lot than on any other, and the inferiority of M.-G.-M. pictures is pointed to as proof of the harm done by the interest the studio officials take in the rise and fall of stocks. It is said" that on that lot directors and players are among the biggest stock gamblers. I do not think that Metro is tiirning out in- ferior pictures because there is too much stock gambling on the lot, as the News article contends. I think that the reverse is true: that there is a great deal of attention paid to stock gambling because so little interest is taken in pictures. If directors and players did not seek dis- traction from the wretched production conditions that prevail on the lot they would go mad. No art is more sensitive than that of the screen. The output of a studio reflects the atmosphere that prevails on the lot, and Metro pictures are wretched, not because Mayer, Thalberg and other high officials play the stock market, but because the whole atmosphere of the lot is wretched. I enjoy visit- ing the Paramount lot, for the place has a buoyant spirit that it is good to inhale; everyone likes Ben Schulberg and I never hear any knocking. It is much the same on the Fox lot. Every man and woman on the pay-roll is dead certain that Winnie Sheehan is God's supreme gift to pictures, as well as being a decent fellow whom it is a pleasure to work with. Because such feeling exists on these two lots. Paramount and Fox are turning out the highest grade pictures that ever have come to the screen. Their average quality is high and it is maintained because there is no letting down in the enthusiasm of the person- nel of the producing organizations. There is no feeling of enthusiasm on the Metro lot. Those with picture brains are not allowed to exercise them, and they might as well spend all their time watching the fluctuations of stocks as part of it in bemoaning the lack of efficiency in the offices to which they have to report. Under the condi- tions that prevail on the lot it is out of the question to expect good pictures to come from it. The strange thing about it to me is that the Eastern bankers, whose money is jeopardized by the chaotic concfition, let it go on year after year apparently without making a protest. Until a revolution occurs on the lot, and people with real picture brains be given an opportunity to express themselves on the screen, Metro will continue to drag behind the other Earle Snell Writing Feature Comedies For Universal big producers in the quality of its pictures. There are several hundred people on the pay-roll, but Mayer and Thalberg number as friends only the handful who com- pose their personal cabinets. There are some pleasant fellows in the cabinets, but they have about as much right to be dominating the production of motion pictures as I would have to steering the Graf Zeppelin back to Germany. * • » Dialogue Not Important Even in a Talking Picture DURING the thirty years of its development screer art has been devoted to the single purpose of per- fecting its method of story-telling to permit it tc tell a story with the fewest possible words. In this en- deavor it has been signally successful, for it has achieved a talent for writing great literature with the camera with a sprinkling of words here and there to make its meaning clearer. Now it is threatening to toss aside al it has learned during its thirty years, to ignore the fad that it does not rely upon words, and is displaying a dis position to talk itself to death. In its three decades i has survived more acts of insanity than all the othei industries in the country have to their credit. That it ha; not grown sane by contemplating its insanities, is indi cated by the manner in which it is approaching the prob lem that the introduction of sound presents. Let us con sider one angle of it: dialogue. The inherent weakness o pictures always has been that, taken as a whole, thos< who dominate them do not know what it is all about We have a sharp reminder of this in the action of thi majority of studios in hiring people to write dialogue fo sound pictures. People who know what dialogue is, couli not make such a blunder. Tell a motion picture produce that the dialogue is the most unimportant feature of evei a stage play, and he will blink — that blink of perfect non comprehension. And yet it is true, even though the pro ducer will tell you that it can't be, because a play is noth ing but dialogue. The words that are used in the cour* of the presentation of a play are but the trimmings tha are hung on the solid framework of the plot and situa tions. "Yes" is an ordinary little word, yet it can denob a woman's surrender, a ruler's abdication, and uttered witl withering scorn, with a rising inflection — "Yes?" — it couli be the dramatic highspot of a great stage drama. Ye* however used, it still is a simple little word of thre- letters. As a speech in a play it gets its significance fror the manner in which it is used as part of a scene. Tb building of the scene is the work of the original authoi He it is who builds his drama, who shows us the errinj wife at the feet of her husband, confessing her fault pleading for forgiveness; who puts into the mouth of th husband the one word — "Yes?" — spoken with loathing that calls her liar and a thing unclean, one little wor that chills us when we hear it. Motion picture producer will admit that we have in Hollywood plenty of scree writers who could put this scene on paper — but they hav to send to New York for someone to write in the on simple word with three letters! This would not be s bad if the dialogue writer would be content with writin the one word, and the producer would be content wit| paying for it. But neither one would be content. Th' dialogue expert would write a long speech to show whai a clever chap he was, and the producer would pay for i| November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fivv cheerfully, for the only way he can estimate the value of , money is by the bulk of the thing it buys. As I pointed out in a recent Spectator, the problem that sound presents is the elimination of as much sound as possible. We have ' learned how to tell screen stories with the use of but few words, and even now, when the screen has been made articulate, we must continue that development and get away from speech as much as we can. The way to do this is to allow the authors of our stories to build their scenes and to write in the incidental words that the char- acters must speak as the story progresses. These authors know their characters, they know what each would say in the position in which he finds himself; they are the only ones who can write the dialogue intelligently and without sacrifice of scene or characterization. The words they write are unimportant. The big thing is the situation, which lends meaning to what words are used. To import people only to write these words is absurd. But producers will continue to do it. They're a queer lot. * * • Sound Pictures to Be More Silent Than the Silent Ones Up to the moment of writing — I may discover some- thing new to-morrow — ^the most intelligent uee of dialogue that I have encountered is in Interfer- ence, Paramount's first all-talking picture, and it will be excelled by the dialogue in Half an Hour, if I can judge from some rushes that I have seen. I'm rather well up on Interference. I have seen it as a stage play, a silent motion picture and a talking motion picture. The one version that stands out as the finest entertainment, the most intimate, artistic and interesting presentation, is the talking picture version. By bringing the players close to you in the big scenes, you get a sense of their drama, as you never could get it from the stage play; and making the players articulate makes the silent version an absurd thing of moving shadows and imitation emotions. My prediction in the previous issue, that within a year only talking pictures would be made and that within five years there would be no more stage productions, was based on my experience in viewing Interference in its three forms. The world never before has been handed an art as pliable, as limitless in its possibilities, so inviting to creative brains, as this new thing that catches an actor's voice, a nightingale's song, a cataract's roar or a bumble bee's hum, and makes it heard around the world. There are some who look upon it as a visitation and for them I have a word of comfort: The sound version of Inter- ference is going to be more silent than the silent version. If they will read that again, they will find that it means what they thought it meant the first time. Some months ago, in combating the ideas of those who bemoaned the din that sound pictures were expected to make, I claimed that they would be more reposeful than the silent kind if they were made properly. That conviction, of course, was only the product of reasoning, for I had nothing actual upon which to base it. Since I have seen Inter- ference in its two screen forms I find that my guess was correct. In the silent version the actors have to put more energy into their acting, as they are denied words as an aid to expressing their thoughts. This excess energy has the same effect on the nerves of the viewer as noise has on the nerves of the hearer. Put a deaf man and one who can hear, in a room in which a maniac is destroying the furniture, and you will find that the nervous strain on the two will be equal. The silent version of Interference will be presented to a continuous accompaniment of music, more or less discordant and distracting, according to the degree of understanding of the orchestra leader or organ- ist. Through the sound version of the picture the actors move smoothly and without a great display of emotion. Their words put over their meaning. Their voices are the low-pitched, cultured voices of sophisticated people, for the picture happens to deal with life in high society. And when the picture is presented there will be an opening overture and a closing march, and no other music. All the time the film is unwinding we will see the figures of the characters moving quietly through their scenes, and hear only the low tones of their voices, a slight noise when a door closes, and a faint tinkle when a phone bell rings. And although it is vibrant with drama, and acting so excellent that it excites you, the sound version of Inter- ference, I repeat, will seem to you more silent than the silent version. This will be true of all properly made sound pictures if the rest of the producers can get the intelligent grasp of them that Paramount already has. Importing people to write dialogue, to make a character noisy while robbing him of his soul, is not an exhibition of the necessary intelligence. Sound pictures will not make much progress in most of the studios until there is a revo- lution in personnel which will bring to the top the people with brains enough to understand what a sound picture should be. * * • It Takes More Footage to Make a Picture Talk As we compare the sound and silent versions of Inter- ference we learn some things that are interesting. Every scene in the sound version appears in the silent version, while there are perhaps a score of scenes in the silent version that do not appear in the sound version. In other words: it takes, say, twenty more scenes, HAIL, LOCKE, AND FAREWELL! MY favorite author, William J. Locke, is with us. From the pages of his books well-worn slippers come to you — on feet that are stretched out to a log fire — the tobacco jar near at hand, and a dog panting gently be- cause he is too lazy to move back from the heat — outside cold rain beating furiously on the windows — a country road with a doctor on his way to a patient — but before the fire, peace, comfort, ana a flow of philosophy strongly impregnated with wit, or humor with a sturdy philo- sophical foundation. I have Locke to thank for many perfect hours. He has what I like, and what I am confi- dent nine-tenths of the world wants: good, old hokumish humanity, with tenderness, humor and sound philosophy. It is too bad that he will not be allowed to put it on the screen. When he goes back to England in four or five months without having accomplished anj'thing in Holly- wood, I hope that in the scathing articles he writes about us he will insert something about there being a few people here who knew that the screen wanted just what he had to give it, but they weren't the people who were in a posi- tion to do anything about it. Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 and also titles, to put over the story without dialogue than it takes to put it over with dialogue. Then, you will say to yourself, the silent version must be longer than the sound version by the amount of footage required for the twenty extra scenes and the titles. Good reasoning, but it is not borne out by the facts. The sound version of Interference is just nine hundred and seventy-eight feet longer than the silent version — 7,534 feet to 6,556 feet. I was surprised to learn this, as the sound version, by reason of its higher entertainment value, impressed me as being considerably shorter than the other. This difference in length of the two versions is a matter of economic importance to producers, and of operating importance to exhibitors, but it is not a matter of concern to the public, which is interested only in the entertainment value of a picture and not in its length. If the present six-reel silent picture story can not be told with dialogue in less than seven reels, and if the market continues to demand six-reel pictures and fails to absorb all the longer ones made, it is obvious that there must be a revolution in the writing end of the business. Paramount cut every scene and every unnecessary word that it was possible to cut from the sound version of Interference, and still had a picture that was nearly a reel longer than the silent version. I place the problem in the lap of the industry and leave it there for someone else to worry about. Of more interest to me is the emphatic manner in which the sound version of Interference disproves a contention of my good friend, Joseph M. Schenck, who is quoted by Edwin Schallert in Motion Picture News as follows: "Voices on the screen do not bring personality to the listener as the silent picture brings the personality of the player before the eye of the spectator." After seeing all the talking pictures released thus far, others not yet re- leased, and rushes of some not yet completed, I take exactly the opposite view. I go farther, and claim that even stage performances do not project the personalities of their players across the footlights as vividly as sound pictures project them from the screen. When Clive Brook and William Powell enact their biggest scene together in the talking version of Interference, it comes to us with many times the compelling force of the same scene, although done magnificently, in the silent version, and vastly more intimate and more revealing than the same scene done on the stage. The two players, one the doctor, the other the patient being sentenced to death, speak in low, intimate tones impossible on the stage, and so close to the camera that it enables us to see the movement of every facial muscle, as well as to hear the catching of a breath, a sound so faint that it never would reach the orchestra pit. Clive Brook sometimes smokes a pipe with me in front of my fire, and his personality does not come to me more \ividly across the few feet that separates his chair from mine than it came to me from the screen when, as Dr. Marlay, he was telling Bill Powell that he (Powell) might die at any moment. And when I saw Ruth Chatterton in the rushes of Half an Hour, her face appar- ently a few feet from mine, the impression that a close-up gives, and heard her gasp when she was told that her lover was dead; when I heard her low sobs that came muffled from the cushion in which she later buried her face, she was more alive to me, more of a personality, than she was when I sat back of the camera and watched the scenes being shot. The compassionate glances of Robert Edeson, who sought to comfort her; the low, sympathetic note in his voice as he addressed her, brought his person- ality to me more in one scene than it has been impressed upon me by the scores of big parts I have seen him play. I am talking, mind you, of accomplished artists when I mention these two, artists who have been brilliant on both stage and screen, not artists who have striven for recog- nition in the other mediums, only to achieve it suddenly in the scenes I saw on the screen. There will be more personality displayed in one sound picture than in a dozen silent ones or an equal number of stage plays. » * * Sound WiU Weed Out Incompetent Directors THAT stage training is necessary for success in sound pictures is a contention that I have been combating since sound became a major subject of discussion, and the industry is coming around to the same view. Applied subjectively, what an actor learned on the stage will help him in the new art, but when he applies his stage training objectively, when he starts to do a thing on the screen in a certain way because he did it in the same way on the stage, then his stage training begins to do him a positive harm. The screen actor need not speak with either the distinctiveness or the volume that must characterize his stage utterances. His voice must carry only as far as the person to whom he is speaking. The microphone attends to the job of carrying it to the man in the back row. The actor is taught to speak on the stage with great distinctn.ess in order that his lines will be clear to those in the rear seats. The man in the front * seat could understand what he said even if he made no particular effort to make his words perfectly clear. The sound reproducing device as applied to motion pictures puts everyone in the front row. To me, that is the most extraordinary thing about it. Sitting in a projection- room with William C. de Mille while the rushes of Half an Hour, which he directed, were being run, I caught the sound of Ruth Chatterton's sighs so faintly that I felt that my row of seats marked the extreme range of the sound and that the man behind me could hear nothing; yet in the biggest theatre in the country the man in the seat farthest from the screen will hear the sighs with that same feeling that the sound just managed to reach him and could go no farther. The sighs are a manifestation of the grief that Miss Chatterton felt when the scene was being shot; on the stage, recorded by her physical reaction to them, for they would not be heard by even an orchestra leader; on the screen, a living, audible part of her char- acterization. But behind the voices that do go over, and the personalities that can go over, must be intelligence, the one hurdle that all screen actors, with or without stage training, must take to be successful in the new art. Sound puts a premium on brains as silent pictures have not done. The pretty girl who pleased the eye, and did not outrage the mind too much by the simulation of an emotion she could not feel, will not be able to fool the ear when she uses words to express the same emotion. Artists who have been successful on the screen will have an ad- vantage over their confreres from the stage, for the former have had to think deeply to have their thoughts recorded by the camera, while the latter always have depended more on their voices to put their thoughts over. As the micro- November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven phone takes charge of the voices and makes them equal, the superior pantomimic powers of the actor trained in screen technic will give him an advantage. The greatest weeding out that will be caused by the advent of sound will be in ranks of directors. Not more than one-tenth of those whose names are big now will be prominent two years from now. The majority of our present directors get by to-day only because they adhere closely to all the conventions that make screen entertainment grow tiresome to those who pay for it. Only about one in ten directors has anything new to present in each of his pictures, and he is the only one of the ten who will survive in the new art. The development of sound will have a tendency to reduce the number of close-ups, and when the average director is robbed of his close-up, he vsdll be found to have precious little left. And sound will relieve screen art of another blight that infests it now — the director who is permitted to write his own story. This practice has re- duced the art to a low level. There never has been any more reason why a director should write his own story than there has been for him designing his ovim sets or photographing his own scenes. No producer would dream of replacing his art director or his cameraman with a director, yet in his blindness he has allowed the director to take over another job that requires a skill as special- ized, that of writing the story. Gradually this absurd prac- tice will disappear, and then we will begin to get good sound pictures. * * * Viewing the Same Picture With Sound and in Silence HAVING seen the sound version of Interference only a few hours before I saw the silent version, I feel that I scarcely am qualified to review the latter intelligently. I found that my consideration of the various sequences was affected by the fact that my imagination persisted in making a sound version of it by recalling the voices of the actors as I heard them in the other projec- tion-room. But I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that in its silent form Interference is a fine motion picture, well directed by Lothar Mendes and superbly acted by the same cast that thrilled me with the brilliance of the performances in the other version — Evelyn Brent, Doris Kenyon, Olive Brook and William Powell. That is about as far as I can go in recommending the picture to those who will see the silent version, but I can recommend the sound version without reservation as one of the most engrossing productions ever brought to the screen. Per- haps you can gain an idea of the relative impression the two versions made upon me when I tell you that when I began to write this paragraph, my intention was to review the silent version without reference to the other. I find I can not do it; I find I can not recall all the points of interest in the version I saw, for my mind is dominated by the version I heard. I merely am going thi-ough a phase with this one picture that the public shortly will go through with pictures generally. Having seen living, breathing, speaking people on the screen in one version, I am not content with seeing unreal shadows moving through another; having heard them talk in the one, I think it absurd in the other to see their lips moving with- out any sound issuing from them. But as evidence that my critical sense is not confused beyond the power of functioning, I can recall a fault I have to find with both versions. They have the same ending, and it is an ending with which I do not agree. Powell, who in both versions demonstrates what a magnificent actor he is, loves Doris Kenyon, who is married to Brook, and to protect her good name, murders Evelyn Brent to keep her from giving a certain story to the papers. Both Miss Kenyon and Brook know what Powell has done, and why he does it, yet when Bill is led away, with that unforgettable line from the stage on his lips: "For delivery to Bow street jail — marked 'fragile'," there is a cut to the husband and wife indulging in some platitudes that dispell the drama with a snap — and the picture fades out. The fade-out should have been the door closing behind Powell, or, if there had been any reason for returning to the husband and wife, they should have said something about Powell's great sacrifice, to bring the picture to a close on the biggest thing in it. As soon as Powell confesses to the murder, all interest of the audience in Miss Kenyon and Brook ceases, and the only thing it is thinking of is the poor wretch who is being led away to die in jail. It should have been left with that thought. Another defect in the silent ver- sion that I can recall is the faulty cutting of a close-up of Miss Kenyon. Before Powell went to war she was his wife; his death being announced officially, she had married Brook. Betty Brent comes to her and announces that Powell is alive and in London, where the story is laid. If the scene has any value from a dramatic standpoint, it is to give the audience an opportunity to see how Miss Kenyon reacts to the crushing blow. Miss Brent makes her announcement, and the moment Miss Kenyon gives the first intimation that she understands it, there is a cut to Miss Brent. It is one of the bewilderingly stupid things you see in so many pictures. There was no more story reason why there should have been a quick cut to Miss Brent than there would have been for giving us a cut to the Grand Canyon. Both story and drama gave the scene to Miss Kenyon, for the sole interest of the audience lay in her reception of the stunning news. In the sound version she plays the scene out without a cut, probably because there was no place where a cut could be made — just one of the many blessings that sound will confer upon us. WHEN Lon Chaney was with Universal he was given pictures like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Phantom of the Opera, great productions which Uni- versal exploited so extravagantly that the public got the idea that Chaney was a great actor, and he did nothing in either picture to change the minds of those who viewed it with this preconceived notion of his acting ability. Since he has been with Metro they have capitalized the vogue he established by his grotesque characterizations in the Universal pictures, by means of presenting him as almost everything except a beetle. Off hand, I can remember that I liked him immensely in Mr. Wu, in which he gave an intellectual and convincing performance, but I can remem- ber no other Metro picture in which he impressed me. I have seen him without some weird make-up in two films and in both of them he was terrible, all the blame for which I ascribe to the stories. I can't remember the name of the first, but the second is While the City Sleeps, which I found to be quite as soporific as its title. I can not un- Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR Noyember 3, 1928 derstand why such an organization puts a man of Chaney's box-office strength in such a puerile excuse for screen entertainment. His characterization is something to laugh at, and the story is so obvious that it is ridiculous. Donald and I amused ourselves by taking turns at stating what was going to happen, and we never missed it once. I have neither time nor space to waste by reviewing the picture in detail, but I would like to protest against a man of Chaney's age making love on the screen to such an attractive child as Anita Page. It is disgusting, and is no less a crime against good taste because in the end he does not get the girl. Anita gives a commendable per- formance, one that indicates that she has a future. Wheeler Oakman and Carroll Nye also manage to relieve the gloom somewhat with excellent performances. Nye is a clever youth. The picture reaches the peak of its melan- cholia in its comedy scenes. * • * THE sound version of Interference will convince any skeptic that screen art is going to be advanced tre- mendously when all our pictures grive tongue. In this first attempt by Paramount in making an all-talking film sound is used more intelligently than I have seen it used in any other picture. EveljTi Brent and William Powell have a scene in which he tells her that he is through with her. She begins to sob, and moves out of the scene to throw herself disconsolately on a divan. Powell is left alone in a medium close-up — even if there be no such classification for a shot, you will know what I mean — but all the time we see him planning what he is going to do next, we hear Miss Brent's sobs although we do not see her. Such an effect is impossible to obtain in a silent picture. While our ears keep the girl's grief as part of the scene, our eyes have only Powell to watch. In a silent picture the only way the same thing could be done would be by frequent cuts from one to the other. Thus sound makes the sequence much easier on the eyes. In another scene, Powell walks along a short hall leading to Evelyn'^ apartment, and before we see him we hear his voice, and we continue to hear it until he has entered the scene fully. It is the first talking scene I have seen in which the microphone apparently advanced with the person who talks. Off-stage talking is going to play a large part in sound pictures, and it is going to make the pictures flow more smoothly in avoiding cuts to the people who do the talking. And it is going to save the cost of sets. We hear quite a lot just now about the high cost of talking pictures, but I believe that when the studios get a better knowledge of how to make them, they will be cheaper than silent pictures. I base this guess on the belief that when characters talk, the sets to which they have to be moved will be reduced at least one-half. * * • A SPECTATOR reader in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, sent ■*^ me a cartoon which he clipped from the New Orleans Item, but which originated in the New York World, which gives the incident a geographical sweep. The Spectator's Southern friend apparently presumed that I would say something about the cartoon. I don't see why I should. It is titled, "The Angelic Host Against Tammany," and shows all those who have brought discredit on recent Republican administrations, the group including a half dozen or more who are, or who have been, in jail. In the center, with wings sprouting and a lovely expression, is Will Hays. There are two reasons why I refrain from even mentioning the cartoon: I am for Hoover, and Hays is someone of whom Hollywood should be proud, as it is proud of anyone who draws a salary of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. The rest of the world should forget the oil scandal and think only of the salary. That'i what we do out here. • * * CJOME of the voice tests that I have heard in sound pro- ^ jection rooms have an amusing slant to them. At least three-quarters of the well known girls whom I have heard, speak in strongly affected tones. Just fawncy that! One famous girl star has developed an English accent that » would startle England. The girls should get over this . silly habit before it gets any worse. They want to keep constantly in their minds that the microphone catches the slightest suggestion of a false note. They may be able to fool the milkman with their affectation of culture, but they can't fool the microphone. Up to date these girls have been successful in selling their personalities to the . public. A big part of their personalities which there was , no market for were their voices. There is a market for them now, but to match its personality each voice must be absolutely on the square. The girl who persists in talking in an affected way will talk herself out of pictures. • » « /^ NE of the interesting little things done in the sound ^-^ version of Interference was showing us only one end of a telephone conversation, but allowing us to hear both ends of it. Betty Brent is at the phone. We hear what she says and we hear the other voice as she hears it through the receiver, but we do not see the other speaker, ; Doris Kenyon, until the end of the conversation. In another scene a doctor calls up Clive Brook and tells about a patient that is being sent to Brook. We don't see the doctor at all, but we hear what he says to Brook. Cuts are saved in this way, and one of the major prob- lems of screen art is the elimination of as many cuts as possible. As sound develops there will be a drift towards the elimination of unnecessary close-ups, but it will be slow. Few of our present directors are sufficiently skilled to make scenes without close-ups, and because they dc not know how to avoid them, they defend them with vari- ous arguments, all of which are silly. • • • \T7HILE Oscar, my favorite motion picture actor, wae ' ' polishing my shoes on the Paramount lot the othei day, we indulged in a serious discussion of his artistic career. The upshot of it was that I became his manager. We had a tough time agreeing to terms, but finally it was settled that I was to have all he earned by acting and he was to retain all he made by shining shoes. When I told him the terms of some of the contracts in effect in Holly- wood he agreed that I was treating him generously. I an open to propositions. • * • T AST spring I wrote in The Spectator that after seeing • ■*-^ Emil Jannings in several dramatic and tragic roles I was convinced that he would shine also in a comedy part I argued that it was unwise to keep a real artist in om line of parts, when, by giving him diversified roles, h« could extend greatly his army of admirers. I venturec November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine the suggestion to Paramount that it put Jannings in a comedy to be directed by Ernst Lubitsch. And Paramount now announces that Jannings will do a comedy directed by Lubitsch. If only for my sake, I hope our two dis- tinguished Germans will make good. My batting average on predictions is fairly high now, and I want to main- tain it. * * * RONALD Colman writes something in Two Lovers. He does it in a close-up, and it is plain that he writes but one line and a half, for his pen goes back to the starting point but once. What he writes is shown in an insert. There are four lines. Sam Goldwyn will tell you that it is a little thing that no one will notice. My daughter drew my attention to it. * * * OEBE Daniels, in Take Me Home, is distressed when an •'-' ink-bottle upsets on one of her dresses. When regis- tering her displeasure she makes a ball of the garment while the ink is still wet, the one sure way of making the job of destruction complete. If she had acted naturally she would have exercised every care to keep the ink from spreading. THANKS TO THE MAIL MAN Believe it or not, it's a pleasure to pay for The Film Spectator. For it is an exceedingly lively and meritorious sheet; and the opportunity to reward merit is one of the few pleasures left to sensitive souls. Yours very sensitively, GEOFFREY SHURLOCK. I did not know that a paper with your point of view was published in Hollywood. I appreciate your courage. MRS. ALFRED C. TYLER, Evanston, Illinois, Chairman of Committee on Motion Pictures, General Federation of Women's Clubs. / never can understand why anyone deems it takes courage to write what one conceives to be the truth about motion pic- tures or about anything else. I don't see what there is to be scared of. . . . your excellent journal, which I happen to know is almost indispensable to several of the London newspaper critics. CHARLES WINDSOR, Harrow-on-Hill, Middlesex, England. I think your idea of a fiftieth anniversary num- ber is simply too cute for anything. Put me down for ten pages. FRANK TUTTLE. This is the top note of a pile that is accumulating, all of them ordering space in the next Hold-Up Number of The Spectator zvhich unll appear on the second Monday in March, 1976. .4t the Masquers Club the other day I sold fourteen thousand dollars worth to the fellows it'ho were having lunch at the table at which I was sitting. Frank's order brings the grand total to si.vty-sevcn thousand dollars, and I still am wait- mg to hear from Tom Miranda, who took one-tenth of an inch in the recent Hold-Up Number. I believe that your attitude and your familiarity with pictures, together with your courageous methods, will certainly have an effect on the movies. Many of us a long way from Hollywood rejoice to think that you are right on the job, dare to say the things that ought to be said and that you are going to keep it up. I believe in you and wish you all kinds of success. LEROY E. BOWMAN, National Community Center Association, Columbia University. In listing on the cover of your paper the pictures reviewed you make no distinction between your own and your son's criticisms. Sometimes, in the same issue, you both review the same show, but when you don't, one picture will be listed on the covers of two different issues. I am free to confess, that this idea of double reviewing has never appealed to me. I should think producers would resent these cock-sure opinions of youth and they surely are of no help to exhibitors. They take up space, in my way of viewing it, that could be better put to other use because so largely they seem just reflections of your opinions. P. H. PARKE, Glendale. / believe I already have yielded to the force of Mr. Parke's first complaint by mentioning my reviews and Donald's sep- arately OK the cover. As for his second: It is an old contention of producers that they are compelled to make their pictures for fifteen-year-old minds. When I started The Spectator, Donald was fifteen years of age and I thought it would be a good idea to let producers know how near they were coming to the mind they were aiming at. Donald has aged along with the paper, and I believe that his department is sufficiently popular with Spectator readers to justify its continuance, although his age has not remained stationary. Granted, then, the wisdom of pub- lishing his criticisms at all, what possible objection can there be to both of us reviczsnng the same picture in the same issue? Why not give you both opinions at the same time? If we wrote for different papers, both of zvhich Mr. Parke received in the same mail, he would turn from one to the other at the same sitting and think nothing of it. Why not turn from one page in The Spectator to the other? Donald's opinions are not re- flections of mine. There are persons on every lot who can testify to the fact that when Donald and I leave a projection- room after seeing a picture, I refuse to discuss the picture in his hearing. I do not discuss it until after he lias written his review, and he never has changed a line he has written to square his review with mine. The faults in most pictures are so obvious that it is inevitable that both of us will notice them, but any reader of The Spectator knows that we differ fre- quently. Your comments are stimulating and refreshing, and I also enjoy the department conducted by your son, for I think we can learn a great deal about motion pictures from the young people's reactions. MRS. H. C. GROVER, Better Films Committee, Rutherford, New Jersey. It is only since I began to read The Spectator regularly that I have noticed how the use of so many close-ups spoil pictures. But don't you think that some times close-ups are justifiable? ARTHUR CORDINGLY, Buffalo, N. Y. / believe so firmly that there are times in pictures when close-ups are not only justifiable, but necessary, that when I S. George UUman — eminent artists' representative, will handle no writer unless thoroughly sold on him. He handles me. He will handle no original screen stories unless personally convinced of their entertainment value and box-office architecture. He is handling six of mine. Confer with him about them — and about me. JAMES MADISON (America's Most Versatile Author) 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 get around to it I am going to offer a gold metal to the director who presents the best close-up on the screen in 1929. Your editions always carry the true and authentic stories and criticisms, and that is one thing the other magazines fail to do. A. H. BLOCKER, Houston, Texas. Do you know Ronald Colman personally? If you do, won't you tell us something about him? He always impresses me as being a perfect gentleman. D. C. DOUBLEDAY, Columbia, S. C. To anstvcr requests of this sort, many of which come in The Spectator mail, would put the paper in the fan field, in which so much imagination is displayed already. But I will depart from my set rule just once to put this South Carolinian right about Ronald being a perfect gentleman. In my house the other night I opened a jack pot on three kings. Ronald raised me. He had three sevens, as I learned afterwards. I discarded an ace and a four, and drnv a pair of aces, ivhich gave me the highest full house that could be held that hand, as there could be no ace-full against me. The others dropped out in turn, leaving the betting to Ronald and me, and it was quite brisk. Finally I felt sorry for him. and called. He had drawn the fourth scz'en. He had had a good dinner in my home, was smoking one of my best cigars, and drew another seven! 1 ask Mr. Doublcday if a perfect gentleman would do a thing likt that. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — Tht Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic RILEY, the Cop is an enigrma. John Ford made it for Fox, and it is one of the funniest pictures ever turned out by any studio. However, I can't under- stand how they came to do it. It has very little story, but there scarcely is a moment when it isn't very funny. The people who made it must have had a wonderful time, because some of the gags are so funny that even the people who made them must have been amused. That's a great test of whether or not something is funny. If the men who have to spend their time creating the laughs can see something funny in them, they are good. I imagine that the Riley the Cop set was the merriest one on the lot while the picture was being made. It was a great sur- prise to see someone like John Ford, who can put pathos on the screen so well, make scenes which bordered on slapstick and still are amusing. Riley can not be criti- cised like other pictures, since all that matters was whether or not it was funny, which it certainly was. Ford had some rather pretty scenes, and, as usual his lighting was very good. However, there was too much going on for anyone to pay any attention to the sets. We saw the pic- ture at a preview, so I suppose it will be tightened up considerably. It will be funnier than ever, because there were moments when the action slowed down a little too much. One of the funniest scenes I ever have seen in any picture is the one in Riley the Cop where Riley, played by Farrell McDonald, walks up to a group at a railroad station. A woman is going away, and she is languidly kissing several men good-bye. Riley waits his chance, and when she turns in his direction, he kisses her. It doesn't sound funny on paper, but on the screen it becomes a classic. Other good bits were the sequence in the beer garden, Riley's farewell to Germany, and the closing scene. A bit of humor which ran all the way through the picture was the way in which Riley was identified by the size of his feet. I sincerely hope that Ford will make something like this again. In addition to the other things, he made a rather pleasing little romance between Louise Fazenda and Farrell McDonald. McDonald and Miss Fazenda are the last people on earth who should do a love story, ac- cording to motion picture beliefs; and the fact that they do it very well proves my contention that there can be romances between older people on the screen. McDonald plays the leading role in Riley, the Cop, and Miss Fazenda plays opposite him. The two of them manage to be terribly funny, particularly in the scenes where they make faces at each other. They are brilliant comedians or comediennes, to give Miss Fazenda a break. I don't know how to say that gracefully. Maybe I should JOHN PETERS CHARACTERS Hollywood 1068 have said humorists. AnjTvay, they were funny. David Rollins and Nancy Drexel provided the youth of the cast. Rollins has a fine screen personality, and Miss Drexel is attractive, though she had little to do. I didn't get the names of the rest of the cast, but all of them were good. • * • ONE of the most satisfjnng pictures, from a critical point of view, which I have seen in sometime is Ned McCobb's Daughter, which is William Cowen's first directorial effort. The story is closely knit and well told, and Cowan put it on the screen well. He never got away from it for a minute. At the present time most of the directors are trying so hard to show how clever they can be in handling a camera that they don't pay as much attention to the story as they should. In addition to stick- ing to the story, Cowen directed very smoothly. He made no effort to attract attention to his work, thereby making it good. He uses some old-fashioned mistakes in one or two places. Bob Armstrong walks into a scene with the camera in back of him. He walks up to Irene Rich, and then makes a detour; so he won't obstruct a clear camera view of Miss Rich. Typically moving picture things like that detract from the realism of the picture. There is one thing I will give Cowen credit for. George Barraud mur- ders a man, and hides his body in the apple bin. We see the murder, but are spared the sight of Barraud hoisting him in among the apples. Also, his body is transferred to a truck without the audience seeing it done. The average audience is not interested in the gruesome details, but most directors think it necessary to show everything. Incidentally, while the dry agents are searching the cellar where the body is concealed, the suspense is terrific. As a rule the outcome of a scene like that is known to the audience, but the story of Ned McCobb's Daughter is such that anything could happen. The popular ending for pictures these days seems to be the one where the hero is dragged off to serve a few years for everything from murder to mayhem. Ned McCobb's Daughter ended that way, and F.B.O.'s His Last Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. 'No The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleyen Hau] became so enthusiastic that it ended with both prin- cipals going to jail. The ending of McCobb's Daughter waa highly satisfactory, but the entire story was good in that respect. There was nothing in it which was an insult to the intelligence. Pathe assembled a strong cast for this picture. Irene Rich had the title role, and her work was very good. Robert Armstrong played opposite her. I have enjoyed his brilliant work as a heavy, but he does much better with the sympathetic part he has in this. George Barraud, who made the stage version of Interference such a treat, plays the heavy. He gives a very good performance, but his wonderful voice is wasted in silent pictures. Theodore Roberts has a very small part, but he is fine in it, anyway. Edward Hearne and Dan Wolheim are the only other mem- bers of the cast I remember. • ♦ * TWO Lovers might have been a very good picttire, but something missed fire, and it was one of the most uninteresting films I have seen lately. Nothing in it mattered. All the characters could have been slaughtered, and it wouldn't have made much difference to anyone but them. It is hard to say what really was the cause of all the lack of interest, except that Fred Niblo, who directed, failed to make his characters very human. Incidentally, there was an attempt to spread out until they com- pletely killed what interest they might have had. The heroine of the piece was so full of inconsistencies that she failed to win any sympathy for herself, and by the time the action reached the point where the hero required some compassion for himself, I was so bored that his sufferings interested me not at all. Another thing about Two Lovers which* I didn't like was the fact that Vilma Banky and Ronald Colman seemed so aware of the fact that it was their last co-starring picture. Neither seemed to care whether or not he put any pep in his performance. They both looked as if it were an old story to them, as it doubt- lessly is. The whole thing was half-hearted. Niblo used a lot of close-ups, an action which didn't speed up the picture to any great extent. However, he had one sequence in a swamp which was a wonder. He marched hundreds of men through the mud, which came about up to their necks. It was very impressive. There was one title in the picture which should go down in history. I don't remember it word for word, but this was the gist of it: "The streets of Ghent were empty and silent as the tomb, except for the clash and rattle of Spain's marching soldiers." That sounds like the man who used as a landmark a large vacant lot with two big buildings on it. The titles were punctuated by one of the brightest kindergarteners in Mr. Goldwjm's employ. Colman and Miss Banky, of course, had the two principal roles in Two Lovers. Colman seemed bored by the whole thing, and I for one don't blame him. Miss Banky wasn't wildly en- thusiastic about the proceedings, either. The rest of the cast was far from indifferent, however. Noah Beery and Paul Lukas made distinctly animated heavies, and Nigel de Brulier did very well as William of Orange. I was glad to see that Virginia Bradford handled her part very cleverly, because she is one actress I hope and expect will go a long way. All she needs is a break. * * * AFTER The Vanishing Pioneer, I hoped and" prayed that I never would see another Jack Holt Western or any Western, for that matter. I don't like them. Much to my amazement, I have seen one that isn't bad at all. Strictly speaking, it isn't a Western; because the real Westerns are laid back in the old days when scalp- ing was the great American game. This one is up-to- date and modern, and only occasionally does it slip back into the usual faults of this type of picture. They called it The Water Hole, which is a good name and means noth- ing. Jack Holt was given an opportunity to act more like a human being and less like a picture hero, so the main objection to Westerns was removed. They scarcely ever have characters which aren't overdrawn. In addi- tion to giving Holt a break in his part, they gave him for his leading woman one of the cleverest younger actresses in the business, Nancy Carroll. She helped im- measurably in bringing the picture up out of the rut of the usual Western. The story was nothing new. The strong, silent man takes the society butterfly out on the desert and half kills her in an attempt to reform her. F. Richard Jones, who directed, took this dusty old theme and made a rather interesting picture out of it. Only when he tried to ring in the usual Western bromides did the film look bad. The rest of the time, due to the clever acting of Holt and Miss Carroll, it was rather amusing. As I said before, this is one of the very few Westerns I ever saw which contained characters who don't give the impression of knowing they are acting. Except for the heavy, who makes a weird and migentlemanly attempt to hang the hero, none of the people are as artificial as usual. The hero is still almost too noble, but Miss Carroll has made her heroine very human. She did very well in The Water Hole. John Boles and Montague Shaw did good work in the supporting cast. * * * THE silent version of Interference is really a triumph over odds, as the play's success was due chiefly to its clever lines. It is very hard to put over clever conversation through the medium of scenes and titles. As a result, Interference deserves lots of credit in spite of the fact that it was rather slow and full of wordy speeches. It was brilliantly acted and directed, and that was what saved it. There were four principals, and all of them were splendid. Perhaps the best thing I can say for it was that it followed the play very closely. One of the funniest habits of producers is to buy plays and then change them so that there isn't a vestige left of what they originally bought. That has started the idea that pictures are unable to put books and plays on the screen w^l; and that nulli- fies the box-office power of the name; because people will not go to see the screen version of a play they know, since they are rarely filmed weU. That's rather long and involved, but the idea is there. The interesting thing in connection with Interference is the opportunity to speculate upon the great effect of sound. The use of dialogue in this picture would bring it from a rather uninteresting story to a highly dramatic one. The scene in the doctor's office where he sentences a man to death is impressive enough in the silent version, but it would be tremendous with sound; the whole thing would have been speeded up and improved. Lothar Mendes' direction was very good, as he told his story smoothly and efficiently. The two masculine members of the cast, Clive Brook and William Powell, had the greater opportunities for acting, and they made the most of them. With the possible exception of George Barraud, who played it on the stage here, there is no man in pictures who could play the part of Philip Voase as well as Powell. He was superb in it. Brook has a long string of brilliant per- formances to his credit, but he out-did even himself in this. Evelyn Brent was at her best in a heavy charac- terization, and Doris Kenyon was very good. ♦ » • WHILE the City Sleeps, is Jack Conway's contribu- tion to Harry Crocker's Motion Picture Museum, since it has carefully gathered together all the stunts used in the Dark Ages of film making. As a rule I enjoy the old knock-down-and-drag-out melodramas, but there was too much drag-out to this. In fact it dragged out about two reels too much. It is one of the underworld pictures which have been done so much lately, and is not good, by reason of unintelligent direction. The story wasn't much, either. Lon Chaney was starred; and if I see another of his pictures where he loses the girl at the last moment, I am going to keep away from them permanently. There is no reason for that old, moth-eaten situation to crop ■i Paramount 100% All- Talking Picture Interference Evelyn Brent, Clive Brook, Doris Kenyon and William Powell Carthay Circle Theatre World Premiere, Monday, November 5th Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 up all the time, because the girls he plays with are usually young enough to be his daughters. He is a good enough actor to get along without any romances cluttering up his pictures; but if they must have them, they ought to pro- vide a woman somewhere near his own age. He ought to quit straight parts, at which he is only good, and do made-up roles, at which he is splendid. When he can make himself up to look like a bad dream, it is criminal to let the gift atrophy. The picture was about half over before the story got under way, and when it did get going, it was rather veiled by clouds of bullets. There was enough lead flying back and forth to completely wipe out the entire cast. Inci- dentally, Chaney wandered around with bullets on every side, and never got hit. The police had a great stunt anent the forcing of doors. They would stand directly in front of them and hurl insulting remarks at criminals they knew were on the other side. Naturally the crooks shot through the door, and the poor, dumb cop got drilled. Fortunately Chaney always was standing behind the man who got shot, so nothing ever happened to him. It is absurd to imagine that trained policemen didn't know any better than to stand directly in front of a door like that. There were half a dozen other gags just as bad as that. Every old trick was used. Every time a door opened or closed, someone would be disclosed hiding behind it. The weak but honest boy was freed from the lethal clutches of the gang. The picture ended with the detectives arrest- ing the boy and bringing him back to the girl. There wasn't a bromide they missed. They even had the old trick of having Chaney arrest a man who, when he turned around, revealed that he had impersonated the real one to throw Chaney efF the trail. They used Chaney's fallen arches as comedy relief. Anita Page was the girl in the case, and she did very good work. She is more at ease before the camera than she has been hitherto, and her work reveals a polish which augurs well for her future. Carroll Nye plays the boy who makes an unfortunate choice of playmates. He does that stuff well, but I'd like to see him sometimes when he is outside the shadow of jail. Polly Moran, Lydia Yea- mans Titus, Wheeler Oakman, and Mae Busch completed the cast. Oakman is a heavy who should be used more often, because there is no one who can touch him at a certain type of heavy characterization. * * * BEYOND the presence of Sue Carol in the cast, Captaia Swagger possessed very little which was outstanding. Sue is my favorite screen actress, and I get a great kick out of watching her steady progress in the art of acting. However, I must discuss the picture as a whole before I can allow myself the pleasure of telling how good she is getting to be. The story isn't much, but it is well directed and produced. There are some beautiful sets, and E. H. Griffith, the director, shot them well. Rod La Rocque and Sue do a Russian dance which is rather good — at long distance. Their doubles dance better than they do, it must be admitted. They should stick to acting. This stunt of showing picture actors, who are supposed to be stars in some other line of entertaining doing their stuff, isn't good. They're usually bad, and it hurts their char- acterizations a great deal. There were some funny scenes. Louise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 184 SOUTH KINGSLEY DRIVE (Corner of Second Street) and on the whole, the picture wasn't bad entertainment. There was a chase through the streets with police cars and guns and things. There was some flying stuff at the very beginning, too, so there was plenty of production in it. A stronger story would have made it a rather good pic- ture, although it was not so very bad as it was. Rod La Rocque seems to have gone in for comedy lately. In Love Over Night and Hold 'Em Yale the few laughs came from his acting. In Captain Swagger he did some more and did it well. He and Sue make a great team. She didn't do so badly in the acting line herself in this picture. Sue always has had a marvelous personality on the screen, and she is beginning to prove my conten- tion that any intelligent person can learn to act to a cer- tain degree. At her present rate, it will be only a short time until she is at the top of the heap. Incidentally, there is no one who deserves success more than she. Ulrich Haupt did very well in a sympathetic role which was very different from the malevolent heavy he played in Tempest. Victor Potel cleverly aided and abetted La Rocque in his comedy. Every title writer these days seems to want to commemorate his dying art with a brilliant set of titles. The latest is Paul Perez, who wrote the titles for Swagger. They were very funny, and contributed a great deal to the humor of the picture. Edward Everett Horton ■n"ON APPROVAL" A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE 1^1: "Ilir^fJr' Make r»«r rtierrationj earlr. D«wotovn ticket officea^Birkel Uiuic Co., Broadwmjr Dept. Store, Uxj Co. Suniet Boulcrardi Mati. Thandar u>d S«tucda)r> SOc U $1.00. En., 50c to $1.50. PhoDC GLadttoM 4146. DAN MICHAUD Words and Music Composed or Arranged for Special Requirements (Incidental Music for Pictures, etc.) 506 Majestic Theatre Building Los Angeles Phone TU. 7091 (fMme Lilian Edwards (of London, England) Vocal Instruction for Singing and Speaking Correctly European Method 301-2 Music Art Building Los Angeles Phone MU. 8038 1^ November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen ABOUT OTHER THINGS, By K. C. B. RECENTLY I read a complaint, voiced by a minister of the gospel, that while the population of his com- munity had increased four fold in a given number of years, church membership had remained almost at a stand- still, the inference being, according to the ministerial mind, that morally the people of his community were drift- ing downward. I don't believe it. All of us who are of middle age can remember when the churches of a city, town or village, were its social centers. If you didn't, as a youth, go to Sunday school, or, as an adult, go to church, just think of the things you missed! Think of the strawberry festi- vals, and the church socials, and the garden parties, spon- sored by the various church organizations, and in the summer the annual picnic of the Sunday school, and at Christmas time the delightful anticipation and then the realization of the Christmas tree and the present you knew would be there for you! I come of a church-going family, as did nearly all of the boys and girls of the generation to which I belonged as a youth. I went to church and Sunday school on every Sunday, and the Band of Hope on Friday nights. I had to, whether I liked it or not, but, in any event, I helped to swell the attendance. And then I went away frorn home to another town, and, as I was free of home restrictions, I vowed that then and there my religious life had ceased. But I couldn't stand the lonesomeness of it, and the second Sunday found me seeking out a Sunday school in which there were boys and girls of my own age. And that's what thousands of others, similarly placed, did in those days, and youth builds churches just as eventually it builds everything. Just a Matter of Competition BUT times have changed. No more do youth and age depend upon the church and its auxiliaries for the greater part of their social life. There has come competition and because of all the other attractions that are offered to the man and woman and the boy and girl of to-day those who sought out the churches because it was fashionable to do so, or because of their social activi- ties, have drifted away and the grown-ups have taken their children with them. And so we find that in a com- munity that has increased four-fold church memberships remain just where they were. And, still, I don't believe there is less real religion in the world to-day than there used to be. A man's relifi- ion lies within him and he can take it wherever he wishes. It can be just as devout riding in an automobile out in the sunshine and the pure air of a countryside; or some- where atop a hill that looks out on the sea, perhaps, or on a lake, or deep down a canyon to a rushing stream attuned to whispering winds and songs of birds — just as devout it can be there as in a pew in church. And yet, I think I'm glad that our two children like their rector at St. Stephen's church. * * * The Trip of the Graf Zeppelin I DON'T know what may happen between the time I write this and the date of its publication, but right here and now I want to go on record as saying that insofar as I am concerned it doesn't matter that they hang engines and propellers on it and build it in the shape of a cigar, it is still a balloon. I've read nearly all that has been written of the trip of the Graf Zeppelin, and, notwithstanding Lady Drum- mond Hay's enthusiasm, I am still for Lindbergh and will take a chance with anything he says will take me up in the air and bring me back again, but any time anyone asks me to sit down for breakfast in a dining- room that at any moment may up-end itself and pile every- body and everything into a corner, I just don't want to be there. So far as I have heard or read no one has ever dis- covered any means by which a gale may be softened to a zephyr or the path of a cyclone changed, and until some- one shows me how these things can be done I'm not going to believe that a balloon, no matter what its straight- away propelling strength, can be other than a plaything of the elements. I can understand a heavier-than-air machine roaring and fighting its way through aerial tem- pests, but I can't see a balloon, no matter what its shape, successfully battling storms no more severe than some of those that aeroplanes have conquered in the past. And yet, I can not reconcile these views I hold and that are held by others of greater wisdom than mine, with the fact that wise and scholarly men, men versed in the science of aeronautics, are planning and spending millions toward a day they see that will send out upon their courses fleets of aerial ships patterned after the Zeppelin of to-day. Therefore, I may be wrong, but, nevertheless, I am not going to admit it until somebody shows me a load of Zeppelin passengers who haven't been scared stiff 'most all the time they were out of sight of land. * * » The Reporter and the Balloon TALKING about these Zeppelin affairs, I'm much like the young newspaper reporter who induced its owner to let him go up by himself in a captive balloon at a state fair or carnival or some such thing, and while he was away up there in the basket of the balloon a high wind came along and tore the balloon loose from the cable that held it to the ground. Having gained its freedom, the balloon quite naturally went along with the wind, and, after a while, as the gas in the bag escaped, the distance between the young re- porter and the earth grew gradually less. Dropping lower, the first thing that happened was that the basket was drawn through the tops of the highest trees. Then it hit a church steeple and caromed off to be pulled through other trees, and, having no regard for the property of others, permitted itself to be dragged through a fence that marked the boundaries of -a large plowed field. At this point the reporter was thrown out of the basket into a furrow and, relieved of his weight, the balloon went on its way for another mile or two. When the farmers and others who had seen the balloon coming and had chased it in Fords and on foot reached the field in which the reporter had been dumped they found him dragging himself along, prone on his stomach and using his elbows as the propelling force. The first farmer to reach him asked him if he had been injured. The re- porter, with his face in the ground, said he hadn't. "What's the matter with you, then?" asked the farmer. "There's nothing the matter with me," said the reporter, as he craned his neck so that he might look up, "except- ing that I'm just as far from the earth now as I ever want to be." And that's how I feel about these German-made toys. They're all right if there isn't any wind and the cable doesn't break, but turn 'em loose and there's nothing to do but just let nature take its course. * « * German Science and Tennessee BEFORE they left for home they should have gone with the Graf Zeppelin and circled once or twice the little town of Elizabethton in Tennessee. It would have been a fitting compliment from a German-made airship to a German-made town on foreign soil. Those on the Zeppelin could have waved their hands to a group of three thousand American women and girls to whom Ger- man science has entrusted the beginning of the making of silk for the women of America to wear. It began in a laboratory in Germany twenty years ago or thereabouts. They hadn't found it when the war came on but after the war they went back to work again. They were German scientists and what they sought was a method of making synthetic silk. And, as Germans have Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 a way of doing, they found it — ^found it with its chief component, the linters, or the thin fibre coating of the cotton seed. America being the largest market for the sale of silk what more natural, then, than that they should crash the tariff barriers by bringing their secret across the sea and making their silk within the customs borders of the United States? Water of absolute chemical purity was an essential in the manufacture of the silk. And they found it, in a great spring that flows ten millions of gallons a day, winter and summer, from the mountains of East Tennessee. Elizabethton, an old southern community of 2,400 souls, lay near by, and there it was that two years ago they erected the first unit of their factory, giving employment at once to 1,700 men, women and girls. To-day Elizabethton boasts of a population of 12,000. In a little while they'll tell you down there that it will have grown to 150,000, not an undue estimate when it is known that with the completion of the work now under- way there will be employment for 30,000 workers! Recently, in New York, silk buyers were asked to select, from an assortment of the new silk and the natural silk, garments made from the former. And they couldn't do it. There was no difference in the silks! As a scenario for a motion picture I offer this with no cost to the producer. * * * What It Is All About THE presidential campaign of 1928, now about to close with the casting of the ballots and the counting of them, has been as prolific of issues as a mummy has of offspring. The only divergence of opinion upon any of the subjects that have been discussed is that Hoover thinks that prohibition is still in an experimental stage and that every effort should be made to the end that it shall be successful, while Smith believes that it has already proven a failure and should be modified along lines out- lined by him. Upon every other subject mentioned in the platforms of both parties or discussed in the campaign speeches of the candidates and their platform supporters there is no material difference between the professed views of the two candidates. There are, therefore, but two issues in this campaign, that of prohibition and the more important one that has to do with the qualifications of the candidates. And prohibition isn't really an issue except insofar as the voters may have an opportunity of expressing their views. There isn't any thing a president can do about it. His is an executive, not a legislative office, and only by legislation can the Eighteenth Amendment or its en- forcement act be changed. It used to be that presidential campaigns had as their principal bone of contention a Democratic desire for a low tariff or a Republican desire for a high tariff, but of recent years it has come to be generally recognized that tinkering with the tariff is a dangerous pastime and we find now the Democratic candidate for the presidency giv- ing assurance that the Democratic party, under his lead- ership, will not be inclined toward any material changes in the tariff laws. We have then, in the final analysis, only the question as to the relative fitness of the two candidates. Which one will better serve as business manager of these United States, both in our domestic affairs and in our foreign relations? That is the question the voter must ask him- self at the polls next Tuesday and the cross opposite the name of the man he selects will be his answer. * * * A Question of Manners SOMEBODY around the house has misplaced my copy of Liberty and for the life of me I can't recall the name of the fellow who writes the letters from Hollywood to an imagmary Dear Marg back East somewhere. If you read Liberty you'll know whom I mean and if you don't It won't make any difference anyway. As one who has earned his living by vvT.-iting such stuff as 1 have for several years past I hesitate to speak un- kmdly of a fellow writer. But when a magazine with the circulation of Liberty gives space to the slanderous stuff that this man writes of Hollywood it surely must be the duty of someone to arise and protest. I haven't read all of his contributions, but those I have read indicate that his principal occupation in Hollywood is in attending drunken parties. That he frequently mentions the names of those whose guest he seems to have been leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either the writer of these letters is devoid of those instincts that should suggest to him that it is at least bad manners to shout from the housetops stories of drunkenness and gambling and wild carousal in a home in which he has been a guest, or if his host is not dis- turbed by such publicity, which I am sure he must be, the writer is lacking in those qualities that he should have to know that as a guest, and presumably a friend, he should protect from public ear and eye the fact that his friend's home has been the scene of drunken orgies. Whatever the conclusion one may reach leaves the writer outside the pale wherein nice people live. I don't know this fellow craftsman who writes these letters, but I do know that if I were a guest in his home and there were gambling and drinking, I wouldn't write of it, no matter if he didn't care. * * * A Tale of Two Skunks ONE hesitates to write of skunks, but for so long have I wanted to tell of the pair of them that make their home beneath our house, and could find no medium in which to indulge my wish, I am constrained to take advantage of the freedom I enjoy in the columns of The Spectator and to write of them and be through with it. As I have said, there are two of them. They came to us, somewhere out of the hills, many months ago. Our first apprisal of their presence was unpleasant, so much so that I asked the patrolman who guards over us at night, what one did to rid one's home of such unwanted voluntary guests. Informed that there were thousands of them in the hills back of us and that the destruction of two could make but little difference, I determined then to inform myself as to their manners and customs. My new encyclopaedia told me they were friendly little fel- lows, susceptible to kindly treatment at the hands of humans, that their chiefest sport was in ridding their neighborhoods of mice, and, taken by and large, they were not undesirable tenants of the vacant space beneath one's home. Therefore, we adopted them, by spreading out at night, beside our kitchen door, their favorite foods. Knowing then that we were kindly disposed toward them and that there was no cause for fear of us, they at once undertook to rid us of the mice that had infested us, in which en- deavor they were successful. That our fear of them was dissipated not so easily was natural. It didn't completely disappear until one night, on a visit to the back porch, I nearly stepped on one of them. That it did nothing more than move aside and then slowly withdraw itself into the shadows outside the porch was indication that my intrusion did not disturb it greatly. I accepted it as a friendly gesture and since then we have lived in perfect amity. I write these lines about our skunks solely in defense of all skunks everywhere. That they have been traduced is known to all of us, and what it is I now would have you know is that the things we have said of them have been but calumnies. * * * Ex-Serv ice Men and Prize Fighting IN my mail there comes to me what purports to be an appeal from a body of ex-service men asking for my vote at the coming election against the proposal to abolish prize fighting in California. It tells me that needy ex-service men will suffer if the present law is changed or repealed and they are deprived of the revenues which now accrue to them through the conduct of boxing matches, or prize fights, in the various centers throughout the state. Thinking it over it occurs to me that this state is generous enough and rich enough to care for its dependent ex-service men in some other way than through monies November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen granted to them by way of the prize ring. And, further than that, I don't believe it can be true that a vast majority of the ex-service men of the state of California have any interest whatever in professional boxing. I believe that it is not unlikely that one might find, if he were inclined to look for them, a number of ex-service men who resent this tying up of all ex-service organizations and all ex- ser\ice men with something that has always been close to the border line between the law and crime. Not that I am opposed to prize fighting. I'm not. I love it. And it has never done me harm. I've seen a thousand battles — more or less — and I'm just as gentle and harmless as I ever was. And if some ex-service men want the game to continue it's quite all right. But I know that behind these circulars that have been sent out to the voters there is the money and selfish interest of the professional prize fight promoter. It is really his fight and because he dare not come out into the open he dresses himself in the uniform of the boys who served in France and with a crutch he goes hobbling out crying for (rotes that he may not starve. And maybe I'll vote for him, at that, just because I icnow Tom Gallery and Zasu. Reviewed in this Number CAPTAIN SWAGGER— A Pathe picture. Directed by Edward H. Griffith; story by Leonard Praskins; continuity by Adelaide Heilbron; production manager, R. A. Blaydon; assist- ant director, E. J. Babille; photographer, J. J. Mescal!; art director, Edward Jewell. The cast: Rod La Rocque, Sue Carol, Richard Tuck- er, Victor Potel, Ulrich Haupt. INTERFERENCE (Silent Version)— A Paramount picture. Directed by Lothar Mendes; from the play by Roland Pertwee and Harold Dearden; adaptation by Hope Loring; continuity by Louise Long; photographed by Henry Gerrard; assistant di- rector, George Yohalem. The cast: Evelyn Brent, Clive Brook, William Pow- ell, Doris Kenyon, Tom Ricketts. WED McCOBB'S DAUGHTER— A Pathe picture. Directed by William J. Cowen; from the stage play by Sidney Howard; adaptation by Beulah Marie Dix; assistant director, Roy Burns; photographed by David Abel; production manager, John Rohlfs; art director, Edward Jewell; film editor, Anne Bauchens. The cast: Irene Rich, Theodore Roberts, Robert Arm- strong, (Jeorge Barraud, Edward Hearn, Carol Lom- bard, Louis Natheaux. RILEY, THE COP— A William Fox picture. Directed by John Ford; story and scenario by Fred Stanley and James Gruen; assistant director, Phil Ford; cameraman, Charles Clarke. The cast: Farrell MacDonald, Nancy Drexel, David Rollins, Harry Schultz, Louise Fazenda, Del Hender- son, Ferdinand Schumann-Heink, Mildred Boyd, Rus- FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 VINE STREET (South of Sunset) NINE DAYS, STARTING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9 Paramount's Epic of the Air WINGS WITH ALL SOUND EFFECTS Matinees and Evenings — Children 25c, Adults 65c ..