The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Theatrical Film Critique 29 rthing has ever proven to the reviewer ) absolutely the analogies and the in- impatible differences between the two |rms of drama. To bring them together as a psychologically disturbing experi- lce. We hope that the "stunt" will not ten be necessary, but it afforded strik- g evidence on one interesting point. I the film the inevitable genius of Mr. eban was thrown in high relief against le mediocre supporting cast (Rosina tcepted) and when photography became gitimate stage expression we discovered ill the artist in Beban, and woefully ivful acting on the part of the cast, rained actors in the minor roles are as tal for great photodrama as for the poken drama. A film may be pictofial, Dncrete, mechanical, but it gets across lose subtler rhythms of personality and •ained expression, and when these quali- es are lacking in any part of the cast ley are sadly missed. Twice this film had anti-climax to an lipardonable degree. The finest touch in m picture was the character sketching pne by Pietro and his daughter Christ- mas evening as they talked of Santa. The ither's story, carried on in his dialect, anta imbued with the quick restless lovements of an Italian, was a penetrat- ig bit of foresight on somebody's part, he dialogue of father and child, too, -oved that character portrayed by most actionless conversation can be one, if in concentrated and economical ishion. OL'ABLE DAVID But for the over-effect in horror dur- g David's struggle with the last of the ^sperado cousins, this production is an :hievement to please even the fastidious, xcellent direction had the advantage of II obviously excellent continuity. A con- incing atmosphere is attained through >gically introduced minor realisms of /eryday life. Two small boys scuttling fter the bus for a yard or two and then scattering back toward the town is an example of the sort of thing that is usually dragged in if it appears at all. At no time in this film is such an incident formally "included." Just as these minor details are flawless so are more general details. The titles are minimum in number and realistically simple in wording. Add a cast well se- lected, led by the wistful, impulsive David (Richard Barthelmess), spare nothing in beautiful cinematography and you find the result a proudly produced film. We wish this film could represent our minimum instead of maximum artistic achievement; the slogan at the head of this department could then be dispensed with. THE LITTLE MINISTER A charming picture, though not a great one. The cast is beautifully adapted to its roles; pictorially as well as dramati- cally. There is a lilting twinkle about Miss Compson's eyes that might easily have been caught direct from Barrie's lilting gypsy girl. Set off by the seri- ousness of the Little Minister's counte- nance, the dry sternness of the three omni-present elders of the church, and the grim imperialism of her father's disci- pline, Lady Barbara Rintoul is a very adequate Babbie of Thrums. The picture drags, particularly in its fragmentary introduction. Good points though it has, we shall some day see a better filming of this story. THE SHEIK "The Sheik," its lavishness foretold by Edith Hull's novel, loses nothing in the filming. Very naturally this picture would have the compelling grip of its distant horizon, its sudden drama of desert tribes appearing breathlessly against the sky, atop some keen-edged dune. It is rich in the matchless grace of flying horses and slender lances flung arm high above the wind-stretched gar- ments of the riders. Not once does its