Hands of Hollywood (1929)

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.

The Motion Picture was very beautiful, very artistic, but not commercial while, on the other hand, Story No. 2, though rather hackneyed, somewhat silly and full of "hokum," would be a great commercial success — "a wow at the box-office" — in which story do you think they would invest five hundred thousand dollars? Handfuls of "reformers," small groups of so-called uplifters, selfimportant busybodies, who do not contribute one dollar yearly to the motion picture business, may try to dictate the type of pictures to be produced, but the producer does not listen to them. Why? Because he is rude, calloused, hard-hearted? ?^o/ but because he must listen to his cash customers, millions of them. If he did not listen to them, he would lose all his money, and the "reformers," uplifters and busybodies would not give him one cent to buy a ham or (in the case of many of our leading producers) a beef or cheese sandwich. However, all producers are not money-mad, grasping, dollar-worshipping men, though their critics love to describe them in these terms. They are trying, year after year, to improve the tastes of the public. Hence, the experiments, the new ideas, upon which they gamble millions of their own money. When the public accepts the new ideas, the artistic experiments, in other words, when the boxoffice receipts say: "The public liked this," or "The public liked that," no one is happier than the producer. Compare "BEAU GESTE," "THE PATRIOT," "THE BIG PARADE," "THE KID," "SEVENTH HEAVEN," "SUNRISE," "THE KING OF KINGS," "STREET ANGEL," "WHAT PRICE GLORY," "WINGS," "FOUR SONS," "FOUR DEVILS," "LEGION OF THE CONDEMNED," "ROBIN HOOD," "THREE MUSKETEERS,", and among the "Talkers," "OLD ARIZONA," "THE SHOWBOAT," "BROADWAY MELODY," "COQUETTE," "HEARTS IN DIXIE," "TRIAL OF MARY DUGAN," "THE SINGING FOOL," with the slapstick comedies and wild western pictures, "horse operas," of a few years ago, and you will realize what a debt of appreciation is due the much maligned Hollywood producer. [15]