--4 "Why did you buy the Gaiety and close my show?" "Because I don't want the mother of the Kenyon heirs to be an actress." "If I ever suckle a child of yours, may my milk be as poisonous as the sting of the asp." * * * "Do you, Anita, take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" Her lips part. No sound comes from them. "She does," answers John Kenyon, grimly. * * * ". . . it is no more than fair to tell you that she has been my mistress for the past year." Anita faces her husband defiantly. "How long have you, John Kenyon, alias John Kane, been keeping the apart- ment on Central Park West?" "A man " "A man deems it his privilege to do as he damn pleases and I, a woman, claim the same privilege." * * * "Who is the greatest man in the whole wor-ruld, muvver?" "Your father, Blind John Kenyon," Anita replies proudly. * * * It's a story called "COMPROMISE". "GUTS" would be a better title— it's full of 'em. ^ohn ^, Qoodxicln GRanite 9525 6683 Sunset Pagre Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 sell Powell, Tom Wilson, Mike Donlin, Otto H. Fries, Billy Bevan. TWO LOVERS— A United Artists picture. Directed by Fred Niblo; from the story "Leatherface" by Baroness Orczy; adapted by Alice D. G. Miller; photographed by George Barnes, A. S. C; assistant director, H. B. Humber- stone. The cast: Ronald Colman, Vilma Banky, Noah Beery, Nigel de Brulier, Virginia Bradford, Helen Jerome Eddy, Eugenie Besserer, Paul Lukas, Fred Esmelton, Harry Allen, Marcella Daly, Charles Belcher, Phil Sleeman, Lon Poff, Walter F. Lewis, Andre Cheron, Harry Schultz, Fletcher Norton, Scott Blattraw, Lydia Yeamon Titus. WATERHOLE, THE— A Paramount picture. Directed by F. Richard Jones; photographed by C. Edgar Schoenbaum; assistant director, George Crook; editor-in-chief, Albert Shelby LeVino. The cast: Jack Holt, Nancy Carroll, John Boles, Montague Shaw, Ann Christy, Lydia Yeamans Titus, Jack Perrin, Jack Mower, Paul Ralli, Tex Young, Bob Miles, Greg Whitespear. THE article published July 21st, 1928, in "The Film Spectator" made no charge against Mr. Kiesling, whom I have met only once. A protest was made against too much authority being given to any one publicity organization. Mr. Kiesling represented the Wampas — my complaint, or charge, was against the Wampas and their feminine half the Wasps. In paragraph four of "The Wampas Makes Reply" they endeavor to explain their reason for the new ruling. In replying to their explanation I can mention about half a dozen freelance writers, all doing excellent work, who have appeared regularly in various fan publications — and none of them have been guilty of peddling "shoe- laces, real estate" or publicity on any studio lot. • • • None of them have, to my knowledge, sought a job on a studio lot for they imagined when scouting for stories that they had a job. Most of them held credentials in the shape of cards signed by their editors. Here is a sugges- tion that I would like to have the Wampas answer — why should these non-peddling, non-begging, already recog- nized writers be obliged to obtain permission from the Wampas (in writing) before they are allowed to go ahead with their work? These vsTiters are well known by every studio publicity department, it is quite unnecessary that they should be sponsored by the Wampas. And is it not an ungallant gesture to place these "illegitimate writers" in the same class with shoe-string peddlers? A thing the Wampas have done by their protective measures in be- half of the legitimate writer. • * * As to fake credentials — I had a card signed by Mr. Roscoe Fawcett (which I have every reason to believe was not faked). This card had about six weeks to run when I was told by Mr. Kiesling that it was of no va|ue owing to the new Wampas ruling. This being the case Wampas had taken over complete control of Mr. Fawcett's maga- zine. And yet the magazine is owned by Mr. Fawcett. This looks as though the Wampas had decided to dictate to its owner the policy of his magazine. What pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Fawcett to bring about this condition I do not know. Anyway, it is a dangerous precedent to establish. I have been told by the representative of a well known fan magazine that whenever his editor comes to town (as he does once a year) that he (the representative) does his level best to keep him away from any contacts with press agents and the Wampas — this, lest the editor be unduly influenced. • * * When vjrriting for the Fawcett magazine (a new and struggling publication) I met with decided opposition in one publicity department. The woman in charge of the magazine section told me upon each visit that it was a "dirty" magazine, etc. Photographs were grudgingly doled out to me. Other virriters for the same magazine met with similar opposition. Discouraged they complained to Mr. Fawcett and he paid a visit to Hollywood. The woman m question was a member of the Wasps. During Mr. Faw- cett's visit the new ruling was established. The woman in Replying to the Wampus and Miss McDonough By Madeline Matzen question is the most insistent of any upon signed creden- tials from the Wampas. A letter from Jack Smalley (business manager for the Fawcetts) urges me to keep on writing for them and explains how much easier the Wampas and Mr. Kiesling are going to make work for the freelance writer. As I explained in my article, instead of making it easier for the freelance they have made it harder. It looks as though someone had been fooling both Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Smal- ley. Having discussed the new ruling with various "illeg- itimate writers" I find their opinions coincide with mine. But they tell me that they are afraid to say so openly lest the Wampas bar them from every studio lot and de- prive them of their chance to make a living. But I do not believe the Wampas would do such a thing — hence my article and this reply. Mies McDonough says that "fan magazine writeri are not eligible for membership in the Wasps". This ii true but there is another side to this statement. While still a member of the Wasps a woman publicist was re- cently made feature writer on a well known fan maga- . zine. Having landed the job she resigned from the Wasps. A member of the Wampas having been made editor of a fan magazine immediately resigned from the Wampas — but he obtained the editorial job while still a member of that organization. I could cite other cases like these. I am informed by several editors that often Wasp members (holding positions in certain studios) submit articles and sell them. These articles usually are printed under a nom m de plume. 'f • • • It looks as though it were the beginning of a monop- oly and when a monopoly rules, the product of a neces- sity becomes inferior. Competition, and competition only, will add value to a product. When we glance over recent issues of the different fan magazines we know that the product has been worse than inferior. 11 Who cares what a symposium of men stars have to '• say about leap year proposals, about whether screen kisses thrill them or not, etc ? Who cares what a woman star happens to think of her "art" ? We know that with such an empty face she can not think at all and wouldn't know "art" if she met it dressed in a red label. Who cares to read the laudatory and often nauseous praise of paid press agents? Very few people. And certainly the ambitious stars and players do not care to have their names and photographs adorning blah, absurd stories. Not long ago a well known press agent laughed at me when I told him that I wrote my own articles. "Nobody does!" he said and explained rather grandly "If I think of a good story I write it myself in the stylo of whichever staff writer I think it is suited to. Then I send for this writer and give her the article. Sometimes she makes a few changes in it but usually she sends it out as it is, with her own name attached. The contract writers seldom write all their own stories — you are a fool if you do, it's a waste of time." November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen All this was news to me. "Do you mean to say that certain staff writers are holding down their positions with your — er — brains?" I asked. He smiled depreciatingly. "They get paid by their mag- azine— I have accounts with the various stars — besides, 1 just dash off the articles, it's no trouble at all." "If that is the sort of thing legitimate writers have to endure I am glad I am an illegitimate one" I thought to myself. A magazine as a rule makes some pretense at literature, or at what the editor considers literature. But the fan magazines are shameless on that score — like the "Police Gazette". But the amusing part of it is that the fan mag- azines consider themselves immensely superior to "The Gazette". If occasionally a well written and intelligent article or interview is printed it is usually accidental. There is no standard apparently, most of the fan mag- azines are in the hands of the press agents. The editors can not be blamed for this condition, it is the fault of the advertisers and their publicists. The studios are of course the heaviest advertisers. As fan magazines are perused by the picture fans all over the world it is no trouble at all to imagine why the motion pictures are not making as much money as they used to for their producers and why the one time huge interest in pictures is on the wane. • * • To begin with the personalities (so often drab and com- monplace) of the stars are over-exploited. In some cases false and utterly alien personalities are invented for them and broadcasted all over the universe via the magazines. Instinctively the fans sense this falseness and the star, or player, looses favor. And sometimes a star is exploited so emphatically and so continuously that we grow tired of hearing about him. I believe that the reason why the morons of the world attend the pictures and why the thinking people choose stage plays and concerts instead (or stay home and listen to the radio) is not due to the fact that screen plays are usually poor plays but because of the puerile and utterly artificial nonsense that is printed. • * * I Who is to blame for this condition? The press agent. I Mr. Kiesling told me that ninety per cent of the pub- licists connected with the industry were Wampas or Wasp members. These organizations have woven a fine fabric of plausible and high sounding reasons to explain why they have built a steel wall about the industry, a wall which more or less excludes the freelance writer — and the shoe-string peddler. And yet the prices paid for the aver- age fan article run usually between forty and eighty dollars. Staff salaries of three hundred a month are con- sidered fair pay. There seems then to be a very small amount of money at stake — too small to be worth the great ingenuity displayed by these organizations to pro- tect their interests. An article in the June twenty-seventh, nineteen twenty- eight number of "Variety" might throw a little light on the matter. The article is unsig^ned and is an expose of the graft existing on the west coast among critics and publicists. • * • Says "Variety" — " Coast chatterers on the picture business for dailies and news syndicates have brought their racket to a point closely approaching a system" and to this statement could be added that most of the newspaper chatterers write for the fan magazines. The "Variety article goes on to say that "It is infre- quent nowadays when the chatterers and critics of Los Angeles may be relied upon for their reports of pictures or reviews. They are, with but an exception or two, com- mercially biased". "The maximum for bribing critics in Los Angeles appears to be five hundred dollars." and the article tells of "contacts" that are arranged for a stiff price, etc. Mention is made of a reviewer who receives a salary of thirty-five dollars a week from an L. A. daily, who is said to be the creator of the phrase "put the coin under my plate at luncheon." This costly-luncheon-critic happens to be a prolific writer of articles for the fan magazines. We may accurately deduce from the above fact that writing for fan magazines is not the poorly paying business that it appears to be. I understand that Wampas and Wasp members are not employed by the dailies but inasmuch as ninety per cent of the industry's publicists are members and in con- stant contact with the chatterers and critics they must be well aware of this condition. And being well aware of it why don't they take steps to atop the graft? Why make it difficult for the "illegitimate" writer to earn a living and protect the legritimate writer — especially if west coast legitimate writers are working a wholesale graft on the industry ? To borrow an adjective from the Wampas' "Board of Directors" — isn't this situation rather "absurd"? * « • I always imagined that fan magazines and the motion picture gossip section of newspapers were written for the fans. But no, they are written for the actor, actress and producer who pays the most and pays the longest. An actress seldom seen in pictures, and hardly noticed when seen, grabs off as much publicity in the Sunday issue of an L. A. daily as do Janet Gaynor and Laura La Plante together. The actress-seldom-seen-in-pictures' greatest claim to fame is the fact that she owns a chain of flower shops — but she is listed high among the stars. If fame can be bought with trinkets or a fat check, if a star is made on paper and not developed as an artist by work and experience how then can the motion picture ever hope to endure as the world's greatest form of en- tertainment? The answer comes from Wall Street and here in Hollywood there is a panic among producers. They blame it on the talking picture. The talking picture is in part to blame but the publicity racket can assume the res- ponsibility for the "fed up" feeling that the public have in regard to pictures. PAUL PEREZ . . . has just completed titling his ninth consecu- tive Tififany-Stahl fea- ture, "Broadway Fever", directed by Edward Cline. He has been en- gaged by Paramount- Famous-Lasky to title "Three Week Ends," starring . . . CLARA BOW Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & Englander Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 1928 HOLLYWOOD VIGNETTES By F. T. D. YOUR Easterner will never have done telling us that in this land of forever summer there is a dreadful sameness, a conspicuous absence of seasons and monotony of sun and sun and sun that is lacking for the person of taste in many of the saline qualities of our Eastern and Northern and even Southern borders. Ah, yes, but what is taste? I am mindful that our rolling hills are green even in February, that the Yucca then shows a profusion of sentinel-like stems wherever the enormous energy of the landscape-architect has not yet penetrated; that there is almost a swooning ecstasy (for such as swoon) in the pure new color of the Japanese flowering quince. . . . And the sun, that vagabond of spaces, does roll up out of the mists back of Boyle Heights almost every morning. . . . * » » And flowering quince is somehow remindful of ter- races and banks of red geraniums, and red geraniums are synonymous with Berkeley, which was built expressly for them, I think — all old brown shingled houses with inter- esting windows. . . . And I was there when Berkeley burned and all the old brown houses and geraniums were no more; sitting in a room on Telegraph Hill across the bay watching the flames. Someone in the same room thought he was Nero and began to fiddle; but it was a sad thing to see. And now there are new houses, but no red geraniums. * * » This morning my tailor burst into my house with my spare suit and saw my new Navajo rugs. He always bursts in, but there aren't always new Navajo rugs. He s a little East Side Jew, and California is all new and de- lightful to him; not that that makes any difference at all. But he told me, after he had admired them a little, that some day he was going to Navajo and buy some real ones. . . . * * * Down along Grand Avenue, from First Street south- ward, Someone used to wander to the little school-house book-store that still stands across from the library. And Someone used to pick daisies where all the big old houses are now. And in those days Third Street was the way "over the hill" to the farms out Hollywood way, a half day's drive from town — only 'most everyone soon began going around by the easier but less cosmopolitan dirt road which is now Sixth Street, and was then quite a bit out of the way, because Dobbin found the grade stiff going on Third. Someone is sitting beside me now as we drive over the smooth bricks of old Grand Avenue, and under her grey hair I suppose there ^e thoughts of what a wonderful thing it was to pick daisies along that old hill- side, because if she hadn't she would never have had the pleasure of recounting it to her all-unworthy son. » * * This has worked up to the point where it seems neces- sary to talk about Chaplin. I don't quite know how, but it has. Charlie is such a little man we might forget him if we didn't talk about him sometimes. His picture, The Circus certainly was a real Circus. Charlie gets things right. He doesn't guess. Once, when I was an under- graduate, snooping around looking for local color in the districts the other side of the Plaza, I met him coming out of a dark street where, I have no doubt, he had been looking for local color, too. There was someone with him that looked like Doug, but I couldn't swear, because their collars were turned up and they were hurrying along, and our collars were turned up and we were hurrying along, too. But if it was Doug, I don't think he has learned as much about local color as Charlie. Doug gets the letter, but not the spirit. He finds out all about what the Gaucho wears and what kind of rope he swings and what his saddle is made of, and then his picture is just Doug looking like a Gaucho but remaining Doug all the same. Charlie's different. He reconstructs the Western street on his back lot to look like the frozen North, shows us a girl and tells us three times that she's GEORGIA, and I, who have been to Nome and St. Michael, and Seward and Juneau and Ketchikan, feel suddenly that everything is right with the world again, that we are all sixteen and going hunting for gold. . . . Critics and aesthetes explain these things, but I don't attempt to. I get the same feeling from Jack London, and I don't get it from Joseph Conrad. The highbrows would quarter and string me for that. When London writes about the sea I can feel rope, smell oakum, and taste the salt spray on my lips. Conrad was a sailor for thirty years before he began writing, but his description of the storm in Typhoon leaves me cold. His sea is not my sea; his people are not my people. In polishing up all those brilliant paragraphs, over which he spent so much time and so many bitter tears, he rears up a magnificent monument to what man can do with words, but it's a stone monument, and cold. . . . There is a certain sentiment of which one is inclined to grow impatient. In homely phrase it runs about like this: "I guess there ain't no grand old men no more." I guess that guess is wrong. I guess whoever guesses like that doesn't know grand old men when he sees them, or grand old things, or grand old thoughts. The direction of energy has changed, and men are seldom singled out now for valor in war (though we have had a share of that), but for progress in peace. This is a new age, and it holds many new wonders. I recommend for anyone who feels a little down at the mouth about things, Mr. Flaherty's little jewel of a film showing activities of that Twenty- four Dollar Island, New York. In stone and masonry and steel, and with engine and fire and water, man is pushing into the skies and burrowing into the earth, and into the "waters under the earth". This is but a symbol. The really significant thing is that man is unfettering his mind. Warriors are notoriously stupid, even when they try to write, even Caesar. The only thing that justified the whole Trojan war was a blind fellow that came along and sang about it afterward. Artists are everything that war- riors are not. They build what warriors strive always to tear down. They work in peace and for peace. And what has all this, you say, to do with the movies. Nothing — unless it should induce some over-zealous producer of war films to hesitate a little before glorifying what is unques- tionably the worst enemy of all art. r~- VXprman^s c5^rt 5 The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME I HOP I J NEUMODE HOSIERY Specialists Selling Nothing but Perfect Hosiery NEUMODE HOSIERY STORES 6429 Hollywood Boulevard Warner Bros. Theatre Bldg. November 3, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen was away on location when I was holding up people hither and yon. When he came back he wrote me a letter, from which a check dropped when it reached me, stating that he wished to rate as a hold-up hold-over, and that I could say anything I darned well wanted to. You remember Ben — the young fellow who began work some years ago on Hell's Angels. He was a nice boy then. They say that by the time the picture is released, Ben will give George Fawcett and Alec Francis some lively competition. — ^W. B. COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY and ART DIRECTION By EDWIN BOWER HESSER Make your color sequences a success. Utilise the expert color and compositional knowledge of a master artist and cinematographer. Contracts made for Complete Art Direction and Color Photography in Any Process .... Designing of Sets and Costumes for Color .... Special Color Make-Up Provided for Players. HESSER STUDIOS, Inc, Portrait Photography JAMES M. FIDLER, President 6513 Hollywood Boulevard (Just west of Warner Bros. Theatre) For Appointment Telephone HEmpstead 1294 Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR November 3, 19281 mm* MICHAEL CURTIZ "Directed "Noah's Ark" Warner Bros. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIII Illllll IS Edited by kVELFORD BEATON THE 20 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday /ol. 6 Hollywood, CaHfornia, November 10, 1928 NoTs •]iiiiiiintiiDiijniiiiuianiiiiuiinanuiiiiinoiiinniiiiDiniiiiiiiiiaiiuriiiiiiiDiniiiiiiiiit]iiiiii i Good time for producers to mend their ways We overlook an opportunity to dish a lot of dirt Extra girl establishes new price for The Spectator K. C. B. expresses approval of one Dr. Lambert Reviews by the Editor RILEY, THE COP SHOW FOLKS PORT OF DREAMS CRAIG'S WIFE CAPTAIN SWAGGER NED McCOBB'S DAUGHTER = 1 5 s a 1 a By the Junior Critic SHOW FOLKS THE MAN IN HOBBLES PORT OF DREAMS THE CARDBOARD LOVER SHOW GIRL ^ -s '^iiniiinuninDiniinuinuiiiMiHiiiiniHiiiiniiiniiiiiiinininuinnniiiDMiniuunniinuiiuioiiuniuiiiiiuimiUHDUiiiiiiiinQDnnniuaiiniuiiHiaiuiaiuina^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10, 1S28 r (Announcing Radiola 60 The famous Super-Heterodyne Now Witli Powerful AC Tubes No matter what set you now have you owe it to yourself to hear this new Radiola — one of the greatest advances made in radio to date. Come in today and let us demonstrate it to you — no obligation JEHJBOIDUEH 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 D^ t I » B! » B!! B>J » B>i B; I g I jRM^x^P.gMSPMWx'gMqP.W.^^JHOyMWM^Pgx^Rg.qgMWJgMW.^P^ JJovember 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three ITHE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager ♦11 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $7.50 per year; foreign $8.50. Single copy, 20 cents. He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. "HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, NOV. 10, 1928 Producers Presented with An Opportunity to Reform THE heads of the big motion picture organizations, the men who control the producing end of the industry that sends screen entertainment to the four corners of the earth, have refused for a long time to face some facts that have been apparent to anyone who is familiar even slightly with the manner in which pictures are made. iThey have been engaged in a business that could cover up its artistic lapses by contortions performed in cutting- rooms, and absorb its wild extravagances by its manner of selling its products. The introduction of talking pic- tures definitely puts an end to the usefulness of the cut- ting-room as a remedy for the artistic ills, and should serve as an excuse for a reform in the financial manage- ment of the business. No one could make me believe that when a man of the keen business judgment of Winfield Sheehan, or Jesse Lasky, or Louis B. Mayer, visits one of his own stages and finds a director shooting a picture with- out a script, he does not know that it is a serious artistic blunder and an inexcusable financial extravagance. And yet they can not make a tour of their stages without making such a discovery. It is something that has been going on for years, and is one of the reasons why pictures were losing their grip on the favor of the public until sound came to put new life in the wabbling art. But the noise of the coins dropping in greater quantities on box- office counters, must not confuse our producers into the belief that they are entitled to any credit for the improve- ment in conditions. Sound was forced upon them from without the industry, and so little did they appreciate its possibilities, so feebly did their minds function in grasp- ing its importance, that for more than two years it knocked at the door of the industry before it was received inside. Now that it is inside, what are the captains of the industry going to do with it? Are they going to pursue the policy of blundering incapacity that brought the silent art to its knees, or are they going to display common sense, thank their lucky stars for the providential nature of the gift of sound, and so reform their production methods as to ; obviate the danger of a return to the conditions they j brought about by their mismanagement of the making ; of silent films ? Are they going to profit by what experi- ence has taught them, that their business is one that can be run to the earth, even though it has demonstrated that it is one that can stand terrific punishment before it begins to totter? Are they going to face the cold, unre- lenting fact that sound pictures are not immune to the disease that almost killed their silent predecessors ? Pro- duction methods must be changed, and an opportune moment for the change has come with the advent of sound. The industry is fortunate in requiring only one remedy to cure both its artistic and economic ills. If pic- tures are made correctly, their cost becomes correct auto- matically. When we have no directors shooting without scripts, no money will be wasted in building sets that are not used; when we have the scripts prepared properly, no money will be wasted in shooting scores of scenes that remain in cutting-rooms; and when the scripts are pre- pared by skilled writers who are free of the deadening influence of supervisors and directors who are unac- quainted with the first principles of story-telling, they will be prepared in a manner that will result in satis- factory screen entertainment being produced within the bounds of economic reason. Not until producers realize that screen art has become a matter that can be entrusted only to those who have an artistic sense, and act upon that realization, will they allow it to achieve the financial opulence that will be the reward of sensible management. They can not continue their present policy of substituting their own brains for the brains of those who know how pictures should be made. * * * Overlooking a Chance to Dish a Lot of Dirt A GREAT compliment has come to me. An Eastern publication with a national circulation has singled me out to write for it three articles which it feels it can not entrust to any other writer, for my literary charm and intimate acquaintance with Hollywood life are established facts, and make me both the craftsman and the authority it is looking for. So highly does this journal, which has asked me to treat the matter confidentially, value my services that it will be glad to pay me two hundred and fifty dollars each for three articles of around thirty-five hundred words each. So far, so good. This generous publication has an idea. The reading public is fed up, it thinks, on Hollywood wild parties and the indis- cretions of motion picture actresses and actors. The articles that I am requested to write hit a bit higher. All the deplorable happenings in Hollywood, the letter tells me, are not manifestations solely of the depravity of those whose faces appear on the screen; the higher-ups, the big executives and such like, really are the most culpable, for their manner of living is such as to set a bad example to those whom the public knows. The publication wants, through me, to strike at the root of the evil that is ram- pant in Hollywood. It wants the producers and their executives, who control pictures, even though their names are not known to the public, to be presented to reading America in their true colors, their immoralities laid bare and their debaucheries described in that graphic style, with that unrelenting adherence to truth, that are charac- teristic of my pen. That is the general tenor of the letter. I can not quote from it directly, for I wrote on it, "Will you kindly go to hell?", and sent it back. I didn't want the Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10, 1928 unclean thing in my files. It isn't as if 1 didn't know a lot of dirt about the executives. The stories I could tell! For instance, take Jesse Lasky. I know he swears. One day last summer I encountered him at the beach. With an utter disregard for modesty, he was attired in a bath- ing suit, and he was saying the avrfulest things about a man who, in chasing a ball, wrecked a sand castle that Jesse was constructing for his kids and their friends. Ben Schulberg, Jesse's chief lieutenant, is just as bad. At Malibu one Sunday afternoon he not only organized a lot of kids' races, but he ran in two of them himself. Possibly the most disgraceful scene I have witnessed in Hollywood — one to which I undoubtedly would have devoted an entire article — took place in the home of Bill Sistrom, general manager of Pathe. He was lying on his library floor and three girls were sitting on him! True, they were his daughters, but I wouldn't need to mention that in the article. And the fall I could take out of Carl Laemmle! One would think that a man in his position as the head of a great producing organization would lead a dignified and quiet life, yet at a fancy dress party given by Rosabelle, that sweet daughter of his, he actually so far forgot himself as to dress up as a circus ringmaster. There's dirt for you! Winfield Sheehan, the genius who is giving us such great Fox pictures, works all day in his office, but how do you suppose he spends his nights? Among his first editions, his books with exquisite bind- ings; under a carved wood ceiling which he found in Spain and brought to Beverly Hills, where he built a house around it — a house that is filled with museum pieces and in which cut-flowers are everywhere. Even on Wed- nesday nights, when he should be at prayer meeting, this particular bad example stays home and wastes his time on the things he has collected. Take Louis B. Mayer. I saw him one night, a girl dangling from each arm, mak- ing for a slide-for-life at Venice. They were his daughters, but, as in the case of Bill Sistrom, why bring that up? Irving Thalberg, Mayer's chief associate, plays baseball on Sunday! I saw him, yelling his head off, when the M.-G.-M. team was playing Paramount. And each team was made up of the kind of fellows that the generous Eastern publication wanted me to expose. And I've done it. I've set out above all the dirt I know about any of them. And I rub elbows with them every day — in their studios, in their offices and in their homes. Inquire into the private lives of the executive heads of the first twenty producing organizations you encounter, and go into the homes of the preachers of the first twenty churches you run across; weigh what you find out, and the scales will come a long way from balancing. On the lower side will be cleanliness, decency, and regard for the Golden Rule; on the high side cant, hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness. The little guys on the high side will be the preachers. » * • Partly About Bill Sistrom, But Picture Is Mentioned PATHE is turning out some good pictures, nice exam- ples of screen art that should please audiences any- where. I hope Joe Kennedy will take my word for it. Although he is advisor to Pathe, he acknowledges that he knows nothing about screen art, consequently some- one must tell him when the organization turns out some- thing that is a credit to that art. However, the Path* pictures that I have seen recently did not have the benefit of Joe's advice. They were turned out by the organization that Cecil de Mille built up and left behind him when he embarked on the wild adventure of trying to make a good picture on the Metro lot. When the cycle of production comes within the influence of Joe's advice, we shall see what we shall see. Four Pathe productions that I viewed this week were produced under the general supervision of William Sistrom, who has the queerest mixture of qualifi- cations for the job possessed by any production executive in pictures. He could be a success as a building con- tractor if he wished to follow that line, but he prefers to apply his specialized knowledge to the economical con- struction of sets. I don't charge him with setting fire to the Pathe stage that burned down some months ago, but I know he had a devil of a lot of fun rebuilding it promptly. He knows just who should play which part, and he has an unerring instinct for putting his finger on the weak spot of a story. But perhaps his greatest attribute is that of commanding the unfaltering loyalty of those who work with him. When a production is under way he does not insist upon taking the helm himself, as so many of our super^nsors do. He contents himself with nudging the elbow of the man at the wheel, then dropping over the side to board another craft that is flying the pilot's signal. There is a strong strain of fine, clean humanity in Pathe pictures, and I believe its source of origin is Bill Sistrom's home, where there are five kids who hold the opinion unanimously that the United States made an awful mistake in electing Herbert Hoover president when a man so very much better was available. None of the above, however, was what I expected to say when I started to write this paragraph. It was my intention to glance off Joe Kennedy into a review of Captain Swagger, a Path6 picture directed by E. H. Griffith, starring Rod La Rocque and featuring Sue Carol. I just happened to think of Bill Sistrom because he honked his horn at me on Sunset Boulevard this morning, an admission which I trust will not start an epidemic of horn-honking by picture people every time I put in an appearance. Captain Swagger is an interesting picture because it makes no effort to be anything else. Despite the fact that there are a couple of hold-ups in it, it is well dressed and delightful through- out. Rod La Rocque is an excellent actor, but I like him best in polite comedy roles, such as the one he has in this picture. When, immaculately dressed and graceful as a dancing master, he strolls across a cafe floor to a table at which Richard Tucker is sitting, and asks pleasantly, "How would you like a good sock in the jaw?" he strikes a comedy note that is delicious. His screen personality always is easy and charming without sacrificing any of its he-man quality. Especially in a picture of this sort, I know of no one more suitable to play opposite him than Sue Carol. She is about the most captivating little thing that cameras ever are aimed at. So far she has been play- ing just herself, a sweet, clean, refined youngster who charms everyone with whom she comes in contact, but with each part she gives more evidence of an increasing comprehension of what it is about and I believe she yet . will rate as an actress of ability. But no amount of ^ acting knowledge could make her any more charming , than she is in Captain Swagger. Ullrich Haupt contrib- j utes an excellent characterization, and Dick Tucker and Victor Potel do their share. Paul Perez's titles are notable November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five for their cleverness, and Griffith's direction is intelligent throughout. He avoids the abuse of close-ups, and handles his ensemble scenes with marked ability. The picture is a Hector Turnbull production, his last before he went back to Paramount. It is much to his credit. * * * Paul Stein Puts a Lot of Clever Touches in This One PAUL Stein puts many clever directorial touches in Show Folks, a Pathe picture. Eddie Quillan, a cocksure young vaudeville performer, puts on a single act which proves to be a flop. In most pictures the fact that an act is a failure is registered by a shot show- ing looks of disgust on the faces of those composing the audience. In Show Folks we see the adult members of the audience without any expressions on their faces. They simply are waiting for the next act and do not applaud Quillan. But the children applaud him, which is exactly what would happen in real life. In the closing sequence, Quillan again goes on to do a single, earlier in the picture having discarded his partner, played by Lina Basquette, whose work in the act had made it a success. Lina rushes from her theatre to his and at the last moment goes on iwith him. The fact that her presence is a surprise is registered by a fleeting look of astonishment on the face of the orchestra leader, follov/ed by a suggestion of a shrug of his shoulders before he proceeds stoically to wave his baton. In a scene showing the boy and girl at a table jin a cafe where dancing is in progress, we see the faint shadows of the dancers flitting across the two as they converse, although the dancers are not in the scene. All through the picture Stein displays intelligence. In scenes building the romance, both the boy and girl are in every shot instead of being shown in individual close-ups, a treat- ment which I have contended persistently is the correct one. The director shows a fine sense of composition in all his scenes and his cameraman brings out all their values. The picture is going to be criticized on account of its length, for which the director can not be held re- sponsible. Much sharper cutting would have improved the film. The story is not big enough, or about people important enough, to warrant the footage that is used in telling it. It moves too slowly to its climax after the premise has been established. In the last sequence, when it should move swiftly to its fade-out, the individual scenes are held too long. It is cut apparently on the assump- tion that it is a great sentimental romance, whereas it is essentially a romance of action, as all romances must be when played by other than great romantic artists who can hold an audience by their mastery of their love scenes. Lina Basquette and Eddie Quillan are a pair of clever youngsters, but they are not romantic actors. But they put it over most of their fellow players in one re- spect: they put on dancing acts in course of the story, and they are real dancing acts that are worth watching on their own account. They don't need any doubles. Lina gives the best performance she yet has to her credit on the screen. She is easy and natural throughout. Quillan is a natural actor. His role is a departure for him in that it is not straight comedy. He is a rather pathetic figure as the young vaudevillian with more confidence in himself than his talents would justify. When Bill Haines plays a part like that, he irritates us with his conceit, but when young Quillan plays it we feel sorry for him and are pulling for him to make good. I think, however, that Pathe is making a mistake in casting him in anything except comedy roles, as we have plenty of young fellows who can make us feel sorry and too few who can make us laugh. There is a young woman in Show Folks whom I never saw before, and never even heard of. She is Carol Lombard and she is going to do very nicely on the screen. Bob Armstrong plays a kind of heavy that we should see more often. We think he is a heartless fellow until he comes up against a situation that puts him to a test, and we discover that he isn't such a bad sort after all. Arm- strong plays the part well. Craufurd Kent, always a fin- ished artist, makes a valuable contribution to the picture, as does also Bessie Barriscale. Ralph Block produced Show Folks, adding one more to the creditable list he has made for Pathe. * * * Bill Cowen Makes One That Plays Havoc With My Morals NED McCOBB'S DAUGHTER had the wrong moral effect on me. I didn't want the officers of the law to catch the bootlegger. There is nothing particu- larly remarkable about that, for I don't want the officers of the law to catch mine as he is a nice, fat little fellow who never could get along on jail cooking. But I went further in my regard for the picture bootlegger. I wanted him to get his brother's wife. As I will stand no trifling with the moral code, I wanted him to murder his brother in order that he could get the wife legitimately. Failing this direct action, I was pleased greatly when the brother was drowned and the way cleared for the marriage of the widow to the bootlegger. Ned McCobb's Daughter interested me considerably on its own account as a pic- ture, but held additional interest for me because it marked the debut of a new director, my friend Bill Cowen, other- wise W. J. There is nothing about the production fo indi- cate that it is the first effort of a director. In fact, when I saw a few instances of characters walking into scenes and turning to face the camera, I felt that such scenes had been handled by any of our most experienced directors. But these lapses were the only ones that marked Cowen's direction. I hope he will not let them become a habit. In all other respects his direction was surprisingly good. He approaches his scenes with assurance, and composes them with full regard for their dramatic values and their pictorial possibilities. The story is laid on the fringe of the sea, in a bootleg atmosphere, but there is a romance running through it that is clean and tender. Cowen does not make his story obvious. As it neared its conclusion my curiosity as to how it was going to end was strong. It had reached that point that all good stories must reach — I could not see how it was going to turn out. The husband had the corpse of a murdered law enforcement officer under a pile of apples in the basement of his house, other officers were searching the place for contraband liquor, and the discovery of the body would get the pleasant bootlegger and his brother's wife into a devil of a mess. It's no wonder that I became excited. And it was Cowen's intelligent direction that piled up the inter- est until it became exciting. There is a real thrill in the end, splendidly directed and effectively photographed. The picture abounds in excellent performances. Nothing in Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10, 1928 any picture that I have seen in a long time pleased me more than seeing Theodore Roberts in this one. I am told that at each of the previews of the picture the audi- ence burst into applause the moment Theodore appeared on the screen. This veteran artist still is one of the best box-office bets in the business, and now that he is able to work before the camera again, he will be kept busy if producers are wise. He is what the screen needs now, a thoroughly trained motion picture actor with a thoroughly trained voice. Add to this his unquestioned hold on the aflfections of picture patrons all over the world and you have something of value to any production. George Bar- raud, who gave such a striking performance in the stage version of Interference, appears in the picture as th« brother I have mentioned. He is most effective. Irene Rich plays the name part and plays it excellently. In fact, I don't think she ever did better in anything. Robert Armstrong played the bootlegger who got all my sym- pathy. There are still some traces of his stage training in his screen work, little touches here and there that remind us that he is acting, but he nevertheless is com- ing along splendidly and is destined to become a great favorite. Carol Lombard repeats the good impression she made on me in Show Folks. The punctuation of the titles is such as should prompt Bill Cowen to refuse abso- lutely to direct another picture until Pathe promises to hire some ten-year-old grade school youngster to make the titles appear as if they were turned out by someone educated in the use of the English language. • * * Bi'ls Farewell to Silent Films With the Best He Ever Made FOR more than a dozen years William C. de Mille hai been one of the most intelligent directors in the film business, although he not always has given the public the kind of pictures it wanted. He has gone over, body, soul and breeches, to talking pictures, and if I may judge from rushes of his first venture in the new art, he is going to provide us with some notable entertain- ment. But as befitting a long and intelligent career in silent pictures, he bid farewell to them in the best thing he ever did, Craig's Wife, the last picture he made for Path^. It is a brilliant example of direction, a perfectly executed little picture that will delight those who can appreciate its fine points, although it probably will not appeal greatly to those who take their screen entertain- ment on the fly and do not stop to look beneath its surface. Irene Rich, playing the wife, is presented as an irritating nagger whom everyone in an audience would like to see choked before the first reel is half over. It is difficult to carry a central character of this sort through an entire picture and give it wide popular appeal. It can be done only when the characterization is handled deftly enough to make the audience see the point of view of the char- acter. I believe it would have been possible to have made Miss Rich a sympathetic character. From her own stand- point, of course, she was justified in everything she did, and if that fact had been presented in a manner that would have enabled the audience to grasp it, it would have sympathized with her, thereby making the picture one with more popular appeal. For my part, however, I like it as it is. Miss Rich made her part so convincing that it kept me in a constant state of irritation. I wanted Warner Baxter, the husband, to give her a good poke in the jaw, and a picture has to be good to give me such feelings. Craig's Wife interested me considerably as a fine piece of screen writing by Clara Beranger. The play is followed closely although the physical continuity ii changed considerably. The actual weaving together of the elements of the play is done on the screen in a way that differs from the treatment of the original, although it tells exactly the same story with the same psychological continuity as the play possesses. What measure of appeal the picture has will not be because the central character is Craig's wife, but because she is the wife of so many people. The difficulty that De Mille's fine direction bridges is the interval between the discovery by the audi ence that the wife should be taught a lesson, and the delivery of the lesson by the husband. As the wife makes herself unpopular in the first few hundred feet of the picture, the interval would have been a long one had there not been such intelligence displayed in its direc- tion, and such good performances to carry the story along. Warner Baxter makes an ideal husband. He is particu- larly good in registering the thought process that leads to open rebellion, of which breaking furniture is the physi- cal manifestation. Ethel Wales is admirable in a char- acter part. How is it that we do not see this talented woman on the screen much oftener? The romance ii carried by Virginia Bradford and Carroll Nye and both do splendidly. Lilyan Tashman and George Irving have small parts that maintain the artistic quality of the act- ing. The picture has a production that keeps it in atmos- phere. The living-room of the Craig residence has the virtue of looking like a room in which one could live with- out contracting heebie-jeebies, even if one surely would contract that distressing malady by living in it with such a wife as Mrs. Craig. The effect of the sets was height- ened by the lighting of the rooms in the background. Through doors leading to them occasionally we see servants at their work, a touch that lends reality to the scenes. Craig's Wife, I am afraid, is better than the box- office will give it credit for being. * * * Jack Ford Manages to Shoot a Sense of Humor JOHN Ford, who gave us The Iron Horse, Mother Machree, Four Sons, Hangman's House, took unto himself a cameraman at the Fox studios a few weeks ago, and went out and shot a sense of humor. Riley, the Cop, they call it. It is composed of the darnedest lot of rot ever assembled in one picture, but so deftly is it handled, so intelligently directed, that it is the funniest thing that has been brought to the screen this year. It is the kind of picture that would be ruined if other than a keen sense of humor had controlled its making. First National made one along the same line. Do Your Duty, in which Charlie Murray was the cop, but it lacked every- thing that makes Riley such a joyous affair. When Jack Ford made his other pictures, he had stories, and all he had to do was to tell them. When he tackled Riley he had nothing except a cameraman. At least I imagine that there was no script. Every excruciatingly funny bit i« the picture gives you the impression that it was shot the moment someone thought of it. There is not much excuse for a director making a poor picture when be November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven has a story to go on. When a screen drama is a failure, though, it is difficult at times to place the blame. You may attribute it to the manner in which the court room sequence was presented, while I may contend that that sequence is the strongest in the picture. Each of us is right from his own point of view. But take a picture like Riley, the Cop. There can be no difference of opin- ion about the manner in which Jack Ford handles his J. railway station sequence. It was conceived to make people , laugh. If they laugh, the direction is good; if they don't, . it is poor. You and I may think that it is handled ter- 'j ribly, but if it makes an audience roar with laughter, it ; has achieved the purpose for which it was conceived, , therefore the direction deserves credit. Is it because we , have this absolute and reliable check on the work of a , comedy director that we have so few directors brave i enough to tackle comedy ? It must be. Certainly Jack Ford was brave when he tackled Riley. In my mind's eye 1 1 can see him, his cameraman, and Farrell MacDonald tramping around one of the Fox lots until they found some set that suggested something. Then Jack would say, "Let's shoot something here," and all of them would giggle, and they'd shoot the giggle, and when you and I see it on the screen, we laughed our heads off at it. The beauty of the job from a craftsman's standpoint is that there is not a single broad stroke in the whole thing, not a caricature, not an extravagant costume or make-up. It's just funny because it is downright brilliant. But I warn you of one thing: if you've had a difference with your wife before going to the picture house, or if your tailor has been obdurate or your dinner poor, you probably will think Riley, the Cop the most lamentable thing you ever saw; but if all's well with the world, if the goose hangs high and there's a balance in the bank, you're going to begin to grin when the first scene is shown, and your face won't be straight again until a long time after you get home. Farrell MacDonald gives the finest perform- ance of his career as Riley. He is simply great. No one else has much to do. Nancy Drexel, an attractive and intelligent youngster, and David Rollins carry the love interest and keep the fun going. But it's a director's picture, and my hat is off to Jack Ford. I extend him a multitude of giggles. * • * Draping a Few Thousand Extra Feet on Star's Name MARY Philbin is a star; a star's picture should be over eight reels; ergo. Port of Dreams must be over eight reels, for Mary Philbin is starring in it. You might argue that the story is not strong enough to warrant such footage. Well, what of it? Are you so dull that you can not understand that a picture gets its strength, not from its story, but from the size of the type in which the star's name is spread on the billboards and the length of the film in which she is presented? So they proceeded to make Port of Dreams and because Mary is its star, they are releasing it in eighty-five hundred feet, just twenty-five hundred feet more than it has suf- ficient vitality to sustain. The only thing that almost excuses its length is the performance of Otis Harlan. This veteran trouper is an artist. He does not give us a cari- cature of a retired sea captain, nor a comedian's concep- tion of such a character; he makes the old man lovable by keeping him strictly human and plausible, and at times he makes him funny by doing funny things in a reason- able manner. It is a clever, understanding performance that Harlan gives, one of the best that I have seen on the screen this year. It's a strange business, this one of pre- senting pictures to the public. If this one had gone out as "Otis Harlan in Port of Dreams," we would have had a new star, even though he is more than twenty years of age. We aim most of our pictures at youtlil'ul minds, and I know of no one who could be made more popular with them than this jolly old trouper with the youthful soul. Miss Philbin's part is just a girl part. She plays it excel- lently, but the role is a negative one. Opposite her is a youth new to the screen, Fred Mackaye, a sincere young fellow of considerable ability and depth. We meet him first in jail, and discover that he is serving time for a crime committed by his father, the son accepting the guilt to save his mother the pain of discovering that her husband is a forger. That she would suffer even more pain by discovering that her son is one, apparently occurred to no one. Paul Schofield wrote the screen story, and it is as full of holes as a net. All the faults of the picture, even its excessive length, are due to the story. Wesley Ruggles directed it capably, and the per- formances are good, but every few hundred feet we en- counter some implausible situation that even an amateur screen writer would be expected to avoid. The dying father writes a letter clearing his son's name, and the son, to spare his mother's feelings, promptly tears it up and remains in jail, leaving the bereft mother entirely without consolation. The letter could have been made a confidential communication to the parole board, which would have gained freedom for the boy and continued public respect for the memory of the father, but it would have left us with no story on our hands. Having an evil- minded cell-mate find the letter and destroy it, would have been an easy way to retain all the story value. There are several other such weaknesses in the story, but the main fault of the picture is that there is no background for the romance. We know nothing about the girl and we meet the boy in jail. To carry a romance into nine reels there must be more than that. We must have glamorous characters, dominating lovers who give strength to the romance. In this picture all the strength comes from the romance, and none from the parties to it. That is the condition that prevails in nearly all our screen stories, but mighty few of them consume so much footage. Port of Dreams would have been an acceptable picture if it had been held down to six reels, providing the cutting had retained all of Otis Harlan's scene. Universal has given the picture an interesting production and Ruggles makes the most of it, but he could not overcome the handicap that Schofield placed on him. I do not wish to give the impression that it would be a waste of time to view Port of Dreams. Otis Harlan's performance alone makes it worth while. * # * TTTHEN you see your next silent picture, note the ' "^ amount of unnecessary talking there is in it, the number of times that lips move when there is no reason why the characters should say anything. When talking pictures get shaken down, we are going to eliminate all this unnecessary lip movement, and reduce the speeches to those that are essential to the telling of the story. In Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10, 1928 5, a talking scene we can not have an actor moving his lips and waving his arms for five minutes and give utterance only to the half dozen words with which a silent picture would credit him in a title. I don't like to speak disre- spectfully of the dead, but the more we see of talking pictures the more the fact is borne in on us that silent motion pictures have been rather absurd. And as we see still more of the talking kind, we are going to wake up to the fact that the stage hasn't been any too reasonable. When we contemplate the amazing — stupefying in fact — progress sound pictures have made in the few months of their existence, and project our imaginations five years ahead, we can begin to realize that when the screen and the stage pool the knowledge that experience has given each, and apply it to this new development, we are going to have some of the most glorious works of art that it ever will be man's privilege to contemplate. It is inter- esting to note how rapidly all Hollywood is coming around to this view. When over two years ago I set forth in The Spectator what sound devices would mean to screen art, the only people who paid any attention to me, laughed at me. But we don't have to go back that far. I know executives who last month said that we always would have silent pictures, and who this month deny that they said it. I have been told that when I predicted, a couple of Spec- tators ago, that sound pictures would supplant stage pro- ductions within five years, I had gone a little too far, but I was told the same thing two and a half years ago, when I urged motion picture producers to prepare for the era of sound in pictures. 'T'HOSE who are worrying over problems presented by •■■ sound seem to overlook the fact that they will have the help of audiences in the solution of some that now seem perplexing. "How are we going to space our laughs?'' the comedians are asking one another. No two audiences react alike; they do not always laugh at the same place, and no two audiences laugh for the same length of time at any given moment. The Spectator has been assured solemnly by half a dozen correspondents that talkie pic- tures never can succeed because when this one or that was being shown the audience laughed so long that it couldn't hear the lines that followed immediately on the heels of what made it laugh. The solution of that prob- lem may with safety be left to the audience itself. It can learn how to laugh just as the comedian has learned how to make it laugh. We should not lose sight of the fact that audiences still are as new to talking pictures as the producers are. They have not learned yet just how to view them. But that will come. In the studios certain rules for allowing for laughs will be established, and audiences soon will learn just how long they can laugh without missing anything. * * =!= 'T'HE standard apology for putting crime on the screen ■*■ is the fact that punishment always is linked with it. The criminal never fails to get his. In Captain Swagger he doesn't. The gentlemen's code steps in, and it is more inexorable even than the law. Ullrich Haupt, a German flyer, had enabled Rod La Rocque, an American flyer, to escape during the war. Haupt later becomes a New York criminal, and La Rocque assists him in escaping from the police. I don't believe that the most rigid disciple of law enforcement would have approved any other twist of the story. There are some higher laws that are recognized generally, and one of them is the law of noblesse oblige. * * * BILL Hart's friend, Charles Siringo, has been roped by his maker. Bill was going to take me to Charlie's home, for I wanted to meet the old plainsman whose life was more vivid than the imaginations of those who wrote about the West. But it was one of those little journeys that one puts off to a later day because to-day there's an article to write, and to-morrow there's golf. But Siringo still lives in my library. His Riata and Spurs is one of the books I do not lend. If you wish to meet a sterling character, if you wish to live some great days in the West when it was young, if you wish to be enthralled, amused and excited, get the book and all those pleasures will be yours. * * * THE fiftieth anniversary number of The Spectator, to appear on the second Saturday in March, 1976, appar ently is going to be successful from a commercial stand point. In the last issue I announced that already I had received orders for advertising space aggregating sixty- seven thousand dollars. This now has grown to three hundred and eighty-four thousand dollars, and Louise Fazenda has written asking us what discount we will allow on an order for one million dollars worth. The number is getting along quite nicely, even though we have not heard from Sam Goldwyn. * * * UNLESS Universal displays a little speed in bringlr Broadway to the screen, it won't have even the mind situations left to present as something new in screen en tertainment. Up to date I have seen Broadway at least four times, done once by Warners, as Lights of Broadway, or something like that, and three times as quickie produc- tions. It so happened that Helene Costello was in all four pictures. I ran across her on the Boulevard the other morning and asked her why she didn't go after Universal for the girl part in Broadway. "Oh, I'm sick of it," replied Helene. * * * DW. GRIFFITH maintains that there has been no such thing as screen art, although the introduction of sound may give birth to it. As nearly as I can under- stand D. W.'s views from the exceedingly condensed ver- sions of them which appeared in the papers, he says we have had no screen art because motion pictures have been things of the camera and other purely mechanical appli- ances. There is nothing particularly artistic in an un- gainly block of marble, or in the battered chisels that a • l^ FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 VINE STREET (South of Sunset) NINE DAYS, STARTING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9 Paramount's Epic of the Air WINGS WITH ALL SOUND EFFECTS Matinees and Evenings — Children 25c, Adults 65c November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine sculptor uses, but when the chisels are through with the block of marble the world often has reason to congratu- late itself upon the possession of another artistic triumph. One can see neither art, poetry nor beauty in a hammer and an anvil, but when they are applied artistically to a formless bit of metal they can give us a sample of wrought- iron that possesses all the quality that the hammer and anvil lack. Griffith has been a long time in pictures. If they have achieved no artistic standards the fault is his, not the camera's. * * * HOW soon is it going to occur to some producer that Bill Hart in a talking Western would be a great box- vJffice bet? GARNERED IN THE MAIL No doubt in the foregoing there are plenty of mistakes in punctuation, but I think you will under- stand what I have written. Is not this understand- ing all that the written language is intended to con- vey? If so, don't you think that in your constant criticism of the punctuation of titles you are dis- turbing yourself over something of little import- ance? R. S. B., Hollywood. As I conceive it, being correct in anything is a matter of mportance. Fashion has decreed that men should wear neck- 'es, and I am sure that if R. S. B. found himself without one t a social gathering he zvould derive little satisfaction from he fact that, at all events, his nakedness was covered, which is he main reason for wearing clothes at all. Usage demands a ertain standard in punctuation, as fashion demands a certain tandard in dressing, and all firmly established standards are eriods to show us at a glance where a sentence begins and vhere it ends, and the other symbols have missions as definite. ?ji ignoring them, title writers increase the difficulty of reading he titles to the extent that they depart from the established tandards. They claim that they consider it a matter of little mportance. If they ivere honest they zvould attribute it to their gnorance. There is not one title writer in Hollywood who vould punctuate a title incorrectly if he knew how to do it orrcctly. When he claims otherwise, he lies. But it is bootless 0 discuss it now, as soon we will have no more titles. Such gnorance and lack of education as titles have betrayed can not *coA3 « Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) X nightly in Peacock Court J GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen ABOUT OTHER THINGS, By K. C B. I Our Thanks to Dr. Lambert WISH the doctors would get together and agree among themselves as to the effect of alcoholic entertainment. One of them comes along and tells us something that scares us onto the water wagon and we have just begun "to accustom ourselves to the arid corners in which we 'ifind ourselves at parties, regretting a little, perhaps, that We are not in the pantry or wherever it is whence come "the sounds of laughter and of gaiety, when another doctor * arises and says it is a lot of hooey. ■ Take, for example, no less a personage than Dr. Samuel ' Waldron Lambert, president of the New York Academy of ' Medicine, sixty-nine years old, and for forty-two years s a practicing physician. But before I take him and tell you J of his views, I should advise you that the occasion of his' f remarks was a conference on the medical problems of old age. These paragraphs, therefore, will be accepted as , being intended for those of us who have eased our way into I middle age and are now looking down the road to whitened hair and reminiscent wanderings. And what does the eminent doctor say? He says that whatever "bad" habits we have had into middle age we should continue into old age. If we have taken wine "for the stomach's sake" we should continue to do so. Further, he says, that alcohol acts as an antidote to the chronic- poisoning of the heart from over-indulgence in coffee and tobacco, and that those who have observed the Eighteenth Amendment and have taken to sweets are getting dia- betes, and that alcohol, far from being a cause of diabetes, actually holds a prominent place in the treatment of the disease. And there you are and what's a fellow going to do? If he gives up his bad habits old age comes on with a rush, but keeping them it comes on peacefully and grace- fully as we would have it come. That the doctor may be excusing himself and his conduct in his old age is a possi- bility. I've looked him up in "Who's Who" and I find he belongs to the University, Grolier, Yale, Racquet, Tennis and Union clubs of New York City. I don't belong to any of these clubs, but from what I know of some of them I am inclined to the belief that they don't take seriously any of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States that are restrictive of the personal liberties of its members. Nevertheless, at this time, I desire to present to the consideration of the Middle-age Club a motion, which if accepted, will convey to the doctor our thanks for his' efforts on our behalf. , ^ * * * In Which the Lumbago Disappears 1 WASN'T glad when I found I had lumbago, but I did say to myself that if I must have it, I certainly was going to make the most of it. It was the first time in my life I had ever had anything with a name and if there was even a modicum of enjoyment to be derived from it I did not intend to overlook it. The lumbago hit me as I arose from my chair after lacing my shoes. I recognized it right away because I had seen my little brother, Weefer, with it and he had to struggle to get out of his chair just as I was struggling. Downstairs, the cook confirmed my diagnosis and though I pretended to be disturbed by what she said I was secretly glad, not, as I have said before, because I had lumbago but because what I had was lumbago — if you get what I mean. It sounds silly, but what I mean is that so many times I have had things the matter with me and I've gone to the doctor or have had him come to me just to have him say there was nothing the matter with me, it was just a stomach ache, or whatever it was — but never had it been of sufficient moment to have had even the simplest kind of a name. Now, however, I had something, and right away I craved attention. Pillows were brought and aid was ex- tended me in getting in and out of my chair. Pipe and tobacco, papers and books were laid beside me. Willing hearts and hands complied with every wish and I was all set for a good time. Then someone suggested we call the doctor and learn if there were any special foods that I should have. "No," I said, "we won't do that, but if you'll help me up I'll struggle over to Bill at the drug store and ask him what he knows about it." Bad News From the Druggist And so, I dragged myself over to Bill and he just laughed and said all I had was a cold in the back and if I'd keep warm it would probably go away in a little while. "But, Bill," I pleaded, "I know I've got it. It's in the family. My brother had it." "Maybe he did have it," said Bill, "but you haven't. Why, say, if you had lumbago you'd yell every little while just standing here and arguing with me. And, anyway, why you want to have it I don't understand." "I didn't say I wanted to have it," I told him, "it's just that I have something and I thought if it was lum- bago there might be something you could tell me about it, but, of course, if it isn't lumbago there's nothing we can do. It's going to be a disappointment, though, because we have everything over at the house fixed for lumbago." When I reached home I told them what Bill had said and we put the pillows back on the couch and I took my tobacco and pipe upstairs to my desk again and although it hurt me a little getting into my swivel chair I man- aged to do it and went to work. I want to repeat that I'm really not sorry I didn't have lumbago, or that Bill wouldn't let me call it lum- bago. I probably would have suffered a lot more with it than with just the cold in my back, but, even at that, I can't see yet why Bill wouldn't let me call it lumbago. It wouldn't have hurt him any. * :■; ^f: Looking For the Little Guy OF a group of Lilliputians working in a picture on a Hollywood lot, three of the smallest were seated on up-ended pieces of concrete a little larger than an ordinary brick. Impervious to the passing glances of the few visitors who were about, they sat and chatted, the while applying themselves to three ice cream cones, enormous things they seemed in such little hands. Standing not far from them I wondered what these little people talked about. Their world, I thought, must be a thing apart from ours. Did we look large to them, I mused, or was it that they accepted us as different beings just as a cat might look upon a lion, or a Shetland pony upon a Shire stallion? Did they complain, I won- dered, about the size of the ice cream cones or wish that someone might have proportioned them so that they could have handled them with greater ease ? And then I heard the voice of one of them, a shrill voice that came clear to me. "I wonder," it said, "where that little guy that was here yesterday is." * * * An Impolite Door Man ONCE upon a time I saw William Jennings Bryan remove his hat in a rain storm and having always understood that he was a little tight in the matter of money, I assumed that he was inviting pneumonia in order to save his hat. And if I hadn't talked with him a short time later I always would have believed that. And I was wrong. Someone had told him that rain was good for his scalp and he was trying to save his hair. And that's how stories start. All the time we are jumping at conclusions. Just the other night I was all dressed up to go with some friends to a popular restaurant. I wore a hat for the second or third time in a year. I wore it because when Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR 1 November 10, 192S I drive my car the wind musses my hair and I didn't want my hair to be mussed at that party. When I reached the restaurant I parked my car in front and started for the entrance. Then I stopped and threw my hat back into the car. I did that because when I should leave the restaurant, not being accustomed to wear a hat, I would go right out to my car and drive home with never a thought of a hat. If I had taken the hat with me I would have left it in the check room. With it in the car I wouldn't have to think about it. I'd just sit on it when I got in and find it there. But the door man at the restaurant didn't know about this. I heard him say to a chauffeur, as I passed through the doors, something about persons who leave their hats in their cars so that they won't have to check them and then pay to get them out again. Can you imagine that? There was I, for the fijst time in months, entering a restaurant with my hair properly brushed, and to have a crack like that follow me into the place! But I got even with him. I gave him half a dollar when I left and told him it was for guarding my hat and that he must be careful thereafter in judging of the motives of customers who did strange things. I don't know how long he stayed up after that, but, anyway, I spoiled the rest of his eve- ning. • • • Suggesting a One-Track Mind Two bright young men, they are, employed as writers in a motion picture studio. A prize was offered for the one submitting the most acceptable title for a picture in the making. Collaborating, they selected one they were sure would win the prize. Then, for good meas- ure, they entered a list of eight or ten. But it was the first one, the sure prize-winning one, that they kept their minds upon. A few days passed and they had lunch with the oflficial to whom the titles had been submitted. They spoke of them and the official mentioned a title that appealed to him the most. It wasn't their good one. "That's a rotten title!" exclaimed one of the young men, and the other kicked him beneath the table. Luncheon ended and the oflicial left. "What's the big idea, breaking my ankle?" asked the young man who had been kicked. "Big idea! Listen!" answered the other young man, "that title he liked is the second one on the list we gave him." • * * My Friend the Stunt Man STUNT men, men who do dare-devil things for pay, always have interested me. But, until a day last summer, I had never met one for more than a pass- ing word or two. Then, there came to Lake Arrowhead, where I was spending the lummer, a Warner Brothers company to do a Rin-Tin-Tin picture. With them there came Bill Hauber. And I didn't even know that Bill was a stunt man until one morning I saw him get in an auto- mobile and drive it over the bank of the lake into thirty feet of water. Then, after a wait that left me cold, I saw him come to the surface, shake his head and call "okeh" and swim ashore. I cottoned up to Bill after that and we became good friends. He wrecked a car during the second week, drove it down a road at forty or fifty miles an hour and cap- sized it at a turn. I'm a timid creature and I stayed at home that afternoon, but my boy told me that it turned over five or six times with Bill down under the dash. But, anyway, what interested me most in Bill was that he was a sort of Peter Pan person with a belief in good and bad fairies. I found that always when he was due to do a stunt, and cameras and everything were ready, he would go away by himself somewhere and sit down for maybe an hour. And I think it was there that his good fairy friend came and communed with him and very hkely told him everything was going to be all right. They never disturb Bill during these quiet moments and everybody waits until they see him coming and hear him call: "All right, boys, let's go." And then they go, down into a lake or skidding and crashing in an automobile. I hope Bill's good fairy comes and tells him when it's time to stop these frightening things he does. I wouldn't want anji;hing to change his smile or his gentle manner toward everyone. * * * Stage Mothers and Stage Mothers RECENTLY that most interesting journal. The Newj Yorker, carried a story that made a big hit with me* Some stage mothers were conversing together and one of them recalled the Earl Carroll bath tub incident and related how the young lady had not only entered the tub nude but that she had never been paid for it. "Not paid," exclaimed one of the party, "why, where was hei mother?" There are whole pages in that story — whoW pages of tales of days and months of dragging feet, somei times just to go back again whence they came, and other times to sudden riches, and nearly always in each story their lies a touch of greed and a willingness to sacrifice for cash. Not always, because there are stage mothers who hold, above the figures on a salary check, the hope that their girls may shun the pitfalls that lie along their way. Some such mothers I have known, and know, and per- haps it isn't strange that the daughters they have given to the screen or stage are less in need of a mother's con- stant care than is the ordinary girl in any walk of life. But those other mothers! I have known them, too. They haven't a thought in the world except to cash in on i the daughters' ability to get over on the stage or screen. They see other mothers of other daughters living in fine homes and running around in high priced automobiles and their hearts are filled with envy and their heads with thoughts of ways and means whereby they may arrive at a point of similar affluence. And it matters not to them to what extent their daughters may be compelled to violate the conventions of polite society, or to what extent they may be forced to go in the matter of apparel or the lack of apparel upon the screen or stage. They don't care what happens so long as the pay check comes in each week. No matter that the world is full of mother songs, and that the florists and the telegraph companies preach to us each year of Mothers' Day, it remains a fact that mothers are but human beings, after all, and while the vast ma- jority of them seek to keep their offspring sweet and clean there are among us those who barter for gold, or attempt to barter for gold, the very things a mother should cherish most. And from their standpoint the woman who was surprised that the nude bathing lady had never been paid for her bath had the right idea. » • * Sothern and Marlowe THE death of an actor had led us into reminiscences of other actor folk and I was reminded of an incident of fifteen years ago that in its beginning was to me an unpleasant task but that in its ending left me with pleasant memories of a courteous gentleman. It happened on the day that E. H. Sothem was to open in our town and the morning papers had carried a story suggesting a rift in the marital relations of Sothern and Marlowe. That meant, of course, an interview with Mr. Sothern and although my grown-up life had been and has been spent in newspaper work I always have felt that if Mr. and Mrs. Smith wanted to quarrel it was none of the public's business and that there was no place therein for an in- quiring reporter. Therefore, it was to me a most disa- greeable duty upon which I embarked in seeking Mr. Sothern. I found him in the office of the manager of the theatre. Having disposed of the weather and where he went from there, I was about to say to him: "And would you care, Mr. Sothern, to make any comment upon the story in the morning paper?", when Mr. Sothern arose, picked up his hat, and said to me: "Let's take a walk, and we'll talk as we go." And so we did, and Mr. Sothern was so charming a companion that, try as I might, I just couldn't ask him about his wife. And I then believed, and have always believed, that Sothern sensed my embarrass- ment and felt sorry for me, for in a little while he spoke of Miss Marlowe and of how much she regretted she could , November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen not have been with him on his tour. And then he reached into a pocket and drew forth a telegram. And the tele- gram was the answer to what he knew I wanted to ask. ft was from Miss Marlowe — just an affectionate message from a wife to a husband, a word or two about her health and an added expression of her joy that his business had bfen so good. And so we finished our walk and I went back to the office and wrote an interview with Mr. Sothem about the theatre and down at the bottom I tacked on a paragraph about Miss Marlowe and of how she was anxi- ously awaiting back East for Mr. Sothem's return so that they could both go back again to the Tight Little Isle across the seas. And that was the answer to the morn- ing paper story. » * • Frankie Gets a Good Send-Off MANY weeks ago I clipped from a New York paper the story of the shooting of Frankie Yale, and I've just found it and I want to write something about it. Frankie was a gangster and a racketeer, as you may know, and one Sunday afternoon, while he was driv- ing in the quiet of Brooklyn streets, somebody pumped a lot of machine gun bullets into him and they found his aody crumpled up in the driver's seat of his car. The police said it was a Western job, which meant that some- Dne associated with "Scarface" Capone had come from Chicago to "get" Frankie. But that's no matter. What I was interested in was ;hat they buried Frankie in a $15,000 casket, paid for in ;atsh by his friends, and that in the funeral procession that followed him to the cemetery there were 250 auto- mobiles. It was the largest funeral procession that the :ity of Brooklyn had ever seen. The shops in the vicinity jf Frankie's home were closed during the funeral. Flags hung at half mast, and on a nearby Italian-American parochial school there was a banner proclaiming to all that Frankie was one of the founders of the school and one of its most liberal supporters. Sobbing women and grave men filled the church in which the services were held and the streets in its vicinity, and everywhere there was evidence of the sincerest grief. And still, Frankie was a lawbreaker and a bad man. But it couldn't have been that all this grief and all these people who mourned his going suggested a condonement of whatever his criminal acts had been. It must have been a tribute to the good there was in him; a tribute to the fact that he was a good neighbor and that he gave willingly when necessity asked. Anyway, I just don't seem able to get it out of my head that perhaps Frankie was really and truly a whole lot better than the law said he was, and that maybe there's something round about us that we don't know anything about, for every day they bury in Brooklyn men who never in their lives broke a law, and there'll just be a hearse and, maybe, a couple of autos filled with persons who are thinking about wills and things like that. Reviewed in this Number CAPTAIN SWAGGER— A Pathe picture. Directed by Edward H. Griffith; story by Leonard Praskins; continuity by Adelaide Heilbron; production manager, R. A. Blaydon; assist- ant director, E. J. Babille; photographer, J. J. Mescall; art director, Edward Jewell. The cast: Rod La Rocque, Sue Carol, Richard Tuck- er, Victor Potel, Uhrich Haupt. CRAIG'S WIFE— A Pathe picture. Directed by William C. De Mille; from the stage play by George Kelly; adaptation by "Torp^ of HDreams'' Setting a pace for 1929 WESLEY RUGGLES' Production Clara Beranger; assistant director, Morton S. White- hill; photographer, David Abel; art director, Edward Jewell; film editor, Anne Bauchens; production man- ager, Morton S. Whitehill. The cast: Irene Rich, Warner Baxter, Virginia Brad- ford, Carroll Nye, Lilyan Tashman, George Irving, Jane Keckley, Mabel Van Buren, Ethel Wales, Raida Rae. CARDBOARD LOVER, THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Robert Z. Leonard; adapted from the play Dans Sa Candeur Naive by Jacques Duval; adaptation by Carey Wilson; continuity by F. Hugh Herbert; titles by Lucile New- mark; photographed by John Arnold; settings by Cedric Gibbons; film editor, Basil Wrangell. The cast: Marion Davies, Jetta Goudal, Nils Asther, De Segurola, Tenen Holtz, Pepi Lederer. NED McCOBB'S DAUGHTER— A Pathe picture. Directed by William J. Cowen; from the stage play by Sidney Howard; adaptation by Beulah Marie Dix; assistant director, Roy Burns; photographed by David Abel; production manager, John Rohlfs; art director, Edward Jewell; film editor, Anne Bauchens. The cast: Irene Rich, Theodore Roberts, Robert Arm- strong, George Barraud, Edward Hearn, Carol Lom- bard, Louis Natheaux. PORT OF DREAMS— A Universal picture. Directed by Wesley Ruggles; author, John Clymer; scenarist, Paul Schofield; cam- r U^rman^s c^rt 5hop | The Home of Harmonic Framing '. Paintings Restored and Refinished j 6653 Hollywood Boulevard j VISITORS WELCOME } .