Film Spectator (1927-1928)

February 5, 1927 Page Seven interpretation of their thoughts. In such a scene, of course, close-ups are necessary, but Howard does not overdo them as nearly all directors do. White Gold would have been a still better picture if there had been a more accommodating actress in the only feminine role. Jetta Goudal has ability, but she exercises it only in close-ups. I do not know what is going to happen to her when all the directors on the De Mille lot in turn have directed her, for none of them will take her on a second time. She has a perverted sense «f her importance in the screen world, or such a queer conception of her obligations to her employers that no picture in which she appears is as good as it would be if some sensible person of even less ability played her part. Her ability not being outstanding, I can not understand why any producer bothers with her. I expect to be invited to a grand celebration on the De Mille lot to mark the termination of her contract. The acting honors in White Gold belong to George Nichols, the veteran character actor. His hatred for his son’s bride is unreasonable; he is morose and taciturn, and continually rocks in his squeaky chair in a maddening manner. Nichols gives a splendid interpretation of such a character, being particularly effective in one long close-up in which he registers his fear of looking his daughter-in-law in the eye. Young Thompson is an acceptable leading man, being sincere and convincing. George Bancroft handles his part with his usual thoroughness, but in his last sequence would have looked better if he had not used the greasy make-up similar to that which makes McLaglen and Lowe look almost disgusting in What Price Glory? I suppose this repulsive make-up means something to somebody, but to me it is only something that spoils a scene. Bancroft starts off on an amorous adventure with his face almost dripping with 'grease, a queer fancy for the wooing of someone else’s bride. On aesthetic as well as moral grounds Jetta had a valid excuse for shooting him. Clyde Cook adds some fine comedy touches to the picture. Anton Grot, the art director, dresses the production in a garb that matches its mood, and John W. Krafft and John Farrow contribute a set of satisfactory titles. The production was supervised by C. Gardner Sullivan, edited by Jack Dennis and photographed by Lucien Andriott. Marion Orth’s continuity was a fine piece of work. White Gold is somewhat revolutionary and is done so well that it suggests a brilliant future for Bill Howard. Unless I miss my guess he is a young man who will go a long way. » * * “Twinkletoes” Is Shy on Twinkles TWINKLETOES was well underway when I dropped in on it. The first scene I saw was one in which Warner Oland was attempting to get the best of Colleen Moore. I did not know what it was all about, but I was impressed by the acting of Colleen in the struggle which followed. She lets herself go and expresses fear and hate with all the passion a Negri could put into a scene. It is a bit good enough for the most dramatic production. Oland, of course, is fine in it — a habit he has. Then followed a glimpse of that splendid character actor, Lucien Littlefield, and in a few more feet came the end. Plenty of action, capable direction, good lighting and photography, a fine cast — and yet I had heard that Twinkletoes was a very poor picture. What I had seen of it certainly gave me the impression that it was well worth while, and I awaited the front end of it with confidence. When finally I had seen all of it I discovered that all its virtues are in its last reel. Taken as a whole it is an extremely tiresome picture, worse than anything else in which Colleen has appeared. The locale being the Limehouse district in London, it is as foreign to us as the scenes in which Faust is played. There is as much story in it as there is in Variety or The Waltz Dream. First National has money enough to secure the best of everything for a Colleen Moore production, and Colleen can act quite well enough to keep up her end in any company. Why, then, did John McCormick fail to give us a picture that would measure up with Pommer’s best ? The answer is easy. Pommer applies intellect to his pictures and Twinkletoes is a product of established movie methods. No picture that was the result of deep thinking could contain so many senseless close-ups as Twinkletoes contains. They were quite enough in themselves to spoil any production. Whoever was responsible for them does not understand the fundamentals of making pictures, nor has he any sense of drama. The author wrote a scene describing the manner in which the girl confesses her love for the man. She mounts the steps leading to her home while the man stands at the bottom and urges her to come down to him. She goes a little way, stops, turns, descends a few steps, mounts again, hesitates, then slowly descends and goes into his arms. Directed intelligently it could have been a strong scene. It should have been shown in a long shot without a camera change, the man at the bottom of the stairs, the girl at the top, both at all times in sight of the audience, which is interested only in whether she is going to him and not at all in the expressions on their faces. The important feature of the scene is the relation of the characters to one another. The moment there is a cut to a close-up of either of them this relationship is lost sight of. But the entire scene is shown in close-ups, demonstrating that the makers of the picture did not understand it. This lack of intelligence in the use of close-ups is in evidence throughout the entire production. On every hand you hear Colleen’s acting criticized on the score that she smirks and grins too much. The criticism is just, but the fault is not hers. In each of her pictures are dozens of close-ups of her for which there is no excuse whatever. They are lessening her box office value by giving the public a wrong impression of her acting ability. But I suppose we will continue to have them. * * * Suffers From a Great Many Ills A PICTURE made by people who do not know what close-ups are for can not be expected to reveal intelligence in the handling of its less obvious features. Twinkletoes has many other weaknesses. There are perhaps a dozen scenes which have nothing to do with the story, and having no virtues in themselves serve only to retard it. The only reason for them that I could see was to provide footage into which could be cut some more close-ups of Colleen. The characterizations of Oland and Littlefield were perfect, but poor Tully Marshall, as Colleen’s father, was made to behave as no father on earth ever behaved. Every time he and Colleen got within clinching distance they grabbed one another and hugged