The Film Spectator (Mar-Dec 1928)

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.

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 expository 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 rejected 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 subjects 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 audience must be trained just as an actor is. We must survive 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 remember it. But when a picture is released it plays all over the world whether it is good or bad. It will not be possible 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 ultrareal— 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