^ Edward Everett Horton in"ON APPROVAL'' A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE f^L^eftut^vardr' ^^ake your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co.. Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. Matiinees Thursday and Sat- urday. 50c to $1.00. Evenins, 50c "to $1.50 Phone GLad- stonc 4146. No Cover Charge Dine and Dance Hollywood Blvd. at Vine Gi^Roev^ 1 irTTiiii ' 'l ,1-9;. Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10. 192S eraman, John Stumar; titles by Walter Anthony; supervised by Harry L. Decker. The cast: Mary Philbin, Fred Mackaye, Otis Har- lan, Francis McDonald, Edmund Breese, Wilfred North. RILEY, THE COP— A William Fox picture. Directed by John Ford; story and scenario by Fred Stanley and James Gruen; assistant director, Phil Ford; cameraman, Charles Clarke. The cast: Farrell MacDonald, Nancy Drexel, David Rollins, Harry Schultz, Louise Fazenda, Del Hender- son, Ferdinand Schumann-Heink, Mildred Boyd, Rus- sell Powell, Tom Wilson, Mike Donlin, Otto H. Fries, Billy Bevan. SHOW FOLKS— A Pathe picture. Directed by Paul L. Stein; author, Philip Dunning; scenarists. Jack Jungmeyer and George Dromgold; assistant director, R. M. Fellows; production manager, Harry H. Poppe; photographers, Peverell Marley and Dave Abel; art director, Mitchell Leisen. The cast: Eddie Quillan, Lina Basquette, Carol Lom- bard, Robert Armstrong, Bessie Barriscale, Crauford Kent. SHOW GIRL— A First National picture. Directed by Alfred San- tell; from the story by J. P. McEvoy; continuity by J. T. O'Donohue; photographed by Sol Polito; pro- duced by Henry Hobart. The cast: Alice White, Donald Reed, Lee Moran, Charles Delaney, Richard Tucker, Gwen Lee, Jimmie Finlayson, Kate Price, Hugh Roman, Bernard Randall. THE MAN IN HOBBLES— A Tiffany-Stahl picture. Directed by George Arch- ainbaud; suggested by Peter B. Kyne's story; adapted by John Francis Natteford; photographed by Harry Jackson; titles by Frederic and Fanny Hatton. The cast: John Harron, Lila Lee, Lucien Littlefield, Sunshine Hart, Eddie Nugent, Bill Anderson, Betty Egan, Vivian Oakland. STANDS BY HIS GUNS My dear Editor: The sole cause of this letter is to point out to you an error on your part in attempting to refute my argument that silent drama is not doomed to extinction. You say the weakness of my argument is that screen art is not complete, in that actors can not reach the heights they can reach vocally. As well say a statue is not art because it cannot speak, and must have a phonograph put in its tummy before it is complete. Cannot you distinguish between art and realism, and how much one is dependent on the other? Painting was a complete art when the first painter placed colors on his vehicle. The technique of painting has changed radically. An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard and is still changing, but it is now, and always has been, a complete art. The trouble with you is that you approach the movies from the cold, dispassionate \'iew of the intellectual, which is not the attitude of the vast majority of the movie-goers. I would like you to ask a few of your friends who you know belong to this class to give you their opinion on Glorious Betsy. I did just this. One of them told me that he did not see any difference, save that the dialogue slowed up the picture to a point of dragginess. The other, a lady, who is a musician, thought the Marseillaise fine, but that the voices were tin-panny, and that Dolores Costello's voice does not match her face. Well, you cannot always hire opera singers to sing in a movie, neither is a beauti- ful voice a natural complement to a lovely face. Believe me, it is not the Torrences, Stones, Francises that lure the hicks into the theatres, but the sheiks, collar ad boys and moon-faced cuties. The moment the movies begin to try to cater to you and me it is then that they will be doomed to extinction; no one will make talking, silent or any other kind of pictures. So far from replacing the movies, the talkies will just iorm, an opposition, and I do not think that the talkies will lure away a sufficient number of patrons of the movies to make them profitable. You must often have read that the movies depend for their existence on the country villages and small towns. Few of the big, pretentious pictures are a success, no Winifred Dunn Current Scenarios "SUBMARINE" Columbia "ADORATION" First National j Our particular pride is that we are able I to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 ILouise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 184 SOUTH KINGSLEY DRIVE (Corner of Second Street) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen matter how big they go in the big cities. The country Joes not care for this kind of picture, and never did. For four years I made a living as an exhibitor in a small town, md my conclusions are drawn from my own experience. I am very much interested in your vivid description of bhe scene between Barrymore and Francis, and it prob- ably would have affected me the same way, but movie iudiences are not composed of people who have the critical iaculty as highly developed as you and I. Perhaps what the talkies will do is to put the quietus m the spoken drama, which is dying hard. Personally, I Delieve that the movies will continue to exist and have ;heir being without the aid of either sound or color, ;hough I am quite willing to admit that both might be an lid to pictures, if used within certain limitations. One ;hing I am certain of, and that is that anything that inter- 'eres with the swift tempo of the pictures, will ruin them, F. ELY PAGET. THE SCREEN AND THE TRUTH tfy dear Mr. Editor: , : Just recently a writer presented a scenario to one of ;he many principal readers in a local studio. All averred hat it was good, technically correct, and fulfilled all re- (uirements. The final decision, however, was handed down from 'above", that it could not be used for the simple reason t might not pass the board of censors. The story hap- lened to contain a mention of dope, and the needle, there- ore it was taboo. From a moral standpoint, it was up- ifting and encouraging. The mention of narcotics was iolely an accidental cause, from which much good might ubsequently follow. It emphasized the danger of hyper- lermics and lauded a personal reformation. This example among many others, was simply a repe- ition of "gnat mincing, and camel gulping." The original idea of picture making, as I remember, ivas to be strictly educational and uplifting. It is a common opinion among those who deal more ntimately with life, that apart from crime creation by iuggestive pictures, there has been a tremendous amount >f nonsense disseminated, most of which has been detri- mental to adolescent innocence, and normal home-life. It is a rather difficult matter to portray, with natural •eality, sex pictures, underworld scenes, and love romances, without resultant harm. A discrimination capable of sep- arating the wheat from the chaff is rare. Things are never what they are made to seem. Few vdll read and nterpret them aright. They are invariably suggestive ind the powerful inherent propensity in all of us, to evil, svill seldom make "royal raiment from rags", or admir- able virtues out of hidden vice. Many stories accepted, have undergone so much dress- ing and undressing, that the poor author, often, has been unable to recognize the child of his own brain. Had it been produced as written, the audience might have been served a delectable soul-fest and much food-thought. The adaptation departments are more favorable to pur- ihasing ancient stories and novels long since forgotten, than to recognizing modern authors and their productions. If plagiarism were absolutely eliminated, there would be no need of the producers' fear of litigation. If due consideration were given to the present day originals there would be less galloping from one to the other to imitate. No, I am not a Puritan, the very name savors of a despicable intolerance. It is the personification of blatant vincible ignorance. Stupendous hypocrisy like a whited sepulchre, full of dead men's bones. To that particular sort I claim no adherence. They would, were it possible, recodify all the laws of God and nature combined. Whatever stirs emotions disturbs judgment. Those engaged in adaptation seem to make greater efforts in addressing the baser emotions in so-called close-ups, than a fading-in of some appeal to reason, for the higher and better things of life. An appropriate title appended to many of these melodramatic flourishes, might be tersely expressed, in the plain plebian, "Some more bunk; aw, that's all wet." They are as quickly forgotten as the LILLIAN GAEDE ''Contralto'' Vaudeville and Picture Experience Now Open for Engagements Phone VErmont 5146 Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 WHAT SARA RUSEVELT SAYS: A number of artists in pictures are facing a problem which they do not realize is a problem. Ninety per cent of the people that talk over the radio do not realize what dreadful noises they make or they would undoubtedly keep quiet. Q. How long does it take to place a voice? A. From one to three years. It all depends on the student. Q. Why is it that most of the men's voices sound better than the women's in talking pictures? A. The average man's voice is low and heavy. The voice is muffled and does not sound as bad as a high voice which the average woman has. Q. Why is it when the women scream it sounds more natural? A. When one hollers or screams it is the only time one should use the high key. Others will use affectation or an unnnatural voice. There is a great difference in affectation and cultivation. Q. What is the difference in training the voice for vocal and for speech? A. All the difference in the world. Come to the studio and I will demonstrate what I mean. Phone me at GRanite 6869. Note — Miss Rusevelt will be glad to advise any prospective artists who cpntcmplale working in talking pictures or radio work. *^»*4 Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 10, 1928 passage of an organ grinder and his monkey. The pall of discouragement that producers have unwit- tingly thrown around the works of modern vtrriters, is assuredly no impetus to their writing for the talking pic- tures. A new and expensive department of reading and adaptation will be requii-ed. If just a small portion of extravagance paid out to mechanical actors were utilized in the purchase of good and sound material, the business itself would have struck a happy, beneficial and encouraging medium. In this old "Vanity Fair" of ours, there are as many peoples and opinions as the myriad satellites along the milky way. There are, however, constant and unchange- able planets whose light and guidance are infallible. The truth of genuine friendship is seldom found in the smiles of flattery. The one who dares the truth although hard to hear, he is a friend indeed. It is wisdom to profit by mistakes. There are many pearls of great price at the doors and on the lots. It will never become necessary to sail the seas or tour the continent in search of material. To-day TJozce^ Qulture^ The Norlon studio is giving special instruction in correct English pro- nunciation for Vitaphone and Movie- tone. Phone AT. 0696 for Appointment TRIAL VOICE TEST GRATIS there is a coterie of young and brilliant writers. They need encouragement. The dead do not want our flowers Your classic defense of J. Gilbert was admirable. Criti- cisms by writers who through the plain goodness of friends have been recognized, is to my mind, a sad omen to suc- cess. It were better they give this time to the study ol the great word, Gratitude. PIERRE. SAYS SHE'S ALL WET Dear Mr. Beaton: Will you allow me to intrude once again on your cor- respondence page in regard to Madeleine Matzen's re- marks about %vriting for fan magazines? I have been engaged in this quaint pursuit for some months, and if my experience is any criterion Miss Mat- zen's ideas of promiscuous bribery are all wet. It was largely my long-felt desire to be in a position to rejecl a bribe that launched me on my present activities; foi I, too, had heard tales of the Satanic efforts made bj Hollywood publicity men to corrupt magazine and news- paper writers- I have always felt that to be offered i bribe would be enormously flattering, and that to rejec it would restore all one's fleeting faith in one's virtue. What did I find? Not only was I not offered so mucl as a postage-stamp to forget the voice of conscience, bu' at some studios the publicity men were human enougl to confess that I bored them or indeed that I was definitely distasteful to them. Instead of getting out the awninf when I arrived and asking me to name my own figure t( be nice, one press agent declared I was the sort of persoi he felt urged to sock in the jaw, while another said mj accent was offensive and I was impossible. Let us give the devil his due and admit that nowaday) the bribe is quite vieux jeu in the best publicity depart- ments. It is very unfortunate. It leaves us poor fai magazine writers without a leg to stand on, for our writ- ing has always been agreed to be nonsense, and now w» cannot even prove we are honest. Personally, I feel thai the least they could do would be to leave the temptatioi there for us to resist. CEDRIC BELFRAGE. Attention, Mr. Producer! How many directors are there on your pay roll who can produce consistently pictures which gross four times their cost? I know a man who can. I'll have more to say in this space next week. Neil Hamilton -4 h November 10, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F* de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-oflfice records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1694 B. M. BOWER Exclusive representative LES W. FEADER GLadstone 0983 In Production RODEO Under the screen title King of the Rodeo Starring Hoot Gibson JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT Howard Bretherton Now Directing "'STie^ Qreyhound Limited^' with Monte Blue A Warner Bros. Vitaphone Feature •4 i.^ •4 ^-' GEORGE SIDNEY — Says — "Silence is a Polite Negative" Quoth the movies "Nevermore" TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Euth Collier, Associate THE PATRIOT A LUBITSCH PRODUCTION ADAPTATION AND SCENARIO by HANS KRALY Scott R* Dunlap Now With Columbia Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR Noyember 10, 1928 iAM TAYLOR of three consecutive box-office hits for United Artists: 1. "MY BEST GIRL" with MARY PICKFORD. 2. "TEMPEST" with JOHN BARRYMORE. 3. "THE WOMAN DISPUTED" with NORMA TALMADGE. The Next Sam Taylor Production will be "COQUETTE" with MARY PICKFORD An All-Talking Picture Adapted from the Sensationally Dramatic New York Stage Play Also in Preparation The Next NORMA TALMADGE Production for UNITED ARTISTS Edited by VELFORD BEATON THE 10 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday /ol. 6 Hollywood, California, November 17, 1928 No. 9 >]niiiiniMiE}iiniiiniiiniiiiiiiniiiaiiiiiiMnnniiiiiiniiiiniiiiiiiiiinc]iiiiuiiiiiiniMiuiiniit]iiiui!iininniiiiiiiHi(]iiiniiiiiiiniiiiiniijiic]nMiniiiiiaNiHiiiiin[]iiii^ Hollywood is now completely sound- minded Are sins of silent pictures to afflict talkies? Spectator's medal for final fade-out seems to be won □ Reviews by the Editor THE VIKING RED WINE NOAH'S ARK AVALANCHE HIS PRIVATE LIFE NAUGHTY BABY By the Junior Critic NOAH'S ARK THE VIKING HIS PRIVATE LIFE AVALANCHE WOMAN OF AFFAIRS NAUGHTY BABY ME, GANGSTER iTuiuiiiiiiinDiniiiiuiiiaiiiiiHniMaiiiiiiuiiiiEiiiHiiiiuiiiniiiiMiMiuDiMiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiMnciiiiiiiiiuHQiiiiiiiiiiiiEiiiiiiMiMiiDiiuiiiuiii^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 '^'mmm&'iit'ili^'i^'m&'i^'AWdb'gti'mmit'mit^ The Best Value in Radio Crosley Gembox $113-75 complete Crosley Showbox $134J5 complete Both with the famous dynacone dynamic speaker Mo obligation for demonstration^ EH.BOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 Jovember 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager •11 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $5.00 per year; foreign $6.00. Single copy, 10 cents. Je that Tvrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. lOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, NOV. 17, 1928 Hollywood Is Undergoing ^uite a Mental Revolution HOLLYWOOD is becoming sound-minded. The man- ner in which opinion is swinging to the complete acceptance of the all-talking picture as the sole iroduct of the industry in the very near future, is amaz- ng when regarded solely as a mental revolution. As I tated in The Spectator two and a half years ago that )alking pictures had arrived, and at that time advised the ndustry to prepare for them, I am surprised at the slow- less of the industry to recognize the inevitable, even .hough I am amazed at the rapidity with which it is being embraced now that it is recognized. When I stated a few creeks ago that I thought that within five years we would have no more stage plays, and by that time sound pictures KTOuld be our sole medium of dramatic entertainment, I was prepared to be called visionary, but I find that scores |of leading screen people share the opinion. The head of Dne of the greatest producing organizations told me the other day that he had a great theme for a milUon dollar silent picture and sufficient money to make it, but he knew that by the time it would be released it would not com- pete successfully with a talking picture costing one-eighth as much. The million dollar silent picture will not be made, nor will any other expensive silent picture, not already launched, be made. Such pictures are old-fash- ioned, which presents a peculiar problem to me. The reviews of pictures presented in The Spectator are not written to influence attendance at the houses showing them, but are based on the theory that they may be of benefit to those engaged in making other pictures. I point out what I think is a fault in a picture ah-eady made, in the hope that a similar fault will be avoided in a picture yet to be made. Such being the case, what good can I accomplish by continuing to review silent pictures? A new art has been born, and, as an art, the old one i« dead as the dodo. I even don't care any longer how badly titles are punctuated, and no doubt Spectator readers will hail that declaration as not the least of the boons con- ferred upon them by the advent of sound. When I am by myself I think in terms of sound; when at a studio I talk sound, and in projection-rooms I seek sound pictures. When I encounter a silent one, I find it dull and uninter- esting, which is not fau- to it. It may be a worthy exam- ple of the silent art, but that is something that I am interested in no longer. When I see a pair of lips wagging on the screen, I want to hear words issuing from them. Wagging without words is absurd. As a matter of fact, sound has taught us what an absurd art the silent drama has been. It may be cruel to jump on the poor old thing while there still is breath in its body, for it has been good to us and served its purpose of benefiting mankind, but we can not escape the fact that it has been singularly incomplete. Before the introduction of gas and electric- ity, oil lamps were the last word in illumination, and our grandfathers were content with them, and thanked their lucky stars that they no longer had to rely upon candles. Similarly, were we content with silent pictures before we knew that they could be improved, but we will go back to them when we go back to oil lamps, and no sooner. No doubt the first oil lamps were not wholly satisfactory, just as our first talking pictures were rather sorry suc- cessors of the best silent ones, but the faults were purely mechanical and soon were overcome, just as the faults in sound devices will be overcome. The new art that has come to us is bewildering in its possibilities. It can go as far as man's imagination can lead it, and when imagina- tion lags it will not be because the art has reached its ultimate. * * * Sound Pictures Likely Not to Get a Chance to Be Good THE chief difficulty— and it is a real one— that sound pictures will have to overcome is the refusal of the producers to allow picture brains to function. I don't suppose there is any power on earth that could make either Louis B. Mayer or Jack Warner relinquish the idea that he knows exactly what constitutes a good picture. Neither possesses the knowledge, but he dominates the activities of scores of people who do possess it. This condition in a varying degree in all the studios, has been responsible for the development of production methods that can not be carried into the sound era. For every dollar spent wisely on production during the past ten years another dollar has been wasted. It would not be so bad if silent pictures cost twice what they should, if they had suc- ceeded in being even half as good as they might have been. But they have been so poor that the public's lack of inter- est in them was becoming alarming when sound came to the rescue. The menace in the present situation is the fact that the same men who all but ruined the silent drama have the fate of sound films in their control. With unlimited money at their command, and the brains of the world to choose from, a handful of men in Hollywood made a mess of the business because they thought that they possessed talents that fitted them to control the mak- ing of their product. If they carry that idea into sound pictures— and they will— it likely will lead to what pic- tures have needed for the past decade— a thorough revolu- tion in the personnel. Big Business has entered pictures. It has become big because it has been efficient. If the heads of our present producing organizations think that they can continue to make pictures in the wildly extrava- gant manner in which they have made them in the past, they are taking a more sanguine view of the tolerance of Wall Street than the history of that thoroughfare would Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 justify. How long do you suppose the bankers who con- trol M.-G.-M. will permit that organization to start pic- tures it never finishes, to finish pictures too poor to show, to show pictures too poor to earn half their potential profits? The amazingly inefficient Metro organization, of which Mayer and Irving Thalberg are the amazingly inefficient heads, will not be permitted to continue func- tioning when Big Business gets around to it. But it is a tremendous load that sound pictures will inherit from their silent predecessors. The Metro quality has been deteriorating rapidly of late because no one in authority on the lot, from Mayer himself down to the most recent supervisor, knows anything about the practical side of making pictures and is not endowed with a soul that can contribute anything to them. I would exclude Irving Thalberg from this indictment if the pictures for which he has been responsible did not show that he belongs in it. This organization, then, which has demonstrated, be- yond any question, that it is incapable of making silent pictures that the public will like, takes unto itself the making of sound pictures which require the application of even more brains than the others. The same condition exists to some extent in the other studios. What is going to happen? The present executives will hold stubbornly to their claim that they should dictate to writers and directors, and writers and directors who are dictated to never will make sound pictures that will continue to hold the interest of the public. There would be some hope for sound pictures if producers would recognize the fact that screen art has grown away from them; but they never will do that. * * * Are Sins of Silent Pictures to Be Inherited by the Talkies? WHEN one contemplates the inefficiency of produc- tion methods that resulted in silent pictures losfc ing their popularity with the public, he has reason to fear for the welfare of those to which sound will be applied. That the entire output of the industry soon will be of the all-talking variety may be accepted as a fact. This means that there must be a revolution in production methods, and what grounds have we for believing that the same people can make the new method more efficient than the old? Ever since I started The Spectator I have pleaded the cause of the perfect script. Gradually the intelligent people in studios came around to the opinion that it was inevitable if the standard of screen entertain- ment was to be raised to a point that would enable it to hold the interest of the public, and if the cost of picture! was to be kept within a sound, commercial limit, although it was regarded as something impossible to achieve under the supervisor system. Supervisors, on the whole, have nullified the efforts of those with creative brains, and th« good pictures that have come through in spite of this handicap were those with an inherent strength sufficient to withstand it, or those to which, for any of a variety of reasons, supervisors paid little attention. Talking pic- tures can not stand up under the manhandling to which the silent ones have been subjected. They demand the unhampered application of creative brains, and I must confess that I do not see how they are going to get it. Under the old system the program picture was composed of pieces of film picked up by brainless people as they crawled around the floor of the cutting-room. They can't make a talking picture that way. They must know what they have before they start. When a director is handed a story that is told concisely from beginning to end in dialogue that constantly gets its meaning from what went before it and what follows it, he will have to shoot it as written, and it is going to be difficult for the cutter to maul it without entirely murdering it. It will not be possible to eliminate sequences and to rearrange scenes. That it has been mechanically possible in silent pictures is what led to their undoing. If the industry had started a quarter of a century ago to develop people who could write perfect scripts, and executives who would permit them to do so, such a thing as the elimination of a scene or a retake would be unknown now. The folly of the indus- try has cost it hundreds of millions of dollars in exces- sive production costs and unearned potential revenue. And the alarming thing about it is that experience has taught the industry nothing. When a sequence is cut out of a picture it indicates the inexcusable inefficiency of the organization that made it — and I doubt if we ever see a picture from which at least one sequence was not elimi- nated. The excessive use of close-ups always has been a mark of the incompetence of directors. The fact that writers of titles have made fortunes by acting as life savers of pictures, indicates the incompetence of produc- ing units. If we had had perfect scripts we never would have had title writers. All the causes that contributed to the decline of the silent drama are being carried into the new field. It is unfortunate. It also is unfortunate that producers can not realize that at last they must seek the perfect script. It always has been possible, and now is both possible and imperative. There are plenty of people in Hollywood who can write it. They must be allowed to do so. Screen art has become a writer's art. Producers will not acknowledge it now. They will have lost a great many millions of dollars before they will acknowledge it. * * * Dealing with Importance of People Who Play Bits i A CROP of new directors will have to be raised it] talking pictures are going to begin to realize their potentialities both as examples of art and articles of commerce. Analyze pictures as I have to, and you will find that not more than ten per cent, of the directors whose names are known are endowed with talents that entitle them to the jobs they hold. If you will look for it you j will be amazed by the amount of downright brainlessness ' that is displayed in the direction of pictures. One of the things I have written about often, and which I have ad- vanced in discussions with producers and directors, is the great importance of the little things in pictures. Very few directors have brains enough to realize that when they are presenting a scene, they are presenting all of it, I and not only that section in which the main action is tak- ing place. More stolid stupidity has been displayed in handling backgrounds than in perhaps all other depart- ments of directions. Take cafe scenes. All of them look alike; all of them have the same stupid diners and me- chanical waiters. One day recently, in conversation with Joseph Schenk, Roland West and one or two others on (Continued on page si.r) November 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five Seeing "Noah's Ark'' in Two Different Settings NOAH'S Ark has taught me something. It has taught me that one can be fooled badly by seeing a picture in a projection-room. I first saw the Warner Brothers' Dig- feature spectacle in a small room, with Donald com- josing the other half of the total audience. Under such ;ircumstances the appeal of the picture was intimate; it ipparently was made only for me and it was trying to jlease me. My attitude towards it was friendly, and with ;he indulgence that we extend to our friends, I overlooked :he little things that otherwise I might have commented 3n. I admired greatly the carefully selected tjrpes in the railway sequence, and when the train was wrecked I was ilmost terrified because the disaster seemed to take place n my lap, so close was I to the screen in the little pro- jection-room. I did not lose my friendship for the picture 3ven when I began to wonder what the story was about, and when the great water scenes towards the end were reached I sat enthralled. When I left the projection-room [ thought I had seen the greatest motion picture ever made. I knew there were some things in it that might be criticised, but viewing it as a whole, I found that its effect on me had been tremendous, and I was sure that its jffect on the public would be the same. I went home and RQ-ote a glowing review of the picture. A few nights later I sat in Grauman's Chinese Theatre when Noah's Ark opened its run there. It is a large theatre and the audi- ence which filled it was a brilliant one. I sat well back from the screen. And the screen was not my friend as it had been in the projection-room. My friends were those whom I had greeted on the way in or who now sat within bowing distance or helloing distance from my seat. The screen was an alien thing, and subconsciously I defied it to entertain me. Under such circumstances I found a vastly different Noah's Ark. I found a story that be- wildered me by its lack of coherency. I could see no con- nection between Noah's flood and the Great War, which I presume the story was about. I saw sequences that should have had no place in the picture and others that asked me to believe that absurd things were not absurd. I saw again the most wonderful technical effects ever put on the screen, but that did not compensate me for another two hours and a half spent in viewing the picture. In the projection-room I even overlooked such a wildly impossi- ble thing as a Russian intelligence officer ordering Amer- ican doughboys to execute some spies. In the theatre the sequence stuck out as quite enough in itself to ruin a picture. For the first time in my life I realized how a pic- ture must compete with the house in which it is presented. In the intimacy of the little projection-room Noah's Ark impressed me tremendously; in the glamorous setting in Grauman's Chinese Theatre it bored me exceedingly. The foregoing may be accepted as my review of the picture after seeing it the second time. In order to be fair to the picture itself and to its producers I am presenting also my review written after my visit to the projection-room. NOAH'S Ark is staggering. It is the greatest thing the screen has done. It raises Michael Curtiz, whose dream the story has been for years, to new dignity as a director, for with one stroke he has dimmed our memories of Birth of a Nation, Ten Commandments, King of Kings, and any other pictures that we placed on a pedestal beside them. I am fresh from a projection- room in which I saw Noah's Ark, and at the moment of virriting I have not seen it at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, whose duration record it is going to capture. The thrill of it, its tremendous vitality, the audacity of its concep- tion and the brilliance of its execution still hold me in their spell. I did not need any first-night applauding audience to heighten the impression that what I was see- ing was extraordinary screen entertainment; with only two other people in the room, I sat for two hours and a half enthralled by what I saw on the screen, plus what I heard by Vitaphone. Curtiz may have done some of the things for which I criticize directors; the story may be disjointed at some spot; this or that thing may be the matter with the picture, but if any one of these faults exists I am unaware of it. A picture that keeps me sitting up straight for two hours and a half, with my eyes glued on the screen, is a good picture, even if it isn't. And as my reviews attain their average bulk from the number of words necessary to point out ills and sug- gest remedies, I find that I haven't a great deal to say about Noah's Ark. A feeling of awe comes over me when I contemplate the things that Fred Jackman has done in it. Someone in the Warner organization started to tell me how some of the shots were made, but I stopped him. To me all of them are real, tremendous and appalling, and if any of them were done on someone's dining-room table, I don't want to know it. The great advantage this picture possesses over others notable for their magnitude as spectacles, is the consistency of its story and the direc- tor's faithfulness in adhering to it. I do not agree with the premise established by a title, that "Throughout the ages the worship of the Golden Calf has become Man's religion," for the charge is too sweeping, but I can not quarrel with anything that serves as an excuse for such an example of screen art. I am not going to turn to adjectives to assist me in recording the contributions of those responsible for Noah's Ark. The director and the technical man — Curtiz and Jackman — have become heroes to me. As I think of Darryl Zanuck I almost am recon- ciled to supervisors. He rates as author of the story by virtue of having woven Curtiz's ideas together, and he followed the production through from its inception, so to him goes full credit for the executive management of the undertaking. With such a picture, one must give first credit to those responsible for its magnitude, for it is much bigger than any performance in it possibly could be. As a starring vehicle for Dolores Costello it is so gigantic that we forget it has a star. Her performance is splendid throughout, but will not earn her as much acclaim as would a similar performance in a smaller picture. The same can be said of the other performances. George O'Brien again shows that he is a magnificent actor, and does the best work he ever has done on the screen; and with less competition from the technical department, Noah Beery's performance would stand out as one of the most notable of his illustrious career. What a superb actor that man is! The picture gives us a new artist capable of shining in any company — "Big Boy" Williams, who, I presume, Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 has some other name to go by, now that he has emerged from wherever he was before. Noah's Ark will make him. And it will do Malcolm Waite a lot of good, for he helps to maintain the acting excellence. Paul McAllister's Noah is a thoughtful and convincing portrayal. ^Continued from page four) the United Artists lot, I propounded my theory that every diner, every waiter, every doorman, was as important to the scene in which he appeared as the star, the heavy or any other principal character. I contended that each of the atmosphere men could do something to show that he was human, and that he could do it in a manner that would not add to the footage of the production. From the United Artists lot I went to the Fox lot, and in a projection room saw the proof of my argument established. Ray- mond Cannon, in a little picture that is damned with the title Red Wine, makes everyone in his backgrounds a definite personality, and he does it without detracting from the action in the foreground and without increasing foot- age. As a matter of fact, his backgrounds, being abso- lutely natural, will be less liable to attract attention than the stereotyped backgrounds that make so many scenes unnatural. Cannon's cafe is a cafe, not a motion picture set; his diners are people who know that they are in an exclusive place where by no possibility will they be photo- graphed. Nobody gets out of the way of Conrad Nagel and June Collyer because they are playing the leading parts, although Nagel's importance to the story is over- emphasized in numerous places by totally unnecessary close-ups. It is obvious that the guests at a supper party were not ordered en bloc from the casting bureau. They look like forty or fifty-dollar-a-day people, a good invest- ment because they make the whole cafe sequence the most convincing and entertaining I ever have seen on the screen. Cannon displays real ability in its direction. He presents his head waiter as we see them on cafe floors, but never on the screen. When all the guests run up stairs or along corridors, or perform any other mass move- ment, each member of the group maintains his or her in- dividuality. These scenes are directed so well that they bear no trace of having been directed at all. People bump into one another, trip on steps, go in the wrong direction, but they do these things smoothly and without any fuss. I am willing to agree with any producer or director who will argue that these fine points of direction will be lost on the public, that Cannon will not get any credit for them. It is quite true, but the public will like the picture. That is the important point. The box-office will credit Cannon with good direction, even though those whose money in the box-office tells the story will have no idea what is meant by good direction. Cannon's formula is a simple one. He realizes that his bit people and extras are human beings, and as his story is about human beings, it is ad- visable to make them act like human beings. * * ♦ Here Goes The Spectator Medal for Final Fade Out ED Wine is the result of an experiment made by Sol Wurtzel, a most commendable experiment which I mentioned a few Spectators ago. Raymond Cannon directed Life's Like That, a picture that indicated that he had something new to offer. The Fox people viewed it and sent for Cannon. He told Wurtzel an idea he had for another story. He was commissioned to go ahead with it. He had no definite budget, no shooting schedule, and — greatest boon of all — no supervisor. With only one little picture to his credit. Cannon was turned loose on the Fox lot and given carte blanche. If he made a picture that would yield a profit, Fox was the winner by the picture and a new director. There is hope for screen art when one of the biggest producing organizations will take such a chance. Wurtzel felt that Cannon had something to ex- press, and realized that the only way to determine its value was to give him absolute freedom in expressing it The slightest dictation by the organization would relieve Cannon from responsibility if the picture proved to be a failure. The experiment was a success. Red Wine will make money. From a technical standpoint there is a great deal in it that should intrigue Hollywood. One se- quence is a positively brilliant piece of screen work. Con- rad Nagel, a placid, unemotional and inordinately moral business machine, decides to step out. He buys an en- tirely new outfit and has a barber shave his moustache We see Nagel accumulate his new wardrobe, article by ar- ticle, and we go to the barber shop with him, but during the entire shopping tour we do not see him, and there is neither a cut, a dissolve, nor a fade-out. By some ex- traordinary method that i3 bowildering, the camera moves from shop to shop, the idea being that it shows us every- thing as Nagel sees it, consequently we do not see him. Apparently the camera enters his office building, goes up in the elevator and into his office before we see him ir his new outfit. The sequence held me spellbound, and when it ended I wanted to give three cheers. A good lit- tle touch shows Nagel entering an automobile, and before he gets all the way in there is a dissolve to the car draw- ing up at the curb at his destination. This treatment tells everything we need to know, and saves footage. The final fade-out is the only contestant for the gold medal The Spectator offered for the most appropriate and orig- inal final fade-out shown on the screen this year. June Collyer and Nagel are the principal characters. At the end of the picture they are among many dancers on a cafe floor. They speak a couple of titles that clear up the story, and immediately are swallowed up by the other dancers. There is thought in that shot. The story being ended, the two leading characters in it are of no more im- portance than any of the other dancers. The dance con- tinues as the picture ends, but we see only strangers. Red Wine has some delicious comedy in it and should prove to be a popular picture. Nagel gives a splendid perform- ance. June Collyer does better than I ever have seen her do previously. Her sweet and charming personality reg- isters strongly, her air of refinement and her beauty add- ing a pleasing quality to her understanding interpretation of her part. Arthur Stone is in evidence and Sharon Lynne, an attractive girl with considerable ability, makes a big contribution to the excellence of the picture. I'm Paramount 100% All- Talking Picture Interference Carthay Circle Theatre Evelyn Brent, Clivc Brook, Doris Kenvon and William Powell Daily 2:15 — 8:30 fovember 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven lot worrying about Cannon's future. He shows an ability hat should lend itself readily to talking pictures. Any- lling he does can not help being interesting. * * * Technicolor Makes One in I'/hich Only the Color Is Good As screen entertainment of great beauty, The Viking, done in colors by Technicolor, will be one of the outstanding pictures of the year, but as an example )f screen story-telling it falls far short of the average picture that we are getting to-day. It is a great oppor- :unity overlooked. It tries to tell four stories — the discov- ery of America by Lief the Lucky centuries before Colum- Dus came over, the spread of Christianity to Northern Europe two thousand years ago, its conquest of supersti- tion, and a romance. No one picture can get away with a job like that. The opportunity that was overlooked was to make a stirring picture out of the discovery of America, and twine a romance into it. Simplifying the narrative would have permitted the development of characteriza- tions that would have commanded the interest of the pub- lic. As we have it, I do not believe that there is a char- acter on the screen that any audience will care tuppence about. The story is too involved to permit us to become really interested in any one thing. The romance has the least appeal. Pauline Stark is sought by three men, Don- ald Crisp and LeRoy Mason, both of whom play sympathetic roles; and Harry Woods, who as a heavy contributes the best performance in the production. As the costumes of the period remove any consideration of difference in age, it can not make the slightest difference to anyone in the audience whether Miss Stark marries Crisp or Mason, as both are noble fellows, so noble, in fact, that they are not the least bit interesting. 1£ the girl had been given a definite, virile personality that would be consistent with a period that goes back almost to cave-man days, she would have married the heavy and lived scrappily and happily ever after. When, however, Mason wins her, first dem- onstrating that our forty-foot kisses go back two thousand years, the picture does not content itself with showing us the happy lovers, but persists in devoting a lot of footage to Crisp, who uses it in an unsuccessful effort to elicit our sympathy. I do not understand the reason for long cuts to him after he had ceased to be a factor in the romance. The Viking is Technicolor's first venture in pro- ducing features. We might expect it to profit by the mis- take other producers continually commit and rigidly ex- clude them from its product; but instead of excluding them, it embraces them. As Technicolor's main business is selling color, we may presume that part of its reason for producing its feature was to demonstrate to the indus- try the possibilities of its process. R. William Neill, who directed The Viking, had the interesting opportunity to achieve its commercial objective by making it an artistic triumph. However, with painstaking persistency he over- looks the opportunity. The young lovers have a love scene on the deck of a ship at night. I presume there was a moon. Instead of giving us a surpassingly beautiful scene in a long shot that would have made it more senti- mental by incorporating all the value of color, he picks out only the heads of the lovers in huge close-ups entirely devoid of background, a treatment that even in black and white is the last word in poor direction. All the way through the production both the story and color are sac- rificed to a procession of meaningless close-ups. In all the eight reels there is not one strikingly beautiful shot that I can recall, and there should have been at least one in each reel. Characters continually walk into scenes and turn to face the camera, which serves to keep constantly before our minds the fact that it is a movie. Only the color in The Viking is good, and it is good enough to make the picture a success. If, I repeat, the story had featured one thing and had been directed intelligently we would have had an extraordinary example of screen entertain- ment, for there can be no question about the great box- office value of color. * * * MERVYN LeRoy has made a creditable picture out of Naughty Baby, which is the silly title of what was shot as Ritzy Rosie. It is Alice White's second starring adventure. I did not see the first, but I think so well of Alice's work in the second that I am sure she is going to keep on starring and really amount to something. Her appearance and her personality make it inevitable that she will be compared with Clara Bow. I believe that Clara will command the admiration of the public to a greater degree than Alice will, but that Alice will come nearer to reaching the heart of the public. She has an ingratiating quality, a suggestion of innocence and sweet- ness that the Paramount star lacks. I was surprised to see that on the screen the name of Alice White came before that of Jack Mulhall, one of my favorite troupers. There is no other man on the screen whose personality charms me as Jack's does. H he were given the proper stories he could star in his own right, for the screen needs just what he could give it. The direction of LeRoy shows further improvement. He makes a stride forward with every picture, a healthy sign for one so young, as it shows that he is learning. He still has one or two failings that he has borrowed from older directors who fastened them on pictures, but I expect his next picture will show that he has shed them. In Naughty Baby he displays a healthy regard for the proper use of close-ups. I wish Al Rockett would give him a decent story. I refuse to believe that a man who is being turned out of an hotel because he tried to pay his bill with worthless checks, would be allowed to give an elaborate and expensive din- ner on the night he was being thrown out. However, there is quite a lot of meat in Naughty Baby. George Stone, Bennie Rubin and Andy Devine add a good touch by forming a triumvirate that fathers Alice in a nice, clean way. There is a young miss in this picture whom I have seen somewhere before — Doris Dawson. If you feel quarrelsome about it, I am willing to bet you some- thing that you will see this girl's name in electric lights before so very long. She not only is a beautiful thing to look at, but she seems to be intelligent. * * » HIS Private Life is not going to be of any great help to Adolphe Menjou. It is too trivial, a French farce which does not reflect the sparkling humor that Frank Tuttle, who directed, can display on the screen when he has something substantial to provoke it. The picture is mechanical. It has none of the delightful abandon that a French farce must have to give it the brilliancy that it must have to be entertaining. As I found it uninterest- ing, I could see nothing outstanding in the performances. Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 192 nor have I any reason for finding fault with them. The story did not give Adolphe an opportunity to distinguish himself. Kathryn Carver, whose screen personality I like, is the chief ornament of several beautifully composed scenes, and plays a rather colorless part with charm. Margaret Livingstone and Eugene Pallette take advantage of all the opportunities their roles give them. There is much to commend in the lighting of many of the scenes. As the characters move about the lobby of a hotel the shadows of potted plants and pillars fall upon them, the soft shadows that we would find in such a place, not the harsh kind that we generally see when directors resort to when they endeavor to show that light has a source of origin. In a title spoken by an American girl there is a play on the name of the French city, Toulouse, as applied to morals. As all the other characters are French and Paris is the locale of the story, the presumption is that all the titles were spoken in French and that what appeared on the screen were translations in English. Does the title writer believe that "too loose" in French sounds the same as it does in English, and that people in France apply the name of the capital city of the Haute-Garonne depart- ment to morals when they are trying to be gay? * * * ■TT^HEN I first saw The River Pirate in San Francisco it ended in a wedding. I saw it again the other night and discovered that it had a different ending, one that intrigued me mightily. I found also that it had a synchronized score and sound effects which added noth- ing to it. When it reached the point where I expected the wedding scene to appear, there was a cut to a benevolent gentleman on a couch. He finished reading the book from which the picture was made, closed it, smiled at me, and told me how the thing ended. I make it personal because he looked directly at me, as he did at everyone else in the audience. The idea is a good one. It is an action picture, and when the action concluded there was nothing left to do but wind up the story. As there is nothing par- ticularly exciting in a screen wedding, we gained as much by being told that it occurred as we would have gained by seeing it performed. Perhaps this method of ending pictures will solve the footage problem presented by the fact that talking pictures are at least twenty per cent, longer than silent ones when the same stories are told in both kinds. When a talking film consumes all the foot- age that is thought advisable, one of the characters can step to the front and give us the rest of the story in a few words. The recital could be shot after the picture had been cut and could be given the footage required to make the picture precisely the length required. Anyway it gives us another hint of what is made possible by the advent of the extraordinary new art that has come to Hollywood. :^ * :;; pARAMOUNT'S Westerns are going astray. They are becoming effete. Avalanche, Jack Holt's latest star- rmg vehicle, does not concern itself with the problem of hanging someone to make him cease stealing cattle, or with any of the other robust stuff that could be worked out only in that part of God's country where men are men. It has a theme that could be worked out just as well back East where men are lounge lizards. It is purely a social problem that wears spurs and carries a gun. The name of the author is not given, although the story i credited to Zane Grey. The people in the studio who ar writing the stories by him are ignoring the old formul and are turning out material that would fit any localt and if Grey continues to devote all his time to fishing, h is liable to get a reputation for turning out some prett good stuff. Otto Brower directed Avalanche, and did i well. Good performances by Jack Holt, Baclanova, Dori Hill and John Darrow are responsible for an entertainin: picture. I liked Holt in it more than I have in anythin; else that he has done. Oscar, who is under my manage ment, gets away from shining shoes in this picture, an< appears as a waiter in a rowdy drinking place. I believ he is capable of something more aesthetic. Avalanche i not as good a picture as Water Hole, but it is satisfactor; entertainment. It shows that any story can be made int a Western by giving it a Western setting. My persona inclination is towards the shooting kind. I want cowboys and sheriffs chasing outlaws. * * * /^ NE of the interesting little difficulties that souni ^^ films will have to overcome is the disposition of thi slam of a door to sound like something else when it i; reproduced from the screen. Sounds made by hard object affect the microphone in a manner that so distorts then that they will bring down upon the picture producer 8 charge of faking his sound effects. At the Pathe studic Alan Hale folded a letter which he had read as part of J scene in a sound picture. When the shot was reproduced noise made by folding the letter sounded like a machin* gun in action. A difficulty of this sort can be overcome by dampening the paper, but dampening a concrete mixei would not help to make it sound more natural from the screen. Whether some method can be devised to make the sound-effects seem real or whether the public will grow accustomed to hearing the distortions and accept- ing them, is a problem for the future to solve. It prob- ably will be fifty-fifty. • * * CAM Jacobsen, head of Universal publicity, is making a series of one-reel subjects that are going to make a hit in the houses in which they are shown, if I can judge all of them by the two that I have seen. The latest, Fantasie, is merely a child's dream. Bettye Jane Graham, who proves herself to be a clever youngster, sits on the curb and watches a toy ship sail on a gutter puddle. As she gazes at it the ship becomes a fairylike submarine, and Bettye makes a marvelous cruise on it during which she has some terrific experiences. It is a subject that will please young and old, and reflects the greatest credit NEUMODE HOSIERY Specialists Selling Nothing but Perfect Hosiery NEUMODE HOSIERY STORES 6429 Hollywood Boulevard Warner Bros. Theatre Bldg. ■] IJJ November 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine i|on Jacobsen, who has the right idea that cleanliness and decency are good screen material. M Y personal appearance, I know, is a matter of no importance whatever to the readers of The Spectator, fi] but when three of them in one week, in meeting me for il i the first time, tell me that they had visualized me as a oti tall man with a grey beard, it is high time something liil was done about it. That beard stuff is going just a OH little too far. I am not tall, but even if I were, I positively ge would not wear a beard. Ml * * * evIpROM The Spectator of August eighteen: "Not as an *■ indication that The Spectator is going into politics, but )4to get it in before it becomes so obvious to the whole It country that it would do the prophet no honor, I would like to predict that Herbert Hoover is going to be elected by an enormous majority." * ^: * /^ VER here we're calling them the "squawkies." In ^-' England they are called "audible cinemas." And as long as we know what is meant, one is as good as the other. * * * •v-x J ELL, anyway, I got a par five hole in three the other W day. The third, a one-hundred-and-thirty-five-yard mashie shot, just managed to drop in. Some putt. GARNERED IN THE MAIL The Hold-Up Number of The Spectator was the most delicious bit of satire ever turned out by a publisher in this or any other country. It recalls to me what I regard as one of the most finished pieces of satire written in recent years by an American — your criticism of The Legs of Carmen. As you have proven to be such a master of satire, both written and implied, may I demand, as a regular reader since the inception of The Spectator, that you give us some of it regularly ? By what right do you deny us the enjoyment of a talent that must give you continual mental enjoyment? R. G. F., Hollywood. // / remember correctly, the couplet can he found in Pope's 'Imitations of Horace" : "Satire's my weapon, but I'm too discreet To run amuck and tilt at all I meet." Quite often I see pictures that suggest satirical reviews, but I remember that each of them is the producer's honest attempt to put his best work on the screen. Which, of course, settles it. I have known Mr. Schacht for the past twenty- five years, and he is known as a pioneer of the Yiddish Art Theatre. He is, in our own Yiddish press throughout the country, very often compared to the artists of the Moscow Art Theatre, and also with the artists known as the Vilma Troupe. I also saw his work in Loves of an Actress with Pola Negri, and your statement only confirmed my own astonishment, why men like Gustave Schacht are so often overlooked by all the casting directors. JOSEPH L. MALAMUT, Editor "Jewish Voice". Please don't be "offen" Irvin and me because of the dog-kicking sequence. By way of explanation, I wish to state that the dog you championed was my dog and has been a respected member of my family for about six years, and when I kicked him, or rather shoved him with my foot, although I wore a scowl on my face I spoke to him in the kindest of kind dog words — ^therefore the wagging tail. And furthermore, after the scene was taken I gave him a chocolate bar and let him ride home with me in the_ front seat of the car. That was his only ex- perience as an actor. He has since become a family man and has given up his career for the sake of a rather wayward five-months-old son. LLOYD WHITLOCK. Readers may remember that in my review of "The Michigan Kid" I criticised the director, Irvin Willat, for having his heavy, played by Lloyd Whitlock, kick a fine, old dog, one of those canine gentlemen who were put on earth to give humans lessons in loyalty, unselfishness, and devotion. Whitlock's defense is satisfactory. What I would like to know, though, is where his dog rides regularly. When I go motoring with my two dogs, I'm lucky if I'm not pushed off the front seat by them in their efforts to look for trouble out of both sides of the car at the same time. Virgil, my old terrier stand-by, isn't so bad, but Ko Ko, a magnificent chow, now budding into womanhood, regards the wheel as an impediment to free move- ment and my arms as hurdles stretched out to be jumped. Have you ever become acquainted zvith a chowf It is a delightful experience. Keen of intellect, tremendously loyal, seemingly possessed of a sense of humor, aristocratic in every instinct and movement, the chow, I have been discovering during the past fezv months, is a rare companion and friend. Ko Ko seems to be conscious of her beauty and style, and her every pose is a picture. Before she leaves me at night to go to sleep under Mrs. Spectator's bed, she lays her chin on 7ny knee and from her eyes to mine passes a message so full of love, and tender- ness, and trust that I wonder if I have done anything during the day that I would be ashamed to tell her. And when she dis- appears through my library door, Virgil yawns mightily and stretches before the fire, I fill my pipe again, and we spend the rest of the evening together. Sometimes I think that the highest point of attainment that a man can reach is to be worthy of his dog. You say in The Spectator that the dialogue is the least important feature of a stage play. I am willing to agree with you that it is not of great importance to a comedy or drama of action, but how about a polite comedy or a society drama that de- pends so largely on brilliant lines to put it over? Surely you will not contend that anyone can write dialogue suitable for such plays. R. T. M. The article to which R. T. M. makes reference argued that the person who creates the character, plot and situations should write the dialogue. To such a person, the dialogue is not im- portant. If he be capable of drawing a brilliant character, he can not help putting brilliant speeches into the mouth of such character. I can see no difference in that respect between a comedy of action and a comedy of manners. The personalities of the characters, and the situations suggest the speeches. The author, being the only person zvho thoroughly knows the char- acters and understands the significance of the situations, is the logical person to zvrite the dialogue. It is the simplest part of his task. Si?nilarly, the author zvho writes a screen play is the logical person to write the lines. The practice in most studios of hiring someone to zvrite the dialogue of a screen play is illogical, whether it be a comedy, drama or tragedy, zvhich is the premise upon zvhich my argument was based. It is a prac- tice that can result only in poor pictures. NAT M, WILLS was one of America's highest-salaried comedians. For four years I wrote all his monologues and comedy tele- grams. Many other eminent fun-makers have permitted me to "author" for them. JAMES MADISON Originals — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH — By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic WORDS seem rather feeble when it comes to speaking of Noah's Ark, because the greatness of it is such that there is nothing which can describe it. Those are strong words to use when speaking of a motion picture, but when one has seen Noah, they seem quite fitting and proper. Never before has a motion-picture camera re- corded such great thrills or such a stupendous spectacle. One loses the impression of just seeing shadows on the screen; the sound attachments put him right on the field of action. I am speaking chiefly of the flood sequences, although there were great scenes all the way through the picture. After the film was over, I was completely worn out; and I defy anyone to see it and not feel the same way. During the flood stuff, a bomb could have exploded beside me, and I wouldn't have noticed it. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to sit back and say, "Oh, this is just a picture." From the moment it starts, the persons viewing it are completely lost to anything but what is transpiring on the screen. The hero of Noah's Ark is Fred Jackmao, who, I under- stand, did the technical work on it. There were shots which I knew were miniatures, because they couldn't have been shot any other way; but they looked too real for me to tell by anything else but that. The assembling of the animals was very impressive, but the greatest thrill of all was the coming of the flood. It started gradually, but grew in power until it completely swallowed up everything and everybody. The terrific volume of the water was registered by the ease with which it knocked down what were supposed to be great buildings, and that was where sound gave the picture the last touch necessary to make it the greatest spectacle ever presented to a motion picture audience. The roar of the water and the crashing pillars all were recorded. As a rule, these big scenes just make me wonder how they are shot; but the flood scene in Noah didn't give me time to think about anything but it. Jack- man is in line for a medal of merit. Michael Curtiz is the man who directed this mighty drama; and if there are any medals going around, he de- serves his share. I never gave him credit for the artistry he revealed in Noah. There are some scenes which are like beautiful portraits. The ones I remember best are the shots of Noah's home, the ones of him on the mountain top, and the view of the moon shining over Akkad. How- ever, through the entire picture there were bits of artistry for which Curtiz deserves the highest praise. He handles his camera and lights with a cleverness which amounts to genius. Another example of brilliant direction was the sequences where the hero joined the army during a parade through the streets. It was one of the most stirring bits of action I have seen, and that is saying something, con- sidering the number of war pictures which have been in- festing the market of late. There was only one thing about the war stuff which I don't like. Judging from the motion pictures, the men who were in the war went at it two by two, on the order of the animals in the Ark. There must have been several thousand pairs of buddies floating around. Anyway, the one who chews tobacco gets shot, which is a just fate for anyone who will indulge in a habit like that; but it gets to be poor motion picture hokum after it has been done a few dozen times. The only weak point in Noah's Ark was that it joined in the senseless slaughter. There was no story reason for the killing; it was put in apparently because it is the usual thing to do. While I am thinking about it, the train wreck which was staged at the beginning of the film also was a credit to the technical staff. Dolores Costello is starred in Noah's Ark, but her part isn't the big one. George O'Brien has one fully as big as hers, and both of them are put in the shade by the work of Guirni Williams, who plays George's unfortunate pal. Up until he gets shot, his work is the feature of the pic- ture. He is a splendid natural actor, and he has a voice which suits him exactly. Miss Costello did as well as she could with what she had, and she can't be blamed because she had nothing to do but cry. I would like to see her sometime in a picture where she could he happy for more than a few feet. Every picture she is in, she is persecuted until I wonder how she can raise another tear. In the lighter moments she always looks as if she sensed the im- pending tragedy, and her usefulness as an all-around ac- tress is going to be impaired if she isn't given something different. George O'Brien plays opposite her, and does brilliant work. He has a likeable personality, and his performance was splendid, particularly in the scene where his pal dies. Paul McAllister plays Noah, and gives a powerful characterization. Noah Beery is the heavy, and augments his fine performance by using his voice cleverly. Malcolm Waite handled a small part very well. * * * NAUGHTY Baby (silly title) is Mervyn LeRoy's first assignment with Alice White, and with a decent story, I think they would make a very good picture. The theme of Naughty Baby provides LeRoy with little more than an opportunity to demonstrate that he would make a good picture if he had anything to work with, and Alice White hasn't much of a chance to do more than in- dicate what she could do with a sympathetic part. Dur- ing the greater part of this picture, she is a rather heart- less little man-hunter; and only reforms at the last minute. Nevertheless, I still think she's good starring stuff if she isn't ruined by a few more like this Baby epic. Not that it was a total loss. I saw it at a preview, so naturally it will be cut down and speeded up; which improvements ought to make it a rather amusing comedy for those who don't demand much meat to their entertainment. There was a funny gag with an ambulance, and LeRoy put on a clever little trick ending which was good. He has an unusual aptitude for working with young people, and should be given stories having to do with that line. Just why First National cast Jack Mulhall in the role opposite Alice is something I can't understand. He has taken a lot of time to work himself up to star material, and should be allowed the dignity of his new position in- stead of being made to play what amounts to nothing more than a straight leading man opposite a new star. Benny Rubin is funny in a dead pan comedy characterization, and George Stone, Fred Kelsey, Rose Dione, Andy Devine j and Jay Eaton complete the cast. | * * * ! CLARENCE Brown has done a heroic job on A Woman f of Affairs, although the picture is not outstanding in any way. The srory which had to be told on the screen relied nearly entirely upon titles to put over what it was all about. There was very little which could be put over in action, and a written title is so clumsy and cumber- some after all the sound I have heard lately. That may have had something to do with my not liking A Woman of Affairs. With sound that might have been one of the most interesting and engrossing pictures ever turned out at M.