The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

If. The Educational Screen What About Motion Pictures? by Sir Gilbert Parker in the Bookman for December Tli E eminent author of many books, and well-known advocate of the motion picture, comes forward in knightly fashion to break a lance in de- fense oi the movies as art. Unfortunately the lance is broken. The word "defense" is well chosen, for Sir Gilbert's efforts are purely and ineffectually defensive and Mr. Rascoe's position stands practically un- changed. Enumerations of artists who have at- taehed themselves to the mighty industry do not in the least prove that industry to be an art. By the same method, spirit- ualism can be proved a science by men- tioning Sir Oliver Lodge, James, Hyslop and the rest; jazz tunes can be branded "musical art" because true musicians can be found who admit to a liking for them and occasionally amuse themselves by composing bits of the stuff; prize fighting can be proved the sport of ladies and gen- tlemen by the attendance of a few of them at the Jersey City function. In the effort to show Mr. Rascoe unre- liable, Sir Gilbert quotes two sentences from the first and last parts of the Book- man article as glaring evidence of . that critic's ur> reliability. It was an exceed- ingly unf >rtunate choice and Sir Gilbert evidently misunderstood some perfectly good English, for certainly the particular "excellence" Mr. Rascoe mentions could very well be achieved by the sort of "col- laboration" he names later. Sir Gilbert's glowing picture of America and American achievements—commerce, industry, applied science, vast organiza- tion, etc.—is interesting and quite accept- able, but he seems vaguely to imply that the men and women who accomplish these things sit in the motion picture au- diences and drink in their high inspira- tions from the screen. The spell of the press-agent is strong upon Sir Gilbert when he denies that there can be in foreign films any moil art "than such men as the De Milles an! Griffith and others know." The WhispeJ ing Chorus and Broken Blossoms repr] sent the ne plus ultra in screen art sj far; present heads of the motion pictui industry are men of "vision," etc. Sj Gilbert seems naively unaware of the chi« inspiration behind the "art 1 " and the "vii ions" of the present lords of the businesj Bt.FORE its publication we wcr hoping much from this article btj it is pathetically disappointing. Fl more can be said in defense of the movid than Sir Gilbert has managed to say.' J The Movies—An Arraignment By S. L. M. Barlow In the Forum for January AGAIN we must give space to vigo ous criticism and reproach of tl motion picture. We should like change, for mere variety's sake, but of what is now published on the question-j we mean articles ably written and by write! of intellectual and critical qualification—j of an adverse nature. This will continue \ be so until defenders are found to matd these attackers in literary calibre and critid talent. We may have to wait long. The present onslaught is vigorous an" strong, but it is mitigated by much col structive suggestion. Poor 'Way Doivn Ecu comes in for another flaying, but this tin] with more critical analysis to justify tl operation. The play "falls into the ridiculot without having quite achieved the sul lime. . . . The first half is the epitome c photo drama, a preposterous depiction of. society which flocks to unregenerate supd parties on Beacon Hill in a studio that rj sembles the reception hall in the Campbe Funeral Parlors. Gentlefolk are coj spicuously absent — an inadvertence part) due to the actors. The entire pcrforinarj is cheap, meaningless and silly ... it is| case of reductio ad absurdum." The material of the second half of tr picture is "more obvious and hence m<| v