Close Up (Jul-Nov 1927)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

CLOSE UP forest. On the other hand, there was an extremely stupid and sentimental episode added at the end, of Jim's return to the farm wounded, which considerably detracted from the authentic atmosphere of the picture. It is curious to surmise how the film could be so well cut and so badly cut at the same time. The French version had however a f ew^ metres of a ra /ing shell shocked soldier in the hospital scene which fitted into the epic picture, but was presumably judged too realistic for English eyes. As for the rubbish circulated in England that "The Big Parade" showed how Am^erica won the war, did we, in any of our English war films, shov/ the Americans, the Belgians, the French, the Serbians and Russians, marching to victory beside us ? It was comment of a particularly stupid and himiiliating kind, quite unworth}'^ of the tradition of an English sense of justice. I was not hopeful about "Mons" because miy experience of English films had not been encouraging. But I w^ent prepared to admire at least an attempt at a good picture. I thought even that as it was historical reconstruction, a sort of document, we should have achieved a possibly ponderous, but correct transcription of the earl)^' days of the war, photographed with a dull but scientific accuracy similar to the scientific films in which English photogiaphy has achieved a reputation. But it was disappointing from every point of view. It was so badly photographed. And there is no excuse for bad photography. Half of " Mons" was blurred and out of i8