-G.-M., but the long, complicated speeches and ex- planations were terribly boring. The fact that I didn't go to sleep is creditable to Brown's excellent direction, nothing else. He handled his camera expertly and intel- ligently. Judging from his work alone, I am led to be- lieve that Brown is one of the few directors in Hollywood who is a real student of the art of making motion pic- tures. Fortunately he had the wisdom to tell his story without any digressions which might have dragged it out longer. Most directors would have yielded to the , temptation to display their cleverness in little "touches", but Brown went on without trying to be clever, thereby doing a far better job than if he had. One shot which I Xovember 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven 1 liked particularly was the one where Greta Garbo came I and looked out of the window through which her husband j tiad jumped to commit suicide. His death, and her attempt I to shield him from any dishonor had ruined her life, and I she knew it when she came to the window. All her I thoughts were plain to see, and it made a very impressive scene. What close-ups Brown used, he made intelligently. A Woman of Affairs was full of fine performances. Greta Garbo had the largest, and there was a power and human quality I never have seen in her work before. John Gilbert also gave a sincere and sympathetic por- trayal. The ease and brilliance which Lewis Stone dis- played in The Patriot again marks his acting in this. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., contributed a remarkably good characterization, and Dorothy Sebastian again demon- strated that she belongs up among the big stars of the motion pictures. Hobart Bosworth handled his part very capably. This is the first time I have seen John Mack Brown in a part where there is something to do. Keep your eye on him. He ought to go up quickly. * * *•' f]^ OMEONE ought to do a real high school story. Harold : ^ Teen paved the way, and there is a big market for one : right now. There is plenty of material on any campus which would make a crackerjack story. The draw it would have among the huge high school patronage would guar- antee its success financially. Incidentally, Mervyn LeRoy could do it very well. * * * THE Viking, Technicolor's first venture into the feature length field, is a work of art and a very noteworthy step forward; although it isn't exactly a great pic- > ture. The story is too unsatisfactory, for one thing. However, the color is beautiful; and Natalie Kalmus, who had charge of that branch of the work, deserves great credit. There is no doubt that color is inevitable. It makes the most commonplace scene far richer and more beautiful than the most artistic shots we have now, and really completes the art. R. William Neill, who directed, I had some bits which looked like beautiful pictures; and the whole thing was a treat to the eye. A stronger story ' should have been selected for the first long picture in color, though. The Viking never got anywhere. The hero was a slave when it began and one when it ended, and a good story should make some advance during its length. The ending left everything in an undecided sort of mess, too. In a pioneering thing of this kind, everything should be as perfect as possible; because people are inclined to blame anything they don't like upon the innovation, no matter what it is. However, The Viking accomplished its purpose; because it was interesting, which is all that is necessary the first time. So long as it doesn't bore its audience, they will look upon it kindly. The acting in The Viking, with the exception of that of Donald Crisp, was quite theatrical. The actors seemed to think that because they were portraying Vikings they could act in as robust a manner as they wished; and per- haps they were right. As a matter of fact, I rather en- joyed it. I guess it's due to the fact that I always have had a suppressed desire to express my emotions by stick- ing the nearest person with a knife. The Vikings were full of little tricks like that, and I got a great kick out of it. However, Crisp, with his quieter method of doing things, seemed more like my idea of a Viking than any of them. He had a dignity while slitting throats that com- pletely won my heart. Seriously, though, he made Lief the Lucky the outstanding character of the story. Neill's direction was very good, but there were a few lapses. One in particular was noticeable. Lief was get- ting himself married to the girl, and was on his knee drinking out of a bowl, which happened to be the moment that his lieutenant had chosen to slaughter him. The boy, who was Lief's devoted slave, calmly stood by and watched the assassin draw his sword, and showed no in- terest in the proceedings until the blade was about to fall. Then he sprang forward and took the blow. It was a senseless procedure, because he couldn't have helped but notice that something was wrong; and a word from him would have halted everything before it could get fairly under way. Lief, to show his gratitude, wanted to kill the boy because the girl loved him. The story never did show whether or not Lief forgave them; that was just another of the things which were left unsolved. Although Donald Crisp's was the outstanding perform- ance, Pauline Stark also predominated. Her performance was vigorous and powerful. There was a huge cast, and those I can remember are LeRoy Mason, Anders Randolph, Harry Woods, and Richard or Robert Alexander. There were a lot more, but I can't remember all of their names. * * * HIS Private Life proves that Frank Tuttle is the type of director who should have a story to develop, in- stead of a few incidents. Some directors, like Harry D'Arrast, can make a picture out of practically nothing in the way of a plot. Others, just as clever as they, must have a real story or they are lost. Tuttle is used to themes with more body to them, and that is the type he should have. His direction is smooth all the way thi-ough His Private Life; but the story being what it is, the whole thing is rather dull and uninteresting. It also makes the mistake of taking itself too seriously; and if there is one thing an Adolphe Menjou vehicle, which this is, cannot stand, it is too much seriousness. D'Arrast and Menjou have been so successful, because D'Arrast doesn't descend to gravity for a minute. His characters are popular be- cause they smilingly dismiss troubles which cause their audiences unhappiness, thereby giving them a chance to laugh at their own worries. As it happens, that is one of the most important functions of any line of entertain- ment. Another thing which didn't endear me to the pic- ture to any great extent was that the old gag of mixed husbands and wives was used. A jealous husband chasing around after his flighty wife leaves me cold and bored. Menjou, as always, is very clever. In addition to be- ing a good actor, he has used his head in establishing him- self as the male style arbiter of the films. There are thousands of men, undoubtedly, who care nothing for pic- tures, but who go to Menjou's to find out what it is proper to wear. Kathryn Carver plays opposite him, and lends a charming personality to the picture. Margaret Living- stone and Eugene Pallette, two splendid troupers, almost make the jealous husband and his spouse interesting to me, which is some achievement, believe me. * * :;< AVALANCHE is the answer to the query "When is a Western not a Western?" Theoretically, it is a Zane Grey western starring Jack Holt, but there is very little of the great outdoors in it. The story might just as well have been laid in a city, except for the av- alanche at the end which gave it a name. There is noth- ing new about the story, but Otto Brower, who directed it, did some very good work and managed to make it quite interesting. What outside shots were used were very good, and beautifully done. Avalanche possessed an unusual quality for a Western; it was quite sane. Nothing was overdrawn, and after seeing a few of the epics of the great outdoors which are being produced, I have come to the conclusion that that is a rare thing. There isn't much to be said about Avalanche, one way or the other. It was pretty good entertainment and quite well done. The cast contained Jack Holt, John Darrow, Baclanova and Doris Hill. It was rather a surprise to see Baclanova in what turned out eventually to be a sympathetic role. * * =H THERE isn't much to be said for Me, Gangster. The story is far too frail for screen entertainment, a cir- cumstance which made the direction stand out very prominently. Raoul Walsh was responsible for it, and I would have enjoyed it except for the usual disgusting things which he seems to think necessary to motion picture art. Everv scene he shoots, if there is the slightest op- portunity, he makes it so offensive to the sensibilities that anyone who doesn't happen to have the advantage of being born in the gutter scarcely can stand it. One little bit which Walsh probably regards as a masterpiece is the shot where Anders Randolph spits into the hand of some poor unfortunate. However, my disgust at these things is probably just personal; and really it is great art. The whole thing was nothing but a series of incidents, more Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 ) or less related, which probably made great reading; but are as dull as dishwater on the screen. Don Terry and June Collyer had the leads in Me, Gangster. Terry was unimpressive, but this is the second time I have seen and enjoyed Miss Collyer's work lately. Anders Randolph gave a powerful portrayal of the gang- ster's father. Those are the only members of the cast whom I remember. * * * RAYMOND Cannon's directorial skill keeps Red Wine from being bad, in spite of a frail story, which he wrote himself. He avoids slowness in his pictures by clever use of his camera, and this is no exception. All in all, the picture is very creditable. He uses the same type of story he did in Life's Like That, and tells it quite well; but he ought to branch out a little and find something else. It is true that the idea, which is that of a person who suddenly finds himself in a rut and starts out to see a little life, is pleasing to the great majority of people; but there are other ideas which are just as pleasing, and Cannon has demonstrated that he is capable of making them. He has an unusual knowledge of a certain type of human nature. Red Wine is full of little comedy touches which keep it amusing all the way through, and Conrad Nagel acts them for all they are worth. Sound pictures seem to have given him the confidence which he needed to make him a truly fine actor. There is a dream sequence which he acts very well, and which is very brilliantly directed by Cannon. Cannon uses original ideas in putting over his story. There is one long traveling shot which shows how the hero changes from an old-fashioned dullard into an up-to-date young man. It is a very clever little bit of work. As I have said, Nagel was very good in this picture, and he revealed an unusual talent for comedy. June Coll- yer played opposite him, a circumstance which was very good for the picture. She had too small a part, though. Underneath the well-bred charm with which she endows all of her roles, she has a depth which reveals that some day she is going to rank high up among our dramatic actresses. Arthur Stone supplied some of the comedy to Red Wine, but his part was rather straight. ABOUT OTHER THINGS, By K. C. B. PERHAPS, my conscience said to me, that you boast of your tolerance of the foibles of others and have chattered around among your friends that you have trained yourself so that you may look at things from the viewpoint of the other fellow — perhaps you're all vn-ong and are catty at heart; maybe you've just been kidding yourself. But I'm not wrong, I said to my conscience. I know I'm a lot more tolerant than most persons for when I hear of people in trouble I wonder what the circumstances that lead them into troubles might have been, or what the incentive or what the temptation. And nearly always I am sorry for them and if I discuss them with some in- tolerant person who says they should be straightway hanged or imprisoned for life I find resentment against this uncharitable view rising within me and come at once to their defense. Explain then, said my conscience, how you can recon- cile this attitude of tolerance and benevolence with the deep sense of satisfaction that comes to you because they ran Aimee McPherson out of London and Texas Guinan out of Hollywood. Why were you glad that the female revivalist from New Jersey arose in her box at Aimee's first London meeting and asked Aimee to tell her audience something about her kidnaping trip? And why were you glad that Texas had a rotten time in Hollywood and that no one worth while would have anything to do with her? Wherein I Think Fast And there I was, in an argument, with no one to help me and I had to think fast. Why was I glad ? About Aimee's flop, I quickly concluded I was glad of it because she isn't on the square; because she can stand up in a pulpit of a church dedicated to the promotion of the gospel of Jesus Christ and tell untruths; because always it has been the lure of gold that has lead her to wherever she has gone; because of her greed for power and property she throws her mother out and then prays that God will forgive her mother for saying unkind things of her daughter; because such a person is to me most dispicable; and finally, because I don't know there is a hereafter in which she will be punished and because I think she should be punished, I'm glad she is getting it here on earth by being heckled out of London; and further, that wherever she goes, she cannot escape the odium of her hjrpocrisy. A full and sufficient answer, said my conscience, and now what about Texas? Well, I said, I don't feel so deeply about Texas as I do about Aimee. There's more to commend and less to condemn in Texas than there is in Aimee. She doesn't pretend to be anything other than she is, and if I had to have one or the other for a friend I would choose Texas. I'd know where I stood with Texas and maybe I'd be able to tame her a little, but with Aimee I'd just be kept guess- ing all the time as to whether or not she was telling the truth. And, too, I don't think Texas is the sort of girl who would quarrel with her mother. Also, I imagine her bankroll, when she has had one, has been subject to a lot of touches. From all of which you will gather that I have no feeling of animosity toward Texas. Then why, asked my conscience, are you glad that Texas was virtually run out of Hollywood? Just Lead for Hollywood It must be, I answered, that it is a gladness, that has to do only with Hollywood. I think that Texas, to me, was merely a symbol of the alcoholic night life of New York city, of the clubs that have taken the place of saloons and that run by virtue of graft paid to servants of our government. These are the things that Texas stood for, and of which she was symbolic, and for participation in which she had been arrested and was waiting trial when she came to Hollywood. And so I was glad that Texas found in Hollywood a different atmosphere than she had been accustomed to and that Hollywood refused to be enamored of the charms that have gained for her so high a place in the world in which she lives, and that Texas didn't like us and went away and said unkind things of us. We are advancing here in Hollywood, advancing to a point where cultural attainment and accomplishment are fast becoming requisites in those we would acclaim our civic guests. And Texas found this out. Maybe you're right, said my conscience when I had finished, but, even so, you ought to feel sorry for Aimee and Texas. What do you know of the influences that put them both on the paths they're on today? Nothing at all, I replied, but I'm not going to feel sorry for Aimee. She has her's and can quit. But I will feel sorry for Texas. She's had some tough breaks lately and I'd like to see her get another roll and go home and live on it if she doesn't go to jail. And so saying, I dismissed my conscience for the day and dressed for a party. * * * The Passing of Robert Lansing THERE passed away in Washington during the closing hours of October a man who will be remembered long by all newspaper men on duty at the nation's capital throughout the years from 1915 to 1920. White haired and white moustached, erect and dignified and handsome, Robert Lansing, since the morning I first saw him in the press conference room of the state department at Wash- ington, has always been to me the embodiment of those November 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen physical virtues necessary to the making of a perfect diplomat. But it wasn't the possession of these qualities that will help to keep his memory green so much as it was that no matter of what great moment might be the problems upon which he was questioned by the correspondents he ^eemed always to realize that his questioners were men of high intelligence and that their mission was a rightful one and that, as a servant of all the people, it was his duty to enlighten them insofar as the interests of the country and the nature of the situation permitted. Of necessity, many of his answers to questions would be evasive and oftentimes these answers would lead to an exchange of wit between some correspondent and Secre- tary Lansing and for the Secretary, it may be said, he never lost in the exchange. Newspaper men, generally, recognized that Lansing was better equipped for the office of secretary of state than the vast majority of men who had preceded him. But it was his misfortune that he came into the office under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson who took onto himself the determination of the problems that confronted us before and after our entrance into the war. Also, there was Col. House, to whom President Wilson delegated duties that should properly have come to Lansing. Ignored at home and abroad, where he went as a mem- ber of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Lansing returned to later face an even sorrier situation. Mystery surrounded the illness of President Wilson and by authority of a resolution passed by the senate a com- mittee was delegated to learn and report as to the ability of the president to conduct the affairs of the office. From sources close to the White House the charge was made that Lansing was responsible for the action of the senate. Lansing denied the charges and resigned. There are many newspaper men in Washington who will mourn the going of Lansing. They will think of him as a courteous gentleman, richly endowed intellectually, who was made a sacrifice to the one weakness of a man who was otherwise able and strong. * * * A Question of Cleanliness UNDOUBTEDLY some of the readers of these lines have children attending school. And having them I am sure they will sympathize with me in my fail- ure to grasp the full meaning of all of the markings on the monthly report card our boy brings home. The one that troubles me the most is that which has to do with "cleanliness". Last term it used to be that our boy would come home with face and hands soiled, his shirt bearing marks of the wrestling matches he had indulged in dur- ing recess and his trousers looking as though they had been removed and jumped on by all of the students. I assumed that most of the damage was done on his way home after school hours because it didn't seem rea- sonable to suppose that his teacher would let him come into the room looking as he did. But one day I called for him and saw him come running out with the rest of the boys. That there were others who looked just as dis- reputable as he was some slight consolation and made it easier for me to acknowledge my relationship to him by admitting him to the car in the presence of other parents who were waiting for nice, clean little boys. This hap- pened during the closing days of the last term and I did manage, by diligent watching and various forms of pun- ishment, to clean him up a little so that his fellow students and teacher saw him on the last day of school much as he looks at home after his daily bath. When the next term began I said to him that on every day that he came home looking as he had during the previous term he would not be permitted to leave the house during the rest of the day. Whether he stopped at a hydrant and borrowed a brush on his way home, or what he did, I don't know, but right away there was a change. On nearly every day he came home clean and when he didn't he was fortified always with a good and reasonable excuse. And what it is that bothers me is that when he was dirty all the time he got the mark of one, the highest, for cleanliness, and now, when I keep him clean all the time he comes home with a mark of four, which means failing, in cleanliness. I wonder should I let him go dirty again. * * * Now They Would Fix My Face IN my morning's mail there comes a highly embossed card from one Robert B. Griffith, M. D., and with the card a circular bearing my name written by pen and ink telling me that I can be made to look all right if I will permit him or his assistants to fix my face. That I am disturbed is not surprising. Neither is it strange that I should resent this impertinence on the part of the doctor. I know, of course, that one becomes accustomed to one's own face and that whatever changes time may bring to it are not as apparent to the person behind it as to some- one who sees it only occasionally. That mine needed fixing had never occurred to me, and more than likely never would have occurred to me had this busy-body doctor left me alone. I am consoled, however, by the thought that perhaps the doctor just heard of me and took a chance. Then it occurs to me that he has seen me somewhere or someone has told him of me. Anyway, I have just had a long look at myself in the mirror. To me I look all right. My nose seems to be the only feature that isn't entirely regular. The circular says they can correct humped noses and hooked noses and saddle-back noses and dished noses and the terrible thought comes that perhaps I have one of them. But then, it oc- curs to me, it's the same nose I always have had. Time has done nothing to it and why should I spend money on it at this late date? As for the rest of my face there seems nothing the matter with it excepting that I have some wrinkles about the eyes and two little bulgy things underneath them. And these bulgy things go away if I stay home from parties. As a matter of fact, after a critical and pro- tracted gaze right into my own face I can truthfully say that I find nothing there that disturbs me in the slightest. It is not, of course, such a face as one might find on a boy of twenty; but I wouldn't want it to be that. A middle aged face for a middle aged man, say I, and no monkeying with it. But I would feel better if I were sure that the doctor hadn't seen me before he sent the circular. As I have heretofore suggested, it is possible I have grown used to my face and that it really isn't anything like I think it is. That's what disturbs me and I'm going now to look at it again. * * * It Altogether Depends THE district attorney of Los Angeles county has been indicted by a county grand jury and stands accused of having accepted graft money from persons charged with crime and on trial with the district attorney as their prosecutor. An indictment doesn't mean that a man is guilty of the charges prompting it. It means that there is evidence tending to point to the guilt of the man m question. His actual guilt or innocence must later be determined by a trial in court. Until such trial, therefore, no matter what our beliefs may be, we must remain neutral. This neutrality, however, need not prevent us from saying that we were impressed with the statement of Asa Keyes in which he complained that he had not been called before the grand jury during their consideration of the evidence upon which the indictment was found. "I was never called nor was there apparently any effort made to get anything but the statements of outside parties," says Mr. Keyes. A foolish statement coming from one versed in the trade of prosecuting criminals. How many of the men, guilty or not guilty, who have been indicted through the instrumentality of Mr. Keyes were given a hearing by the grand jury before being indicted? Not verv many. And what does Blr. Keyes mean when he talks of ' out- side parties"? Does he mean that he and the man who were indicted with him should have been the only wit- nesses called by the grand jury ? Surely he doesn't expect Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 us to believe that he and they would have been competent witnesses. And what does he mean by "outside" parties? As nearly as I can figure it, the "outside parties" in this case are the men who secured the evidence upon which the indictments were voted. Mr. Keyes is said to have made quite a record as a prosecutor. I wonder what he would have done without the aid of "outside parties''. A lot of fellows in our state penitentiaries, and others who just missed going there, will smile when they read this complaint of Keyes. It will remind them, too, of the old saw to the effect that it all depends upon whose ox is goared. * * * Something About Divorces NOT that I can conceive of a situation that may ever arise that would move me to be personally inter- ested in the divorce laws of any state, but because of the conflict in the laws of the various states and, often- times, of the attitude of judges sitting in the same state, I am moved to suggest that now the election is over it might be well if someone somewhere would prepare a con- stitutional amendment making uniform the divorce laws of all states. Then, if we could get it through congress, we could carry it to the various state legislatures to the end that our children or grand children might benefit thereby. Of course, such an amendment wouldn't cure all of the e\nls of our divorce courts. It would be entirely out of place to attempt to make the amendment provide that any judge making a wise crack during a divorce hearing should be taken to the nearest window and thrown out into the concrete court below or onto the sidewalk or the lawn or whatever happened to be under the window. That would never do. We might, however, make it impossible for a judge with a grouch to deny a couple a divorce upon grounds, which, if he didn't have a grouch, would move him to grant a divorce. I have just read of a divorce hearing in which it was testified that the couple interested had lost whatever re- gard they might ever have had for each other, that their marital life was one long series of quarrels and that they had no desire to and could not further live together in connubial peace. But the learned judge couldn't see it their way and denied the decree. And every day, in the same state, other judges are granting divorces on grounds similar to those advanced in this case. It's an absurd situation and one that should be remedied. Reviewed in this Number photographed by Ernest Haller; produced by E. M. Asher. The cast: Alice White, Jack Mulhall, Thelma Todd, Doris Dawson, James Ford, Natalie Joyce, Frances Hamilton, Fred Kelsey, Rose Dione, Fanny Midgley, Benny Rubin, Andy De^^ne, Georgie Stone, Raymond Turner, Larry Banthim. NOAH'S ARK— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Michael Curtiz; story by Darryl F. Zanuck; scenario by Anthony Coldewey; assistant directors, Henry Blanke and John Daumery; photographed by Hal Mohr. The cast: Dolores Costello, George O'Brien, Noah Beery, Louise Fazenda, Paul McAllister, Guinn Wil- liams, Anders Randolph, Armand Kaliz, Myrna Loy, William V. Mong, Malcolm Waite, Otto Hoffman, Nigel de Brulier. RED WINE— A William Fox picture. Directed by Raymond Cannon; story by Raymond Cannon; scenario by Andrew W. Bennison; adaptation by Charles R. Condon; photo- graphed by Dan Clark. The cast: June Collyer, Conrad Nagel, Arthur Stone, Sharon Lynne, Dolores Johnson, Betty Lorraine, E. Alyn Warren, Ernest Hilliard. VIKING, THE— A Technicolor picture; released by Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. Directed by R. William Neill; from the novel, The Thrall of Leif the Lucky, by Ottilie A. Liljen- crantz; screen play by Jack Cunningham; production manager, J. T. Reed; photographed by George Cave; edited by Aubrey Scotto; supervising art director, Carl Oscar Borg; color art director, Natalie Kalmus; asso- ciate artists. Jack Holden, Andre Chotin, Lewis W. Physioc. The cast: Donald Crisp, Pauline Starke, LeRoy Mason, Anders Randolph, Richard Alexander, Harry Lewis Woods, Albert MacQuarrie, Roy Stewart, Tor- ben Meyer, Claire MacDowell, Julia Swayne Gorden. WOMAN OF AFFAIRS, A— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Clarence Brown; from the story by Michael Arlen; continuity by Bess Meredyth; titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings; art director, "Cedric Gibbons; gowns by Adrian; assistant director, Charles Dorian; photographed by William Daniels; film editor, Hugh Wynn. The cast: Greta Garbo, John Gilbert, Lewis Stone, John Mack Brown, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Hobart Bosworth, Dorothy Sebastian. AVALANCHE— A Paramount picture. Directed by Otto Brower; story by Zane Grey; adaptation and screen play by J. Walter Ruben and Sam Mintz; photographed by Roy Clark. The cast: Jack Holt, Doris Hill, Baclanova, John Darrow, Guy Oliver. HIS PRIVATE LIFE— A Paramount picture. Directed by Frank Tuttle; from the story by Ernest Vajda and Keene Thompson; screen play by Ethel Doherty; photographed by Henry Gerrard; assistant director, Victor D. Voyda. The cast: Adolphe Menjou, Kathrjn Carver, Mar- garet Livingston, Eugene Pallette, Andre Cheron, Sybil Grove, Paul Guertzman, Alex Melesh, Alex Roloskin. ME, GANGSTER— A William Fox picture. Directed by Raoul Walsh; from the story by Charles Francis Coe; scenario by Charles Francis Coe and Raoul Walsh; photographed by Arthur Edeson. The cast: Don Terry, June Collver, Anders Ran- dolph, Stella Adams, Al Hill, Walter James, Gustav von Sej'ffertitz. NAUGHTY BABY— A First National picture. Directed by Mervyn LeRoy; scenario by Tom J. Geraghty; titles by Geraghty; HOLLYWOOD VIGNETTES By F. T. D. THE writing elbow of Mr. Alfred A. Cohn is oiled with astute powers, and he knows, as the expression is, his onions. But in the October seventh issue of the es- timable if somewhat declasse Film Daily, he paints a roseate dai^Ti for the screen writers of Hollywood (those he calls the real ones), and sets up a frightful wailing over all Broadway writers and (bless us!) Hollywood wise- cracking title writers who may be thinking unwisely of partaking of the fat dividends the talkies of the future will pay. Now, with the first part of Mr. Cohn's proposi- tion I have no quarrel. I like Hollywood writers, and want to see as many of them as can succeed. I don't even grow very indignant when he finds no seats for the Broad- way saxophonists in his band. But I do take issue with his conclusion that Hollj^vood's wise-crackers are not apt to live very long when the enlightened talkies begin their regime. Of course I know that these particular gentry have used a good deal of freedom with old saws which, as Joe Farnum says, ought to get laughs, since they have been ringing them up for half a hundred years. I suppose I've suffered as much as the next one from that sort of thing. November 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen But when I think of losing that same Joe Farnum, after the job he did with the titles of Slide, Kelly, Slide and a round dozen other hits, I begin to complain. Among other wise-crackers whom Mr. Cohn says will have to go, surely Ralph Spence will have to go, too. But I have rocked in my seat for over a solid hour to the joyful slapstick of Spence titles — and I wasn't alone. Even supposing my sense of humor to be low, say about audi- ence high — haven't I heard certain prominent directors offer up little prayers of thanksgiving for some of those same titles when, after shooting some "real" author's script, they found it full of long, dragging moments that had to be either cut out or wise-cracked? Spence, I sup- pose, can be called the daddy of the wise-crack title; but I, for one, am downright grateful to him for it. There are others. George Marion, Jr., drives a Fierce- Arrow and looks for all the world like a sour young pro- fessor on a vacation. But does anyone remember the titles he turned out for the Telephone Girl series over at FBO a few years back? I claim for them genuine humor and a penetrating wit. (Jeorge has done some excellent work for Paramount of late years, too — and I see Julian Johnson parting vrith him about like I see him parting with one of his legs. Over on the "U" lot is a little man who sits at his desk and brushes his mustache up military fashion and works nine hours a day. Walter Anthony used to be the music critic on the San Francisco Chronicle, and still keeps a big picture of Richard Wagner on his office wall to remind him of those halcyon days — but Walter is guilty of some of the wisest cracks in the business. Then there is H. M. Walker over at Roach, and Malcolm Stuart Boylan at Fox; and there are the two young title writers whose names I have forgotten, who burlesqued Helen of Troy quite wonderfully; and a number of others. These men ,have all done much for the silent drama, and I don't see any reason why they won't do as much for the talkie. I If BIr. Cohn wants the heads of some really bad mo- tion picture writers and title writers, let him leave the wise-crackers alone, and send me a stamped, self -addressed envelope, and I'll post him a list of names that will read like Who's Who in the movies. * * * SO Doug is going to bring back the soliloquy. Modem playwrights generally have shied from this instru- ment of tl-.s immortals as if it were poorly suited to their little society comedies and dramas and their little sex plays. And no wonder. For what have wild ecstasies, Hamlet's imprecations, bedevilments and philosophies, and and subtle under-currents of intrigue, and noble asides — Macbeth's ringing "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomor- row" to do with modern plays? Someone might just as reasonably ask what they have to do with Doug's pictures. Yet I think the answer to that is in his choice of subject. Few, it is true, would care to hear the Black Pirate or the Gaucho speak in long asides — but who wouldn't want to hear D' Artagnan ? Surely, enough could be culled from Dumas' books themselves to make these soliloquies fas- cinating. If Doug's voice holds up to his enormous en- ergy, we're apt to hear something quite worth while. But if we don't — all credit to Doug for trying. He has al- ways tried, at any cost, even if only with an old back drop of a million painted cows, or a dazzling halo that kept unaccountably going round and round on Mary's beautiful-angel head. I shall certainly miss my guess if, when the history of pictures is written, and the hard work of pioneering reckoned up, the name of Douglas Fairbanks is not found closely following on the heels of that of Abou Ben Adam himself. * * * THREE things repaid my visits to various theatres in a vain effort to get aboard the Movietone and Vita- phone bandwagon. These were (1) the charming voice of Mr. Bernard Shaw (sans all trace of the Oxford accent so prevalent in Hollywood) as he lifted Mr. Mus- solini's brow from his (Mr. Shaw's eyes;) (2) the thrill of pleasant surprise that came when, after a long sequence of printed titles, Al Jolson turned from the piano in The Jazz Singer and said, "Like that, Mama?"; and (3) the wonderful basso of the dear old Movietone cow in the Fox Newsreel that mooed before my startled eyes and into my startled ears with such eloquence that I nearly went back to the farm. * * * IT came down one of the narrow streets that curvet and caper and end in a squirrel track somewhere between the western slope of Boyle Heights and the Santa Fe tracks — a Russian funeral in solid phalanx, fillmg the whole street. A moment before the same street had been full of playing children; now, quite suddenly, it was de- serted. The casket, hidden from view by the marchmg press, was borne by ten or twelve bareheaded men, their shaved domes shining like billiard balls in the mornmg sun; a number of women marched in the outer layers of the phalanx. As they drew nearer, the slow, woe-filled chant began— that chant that had its origin somewhere in the century-dimned past when man first began to mourn for his dead. Civilization has drawn us away from this show of grief somewhat, for now we mourn singly instead of in groups, and often times as silently as we are able. Thus has the communal spirit of the old tribe and village given place to more individual expression. But anyone who has heard the wild keening of the Irish wake or the shrill, hysterical singing of the desert Navajos will know the thrill of sheer primitiveness that came to me as I stood there. The misery of that chant would have permeated stone. ... On they came, down the deserted street, and now I could see tears in the eyes of some, who might have been relatives. Others wore the same set face it is possible to see behind limousine doors of funerals on our own side of the city, no less miserable in their stoicism. The round of daily tasks had stopped to let a spirit pass from among them. Bt-^Dre they had rounded the corner of the next block, the soio, musical "Que es? Que es?" of the Mexican res- idents of the district could be heard coming from open windows and doors. Before the chanting voices died in my ears, the street was filling again with a laughing, happy throng of Felipes and Juanitas, playing blithely and ob- livious in the sunshine — for so does the health and vigor and gladness of life overrun and blot out the place where the feet of our old and last enemy, death, has passed. * * * I HAD never had trouble with either word before. Both did my bidding meekly and uncomplainingly. When I wanted to say that, I said that, and when I wanted to say which, I said which. Whereupon one day, my novelist friend, who is very learned in these matters, confided in me that he had never been able to figure out the difference between them. Hard as he would try, he said, he had never been able to tell which went where and when. Since which (that) time, though I have searched a dozen books on the subject, I am in the same predicament. SOME BELATED ADVICE Dear Mr. Beaton: I have been out of town and only recently got your calls for help. Afraid my valuable advice will come too late for your use. . First of all, eliminate all constructive criticism from your pages. Your present articles mean too much, they encourage thought and wound the feelings of persons to whom thinking is a task. Second, use more superlatives m favorable reviews. For example: "the money", wow, sure-fire, box-office knock- out, money-getter etc. See any trade journal or news- paper review. . , -u- Third don't get gay with responsible people. You say things that tend to disturb that superior, self satis- fied calm which is so impressive in our best type of ex- ecutive. Take an occasional slap at a writer or actor — ^who cares— you might get a laugh, but quit kickin' the front office around. . t j; i Put these simple suggestions m practice, and I feel confident that after a month or two, "The Spectator" will give you no more trouble, and you'll be able to fish and look at brooks from then on. Punctuation be damned! Yours for bigger fish and more brooks, WADE BOTELER. Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 Far Across the Desert Sands By James Brant Belou< the Level of the Sea — ■ El Centra, California It is a very strange and most peculiar trait of men and women that they choose to live and seek a livelihood in spots that offer little more than shelter, food, apparel and a little money. Perhaps a desert satisfies a certain hunger or else they come and live in hopes of golden shekels from a bountiful harvest. Perhaps it is a cul- tivated habit or an inborn choice. Here is a little town below the level of the sea, en- compassed by a wonderfully fertile and productive land, its products measuring much material wealth. A hostelry of quality and taste and comforting refinement, the name- sake of a lady well renowned, the noted Barbara Worth. All this in seething desert country down below the level of the sea with many million acres lying idle in the up- land. A region that by nature's law of gravity should be an inland lake, teeming with water life, and a sanctuary for bird life. A year, an age or eon and one of nature's cataclysms may change it all but in the interim humanity keeps toiling on and building. The physical needs of men and women are not their only needs. The mind needs thoughts and ideas, the heart af- fection and the soul an inspiration; they must be nourished to insure humanity's progress to a higher state. The motion picture is the happiest and most forceful medium now at hand to reach the hearts, the minds, the souls of men and women with strengthening and elevating thoughts and inspirations. It reaches all, the young and old, the learned and illiterate and is a greater and a finer medium than print or oratory or radio. Within its proper sphere it is a force of education and enlightenment and of uplifting entertainment and amusement, and in its scope and future possibilities it is not limited. It would be strange indeed if all the physical needs of men and women came from ground below the level of the sea. It would be equally strange if all the nourish- ment for the minds, the hearts, the souls of men and women came from mentalities below the level of upright decency and highest honor. It would not only be most strange but would indeed be quite inimical and even most disastrous to the future welfare of the nation if the mo- tion picture, holding such tremendous force and power for good or evil, were to always be the product of the drifting sands of a lifeless, barren, desert greed and lust and ignorance, below the level of the virtues of a noble womanhood and manhood. There was a time when low, degenerate greed, with grasping, heartless avarice, sold to the public doctored i The Louise Gude Studios } OF SINGING 11004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 I — Voice Trial Gratis — and poisoned food, which practice law and prosecution now has bettered. There is a time when low, degenerate greed, wallowing in sensual slime, sells to the public mo- tion pictures that are poison to the public's mental health and an inciting, stimulating narcotic that corrupts and vitiates the public's moral character, which practice law and prosecution may, in time, control. Humanity is full of many strange, peculiar habits and pursuits, phenomena defying understanding, so foolish and so useless, worthless and destructive, ignorant and sense- less that it is a wonder that they ever should have been, or having been, that progress has not banished them. It is a wonder that there should be such public apathy to the vital quality of the motion picture, a dormant medium and force of education and enlightenment for the upbuilding of character and the security of the nation, coupled with wholesome entertainment. It is a wonder that a supposedly civilized and enlightened public should be satisfied to pay the price to witness exhibitions of a gross and vulgar type devoid of fineness, beauty and no- bility, to spend its time and money for an exhibition that is valueless, particularly so, when that same public might with just a little thinking, that need not be a weakening exertion, glimpse the beauty and the inspiration, the edu- cation and the wholesome entertainment in the sacrifice and sentiment in the million dramas marking human progress and demand their presentation. There is an untold wealth of truth and beauty hidden in the thought that reaches out beyond into the infinite universe, awaiting the genius who can mine it and refine it into spectacle and drama. The denizens of a desert mind, living below the level of a common decency and honor, will never see that truth and beauty nor will they ever show it, nor will they ever want to see it and to show it, because it has to them no meaning nor appeal. Because of that must then a cer tain public be deprived of what would be of benefit an what it would enjoy? Forsooth, it would so seem. I Louise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 184 SOUTH KINGSLEY DRIVE (Corner of Second Street) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 from Tuhlic Sp^(^^iy^g ^^d Slocutioru The greatest necessity for success in sound pictures and dramatic art is correct Eng- lish. We have arranged for the best possible instructor obtainable to specialize in voice preparatory to movie and sound tryouts. Voice tests arranged for those who qualify. For Appointment Phone M'' Est more 6561 Interviews and Advice Gratis Vovember 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seventeen Eisenstein^s Ideas By ROBERT ROSE ►Tj-lHE creator of the two greatest Russian films, Oc- ! tober and Potemkin, which latter picture was shown not long ago in this country and in which Eisenstein llustrated with such brutal realism the revolt of the ;rew of this Russian cruiser in the World War, is again contemplating to surprise the world with an original idea. In his next picture he intends to show the life and struggles of the Russian "mushiks", who till the soil and who form more than 85 per cent of the Russian nation, [n this film, which he calls The Common Line, he leaves Ae modern historical background of the Russian revolu- tion and starts to depict the everyday life of the small Ciller of the soil, the chief part of which is going to be played by a bull. With his October, Eisenstein glorifies the Soviet revolu- ;ion; while with his Common Line he intends to glorify the "mushiks" and show their importance in the Soviet republic. In choosing a bull for the chief performer in nis new film, he follows just the same directorial eccen- tricity which he showed in both of his former films, that is, he is not going to use any actors in producing them, Dut just types. Searching for, and picking out, such certain types for lis pictures is Eisenstein's hobby. He says that he looks for such types walking on the streets, visiting the poor shops where the underworld congregates, finding them in the houses of ill fame, and also in better restslurants where the remainder of the Russian intelligentsia meet. And now he is going to travel in the country and search for the right types for Common Line. In his pictures he never uses the same type twice. He says that his greatest problem is to find the right people for the parts in his pictures. "If I need a mother", he exclaims, "I look for her until I find her; if I need a soldier, I find a man who answers my conception of a soldier, and when I finally get all the types I have in mind, together, then begins the hardest part for me. I must designate what they are going to do and make them fit into my story so that their individual characteristics stand out. This is the main reason why I cannot use any type more than once in my pictures, as Edward Everett Horton in"ON APPROVAL" A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE Bet. Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards Make your reservations early. I Matinees Thursday and Sat- Downtown ticket offices — Birkel urdav, 50c to $1.00. Evening, Music Co., Broadway Dept. 50c to $1.50 Phone GLad- Store, May Co. | stone 4146. FILMARTE THEATRE 1228 VINE STREET (South of Sunset) NINE DAYS, STARTING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9 Paramount's Epic of the Air WINGS WITH ALL SOUND EFFECTS Matinees and Evenings — Children 2Bc, Adults 65c those types are good only for a certain scene, their use- fulness ceasing when those scenes are finished." This system of finding and using only the types in a picture, is not followed by any other Russian director. It is of course slow and impractical for use in any other country where film production must be based on solid and regulated business foundations. The Soviet government is paying for these propaganda pictures, and Eisenstein may take all the time he desires in which to make them. As he pays his types from 12% cents to §5.00 a day his production expenses are very trifling in comparison to those of the American film companies. Eisenstein boasts of the fact that he is a propagandist, but he excuses himself by saying that American pictures are also filled with propaganda. Referring to The Big Parade, he says that this picture propagates patriotism; that the last Fairbanks' picture propagates religion; and that the greater majority of pictures produced in America propagate the false ideal of a happy ending. He defends his ideas by emphasizing the fact that propaganda is the only sound idea for the future film in Russia and that art is a useless thing in a communistic state, as all films should have a practical background and should enlighten and educate the people. And he concludes with the basic idea: That what is merely beautiful, but ungraced by a useful idea, is worthless. After Eisenstein finishes his Common Line he intends to start work on a film depicting the life and the socialis- tic philosophy of Karl Marx, the founder of the socialistic doctrine which gave birth to the present Russian republic. There is no question that Eisenstein is a great director, but his ideas having their source in the socialistic Soviet republic with its brutual materialistic foundation, are in time going to be changed just like the leaders of the Soviet are slowly changing their Marxistic doctrines to conform to the needs of their country and its peoples. The wit and the beauty of it in spite of Eisenstein's film theory is eternal and cannot and will not be destroyed by the Soviet leaders and their followers. It is art which is the spice of our drab lives; it is art which makes us forget our hard struggles and dis- Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing \ I nightly in Peacock Court J GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager Page Eighteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1928 appointments in our present existence; and it is art which elevates us to the stars. For a time that art may be surpressed in Russia, but it will rise again like Phoenix and on the firmament of artistic endeavor Russia will take her place once more in the group of the civilized na- tions of the world. The types which Eisenstein is using in his pictures may suffice for that special kind which he is creating, but their natural crudeness will never be a fitting substitution for the God given talent of great actors and actresses. It might be interesting for the great family of Spec- tator readers to know that Eisenstein considers Eric von Stroheim to be the greatest American director and his Greed, with its gloomy realism, he selects as one of the best pictures in the film productions of the whole world. D. W. Griffith is in his eyes the classical director, Charlie Chaplin the greatest film artist, and his Gold Rush the most interesting picture he ever produced. In The Circus he finds, to his sorrw, that Charlie is deteriorating, but he also hopes that his next picture will again put Charlie on the pedestal of the greatest artistic achievement. Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 Dated Nov. 9th, 1928. I have today resigned as President of DEMMY LAMSON-RUTH COLLIER, INC. and wish to take this opportunity of thanking the Directors, Writers, and Artists who have been under contract to me, as well as my friends at the studios, for their past cooperation. Also, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Miss Ruth Collier and Miss Esther Rosecan for their loyal support of our former combined interests . . . and wish them continued success in their field of endeavor. Sincerely, DEMMY LAMSON. Proof, Mr» Producer Last week I said I knew a man who could do certain things. Figures do not lie : Cost $47,500 49,750 66,400 58,000 56,000 40,000 Grossed $504,574 377,852 267,213 216,514 376,108 411,970 Average Cost $53,108 $359,040 Average Gross HIS name next week. Neil Hamilton November 17, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nineteen is by far the finest, most artistic publication that I have had the pleasure of reading." — William A. Wellman. — ^which opinion is now concurred in by Paul Leni, Lubitsch, Mur- nau, Henry King, George W. Hill, A. Korda, Paul Fejos, and many others who are subscribers to this International Monthly Magazine on the Progress of Films in all the Studios of the World Annual Subscription $3.50 Single Copies 35c Send all subscriptions to Film Arts Guild Symon Gould, Director 500 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK Page Twenty THE FILM SPECTATOR November 17, 1921 <'>]iunnuinaiiuiiuimEUuiuHiimmiiiuiiiiaimiHuuonuMiiuiuiinuniniDmuuuinaiminimianinuumaiiiiinniiiajiimimiiniiiiDHUiinniiinDmauuinui^ TEN CENT A COPY From The Film Spectator of Nov. 10, 1928 Now that The Spectator is a weekly, why do you charge so much for it? When it appeared twice a month, I could aflFord forty cents a month to read it, but I can not afford eighty cents, and I never could pay seven and a half dollars to have it mailed to me for a year. Why not be generous and charge ten cents for a single copy and five dollars a year? AN EXTRA GIRL. All right. Beginning with the next issue the Extra CirCs scale of prices tvill go into effect — ten cents the copy, five dollars the year. Those who have paid seven dollars and a half will have their subscriptions extended six months. I don't care much for money, anyway. i A YEAR <'ionniniinaniiiiniiiinniiiHiniiaiiii»iiiiiiniiuiiiniinniiiiiwiiiiiciiiiiuiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiinniiiaiiiiininiinniiinninanniiiiiiiiDiiiiiiiin Edited by TELFORD BEATON THE 10 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday "ol. 6 Hollywood, California, November 24, 1928 No. 10 itHiiHiiuiaiiiiiiiiiiMniiiMiiiMiiDMiniiiniiainiiiiiiinaiiiiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiiiaiiMiiiiHnaiiMiiiiiniDiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiitiMiiiiiDiiiiiiuiMiEiuiuinuiiDiiiiiii^ We accept challenge to outline production reforms Conunents on Harry Carres reference to Mary Pickford Advising Metro what to do about Ramon Novarro Reviews of "On Trial", "Power of Press", "Woman of Affairs" By the Junior Critic INTERFERENCE ON TRIAL DAUGHTER OF DESIRE CAMERAMAN POWER OF THE PRESS SOMEONE TO LOVE i s 1° a -*S naiiuiiiMiuoHHiiiiniiniuiHiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiuniniiiHiiiiinniiiiiiiMiaiiuiiiiniKiiiiiiiuiiuaniiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiMiMiiuiiiniiMiiicjiiniiiuiiiaiMiiuiiiiiuiiiHiiiiiHni Page Twx» THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, I s? NEXT WEEK The Victor Talking Mach- ine Company will announce an entirely revolutionary Victrola - Radiola Automatic combination phonograph and radio EHJBOTOEH 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 ovember 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three IfHE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 11 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $5.00 per year; foreign $6.00. Single copy, 10 cents. 'e that wrestles zvith us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. OLLYWOOD, CALIF., NOVEMBER 24, 1928 7e Accept a Challenge 9 Outline Film Reforms 4 LMOST midnight. The head of one of the largest Ll producing organizations has spent the evening in a *- chair opposite mine in front of my fire. We've scussed everything, but agreed upon only one thing — the ccellence of J. B. M., the pipe tobacco that I've smoked rer since John B. Miller, after whom it was named, gave e a pound of it some years ago. My producer friend ade a speech while he was refilling his pipe to smoke 1 the way home. "You criticize us in The Spectator all le time," he said, "and for three hours you've been roast- ig me in your home. I think you're nutty. I'm going Dme. I suggest that you brush that cat off your lap, pull our pad from under the pup, and spend the rest of the ight writing an article setting forth just how you would ■laugurate all the production reforms you contend are ecessary. Just imagine that I step out and give you my Db. What would you do? I'll look for the article in the ext Spectator." Then he added a little more ginger ale, efreshed himself, and went home. After I had gone up- tairs and closed my bedroom door noisily from the out- ide to give Mrs. Spectator the idea that I had gone to ed, I sneaked back to the library, ruffled the disposition f Ko Ko by pulling the pad from under her, and here I m. If I can keep the cat off my lap, I'll write the article, ven if it takes all night. The trouble with producers is lOt so much what they are doing now as it is that they will le doing precisely the same thing next year. If I took tiy friend's job, I would do nothing about the program for he next twelve months. I would allow the present sloppy ■nethods to continue for that time and center my atten- ion on preparing for reforms that would be inaugurated me year from now. I have no specific information on he point, but I would hazard a guess that there is no star in the business who has two prepared stories ahead of lim or her. Most stories go into production before even he script is completed. We could excuse this if a com- ,)ination of circumstances led to a sudden decision to star !3ophie Glutz in a picture that must be released in a very 'jhort time, but not once in a score of times is this condi- ■,ion encountered. The producer has Sophie under con- tact and has known for a year or two the release dates of the pictures that have been sold on the strength of her name. In many cases he even has her stories selected, but he does not put them in shape for shooting until the last moment. He has to supply his customers with four Glutz pictures during a year, and he does it, accepting the fact of delivery as proof that his system is all right. He explains the inferior quality of his product by his claim that he can not get good stories, which is no reason at all, for even a poor story can become good screen enter- tainment when given the proper treatment. He goes at his job in such a shortsighted way that it is impossible to give the story the attention it needs. Instead of allowing one expert writer to prepare it in working script form, he assigns to it a director who knows nothing about writing a story, and a supervisor who knows less. They paw it over and it gets steadily worse; but shooting must begin and what is left when the time limit is reached goes into production. Everything is hurried, set building, shooting and editing, and if the completed product has any merit, it is there by the grace of God and is not attributable to the perspicacity of the producing organization. By this method the expense of production is at least twice as much as it should be. Thus we have the industry suffering from both economic and artistic ills, but in reforming itself it need concern itself with but one of them. Cure either, and the other disappears. That is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account when the question of reform is approached, and the approach may be from either the economic or the artistic side. • * * Tackling the Job From the Standpoint of Business Man LET us assume that I am purely a business man, and that when I take my friend's job I approach it from the business side, as I know nothing about screen entertainment or story values. I start to find out what is happening to the money of the stockholders in the com- pany whose production activity has come under my con- trol. I find that sets which cost considerable money were not used in shooting the picture for which they were erected. I find that an actor received salary for four weeks and does not appear in the picture when it is re- leased. These two discoveries are enough to start on. I find, of course, that when the picture was going into pro- duction it was thought that both the sets and the actor were necessary to it; that, as a matter of fact, both were shot in several scenes, but when the work of cutting the picture to the desired footage was begun it was found that these scenes could be eliminated, which was done. This explanation, however, does not satisfy my business sense, for it does not alter the fact that the company's money was spent without producing any results. As I begin to inquire the reason I make a multitude of discoveries that would astonish any business man. I find that my first two discoveries are but minor extravagances that are the product of the amazingly inefficient business methods that prevail on the lot. I discover that the reason the sets and the actor were thought at first to be necessary to the particular picture upon which I started, was due to the fact that no one had any idea at the outset how much footage would be consumed in shooting the script as written. There was a wedding provided for, and a church interior built for it, and when cutting was under way it Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 1928! was found that the wedding sequence could be eliminated and a title written to fill the gap in the story. I would be told that it was Joe Doakes who performed this clever stunt in cutting, and that the organization was mighty fortunate in having him on its pay-roll. Joe himself would tell me the first part of this and his tone would imply the second part. Again I would not be satisfied. If the wedding sequence could be eliminated, apparently without harming the story, why did that fact not occur to someone before thousands of dollars were spent in erect- ing the church set and shooting the scenes ? I would not find anyone who could answer that question in a manner that squared with my conception of business efiiciency. No satisfactory answer is possible. I would learn that every time a sequence was cut out of a film it was a fresh reflection on the rotten production methods under which the picture was made, whether on my lot or on any other. I would not go very far in my investigation until I dis- covered that all the extravagances that I uncovered had their source of origin in the scripts. I would find that only in rare instances were scripts prepared properly. In seeking to remedy the ills caused by this lack of prepara- tion, I would discover that that end of the business was one entrusted to writers, and that the reason for their failure to take care of it properly was the fact that they were not allowed to. I would find that although every activity of the enormous industry originated in the brain of a writer, the writer himself had little standing in the organi- zation, and that production executives, supervisors and directors manhandled his work as they saw fit. I would make the interesting discovery that none of the man- handlers ever wrote a story in his life, or contributed a constructive idea to a story. My business intellect would dictate to me that I could effect great economy by entrust- ing writing jobs to writers. If I could not find them on my lot, I would find them on others, or on Hollywood Boulevard, and I would put them to work. I would find that there would be little chance to reform the methods by which the current year's products would be turned out, as any effort towards reform no doubt would bring con- fusion to the lot. But I would resolve that next year things would be different, that I would devote this year to eliminating church scenes from scripts, and next year to shooting only those scenes that would get on the screen. * » » Approaching It From the Standpoint of Screen Art BUT suppose that I am not a business man — ^that I know nothing about business efficiency, but that I have a good picture mind, that I know a good story when I read one, have a sense of comedy and of drama, but never have had any experience in producing a picture, just as the business man in the previous paragraph never had any experience in running a production organization. When I first enter upon my friend's job I do not make the discovery that the quality of the company's output has reached a low level, for that knowledge is the one thing I bring to the job from the outside. It is something I've known for years. As I am not interested even slightly in the cost of pictures, my first attention is devoted to an effort to find out why they are so poor. As I have to keep the current program moving I approve the script for Love Beyond Sin, and notice in passing that Bill Blodgett is cast for the best man in the wedding sequence. Later I approve the rushes of this sequence and admire Bill's work, but I discover when the picture is shown me in its completed form that both the wedding and BiU have dis- appeared from it. I notice also that the story is not told as well on the screen as it was in the script. Not know- ing how pictures are made, I try to find out the reason for the loss of quality. I discover that when shooting was completed there were four more reels of action than could be included in the finished work and that in cutting it down it was inevitable that some of the quality should be sacrificed. Or I find that the supervisor thought the wedding sequence was unnecessary — or I find a score of other insane things that were done to the story. But whatever artistic weakness I discover, I find that it has its source of origrin in the script. I find that if the wed- ding sequence was unnecessary to the picture after it was shot, it must have been just as unnecessary before it was shot. I find that if the elimination of a scene after it has been shot harms a picture, the only sensible thing to do is to make the elimination from the script, for then the scar of its removal can be made not to show. As I am endowed with ordinary common sense, I recognize the fact that the man from whom I can get a story that can be shot as written and will produce just the desired foot- age, is any man who can write that sort of story. I find that there are a few dozen of them in Hollywood. Every supervisor and every director on the lot will come to me, put their several heads on my bosom, and weep bitterly. They will plead with me not to entrust the writing of a story to a story writer. They agree with me that a super- visor should supervise it, and a director direct it — but 8 writer write it? God forbid! But I am an ass, and I give the writing job to a writer, and I instruct him to take his time, to give me a script that sets forth every scene exactly as it is to be shot, and to see that there are just enough scenes in it to produce a picture of the length re- quired. I get a permit for him to carry a gun and in- struct him to shoot any supervisor or director who even as much as bows to him while he is working on the story. Word spreads throughout Hollywood that I have gone mad, and the Writers' Club changes its mind about giving me a banquet through fear that it will annoy Louis B. Mayer. As, in the case of the business man, I do not wish to disorganize the current year's program, I put my writers to work only on stories to be produced next year. I know we have Sophie Glutz under contract and that there will be four Glutz pictures next year, consequently I re- gard her as a unit and have her four stories prepared as a unit. As the writers have plenty of time, they are i^^ti m LLOYD NOSLER Film Editor Inspiration Pictures Henry King Production i 1 Hovember 24, 1928 nble to develop the characterization of everyone who ap- «)ears on the screen in each of the pictures. The butler is riven as definite a personality as is given the star. The fact hat the wedding sequence could be eliminated would be- ;ome apparent during the progress of work on the script. A'hen the first of the next year came around, I would lave on hand perfect scripts for the entire year's program. '. am conscious that I would have done the impossible, )ut screen art will get nowhere until it does a lot of hings that to-day are deemed to be impossibilities. * * * So Matter How Approached, We jet Better and Cheaper Pictures 1^ y O matter from which direction I approached the job, /^/ whether as a business man who knew nothing about screen art, or a screen art expert who knew noth- ng about business, I would be in a satisfactory situation 0 inaugurate my reforms. I would have two objectives: !'o reduce the cost of pictures to increase their profits, and 0 make them in a manner that would improve their qual- ty. As a business man I would find that I could reduce xpenses by saving the money that in previous years was pent on building sets that did not appear on the screen, r spent on salaries of players who did not get beyond the utting room floor. Every department that has to do with iroduction would know a long time in advance just what t had to do as each picture was being made. If an oflBce et were used in a Glutz picture, the construction depart- aent would know that the same set, with a slight change, ifould serve for a Doakes picture. When shooting was ompleted there would be little delay in the cutting room, .nd no hurry to meet release dates. Every department vould function perfectly, which means efficiency, and fficiency means economy. When the picture reached the lublic the box-offices would tell me an interesting story hat I had not taken into account. It would be a story of he public's approval of the quality of the entertainment, or pictures made under the conditions that I have out- ined must of necessity reflect a higher degree of screen irt than those that are made under the present crazy con- litions. Thus the business man would have solved the )roblem of saving money, and he would have the improved (uality as a most satisfactory by-product. Let us see how he artistic ass would be faring. As he would start his second year with perfectly prepared stories, he would enow that neither the wedding sequence nor Bill Blodgett vas necessary to the Glutz picture, and he would not spend ;ime on either. In fact, he would have nothing to do but ;o make perfect pictures, some of which might not ap- peal greatly to the public when released, but none of which ivould be unworthy examples of screen art. But as a ^hole, his product would average much higher than the oroduct of any previous year. This means that there would De greater grosses than ever before. And because the A^edding scene was cut out of the script, the cost of it would be saved. There would be a great saving in every lepartment of production. All this saving would be some- ;hing the artistic ass never took into account. His only ;oncern was to make pictures that would raise the quality jf his company's output, and he would have all the saving as a most satisfactory by-product. Making pictures is ooth an industry and an art, and the two are entwined so :losely that any improvement in one spreads to the other. THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five No product of either an industry or an art ever maintained a uniform quality of excellence when the conditions under which it was produced maintained a uniform quality of chaos. Under such conditions no industry can survive, not even one equipped as the film industry is to swallow its own indiscretions. It has survived thus far by selling its product on the basis of its cost and not on the basis of its quality, the only healthy method of marketing and the one to which the industry must come if it is to survive. It will survive, for it has the inherent strength to stand up under its abuses, but its abuses will not continue, for noth- ing inherently unsound can continue indefinitely in any- thing of itself inherently sound. It merely is a question whether those in charge of production now will institute the reforms that are inevitable or whether the bankers who stand back of the industry will insist upon the job being turned over to others who will perform it. I hope our present producers will institute these reforms, for I find as I get better acquainted with them that they are a rather pleasant lot. I'm going to tiptoe up to bed. * * * Joining Harry Carr in Picking on Mary Pickf ord HARRY Carr thinks that Mary Pickford's popularity with the public is being threatened by the fact that "all visiting kings, emperors, grand dukes and princes go to her house to stay." He calls it "danger- ous stuff." Charlie Chaplin, avers Harry, has more sense. He, too, entertains dukes, "but he has a regular hang-out in a Hollywood cafe where he foregathers with circus clowns and tramp authors." Although Harry says Mary is "on the ragged edge of danger," he throws out no life- line to her. As it is ungallant to leave a lady, particularly such an altogether charming one as Mrs. Douglas Fair- banks, on the ragged edge of danger, may I go to her rescue with a suggestion? The danger that Harry points out is real. She must discontinue entertaining the constant stream of crowned heads who are wearing out the Pick- fair door-knockers; she must follow the wise lead of her friend Charlie, reserve a table at Henry's and dine there constantly with Jim Tully and a clown. She might save a little by getting Jim to double as the clown. I don't see how she can expect her pictures to retain their popularity throughout the world if she studiously avoids Henry's and dines every night with a king and an emperor instead of with a clown and an author. One night I stopped at a little town in the Alpes-Maritimes above Nice, and viewed a Chaplin film which was received enthusiastically by a French and Italian audience. The owner of the place, a fat little woman, told me that a "Chariot" picture always filled every seat. Tliat shows what constantly dining at Henry's with a circus clown and a tramp author will do for one in a business way. It is apparent that Our Mary's reputation for possessing keen business judgment is not justified. She has been worrying herself sick about the selection of a story that the world will like, and then working night and day to make the story into the best possible picture, only to nullify all the honest eff'ort and patient toil by being gracious to some distinguished foreigner who pauses at Pickfair as a mark of the re- spect in which the world holds the two who live there. And no doubt she has committed the further unpardonable indiscretion of failing to invite Harry Carr to climb her Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 192( hill and sit between a grand duke and a prince. In view of what Carr says I find that I have a grievance against her. One Sunday afternoon I sat on the lawn at Pickfair with Mary, Doug and Mrs. Spectator and had tea with a group of animated delights who told me they were shopgirls, girls who stand all day behind counters and grow tired wait- ing on people, and who had been asked to Pickfair because Mary thought they would enjoy its swimming pool and other attractions. What makes me sore is that Mary did not let me in on her secret, for what I read in the Times convinces me either that the girls were princesses mas- querading as workers, or that Mary had her kings and em- perors hidden in the basement that day so they wouldn't have to meet me. But even if I had a real grievance against her; even if I thought she stood on the "ragged edge of danger," whatever that means; even if I agreed with Carr that she should slam the door in the faces of the pilgrims to Pickfair; even if I felt that she was losing her skill, her enthusiasm, her charm, none of which I do believe for a moment; even if I were peeved because she did not invite me to meet one of her kings, would I be ungracious enough to set it forth in print. And I will go farther: I am willing to enter the lists with any carping, nasty-minded, envious man or woman who can find noth- ing better to do than to try to dim this end of a record that reaches back in a brilliant streak to the days when pic- tures started. The finest thing that pictures have done has been to give the world Our Mary, who still is too young to have become as great an actress as she some day will be, but who is now, always has been, and always will be, the screen's most gracious lady. * * * Tendering Metro Advice on Novarro's Debut as a Singer RAMON Novarro will be a very foolish young man if he allows Metro to present him as a great opera singer in his first sound picture. I do not know that Metro is contemplating doing such a thing, but it is just the sort of thing I can see it doing. You know the story: the son of poor but honest parents vainly trying to make his way upward; beautiful girl hears him singing at his work; interests rich man; lessons in Paris; gala opening; fearful triumph; fade-out of a huge kiss. Metro is almost certain to bungle an extraordinary opportunity to exploit Novarro's voice in a manner that would make his first singing picture a sensational success and pave the way for its successful successors. As one considers the mat- ter he sees that there is a thought in it for all producers of talking films, which makes it worth discussing. If I were running the job, I would not allow Pete Smith to send out one line of publicity about Novarro's fine singing voice, and I would not cast the young man as a singer in his first sound picture. I would allow the public to think that it made its own discovery that he can sing, and his future singing pictures could be made in response to the public's demand for them. Ramon Novarro has box- office value as a motion picture actor, not as a vocalist. In his first sound picture he should be cast in a purely motion picture part, preferably as a young Italian peasant, for we associate song with that country. He should be a joyous youngster who bursts into song at the slightest provocation, but he should sing only snatches of popular operatic airs, and the story should interrupt his singing every time he got well under way. In this way it wouU be made to appear as if the producers attached no im^ portance to Novarro's superb voice, and were presentinf him as usual, merely as a screen actor. Word of moutl advertising would make the box-office derive the full bene fit of the singing, and so wonderfully can Novarro sinf that the public would demand more of his voice, an< Metro could yield gracefully to the demand; but even thei it should not present him in any picture that showed bin as a great singer. A room which I occupied at Montt Carlo one season commanded a view of a large flowei garden. Every morning I was awakened by the mos glorious singing I ever heard. A young Italian gardenei tended the flowers and as he worked he sang songs of hii country in a tenor voice that sounded divine to me. ! dare say it was quite an ordinary voice, and probablj he did not know how to use it, but the fact that he was l gardener, from whom one does not expect a voice of an] quality, and that his singing was incidental to his work introduced the element of surprise and made him soun( delightful. I dare say if Caruso, with appropriate pub licity, had awakened me each morning with operatic selec tions, I would have stood it for perhaps a week, at tht end of which time I would have asked him to go awaj please. To make the most of Novarro's voice, he shoul* be presented as the gardener, not as Caruso. The publii does not expect a motion picture actor to sing, as I di( not expect the gardener to sing, and the fact that he hai a magnificent voice is something that can be discovered bj the public in a manner that will make the discovery dra matic. If Metro commits the folly of showing Novarn making his debut as an operatic star, as it undoubtedlj will, the young man will have to sing better than anj human being yet has sung to make his voice match th( ' glamor of its setting and all the hokum that will lead uj to the moment of his appearance before the footlights The same thing applies to all the specialty artists wh( are being rounded up for pictures. Their acts should noi be featured by the manner of their presentation in the pro duction. They should be parts of the picture that jusi happen to be there, and their excellence is something thai should be left to the public to discover. * * » Warners Turn Out Another Engrossing All-Talking Picture WARNER Brothers almost made an excellent talk- ing picture out of On Trial. It is the best thing they have done yet in sound; it is engrossing and dramatic, and contains a collection of fine performances,! but Archie Mayo did not direct it in a manner that brings out all its values. He applied to it the old method ol direction that relies solely on close-ups to register points, a method that makes no demand on the intelligence of a director, as anyone can make a picture on that formula. Mayo betrays the same weakness that is characteristic of so many directors — he poses his players intelligently when he composes his long shots, but he lacks the nerve to let them act their scenes out that way. As soon as anything dramatic happens, he moves his camera up and blots out all the background and atmosphere that give punch to the scene. One of the high spots of On Trial is a sequence in which Vondell Darr, an extraordinarily clever eight-year- old child, testifies at the trial of her father for murder. fovember 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seyen tin )he is a pathetic little figiire, a tiny mite among so many Town-up people, a very small person to be in such a very arge room. Those are the considerations that make her ppearance on the stand dramatic. But Mayo apparently id not grasp them at all. He does not give us one shot hat develops the idea of the smallness of the child and he bigness of her surroundings. He keeps her dangling rem the camera lens, showing her in huge close-ups that nake her heroic instead of tiny. In the closing sequence, ne of the big moments of the picture comes when Pauline i'rederick refuses to allow Richard Tucker to cross- xamine Lois Wilson, who, incidentally, gives a superb per- ormance. "Leave her alone!" admonishes Miss Frederick, ,nd the scene is a strong one. But it ends just there — irith Tucker simply leaving the witness alone. It is one f those missed opportunities that make me dubious about he ability of the Warners to turn out pictures that will naintain for them their present proud position in the ndustry. The district attorney should have risen from lis seat as if to question the witness, thus prolonging the uspense; then he should have said quietly to the judge, No questions, your honor," and sat down. This has the louble virtue of being exactly what he would have done a a real trial, and of being something that would have aade the scene more dramatic. Just before the final fade- ut, after Bert Lytell has been acquitted of the charge of nurdering Miss Frederick's husband, the widow is sitting lone in the court room, and Lytell, Lois Wilson and the ~hild form a happy family group. To this group the widow noves,,and the scene is a tender and sympathetic one. It would have been ten times more so if the widow had ■etained the suggestion of her loneliness by remaining seated while the happy family moved to her and offered ts sympathy. Even as it is presented in the picture, the :umulative effect of the sequence caused a lump in my :hroat, but if the treatment had been as I suggest, I am afraid that I would have been sobbing when I left the projection-room. I point out the faults in On Trial in the hope that they will be avoided in future pictures, but I don't want to give the impression that it is not an engross- ing picture. It is a piece of screen entertainment that you must not miss. Really fine performances are given by the entire cast, which consists of Pauline Frederick, Lois Wilson, Bert Lytell, Jason Robards, Holmes Herbert, Richard Tucker, Johnnie Arthur, Franklin Pangborn, Edward Martindel, Edmund Breese, Fred Kelsey, and the clever little Vondell Darr. Lois Wilson and Johnnie Arthur carry off the acting honors. Miss Wilson's voice is going to prove a valuable adjunct to her fine dramatic sense. Arthur surprised me with the force of his performance. I thought he was a quite ordinary comedian, but I found him to be a dramatic actor of ability. I believe I forgot to mention that On Trial is an all-talking picture. * * * We've Discovered What It Is That Makes Metro Lion Roar ONE might be reconciled to silent pictures remaining a little longer if all of them were as good as A Woman of Affairs, which Clarence Brown has made for Metro, the clause in his contract that provides that no one is to interfere with him while he is making a pic- ture, being responsible for the fact that it is good even though it is a Metro production. Although they call the woman of affairs Diana Merrick she is none other than our old friend Iris March to whom Mike Arlen introduced us. You remember her, the captivating woman wearing the green hat. What an exceedingly silly industry is this one of making pictures. The Green Hat is a story either fit or unfit for screen presentation. If fit, then it should be presented under its own name; if unfit, it should not be presented at all. Will Hays, that sanctimonious monk in tarnished cassock, did not pass upon the moral merit of the story. He received his orders from Louis B. Mayer, and then consented to the filming of the story provided the public was defrauded into thinking that it was some other story. It's an old custom that Hays brought with him from politics. You'll remember that he accepted tainted money as campaign contributions and tried to defraud the public into the belief that it was derived from other sources. Well, anyway, Clarence Brown made The Green Hat into a picture that rates highly as an example of screen art and which will hold the close attention of any intelligent person who views it. In mak- ing this statement I am assuming that the public will see it as I saw it and that Metro is not going to tie pans and other things on it to make a noise. The picture is engross- ing for the same reason that the book is engrossing, not for its story value, but for its delightful treatment. Brown had a superb cast — Greta Garbo, Jack Gilbert, Dorothy Sebastian, Lewis Stone, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Hobart Bosworth and John Mack Brown. While it is a joint Gilbert-Garbo production, Jack sat back and allowed Greta to earn all the bows. Whether she will prove to be your conception of Iris March depends upon what that concep- tion is, but she is my Iris March down to the flicker of her PAUL PEREZ . . . having completed his assignment at Para- mount - Famous - Lasky, has been engaged by First National. He is now titling D o n n Byrne's classic, "Changeling," co- starring Milton Sills and Dorothy Mackaill, and directed by GEORGE! FITZMAURICE Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & lander En Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 192 eye-lashes. In my opinion she never gave a more intelli- gent or a more entertaining performance on the screen. All the performances are what we might expect from such a brilliant cast. Young Doug Fairbanks without question is destined to be a great actor. At the present moment the thing that he is in the greatest need of is a haircut. Clarence Brown's direction displays the same mastery that made Flesh and the Devil an outstanding picture, although Woman of Affairs will not attract the attention the other did, as Arlen's contribution in the way of a story is not as great as Sudermann's. But there still is a touch of timidity in Brown's direction and not until he gets over it will he show us what a really capable director he can be. In one sequence he swings his camera from a group to a door through which a character exits, then swings it back to the group of which the departing player was a member before he left. It is a smooth manner of avoiding a cut, but Brown uses the idea only once in that sequence and not once again in the picture. His grouping in medium and long shots always is intelligent and effective, but he is too timid to go a little farther and tell his story with such shots. He falls back on close-ups after he has dem- onstrated that he could do without them. He is one of the most painstaking directors in pictures, one of the most thorough workmen, and when he gets a little more con- fidence in himself he is going to give us some extraordin- ary pictures. The titles in Woman of Affairs are punctu- ated with that display of gross ignorance that has become the Metro trade-mark. It is why the lion in the main title roars. * * * Columbia Borrows a Situation and Makes a Picture Around It NOT being interested in the details of the film in- industry, I don't know who has bought The Front Page for screen presentation, or, if it hasn't gone that far, who intends to buy it, but whoever gets it had better lose no time in shooting it. What I understand is the big situation in the New York stage success has been plucked out of it neatly by Columbia, changed slightly as to details, and presented as the big kick in The Power of the Press, which Columbia shortly will offer for public approval. As I do not own The Front Page and have no intention of buying it, I am indifferent to the pilfering and can regard the Columbia production only as a thor- oughly entertaining picture, directed by Frank Capra with marked intelligence, except in a few spots where he reverts to established movie conventions. His most flagrant lapse is staging a love scene between Jobyna Ralston and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. on a street comer, an utterly absurd place for a love scene even though Frank has the delicacy to clear the intersecting streets of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. His treatment robs the scene of the sentiment that should surround it, and which he could have retained by the simple expedient of showing the lovers retreating to any one of the many doorways available. I can not understand such stupidity. And to dispose of the director's faults before enumerating his virtues, he should have carried his display of originality to the end of the picture and given us a fade-out on something other than the boy and girl in a close-up kiss. If I were a director, I would be ashamed to resort to that moss-covered ending. The picture opens with a sequence in the newsroom of a morn- ing daily. Capra makes it a little more feverish than i true to life, but it may be excused on the ground tha it is nearer the public's conception of what a nerve-rack ing undertaking it is to get out a paper. What I lik about the sequence is that Capra puts it over almost en tirely in long and medium shots. In fact, the whole pic ture is an answer to those who contend that close-ups ap essential to the telling of a screen story. It derives it chief strength from the fact that Capra does not sacrifici the newspaper atmosphere to huge portraits that meai nothing. This method of treatment makes the story mucl more true to itself and decidedly more entertaining thai it would have been if it had been given the usual unimag inative close-up treatment that is the main characteristii of the work of most directors. What surprises me is tha there are not some directors with brains enough to gras) the fact that even if there were no objection to close-upi as such, a picture shot without them would attract atten tion as a novelty. In most of his scenes Capra shows tha they are not necessary to the telling of his story. Thii is something that I always have contended by implica tion when I criticized the over-indulgence in close-ups, foi I would not advocate a reform that would make a pictun less entertaining. There is a shot in Power of the Presi that interested me. Wheeler Oakman opens a door an< enters a room. The camera follows him through the door- way and swings around to show him closing the door Things like this in a picture show that someone has beei using his head. And something else interested me mightily It becomes evident that Oakman and Fairbanks are goin| to have a fight. I yawned and resigned myself to view- ing a lot of furniture being destroyed and someone fall- ing on a table and overturning it, while Mildred Harrii stood by and kissed the hangings. But it didn't prove tc be that kind of a fight. Young Doug gets in only one punch before Mildred grabs the gun and threatens to open passageways to Oakman's interior if he did not desist He desisted. Excellent performances abound in the pic- ture. Fairbanks again demonstrates what a fine actoi he is becoming, and Jobyna Ralston, a clever trouper with a sweet and appealing personality, handles her part splen- didly. Del Henderson is capital as the star reporter, and Bob Edeson does well as city editor. Philo McCoI- lough gives another of his fine characterizations as a heavy. * * • WHEN I saw Fazil on the screen last June I liked it and said so in The Spectator. I praised warmly the performance given by Charlie Farrell. It seems to me that since I saw the picture I have heard almost every film person in Hollywood rate it as one of the worst of the year and Charlie's performance as a poor one. The peak of this criticism was reached when some screen people, whose opinions I respect, were dining with us last week. We dug up my review of Fazil, and they tried to convince me that I was wrong in everything I said. I acknowledged that I must have been wrong, but to satisfy myself I hunted up Fazil at a neighborhood house and viewed it again. I found it to be better even than I I had thought it to be the first time I saw it. Howard Hawkes made a splendid job of its direction. Someone has told me that all the costumes were wrong, but that did not disturb me any as I had no idea wherein they November 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine were wrong. The feature of the film that interested me most — the feature that took me back to it — was Charlie Farrell's performance. As I had based my confidence in his future on his work in this picture, I wanted to satisfy myself that I had not made a mistake. At the end of the year when I set down the great performances of the year, Charlie's performance in Fazil will be among them!* His absolute repose, the delicacy of his hand movement to denote the Oriental aristocrat, the lack of over-gestic- ulation, and the absence of the slightest trace of a man- nerism noticeable in any other screen performance that he has given, mark him as a superb actor. When he comes to his big scenes, apparently he is as composed as before, but he gives a suggestion of a latent power that registers his purpose without a resort to obvious his- trionics. In all his scenes his walk is graceful and his poise is as perfect when he is in motion as when he is still. Every stride he takes is a definite part of his characterization. He is the only young actor I can recall who knows how to walk when before the camera. I stand by my praise of both Fazil and Farrell. * * * DONALD and I, as I have stated in The Spectator sev- eral times, run our departments independently. I never know what he is going to say about a picture and he never knows what I am going to say. Each of us thinks that the other has weird views. I have been unsuc- cessful thus far in trying to persuade him to join me in a campaign against this or that grievance. I am about to enter upon another campaign, a determined one that may be long drawn out, and I implored the young man to take a hand in it, but I failed again, consequently I must go it alone. I think Douglas Fairbanks Jr. should have his hair cut, and I am going to keep on nagging him about it until he has it cut. Raising one's own wig has advantages from a strictly economic standpoint, and those who regard saving as a virtue might approve infre- quent visits to a barber, but when these financial con- siderations are responsible for the way young Doug wears his hair I think it is time someone should remind him of his art. When he has to stop in the middle of a strongly dramatic scene in which he is doing really splendid work, and brush back a long, scraggly and unkempt lock, the tip of which describes an arc reaching from his chin to the back of his neck, then, say I, something should be done about it, and I intend to see that something is done. I am sorry Donald can't see his way clear to join me, but I have hopes of enlisting the aid of Joan Crawford. That would settle it. * * * POSSIBLY the most disgusting kisses of this fall and winter season are those exchanged by Greta Garbo and Jack Gilbert in Woman of Affairs. You can see Greta's upper lip curl backward and her jaw recede until it bends her ears. It's enough to turn one's stomach. They could not call it The Green Hat, for it is supposed to be an immoral book, but they put things in the picture more filthy and disgusting than Arlen ever dreamed of. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic INTERFERENCE is a good motion picture in spite of the fact that Roy Pomeroy directed it as if it were just a stage play. The big future of sound pictures lies in their ability to give us spoken dramas which also embody all the advantages of the motion picture. Pomeroy used nothing but stage stuff, and neglected all the shortcuts which the film could have made. It is evident that sound pictures are going to develop an absolutely new type of director which will be a cross between the stage and screen; and, God willing, will not wear riding breeches and boots while shooting a drawing room scene. The sig- nificance of Interference in the advancement of sound must not be overlooked, since the Movietone stuff easily out- distances anything done yet. Voices are registered with greater clarity and freedom from rasping and mechanical sounds. The thing that this particular method of sound reproduction needs to work upon is reducing the incidental noises to their proper volume. This is the first sound stuff I have seen where there were any to speak of; and they were good except that they were too loud. When Doris Kenyon tears a check, there is a noise which sounds like a healthy saw-mill doing its best. However, it's bet- ter to be faced with the problem of eliminating some of the volume rather than that of building it up. One little bit of sound which interested me particularly was the scene where the camera rests on Bill Powell while Evelyn Brent, who is out of camera range, is crying. The sound of her sobs is distinct, and adds a great touch of reality. Henceforth, a telephone conversation on the screen will 1 mean- something, if everybody follows the lead of the I technicians who made Interference. Never before, on the ; stage or screen, have we been able to hear both sides of . the conversation from one telephone; but in this picture it is done very adroitly and helps greatly in reducing the number of cutbacks. It is rather doubtful if Interference, good as it is, will run for any length of time. It isn't exactly the type of picture which is liable to go over very well with the majority, but it is the sort of thing which audiences are going to be educated up to in a very short while. The more I think about it, the more I am im- pressed with the great opportunity which sound has to reform the English spoken in this country; because the number of people who speak incorrectly iS tremendous. However, if it has to be left in the hands of the geniuses who have punctuated the titles in the past, there isn't much hope of any great improvement. While I am think- ing about it. Interference, contrary to nearly every play put on the screen, didn't have any young love interest; and there was one in the play. That's a record of some kind. , ■ i. There were only four important members m the cast of Interference, so it was vitally necessary that they all be good, or the whole thing would have been a dismal mess. The two male members of the quartette had the parts which offered the greatest acting opportunity, and they made the most of them. Clive Brook always has given performances which were outstanding in their feeling and smoothness; but he never has revealed the tremendous power with which the use of his voice endows him. Wil- I Paramount 100% All- Talking Picture Interference Carthay Circle Theatre Evelyn Brent, Clive Brook, Doris Kenvon and William Powell Daily 2:15 — 8:30 Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 1928 liam Powell plays what is the most sympathetic part in the whole picture, although technically he is a heavy. He has a good voice, and as he always has been one of the finest actors the screen ever has had, his work is wonder- ful. EveljTi Brent plays the feminine heavy for all she is worth. There is no one who can touch Miss Brent at a certain type of characterization, and this is one of them. Doris Kenyon uses her charm and acting experience to good advantage, and gives a very good performance. The good taste reflected after the picture was over on the opening night at the Carthay is a credit to Famous Players. • • • SOMEONE to Love is an amusing little picture which won't arouse great interest, nor will it be a failure. The team of Buddy Rogers and Mary Brian is good enough to put over practically anj'thing; and as the story and direction of this are very well handled, it manages to be a very worthy little picture. F. Richard Jones was the director, and he has some ideas on making a love story which I think are great, although nobody else may think much of them. The first time the two lovers meet they go through a little scene where first they smile at each other, and then they laugh. After that they become friends or lovers, depending upon one's view of the situa- tion. Another scene was where Jones held the two of them in a long close-up, in which they did nothing but look into each other's eyes. That was one place where a close up was used intelligently. He did the same thing again, although the camera wasn't quite so close this time; but it was spoiled by the long kiss which he injected. Incidentally, if there is anything I cannot stand in a mo- tion picture, it is this gag of showing the girl's love for the boy by having her run all over a daisy field like an insane grasshopper. Pictures will be a great deal better when that old war horse is laid in its well earned grave. Paramount is going to have no difficulty in maintaining its advanced position if it continues to turn out well pro- duced, well acted, and well directed program pictures like this. As I said before, Rogers and Mary Brian are a great team. Due to her greater experience. Miss Brian domin- ated Someone to Love with her charm and growing acting ability. Rogers was much better in this than he was in Varsity; and ought to do very well as a star if he has any more parts like this. William Austin and Jack Oakie did well as a pair of comedy heavies, and James Kirkwood made a sympathetic father. * * * HOW anybody ever stood a courtroom sequence in the silent films is something I cannot understand after seeing On Trial, Warner's latest all sound picture. I always had an idea that Archie Mayo was a good direc- tor; and that if he ever got a story with any sense to it, r------------------------------------- I The Louise Gude Studios • OF SINGING I 1004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles j For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 I — Voice Trial Gratis — Louise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKINQ EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 4857 BEVERLY BOULEVARD (Corner of Van Ness) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 he would do a piece of work which really would be worth- while. Well, they gave him On Trial and he has made it into a fine picture. Even without the sound it would have been noteworthy, but not nearly so entertaining. Mayo is one of the few directors who makes any effort toward building up individual characterizations for his cast, and he did very well with all the fine troupers he had in this picture. The action takes place in a court- room, with cutbacks to whatever the witnesses happen to be talking about. As everybody in the cast is a good actor, there isn't a slow moment in the picture, everything moNnng along smoothly up to a powerful crisis. The funny thing about pictures like On Trial is that they are going to weed out all but good dramatic actors. The lighter pictures, where ability is not so vitally important, will use our present crop of poor actors who chance to have per- sonalities or followings; but a single weak link in a more dramatic film will ruin the whole thing. There wasn't anything to criticize in On Trial. It went on so smoothly that I was completely wrapped up in it, and didn't even notice any of the little things which Dad undoubtedly did. One thing in particular, however, did catch my interest. It was a good point, though. A witness on the stand would testify, and the camera would swing from him to one of the spectators in the courtroom but the voice of the witness would go on. It was a very good idea because then the audience could see the reaction of the statements upon the persons hearing them. This "voice off-stage" stuff is one of the strong points of sound pictures, as in- numerable situations can be improved dramatically by it. Sound can put over emotions far better than the silent drama ever did, because the natural thing for anyone to do when suddenly aroused is to make a noise of some sort. The marvelous voice of Pauline Frederick greatly en- hanced my enjoyment of the dialogue, although she had a AL JOLSON has been a source of profit to himself, to his producing associates, and to every box-office where his artistry has been shown on stage or screen. I, too, have been a gainer, through writing for him over a period of years much comedy material. I believe if inquiry is made of Al, he will speak well of my work. JAMES MADISON Originals — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 32.3 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5B27 Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 November 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven very small part as far as acting went. She and Bert Lytell were featured in the picture, and neither had an outstanding part. Lytell had more than Miss Frederick, and his splendid voice and years of screen experience all helped to make his work brilliant. Lois Wilson gave a remarkable performance in a difficult role, which was a far cry from the mamby-pamby things she has been saddled with for so long. At first she gave the impression of being unsympathetic, but by superb acting she gained back all she had lost, and more. Her scene on the witness stand was a work of art, because she never forgot for a moment that she was supposed to have come out of the hospital to testify and was still weak. Most actresses would have used the opportunity to yell and scream in the most ap- proved manner. Miss Wilson's repression in that one scene proves that she is a real artist. Holmes Herbert played one of the soft-spoken, gen- tlemanly heavies which are making him outstanding among the character men who are playing in talkers. He makes his villain human, which is the right idea. Jason Robards and Richard Tucker are the two opposing attorneys, and Edmund Breese makes a human character out of the judge, another remarkable achievement and contrary to all picture conventions. Johnny Arthur has been conceal- ing his dramatic light beneath a comedy bushel. He has a scene on the witness stand where he breaks down and g'oes into a sort of hysteria which is brilliant. This capac- ity for emotional acting makes Arthur unusually versatile. Vondell Darr, who must be all of nine years old, gives a performance which should make many people with ten times her experience bow their heads in envy. Incident- ally, little Miss Darr, unlike most children, has a voice ■which doesn't sound like a new shoe over the Vitaphone. * * * WHENEVER Buster Keaton comes to town, I antici- pate some real enjoyment from going to the motion picture. I always laugh myself sick, and am not troubled by worrying whether or not the picture is good technically. His latest. The Cameraman, has a more definite story than usual. There were sequences at the first and the last which didn't do more than arouse a few chuckles, but there was stuff in the middle which made up for everything. I can't understand where on earth Keaton gets all the gags he uses. Edward Sedgwick handled the direction on The Cameraman, and did a good job; but Keaton is the whole picture. There isn't much to say about the picture except that I laughed harder at it than I have at anything for a long time. The swim- ming pool and Tong War gags are classics. The cast contained Marceline Day, Harold Goodwin and Eddie Grib- bon. * * * CONSIDERING the small amount of money spent upon it, A Daughter of Desire is a noteworthy piece of screen work. Merely judging from the settings, one could never tell whether or not it came from one of the big studios; because all the sets are rich looking. In- cidentally, it was shot in seven days. Isadore Bernstein handled everything about it but the directing, which was done by Burton King. The main fault was the fact that the whole story was based upon a faulty hypothesis, which was that a girl who shot a man to defend herself was guilty of murder. The man was a notorious bad egg. GIFTS AND GREETINGS FOR ALL OCCASIONS J^ '7Aousand Gifts of Vhtinetlon'' 6326 HVLLyw^VP-BLVt7- HVLlYV/WP-WUf' and no jury in the world would have convicted her. An- other important factor in the story wasn't done correctly, either. The man was supposed to love his daughter so much that his wife went to prison rather than reveal that the girl had shot the heavy, but it wasn't emphasized enough. As it was done, the man loved his wife as much as his daughter; so the sacrifice was in vain. The story ended with the girl presumably recovering from her ill- ness so she could go to prison and serve the unexpired term. One good touch which I enjoyed was the romance between Richard Tucker and Irene Rich. Both of them are splendid troupers, but the usual motion picture con- ventions demand that all lovers be young. However, Bernstein apparently had daring enough to try a love story and use them. The result justifies his unprecedented step. King's direction was all right, except for some un- natural groupings. A Daughter of Desire was produced by Excellent Pictures, which is the same concern, I think, which sponsored The Passion Song, which still holds the record as the worst picture of the year. I must say that this is a great improvement. * * * FOR sheer entertainment. The Power of the Press stands out among the recent pictures; and as entertainment is one of the chief aims of the motion picture, it may be called a very satisfactory film. Frank Capra, who^ di- rected, did a fine piece of work; because there wasn't a moment when the direction obtruded itself upon my en- joyment of the story which was unfolded. There was nothing highly original about the story, but Sonya Levien's continuity gave evidence of good craftmanship, which must have aided Capra materially in obtaining the good results he did. All the elements of the old, rip-roaring serials were there; and there is nothing I like better than that. There was even a chase through the hills, with the enemy shooting furiously from the pursuing car and trying all manner of desperate measures to stop the hero, who had made a slight faux pas by stealing the chief of the gang. Just at the most trying curve, the villain got loose and belabored the hero with everything in sieht, which was a silly thing to do, since the hero happened to Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. (Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing) I nightly in Peacock Court j" GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 1928 be driving. That is the most peculiar thing about these heavies. The minute they get free, they want to kill the driver of the car; and it never seems to occur to them that they are liable to get damaged, too. However, the old thrills are what the industry is founded upon; and if there were more pictures with an eye to entertainment instead of psychological treatises, pictures would be better off. Dad tells me that the newspaper stuff in Power of the Press is accurate, a fact which I already had surmised, because it was different from anything I had seen along that line before. I wish, however, that some other way of giving the cub reporter his chance could be devised. In every picture I have seen, he gets it because he happens to be the only one around when the big story breaks. They ought to think up something new. Capra is not wildly good at comedy, but the picture is such good enter- tainment that a little thing like that doesn't matter. Any- way, he endows his characters with a sense of humor which is important. All in all. Power of the Press is an interesting and entertaining motion picture, and could be booked anywhere. The cast was headed by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., and Jobyna Ralston, who make a very good team. I liked Fairbanks in this more than in anything I have seen him do. A fine personality and an ability to act should take him a long way. Whenever he plays an up-to-date Ameri- can boy, as he did in this, he should cut his hair a little shorter; because it is a bit too Bohemian as it is now. Jobyna had little to do but look pretty and appealing, something she is adept at. Why isn't she given the break she deserves ? Robert Edeson made a good city editor, and Philo McCollough did well in a heavy characteriza- tion. Wheeler Oakman and Mildred Harris were more or less unsympathetic, too; but they did good work. * * * MY review of Noah's Ark was virritten after I had seen the picture in a projection room, and I must con- fess that I was terribly disappointed after I had seen it in a theatre. The things which overwhelmed me in a small room seemed small and insignificant at a greater distance. Reviewed in this Number CAMERAMAN, THE— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Edward Sedgwick; story by Byron Morgan; adaptation by Lew Lipton and Clyde Bruckman; continuity by Richard Schayer; titles by Joe Farnham; settings by Fred Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. Tire OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 Gabourie; wardrobe by David Cox; photographed by | Elgin Lessley and Reggie Lanning; film editor, Hugh Wjmn. The cast: Buster Keaton, Marceline Day, Harold Goodwin, Sidney Bracy, Harry Gribbon. DAUGHTER OF DESIRE— An Excellent picture. Directed by Burton King; story, continuity and titles by Isadore Bernstein; photographed by William Miller and Joseph Walters; technical director, Robert Stevens; edited by Betty Davis. The cast: Irene Rich, June Nash, Richard Tucker, William Scott-Heany, Julius Molner, Jackie Searle. INTERFERENCE (Sound Version)— A Paramount picture. Directed by Roy J. Pomeroy; from the play by Roland Pertwee and Harold Dear- den; based on a Lothar Mendes production; photo- graphed by J. Roy Hunt and Farciot Edouard; assistant director, George Yohalem. The cast: Clive Brook, Evelyn Brent, William Powell, Doris Kenyon, Louis Payne, Brandon Hurst, Wilfred Noy, Tom Ricketts, Donald Stuart, Raymond Lawrence. ON TRIAL— A Warner Brothers picture. Directed by Archie L. Mayo; from the stage play by Elmer Rice; scenario by Robert Lord; assistant director, Joe Barry; film editor, Thomas Pratt. The cast: Pauline Frederick, Bert Lytell, Lois Wilson, Holmes Herbert, Jason Robards, Richard Tucker, Johnny Arthur, Vondell Darr, Franklin Pang- born, Edmund Breese, Edward Martindel, Fred Kelsey. POWER OF THE PRESS— A Columbia picture. Directed by Frank Capra; story by Sonya Levien and Frederick A. Thompson; scenario by Sonya Levien; photographed by Teddy Tetzlaff; art director, Harrison Wiley. The cast: Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Jobyna Ralston, Robert Edeson, Del Henderson, Philo McCollough, Mildred Harris, Wheeler Oakman, Edwards Davis. WOMAN OF AFFAIRS, A— A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. Directed by Clarence Brown; from the story by Michael Arlen; continuity by Bess Meredyth; titles by Marian Ainslee and Ruth Cummings; art director, Cedric Gibbons; gowns by Adrian; assistant director, Charles Dorian; An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard ARTISTS I ■will be glad to advise or coach artists in preparing auditions or speaking parts for sound pictures, ligitimate acting or radio work. Phone Sara Rusevelt, GRanite 6869 for appointment. Interview for advice gratis. November 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen photographed by William Daniels; film editor, Hugh Wynn. The cast: Greta Garbo, John Gilbert, Lewis Stone, John Mack Brown, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Hobart Bosworth, Dorothy Sebastian. SOMEONE TO LOVE— A Paramount picture. Directed by F. Richard Jones; from the story by Alice Duer Miller; adapted by Ray Harris; screen play by Keene Thompson and Monte Brice; photographed by Allen Siegler; assistant direc- tor, Arthur Jacobson. The cast: Charles (Buddy) Rogers, Mary Brian, William Austin, Jack Oakie, James Kirkwood, Frank Reicher. THE LAUREL GROVE By FRANK T. DAUGHERTY IT was one of those books which the editor, in his gusts of antipathy for certain classes of reading matter, had thrown with a good deal of force clear across the room, where it slithered under a table, across a rug, and landed at last, open, half under a tabouret with some kind of jug on it. I picked it up, and the name brought a flood of memory. "Upton Sinclair, a Study in Social Protest" (Geo. H. Doran Company, publishers), by Floyd Dell. Up- ton Sinclair. I had almost forgotten the name; and the fact that he could still be in the public eye sufficiently to get a book written about himself came with a little shock of surprise. Yet at one time, I had heard bright-eyed students discuss his ideas as though the very structure of our national life depended on him. Usually, it is true, these students had a day or two's growth of beard, and affected round, horn-rimmed spectacles, and wore their hair long and dark and dank, and had pale faces. But sometimes they didn't. I remember a certain freshman with bright ruddy cheeks and clear eyes, whose father owned a newspaper, and who switched his major course from journalism to English hard upon the heels of the publishing of the "Brass Check" by the Sinclair presses. This freshman even contemplated at one time taking a pilgrimage to Pasadena to help in the great good work of suppressing his father's, and his father's associates' hydra-headed, capitalistic papers. (Isn't it always the boy whose father owns a steamship line who wants to be- come a stoker?) Anyhow, someone dissuaded him, and afterwards, I know, he was glad he didn't take that trip. * * * I HAD the doubtful pleasure myself of hearing Sinclair speak in old Fisherman's Hall in Berkeley. And on the platform with him was just such another young pilgrim as our freshman might have been, this one all the way from Old England. And this lad's eyes, too, were bright, and his voice quick and nervous as he boasted how he helped Sinclair with some sort of demonstration for or against (I don't remember which) the American Constitution. And how he had spent a night or two in jail at Long Beach for it. And while the young English- man was talking, the thought came to me that the in- fluence of an older man with enthusiasms over a young man with enthusiasms can be very great indeed. And I was glad again that my young friend hadn't gone to Pasadena in the heat of that freshman year. Because il he had, he might have been the one to make the demon- stration for or against (and I don't see why a young Eng- lish radical would want to make a demonstration for) the American Constitution. And he, instead of the young Englishman, might have been the one to spend the night in jail. Only, I'm quite certain he wouldn't have bragged about it afterward to that motley group in Fisherman's Hall. * * * AND Floyd Dell goes on and paints us a picture of young Upton Sinclair throwing stones at practically everything we are pleased to call our national struc- ture. But unless I am badly mistaken, the usefulness of Upton Sinclair's type of criticism is nearly finished and not just beginning, as Mr. Dell assumes. Because-— or so it has seemed to me — there has been a growing feehng among our young writers and critics that the way to build up that structure was brick by brick from withm — and not standing off and heaving the bricks at it to see what they could knock down. * * * QIVEN a mother who writes almost every day in her diary "Oh, how mysterious are God's dealings with us!", and a man's thoughts naturally turn, in maturer life, to his own relationship to the universe and its Creator. And so, in the chapter called Looking Forward, we find Jerome K. Jerome (My Life and Times. By Jerome K. Jerome. Harper and Brothers, N. Y.), echoing intellect- ually the simple faith of his Nonconformist mother. God tried us in the furnace. But whatever happens we must always believe in Him. 'Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him'." This trust, he says, was not for some future Nirvana of rest. "It was not that we might escape punishment, win happiness, that we were given an immortal soul. What sense would there have been in that? Work is the only explanation of existence. . . ^. The joy of labor, the joy of living, are the wages of God. There, agree or disagree as you will, speaks the artist as well as the man of faith— the actor-editor-playwright whose work has for a half century amused, stimulated and instructed the English and American literary and .theat- rical worlds. Between that first chapter dealing with his mother and his early boyhood, and that last chapter of simple faith in homely virtues and honest toil as the re- ward of life, pass many people and many things. Many a struggling extra, for example, would find encouragement I U^rmaris c^rt Jhop The Home of Harmonic Framing Paintings Restored and Refinished 6653 Hollywood Boulevard VISITORS WELCOME Edward Everett Horton ■n"ON APPROVAL" A Society Comedy By Frederick Lonsdale VINE ST. THEATRE f^'n^BoXtdr' Matinees Thursday and Sat- urday, 50c to $1.00. Evening. Make your reservations early. Downtown ticket offices — Birkel Music Co., Broadway Dept. Store, May Co. 50c "to $1.50 stone 4146. Phone GLad- The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7300 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) Hollywood Phone GRanite 0202 Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 1928 and consolation in his account of his own Discontented Youth on and about the London stage. He knew the chief theatrical people of his times as few have been given to know them; not only the great and renowned, but the obscure as well. Reputation didn't seem to mean a great deal to him. He knew Alia Nazimova when she came to him as Alia Nazimof, "A quiet, simple girl", knocking on his door with letters of introduction from mutual friends in Russia. Later, he found her changed as the great Nazimova who was drawing all New York. Zangwill, Forbes-Robertson, Barrie, the Frohmans, pass across his stage in simple review. Drew always seemed to him like "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." * * * HE haunted Soho and Hyde Park when the former was a simple Bohemian rendezvous and the latter known chiefly as the place where Bernard Shaw was mak- ing daily speeches. Letters were appearing in the press during this time, recounting the brutal handling Shaw was receiving at the hands of unfeeling reporters — all written by Shaw himself. When Jerome first knew Bar- rie, that really great humorist was being looked on by his publishers as a young lunatic, handing in his manu- scripts partly written on the backs of old envelopes. He tells of giving Sir Arthur Conan Doyle one of Arthur Machen's early thrillers — and of Doyle, author of a hun- dred thrillers, trying in vain to woo sleep after reading it! Jerome's own early writings took at once, but brought him little return. His first two books went into editions of hundreds of thousands in America without his receiving a cent for them. Which accounts in part, per- haps, for his not liking America. • • • STEVENSON, Kipling, Hardy, Barrie, Zangwill, wrote for his publications, of which there were later two, "The Idler" and "Today". As editor, he found his chief joy in the friendly and encouraging relationships he was able to establish between his young writers and him- self. He delighted to hear them refer to him as "The Chief". Shaw's mind seemed to him the quickest and the wittiest he knew. "His mind works like lightning." When the president of The Playgoers Club came to Shaw one day during the early triumphs of the cinema, wanting his opinion "on the question: Is there any danger of the actor being eliminated?" "You don't say which actor," answered Shaw, "and, anyhow, why speak of it as a danger?" His own humor he was never quite sure of himself, though doubtless it is the thing he will be chiefly remembered for. If the details of this volume are sketchy and the incidents related too little in conformity with that book that both he and Mark Twain wanted to write, "nothing extenuating", there is yet much of interest and instruction in its pages. It is a pity Jerome couldn't have come to America after the war, as he was often urged to do, to lecture; for surely now he would have found many of the faults corrected that he called attention to, and not a few disciples won to his own clear-headed ideas. And, who knows whether he might not have been won over to the motion picture, which, as a dramatist, he hated fervently for years. IT was to be expected, of course, that someone would want to know what "The Laurel Grove means. I sup- pose it ought to have some hidden significance like, say, The Bowling Green, or, to descend a step or two. The Lancer. I'm sorry. It hasn't. Laurel is just a name I've always liked, and Grove seemed to go with it. I threw the article in for good measure. Pronounced to- gether, the words have a certain euphony, a cool, secluded sound. . . . One could read books in a laurel grove, or play, or even weep. But if these explanations don't seem to explain, I can add that laurel is related to the ericaceous shrubs of the genera Rhododendron, which is my state's bouttoniere and my favorite flower. It is also very near kin to the green bay tree, which, as everyone will remem- ber, the proverbial sinner flourishes like. Although this column hopes to flourish without sin. If there are any other reasons why I named it The Laurel Grove, I've for- gotten them — unless it was that altogether silly one that occurred to me one day when I was reading Sir Roger in that great Spectator for which this one was named — that it seemed a name the eccentric old gentleman himself might be expected to like. In the past two issues I have been referring to Jolinsoii — who can tell you much more about himself than I can. Call HEmpstead 6167. Neil Hamilton p. S. — Emory Johnson is the man who spent $317,650 to make six pictures which grossed $2,154,231. November 24, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen JEAN HERSHOLT — T ♦- Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F* de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-office records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1694 Norman Taurog Has Completed His First Fox- Movietone Subject, 'THE DffLOMATS" Starring Clark and McCullough t »- JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT Howard Bretherton Now Directing "'Sfic^ Qreyhound Limited'* with Monte Blue A Warner Bros. Vitaphone Feature GEORGE SIDNEY — Says — "Silence is a Polite Negative" Quoth the movies "Nevermore" Scott R* Dunlap Novs^ With Columbia TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate ROWLAND V. LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKY Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR November 24, 1928, immimiaiHHiiiiiHt>mmiiunuiHMiHNtaHnNWimmmHHUiamiiiiNiHn^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 192 The most amazing instrument you ever heard The New Victrola - Radiola Combination 9-54 Automatic Changes Records Radiola 64— Long Distance Radio Finest Custom Cabinet EHJBOIDUEM 3inLUJjr][(C C€>iinip»^innf 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 ecember 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three :he film spectator EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager U Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price $5.00 per year; foreign $6.00. Single copy, 10 cents. le that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIF., DECEMBER 1, 1928 Vhat We Can Learn From ate Presifiential Election NOTHING coining as close to all the people as the recent presidential election came, can fail to have a lesson in it for motion pic'^ure people. The najority of the people of the United States have said hat they want Herbert Hoover for president instead of Alfred Smith. It is for these people, the majority of the )eople of the United States, that motion pictures are nade. No producer can expect to please all the people. Se realizes this, and aims to please only the majority. The profits he makes reflects the degree in which he has Deen successful in achieving his aim. One disadvantage that he labors under is that he does not know what the majority wants. If he could find out what all these who voted for Hoover desire in the way of screen entertain- ment, he would have something to go on. Let's see if we can help him. I made three bets on the election, one, at odds, that Hoover would be elected; one that Smith would not carry ten states; one that Smith would be the most badly beaten candidate who ever ran for the presi- dency on the nomination of one of the major parties. 1 won all my bets. I did not follow the campaign from a 'political standpoint; I presumed that Smith would carry seven or eight states (he carried eight) but I had no idea which states they would be. I applied to the election the same kind of reasoning that I apply to the consideration of motion pictures. I know it is poor business to have vulgarity in pictures, as exemplified by huge close-ups of kisses; I know it is not good business to offend educated people with bad grammar and bad punctuation in titles. Thoroughly respectable people can commit these faults, and their commission does not carry any suggestion of moral regression, but the public, as a mass, will turn from them to people who are free from such faults, for the public is inherently clean and decent, and when given an opportunity to show its preference, has an unerring in- stinct for choosing that which comes nearest its own ideals. Smith could not have gone through the recent searching campaign without having the light thrown on any dark spots in his career, or without having his weak- nesses paraded before the public. The fact that there were no dark spots f ouad nor weaknesses uncovered proves that his private life has been as clean and as wholesome as that of the man who defeated him. Judging by the record we find that" Smith is as fine, as upright and as honorable a man as Hoover. And yet I placed my bets upon my convictions that the people of the United States never would elect a man like Smith president when there was available a man like Hoover. I was convinced that the good taste that the majority of the public demands would not be a feature of the Smith campaign, and that it would be the chief feature of that conducted on behalf of his opponent. Those who listened to the final broad- casts from New York on the eve of election had the spirits of both campaigns summed up for them. For three-quart- ers of an hour a program that never mentioned Hoover was conducted with the dignity that we would expect from its sponsors, after which Hoover spoke for twelve minutes, not about himself, but about the duty of the citizens to vote. We were told that he was speaking from his library in which he was surrounded by his family. For the next hour we listened to a Smith program from Carnegie Hall in New York. While the preceding broadcast was digni- fied and impressive, this one was common and blatant. Smith spoke at length strictly about himself, and Irving Berlin, in an irritating and rasping voice, sang an exceed- ingly silly song dedicated to Al Smith, a vocal effort that stripped the Democratic campaign of the last vestige of its claim to dignity and which must have cost Smith at least one million votes. Next day it was demonstrated that the people as a whole favor that which reflects the best taste. Ever since I have been writing about the screen I have pleaded the cause of good taste in pictures. It looks to me as if good taste is a marketable proposition. Hoover sold it to the nation. * * * What Industry Needs Is Dose of Introspective Stock-Taking WHAT always has been a weakness of the film in- dustry is its inability to think clearly, its lack of ability to appreciate its own frailties and to ap- ply to them the thought necessary for their correction. That the recent presidential election presented a situation that anyone could out-think was my contention from the first. My few bets will testify to the view I took of it, and there are a score or more of my friends who can vouch for the fact that while I presented no arguments which they deemed to have weight, I never for a moment, in conversations with them, would admit that Smith had a chance to achieve anything except the worst beating ever given a candidate. The only argument that I could advance to support my claim was my confidence in the public's appreciation of good taste. The same reasoning can be applied to the lack of good taste in pictures. Even before the Literary Digest, as recorded elsewhere in this issue, devoted a page to the reproduction of Spec- tator arguments against screen vulgarities, various papers throughout the country had commented on articles which I had written on the subject, and since the Digest gave the matter national prominence, the clippings that have been forwarded to me have been of such volume and of such tenor as would indicate that huge close-ups of kisses really have very few friends. During the entire progress of the presidential campaign I did not read one article that approached the matter from the same angle that I did, Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 1921 nor did I find one among my friends who was not con- vinced that I was crazy. No one started me along my line of thinking. Similarly, no one started me off on a cam- paign against screen vulgarities as typified by disgusting kisses, yet it has grown to be one that is awakening sympathetic interest throughout the country. This brings me to the point that I have been approaching along a path that I am afraid you have been considering as one strewn with self laudation: If I could see a menace to pictures in the vulgarities they present, why couldn't those who make the pictures see the same thing without any urging from the outside? Introspective stock-taking never has been a habit of the film industry, yet it is a habit without which no industry can acquire permanent stability and achieve its potential prosperity. This inability to think constructively about itself and act constructively on what it discovers, is costing the industry many millions of dol- lars every year and still there is no sign anywhere that a change is impending. Although pictures are costing twice what they should, I know of no producer who is making any move to reform his methods and bring the cost down to what it ought to be. Although any producer should be able to sit in one of his projection rooms and see the ^^^lgarity in a gigantic close-up of a kiss that is to be part of a picture bearing his trademark, he permits its inclusion, and because the picture makes a profit he attributes part of its success to its vulgar content, and is totally unable to grasp the fact that his product made money in spite of the vulgarity, and not on account of it. The talking pictures that we have had thus far would indicate that all the faults of their silent predecessors that gradually were emptying the seats of the film theatres of the country, are to be carried over to become a blight upon the new art. If the industry were possessed of a mentality that could measure its weakness, if it had the introspective faculty to determine what is the matter with its insides, it would discover and discard the mis- takes that contributed to the growing unpopularity of its old products, and would make its new products conform to a pattern based on a greater knowledge of what the public has grown to dislike. The first thing that it would discover it must do would be that it no longer should apply practically the same treatment to every picture — the endless parade of close-ups that are used to cover the incompetence of directors, the camera-consciousness that all the groups suggest, the unimaginative clinch fade- out with which all pictures end — . You may finish the list. • * * Shouldn't Forget That We StiU Are Doing Business at Old Stand FROM the Exhibitors Herald & Motion Picture World, in course of a discussion of the possibilities of sound: "Home Towners demonstrates that a stage play can be reproduced on the screen with much of the same fidelity and force of the stage play itself." Well, what of it? I have no doubt that with the aid of sound devices we could reproduce the interior of a boiler factory with all the fidelity and force of the original; or that we could demonstrate that the screen could repeat a lecture on the prevention and cure of hog cholera without losing any of the impressiveness that attended its original de- livery, but I don't see that those of us whose chief interest lies in motion pictures are interested in either stage plays " boiler factories or diseases of hogs. What interests us ii the degree of sincerity, impressiveness and entertainment' that can be added to motion pictures by making the char- acters on the screen talk. The fact that the characteri can talk in no way alters the other fact that we are still ir the motion picture business, which is not a business oi putting stage plays on the screen, nor is it a business tl be conducted by stage directors, stage writers or stag« actors. It is a business, however, that always has dis- played an enormous aptitude for making an ass of itself and it could not be expected to confront the situation pre- sented by sound without again demonstrating its weak mass mentality. The major part of its activity now ignorej| what it has learned during the past thirty years, and ifij has become a stage-door Johnnie. It is being ruled again by its inferiority complex, and it would rather take an unsuccessful New York play as the subject for a picture than risk its money on an original story upon which no one outside the industry has passed judgment. Perhaps the most bewildering stupidity is that demonstrated by those producers who are proceeding on the theory that now that we have talking on the screen there is no need for screen acting. Filling casts with stage actors on the assumption that their voices are important is about as silly as asking an osteopath to fill a tooth on the assump- tion that while he has been massaging back muscles he must have picked up some knowledge of dentistry, reason that would have some merit only if there were no den- tists available. No stage actor is bringing anything to Hollj^wood that could not be found in abundance on Holly- wood Boulevard before he left New York. The stage actor is not equipped to either talk or act on the screen. In Noah's Ark Noah Beery goes back to his early training and speaks his lines exactly as he would speak them on the stage, with the result that his characterization loses iti force and conviction when he talks, and becomes as ar- tificial as stage characterizations must be. In Interfer- ence the lines are spoken with both force and conviction because they were made parts of screen characterization and were not reminiscent of stage elocution. In spite of direction that seems to have concerned itself more with voice reproduction than with motion picture technic, it is apparent that the members of Interference cast were gov- erned in speaking their lines by what the screen had taught them of naturalness, and in no way were in- fluenced by memories of stage technic. However, in spite of what they might learn from this Paramount produc- tion, most of the producers seem to be proceeding on i i "She Goes to War'' HENRY KING'S production FOR INSPIRATION - HALPERIN PICTURES LLOYD NOSLER FILM EDITOR % i lecember 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five le theory that the advent of sound has relegated screen rt to the background and that motion pictures hereafter lust be patterned after stage productions. It is a folly aat the industry will outgrow, but not, however, until it as proven a most costly one, and one that has done talk- ig pictures great harm. It has brought screen art to a tandstill at a time that should mark its greatest stride )rward. It has instituted a revolution at a time when no svolution was necessary. Screen art had reached its most dvanced stage when it was handed something that could arry it along the road to greater achievement, but it has hosen to forsake the road and to strike out in another irection that can lead only to artistic retrogression. * * * annings Is Magnificent in jatest Paramount Picture rHE performance which Emil Jannings contributes to Sins of the Fathers is not as colorful as the in- spired one he gives in The Patriot. The new picture 5 set in kitchens, cheap saloons and bootleg circles; the ther had a palace for its setting, royal raiment and :!ittering baubles to decorate it, and armies of marching oldiers to serve as background. Ludwig Berger, a Ger- nan who never had made a picture in this country, was riven the distinctly American Sins of the Fathers by Paramount and has done a beautiful job with it. Before lassing final judgment I would like to see both pictures igain, but at the present moment, fresh from the Berger )roduction, I am inclined to the opinion that in the boot- eg yarn Jannings gives even a finer performance than he iid in the Russian picture. In any event, the two per- 'ormances prove him to be a magnificent actor, a truly jreat artist who is equally convincing when as a waiter le carries his tray along a corridor, and when as a ruler le mounts his throne. The Berger picture permits Jan- nings a wide range of expression. We discover him as a contented waiter rejoicing in the birth of a son, and fol- low him to prosperous heights, into prison, and back to his waiting job. We can see the gradual hardening of his face and his whole personality changing with the succes- sive changes in his circumstances. There is a tremendous range of expression between his half-drunken waiter in a paper hat carousing in a beer hall, and his distracted father realizing that his son has become blind through drinking bootleg liquor manufactured by the father, and from the prosperous and alert bootlegger to the aged and broken convict. And through all his joys and sorrows, while he is showering affection on his son or turning out bootleg liquor, he never quite loses our sympathy. He makes us grasp his point of view, something that all actors should do, but which few can. Berger's intelligent direction was a great help to the star. This man whom the Fox organization let go without making a picture, un- questionably is one of the best equipped directors in the business. He is a story-teller. His narrative runs along swiftly but smoothly from the first scene to the last, and there is no resort to those weird camera angles that used to be the trademarks of foreign directors. The chief characteristic of Berger's direction is the intelligenes it displays. Not one character is introduced in close-up. In the opening sequence, a particularly effective restaurant, corridor and kitchen, Jannings is but one of the many waiters, and while the atmosphere is being built up, he is deemed to be of no more importance than any of the others. When, however, the story begins to point to him, we are given a closer shot in order that we can become better acquainted with him. Many times in The Spectator I have advocated this treatment. Throughout the entire picture Berger does not introduce one close-up that is not justified. When two people belong in a scene, both of them are shown, as always should be the case. I com- mend Sins of the Fathers to those American directors who use close-ups to veil their weaknesses. This picture in- troduces Ruth Chatterton to us. The young woman has come among us to stay. She has a peculiar part, as the whole story could be told without her, but she contributes a gem of a performance that matches Jannings' in artistic finish even though Miss Chatterton is not allowed much latitude in showing us what she can do. That most ver- satile of all screen actresses, Zasu Pitts, has a short part. The fact that we do not see her on the screen more fre- quently is a sad reflection on the intelligence of those who make pictures. Barry Norton plays the bootlegger's son, and the part is one to which he is suited admirably. In the scene in which he goes blind and the father dis- covers it, both Norton and Jannings are great. Matthew Betz gives a fine performance, and Jean Arthur, Jack Ludens, and some youngster who plays Norton as a boy, round out a fine production. * * * Erich Pommer Sends Us Over An Entirely Satisfactory Picture ERICH Pommer, one of the world's outstanding pic- ture geniuses whom Hollywood did not appreciate suf- ficiently to keep here when it had the opportunity, has sent us a picture from Germany, Homecoming, which com- pares most favorably with the best we can do in the way of production, acting, photography and direction. Pom- mer, who has more international successes to his credit than any other supervising producer, demonstrated before he came over here that he was one of screen arfs few real masters. If he increased his knowledge while he was here, he applied it to his own way of making pictures instead of allowing it to revolutionize his methods. The opening sequence of Homecoming is reminiscent in its treatment of the first scenes of Hotel Imperial, the first picture he made here for Paramount. The desolation and bleakness of the country in which the two war prisoners around whom the story revolves, are brought out graphic- ally by the use of distorted, leafless trees in the fore- ground, through the dead looking branches of which the landscape is photographed. In other shots we see the same locale, covered with a low fog into which the men descend when they set out on their adventure of escape. The technical perfection of these scenes and the quality of the photography should make Hollywood jealous. In estimating the values of a German-made picture it is not fair to it to look at it only through American eyes, as it was made primarily for its domestic market and if it was successful in pleasing its immediate public it cannot be condemned if it fails to supply all that we demand in our screen entertainment. Homecoming is too long to satisfy completely my personal tastes, and the tempo is too slow in scenes that are not sufficiently dramatic to warrant the footage the slowness of the action consumes. The story is a variation of the Enoch Arden theme: the hus- Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1. 1928 band is recaptured when he and his comrade are endeavoiN ing to escape; the friend gets through, reaches home, and falls in love with the wife of the man for whom he al- most sacrificed his own life. The story reaches the peak of its drama when we discover that the friend and the wife love one another. Prior to this discovery I think it should move faster than it does to bring us more promptly to its more engrossing stage when slow tempo is more per- missible. The husband returns home while the friend and the wife are out. We see them returning, and we an- ticipate a dramatic encounter when they reach the apart- ment in which we had seen them li\'ing together in a re- spectable manner. Pommer builds up suspense by hav- ing the camera follow the two every step of the way while they mount three flights of stairs. Another effective travelling shot takes us along the entire route that one of the men takes from his ship to the apartment. There is but one example of those composite shots that we used to regard as the foreign trademark. The friend and the wife are sleeping on opposite sides of a partition, and filmly superimposed shots acquaint us with the thoughts of both in a distinctly striking manner. For Hollinvood an interesting feature of Homecoming will be the appear- ance in it of Dita Parlo, whose performance earned her a trip from Germany to Hollj'wood and a contract with Paramount. She is a beautiful girl, an accomplished ac- tress, and if the difficulty of language is not a too great handicap, she should prove a good investment. Lars Hansen, whose performance in Captain Salvation is one of my pleasant screen memories, is the husband in Home- coming, who eventually returns to the sea, leaving his wife to his friend. He gives a splendid performance of a serious role. The friend is played by Gustav Froehlich, and it surprises me that Paramount did not send for him also. He is an intelligent, convincing artist. It is sel- dom that we turn out in Hollywood a picture as good as Homecoming. It is not screen fare for morons. It will appeal to the mezzobrows, and from there up, for it has much in it to interest those who view screen offerings in- telligently. I don't know how our audiences will react to the ending, which shows the husband relinquishing his wife to his friend. No other ending was possible if the degree of intelligence that distinguishes the production throughout its course was to be continued to the fade- out. But you can't always sell intelligence. ♦ * * Panning Dick Jones and Then Telling Him That He Made a Good Picture MARY Brian and Buddy Rogers climb to the top of a hill while on a picnic jaunt in Someone to Love, a title that would fit practically all the motion pictures ever made. The fact that they have no breath left is shown by the director, F. Richard Jones, in an ex- ceedingly long shot. Later in another shot just as long, we are told exactly where the young people would like to place the piano in the dream house they would build on the top of the hill. Judging by the rest of the picture, it is fair to assume that these sequences would have been treated in close-ups if it had been possible to squeeze the business within narrow camera lines. This not be- ing possible we are fortunate in having the scenes pre- sented to us exactly as they should be. Later, when she reaches home, Mary tells her father that when Buddy asked her to marry him, "I whispered 'yes', but I felt like yelling it right out loud." Mary need have no mis- givings. The director yelled it right out loud, vulgarly and blatantly, by means of a huge close-up of the be- throthal kiss. Because he could not help himself, he brought out all the values of the picnic and piano-placing scenes by showing them in long shots, but when he came to something so delicate that, as the title intimates, it should be whispered, he takes all the tenderness out of it, all the beauty of the boy-and-girl romance, and presents his bethrothal scene as all other directors have presented them and for the sole reason that it is the way that all other directors present them. At the beginning of this year I said I would present a gold medal to the director who shot the best love scene of the year, and I have not seen one for which I would present the pin that keeps a medal on. In Someone to Love Jones had the setting, the sentiment and a couple of attractive and talented players at hand, all the ingredients required for the ideal love scene, and all he shows us are lips clinging to each other. And Dick Jones does another thing of which he should be ashamed; he fades out finally on another kiss. It is the standard fade-out to which not the slightest trace of intelligence need be applied. In fact, if any thought were applied to it, it would be fatal, for no director who gives thought to his final fade-out possibly could give us one of that sort. Now, having panned Dick quite enough for one paragraph, I would like to remark that he has made a nice little picture of Someone to Love, a clean, jolly lit- tle thing with a pleasing atmosphere, well dressed people, and in good taste all the way through except for the undue intimacy of the camera, a fault that can not be ascribed either to the story or to the acting. And I don't think the things of which I complain will affect the picture greatly at the box-office. If people stayed away from pictures that contained too many close-ups they would see about one a year. But the abuse of close-ups undoubtedly was one of the factors that contributed to the alarming falling off in attendance prior to the advent of sound — not be- cause of the fact that they were close-ups, but because their uniform treatment made pictures monotonously alike. In Someone to Love Rogers has a part that suits him ad- mirably, a light but vigorous part that presents him as a charming American boy. I have spoken already of my high appreciation of Mary Brian's acting. It is a far cry from her dramatic role in The Big Killing to her ro- mantic flutterings in Someone to Love, but she is equally at home in both parts. William Austin, Jack Oakie, Mary Alden, James Kirkwood and Frank Reicher round out an excellent cast. The picture is a remake of Charm School and is going to give general satisfaction, despite all the nasty things I have said about it. * * * Doug MacLean Wants to Get Most of Sue Carol's Earnings QO back a little way: Douglas MacLean was induced to engage Sue Carol to play opposite him in Soft Cushions. She was a girl with no serious thoughts ■ of a screen career, and the idea appealed more to her sense of humor than to any artistic or commercial sense. Her first contact with the material aspect of the adventure was when MacLean told her that to get the Soft Cushions part j she would have to sign a contract placing herself in hisj (ecember 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven ands for a period of five years. He assiired her that it lerely was the usual routine of getting such a part. She aid that she supposed that it was all right, but that she new nothing about contracts and would like to consult er mother before signing anything. That would not suit he MacLean forces; she must sign there and then or lose he part. The privilege of playing opposite such a great tar was a rare one, it was pointed out to her, and she /ould lose it if she insisted upon carrying the contract way for anyone to read. And again she was assured that here was nothing unusual about the matter, that all girls ecured their first parts in that way. Sue signed. A clause .rovided virtually that if she made a hit in Soft Cushions he contract bound her; if she proved a failure, it did not ind MacLean. At the end of any six-month period Mac- ^an could drop her, but she could not free herself from dm until the end of the five-year period. MacLean risked ieither money nor judgment in the transaction. He secured , leading woman for one hundred dollars a week, and if he proved a success he could get that much money back ly renting her out for two or three times what he had to lay her. Sue Carol's personality appealed to the public. i.lmost overnight she became a great favorite. She has m extraordinary personality whose dominant note is nice- less. She is in demand by producers— and they must deal vith MacLean. Already she is worth, and he is paid, sev- Tal times what she draws from him. She merely is a ihattel to rent out for what she will bring. Some individ- lal producers have players under contract to assure them leing available when they are wanted for their employers' )ictures. Not so MacLean. He doesn't use Sue Carol in lis own pictures. He can rent her out for several times What he need pay someone else to play opposite him. If le wants a new suit of clothes, Sue need work only a day 3r two and earn it for him. If he wants a new car, a few weeks of Sue sweating before a camera on a stuffy set, or shivering through night work on location, will earn it for him. He risked nothing — took no chances — invested no oaoney— spent no time in teaching her anything— but for the next four years, if the courts uphold him, the golf balls he uses will be paid for by her labor, the suppers he serves his friends will represent hours she spends on sets, and he can laugh at a dollar lost at poker because he can get it back from Sue. Rich already, and with a princely income, he snarls his way into court to fight for the extra dollars that this girl's labor will bring him. Like Shylock, he has but one argument: "It is so nominated in the bond!" A contract that outrages all sense of fairplay and decency may be legal, and perhaps the courts will present Sue Carol with the alternative of leaving the screen or keep- »-----■■■---***■■"*■*''''*''**'*'''''" Louise^ "^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 4857 BEVERLY BOULEVARD (Corner of Van Ness) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 ing Douglas MacLean for the next four years. I would have no quarrel with this if she had been told frankly in the first place what she was signing, if she had not been given to understand that it was the only way in which a girl could get a part, or if MacLean had contributed any- thing, no matter how little, to the success of her career. Nor am I interested in it as a personal matter between the two of them. I regard it as a reflection upon the motion picture industry which tolerates such practices. MacLean claims that he has made but little money out of the contract. Why, in God's name, should he make any? And, as for the truth of his statement, will he permit me to appoint an accountant to examine his books? He may accept that as a challenge. * * * FROM the Literary Digest of November 10th: "The excitement over the prospect of hearing the movies talk hasn't dealt much with the problem of what they will say. We have worried, as have the actors themselves not a little, about how they will say it, but what— that has been neglected. When crucial scenes come on the silent screen even the continuity writer is silent. The climax of the love-scene is that gulping kiss, and the preliminary instant in each case seems to give evidence that the lovers intend to swallow each other. It is a relief to see some of these features of the film drama discussed at last in The Film Spectator (Hollywood), and it is not less interesting to see that the words proceed from The Spec- tator's 'eighteen-year-old critic', Donald Beaton, who treats the subject with vigor." The Digest proceeds to quote Donald at length, and devotes the remainder of one of its valuable pages to quoting my remarks about the vulgarity that is injected into screen love scenes. Estimating on the basis of its circulation. The Digest has at least five million readers. It has not gained this great number by publishing what it deems the public ought to know. It has become one of the world's greatest publication suc- cesses because it gives the public what it wants. It would not devote an entire page to quotations from such an obscure little paper as The Spectator if it did not know that the quotations dealt with a subject that would be received with favor by the public. In other words, The Digest knows that its readers are fed up on vulgar kisses, and it pleases its readers by quoting from a publication that has put into words the thoughts of these Digest readers. And in still other words, if The Digest did not know that The Spectator's criticisms were sound, that the evil complained of is a real one, it would not devote one inch, much less one page, of its space to a discussion of it. • * * ALEXANDER Korda directed Night Watch with rare intelligence, succeeding in making it one of the most enjoyable pictures I have seen for some time. The story formula is interesting. One difficulty that is encountered when a story is told in cut-backs is telling the story con- vincingly under the handicap of being forced to tell only that part of it that could be known to the person from whom the cut is made. For instance. A, in giving testi- mony in court, can not repeat a conversation that took place between B and C when A was not present. Night Watch gets away from this difficulty cleverly. Billie Dove takes the stand at the naval court martial of her husband Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 1928 on the charge of murder. She says there are those present in the room who can round out her story; she names them, and they surround her while she gives her evidence. When the recital reaches a scene in which she did not appear, we presume it is being carried on by those who were a party to it. Korda uses the camera in the trial scene in a highly effective manner. It might be the eye of a spectator that roves all over the room, resting for a moment on those whose connection with the case makes them interesting. First National has placed its gorgeous Billie in an impressive setting in this picture, providing a production of both pictorial and dramatic value, and Korda fills it with clever touches. We have a shot of Paul Lukas listening to something, and superim- posed on the shot is a scene showing what he hears — his wife leaving him and closing the door behind her. That Korda understands the use of groups instead of close-ups as aids to drama, is apparent throughout the picture. Another good touch is the omission to tell the audience the verdict reached by the court-martial. We see Lukas being congratulated by his friends and we know all about it. Miss Dove, Lukas, Nicholas Soussanin and Donald Reed contribute excellent performances to what is alto- gether an exceedingly satisfactory picture. * * • AN interesting method is resorted to by Erich Pommer, who produced the Ufa picture Homecoming, to add impressiveness to the sacrifice made in the last sequence when the husband goes to sea and leaves his wife to his friend, with whom she fell in love when the husband was a prisoner of war. An early title acquainted us with the fact that the husband relinquished the sea to please his wife. Now he is going back to it, still loving his wife. We see the officer on the bridge order the lines cast off; we see Lars Hansen, the husband, repeat the order to men on the dock; we see the lines cast off — and we con- tinue to see each of the score of things that are done when a liner is pulling out. With each bit of action the finality of the sacrifice of the husband becomes impressed upon us more. It is a display of picture intelligence that we could expect from Pommer. Homecoming was directed by Joe May, but bears the unmistakable mark of Pommer all the way through. * * » TT 7 HEN sound is applied generally to pictures there '•^ will be no age limit for screen lovers. Heretofore the screen has been trying to make us believe that romances were the exclusive possessions of people in their early twenties, and this in spite of the fact that precious few people of that tender age have any ability to act part of a romance convincingly. When our players talk, however, we are going to be permitted to learn that occasionally older people fall in love, and when the older people enact their love scenes we should have some that realize all the tenderness, sweetness and romance that such scenes must have to make them true to life — that is, we may obtain such results if directors can be persuaded to allow experienced players to enact them in their own way. I understand that Irene Rich and Richard Tucker are to carry the romance in a picture to be made shortly. Somehow or other I can't quite imagine them enacting a love scene in exactly the same way as Clara Bow and Jimmie Hall, say, would enact one, but I am sure their method of handling it will be a refreshing departure that will retain the sentimental quality that love scenes should possess. * * * A MONG the medals which The Spectator will offer for •^*- worthy film accomplishments during 1928 probably will be a pair for every couple of screen people who be- come engaged or marry without supplying the papers with photographs of them kissing one another. GARNERED IN THE MAIL I congratulate you upon the able manner in which you accepted the producers' challenge to outline your method of instituting production reforms. You presented your case brilliantly, but have you taken into account, in advocating the preparation of stories one year in advance, that styles in stories change, and that a story prepared this year might not be the kind of story the public will be looking for next year? A. J. B. A good story made into a good picture is never out of date. The reason a given kind of story ceases to interest the public u'hen presented in a picture, is the poor manner in which it is liild. Producers create a vogue for a certain kind of picture, and kill the vogue by the many inferior imitations of the picture that scored the first success. But it is good business for pro- ducers to foltoiv the current trend, ivhich makes A. J. B.'s question pertinent. However the trend ivould not change enough during the time that would elapse under my production plan hctwecn the preparation of a story and its production to affect .seriously its success as a picture. It takes a feiv years for the mind of the public to complete its turnover, and the vogue for one kind of screen entertainment dissolves slowly into the one tfiat is to succeed it. During the transition period a good picture along either line will have no box-office worries. But to my mind, the U'oy to make money producing pictures is to forget vogue, box-office and everything else except the particular pic- ture in course of production at the moment. Any great picture zcill establish its oitm vogue. The directors who have given the best they have to motion pictures for years should be grateful to you for the manner in which you have criticized producers for bringing in stage directors from the East to take the jobs of those who brought the silent drama up to the place where sound found it. I, for one, thank you. A DIRECTOR. Directors had better restrain themselves when they feel any \cild urge to thank me. Taken by and large, directors have a lower mental average than the personnel of any other branch engaged in the making of pictures. Only a handful of them know what it is about. I think this correspondent zvould have come nearer the truth if he had said that our present directors ^ brought the silent drama down, instead of up, to the place where , sound found it. The advancement of any art has been brought PAT ROONEY and MARION BENT are among the highest salaried comedy entertainers — headline features on any bill. While active as a vaude- ville author, it was my privilege to write two very suc- cessful acts for them. JAMES MADISON Originals — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5G27 December 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine about by the fact that each of its products has been a separate creation. On account of the lack of intelligence on the part of directors, each product of screen art has not been a separate creation. The patrons of the art were forsaking it because pictures became monotonously alike. Not more than one in tivo score of them contained a suggestion of a new thought, and it is only on new thoughts that any art thrives. I have opposed the importation of stage directors on principle, for I think it is of importance to us to remember that we still are in the motion picture business and have not been taken over by the stage, but at the same time I can not see from where producers are going to get e>iough directors with sufficient intelligence to handle talking pictures as they should be handled. Heretofore the stupidest director had the cutting-room to rely upon to help him m-ake a good picture. With talking pictures, intelligence must be displayed all the time shooting is in progress. That is what is going to make it tough for most of the directors we have now. There is another thing, a little difficult to ex- plain, but very irritating on the screen. I saw it exemplified in Jolson's Singing Fool — all the more noticeable in an otherwise perfect picture. His little boy is dying. He arrives at the hospital trembling with agitation and opens the door. It is a small room and the bed with the boy in it is right in front of him. Does he make one dash to the bed? Certainly not. Says the director: "Get suspense!" So he stands looking hither and yon with an agonized expression, then, my God! He sees the bed! Hah! He sees the child!! . . . And the rest goes on all right. It is the same when a person receives an important letter or telegram — one that he has been expecting with impatience, as it means life or death to him or his hopes. The message arrives and is handed to the actor. Does he snatch it, tear it open and devour the contents at once ? Oh no, no, — nothing like that. He invariably looks at the person who has given him the letter — a long, be- wildered stare — then his eyes travel north, south, east and west before he glances down and sees to his surprise that he is holding the letter. Then the thought dawns in his mind — the audience is not spared any of the dawning — "Hah! I will open the letter." Which he does to everyone's relief and to my own private and particular rage. — An Admiring and Constant Reader. // Constant Reader has read my comments on the note from A Director, she can fix the responsibility for the stupidities of which she complains. No director knows why he makes an actor look searchingly into the eyes of another actor who hands him an important letter. It always is done, and that is enough for the average director. Nor can any director tell you ivhy A, when entering a room in search of B, does not make a quick survey of the room and spot B, but instead, looks elab- orately in every direction e.rcept the right one, and then, by a process of visual elimination, finally discovers B directly in front of him, at zvhich he shakes himself violently, looks astounded, extends his arms and then hops off in the direction of B. These utterly ridiculous things are variations of follies zvhich the screen inherited from the stage, and the fact that practically all our directors use them is one of the reasons why I have a poor opinion of the mentality of directors as a class. Of course, not all the stupidities in a given picture are blamable on the director. There are producers and supervisors it'/io can see no virtue in anything that is not done as it always has been done since the first man did it. They remind me of the hens on Uncle Will's farm. When I used to visit the farm as a boy, Uncle Will had a dog. Rover, whose chief duty it zvas to cliase the hens out of the vegetable garden. Soon the hens learned not to zvait for the dog; zvhen they heard the call, "Rover!", they zuould beat it. That zvas over forty years ago. To-day on the same farm, zvhen the hens get into the vegetable garden, someone calls "Rover!" and they scurry through or over the fence. They don't knozo why they do it, and because they have no greater reasoning faculties than the average motion picture director, they never zvill find out ivhy. the place of the prologues which have hitherto been a feature of Mr. Grauman's theatres. My conten- tion is that we can see these Vitaphone comedies any day for a very moderate price of admission, but there is only one Chinese theatre. (The Carthay Circle apparently having abandoned stage shows as part of their program.) With the exception of Robert Benchly and Edward Everett Horton, I have found these Vitaphone comedians very third rate. Surely you do not seriously mean to suggest that a couple of vaudeville comedians acting funny in front of a camera and a microphone can take the place of the gorgeous tableaux which preceded and formed a perfect atmosphere for King of Kings? And what of the waste of the possibilities of the magnificent stage at the Chinese, second largest in the city, I believe? ROBERT S. SHILLAKER. Mr. Shillaker makes the same mistake that nearly all of my other correspondents make in their letters to me about sound pictures. He seetns to think that audible screen art already has progressed as far as it is going to. When I stated it as my opinion that the Grauman prologues some day would be pre- sented on the screen instead of on the stage, I did not mean that the change would be made until there zvas available screen entertainment tliat matched in quality the stage entertainment tliat hitherto has been proz'ided. All my enthusiasm for sound is based on the promise given in zvlmt zvc have seen already, and I have accepted nothing that I have seen yet as more than a suggestion of zvhat we zvill see in the future. As to the zvaste of the Chinese stage — that will be more than offset by the saving that sound prologues ztfill effect. One feature of all industrial progress is the process of scrapping equipment that has been outgrozim. It is waste that is absorbed by the greater earnings of the new development. No one can bemoan the passing of anything that is succeeded by something better. The Louise Gude Studios OF SINGING 1004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 — Voice Trial Gratis — NEUMODE HOSIERY Specialists Selling Nothing but Perfect Hosiery NEUMODE HOSIERY STORES 6429 Hollywood Boulevard Warner Bros. Theatre Bldg. I hope you will turn out to be a false prophet in predicting that Vitaphone short subjects will take Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are pai-ticular about the kind of printing they get. The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 ■^ J Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 1928 AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Y ear-Old Critic THERE was a time when any German made picture brought shrieks of ecstasy from everyone connected with the industry, due to what was supposed to be their artistry. However, that time has passed; and Ameri- can pictiires are far better than anything Germany has to offer, judging from Homecoming, which is supposed to be the greatest ever to emerge from that country. All I can say is that the Germans must be patient people who must have everything explained plainly for them, and who can't understand subtlety. No American audience would stand the nine reels which were used to tell five of story, nor could it sit through all the careful explanations of what it was all about. The Germans must be a peculiar people, anyway. In this country, if a man comes home and discovers his best friend living with his wife, he picks up a chair and bounces it on the friend's cranium; but the man in this picture just sat around heavily and moaned. Then he departed and got a job on a ship, leav- ing his wife to the friend. True, he nearly shot the friend, but after due deliberation, he changed his mind. In a situation like that the tendency is to shoot and think afterwards. All this was put over in a series of uninter- esting closeups which made the picture drag like a travelogue. It wouldn't have been so bad if the picture had told the story swiftly and concisely, and had been only five reels long; but the way it was, it would have worn out any audience. Foreign made pictures have to be very good to go over at all in America, because the temperaments of the people are so different that what seems natural to the one is abnormal to the other. Action is the only thing under- stood by both nations, and there wasn't any of that in Homecoming. There were just a lot of close-ups showing them trying to put over some emotion or other. It was quite difficult to know what they meant. There were only three people in the cast of Homecom- ing. The latest foreign importation, Dita Parlo, was one of them. I will admit that she is somewhat better than most of the Europeans, but there are hundreds of girls right here in Hollywood who are far better than she. They can speak English, too, which is a consideration now. Lars Hansen, whose soul or something was revolted by the way they made pictures in America, is also a mem- ber of the cast. No sour grapes, but we haven't lost much. His emotions are a bit too obscure for my obtuseness. The other member of the cast was a man with an un- pronounceable and unrememberable name, but he put it all over the rest of them when it came to acting. He was good. Joe May handled the direction, which probably makes him responsible for all the slowness. He must be given credit, though, for the way he used his camera at times. Why he put in trick shots which were good and speeded up the action, and then threw av/ay all he had gained by a lot of stupid closeups is a mystery. Germany isn't go- ing to be America's great rival if this is the best it can do. * * * THE latest stupidity to be committed by the motion picture moguls is the feverish signing of stage people to play in sound pictures, when there are so many picture trained actors who could do just as well. A mo- tion picture actor who knows a lot about the mechanics of acting before the camera and nothing about stage stuff is far more valuable than the man who never has been filmed before, but has done work before the footlights, because the art of acting in talking pictures is something absolutely new, and it is far easier to teacli someone some- thing than to make him forget the training of a lifetime. Picture people will soon pick up the art of speaking for the microphone, but it will take much longer for the stage actors to unlearn everything they have known for years. Another popular but mistaken belief is that sound will make up for pantomime, thereby making everything but the knowledge of correct speech unnecessary. The main fault with Interference was that it was nothing but a camera view of a stage play, and didn't realize its op- portunities as an exponent of an absolutely new and dif- ferent art. Sound pictures are going to reach their ultimate as an art when they have reduced the dialogue necessary to the telling of the story to a minimum. Therefore, trained screen actors are going to be the im- portant people; because of the two qualities vital to sound pictures, whicli are a knowledge of film technique and the ability to speak dialogue, the picture training is the most important. Stage actors will have to learn to tone down their voices and not make their emotions quite so robust as they do when appearing before an audience which is a little way from them. Sound pictures bring the actors so close to the people viewing them that the stage calisthenics are too actorish. An actor before the footlights has a tendency to throw his voice out as much as possible, while sound pictures demand that they be not so powerful. It is going to be hard for stage people to hold themselves back in the dramatic moments; but a picture actor, who is trained just for the talkers, will experience no difficulty, because it will be the thing to which he is used. Incidentally, while this rush is going on, some pro- ducer will do very well if he goes down and takes a look at the work of Stanley Taylor, who is playing in Night- stick, the current offering at The President. Taylor does a scene which is masterly due to the repression and feel- ing in it, and makes it the outstanding thing in the play. He has done good work in small parts on the screen for a long time, but never has seemed to get a break. Who- ever gets him is going to be glad of it later, when the public signifies at the box-office its approval of his talent. While I am speaking of Nightstick, I must pay my ri' spects to the other member of the film world who is in the cast — Patsy Ruth Miller. Pat hns a poor part, bui she handles it so well that I can truthfully say that she i^; as charming on the stage as she is on the screen. * * * WHOEVER has the job of thinking up and selecting the stories for the Emil Jannings vehicles ought to snap out of the present type, which is being done to death. I'm getting awfully sick of seeing Jannings going to wrack and ruin, even though he does it well; and I imagine that there are other people who think the same thing. The .Tannings pictures are being made more and more dependent on the star himself. There is no man who can carry a whole picture himself, and it would be far more profitable if .Jiinnings were given more stories on the order of that of The Patriot, where he had plenty of support. Also, I think he ought to essay some comedy, which he could do splendily. In spite of the old story, Sins of the Fathers is a good picture, though it drags in spots. Ludwig Berger directed with intelligence and clev- erness, his work saving the picture from dullness. The whole thing might have been speeded up by the elimina- tion of a lot of scenes which weren't vitally necessary to the development of the story, and the big moments didn't seem to click as they should have. There were some in- tensely dramatic scenes which didn't realize their oppor- tunities, and left one with a rather unsatisfied feeling. However, much to my gratification, they didn't put on an unhappy ending just because it happened to be a Jan- nings picture. 'There was no reason why the story shouldn't have ended with everybody happy, but everyone seems to think that any picture which Jannings is in must end with him jumping in front of a truck or dying with a gizzard full of lead. One thing in particular which I liked was the fact that Barry Norton wasn't given back his sight by a miracle or something. Things like that December 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven don't happen in real life and shouldn't on the screen, but it will take one of the bolts from Heaven which were so profusely distributed in Noah's Ark to keep people from doing it. Perhaps the reason that I liked Sins of the Fathers so well was because the story was logically worked out. Logic in screen stories is far too rare, and when it is found, the picture is bound to be good. There isn't the slightest doubt that Emil Jannings is the greatest male actor we have. Whatever his character, he lives it and thinks it. He has the gift of being able to show his thought processes in his eyes and expression, and the brilliance to lose himself completely in his part, so that he won't think anything but what is pertinent to his role. Ruth Chatterton plays opposite Jannings, and gives what would have been a brilliant performance on the stage, but which is a bit too violent for the screen. This is just her first picture, though; so she probably will tone down considerably after a while. She also has the gift of losing herself in a characterization, and ought to become as outstanding on the screen as she is on the stage. Incidentally she was handicapped by being unable to use her voice. Barry Norton plays the son who goes blind from drinking his father's whiskey; and does very good work, particularly in the scene where he loses his sight. If he had a more likeable screen personality, he would go a long way. Matthew Betz, as usual, was a heavy, and a good one; and Jack Luden and Jean Arthur made the love interest attractive. * * * THE Night Watch is the finest picture which Alexander Korda has done, because he has been given a story and opportunities to demonstrate how well he can handle his camera. Added to that he has fine perform- ances from his entire cast, which is headed by Bilhe Dove and Paul Lukas. He told his story logically and mtel- ligently, and didn't mess it up with a lot of closeups, a sm he has committed with great regularity until this picture. Just why he dressed all his characters in modern clothes when the story is laid at the opening of the World War is unexplained. That's a common fault of directors, and Michael Curtiz deserves credit for not committing it in Noah's Ark. Whoever did the continuity performed a miracle when he made the girl get caught on the battle- ship without making her an absolute idiot, as nine out of ten would have. Most writers would have had her kittenishly concealing herself in one of the boilers, mean- ing to pop out later and surprise everybody into a state of collapse. The scenes wherein she is caught on the departing warship are powerful and logical. Korda has a great stunt of superimposing the figure of one of his characters upon whatever he happens to be thinking of or seeing. Thereby we are enabled to see the action and the reaction at one and the same time. It is one of the clever- est camera artifices yet employed. , . , ., All through The Night Watch the camera work is bril- liant. The smoothness with which it tells its story is greatly aided by Korda's habit of pan shots rather than cuts, a thing which gives a very valuable sense of con- tinuity and doesn't distract the attention with a lot of spasmodic jumps. The story of the picture is concerned with a woman who saves her husband from conviction on a murder charge by testimony which, to say the least, doesn't do her reputation any good, although she really is innocent of any wrong-doing. After the trial was over, I expected that, in accordance with motion picture tradi- tions, her husband would have none of her; and she would take to drink or something for a reel or two, until he saw the error of his ways. Much to my surprise, nothing like that happened, which shows that Korda has sense enough not to try to start another story in a picture where he already has completed the telling of one. Ine husband took her back into his heart (I ought to write romances, like Jim Tully) in what was a splendid ending. It was highly satisfactory and another evidence that Korda is a wizard with the camera. As I said, the acting in The Night Watch was above re- proach. Billie Dove gave the finest performance she has yet to her credit, to my knowledge, at least. She was given a chance to do more than stand around ornamentally, so she used it by giving a performance which was out- standing for its artistry and power. Paul Lukas has a screen personality which would have made an impression even if he couldn't do the wonderful work he did. Nicholas Soussanin, as usual, was the suave, polished menace; and Donald Reed did very well as the slightly indiscreet young lieutenant. The man who played Reed's orderly was very fine, but I couldn't get his name. * * * TAY Garnett in The Spieler takes one of the oldest plots yet known to man and with the aid of four fine troupers, makes a very good picture. This is the first picture of Garnett's I have seen since he was elevated to director, and I must say that he learns rapidly. There is nothing fancy about his work; he tells his story without any frills or wasted motion, something which is slowly becoming a lost art. Taking it all in all, The Spieler is a very good workman-like job; and since they are rather rare, Garnett deserves a great deal of credit. He and I never did agree about Skyscraper, which he thought was great, and which left me cold; but I think we'll agree about this one. The story is that good old standby about the girl who is trying to run her deceased father's business and is being persecuted by a lot of thieves. The hero comes to see what he can gather from the ruins; but after eating one of her waffles, remorse or indigestion makes him reform; and he cleans out the crooks. It's pretty hard to do much of anything with a theme as old as that, particularly when it is laid in a carnival, a setting which is being nearly as overworked as the underworld. How- ever, good direction and good acting will go a long way; and they made this quite good. Oh yes, before I forget, the story was so old that it even had the two roughnecks who were pals through everything. One was killed, of course. Garnett's direction revealed that he has gained by his association with Howard Higgin on a picture or two. There is no one directing who can touch Higgin when it comes to drawing roughnecks as such, and not as made up actors. When one of his characters makes love, he does it about as delicately as a kick from a mule, not as would the Russian prince he played in the preceding pic- ture. Garnett has absorbed a lot of that, so his romance in The Spieler is exceedingly good and true to type. It is enacted by two of the finest troupers we have, Alan Hale and Renee Adoree. Never once do they go into the clinch prescribed by motion picture conventions, yet their love is just as powerful and far more wholesome than that pur- veyed by our two leading wrestlers, Gilbert and Garbo. They weren't the type for such stuff, and Garnett had sense enough to see it. I've only one quarrel with the direction. The heavy and his gang got away with stuff that was far too raw. He shot a man in plain view and hearing of hundreds of people, but wasn't caught. I wish I knew the secret of immunity, because there are lots of people I would like to shoot publicly. , . - mu In addition to Hale and Miss Adoree, the cast of Ihe Spieler contained Fred Kohler and Clyde Cook, so the roster of brilliant actors was kept intact. Hale can put over more subtle acting and still be a he-man than any- body in the business, and Miss Adoree always captures the sympathy of the audience, in addition to leading them to admire her splendid work. Kohler has an elemental power and vigor which put him at the forefront of rough- neck heavies. Cook's work was a clever blending of comedy and pathos, with not so much humor as usual. John Krafft, as usual, wrote a set of titles which were in keeping with the picture to a degree which seems to make his future as a writer of dialogue safe. 'i Paramount 100% AU- Talking Picture Interference Carthay Circle Theatre Evelyn Brent, CHve Brook, Doris Keuyon and Williara Powell I Daily 2:15 — 8:30 Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 1928 Reviewed in this Number NIGHTWATCH, THE— A First National picture. -Directed by Alexander Korda; adaptation and continuity by Lajos Biro; photographed by Karl Struss; costume director, Max Eee; art director, Max Parker; edited by George McGuire. The cast: Billie Dove, Paul Lukas, Donald Reed, Nicholas Soussanin, Anita Garvine, Gustav Partos, William Tooker, George Periolat, Nicholas Bela. SINS OF THE FATHERS— A Paramount picture. Directed by Ludwig Berger; story by Norman Burnstine; adaptation and con- tinuity by E. Lloyd Sheldon; photographed by Victor Milner; dialogue scenes directed by Roy J. Pomeroy. The cast: Emil Jannings, Ruth Chatterton, Barry Norton, Jean Arthur, Zasu Pitts, Mathew Betz, Jack Luden, Arnold Kent, Arthur Housman. SOMEONE TO LOVE— A Paramount picture. Directed by F. Richard Jones; from the story by Alice Duer Miller; adapted by Ray Harris; screen play by Keene Thompson and Monte Brice; photographed by Allen Siegler; assistant direc- tor, Arthur Jacobson. The cast: Charles (Buddy) Rogers, Mary Brian, William Austin, Jack Oakie, James Kirkwood, Frank Reicher. SPIELER, THE— A Pathe picture. Directed by Tay Garnett; produced by Ralph Block; author, Hal Conklin; scenarists, Hal Conklin and Tay Garnett; assistant director, R. M. Fellows; production manager, Harry H. Poppe; photo- graphed by Art Miller; art director, Edward J. Jewell; edited by Doane Harrison. The cast: Alan Hale, Renee Adoree, Clyde Cook, Fred Kohler, Fred Warren, Jimmy Quinn, Kewpie Morgan. THE LAUREL GROVE By FRANK T. DAUGHERTY FOR the n'th time I have been reading an old book that has given me much food for thought. It is a book about wars and other things that have to do with human weal and woe, and between its covers are some of the most delightful stories it has ever been my pleasure to read. I am amazed that the movies seem hardly aware of it. I remember in particular a story that tells of two young men and of a friendship that was formed between them. One of these young men was the son of the reign- ing king of the land, and when his father's army was at a deadlock with the army of the enemy, he went out early one morning with only his armour-bearer to see what might be done by an adventurous young man alone. And it is recorded that as he went he determined in his heart that if the enemy outpost challenged him, he would go back, but if they told him to come up, up he would go. And they told him to come up, and he went up and slew twenty of them in about as many minutes. This hardly seemed a moi ning's work, so he advanced on against the main body of the alien army, and his father, looking out over the battle-field a little later, saw his foe's host in a great confusion, fighting among themselves. Wondering who could have begun the battle so well, he had his own army numbered, and found only his son and his son's armour-bearer missing. You would have sup- posed that this would have pleased him, and no doubt it did, the book doesn't say — but after the enemy had been ' ut to rout and the field vi-as heaped with their slain, the book says that the king found a quarrel with his son be- cause in the heat of the fight he had picked up a bit of honey on the end of his spear and had eaten it. It seems the king had given orders that no one should eat till sun- down. And for this slight fault, the choler of the king was aroused and he determined in himself to put his son to death. The ways of fathers with their sons were stranger in those days even than they are today. But the army objected, and the young man was allowed to live. * * * AND hardly had this matter been settled when the king's army was set in array against another invading host. And this time things looked very dark indeed for the people of the land, who had been sure up to now that their king would save them. And from one of the coun- trysides over against one of the mountainous districts of the land, came a young stripling from his father's house with corn and bread for his elder brothers, three of whom had joined themselves to the army of the king, and with fresh cheeses for the captains of his brothers' companies. And as very often happened in great battles of those days, about this time the enemy sent out a champion between the lines to challenge the best warrior the king's army could send against him. So the king offered one of his daughters to whoever would go out and bring him in the head of this champion. (This was another ancient practice of those times.) And hearing all the talk, and noticing the reluctance of the king's warriors, the stripling began telling, modestly enough, how he had recently killed both a tsear and a lion with his own hands back in the hill country, and how he didn't think this champion would be so very much worse to face. Of course his audacity was hotly de- nounced by his brothers, who called him a bragging coun- try bumpkin or something and tried to send him home, after the manner of brothers everywhere; but the king had heard the words of the stripling, and they pleased him, and he sent him out to fight the challenger. And in a very short while the stripling came back with the head of the enemy champion and set it before the king. I haven't read yet whether he got the king's daughter; but I am minded that, a little after this, the young prince and the valiant stripling chanced to meet, and when they looked at each other, the book says, they loved each other. . . and you don't wonder at it at all. And the name of the young prince was Jonathan, and of the country boy, David. * * * AND of course someone is going to take me to task and say, "Oh, you mean the Bible — but that's been done. Look at The Ten Commandments and The King of Kings!" And I will have to answer that I do mean the Bible — but that I don't by any chance mean The Ten Commandments or The King of Kings. They were all right as far as they went. Somehow, I didn't seem to get very much from either one of them. I mean the pic- tures, of course; not the real Ten Commandments nor the real King of Kings. Those two things have guided many a civilization and many a nation and many an in- dividual into higher planes of thought than I dare to venture very often. But that's just my complaint. Here the movies try to present in seven reels and in two hours what the rest of the world has spent upwards of six thou- sand years learning and pondering. Why, any one of the Ten Commandments, or any one of the acts of the King of Kings ought to make a movie — ought to make a hundred movies. Somehow, both these pictures seemed just as preposterous to me as if some movie producer should attempt to make a history of the univers- in seven reels. And maybe that could be more adequately handled. * * * BUT in the Old Testament and in the New, are stories of transcending charm and far-reaching import, which could be made into pictures very nicely. And very profitably, too. Think what a pastorale the story of Ruth would make! Beginning with the tragedy in the lives of the noble Naomi and Ruth, and ending with the golden harvests in the land where "thy people" shall have become "my people", and with the marriage of Boaz to Ruth. Such stories are not, strictly speaking, sermons. They do not ram a moral down your throat and then seal it there with a lot of self-righteous preachments, as so many of us do when we try to tell a story with a moral. Told as simple narratives, and deviating not so much as a hair's breadth from their originals, they stand in their own right as great and noble heritages of the race. Does December 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen some producer think he will be taking a chance because they are "religious"? But who can they offend? If the preachers, then the preachers do not believe their own Book. And if the public — then the fault will not be with the stories, but with the way they are produced. * * * SAFARI, a Saga of the African Blue, by Mr. Martin John- son (G. P. Putnam & Sons) I stopped reading when I came to the place where Mr. Johnson tells how he and Mrs. Johnson are going to remain for the rest of their lives in Africa beside a lake of ultramarine blue called "Paradise". There was a picture of the lake. You can call it jealousy if you like. Anyhow, it's much easier to see Mr. Johnson's pictures, with pretty Mrs. Johnson in them, than it is to read his prose. * t * CE. Scoggins' White Fox (Bobbs- Merrill Co.) is an- other of his Saturday Evening Post stories got out * in book form for those who care to keep him per- manently on the shelf. I number myself among these. * * * THERE is something about a young man setting out to seek his fortune that stirs even the most unroman- tic heart. I never fail to thrill at it. If I am seeing such a young man off, I want to slip onto his train or into his boat-berth and remain there all unknown to conductors or deck hands until we are too far from our starting point for them to throw me off. I want to forget all about duties and cares and all the homely, everyday things that hold me in bondage, and just start out again-— another young man seeking his fortune, a light heart his only asset. And yet, of course, I never do. And I never do because of a number of good and sufficient reasons. In my nonnage it was the custom among my school- boy friends of the great Northwoods country (an almost obligatory custom) for the lads who were considered worth their salt to dare all and leave all and set out for fame and fortune about the time evolution and a rather healthy growth pushed us from knickers into long pants. And so I suppose I wore out that fortune-seeking lust before the average young man of today has graduated from fractions to long division. At any rate, the tender age of thirteen found me lying on my back looking up at very cold and very distant stars, while under me rumbled and shook and crashed the slow midnight freight north- ward bound from Seattle. That was a thrill! What visions I had! What dreams I dreamed! But after a while the visions and the dreams passed, and sleep which I had learned for thirteen years to expect every night, didn't come. Instead, came qualms, and wonderings, and bone-shaking cold. What would my mother think? Why hadn't I told her? Why hadn't I asked for a little money? But I won't go into all that. Centuries later it was dawn, and the now quite horrible and horrifying freight pulled into the little town of Everett, thirty miles from home. Somehow I made my way back, but it was the first olive out of the bottle and the rest came easy. That summer it was Yakima and fruit-picking, and the next Pressor and the high Horse- heaven country. After that, Kansas, Washington, D. C, Alaska. Fortune was always in the place I wasn't, al- ways just lying over the next hill. » * * WHAT an old story that is. Older than this nation. Old as the race itself. Centuries ago, barbarian tribes sent their youths to Babylon, then Egypt, then Athens, then Rome, then Oxford and the Sorbonne — now London, Paris, New York, Hollywood! And what a false siren is that lure. How bloated with rich young blood which, left to its natural habitat, might have flowed natur- ally into productive activity, a fireside, children, wise old age. All the centuries that have gone before teach that lesson. All the writers, all the painters, all the poets who ever wrote or painted or poetized anything worth while, began at home — and usually stayed there. Byron, Shelley, Keats, Wilde, have a lesson for anyone with eyes to see. Manet, had he lived there, could have painted the back fences of Watts as beautifully as any of his pictures of his beloved France. Emerson's adage about the world com- ing to your door-step for your better mouse-trap is so true, so axiomatic, that everyone but youth knows it, has learned it long years ago through the hard trials of ex- perience. * * * • BUT there he goes, that young man, off for Mexico City, for Trinidad, for London, for Constantinople! The quick step, the light heart, the devil-may-care look in the eye — you can mark him in every city in every land. He is courting trouble, but doesn't care, because he doesn't know it. He will suffer, but isn't afraid, because he has never suffered. He is on the boat now, the so conspicu- ously foreign boat he has wanted you to see. He points with his stick (ah, that stick — how much it reveals!) to the sign over the companionway and shows you his knowl- edge of the language by repeating it. "Passajeros." He sees a little group of women get on and whispers, "Female Passajeros!" You are introduced in turn to "row-boatas", "ropa", "masto", "deck chairos" until your sides shake with laughter. Then it is goodbye — "Buenos dias!" and you are standing on the dock and the boat is gone. Oh, young man — oh, all brave young men — there are so many things we wish we could tell you. But maybe it's better that we can't. * * * LIKE many another American of hardy English-Scotch- Irish-German-French-Basque descent, I am very fond of the dish known to the Menu Writer's Guild as Prime Roast Ribs of Beef au jus. On a recent journey to Hollywood in search of this specialty among the touted restaurants there, I happened, quite unfortunately, to enter one of the most celebrated of these establishments at a very inopportune time. For on either side of me, where I finally obtained a seat, were men I quickly rec- ognized as motion picture actors. And very poor ones at that — actors who don't so much as get their names men- tioned in the front pages of this periodical once in a twelvemonth. Now, it has been my habit, insofar as I have found that practicable, to avoid a certain type of actor. And these men were that type. And it wasn't long before I was wishing devoutly that I had chosen a different time to visit that particular restaurant, or that I had gone instead to some other restaurant far removed from Hollywood. For one of these actors, and one of the waiters, had become involved in a highly colored con- versation about another actor's wife. With many a low tone and quick side-glance to make sure that no one could possibly overhear them — evidently forgetting that I sat a scant six inches from the actor's elbow — they proceeded to tear this poor woman's reputation to shreds. In the space of five minutes I had the unpleasant experience of having every one of my sensibilities shocked, and my ap- petite completely spoiled. In strict justice, I suppose, it was none of my business what that actor said; and this department isn't very much concerned with actors, any- way. But let not that waiter think — as George Bernard Shaw said of the little girl in Wales who didn't recognize him — let not that waiter think he will get my photogi-aph tJiat way! » » * WORDS measured into septameters, heptameters and tetrameters of iambic, trochaic and anapaestic verse, do not always make poetry, as better poets than Stephen Vincent Benet have learned before now. But — sometimes they make a corking good story, as this same S. V. Benet has proved with his John Brown's Body (Doubleday-Doran). And yet, there are flashes where Benet the poet quite supersedes Ben^t the novelist and spinner of tales. ... American muse, zvhosc strong and diverse hcari So many men have tried to understand But only made it smaller tc'i//> tlieir art. Because you are as various as your land .... he begins his theme; and then tells why he is qualified to measure himself against it: Tlih flesh was seeded from no foreign grain But Pennsyhania and Kentucky tti/iraf. And it has soaked in California rain And five years tempered in Xcu' England sleet. The almost heroic story that follows this invocation to his muse is something new in the history of American Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 192S letters. Like a super-chessman, he raises up his pawns from the North, South and Border soil, New Englanders, Southerners, Kentuckians and Pennsylvanians and moves them symphonically into the maelstrom of civil war. Whites and Negroes, aristocrats, farmers, clerks, Congress- men, slaves, move for a brief moment across his board into the center of play, and are retired to give other play- ers their innings. Through it all runs the theme of use- less war, bloody and terrible, relieved at times by sudden notes of haunting beauty, of pure lyric poetry. I remem- ber best a Negro spiritual or two, bits of slave dialogue; that charming picture of Sally Dupre, daughter of a Southern belle married to a French dancing master, whose relatives and neighbors always speak of her as a good match for "some Northern boy''; the unforgettable glimpses of the South: That langurous land ivlicrc Unclt- Toms Groaned Biblically underneath the lash, And grinning Topsies mopped and mowed behind Each honeysuckle vine .... where The girls zvere always beautiful, the men Wore varnished boots, raced horses and played cards And drank mint-juleps till the titne came round For fighting duels with their seccnd cousins .... a South summed up in the description of one of its sons who .... could harrow the li-ater and plow the sand But he could tiot do the thing at hand. * • « OVER against the warm, wasteful South, impulsive and gallant, Benet places a somewhat cold and rigorous North, whose type of justice he portrays in that prayer of John Brown's, "by his narrow bed". / saw Thee tvhcn Thou did display The black man and his lord To bid me free the one, and slay The other ivith the sword. . . . And should the Philistine defend His strength against our blows. Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing ) (. nightly in Peacock Court j GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager The God who doth not spare His friend. Will not forget His foes. One could quote from this book forever. I understand that the publisher's reluctance to print it because of its form was only overcome by Benet's own enthusiasm and perseverence. We can be thankful for that. As a piece of writing, it is a glorious departure from our dull his- tory and slang-bitten fiction. Certainly it will be much read, and there is meat there for a second reading, and a third. The fact that the entire book, with the exception of one or two pages, is couched in verse forms, should deter no one; it reads as smoothly as a novel. * * * WITH winter here, one of the things we have always lacked, it seems to me, becomes more glaringly ap- parent. The city fathers who let loose on Los An- geles that horde of real estate subdivision builders respon- sible for this blight have much to answer for — but I span- them. I am more concerned with the indifference of the people themselves. For, be it known, Los Angeles has no fireplaces. At least, comparatively few. It burns gas. Now a fireplace, as everyone knows, is the chief prop of the Anglo-Saxon home (and the Teutonic and the Icelandic and many another for the matter of that) and was, before the radio was even thought of. A man who hasn't a child- hood to look back on which includes pictures of the whole family gathered around the crackling logs of an evening, not leaving their warm glow 'till Pa or Gran'pa banked I THE LAST WARNING TITLES and DIALOQUE TOM REED December 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen the coals with ashes for tomorrow morning's fire — simply didn't have a childhood at all. In times past there were hean boilings, weiner roasts, barbecues, popcorn poppings •and a hundred other things done over the open fire that have had to give place, in the course of events, to the automobile and motion picture. But fireside tranquillity I had more enduring attractions also. Day-dreaming didn't I begin on a Greek hillside under an olive tree, as every- one supposes. It began before a fireplace. A man can win more battles, succor more damsels and achieve more glory before an open fire than anywhere else on earth. And considering that these are the only things men like to do anyhow, it behooves someone in this city of up- lifters — I don't know whom — to get busy. Even when, on occasions, you are invited out to this Hill or that Crest, where the Movies and the rich people from the great marts of trade are building their new homes, replete with all antique improvements — including those great lone fire- places gracing the living hall — even then, if you're imag- inative, you can usually look with your mind's eye behind some door or chair or chaise-longue, and find a gas or electric heater burning somewhere. A LAY JOURNAL'S OPINION AS a matter of passing interest, we present the fol- lowing list of pictures to show how the sprightly magazine, Time, sizes them up: Best current pictures arranged (a) according to merit (b) according to the money they are making: (a) White Shadows in the South Seas: Sharks and natives in swimming... The Night Watch: Billie Dove on the witness stand. While the City Sleeps: Lon Chaney gets his man. The Singing Fool ( Jolson) : Mammy on the Vitaphone. Kriemhild's Revenge: Sequel to Siegfried, last of the great German pictures. Three Comrades and one Invention: Russian comedy. Lonesome: Telephone girl's holiday done in the same style as The Crowd. (b) Our Dancing Daughters (?90,000 — Capitol, Man- hattan) ; The Singing Fool (?53,000 — McVickers, Chicago) ; Mother Knows Best (|8,000 — Carthay Circle, Los An- geles); Excess Baggage ($14,000 — Loew's Toronto). • * * BRITISH STARS RETURNING HOME Bioscope, London: I HEAR of many British artists who have hitherto been chiefly associated with American pictures, who are coming over here with contracts for British films. Lillian Rich, who claims Dulwich as her birthplace, has starred in many American films; Nigel Barrie has done outstanding work on both sides of the Atlantic; Wyndham Standing and Winter Hall, well known as Anglo- American stars, are both over here; and in addition Dorothy Cummings, who has made great success in a wide variety of parts; Olaf Hylton, who was a prominent member of the Stoll Stock Company some eight years ago, with Syd Chaplin and Percy Marmont, make up a strong list of British players of established fame who are now working hard to ensure the success of British films. * * * SOMETHING WORTH WHILE HERE'S The Spectator's idea of a real boast. It ap- peared on the cinema page conducted for The Times- Press, Akron, Ohio, by Evan Williams, Jr. Mr. Wil- liams writes: "By the way, if you are interested in things cinematic you will do well to subscribe to The Film Spectator. "This department is not in the habit of 'plugging' film magazines, because it regards most of them as so much applesauce. But The Spectator has the happy fac- ulty of being witty, sparkling, and entertaining, at the same time putting forth sane, substantial and constructive \'iews on the movies. "The Film Spectator is published at 6362 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, Calif. And this department does NOT get a percentage on subscriptions gained through this 'blurb'." »■ — speaking of dialogue — give Rupert Hughes some solid thought. In his books, in his plays, at the head of the banquet table and on the speaker's platform, his brilliance is internationally known. And his last book — The Lovely Ducklings — the story of Hot Toddy (and what a title) — a young modern who knows and knows and knows. Succinct, poignant wise-cracks and truths snap from her carmined lips like machine-gun fire. In her wild, impetuous, wayward way, she saves herself from ruin and her whole damn family, too. Johru ^. Qoodrich GRanite 9525 6683 Sunset Boulevard Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1, 1928 QIFTS N The Film Spectator you have found a publication that is different — one that speaks frankly and bluntly about pictures and their pro- ducers. You may not always agree with it, but you admire its sin- cerity. Why not share this pleasure with your friends? What would make a more suitable gift than a year's subscription to The Spectator? It is not only worthy of the giver, but will please each friend to receive it not only at Christmas time, but throughout the whole year. We will send to each of the several friends you wish to receive The Spec- tator a suitable announcement. It is $5.00 for 52 issues in the United States; $6.00 foreign. THE FILM SPECTATOR, 411 Palmer Building, Hollywood, California Enclosed is $ for.. to be sent to the following: Names yearly subscriptions to The Film Spectator Addresses VELFORD BEATON TH E 1 O CCHtS FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday y'oL 6 Hollywood, California, December 8, 1928 NoTlJ »iiniii[iiiiiniii[[iiniiitaiiiiriiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiuiinriiiiiiiiiiiai[iiiniiiiiniiirii!iiiiia iiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiit]iiiiniiiiiiniiiHiiiiniaiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiinHiiiPuiinHiiiiniiniiuiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiitiu»;« Why not let writers learn how to write? Will talkies dim the luster of our stars? Fine sound work in Fox first all- talker Reviews by the Editor THE SPIELER HEART TO HEART THE GHOST TALKS THE SHAKE DOWN By the Junior Critic SYNTHETIC SIN HAUNTED HOUSE OUT OF THE RUINS THE SHAKE DOWN I *aniranmmDimniii«nmMHmiitMmmimanmHHn™»muMiaraiHBiiMnniiiim«aM«Bwnwi!^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 192( £^ST£t2fS^S^S^S^E^S7S^SriS?£?S^S7£^2:7STSTS7£T£TSTXTS7S7S7a£;S^ The King of Reproduction The New VictTola - Radiola Combination 9-54 An Automatic Combination Phonograph and Radio EH.BOIDDIEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 Jecember 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager HI Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. GLADSTONE 5506 Subscription price $5.00 per year; foreign $6.00. Single copy, 10 cents. He that wrestles with tis strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIF., DECEMBER 8, 1928 5ive Writers a Chance ;o Learn Their Business w jARIOUS letters have been -written to The Spectator m/ approving or disapproving our comments of two weeks ' ago on the best way to go about reforming the nethod of producing motion pictures. One correspondent ioes not agree with me that there are in Hollywood a sufficient number of writers to turn out enough perfect scripts to keep even one studio busy. If that be so, it jecomes apparent that it is the duty of the industry to ncrease the number by allowing those now lacking the mowledge an opportunity to acquire it. The industry's nethod of handling its writers is perhaps the greatest nanifestation of its inefficiency. The method that prevails it Metro is typical, with slight variations, of all the I studios. Out there they employ a writer and put him in a little office, and he gets the idea that if he pokes his nose outside the door before the whistle blows someone will shoot him. He can learn just as much in that office about how to write for the screen as he could learn in a box-stall at Tia Juana by spending the same length of time in it. Most of those so employed know how to write before they go on a studio pay-roll. What they lack is a knowledge of screen technic, and this they are allowed no opportunity of learning, notwithstanding the fact that the studios have at hand an exceedingly simple method of teaching them. There is some truth in the claim of pro- ducers that it is seldom that their writing departments deliver scripts that do not have to be turned over to a conference of supervisors and directors to be whipped into shape. Whose fault is this? The producers'. H they ■wish to put a stop to the life being pawed out of their stories, they should provide their writers with an oppor- tunity to learn how to write them in a manner that would make the pawing unnecessary. In every studio there are writers who for years have been turning out scripts that have to be altered in the shooting. Obviously if these writers had a thorough grasp of that end of the business that can be learned only on a set and in the cutting-room, they soon would be producing scripts that could be shot as written. To a certain extent, and in varying degrees, they now have a grrasp of the fundamentals of production technic, but if they visit sets in an effort to learn more, they are looked upon as a damned nuisance. All of them should be given the post of script clerk on at least two productions each, and they should follow the film through the cutting-room. If after two such experiences they have not supplemented their plot abilify with a thorough knowledge of the requirements of screen technic as applied to writing scripts, they should be let go as something too expensive to maintain, and others should be given the opportunity at which they failed. I can imagine nothing more wildly absurd, more artistically and economically a crime against common sense, than the action of producers in importing stage writers, locking them in offices and telling them to write for the screen. Perhaps the most capable among them might be able to turn out something shootable after spending six months as script clerks, but to expect them to do it without any experience in screen technic is not one whit less ridiculous than to expect an automobile manufacturer to make a washing machine with- out being given an opportunity of learning the difference between an automobile and a washing machine. But, the producer will argue, all we want the stage writer to do is to provide the ideas and we will put them in shape for the screen. And I suppose all we want the automobile manufacturer to do is to provide the moving parts and we will put them together and try to make a washing machine. How much simpler it would be to employ a washing machine expert in the first place. He is the only one who can give us parts that will fit and make a perfect machine, as the trained screen writer is the only one who can write scenes that will fit into one another and make a perfect motion picture. Producing motion pictures requires no particular training, but actually making them does. * * * Fox's First AU-Talker Marks Another Big Advance in Sound WILLIAM Fox shortly will present to the world his first all-talking picture. The Ghost Talks, a comedy that will be a sensational success, not as a sound novelty, but as a screamingly funny piece of screen entertainment. No more contrasting vehicles for their first adventures in the all-talking field could have been selected by Fox and Paramount than this rollicking com- edy of the former and Interference of the latter, but to- gether they show the greatest step forward that sound yet has made. Interference concerned itself chiefly with the reproduction of voices, while Ghost Talks goes farther in the way of making its microphone mobile. It follows two characters along a street and allows us to hear their conversation, and it picks up the yelps of a gang of dogs that provide hilarious comedy by chasing a terrified colored gentleman from a haunted house to a police station. The feature of the Fox picture that interested me most from a sound standpoint was the impression that it conveyed that the microphone was left to take care of itself. In- terference makes us aware of the microphone lurking in the immediate neighborhood. When characters in the Paramount picture begin speeches while seated, the vol- ume of sound increases when they rise, indicating that the microphone is placed above the upper frame of the picture. Not once while viewing the Fox production did I get any intimation of the location of the microphone, and in long shots its obvious distance from the action that was photo- graphed showed how extraordinarily sensitive the Movie- Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8. 1928 tone "mike" is. The picture opens in a depot train shed as a train arrives, and the incidental sounds are repro- duced without the slightest distortion. It is the finest bit of sound reproduction that I have heard yet. In sev- eral shots there are groups of as many as six people, each of whom takes up the conversation and close-ups are not resorted to to show us who is speaking. They are not necessary for at no time is there any doubt about the identity of the speaker. Lewis Seiler must have directed the picture in the manner in which all sound pictures must be directed, having grouped his characters with full regard for motion picture technic and leaving it to the soundman to work out his end of it after the screen re- quirements had been attended to. The result is that we have a picture that flows along naturally, one that is not noisy, and which asks us to overlook nothing because the medium is a new one. As was the case with all sound pictures, I ceased to be aware of the background noises before the first reel was half way through, but in about the middle of the picture I was reminded of them in a wholly unnecessary manner. An insert was flashed on the screen and the background noises ceased, only to begin again, with a suggestion of renewed vigor, when the in- sert was succeeded by an action shot. An easy way to have got around the difficulty would have been to have the man holding the letter read it to acquaint the audi- ence with its contents, making it unnecessary to present it as an insert. In another shot two men are shown listen- ing at a closed door to a conversation taking place in the room to which it leads. It would be more convincing if the audience could hear what the listeners must have heard. As we have it, there is nothing to indicate that the men listening outside the door could hear anything. But those are just two little flaws in an otherwise splendid example of what we can expect from Fox in the way of talking pictures. It introduces a couple of youngsters whom I had not seen previously, Helen Twelvetrees and Charles Eaton. I am not sure about the young woman with the mathematically precise, arborescent name, but this picture marks young Eaton's first flight into the film world, and when his disposition to overact is calmed by experience, he is going to do splendidly. The girl is clever and pretty — about all that is needed. I am inclined to believe that the public will credit the colored gentleman already referred to, with stealing the picture. A long time ago I included in a review a warm tribute to the rich comedy of Stepin Fetchit, but I hadn't seen the half. In The Ghost Talks he is simply immense. And I would like to put in a good word for his picture consort, Baby Mack, who is not a baby, but a capable young colored woman. Carmel Myers, Earle Foxe and several others do their share towards making Ghost Talks a picture that no one can afford to miss. * * * Proving That All a Director Needs Is a Fair Share of Brains TAY Garnett is going to be listed some day among the most prominent directors present. The Spieler, his latest picture, shows that he is making amazing progress. The story is set in a Barker atmosphere, and no doubt was inspired by The Barker, but as it has a couple of murders in it, and no young man who preferred circus life to school drudgery, Hal Conklin, the author, can not be charged with borrowing anything except atmosphere, and that is one thing that always is free. Except for one short jail sequence that opens the picture, the whole story never leaves the carnival grounds, but it moves briskly within its narrow geographical limits, and contains enough comedy, suspense and thrills to supply a locale as big as Texas. It is obvious that Garnett felt sure of himself when he tackled this, his second picture, for it bears all the earmarks of its director's assurance and confidence. When I reviewed Garnett's first picture, Celebrity, I pointed out two or three things that I advised the new director to avoid in his future work. I have forgotten what the things were and The Spieler does not remind me for I can find no flaws in it. The picture interests me because it helps to convince me that the thing that the screen is most in need of is more brains in direction. No particular skill is required in the direction of a picture. What is needed is plain, ordinary intelligence, and as only about ten per cent, of the pictures we are getting are worth looking at, it follows that only ten per cent, of our directors are intelligent. When a young fellow like Tay Garnett can step into the business and with his second picture make ninety per cent, of our old directors look like a lot of bush leaguers, it demonstrates two things: first, of course, that Garnett has brains, and, second, what an easy thing it is for a person with brains to make a good motion picture. Screen art is the most unhampered of all arts. It is the only pictorial art that can move its living persons and things, and the only dramatic art that can carry its action to any locale that suits it, yet the people who make motion pictures would have the rest of us believe that there is something mysterious about the process and that only gifted persons are fitted for it. It is easy for people with motion picture brains to make motion pictures. The trouble is that the industry as a whole does not allow its brains to function. Occasionally someone breaks through, as Garnett has done, and he suc- ceeds, not because he has had long training in the busi- ness, but because he is endowed with an ordinary allot- ment of horse sense. In making The Spieler he was fortunate in having a story that moved briskly with mounting interest and a cast capable of giving good per- formances. It allowed Alan Hale to demonstrate again what a really fine actor he is. Every time I see him I become more convinced that Pathe should launch him boldly as a star, for I know of no actor in Hollywood who is supplied more abundantly with everything that the public wants. Still young enough to carry the love inter- est, as his romance with Renee Adoree in The Spieler dem- fm "She Goes to War*' HENRY KING'S production FOR INSPIRATION - HALPERIN PICTURES LLOYD NOSLER FILM EDITOR d ^ Jecember 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five mstrates, he can lend to villainy a humorous quality that retains for him the sympathy of the audience while he is ioing something that should land him in jail. Fred Kohler, mother splendid actor, gives a fine performance as the rillain around whom the story revolves. Clyde Cook gives 1 sympathetic interpretation of the part of a secondary a-ook and Miss Adoree, the only woman in the cast, is thoroughly satisfactory. The Spieler is a piece of screen sntertainment that should please any audience anywhere. * * * Will Talking FUms Change the Status of Our Stars? •m- -f-ARRY Carr says there are not going to be any more ' I— I Mary Pickfords. "With the advent of the talkies," *• -*• he writes in the Times, "producers find they can dash out onto any stage and capture a stage-star with : a ready-made reputation more quickly and more profitably than trying to build up a little movie girl." I don't see why Harry limits the dashings of the producers to the stage. H they are going to dash out of film circles for the stars which Harry says aren't going to be, why not dash all over the place, hither and yon, and grab off all the ready-made reputations they can find? If the public hereafter is to be fed by the screen only reputations made off the screen, what possible reason is there for going only to the stage for the reputations? According to Carr screen acting in the future will have nothing to do with making a player a screen reputation. The reputation will be made elsewhere, will be delivered to the pubUc f. o. b. the neighborhood house, with "use no hooks" stencilled on it. But I am afraid the public will use hooks. Carr's whole argument is so utterly absurd that I would not waste time on it if I did not think that perhaps some ambitious girl who is seeking the rank of star might read it and feel discouraged. She has no reason to. There always will be Mary Pickfords, screen stars made famous by the screen. Fame on the stage can do no more than put a player promptly on the path to screen stardom, but only by learning screen technic and how to speak in front of the microphone; only by forgetting almost everything he learned on the stage, can the player become a favorite with picture audiences. He can come from an oifice or a shop and become as great a favorite. Producers don't make stars. The public makes them, but if you can show any producer a "little movie girl" who might develop into a star, keep your eye on the producer and you will see something brisk in efforts to help the public make her one. Unless Harry Carr can think up something more sane in the way of an argument, I am afraid the market for Mary Pickfords will remain steady. "There is another reason," Harry goes on, "even stronger, but less easy to state. One of the reasons why girls like Mary Pickf ord became so famous was the appalling intimacy of the movie close-up. Having no words with which to tell the story, they told it by the expression of their faces; the lifting of an eyebrow— a wistful look in the eye. Now that words have come in, no actress will ever again receive such close attention. She will more than divide her fame with the invisible author." I must agree with Harry that his other reason is hard to state, for he certainly falls down when he tries to state it in a manner that makes it look like a reason. As nearly as I can understand him, there was nothing remarkable in Mary Pickford becoming a great star through her facial expression, her eyebrows and her eyes. "Having no words with which to tell the story," says Harry, she had to rely on the other things. The Mary Pickford of to-morrow, if we are to believe him, may have the same facial expression, the same eyebrow and the same eye, but she is never to become a great star because she has been given words as a help to her in telling the story. In the past the close-up enabled her to jiggle the expression, the eyebrow and the eye in a way that made her a tremendous favorite with the public, but now that she can add voice to the jiggles she is undone. I had an idea that Mary's intelligence, personality and charm endeared her to the whole world, but I find I am wrong. She got there by lifting her eyebrow, and as no other girl in pictures has remained such a favorite for so long, we are left to presume that since films began Mary is the only girl who knows when, where, and how to lift an eyebrow. But she will receive no more close attention because "we will listen as well as look." Again I agree with Harry that his reason was hard to state. The poor devil never should have attempted to state it. He should have known that he was muddled when he said that stars hereafter will share fame with the authors. Eddie Horton has been starring successfully at the Vine Street theatre for a long time. How many people know the name of the author of one of the plays he presented? How many people remember the names of the plays ? And who cares about either? No one. Horton is the drawing card. And the Mary Pickfords always will be the drawing cards. * * * LIONEL Barrymore, in an interview published in the Examiner a couple of Sundays ago, revealed a friend- liness for talking in motion pictures, but expressed a doubt if Shakespeare ever would be done as satisfactorily on the screen as it could on the stage. I share his doubt. It is the exquisite music of the Shakespearean lines that will keep the Bard of Avon alive forever, and this music always will sound better when it does not come to us strained through a microphone. But this consideration is not going to keep Shakespeare off the screen. However equally or unequally the screen and stage may be matched in ability to make productions, the screen always will have a tremendous advantage in the facility with which it can make reproductions. John Barrymore is the greatest liv- ing Hamlet, but how many people have seen him in the part? A mere handful, when we consider that vast num- ber that could see him do Hamlet on the screen. Granted that he would not be quite as effective on the screen as he is on the stage, is Oskosh to be denied the screen pres- entation because the stage presentation is just a little better ? Are we to deny Oskosh bread because we can not give it cake? I agree with Lionel that the human voice probably never will be reproduced mechanically without losing some of its quality, but will not the loss of quality be more than made up by the camera's ability to supply a much grander production than is possible on the stage? But as I view the addition of sound to pictures, I do not believe it will be as valuable as a medium for broadening their scope as it will be as an instrument that will enable them to do much better only what they had done before. Screen art always has been more of a story-telling art than a dramatic art. Suddenly acquiring an ability to talk has not changed its status, although producers seem Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 IP to think it has, as is indicated by their rush to the stage for actors, writers and directors, a move as ridiculous as it would be for Ford to turn over the entire manufacture of his ears to someone who designed a new wheel. It is a passing folly, and when it has cost producers a few million dollars they will revert to their old business of making motion pictures. » * * WHAT may be accepted as a truism is that anything that is done well has entertainment value on the screen. If there never had been a poor close-up, there never would be a complaint that close-ups were too much of a good thing. But not more than one in one hundred close-ups that we see on the screen has artistic justifica- tion for being there. Those who use them so freely have not the slightest knowledge of the idea upon which the close-up is founded. No other single feature of pictures betrays the incapacity of directors and supervisors as immistakably as does the close-up. In theory the close- up is designed to give a player a greater opportunity to register emotion, the closer view we have of his features making more vivid his portrayal of the emotion. Ob- viously, the resort to the close-up in a given instance must be predicated upon the assumption that the player is ca- pable of portraying the emotion. But it never is. In the script you will find, "Scene 184: c. u. of Joe Doakes," and the script will be written long before anyone has the slightest idea who will play Joe Doakes. When the part is cast, the fact that Joe is to have several close-ups is not considered, and his ability to register in a close-up is not questioned. The script calls for a close-up, and that settles it. If some one thought of close-ups in terms of screen art, the terms in which everything in a picture should be thought of, one of two things would happen in this instance: a player who could do justice to Joe's close-ups would be selected, or medium shots would be substituted for the close-ups. We do not need the testi- mony of the screen to prove that close-ups are abused ridiculously. The fact that they are written into scripts irrespective of who are to play the parts, is enough to demonstrate how insane the practice has become. At the request of a producer I viewed one of his pictures the other day, and when I left the projection room I advised him, among other things, to cut out two close-ups of his leading woman, my reason being that in them she had failed to register anything. He actually argued that he had used the close-ups in the customary manner, and it was apparent that the fact that they conveyed nothing meant little to him. However, the check he gave me for doctoring his sick patient was good at the bank, and I let the matter rest there. * * * OUT at Universal they'll soon be calling Willie Wyler William. He's directed another picture. Some time ago he made Has Anyone Here Seen Kelly? which was so good that it surprised me, for Willie still is so young that I suppose that he resents being called young. When he becomes a little older, he'll want to be, which has nothing to do with either his first picture or his second, which is called The Shakedown, and which deals with a gang of crooks which roams around the country, stopping every little while to fleece a whole town with a fake prize-fight, James Murray first being planted in the town to secure its betting support before George Kotsonaros, fierce -featured and most ungentlemanly, is lead to the scene of action by Wheeler Oakman, master crook, and knocks Murray flat, after which Oakman pays off and the gang moves to the next town where the whole thing is done over again. Finally Murray comes to a town in which Barbara Kent works as a waitress, and Fate steps in and the gang gets its come uppance. It is quite a trite little story, contain- ing nothing whatever that is new, but Willie Wyler has - breathed life into it and directed it with a skill that gives me great confidence in his future. He is one of Carl Laemmle's nephews, and for some reason or other, prob- ably because I like Uncle Carl, I get a kick out of any of his relatives making good. It is with such youths as young Wyler that the future of motion pictures lies, and Carl Laemmle is to be commended for giving so many oi them a chance. In the cast of Shakedown there is a boy Jackie Hanlon, who gives a splendid performance, one thai stamps him as an actor with a future. Wyler tells hit story with directness and assurance, and builds his sus- pense convincingly. I have but one quarrel with him When Murray reforms and trims the trimmers, he doei not show us the shattered gang in its moment of defeat He created in me a hatred for the crooks and denied m« the opportunity to gloat over them. When I hate, I wart to gloat. But, on the whole, I found the picture a most en tertaining one. * * * THOSE who still are of the opinion that the screei can not bring people to us in a manner that will pre sent their personalities as vividly as the stage present! them, would have changed their minds if they had beei present at the midnight show at Warners theatre a couple* of weeks ago. Al Jolson in person preceded the showing of The Singing Fool. He sang three songs and did con- siderable talking. I was so far back that I could not see his features, in this instance an advantage that would have been a catastrophe if Billie Dove had been in his place on the stage. When the picture was shown it was different. His voice sounded exactly as it did when he sang in person, and I could see his every expression, no matter how fleeting. He seemed much more of a real per- son on the screen than he did on the stage. As I sat and CHARLES R. CONDON Scenario Raymond Cannon's Production, "RED WINE" Now writing adaptation for Mr. Cannon's next special. (In collaboration with Frank Gay) William Fox Studios •"! )ecember 8, 1928 ''"'e istened to the huge audience giving him prolonged ap- "il (lause, I wondered again what under the sun it is about '"> y Jolson that gives him his tremendous hold on the "^ >ublic. I gave critical attention to his singing, and suf- gaii 'ered exquisite agony. He certainly knows nothing about Ken tinging. His overwhelming conceit is obvious in every Sfti lote he sings, every word he utters, and every movement 'faiijae makes in his acting. But I cheerfully admit that he kes more money at his business than I do at mine, and ;hat many people, against whose mentalities I do not ring the charge that they are diminutive, get a great kick ut of his form of entertainment. On this midnight ad- enture I saw The Singing Fool for the first time with n audience. After seeing it in a projection room I pro- laimed it as great screen entertainment. Noah's Ark impressed me in the same way when I saw it in the pro- jection room, but when I saw it in a theatre all its virtues seemed to have disappeared. Not so with the Jolson pic- •ture. I enjoyed it more the second time than I did the first time. But I do wish that Al Jolson would learn how to sing. * * * HE title. Heart to Heart, probably will keep discrimin- ating picture patrons from viewing it, but it is one of ihe best little pictures that I have seen this year. It was lirected by William Beaudine for First National, and in [the cast are Mary Astor, Lloyd Hughes, Louise Fazenda, [jLucien Littlefield and Eileen Manning. Beaudine's direc- tion is masterly. He makes the story himian and engross- ing, and the romance tender and sweet. One feature of the love story that startled me was the fact that there is not a kiss in it, but it is none the less convincing on that account. It is told with perfect taste without losing any of its vigor and warmth. If you can find the picture at any of the community houses, view it and enjoy two of the finest characterizations that ever have been shown on the screen. Louise Fazenda and Littlefield divide the pic- ture between them. They are magnificent. They play I husband and wife, a lovable couple in a small town that is shaken to its foundations by the return to it of Mary Astor who has become an Italian princess. There is noth- ing extravagant in the characterizations, none of the far- ! cial antics that these players could perform so well. Miss Fazenda's reaction to her mistaken idea that her husband is unfaithful to her, is a superb piece of acting. I can not understand the folly of First National in giving this splendid little picture a title that damned it in advance. Under some such title as The Princess Comes Home it could go into any house in the country and score a suc- cess. It has what I am confident the public wants, clean- liness, rich comedy, humanness, a beautiful romance, and acting that reaches an artistic height seldom achieved on the screen. Bill Beaudine has my sympathy and at the same time my congratulations. * * * AT some theoretical exact moment there will be enough houses wired to warrant the big producers in discon- tinuing entirely the making of silent pictures. There will be a sufficient number of silent pictures available at that time to keep the unwired houses supplied for a consider- able period, but not enough to keep them going until all houses are wired. It looks as if this would be an oppor- tunity for the independents to enlarge their market. And when they set out on this laudable commercial exploit, THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven they should give heed to the advisability of effecting an artistic reform that might hold as friends of their product those who had become its new customers. When you criticise an independent producer to-day for aping the big fellows by turning out the same kind of pictures that they do, he will tell you that exhibitors dictate to him, that the only way he can compete with a two-hundred-thousand- dollar production is to turn out one that looks as if it cost that much, but which, in reality, costs less than a quarter of it. The little fellow lacks the money of the big fellow; he can get just as good stories as the big fellow, but as he can not compete in production, he must offer competition that costs nothing. And the way is open for him to do this. He has no stars or featured players on his pay-roll, therefore even if he be ass enough to think that close-ups help a player, he is under no obligations to close-up a picture to death. He can employ directors who can group their characters nattirally, who do not walk them into scenes and turn them to face the camera; who do not commit all the silly, brainless sins that brought screen art to such a low level. He can make pictures that make up in artistic treatment what they may lack in expensive production; and by "artistic treatment" I mean merely doing sensibly the score of things that now are done so foolishly. * * * ■p RODUCERS of talking comedies apparently must give ••• serious thoughts to spacing their laughs, but appar- ently those who provide the more serious forms of screen entertainment are not going to be worried with the prob- lem of applause. I was of the opinion that when pictures spoke they would provoke applause as stage plays do, but so far there is no indication that they will, which is a matter of importance to producers. Even at the opening night of Interference, an audience composed largely of friends of the members of the splendid cast did not reward the fine work of the players until the closing scene was reached, when William Powell received warm applause for his effective exit with the police officers. I started that applause myself. I wanted to see if I was right in my surmise that it was the timidity with which the audience approached the new art that kept it from giving audible demonstration of its approval, and that all it needed was someone to lead the way. I gave the audience every chance by postponing my experiment as long as possible, but when the final scene was reached, my tentative hand- claps started a wave of applause that swept over the house. I presume from that that if someone had started the applause during the opening sequence, the entire show- ing of the picture would have been punctuated with it and that many lines would have been drowned out. * * * THE Ghost Talks, reviewed elsewhere in this issue, was cut with regard for spacing the laughs to provide against any of the dialogue being lost. I did not see the picture with an audience, being alone in a projection- room when I viewed it, but it seems to me that when it reaches the public it will provoke but one laugh that will start in the first reel and end with the last. I do not see how this particular picture could be cut to provide against the loss of some of the speeches, for most of the scenes are so funny that they will carry the laughter into the scenes that follow them, and drown out a considerable amount of dialogue. In one scene Stepin Fetchit is in Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 bed; the ghost's hand tickles him; he thinks it is his wife's, and he keeps up a running fire of remarks that are exceedingly funny, but I am confident that audiences will not get one word of what he says, for the situation in itself is so funny that the laughter will be continuous. This is all right, for the scene is presented to make people laugh, and if they can be made to laugh without having heard the words, the scene has achieved its destiny. The damage ^all be done when a dramatic scene follows a funny one and is introduced by a speech vital to it. It is a nice little problem that will be worked out as we get better acquainted with the new medium, but I stick to the opinion I expressed some weeks ago, that the public will help to solve it by learning how to laugh. * * * XZIRGINIA Gray, a charming miss who I imagine has ' reached the advanced age of ten years, gave a de- lightful performance in some Universal picture which I re%aewed, and in the review I said so. And now I say that she gives another delightful performance in Heart to Heart, an atrociously named picture which Bill Beaudine made into a little masterpiece. Hitherto I have not writ- ten one line for The Spectator that was prompted by any hope of personal gain or that did not express my opinion uninfluenced by any ulterior motive. I have told only the truth about Virginia, a sweet and winsome youngster, but I have gone out of my way to do so because I want her to do something for me. In Heart to Heart she gives her dog a bath, and the dog doesn't make the slightest attempt to jump out of the tub. If Virginia wiU come out to my house and teach Virgil and Ko Ko to stand still while they are being washed, I'll give her the finest line of notices ever written. During the week we have a strenuous time keeping Ko Ko out of the swimming pool, and on Sunday morning we have a more strenuous time keeping her in the stationery tub. Perhaps Virginia can help. Or was it Bill's direction? * * * AFTER belatedly going through a great accumulation of the excellent English film publications which the postman persists in piling in front of me, I have come to the conclusion that Warners pulled a boner in sending The Terror to London as the first all-talking picture to be shown over there. With extraordinary unanimity the British critics characterized it as trash, and some of the less thoughtful ones accepted it as proof that talking pic- tures never would be successful. The Terror gave the cause of sound pictures in England a tremendous setback, although some sensible commentors, such as Cinema's "Onlooker", refused to accept it as anything more than a hint of what talking pictures could become when they were made properly. It will interest "Onlooker" to know that all the technical faults that the London reviewers de- tected in the Warner picture, will not be found in Fox's The Ghost Talks nor in Paramount's Interference. When these two pictures reach Wardour street the British film industry will get a new conception of what the future holds for this new form of screen entertainment. * * * TTAROLD B. Franklin says that in the West Coast theatres the good silent motion pictures are more than holding their own with the talkers, and various trade papers accept the statement as one of great significance and discuss it gravely as something that fasts a light on the future of the talkers, attaching importance to it that no doubt will surprise Franklin himself. He is too good a showman to put the talker on trial for its life quite so soon. Up to date all that the public has been given a chance to approve have been the Warner potboilers and Paramount's Interference. When the flock of talkers now in production is released we will have something to go on. Good silent pictures will prove box-office magnates for some time yet, but when we get talkers that have as much merit as motion pictures and have the added advant- age of well written and well spoken dialogue, I think that we will find that the good silent film will not be able to stand the competition of the good talker. J A QUEER angle of the introduction of sound comes u] •**• in discussions of the relative merits of the silenu and the talkies. The former still have some championi who regret their passing, and when you engage one ol them in conversation he sooner or later will charge yoi with defaming the silent art. Silent pictures are not loa ing their vogue because they no longer have the power t please. They are losing it because talking pictures hav« the power to give greater pleasure. While it was mute screen art made marvelous progress, none of which is lost now that it has ceased to be mute. It still will make progress towards glorious achievement, its ability to talk being something that will aid it on its way, but in acquire ing this new aid it will shed nothing that it had acquired previously. * » * /^ NE great advantage that talking pictures have ov« ^-' the stage is the ability of the former to put oi every word so clearly and distinctly that those in the an( ence will not have to strain their ears to hear what is ing said. I would make a gruess that that part of theatre audience that is ten rows and farther from tl stage, loses from five to ten i>er cent, of the lines of a plaj In any case, what it does get is the reward of sitting-u] straight attention. Sound pictures can do bett€r; thej can bring either a whisper or a shout to the back roi without distortion. But they must be allowed to do so. suppose it has been remedied since, but at the openii night of Interference at the Carthay Circle, the volumi was held down so much that I, for one, failed to get the lines. Exhibitors must be careful. • • • A PPARENTLY they were as muddled in England ■^*- we were over here by the many rumors that werd current about the activities of Warner Brothers. Thij Bioscope, an excellently conducted London film weeklj stood the situation as long as it could and then decided upon a method of reducing its worry. It says: "We ar establishing a rule in this office that will save much trouble^ On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays all Warner Bros rumors are true; on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays,* they have never been heard of. In this way we shall hold the scales with scrupulous truth." * * * AN idea that I've had for a long time is that a series of split-reel subjects depicting camera tours through leading cities of the world undoubtedly would be popular with the public. Recently a Fox news-reel presented a large number of views of London, which I hope will become a habit with it. To me this London reel was of great December 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine interest, but that may be because I am familiar with that city, which gave the scenes considerable reminiscent value. However, I am sure I would be little less interested in a reel devoted to some city that I have not visited. To want to know how the other fellow lives is one of our standard curiosities. • * * I ♦T^HE addition of sound is going to be responsible for I •*■ better photography and more careful work in labora- tories, and the cutting-room will lose some of its status as the great rectifier of screen art. It will not be possible to cut out frames at will without affecting the timing. » * * I A TITLE in The Spieler reads: "You! Of all people." f ■^*- I think it would have come nearer to expressing the meaning of the man who wrote it if it had been presented this way: "You, of all people!" * * * TT7 HEN producers of sound pictures become more ac- ^^ customed to the new medium there will be a general speeding up of tempo. There is no reason why the dialogue should drag as it does in nearly all the talking pictures that I have seen. The microphone can work just as fast as any actor can talk, and as long as he does not sacrifice clearness to speed the actor can talk as fast as he likes. * * * BESIDES my campaign to force Doug Fairbanks Jr. to get his hair cut, I think V\\ embark on another that will have as it objective the improvement of the screen laughs of Noah Beery, Alan Hale, and Fred Kohler. They always laugh with their mouths open in a way that isn't pretty. * * * 75 ERHAPS one of the nice things that sound will do for f us will be the banishing of glycerine from motion pic- tures. When our heroines can put sobs into their voices, we may be spared the rivulets of imitation tears that heretofore have made them look ridiculous. » > * T N the screen credits for ITie Ghost Talks we learn that ■■■ a new personality has entered pictures — the soundman. I presume he will supplant the sandman, who was getting such a foothold before sound came. AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic WILLIAM and Robert Wyler, who are the only direc- tor and supervisor I know of who get along with each other, have turned out a remarkably good lit- tle program picture in The Shakedown. William attends to the directorial end of the picture, and Robert to the supervisorial. Bob is in line for a medal or something for being the first supervisor to be reprimanded by the direc- tor for being absent from the set for a couple of days. The story which Charles Logue gave them can scarcely be called new, but it was made sensibly, and without the exaggerations which are customary. When the hero turned from his wicked ways and said he was going to win the fight squarely, the pack of tough citizens he had been associating with didn't perpetrate everything but a train wreck to stop him. The theme was old and all that, but it was big, which is the main thing. A little picture with a big theme is better than a large one which hasn't any to speak of. James Murray had the big part in The Shake- down, although Jack Hanlon ran him a close second. Mur- ray is one of the few really fine young actors, and would go a long way if he only would take some interest in his career. His work was the high-light of the picture, due to a depth and strength which are uncommon in one as new to the screen as he. He does one scene in which he ac- knowledges that he is a fake and a crook that is splendid. Wyler's direction can best be commented upon by say- ing that it was not obtrusive at any time. The story was smoothly and logically developed, and built up nicely to the crisis, a prize-fight. Incidentally, the fight, although it is obvious that the hero must win, is one of the most excit- ing I have seen yet. There were some comedy scenes of a man and a boy who indulged in a perfect orgy of mak- ing faces whenever they met. In the projection room it didn't seem so very funny, but I am told that when the picture is viewed in an audience, it goes over big. The cumulative effect of the laughter apparently is felt, and I don't doubt that it would be funny under such circum- stances. Sound effects and dialogue are to be added lat- er, which will do the picture a great deal of good. While I am thinking about it, Wyler avoided a fadeout clinch at the end of the picture. The love between the girl and the boy was established, and there was no need for it. So many pictures are logically finished, but have to go through with the clinch demanded by moth-eaten tradi- tion. As I said. Jack Hanlon, a hoary old trouper of ten or twelve, nearly walks off with the picture. He puts all he has in his work, and the result is a performance which stacks up very well with those of the older and more experienced members of the cast. Barbara Kent provides the beauty necessary to any good picture, and Eddie Grib- bon chips in with some comedy which is unworthy of him. George Kotsonaros plays a hardboiled prize fighter with a ferocity which would make an armored tank a little ner- vous. Wheeler Oakman is another menace, but he isn't quite so blood-curdling. There isn't much to be said for the titles, which were rather uninspired. * * * SYNTHETIC Sin contains a remarkable performance by Colleen Moore and some rather good little touches by William Seiter, but they don't keep it from being in- ane and silly. The whole thing is based on the faulty premise that a motion picture can be good even if it has a fool for a heroine. Miss Moore did a very good char- actization as the fool girl, but her work didn't redeem it any. There is no one on earth quite so dumb as she was supposed to be, which was perfectly all right until they tried to make her sympathetic. She acted like a clo\vn, but Antonio Moreno was supposed to fall in love with her. Never during the entire length of the picture did she re- veal any lovable or sympathetic characteristics, yet the au- dience was asked to enjoy a romance between her and Moreno, whose strongest point is his intensely likeable screen personality. The only reaction possible to the per- sonality she built up was a desire to crack her one on the Jaw, but I don't think it was her fault, although somebody had a weird idea of what constitutes a heroine. In addition to Miss Moore's impossible role, the whole story was weak. The idea was that an unkno-mi country girl is put into a play; and when she fails, is told by friends that she doesn't look experienced enough for the part. Then the poor idiot decides to live a life of sin, which she hasn't even brains enough to do correctly. To begin with, she never would have been put in the play, just because of the playwright's mental aberration; and if she had been, it wouldn't have been in one of the leading roles. Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 I could have stood it better if she had just carried in a tray or screamed off stage. Another sore spot in Synthetic Sin was that the heroine was supposed to be one of these wonders who panic everybody in sight with her dancing and singing, or both. She did an imitation of Paderewski which was rather good, but the occasion for the performance was dragged in so obviously that the good effect was destroyed. On another occasion, she did a blackface which was supposed to bring down the house, but didn't look so hot to me. Anyway, she was supposed to be a Southern girl, and she was be- fore a Southern audience, so I rather doubt that she would have got away with anything like that. The one situation in Synthetic Sin which might have been funny was the one where the girl thinks that a gang- fight is just a fake to scare her, but it was dragged out too long and spoiled. Antonio Moreno is a good leading man, even if he does look as if he should have better sense than to fall for any- thing quite so brainless as the girl in this was supposed to be. Two favorites of mine, Montagu Love and Gert- rude Astor, played two leading character parts, and Edythe Chapman attended to the mothering part of the work. Tom Reed did nicely with his titles. * * * THE Haunted House is a resume of all the mystery thrillers ever done, but it can be heartily recommended as entertainment, since it is undoubtedly the best to burst forth in all its horror. I saw the silent version, which was sufficiently blood-chilling, and although I know the outcome, I'm looking forward to the sound. The de- sire to be frightened into a state of collapse is a peculiar trait of human nature, but it is common to most of us. It was so engrossing that the opening of the projection room door by no apparent human means made me jump about a foot. The Cat and the Canary and The Terror figured prominently in the story, with a few slight traces of The Bat, but it really wasn't plagiarism, because all these thrillers are founded upon the same situations, and no one can be said to be the first to discover them. "There were bits of The Gorilla, too. Benjamin Christensen gave this motley assembly very effective direction, and I sup- pose he is responsible for the fact that it held the interest as well as it did. There is nothing more conducive to the realization that one is merely looking at a motion picture than a projection room, but the surroundings in this case made no impression upon the fascination of the picture. Apparently, another goal of all these thrillers is to throw the audience into hysterics, so Chester Conklin was delegated to attend to that end of the work. Never be- fore had I realized what an artist he is, for it is far harder to be funny cleverly than dramatically. Every move he made in The Haunted House, and every expression of his face, told exactly what he was thinking, a trick which very few actors have mastered. The bare recollection of his performance makes me laugh, which is rare, for there aren't many comedians whose humor sticks after the pic- ture is over. However, Conklin's work helped immeasur- ably in making the picture as good as it was. Sound will work wonders for it, but there is danger of the great new market for the talkers being damaged by the large number of thrillers being thrown upon it. The skeptical people who have to be weaned away from silent films carefully oughtn't to have their ears assaulted with too much noise all at once. Too many shrieks and groans will chrystalize all the vague objections, and turn a large number of customers away. The quiet, well-done pictures like On Trial and Interference will create the lasting pub- lic, as they should. Anyway, softer sounds are reproduced better with the present equipment than a lot of loud ones. The cast of The Haunted House leaves nothing to be desired, as Montagu Love and Thelma Todd were featured along with Conklin. Love's duties consisted chiefly of looking crazy and choking Miss Todd, which both he and she performed very artistically. Larry Kent was the hand- some young man who insisted upon putting his head into all the danger in sight, of which there was plenty. Flora Finch was Conklin's dominating help-mate, and William Mong, who wore a makeup which made him look like an inhabitant of Mars, was another menace. Edmund Breeze made a very human character out of the uncle who had prejudices against being poisoned, and Eve Sothern walked about attractively looking for a misplaced father. Barbara Bedford contributed a good performance, as might be expected from such a clever artist. That's some cast. * * * OUT of the Ruins is the type of picture which is harder to write up than any other, due to its lack of either outstanding faults or merits. Two good perform- ances by the leading characters and smooth direction made it passable, but a general lack of punch and power dam- aged it some, so what is there to say? Never at any time was I very interested in what was going on, nor did I entertain much sympathy for the actors. If the love story had been a bit more gripping, the sacrifice of the hero when he deserted to go to his sweetheart might have been impressive ; but as it was, he just seemed weak. Part of the failure of the love story was due to the fact that the development of it was told in a title, not shown on the screen as it should have been. As far as the eye knew, the hero was kissing a comparatively strange girl, a thing which won't endear him to an audience. It was a war picture, but there wasn't much of the actual battle- field stuff, for which I was very glad. Neither did the hero have a buddy who went West with appropriate ges tures, although there was one who went blind, which is; second in popularity among producers. There is such a vogue at present for unhappy endings' that I was quite surprised when Out of the Ruins turned out to have the old-time "happy ever after" ending. How- ever, it was a matter of indifference to me whether or not the hero lived or died. In addition, I'd like to see a heroine once who had nerve enough to tell her family to hop in the lake when they ordered her to marry some old reprobate whom she didn't love. I haven't seen one yet. The minute the parents start, they throw up their hands and scream for help. Richard Barthelmess, who was starred in Out of the Ruins, gave a performance which compensated for thi rest of it. He has played few roles where he could sho' a little lightness and sense of humor, but in this, for a1 least a little while, he is a gay French soldier. His worl was more human because of the lighter scenes, and becam( more powerful later on, due to the contrast. He hai played a lot of tragedy roles, and the only thing whici can be found wrong with them was that he wasn't allowei a few scenes where he was happy, so the change woul( be sharper. The work of Marian Nixon, who played o] posite him, was a revelation. It is by far the best thi: she has done. This is the first time she has revealed ai great depth of feeling, because she has had little but co; ventional stuff to do, and her work is brilliant. Here one beautiful girl who has ability, too. Robert Frazi turned in one of his usual clever performances, and Bo( Rosing and Rose Dione, the two mothers, handled thei parts with sympathy and understanding. Gene Palle contributed one of the heavy characterizations which h( does so well. There are few actors able to lose themselvel in a characterization as he can. Purnel Pratt complete! the cast. John Francis Dillon handled the direction ver; well. * * * THE Movietone short business is a very interesting or to me, because of its great possibilities. The two reel comedies being turned out at the present momenj are an insult to the intelligence, with the exception of Hal Roach's attempts. The public is sick of these moronij things, and will flock to the Movietone because of the high class people who are performing for it. The little filmlet which Chic Sale did for Fox, The Star Witness, is what started me upon these ramblings. He did another. The :i ■i First National'.- Talking Picture With Milton Sills. Dorothy Mackaill, Betty Compson and Douplas Fairbanks Jr. The Barkpr ^^""^^^^ Circle Theatre Daily 2:15 — 8:30 December 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven Man Who Knew Lincoln, which was beautifully done, but I don't think it is the right thing out of which to make a Movietone short. When an audience has to see a serious, dramatic picture as the feature, the things leading up to it should be humorous, instead of tragic, as the picture it- self will attend to that part of the entertainment. The 'audience is not in the mood to accept anything very serious prior to the big feature of the evening, which was the only reason for two reel comedies. Another angle which interests me is how they are go- ing to standardize the humor so it will go over equally well in the cities and the sticks. City people, as a rule, like stuff which is a little subtle for those in the country, and are bored to death by the humor which panics the great wide open spaces. A Movietone reel or two reels of nothing but a choir singing, someone playing a violin, or a person singing is without a doubt the dullest thing invented by the mind of man. Anybody can get exactly the same thing over the radio without having to look at the facial contortions of the performers. The radio and the phonograph have made music obsolete as entertainment outside of the home. I wonder if there ever will be Movietone variety houses where nothing is shown but a carefully selected program of short subjects. It could be run upon exactly the same idea as the present vaudeville, and probably would be cheaper. The fallacious idea that people will never get over wanting to see actors in the flesh will soon disappear. Human beings can get used to practically anything, and it is only a question of time until all stage stuff becomes out of date. Another benefit of the Movietone stuff is that it will provide good vaudeville entertainment for the smaller houses which insist upon uplifting the peasantry with a species of stage entertainment too awful to mention. A lot of octogenarian hoofers with a few bum song-and-dance acts comprise these bills, and the dam things have driven me away from all the neighborhood houses, since one never knows when he is going to discover one. I don't go much anymore, however. I never have felt the same since the night at the Advershow, or whatever it was, when that garage mechanic beat me out by two numbers for the pos- session of a tea-set. Reviewed in this Number GHOST TALKS, THE— A William Fox picture. Directed by Lewis Seller; story by Max Marcin; scenario by Frederick H. Bren- nan; dialogue by Frederick H. Brennan and Harlan Thompson; assistant director, J. Edmund Grainger; photographed by Glen MacWilliams and Al Brick; soundman, F. B. MacKenzie. The cast: Charles Eaton, Helen Twelvetrees, Earle Foxe, Carmel Myers, Henry Sedley, Joe Brown, Clif- ford Dempsey, Stepin Fetchit, Baby Mack, Arnold Lucy, Bess Flowers, Dorothy McGowan. HAUNTED HOUSE, THE— A First National picture. Directed by Benjamin Christensen; story by Owen Davis; photographed by Sol Polito; produced by Wid Gunning. The cast: Chester Conklin, Thelma Todd, Larry Kent, Eve Sothern, Barbara Bedford, Flora Finch, Edmund Breese, Sidney Bracy, William V. Mong, Mon- tagu Love, Johnnie Gough, Erville Alderson. HEART TO HEART— A First National picture. Directed by William Beau- dine; story by Juliet Wilbur Tompkins; continuity by Adelaide Heilbron; photographed by Sol Polito; art director, John J. Hughes; costume director. Max Ree; film editor, Frank Ware; produced by Wid Gunning. The cast: Mary Astor, Lloyd Hughes, Louise Fazenda, Lucien Littlefield, Thelma Todd, Eileen Man- ning, Virginia Gray, Raymond McKee. OUT OF THE RUINS— A First National picture. Directed by John Francis Dillon; from the story by Sir Phillip Gibbs; continuity by Gerald C. Duffy; photographed by Ernest Hallor; art director, John J. Hughes; costume director. Max Ree; film editor, Cyril Gardner; produced by Henry Hobart. The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Marian Nixon, Bodil Rosing, Robert Ober, Emile Chautard, Eugene Pallette. SHAKEDOWN, THE— A Universal picture. Directed by William Wyler; story and continuity by Charles A. Logue; adaptation by Clarence Marks; titles by Albert DeMond; photo- graphed by Charles Stumar; edited by Lloyd Nosier; supervised by Robert Wyler. The cast: James Murray, Barbara Kent, George Kotsonaros, Wheeler Oakman, Jack Hanlon, Harry Gribbon. SPIELER, THE— A Pathe picture. Directed by Tay Garnett; produced by Ralph Block; author, Hal Conklin; scenarists, Hal Conklin and Tay Garnett; assistant director, R. M. Fellows; production manager, Harry H. Poppe; photo- graphed by Art Miller; art director, Edward J. Jewell; edited by Doane Harrison. The cast: Alan Hale, Renee Adoree, Clyde Cook, Fred Kohler, Fred Warren, Jimmy Quinn, Kewpie Morgan. SYNTHETIC SIN— A First National picture. Directed by William A. Seiter; from the play by Frederic and Fanny Hatton; adapted by Tom J. Geraghty; titles by Tom Reed; photographed by Sid Hickox; art director, Max Parker. The cast: Colleen Moore, Antonio Moreno, Montagu Love, Gertrude Astor, Edythe Chapman, Kathryn Mc- Guire, Gertrude Howard. The Louise Gude Studios OF SINGING 1004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 — Voice Trial Gratis — PAUL PEREZ .... has been signed by First National to title features for that studio. He has just completed his first assignment, "Changeling," directed by ... . GEORGE FITZMAURICE Exclusive Representatives Lichtig & Englander Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 THE LAUREL GROVE By FRANK T. DAUGHERTY THE psychology craze had its chief influence, so far as my observation goes, in four departments of human life: in medicine, where I know alinost nothing of its effects save that the majority of reputable physicians will have nothing to do with it; in the university curricu- lum, where it has become the chief "grind" course (because compulsory), and where it is looked upon by students like compulsory chapel, as something to be endured with as much fortitude as one has, and forgotten as quickly as possible; in commercial salesmanship, where it had its greatest influence, perhaps its fullest trial, and its most abject failure; and in the psychological novel. The first two departments I dismiss as being too lit- tle within the ken of this article. The third and fourth, however, seem pertinent enough to merit space. It is not many years since every book, real-estate and cloth- ing salesman one met, as well as sellers of buttons and shoe laces, fastened one with a beady eye and practically tried to hypnotize one into buying the commodity they were selling, whether one had any use for it or not. Stores and sales organizations gave courses in "sales psychology'', where it was attempted to map out for the salesman all the "reactions" a subject was likely to have to his sales talk, and the victim's objections prepared for beforehand. This led inevitably to a sort of goose-step procedure on the part of salesmen, a parrot-like harrow- ing of the poor devil confronting them, that was first re- sented and then laughed at by the public. Better class organizations today with large sales forces will no longer tolerate this "high-powered" salesmanship. A man's needs are now taken into consideration, and it is recognized that to try to force one to buy something one doesn't want is to create a dissatisfied individual capable of much mischief among other potential buyers. Granted that it is a far cry from "sales-psychology" to the psychological novel, the two yet have much in common. * * * WHERE the notion came from that the intensive study and observation of sick and perverted individuals makes grreat art, I don't know. It may have been, as many suggest, an after effect of the war, an hysterical desire to plumb the depths of pain and misery. Or it may have been, as its chief votaries are so fond of saying, an attempt to find something beautiful even in the ugly. Once started, however, it seemed to have no end. Method- ical-minded medical men invaded the field of literature with books full of frightful terms designed to tell one all about the thoughts one was thinking when one wasn't aware that one was thinking at all. If one were overly mothered, he had an Oedipus-rex complex. If he hap- pened to be a timid individual, or of a forceful nature, he had a superiority-complex or an inferiority-complex. If he were ambitious, or lazy, or fearful or bold, or impulsive or cautious, or short or tall or fat or thin, he had some other sort of complex. E>verything he said or thought was a matter of grave significance to these brilliant minds, who observed therein, or thought they observed therein, the (Louise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 4857 BEVERLY BOULEVARD (Corner of Van Ness) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 reasons why poor creatures did all the other things they did. * * * THE novel, it seems, had just been waiting for some such ally. All its time and effort heretofore had been spent with mere objective things — with customs and habits, and families and evolution, with the love of a man for a maid, or, often enough, with the love of two men for a maid. How childish that had been. All the time the old-fashioned novelist's hero was making love to his hero- ine, both were probably thinking about something entirely different — she about the man hiding in her garden or her boudoir, and he about other maids and other light loves, or maybe just about ordinary things like business or last night's play. And poor George Eliot and poor Jane Aus- tin and poor Hawthorne — they hadn't even dreamed of such a state of affairs. It was possible to set down now in all detail what a fat old man or a thin old maid, or a kitchen wench or a frowning student were thinking when the world didn't see or didn't hear or didn't know. For this purpose, all the novelist had to do was think back into his own past life, his own unconsciousness, and un- earth all the things he had ever done that he had been ashamed of, pin them on one of his characters — and he had a psychological novel. The wretched incidents were then named truth, because he had actually acted them himself, and so had everyone else at one time or another. Wasn't the whole race decadent, full of filth and woe? Of what was a decadent race most fond? Of decadence. Ergo, make the picture so miserable that the beholder can't help but recognize himself and you have — again the real- istic psychological novel. * * * HERE and there, it is true, a Hardy and a Galsworthy and a Walpole raised their heads and went on with the serious business of trying to see life, and see it whole, and put down what they saw in novels that will represent this age to the generations who will follow. Their novels were not, it is true, made up wholly of the weaknesses and meannesses and evils of life, but neither did they ignore these. For over against this stuff they The El Camino Motto: "Quality and Service with Promptness and Courtesy" THE EL CAMINO MOTOR SERVICE 7S00 Sunset Boulevard (at Fuller Ave.) HoUywood Phone GRanite 0202 An established reputation for hand- ling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S three stores : 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard December 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen painted what more than balanced it — unselfish devotion, high courage, mercy and pity and faith and love, the color and the gallantry and the achievement of life— what Mat- thew Arnold called its "sweetness and light". These nov- elists conceived their characters as something more than automatons, capable of judging between what they thought was wrong and what they thought was right, exercising will, judgment and taste. In short, making them live and breathe and love and hate like a thousand generations of human beings had done before them. As an instance of this, when Galsworthy brought Soames to his end, in his last great novel, the press of the world echoed the event as the passing of one of the distinguished citizens of this age. AND all this is prefatory to remarks I want to make about The Closed Garden, by Julian Green (Harper and Brothers), whom no less a personage than M. Andre Maurois, in his introduction to the book, has called "the best of his generation". In spite of the ?act that Julian Green is an American born in France and writing in French, in spite of the fact that he went three years to Charlottesville, Virginia (where, as it is proudly stated in the back of the book, Foe studied), and wrote a novel about three American old maids called Avarice House—in spite of all this, one must disagree rather heartily with M. Maurois. This novel of Julian Green's, which has been variously described as "violent, forceful .... am- biguous, rich, powerful", is not a subjective psychological novel such as I have attempted to describe in the foregoing paragraphs. Not at all. He has left the self -torturing methods of these wearers of hair-cloth coats for t^ neo- classicism of a Stendahl, a Flaubert and a Charlotte Bronte. Although he himself has "never understood" these cat- egories"—he is not subjective, he is objective. We have the word of a number of French critics in the back of the book to prove it. In other words, when Mr. Green wants to tell you what is going on in his heroine's mind, he doesn't tell you what he thinks, judging from his own past experience, is going on in her mind. Nothing so crass. He simply returns to the classic method of describing what, if you were there, you would see going on, or hear going on, or feel going on, etc. It is the objective method. If Ad- rienne is in the secrecy of her bedroom, and he wants to reveal her innermost moods to you, he places her before her mirror, her round arms on its marble top, and has her blush when she suddenly recognizes that she is beauti- ful. Instead of putting his own interpretation on her thoughts as she stands across the street watching a house wherein dwells her lover (an old doctor who goes about his business of healing patients and doesn't even know of her existence), he tells you that "she ran across the street and pressed her lips on the garden wall of the little white house." This action is then explained. "As she did so, she came to her senses and looked sharply around her. The street was empty. She stifled a queer little laugh. 'Suppose someone had seen me,' she said to herself. 'Bah! They would not have understood'." No more do I, and no more will you. * * * MR. Green is not only one of the "greatest living French writers." At the tender age of twenty- seven, he is also to be ranked among those Euro- peans who have seen America— and seeing, have gone back sadder but wiser men. I quote his comment on I V^rmaris c5^rt 5hop I The Home of Harmonic Framing { Paintings Restored and Refinished ^ 6653 Hollywood Boulevard ( VISITORS WELCOME that occasion in toto, as given by Frederic Lefevre in Les Nouvelles Litteraires, and also in the back of the novel. "I went to America with all the prejudices of the Euro- pean. I expected to find a race concerned above all with its material welfare, practically indifferent to all literature as well as painting and music. But the thing for which I most reproached Americans was that they were, as we say in France, a young race. There was something in the superabundance of their health which exasperated me, and I hated their good humor". . . . '"At the core of the American soul is a profound sadness, a melancholy of which we haven't the faintest notion in Europe. A care- free attitude is not an American product. Life presents itself for them under the aspect of tragedy. The thing that deceives one is their physical appearance, their love of sport, but that is only superficial. . . .' " sic * * I AM always surprised at the seriousness with which Americans receive such profound nonsense. Yet it has always been so. We began by listening as patiently as we could to the sneers of English writers at our maiden literary efforts. But England herself was the first to re- gret that mistake and correct it, until today we are taken Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. ( Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing \ t nightly in Peacock Court ) GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 more seriously by some Englishmen than we take our- selves. Nevertheless, the cords of understanding estab- lished by the common language grow ever stronger, not weaker. Our real problem arose when Longfellow and Hawthorne began that never ending trail into the fast- nesses of European learning. It is true, they came back with their eyes opened; but those who followed them, have swallowed the ancient civilization bugaboo in its entirety. Now, not satisfied with hearing cultured Europeans rant at us over there, we listen to our travelers and invite them over to rant at us here. We pay them fat purses to lecture to our ladies' clubs on our unmitigated barbarities. We loan them money, and straighten out their economical tangles, and feed their starving thousands — and then fall on our faces and lick their hands when they send us a new novel or a new painting or a new symphony, because we aren't supposed to understand such things. And this is the country that supports more symphony orchestras, prints more books (and reads them), and has the highest level of education and the highest standard of living the world's history has ever known. * t t OF course, this has very little to do with Julian Green's Closed Garden, you will say, and I shouldn't let provincial Americanisms creep into such a serious business as reviewing this young genius' effort. Well, then, the story is about Adrienne and her sister Germaine, who is many years older and sick, and their father, who sleeps and goes out to band concerts and is cruel; and about Dr. Maurecourt, with whom Adrienne is madly in love; and about Mme. Legras, who lives across the street. And if you are like M. Maurois, it will bring you back many of the sensations of your youth in the country (for it is laid in the country, though you will perhaps not guess that until you read M. Maurois again), and will fill you with hope for the future of novel writing in France. It is too much to have hoped, I suppose, that it might have contained just a human kindly situation or so, some slight show of affection between the sisters, or pity from Ad- rienne for Germaine, or affection of father for daughters. In that case it might not have been art. But its all right with me, because I don't care whether France likes that kind of novel or not. I don't. And if you want to find out how it ends, you'll have to read it yourself, because I gave it up about half way through and returned it to the young man who loaned it to me and told him that it must be great because even the publishers said so, but that I felt, as the ^asecrack title writers might say, that if all such psychological novels (subjective or objective, I don't care which) were laid end to end, it would be a good thing. Whatever that means. AGAINST VULGARITY IN PICTURES By HAROLD HUNT, in the Oregon Journal, Portland THOUGH holding with Emerson that "All mankind loves a lover," The Film Spectator, a weekly mag- azine edited by Welford Beaton and published in the motion picture capital of America, Hollywood, holds that decency in love-making is a cardinal virtue. Beaton is directing editorial blasts in his magazine that, aimed at motion picture directors who persist in showing close- BELIEVE ME OR NOT I think I can four times out of five, tell in advance whether spoken screen dialogue will get a laugh or not. Nor is this so very remarkable. Any one born with a vein of humor and who has had my extended experience in writing for all kinds of comedians, play- ing all sorts of theatres, to all grades of audiences, can probably do the same thing. JAMES MADISON Originals — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 (.My agent is S. George Ullman) up scenes depicting long and passionate kisses, should have the hearty support of all who appreciate good, clean films. "Close-ups of kisses are about the last stand of vul- garity and commonness in pictures," he remarks. "They coarsen romances that should be beautiful; they please 1 per cent in audiences and disgust 99 per cent. Their in- clusion in pictures is due to the fact that the majority of our directors lack the fine sensibilities that should con- stitute the major portion of their equipment for their jobs. "Such directors cannot see any vulgarity in a elos«- up of a kiss. To the vulgar mind, vulgarity is a normal manifestation that is not recognizable for what it ii. And as the mass mind of pictures still is vulgar, I suppose we will continue to have vulgarity as part of our screen entertainment. We will have to content ourselves with the few pictures for which we can be thankful for the good taste of their romances." Keeping in mind Beaton's words, it is interesting to note the type of pictures that have and are establishing records in attendance, both here and elsewhere. Wingi proved as clean a film story as one could desire, yet it has packed houses wherever shown. The Singing Fool is a picture that surely none could criticize from the standpoint of vulgarity, but people flock to see it. No film story could be sweeter than Uncle Tom's Cabin and how many have enjoyed it ? Seventh Heaven and Street Angel have demonstrated their drawing power, but who can deny their cleanly beauty? The romances in King of Kings, The Covered Wagon and many other great spectacle films, which have delighted untold thousands, have been without vulgarity. Strange, isn't it, that clean pictures draw and yet directors continue to inject vulgarity into their pictures? CHRISTMAS GIFTS AND CARDS S4 yAouicnd (Sifts of Distinction ' Holly uiopd ©ifl^hop 6326 H^Uyw^C'PBL.VP'- HVLiyV/WP-WUF* Shop at Baber's — "Two Shops"— Just West of Vine J e/Vo«**'XK'**H,»aa « Complete Managerial Service and Business Representation for ARTISTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS and WRITERS S. GEORGE ULLMAN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. 6606 SUNSET BOULEVARD Hollywood 2627 December 8, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen AN ENGLISH OPINION Evening Standard, London: ONE of the most stupid of the many irritating habits of film producers is the attempt to impose on the public pale repetitions of a successful picture. Beau Geste, for instance, was followed by Beaa Sabrenr and a host of Foreign Legion films made by rival com- panies, none of them worth anything. Circus stories tumble over each other since Variety. So with the Mother film and the Russian film and the Great War film and the crime film — especially the crime film. More than one good picture may be inspired by the same theme, of course, and the underworlds of New York and Chicago have inspired several of undoubted quality. One of them was Underworld. Josef von Sternberg (who once worked in an English studio as plain Joe) made it very exciting and dramatic, with the aid of George Bancroft, as the chief gangster, and Clive Brook and Evelyn Brent his associates. In The Dragnet, at the Plaza this week, Mr. Sternberg has attempted to repeat his success, with Mr. Bancroft as a detective, for a change, and Miss Brent as a bad lass. Mr. Brook is missing. Mr. William Powell is the villain. This picture is a mere shadow of Underworld. It shows a detective accustomed to using his "gun" as freely as any gangster, broken because he is led to believe that he has killed a young assistant. He resigns, takes to drink, is treated with ignominy by the crooks who used to fear bin;, and is redeemed at the end by the woman criminal who loves him in spite of all. Mr. Powell, who always wears evening dress to commit murder, is as suave and sinister as ever until he is hit himself. Then he smiles a sweet, forgiving smile, grips hands with the detective, and shows that a cold-blooded assassin may have a heart of gold beneath his starched shirtfront. ' Mr. Sternberg must have perspired in the effort to find new effects. In the cabaret scene (oh, yes!) the chief char- acters are almost buried in paper streamers. Most of them are smoking, and a casual cigarette end might have led to effects unforeseen by the director. THE EXTRA GIRL By Margery Meadows "All on the set, all on the set!" This call in your dreams haunting you yet. Assistant directors shouting away Is all in the course of an Extra Girl's day. "When do we eat, when do we eat?" Murmurs some blonde, dead on her feet. 'Who wants to know?" someone replies, WTiile a seedy faced Sheik complains of klieg eyes. "All on the set, all on the set!" "Wait till I powder, my make-up's a wreck." "Aw, we're only shooting the back of your neck" — Yells the assistant, "all on the set." "Hit em — Kill em — Kill em again." "Sounds like murder," yaps a new dame, "That's for de lights, where from you came?" Pipes up a Spani^ ball thrower from Spain. Seven-fifty your pay, seven-fifty your pay. To the tune of N. G. and the sound of O. K. Maybe you'll star when you've senile decay — Still high is the hope in an Extra Girl's day. "My Uncle's a Viscount"— "My Dad is a Peer"— "My allowance from home is twelve thousand a year" — "Cut out the gab, your brain is all wet" — Yells the assistant, "All on the set!" Back to the dish — Back to the plate, A waitress become before it's too late. For you'll soon tire of crashing the casting gate — For such is the end of an Extra Girl's fate. I have for sale 86 of George Ade's inimitable Fables In They will make ideal short subject dialogues, and with George Ade's name are unquestioned assets both to producer and exhibitor. They are available for purchase either singly, or in a series. Johru ^. Qoodrich GRanite 9525 6683 Sunset Boulevard Page Sixteen THE FILM SPECTATOR December 8, 1928 JEAN HERSHOLT Peppy Stories, French Flavored, by F* de MioUis author of the screen play that broke all box-office records for Pathe (Paris). 1743 Orchid Ave. GRanite 1694 Winifred Dunn Cui'rent Scenarios ''SUBMARINE" Columbia "ADORATION" First National JOHN FARROW WRITER WITH PARAMOUNT •8? Howard Bretherton Now Directing "^/le^ Qreyhound Limited'^ with Monte Blue A Warner Bros. Vitaphone Feature GEORGE SIDNEY — Says — Jean "Bevei now doing Universal's Take." •age Hills" Hersholt and I some voice embroidering Comedy Special, "Give . . Give a Listen . . are on and Scott R. Dunlap Now With Columbia »«"---• •4 *■ TAY GARNETT Director DE MILLE STUDIO Demmy Lamson, Manager Ruth Collier, Associate ROWLAND V.LEE Director THE FIRST KISS PARAMOUNT-FAMOUS-LASKT ^^.—^ Edited by WELFORD BEATON THE 10 Cents FILM SPECTATOR Published In Hollywood Every Saturday Vol. 6 Hollywood, California, December 15, 1928 No. 13 ]nnMiuiiiniiiiiiiiMiiHiiimiiiiMainMiiiiiiininiiiiiMiiuiiiiiiiiiiii[]iiiimiiiii[]niiiiiiiiiiE]iniii!iMiiC]iiiiimiiiic]iiiiiimiiiaiiiJiniiiio I Who's to be financial king of the movies? A girl who thought she didn't know how to talk We enter a plea for some grey- haired romances Reviews by the Editor OUT OF THE RUINS REVENGE THREE WEEK-ENDS HAUNTED HOUSE SYNTHETIC SIN By the Junior Critic THE OUTCAST SHADY LADY WIN THAT GIRL THE WARE CASE THREE WEEK ENDS <«m]niMrininaiiiiuiiiiiic]iiiu»inME]niiiinijiii]MiinuiiiiiniiiiiiMiiiiniin:iiniiiE]iHHHiuiiuNifliiuiHDwnfflniK}iiuiiiiini{]uniumnDiiuwiittiuH(Hiiiiiiic]iii^ Page Two THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 The Last Word In Tone Beautiful Cahinets Workmanship Is the verdict of those who have heard the New Victrola- Radiola Combination Phonograph and Rad lO EHJBOMEM 5326 Wilshire Boulevard ORegon 5206 December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Three THE FILM SPECTATOR EVERY SATURDAY Published by FILM SPECTATOR, INCORPORATED Welford Beaton, President and Editor Howard Hill, Business Manager 411 Palmer Building 6362 Hollywood Blvd. gladstone 5506 Subscription price $5.00 per year; foreign $6.00. Single copy, 10 cents. He that zvrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. — Burke. HOLLYWOOD, CALIF., DECEMBER 15, 1928 Nominating Joe Schenck As the King of the Movies THE financial convolutions of the motion picture in- dustry never excited me very much. But^I^ would like to know what is going on in the heads of Joe and Nick Schenck and Adolph Zukor. They're going to pro- vide us with something to talk about. This merger busi- ness really hasn't started. When it reaches a more ad- vanced stage, I think we will find that the Zukor-Schenck group will have things pretty much their own way. J? ox and Warners have been grabbing the headlines for a year or more, and the others have been eclipsed. But it wont be for long. Both the Schencks and Zukor already have more money than they know what to do with. It means so little to them that any one of them would bet ten thou- sand dollars on a pair of eights without batting an eye. There is just one thing that men like them want-the head- lines They want no more money, but they want a lot more power. Zukor and the two Schencks mean Para- mount, Metro and United Artists. It is amusing now to watch the headlines going to the Warners, and probably no one is more amused than Zukor and the Schencks When they want the headlines-and they will-they will gobble up everything that stands between them and su- preme power. If they ever want First National, they will take it Warner Brothers are prominent now only be- cause the Schencks and Zukor don't care if they are. In two years the brothers will have receded to the place they occupied before their sudden rise. They can't be great producers because they haven't the germ of greatness in them They could hold their position, and solidify it, it they would allow the brains of others to function, and if they would get over their petty cash ideas; but there is no danger of them doing either. I hope they are enjoying to the limit their hour of triumph. It will be a brief one. The most interesting figure in pictures is that lone ranger, William Fox. I'm not so sure just where he comes m. But I am satisfied that he never will be snuffed out be- cause he is showing more sense than any of the others m consolidating his position: he is making the best Pictm-es. That wise little Irish newspaper man, Winnie Sheehan, the greatest box-office-production mind in the industry, realizes that as it is a business of making pictures, the sure way of making it a strong business is to make good pictures. As long as Fox is making the kind of pictures he is making now, he will continue to be a big factor in production, and his position will be so strong that he can resist any onslaughts made on him from the outside. Universal occupies its own position, and I can't see why anyone should want to disturb it. Standing a little m the background now is Joe Kennedy. I got a note from him the other day stating that he wasn't sure if he were go- ing to stay in pictures. I think he is. The I"sh psy- chology is as definite as that of the Jew. Zukor and the Schencks want power because it appeals to their oriental love of splendor; Joe Kennedy wants to be something m pictures for the unholy joy he would get out of cracking a lot of pates that cracked his. The Spectator was the first film paper to ask what good Joe Kennedy ^^^ ac- complishing in pictures, and was the first to suggest that his stay in them would not be long, but in the back of my mind when I was putting all that on paper, was the idea that the young Irish banker could be a factor m the busi- ness if he would get a closer acquaintance with pictures themselves and cease to regard the financial side as the only important one. If he ever got mad, it was a cmch he would be dangerous. Kennedy is smiling, but an Irish- man can go into battle with a smile on his face. I thinK we safely may put it down that Joe Kennedy is mad. His future in pictures will depend upon the extent to which his brain will be capable of supporting his anger. Meanwhile he stands in the background as a possibility, while our chief interest centers in Joe and Nick Schenck and Adoph Zukor. And the greater of the Schencks is Joe If we ever have a king of the movies, I thmk it wiU be Joe— Joe Schenck, I mean— but even at that, the Irish Joe always is a possibility. Someone Should Give This One a Voice Test THE other day I sat beside a director and hstened to one of our young screen actresses plead with her screen husband not to leave her. His suspicions were unfounded, she declared; there never had been anything irregular in her relations with his friend "I am inno- cent!" she declared. "You must not leave me! I love only you!" It was a bare little set and she was a drab little person, enacting a scene for a silent picture^ She is one of that sizable army of girls, fairly wel known ambitious, and with talent that can be developed. I chatted with her before she went into the scene. She IN THE NEXT SPECTATOR No new technic required for sound. Significance of Jack Gilbert's flight to United Artists. How much loyalty does a star owe his producer? Why trained voices are not necessary to talking pictures. . There always will be a place for silent pictures. Why naturalness in acting strengthens the drama. Reviews of The Awakening, Shady Lady, Outcast, Masks of the Devil, The Ware Case, Geraldme, and others. Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 was feeling pretty low for only that morning she had received word that someone else had been cast for a talk- ing picture part upon which she had counted. "A girl from the stage got it," the screen girl told me. "They told me her voice was trained. I haven't been able to get a voice test yet. I'm not under contract, and no one will give me one. Do you think girls from the stage are going to get all the breaks now?" Before I could answer she was called to the set for her scene, a close-up. The young man to whom she was supposed to be making her plea had gone off the pay-roll the day previous. She was alone on the set, and faced a "nigger," one of those black, narrow uprights that vie in inspirational qualities with a piece of tar paper. At this dead, dark, um-esponsive sur- face she directed her plea for forgiveness; before it she battled for her home, for her husband's love. Tears flowed from her eyes as in a voice, choking with emotion, but clear, and warm, and vibrant, she pleaded for the faith her husband once had in her. "O. K." said the direc- tor when she had concluded. He wiped the tears from his eyes as I wiped those from mine, and she came back to me and continued our conversation. I wondered about the stage actress who got the part this girl wanted. I wondered if she could stand in front of a "nigger" and re- produce a heart-break; if she could put tears into the microphone, if she could sob out words that voiced her yearning and be unconscious of the words as the screen girl was. I imagined how the "trained" voice would do it, the voice that would give heed to sibilants and syllables, that would rely upon elocution to show an emotion that came raw and bleeding from the heart of the girl who feared for her future because she had not been trained to talk. When the sound situation gets settled down I think that we will find that our talking will have this order of merit: first, the actor (or actress) with years of training on both the stage and the screen; second, the screen actor with no experience on the stage; third, the stage actor with no experience on the screen. And here and there among those in the first class we will find some of those whom we have put in the third class. From the side- lines of sets innumerable times I have been moved by speeches spoken in front of the camera by young screen artists who have no stage experience. I think I am safe in asserting that for every scene that causes a tear when reproduced in a motion picture theatre there are twenty that cause tears on sets during their shooting. I nearly sobbed out loud while watching Jack Barrymore do a scene for The Beloved Rogue, and when I saw the same scene on the screen it moved me not at all. In this instance. "She Goes to War'' HENRY KING'S production FOR INSPIRATION - HALPERIN PICTURES LLOYD NOSLER FILM EDITOR there was the trained stage voice to help the scene as I saw it, but I know of scores of other instances when the tear-producing voices were those of the boys and girls who never have been on the stage. They are trained only to feel emotions, and prior to the event of sound they used their voices only to increase the emotion within them- selves. And when the microphone catches that kind of talk it will have the finest thing it can give us in the way of dramatic dialogue. And I think that among those we like to listen to will be my young friend who pleaded with her screen husband not to leave her. Will some one please give her a voice test? * * * Using Chester Conklin to Restore Shattered Nerves THE Haunted House is a clever picture. It was di- rected by Benjamin Christensen for First National. It is a mystery picture without the weakness com- mon to most pictures of the kind, that of being almost meaningless until the last reel is reached, when we are told what everything in the previous reels meant. We are baffled by what goes on in the haunted house, but we find it none the less entertaining on that account. There is no question of the identity of someone; instead there is a series of mysterious and weird things happening be- fore our eyes, gripping on their own account, and having an entertainment value that is not dependent upon an explanation when the denouement is reached in the final reel. By placing his camera almost on the floor, Chris- tensen gives an eerie quality to his characters, an intel- ligent treatment of a story that is designed to give brave men goose-flesh and make cowards shriek. The heroic proportions of the characters supplied by the lowered camera gain added effectiveness by the clever use of lights and shadows. In this regard Christensen does not go to extremes. There are no dazzling shafts that bore their way through gloom to pick out characters, no weird effects offered on the theory that the story needs assist- ance. Nor did Sol Polito shoot any of his scenes from distorted angles. Occasionally he placed his camera be- hind a chair and shot scenes through its back, but such shots were consistent with the usual low positions of the camera. There is no doubt that pictures like this one — Paul Leni's Cat and Canary is another — have a devastating effect on the nerves of those of their viewers who have nerves, and fault might be found with them on that ac- count. In this respect there is a further exhibition of cleverness in the treatment of The Haunted House. Every time the spookiness gets to a point that would strain stout nerves, Chester Conklin strolls into the scene, his at- titude expressing his intense longing to know what the deuce is going on about him, and if his every appearance is not greeted by shrieks of laughter it will mean that audiences will not follow the example Donald and I set in the projection room. The Haunted House really is a com- edy, and an exceedingly funny one, made so almost en- tirely by the superb performance given by Conklin. His reaction to all the weird and mysterious things that go on around him assures the picture a hilarious reception by the public. He and Thelma Todd, a First National con- tract artist who is being built up and who has enough ability to justify it, are the featured players. Behind them is a remarkable cast — Barbara Bedford, Eve Sothern, December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five Flora Finch, Montagu Love, Larry Kent, Edmund Breese, Sidney Bracy, William V. Mong, Johnnie Gough and Ervile Alderson. Miss Bedford's appearances on the screen have been all too rare. The splendid performance she gave in Mockery opposite Lon Chaney should have earned for her recognition as one of our most talented dramatic ac- tresses. It is a strange business that does not make more use of a girl endowed so abundantly with both beauty and brains. In Haunted House Monty Love and Bill Mong give extraordinary characterizations as a couple of nuts who are responsible for most of the hair-raising stunts that agitate the cobwebs in the spooky place. Despite all the fine performances, however, the picture belongs to the director who made use of the human elements, the camera, and such externals as wind and rain to put together a piece of screen entertainment that will please the world. There are a couple of slips. Conklin's hat blows off and apparently rolls in the direction from which the wind is blowing. Although we get the impression that it is rain- ing outside people coming into the house have no rain on them. The source of light in the haunted house is not indicated. * * * Clara Bow's Friends Will Like Her Latest Picture CLARA Bow and Neil Hamilton stage a gesticularly energetic quarrel in the middle of a cafe, with well populated tables on all sides of them, but attract the mild attention of only three or four people. In real life that kind of a scene in that kind of cafe would have created a sensation. Later the same two young people stage a fervid love scene in the midst of a large crowd that surrounds them on the street corner. In real life such an exhibition would be impossible. Three Week- Ends, the story accredited to Elinor Glyn, is going to suffer somewhat from its treatment, but it is going to make money because it is entertaining and because Clara is its star. It is cut strictly to the Bow pattern and per- mits its star to give one of those scintillating, ex- traordinarily artistic performances that box-offices tell us delight the picture patrons of the world. I was alone in a projection room when I viewed the picture, and when I discovered that the story was a simple little one that made no demand on my attention, I occupied my thoughts, with that degree of concentration that only a projection room permits, with a close study of Clara Bow's performance. With hawklike intensity— although I know nothing about hawks— I watched every action of the young woman, her fluent arm and body movements, her fleeting expressions, her smile, her power, and marvelled again at her amaz- ing artistry. There was not one instant when she was not acting. Yet not for one instant did she give the im- pression that she was acting. But she does definitely give the impression that she will last. Paramount will have to watch its step with Clara. I do not blame it for play- ing its one-role stars out to the end and then letting them go without making any effort to give them other char- acterizations, for its primary business is earning dividends for its stockholders, not nursing stars to keep them alive; but in Clara it has an artist who will pay dividends on thought, time, and patience expended on her future while she still has a present. She has done just about enough of these pictures in which she can have unnoticed brawls in cafes and love scenes in streets. Also I think she has exposed her person quite sufficiently to make superfluous our further acquaintance with such intimate details of it as good taste would indicate should be secrets shared only by her and her bathtub, not something for the whole world to gloat over. Her future program should consist of stories of ascending merit until she reaches the realm of high screen art, a position that I am confident she will reveal sufficient talent to maintain. There are a few other spots in his direction of Three Week-Ends where Clarence Badger indulges in screen habits that directors soon must discard if they are to keep abreast of advanc- ing art. Neil Hamilton stands by his employer's desk. The employer enters the office, slams the door, and walks briskly to the desk, and Neil is not aware of his pres- ence until the two are close enough to one another for their elbows to touch. How long are directors going to ask the public to believe such ridiculous things ? I know that glycerine costs money, but they say that Clara sheds real tears on the set, therefore there is no economic reason why she should not wipe them away, and there can be no doubt of the advisability of having her do so when the matter is considered from an esthetic angle. Through- out an entire sequence in this picture her beauty is marred by two smears as much out of place as a worm on a rose. But on the whole, Three Week-Ends is a rollicking little tale that will please Clara's friends. Neil Hamilton gives another of those fine performances that have become a habit with him. Harrison Ford, one of my favorites who never fails to please me, does splendid work. Edythe Chapman and Guy Oliver are more than satisfactory as ATTENTION, SPECTATOR READERS! DONALD started the revolution. He began a march around the library, chanting "No work during Christmas week!" I just had laid down a letter from Stewart Edward White tempting me to Burlingame for a week of golf, an impossibility with a weekly on my hands. But I joined Donald's revolution. I marched behind him and we united in wild shouts of "Down with Spectator readers!" Virgil and Ko Ko were thrilled by the spectacle and barked furiously as they brought up the rear, lend- ing just the right touch of ferocity to the uprising, but so astounding Lord Roberts and Louie, our two cats, that they arched their backs and spat at one another, a ridiculous thing to do, for they really are the best of friends. The revolution lost its noise, but none of its he-man intensity when we were re- minded that there was company in the living-room. The upshot of it was the decision to publish no Spectator during Christmas week. We're going to skip one number at a time when people are thinking about other things, anyway. There will be no Spectator under date of Decem- ber 29. We'll knock off for the year with the December 22 number. Donald and I are going to Burlingame. Golf is going to occupy all my attention. If I meet any- one who even as much as mentions motion pictures to me, no doubt I will sit down beside him and enter into an animated discussion of them. Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 Clara's parents. There are a couple of people in the cast whose names I do not know. One plays the head of an insurance company and the other Ford's secretary, and both give admirable performances. The titles do not as- sist the production greatly. * * * By No Means as Hot as the Titles Proclaimed Her DOLORES Del Rio still has but one performance to her credit. She was magnificent in Resurrection, but has done nothing outstanding since then be- cause Edwin Carewe has not found for her another part that suits her so well. Solely on account of the fact that she is of Spanish type, Carewe persists in presenting her as something hot and sizzling; giving her parts that call for a coyness and cuteness that she does not possess, and not the kind of parts that make demands on the talent that Resurrection revealed her as possessing. After she had demonstrated her ability to handle capably a heavy dramatic part, Fox sought to please the box-office by starring her undraped legs in Carmen, and various other producers have presented her in roles that have explored her possibilities without finding anything that allowed her to repeat the success she achieved in the Tolstoy story. Dolores Del Rio is restricted by her appearance and per- sonality to a definite line of parts. She really should play heavies, but it is all right to make an effort to estab- lish her as a star by giving her sympathetic roles, but it would be easier to make her a female Emil Jannings than a successful Mary Pickford. Mary could have been a fas- cinating and amusing bear tamer's daughter in Revenge. Dolores plays the part in a way that makes it neither fascinating nor amusing. It is a good example of bad casting, and the box-office will show the effect of it when her next picture is released. I can not see her as Evan- geline, her current production, nor can I conceive of her coming anywhere near the world's conception of the hero- ine of Longfellow's great poem. Ed Carewe no doubt will build up alluring atmosphere for his poetic romance, but I hope he will profit by the lesson Revenge could teach him — ^that a mis-cast star can dissipate any atmosphere. No one could complain of the externals of Revenge. It is mounted sumptuously and has many beautifully composed and photographed scenes; and the acting is quite good enough to make any picture successful from the stand- point of dramatic art, yet when the film had run about half its length, I was relieved to discover that my young- est daughter shared my opinion that going home would be a more engaging way of spending our time. I, who never have walked out on Clara Bow, Laura La Plante, Colleen Moore or Norma Shearer, walked out on Dolores Del Rio because I was bored stiff by the whole picture. The conflict between the titles and the action was too much for me. With dictionary-exhausting persistency the title writer kept telling me that Dolores was untamed, ferocious, wild, passionate, primitive, and palpitating; that her blood was on fire, that she ate cinders and spat flames, and generally was hot stuff; and all the time Direc- tor Carewe persisted in presenting her as a young woman who liked to sit placidly in her father's embrace as she told him how her blood was boiling, and who was some- what timid in the scenes in which live bears shared the camera with her. "Burning passions — fierce hatreds — wild loves" was the introduction to a scene showing a band of gj-psies who failed utterly to produce anything that war- ranted the intense excitement of the title writer. "You scratch — and bite — and claw," said LeRoy Mason to Dolores after he had carried her miles on his shoulders as he sat in his saddle and managed his horse. To ask us to believe that any man could carry an unfettered and unwilling girl away on horseback, especially such a wild, fierce and un- tamed daughter of nature as the titles proclaimed Dolores to be, is going a little farther than any intelligent picture patron is liable to follow, but to rub it in by telling us that throughout this impossible ride the sizzling heroine bit and scratched and clawed when we could see that she did nothing of the sort, is a safe way in which any pro- duction can commit cinematic suicide. And that's what Revenge did. * * * Colleen as a Girl who Tries to Sin, But Doesn't Know How SYNTHETIC Sin is not going to be Colleen Moore's greatest box-office success although I think that her performance in it is in some respects the cleverest thing she has done on the screen. She plays a thoroughly dumb girl of seventeen or eighteen, and dumb girls are too rare now to be popular screen material. But those with a taste for a fine characterization will find much in the picture to delight them. Colleen Moore is an exceed- ingly talented girl, a fact that she impresses on us in this picture every moment she is on the screen. There are two high spots in her acting: she imitates Paderewski at the piano in a manner that will bring roars of laughter from any audience, and during a long dolly shot showing her walking along the street as the first adventure in the life of sin she has determined to live, she gives us a succession of facial expressions which show us the strides she is making in perfecting that branch of her art. In this day and age when we are told constantly that all our young people sin, and when the screen busies itself in presenting so many scenes of the wild life they lead, it is refreshing to have on the screen one young girl who would like to sin, but who doesn't know how. The whole atmo- sphere of Synthetic Sin is clean, notwithstanding its con- tact with the underworld. William A. Seiter directed with the happy touch that is characteristic of his work, but I wish he would get over the horror he has of people's backs. I believe that if in forming his groups he placed one or two people with their backs to the camera, he could photograph them without disastrous results. He seems now to have the idea that if he did such a thing the studio would blow up or the end of the world would come, but, even so, he should take a chance. Tony Moreno plays opposite Colleen. He seems to be getting handsomer with each picture, and also with each picture he shows that he is becoming a better actor all the time. We hear a great deal about the scarcity of leading men, but I have not seen Moreno on the screen often enough of late to indicate that producers used him as one way of getting around the shortage. Tony is one of the most agreeable screen personalities we have and as long as he is available no producer need worry about the lack of acceptable leading men. Others who give a good account of themselves in Synthetic Sin are Montagu Love, Gertrude Astor, Edythe Chapman, Kathryn McGuire and Gertrude Howard. Gert- December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven rude Howard is a colored woman with a soul. She plays Colleen's maid, guide and comforter, and makes a big contribution to the enjoyable features of the picture. Tom Reed has supplied a iine lot of titles. One of them is funny enough to make Tom famous. Colleen leads Moreno to some queer looking motor contraption. When he looks at it in surprise and expresses curiosity as to what it is Colleen explains with that happy grin that is characteris- tic of her: "Our Rolls-Royce married a motor cycle." * * * Carthay Circle Theatre Runs as an Indication of What the Public Wants WHAT kind of pictures does the public want ? Dur- ing the twenty-six months that the Carthay Circle theatre has been running it has shown twelve pic- tures. The one that had the longest run was What Price Glory? I criticized it on the score of its vulgarity and its revolting eating scenes, but it has scored a great suc- cess throughout the world. It ran to big business at the Carthay Circle for twenty-three weeks, six days. Seventh Heaven came next with a run of twenty-one weeks, six days, indicating that the public had a slight preference for the rawness of the war picture over the tenderness and beauty of the Borzage masterpiece. The Volga Boat- man enjoyed the third largest run, lasting an even nine- teen weeks. These three pictures have been the outstand- ing Carthay Circle successes, and represent three totally different kinds of screen entertainment. There is a drop of nine weeks to the next picture. Colleen Moore in Lilac Time, which ran just ten weeks, beating by one day the run of Sunrise, which lasted nine weeks, six days. This coldly correct attraction was followed both in booking and in duration by the warmly human Four Sons, Jack Ford's outstanding production, which ran eight weeks, six days. It gave way to The Street Angel, which presented again the Gaynor-Farrell-Borzage combination that delighted the world with Seventh Heaven. But in the new picture the combination lasted thirteen weeks, three days less than the Seventh Heaven run, closing after holding the screen for eight weeks, three days, proving after all, the story is the thing, and not the cast and the direction. The unspeakable vulgar Loves of Carmen had the next longest run, lasting seven weeks, three days. What Price Glory? was followed into the house by Seventh Heaven, and Lovea of Carmen was the next attraction. Apparently Glory ex- hausted the public's capacity for absorbing vulgarity, and after Seventh Heaven had purified the atmosphere, the public showed a disinclination to support for a long run another picture that was offensive. No doubt Carmen BELIEVE ME OR NOT I think I can four times out of five, tell in advance whether spoken screen dialogue will get a laugh or not. Nor is this so very remarkable. Any one born with a vein of humor and who has had my extended experience in writing for all kinds of comedians, play- ing all sorts of theatres, to all grades of audiences, can probably do the same thing. JAMES MADISON Originals — Adaptations — Titles — Dialogue 323 North Citrus Ave., Los Angeles ORegon 5627 (My agent is S. George Ulhnan) would have lasted longer if Glory had not preceded it into the house. Going back to the record we find that the second picture shown at Carthay Circle had the ninth long- est run, Bardeleys, the Magnificent lasting seven weeks, one day. Mother Knows Best, which had Madge Bellamy's imitations to offset Louise Dresser's magnificent perform- ance, ran for an even six weeks. When I reviewed Fazil I stated that I liked it, but that it would have a shorter run at the Carthay Circle than any other picture that pre- ceded it. Not only has that proven true, but its run was shorter than that of any picture that thus far has suc- -.eeded it. It ran five weeks, three days. Interference, the first all-talking picture to be shown, ran five weeks. » ♦ * ONE of the strange things about the makers of motion pictures is their reluctance to give us grey-haired romances. The screen would have us believe that anyone over twenty is too old to love. Producers would have us believe that in some mysterious way they determine the average mentality of an audience. An easier task, I imagine, and one whose result would be even more valuable to them, would be to determine the average age of the people who make up an audience. If I had to make a guess, I would place the figure somewhere between twenty and twenty-five, which in no way affects my belief in the box-ofiice value of grey-haired romances. Say we have Edythe Chapman, that sympathetic, understanding, and talented screen mother, and Alec Francis, the sterling character actor, as wife and husband. Let us have a scene in which they are standing together by the cradle of a grandchild as they register by a handclasp, or in any other way appropriate to their ages, that their love for one another is as strong as it could have been when they plighted their troth, that it has endured throughout their lives, and has been mellowed by the gliding years. This, I claim, would be rich fare for the twenty-year-old audi- ence. The youth would reach for the maiden's hand, and he would lean toward her and whisper, "That is the way we will be," and the pressure of her fingers would signify her assent. All the couples below the age of the couple on the screen would get the same reaction. No young romance has the tenderness and sweetness of a love ro- mance that has endured. There is inspiration for young lovers in the ripened love of grey-haired people who hand in hand have marched forward with the years and taken their romance with them. Love is something that takes on beauty as it sheds its passion, that takes on a richer glow as its first white heat grows cooler. It is a mis- taken impression of the screen that the twenty-year-old audience must of necessity be interested only in twenty- year-old love. It is interested in young love as a fact of to-day, and it is interested in old love as a promise of what to-morrow has in store. * ♦ * THAT all's fair in love and war is all right as an apophthegm, but it's a poor premise upon which to build a screen story. First National seemed to think that it would excuse these things in Out of the Ruins that could be excused on no other grounds. The result was an exceedingly poor picture, one of the kind that makes you wonder as you view it how under the sun the producers failed to grasp the impossibility of it long before shoot- ing began. You can introduce your hero as a sneak-thief. Page Eight THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 a dope fiend, or an outcast, and you can regenerate him and give the girl to him in the end. But show him de- serting from the army when every man is needed, and you have a hero whom any amount of later heroism and the most pleading titles will not restore to the good graces of an audience. Dick Barthelmess, splendid actor that he is, could not make the lieutenant in Out of the Ruins a sympathetic character. The picture suffers from the blight of prenatal stupidity. Given a characterization based on a faulty premise and its weaknesses will become more apparent in the degree in which the acting has merit. In this picture the harder Dick works to establish the character, the more we are impressed with what a fool of a character it is, and paradoxically, the more liable are we to get the impression that the performance is a poor one. A bright spot in the picture, however, is Marian Nixon, long one of my favorites. She proves herself to be a sterling little trouper and gives a performance that should earn her other good parts. Some producer is losing some- thing every day she is idle. She is a captivating little bundle of intelligence and beauty, a combination none too common. Another fine performance in Out of the Ruins is given by Robert Fraser, a really fine actor who always can be counted on to make a character convincing. Rose Dione also does splendid work. But as the thing was hopeless from the first, no amount of great acting could make it anything else. * * * THE great army of Photoplay readers has decided that Seventh Heaven was the best picture of 1927. The presentation each year of Jim Quirk's medal is a matter of importance to the industry. The critics of the country pick the best picture of the year for Film Daily, but their decision is not half so significant as that arrived at by Photoplay readers who don't pretend to know what makes the motion picture wheels go around, but who do know what kind of pictures they like. In succession they have liked Humoresque, Tol'able David, Robin Hood, Covered Wagon, Abraham Lincoln, Big Parade, Beau Geste, and now Seventh Heaven, the picture that headed my selection of the ten best pictures of 1927. Look over the list. You will not find one picture in which the sex interest amounted to anything. You will not find one that belonged to any particular phase that the screen was passing through at the time it was made, such as the underworld phase that now is occupying so much of the industry's attention. The note common to all the Photoplay medal winners was cleanliness. They are wholesome pictures with heart in- terest in them, the kind of picture that the whole family could see and enjoy. Frank Borzage directed two of them, and the others were directed by Henry King, Alan Dwan, James Cruze, Phil Rosen, King Vidor, and Herbert Brenon. All of them are directing still, and turning out good pictures. * * * A GOOD example of the ignoring of non-essentials is •'*■ given in Sins of the Fathers. Ruth Chatterton and Matthew Betz are shown as a pair of adventurers who foster themselves on Emil Jannings when his bootlegging activities bring him wealth. We don't know who the two are; we don't know if they are married to one another, whether they are brother and sister, or merely two crooks who have drifted together. We dismiss the idea that they may be married only when Miss Chatterton marries Jan- nings. Betz continues in the employ of Jannings, which keeps him in the picture, but it ends without revealing to us what his relation to Miss Chatterton was. It makes no difference. We are interested in the two only for what they do in the picture, and who they are or where they came from is a matter of no importance for it has nothing to do with anything in the story. In a novel an author no doubt would feel compelled to give us the antecedents of the couple as an assistance to the reader in visualiz- ing them. In a picture we need no such assistance; we see them doing the things that interest us for their bear- ing on the story, and what they did before we see ther is so unimportant that it does not even pique our curiosity,^ * * * DIRECTORS should give heed to the fact that th^ American manner of drinking liquor does not prevai] in foreign countries. A Woman of Affairs is laid in Eng land. In it Jaclj Gilbert drinks whiskey straight from one of the diminutive glasses common in this country. I have ■ been in quite a number of English homes and clubs, and have lived among Englishmen in other countries, but I have never seen one of the little glasses used. An Eng- lishman always takes his whiskey in a long glass with plenty of soda. In Night Watch, with a French locale, we have a Frenchman drinking a glass of wine at one gulp. Frenchmen sip their wines. I spent a year in France and during that time I did not see one Frenchman drink his wine as it is drunk in the picture. * • * HER Cardboard Lover, Edward Everett Horton's cur- rent starring vehicle at the Vine Street Theatre, is one of the best stage attractions offered in Hollywood for some time. Horton not only again demonstrates what an excellent actor he is, but in this play he proves that he is a generous star, for he puts it on a nice, big platter and hands it to Florence Eldridge, who shows her gratitude by proving worthy of the trust. She gives a delightful performance. She and Horton are captivating in all their scenes. If you are looking for a wholly satisfactory eve- ning's entertainment you will find it at the Vine Street. * * * npHE Movietone shots of football games, which are a ■*■ feature of the Carthay Circle program, further expand our ideas of the possibilities of sound. Hitherto such scenes have bored me, but I found to my delight that the addi- tion of sound made them so graphic that I became excited and alert to the point of being able to follow the plays. I suggest to Winfield Sheehan that he suggest to his ^^Super-Secretary )f Competent young woman, eight years' newspaper, publicity, ad- vertising and office experience, seeks salaried position as secretary to screen or stage writer, with opportunity to work Into collabora- tion. Attractive personality; dramatic training; student of screen: widely read; analytical type of mind; phenomenally good memory for stories; excellent research and detail worker. Successful rec- ord in difficult and unusual positions. Ample proof of abilities in scrap books and references. Appointments by letter only. Miss Lynne, 2022 West Adams Street. December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine Movietone News men that they shoot an entire game, with someone at the microphone to call off the names of the men who make the plays. Such a feature would please the millions of football fans throughout the country, and it would please me, which is much more important, for I am not a football fan and if I can follow with any degree of excitement something in which I am not interested, it follows that millions of other people, also uninterested, would get the same kick out of it. I'll confess, however, that I rather would have William Fox make the experi- ment with his money than with mine. * * * WE are beginning to read now how this or that stage writer is returning to New York, and this or that stage actor is called East by an important part that is awaiting him. Some of the papers are stating frankly that stage writers and actors do not fit into sound pictures, and that the studios are beginning to find it out. Six months ago The Spectator predicted precisely what is happening now. It said that we still were in the screen business and that there was no place in it for stage actors or writers without screen training. What a lot of time and money would have been saved if producers had listened to us. of cinema scenarists is the first important advance that the new medium has made to date. When you have laid down the Munsterberg book you may agree with Mr. Schenck— "The danger is that the public may be poisoned by talkies." Mr. Schenck, more- over appears to have introduced into the movie in- dustry the first real use of the element of surprise which is just as essential in big business as it is in military strategy. If you will quietly watch developments at the United Artists after the arrival of Reinhardt and Von Hofmannsthal you will see how true is my tip. c. R., NEW YORK. Somewhei-e nearer the front of this Spectator I already have nominated Joe Schenck for king of the niovies._ I believe he has the keenest business mind in pictures, essentially a tiig Business mmd zvhich has no tolerance for details, hut much time for big things, and I am ready to believe what L. K. says about his ability to grasp sound. December 3. I have been waiting to read of the manner in which you rewarded the Extra Girl who was in- strumental in getting you to lower the price ot The Spectator to ten cents on the newsstands. _ 1 understand from one newsdealer that it has in- creased your sales three times over— and the txtra Girl gets nothing! GEORGE B. GARNERED IN THE MAIL Don't you think you have advertised Ko Ko enough? Why not leave your dogs alone for a few issues and get back to your old standby— the punctuation of titles? Or if you must ring Ko Ko in, why not give us her views on how little we know about punctuation? „,„t„t-.t^ A TITLE WRITER. The last suggestion is not a bad one. If I could get Ko Ko's views I believe they would prove sound. She is a puppy, ap- proaching her sixth month, and is as persistently inquisitive as all puppies arc. Her every pose is a query, every look m her eve a question, and to show that she knoivs a damned sight more about punctuation than most title writers, she carries her tail all the time in the shape of a question mark. Criticism is absolutely necessary for the better- ment of one's work, and The Spectator has never failed the actors, always giving them the oppor- tunity not to repeat their errors, therefore, your constructive criticism is surely welcomed. If you can manage to see more sunshine than fog m my work I assure you this will be perfectly tophole with me, because I sincerely ^^^^l^^^' ^^^'^^- Startling as it may seem to you, the leading mind among the producers in the matter of the use of the sound-device is Joseph M. Schenck. His projection of Hugo von Hofmannsthal of Vienna into the ranks Give Furniture for ARISTO FURNITURE CO. 5540-42 HOLLYWOOD BLVD. The Store of Unusual Furniture, Lamps, Tables, Chairs, Novelties — Oriental Rugs — November 8. I was astonished to read my little note in print and more than astonished when I discovered that vou were going to grant my plea and make the price of The Spectator lower. But all this astonishment was nothing to the fierce joy I felt when I received your charming note telling me that hereafter I was to be a guest-reader of The Spectator— that I was to receive it every week -jjh ^y^-^^-^^^^l"*^- Hotel Mark Hopkins San Francisco A place to rest near the shops and theatres. New, comfortable, quiet, airy. f Anson Weeks' Orchestra playing I \ nightly in Peacock Court J GEORGE D. SMITH President and Manager Page Ten THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 AS THEY APPEAL TO A YOUTH By Donald Beaton — The Spectator's 18-Year-Old Critic A SUPERSTITION from which the motion picture in- dustry gradually is being freed is that the heroine must be so pure that she shames the lilies in the field, and that if she happens to get mixed up in an affair, it is either misplaced confidence or absent-mindedness; and the people who look askance at it are really evil-minded old hypocrites. Naturally, when Corinne Griffith was intro- duced in The Outcast as a lady of rather low origin I ex- pected her to turn out to be an authoress, looking for ma- terial, or some other poor but honest person. Imagine my embarrassment when I discovered that she was frankly what she was, and made no bones about it. William Seiter, in a very amusing sequence, even satirized the usual mo- tion picture stuff. That was the thing which made the pic- ture interesting and the people real. It gave Miss Grif- fith's love for Edmund Lowe, who played the man who gave her a new start in life, a strength and poignancy which her splendid acting turned into a really beautiful and artistic piece of work. Seiter handled the relationship between the man and the girl very cleverly. Until the man was aroused by the faithlessness of the girl he thought he really loved, he never realized what the adora- tion of the other girl meant to him. The whole thing was handled tastefully and intelligently. In one sequence she prepared a New Year's dinner for him, but when he came, it was only to tell her he was going somewhere else. There was a lot of pathos then, but he ended it by coming back and taking her with him. He was shown to be fond of her, so it was the only natural thing for him to do. At the hotel she made a remark to one of his friends which no human being on earth would be likely to make to another unless he were engaged in a quarrel. As a result they had a tiff, which was shot in individual close-ups, although they were sitting practically shoulder to shoulder. Seiter showed a tendency all through the picture to use the antiquated cut instead of the new and more useful method of swinging the camera from one to another. There was a scene where Miss Grif- fith was standing below a window, and Lowe was leaning out of it which would have been greatly improved by the abolition of cuts. Incidentally, during the battle in the hotel, Lowe informed her that she was lacking in refine- ment. She was shown as caring so much for him that a remark like that would hurt her more than it would anger, but Seiter apparently forgot that, and had her leave in a rage. Lowe was shown as being of a kindly nature, so I expected him to feel sorry immediately for what he had said; but he didn't. Those were two inconsistencies which I didn't like so well. However, Seiter deserves a medal for ending his picture without a clinch, nor are there any clinging kisses in the whole thing. His two characters kiss each other with evident pleasure, but they don't take away the appetite, which was fortunate, for I saw the picture just before "JThanksgiving. I have seen Corinne Griffith many times, but this is the performance of hers which I like the best of all. The ar- tistry of her work was greatly enhanced by a human note which has been more or less absent from her other work. Edmund Lowe handled his role capably, and Kathryn Car- ver made a good heavy woman. Louise Fazenda, Huntly Gordon and James Ford completed the cast. * * * DAVID Butler can direct comedy of a certain type, as he demonstrates in Win That Girl, a silly story which is made amusing in spots by his little touches. He had a difficult story to tell, and the picture never will get into any hall of fame. There was nothing much to it. I read and enjoyed the story in The Saturday Evening Post from which it was made, chiefly because it was well vsTit- ten; but there wasn't enough in it to make a screen play. In the story, the hero started out to find himself a mate with athletic tendencies, because he wanted to make a good football player of his son. However, his well laid plan came to naught when he fell in love with someone who was not very husky. He married her, which was human and natural; but in the picture the man married the first strong woman he saw, which was distinctly not so good. It didn't seem natural. Another thing which was very, very unnatural was the head coach of a college team going into ecstasies over a player before the player himself. That is something that never would happen. The football game which ended Win That Girl wasn't so hot. It was too perfectly rehearsed, or it gave that impression. The players ran leisurely along until they were supposed to be tackled, then they fell, whether there was anyone around or not. At the last, where the hero grabs the ball and runs to a touchdown, he ran at least a hundred and fifty yards, and dodged about twenty-five tacklers. I thought he never would get there. The two best performances of the picture came from Roscoe Karnes and Sidney Bracy, as the father and grand- father of the hero. I got a great kick out of their work. There was quite a large cast, the only remaining people I can remember being David Rollins and Sue Carol. Rol- lins had nothing to do but sneeze, but he did that very acceptably. Miss Carol was quite as vivacious as usual, although her acting in the few scenes she had was chiefly dental. * * * DUE to a weak climax, Shady Lady was prevented from being a really first class motion picture. When the action reached what was supposed to be its height, the success of the whole thing depended upon the element of surprise introduced when Louis Wolheim, who is apparently defeated, gains the upper hand again. As Wolheim was provided with several opportunities to get his enemies into his power again by simply pulling a gun, it was obvious to anyone that the openings were being ignored because of something to come. Naturally, when it came, the punch was all gone. E. H. Griffith handled the direction smoothly, too smoothly, in fact, for there were no highlights. He uses traveling shots to obviate the necessity for cuts, a very good habit which is becom- ing more and more popular among our more intelligent directors. The story was far too frail for a whole picture to be hung upon, so there were many occasions when it sagged wearily under the strain. There was no particular time when I was up and rooting violently for the side of justice and honesty, nor did I ever feel the urge to kill the villain which is the correct reaction to a really good picture. The ending is to be shot over again in sound, so some of the defects may be remedied at that time. Griffith usually gets the most out of his sets and loca- tions, pictorially speaking; but he fell down somewhat in Shady Lady. The story was laid in Cuba, and there were several places where the scenery could have been used to advantage. There is one sequence where Bob Arm- strong and Phyllis Haver eat dinner together which should have been shot on a balcony, or in a garden; but it takes place in the prosaic surroundings of a hotel suite. After that, I'll admit, there weren't many places where beauty could be inserted; but it was criminal to let that opportun- ity go. All through the picture there were little things which were done incorrectly, and which didn't do the final result any good. Phyllis Haver and my favorite leading man, Robert Armstrong, had the leads in Shady Lady. Technically speaking, they are character actors and not the romantic type, yet they produced a surprisingly good love story. Miss Haver's characterization was rather a new one for her, because she played a far more subdued role than any that have come her way lately. There was no humor in it, and she did it with a power and understanding which deserve high praise. Armstrong is a good partner for December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Eleven her, as he has a very sympathetic personality in addition to an unusual amount of acting ability. He can be a heavy and still have the audience with him all the time. Louis Wolheim furnished the menace. He may be tough looking, but his performances are works of art which will make his name known all over the world. His presence in the cast usually assures the picture a success. An ex- perienced actor would be worried at being placed in the same cast with the three brilliant troupers I have men- tioned, but Russell Gleason, whose screen debut this is, didn't let it daunt him. He stepped right up with a per- formance which was amazing for its ease and cleverness. Pathe has a great find in him, and should act accordingly. + * * THE Ware Case is by far the best motion picture to come out of England for a long time. I doubt very much if English pictures ever will be very formidable rivals of the American films, but The Ware Case shows that they are improving by leaps and bounds. With the exception of the grouping of the characters, there is a decided lack of knowledge of fundamentals apparent in the picture. The photography is very poor, and the lights and the makeup of the actors didn't blend correctly. There was only one performance which contained anything out- standing. It was that of Stewart Rome, who played Sir Robert Ware. He was far more easy and natural than the others of the cast, with the exception of the man who played the booky. Manning Haynes handled the direction. An analysis of the story of The Ware Case reveals that it is a picturization of one of the numerous English de- tective novels, and it looks as if it might have come from the pen of Fletcher, the man who put English crime on the map. The eye of the camera sees all the clues as they are discovered, just as if the book were being read. In America, the denouement is the scene where some wit- ness comes running into court with the real murderer done up in a bundle under his arm. Apparently the idea of anyone making such a display of himself is repugnant to the sensibilities of the British, who are peculiar that way. At the beginning of the picture there was some reference to a detective who had waited twenty years for his chance and thought he discerned it in the Ware mystery, so I thought the picture was going to follow him and his work through to the bitter end and close by showing him happy in the conviction of the man on whom he had laid the responsibility of the murder. However, he was treated in a most heartless manner. The story left him flat, and went meandering off somewhere else, while he wore him- self to skin and bone digging up clues. When he had assembled all his evidence, and had had the man com- mitted for trial (which, by the way, was a phase of Eng- lish law I didn't understand, as I didn't know that they were given a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not there was enough evidence to hold them for trial), the ungrateful thing blasted all his hopes by getting an acquittal. After that the poor detective was left right out of things, and wasn't even shown looking disappointed at the failure of all his hopes. The story should have dealt with him entirely or dispensed with him as a character of no importance. The idea of showing the unraveling of the mystery rather than having it told bit by bit on the witness stand is a good one, and one that American pro- ducers might do very well by trying in their mystery pic- tures. The Americans should profit from several little things which the British introduce in The Ware Case. For one thing, the types for small parts are picked carefully, so that they stand out. In this country there is a tendency to disregard the importance of the people who are on the screen for only a short time. Undoubtedly, if some direc- tor used a little care and skill in picking his bit players, he soon would be hailed as the great master of character drawing. This is the first trial picture I have seen where the reaction of the people outside of the courtroom was shown. It greatly increased the suspense and interest. Another little thing which I liked was the scene where Ware is arrested. He is out in the hall, and his wife and friend are eating dinner in a room opening into it. He becomes excited and raises his voice, and, wonder of won- ders, the diners hear him. It is about the first motion picture I have seen where a man is heard through a door. In most of them, a terrific verbal battle can take place without people on the other side of a thin door hearing it. It is one of the favorite unnatural traditions of motion pictures. To my way of thinking, the thing which is holding back British films is the paucity of good native actors. They all look and act like made-over stage troupers, with the exception of Rome, who was the only one whose make-up didn't look like cement. There certainly must be people in England who have the style, looks, and acting ability to improve their output. The women weren't dressed at- tractively, and their make-up made them look middle-aged, whatever their real ages were. No one can tell me that a beautiful girl doesn't do a motion picture a lot of good. The names of the cast I can remember were Ian Fleming, Betty Carter, and Patrick Stewart. The unfortunate de- tective was among those whose names I didn't get. * * * THERE is no doubt that Clara Bow is destined to be one of our great actresses, but she will be old and gray before she gets a chance if she is put in many more like Three Week-Ends. In it she goes through the same inanities which seem to have been invented by the genius who labelled her, or libelled her, depending upon one's view of the matter, the "It" girl. This picture is somewhat like Red Hair, which she and Clarence Badger committed some time ago, although it is infinitely inferior. Badger directed Three Week-Ends, too. The main fault in the latter was that it tried to make a heroine out of a gold-digger, which is poor motion picture stuff. All girls in real life are gold diggers, but on the screen they have to be too pure for words. In addition to the weak characterization of the girl, the story was involved and disjointed. None of the characters seemed to know what he wanted. The one thing which I like better than any- thing else was the way the millionaire handled his affair with the chorus girl. As a rule he becomes terribly in- fatuated and leaves his real fiancee to rot while he chases the working girl, which is the wrong idea because the lower class girl wouldn't appeal to him for more than a little while. In this he behaved sensibly. One of the oldest of the numerous fallacious motion picture traditions is the idea that the proper place to stage a furious quarrel between two people is in a crowd. They also have love scenes in the presence of large numbers of people. Both of these mistaken ideas were used in Three Week-Ends. Neil Hamilton and Clara Bow stood in a cabaret in full view of the entire audience and fought vigorously, but when Neil was walking out, no one felt enough interest in him to look at him. In real life the whole crowd would have been staring at him, but as it was it was just the final touch of artificiality to an ab- solutely unnatural scene. On another occasion Miss Bow chases Hamilton through the streets, wearing her scanty cabaret costume. That seemed improbable, but the height of something or other was reached when she caught up with him, and they did a love scene for the benefit of the large throng. There were a whole lot of little things which I didn't like about the picture, one of them being Clara Bow's hair. Most of the time it looked as if some one had HEALTHTAN The Sun's Only Competitor Recommended t>y Physicians 6560 Hollywood Blvd. GRanite 2003 Page Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 piled a hay stack on her head. When she has it cut, and puts on a little clothing, I'm going to enjoy her pictures a great deal more. There is no fault to find with the Bow acting, how- ever. She has one little scene, a shot of her face as she buttons up her dress, that is splendid. The buttons or hooks are in the back, and every expression of her face is artistic. She ought to be given something sensible to do for a change. Neil Hamilton, of course, played op- posite her. They are just beginning to let him loosen up and bring his sense of humor to the aid of his really ex- cellent acting. As a result his work has gained a human quality which has made it more complete. Harrison Ford does well as a rather mild heavy, and Guy Oliver and Edythe Chapman made a good pair of parents for the star. Reviewed in this Number HAUNTED HOUSE, THE— A First National picture. Directed by Benjamin Christensen; story by Owen Davis; photographed by Sol Polito; produced by Wid Gunning. The cast: Chester Conklin, Thelma Todd, Larry Kent, Eve Sothern, Barbara Bedford, Flora Finch, Edmund Breese, Sidney Bracy, William V. Mong, Mon- tagu Love, Johnnie Gough, Erville Alderson. OUT OF THE RUINS— A First National picture. Directed by John Francis Dillon; from the story by Sir Phillip Gibbs; continuity by Gerald C. Duffy; photographed by Ernest Hallor; art director, John J. Hughes; costume director. Max Ree; film editor, Cyril Gardner; produced by Henry Hobart. The cast: Richard Barthelmess, Marian Nixon, Bodil Rosing, Robert Ober, Emile Chautard, Eugene Pallette. OUTCAST, THE— A First National picture. Directed by William A. Seiter; from the story by Hubert Henry Davies; continuity by Agnes Christine Johnston; photography by John Seitz; art director, Horace Jackson; film editor, Hugh Bennett; costume director, Max Ree; titles by Forrest Halsey and Gene Towne; produced by Walter Morosco. The cast: Corinne Griffith, Edmund Lowe, Louise Fazenda, Jimmy Ford, Huntly Gordon, Kathryn Carver, Claude King, Sam Hardy, Patsy O'Byrne, Lee Moran. REVENGE— A United Artists picture. Directed by Edwin Carewe; from Konrad Bercovici's story The Bear Tamer's Daughter; screen play by Finis Fox; photographed by Robert B. Kurrle and Al M. Greene; chief aide, Wallace W. Fox; assistant director, Richard Easton; technical advisor, Dr. Alexander Arkatov. The cast: Dolores Del Rio, LeRoy Mason, James Marcus, Rita Carewe, Jose Crespo, Marta Golden, Sam Appel, Sophia Ortega, Jess Cavin. SYNTHETIC SIN— A First National picture. Directed by William A. Seiter; from the play by Frederic and Fanny Hatton; adapted by Tom J. Geraghty; titles by Tom Reed; photographed by Sid Hickox; art director, Max Parker. The cast: Colleen Moore, Antonio Moreno, Montagu Love, Gertrude Astor, Edythe Chapman, Kathryn Mc- Guire, Gertrude Howard. SHADY LADY— A Pathe picture. Directed by Edward H. Griffith; author. Jack Jungmeyer, scenarist. Jack Jungmeyer; \ First National's Talking Picture With Milton Sills. Dorothy Mackaill, Betty Compson and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. The Barker ^^^^^^y Circle Theatre Daily 2:15 — 8:30 from a title suggested by Leonard Praskins and Richard Sharp; assistant director, E. J. Babille; pro- duction manager, Harry Poppe; photographer, J. J. Mescall; art director, Edward Jewell; film editor, Doane Harrison. The cast: Phyllis Haver, Robert Armstrong, Louis Wolheim, Russell Gleason. THREE WEEK-ENDS— A Paramount picture. Directed by Clarence Badger; story by Elinor Glyn; adapted by John Farrow; screen play by Louise Long, Percy Heath and Sam Mintz; photographed by Harold Rosson; assistant director, William Kaplan; film editor, Tay Malarky; titles by Herman J. Mankiewicz. The cast: Clara Bow, Neil Hamilton, Harrison Ford, Edythe Chapman, Guy Oliver, William Halden, Julia Swavne Gordon, Lucille Powers, Jack Raymond. WIN THAT GIRL— A William Fox picture, directed by David Butler; from the original story Father and Son by James Hopper; assistant director, Leslie Selander; camera- man, Charles Clark. The cast: David Rollins, Sue Carol, Tom Elliot, Roscoe Karnes, Olin Francis, Mack Fluker, Sidney Bracy, Janet McLeod, Maxine Shelly, Betty Recklaw. THE LAUREL GROVE By FRANK T. DAUGHERTY LOUIS Bromfield, presumably from the earnings of his three successful novels of American life, took a holi- day in Italy — and the result is The Strange Case of Miss Annie Spragg (Stokes). Now a holiday in Italy may do many things to many people. It may overawe some, as it did most of the early American writers; or it may tend to give greater contentment and more tolerance, as it did Leigh Hunt and Goethe and Frederick the Great and Gorky. Or it may make one WTite of Dionysian love, as it did Gerhart Hauptman and Bromfield. No doubt there are many of Bromfield's admirers who will back- slide when they read the present volume, for he is one of the prophets whose voice has been listened to in his own country, in this case New England — and it isn't likely that said Boston will be pleased with this deification of Pan. But even if one can't go all the way with this story, one should retain his allegiance to Bromfield. It may only be (and I am one of those who hope so) that "Miss Annie Spragg" is his way of casting down his rod, and that seeing it become a serpent, like Moses he will go back later and pick it up, stronger for the experience. In the lives of most of us there seems to come a time when we feel that we will not have lived unless we can say we have experienced everything short of death. And when we remember that Bromfield is still a very young man, we can solace ourselves by reversing the popular adage "Art is long, life is short" — and hope for what the years will bring forth. ■i- * * NOT that I think Bromfield will ever be less frank in his handling of what he sees. Or need be. Only, perhaps, with riper years he will see less of the things he sees now. He is an artist of bold strokes and NEUMODE HOSIERY Specialists Selling Nothing but Perfect Hosiery NEUMODE HOSIERY STORES 6429 Hollywood Boulevard Warner Bros. Theatre Bldg. December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Thirteen great strength, a really fine craftsman. I have thought him comparable to Willa Gather, whom I hold very high in the trade of writing. He has an inimitable way of turning a phrase that strikes me as peculiarly American — not New York American, not just smartness, but with rare insight embodying a feeling that we recognize as definitely our viewpoint, once it is expressed. "He (Mr. Winnery) listened to the sugary Italian music played abominably by a band seated under the arcade. 'The Italians,' he thought bitterly, 'are a musical people.' " Without wishing to appear dogmatic about it, I feel that none but a person very close to our soil could have written that thought of Winnery's in just that way. * * * FOR this reason, no doubt. The Strange Case of Miss Annie Spragg is altogether much more successful in those chapters dealing with the home scene than in the ones set in Italy. And this in spite of the fact that he draws Italians strikingly, and their country so that you can almost smell it. It is his expatriated Americans in Italy who never quite breathe for us. We are never sure why they are there, or what makes them stay. And when we can't be satisfied on that score, we soon lose interest in all else concerning them. Cyrus, Uriah and Annie Spragg, and the great Middle West country in which they move, are, as I have intimated, too poetically Dionysian to be true; but they are new enough to our scene, and to our literature, to give us hope of what they may ultimately become under such deft fingers as Bromfield's. At any rate, read the book; and if, when you have finished, you are inclined to quarrel with it — just keep in mind that a holiday gave it birth, j and that all holidays end, while work goes on forever. And then, as I am doing, wait patiently for this writer's next. * ^ * IF a man tells you he just loves books, he's a fool. If a lady tells you she just loves books, she's a lady fool. There's no other name to call them. One simply can't love books. You never hear anyone say he loves people, or omelettes, or mountains, and it should sound just as preposterous to hear one say he loves books. What one loves is this person, or that omelette, or that mountain — not just a mob, or eggs cooked in a pan, or the whole rocky backbone of the Americas from Alaska to the Horn. Yet in spite of this quite apparent truth, how unreasonably most of us go about the business of reading. A man or woman who in all other conceivable activities exercises the wits Nature provided in the matter of reading throws taste and discretion to the winds and will read almost any book a friend recommends, and all books recommended in print. Hence this Book Guild, and that Book League, and the other Book something or another. This age has entered into a sort of mania of reading wherein one would actually be considered a lunkhead who admitted to not reading everything the churning presses turn out. If you read Gather you will not read Dreiser because his style makes your stomach turn over, you are not broad-minded. If you read Tomlinson but will not ' read Conrad, you lack culture. Or if you read Galsworthy often and Arnold Bennett never, or Shaw with relish and D. H. Lawrence with shivers, you are something else. It is the fashion of the hour to read, and what you read doesn't matter any more; you are obligated to read every- thing everywhere. This, of course, would lead to the same thing that eating everything on a restaurant menu would, except that mental digestion is generally less easily upset than physical. Or else there is no mental digestion and we are a race of mental dyspeptics. There are those who think even that. * * * MANY decry the passing of intimate discussions such as tickled the fancy of our fathers and mothers of a bygone age — the bandying of ideas, the wit, the quip, the brag, the toast, the repartee that passed over the table in homes, cafes and coffee houses. I know at least one writer who would better have gotten himself born into this age of monosyllabic conversation and great publishing houses. For Oliver Goldsmith never shone in , conversation. "Let me tell you," he said once, petulant at Garrick and others of Dr. Johnson's circle who were laughing at his new coat, "when my tailor brought home my new bloom-colored coat he said, 'Sir, I have a favor to beg of you. When anybody asks you who made your clothes, be pleased to mention John Filby, at the Harrow in Water Lane.' " As simple as that. One can almost see the clumsy fellow flushing clear up to his great bulging forehead as he gave vent to this brilliant comeback to their jeers. Johnson was merciless with him. It is possi- ble the great literary dictator felt this to be the kindest thing. But it didn't succeed in keeping his friend's tongue in his mouth. It was Johnson who said of him often in public, that "No man was more foolish when he had not a pen in his hand, or more wise when he had." * * * AT least two centuries have approved Johnson's judg- ment. Vain, ugly, awkward Goldsmith; poor scholar and poorer doctor; butt of the wits — his writing has lived to put most of his contemporaries to shame. Sii'cct Auburn! loveliest village of the plain . . . Siveet Auburn! parent of the blissful hour. But everyone remembers The Deserted Village. And if you haven't read it in lo, these many years, it's just as beautiful as it was when you first turned to it back in your high school days. It would be too much, I sup- pose, to ask if anyone has read The Vicar of Wakefield lately. I did, a few months back, with surprising pleasure. But I can't plead guilty to remembering The Traveller, or even what it was about. I call to mind very vaguely that there were also letters purporting to have been written by a Chinese in England to his friends at home. But let anyone yawn while reading She Stoops to Conquer again! This was played last year in London with such surprising success that it is to be played again this year. Hollywood could do worse than play it at The Writers, or make a talkie of it. . . . The occasion for all this, of course, is that it's Gold- smith's bicentenary. And by all the laws of averages, the publishers should have sent us that new volume of his letters. But publishers are sometimes remiss, so while we give Oliver a little publicity on his birthday, we refrain from mentioning the publishers of his letters, or who compiled them, or anything about them at all. Among the vocations of this world that of book reviewer is low indeed, a very whitewings among literary tasks — but we have our rights. * * * I AM forever being jostled in this hurry of modern scribblers to get something said. As if it were as im- portant as all that. I pick up a magazine, and settle back for a lot of nice gossip about books, only to learn, as these pen-pushers are at no pains to conceal from me, The Louise Gude Studios OF SINGING 1004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 — Voice Trial Gratis — ILouise^ T^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 4857 BEVERLY BOULEVARD (Corner of Van Ness) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 Page Fourteen THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 that they must hurry up and get this through with because they have a luncheon engagement at the Algonquin with St. John Ervine or Jo Hergesheimer or the Love sisters. It was not always so, I think — there must have been a day when things were done decently and in order. And then I remember the iirst coming-to-London of one of the great prose writers — George Borrow. In those days young hacks went to the big cities to write, just as they do now. And young Borrow, casting his eye over the Literary Sup- plement of The Times, and others of like ilk, felt a hollow sensation within him and wanted to return home and settle down to pleasant farming. For how could he hope to be clever enough to become one of that brilliant array of talent the press was sending forth in print daily ? It took him days and sometimes weeks to write his painstaking stuff, which he often fashioned and refashioned — and which wasn't clever at all. But the sequel shows Borrow trans- lated into many languages; but the London wits, all that fine assemblage of journalistic brilliance — the identical brilliance you'll find in the Hearst syndicate and the New York World and most of the reviews — are no more. "Sermones ego mallem repentes per hummum " * * * EMIL Ludwig's now quite famous book on Goethe is full of illuminating illustrations, pictorial and other- wise: dozens of photographs, and photographs of photographs, and a generous recounting of the faults and foibles of the great worldling. There's even a picture of a clay reproduction of his hand. All that's lacking is his collar size, the measurement of his cranium, and the knowledge of whether he had ten or only nine toes — and there would be no need to read his books to know all about him. Biography is unduly popular, and this sort of data is unduly popular in biography. For we see this stuff, and forget that the man was probably a genius in spite of, rather than because of, that fat hand. And as to his Demon, as Ludwig calls it, even telephone girls have demons. The next generation, reading and weighing our profound research into our great historical figures, will be apt to think great gifts came only where there were great faults — that Beethoven's deafness helped him write great symphonies; that Socrates was intelligent because he wore a number nine hat and had a shrewish wife; that Wagner's colossal genius came of not being married to Cosima; and ditto for Chopin and George Sand, and George Eliot as well; possibly that Homer's blindness accounted for his epic vision; or that Walter Raleigh wrote exquisitely because he was a dwarf, or Byron stirringly because he had a club foot. And following the logical line of this reasoning, they may wonder why no lepers were numbered among our great men, because that ought to be affliction enough to give a man something to talk about. Well, I could tell about Naaman Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are particular about the kind of printing they get. 'No The OXFORD PRESS, Inc, 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 "Tor^- of breams'' Setting a pace for 1929 WESLEY RUGGLES' Production Phone GRanite 5111 D. W. GRIFFITH PRODUCTIONS United Artists Studios 1041 NORTH FORMOSA AVENUE Los Angeles, Sept. 18. My dear Mr. Martell: My compliments to you on your gypsy picture, "Hearts of Romany." It interested me intensely and I am certain you have done a very fine thing. You have captured one of the most difficult things a director can face, and that is the real atmos- phere of a gypsy camp. This alone is a triumph for anyone, but in addition your gypsy people were splendid in their characters. They acted, in the best sense of that word. If you can do this sort of thing, you should have a big career, and I shall be very happy to watch it develop. Sincerely, D. W. GRIFFITH. NOW PLAYING AT UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE, LOS ANGELES Send The Spectator for Christmas Your friends will be delighted to receive The Spectator as a Christmas gift. The pleasure will last a year. It is $5.00 for 52 issues in the United States; $6.00 Foreign. THE FILM SPECTATOR 6362 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, California Enclosed find $ for which please send The Film Spectator for one year to each of the following addresses. Name Street Town State Name Street Town State My Name Address December 15, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Fifteen AN ACTOR EXPRESSES HIMSELF Dear Welford: I should like to argue with you about two of your recently published opinions. In the November 3rd issue you say, "Artists who have been successful on the screen will have an advantage oyer their confreres of the stage, for the former have to think deeply to have their thoughts recorded by the camera, while the latter have always depended more on their voices to put their thoughts over. As the microphone takes charge of the voices and makes them equal, the superior pantomimic powers of the actor trained in screen technic will give him an advantage." If you remember our discussion of last Saturday, I said I felt that the intelligent reading of a line required quite as deep thought as that required to produce a facial expression, and you contended that if the player could create the illusion of rage in a silent picture he would not need to worry about his voice in the sound sequences of the same picture, as the proper inflections would follow naturally. So far I will agree with your argument. But what will happen to the screen player who has not had stage experience when he encounters a long exposi- tory scene? It is an axiom of the theatre that almost anyone can play the climaxes but that experience and training count in the less interesting but quite necessary parts of the play. As you know, many prominent stage people have made tests at the studios and have been re- jected for some slight facial defect. About two years ago I helped make a test of Miss Gertrude Lawrence for silent pictures and her test was not satisfactory because some executive felt that her nose was too broad. Since talking pictures arrived. Miss Lawrence has made two short sub- jects which have been very successful, and no one has even noticed her nose. On the other hand, I have watched several of our most prominent picture stars, whose features are quite satis- factory to the executive and to the public, and believe me when I say that their faulty enunciation and untrained voices were much more prominent than the nose of the lady who had been rejected for that reason. From this I cannot help being convinced that stage training will not only help in talking pictures, but will eventually be an absolute requirement. The other quarrel I have with you is your opmion that talking pictures will not only kill silent pictures but the stage as well. Motion pictures, talking or silent, must necessarily be produced for a great and varied public. The stage can afford to appeal to a much smaller public and therefore can and does treat of subjects which would be worse than useless in motion pictures. I believe talking pictures will prove to be a great benefit to the spoken drama. Appreciation of drama is not instinctive, an audi- ence must be trained just as an actor is. We must sur- vive the Abie's Irish Rose period before we can appreciate O'Neill, Howard, and George Kelly. Isn't it possible that talking pictures will develop a great new audience for the spoken drama from those of this generation who have never been exposed to it ? The most hopeful thing about this revolution seems to me to be the new demands upon the writers. For two years you have been urging the value of a perfect script. Now it seems as if your arguments will have some weight. You cannot shoot a talking picture "from the cuff", nor can you cut it to cover your mistakes afterward. The necessity for careful preparation is even more urgent than it is on the stage. If a play isn't right when it is tried out it can be changed; if that doesn't help it dies and the actors and the producer are the only ones who remem- ber it. But when a picture is released it plays all over the world whether it is good or bad. It will not be possi- ble to call in a wise-cracking title writer to bolster up a weak picture. I think you will agree with me that this alone is enough cause for cheers. KENNETH THOMSON. "If I divorce my husband, I'll name you as co-respondent." "If you name anybody else as co-respondent I'll kill you." Rupert Hughes wrote ^^We Live But Once in 1927. It's 1930 in its treatment. Ultra-modern, ultra-dramatic, and ultra- real— a vivid story of the terrific fight of two women for one man. The weapons on one side are tears, hysteria, helplessness — all the old wiles of a selfish, petted woman— on the other side the straightforward, unashamed, frank, truthful arguments of a modern young woman. Which wins? You'd be surprised. Johru ^. Qoodrich GRanite 9525 6683 Sunset Boulevard Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR December 15, 1928 K— 2:e: 2:e: zee: sie: 2:e: zxz: =cc: izie: mr 3:=! iss: zce: u ' u u L ' " " KAM-RAI The new motion picture card game IS SWEEPING THE COUNTRY Orders are pouring by telegraph and by mail from all over the United States and Canada. If you have not 3'et played it, you are sure to be asked to. Buy a pack, learn the game now and be ready to play when the invitation is extended. Bullock's, Coulter's, Desmond's, Fowler Bros., Dillin Drug Co., Caesar's Shop, B. H. Dyas Co., Bolger's Store, Cryson's, On sale at the following Los Angeles stores: J. W. Robinson Co., The New York Store, OflSce Utilities Corp., Schwabacher-Frey Co., The Broadway Store, Tufts & Lyons Co., In Hollywood: The Robertson Co., Sport & Travel Shop, Oscar Balzer's, In Beverly Hills: Bolger's Drygoods Co., Beverly Drive. In Pasadena: The Brown Shop, The Model Grocery. In Long Beach: B. H. Dyas Co., The May Company, H. S. Crocker Co., Stationers Corp., Young's Market Co., Wilshire Staty. Co. Hollywood Gift Shop, Chas. G. Mackey Co., Unity Pegues. Buffum's Store, H. S. Crocker Co. ' "The inventor of a new game as enthralling as Kam-ra is a benefactor to the world. RUPERT HUGHES. "I am terribly fascinated by Kam-ra!" CLAIRE WINDSOR. "Three cheers for you and Kam-ra!" COLLEEN MOORE. "The age of miracles is nozv. . . . Kam-ra is now!" BOB EDESON. "Kam-ra is a very wonderful game." JEAN HERSHOLT. "Kam-ra is the fairest and one of the most interesting games I have ever played." K. C. B. Beautifully designed and finished on de luxe, gold-edged cards, packed in gold-stamped telescope cases. Just the right thing for Christmas rememberances. Price $1.50 per pack Score pads (especially designed) 25c each KAM-RA CARD COMPANY, Hollywood, California. ORegon 0308. =13=: 33=: =a:E: -^JZi zaic: zssz rsDc: =acc 33=: ixe: 3:e: :a:E=