Inside facts of stage and screen (Jan 11 1930)

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.

PAGE FOUR INSIDE FACTS OF STAGE AND SCREEN SATURDAY, JAN. 11, 1930 Picture Reviews " Previews ~ Shorts By A. H. FREDERICK ‘OH, YEAH’ Pathe Picture (Reviewed at RKO Theatre) This is a loosely-strung together comedy depending somewhat too much on the hit made by Robert Armstrong and Jimmie Gleason in the stage version of “Is Zat So?” While Armstrong appeared completely dumb from the dis- tance across the footlights, in the closeup of the screen his intelli- gence gleams through. For this reason, and not meaning thereby any detraction from the ability of Mr. Armstrong, the boy for the part would have been Stuart Erwin. His screen dumbness has never a broken minute. The dialogue is spottily scintil- lating, the dark spots being where Gleason who wrote it, attempted to keep up to too high a level of laughs, and thereby sacrificed naturalness. The tag line, “Oh Yeah,” is flat, already having been done to death in some SO per cent or so of the comedies which Hol- lywood has turned out in the past year. There are a couple of thrill- ing fights, and a runaway group of cars which almost crash into the limited. ' It is useless to add that the Gleason-Armstrong duo save the passengers’ lives, as- sisted therein by the lady lead, Patricia Caron. The story opens with Gleason and Armstrong a pair of boomer brakemen whose main function in life is being pals to one another, with constant razzberry their way of expressing their affection. They drift into a construction camp where Armstrong falls in love with the girl time-keeper (Miss Caron) and Gleason with the restaurant waitress (ZaSu Pitts). The affection in each in- stance is reciprocated. Then, through circumstances, Armstrong is suspected of a crime, and he blows camp, followed by his pal. They come upon the two heavies (Frank Hagney and Bud Fine) attempting to w r reck a pas- senger train by unloosing a freight car in its path. The two heroes clambor aboard, knock the villains cold, and save the train. In the meantime Armstrong has been cleared of the crime suspicion, and the fadeout finds the two pairs discussing their honeymoon plans. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: Where “Is Zat So?” played, cus- tom can be gleaned by ballyhooing this as a screen successor to that fun riot. Otherwise Armstrong’s name seems the main element, as the picture will not win any big word-of-mouth on its own. An ordinary program booking. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: The screen play lacked a thorough knitting together such as makes for best entertainment. There were too many interpolations of extended wise-crack dialogue which did not have the intrinsic worth to warrant the footage. But in other spots Tay Garnett’s direc- tion was at a maximum of effi- ciency for laughs, and his main dramatic situation, played with an inter-iblending of comedy and drama, was nicely tensed up in the main. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Robert Arm- strong’s likeable personality has been displayed to better advan- tage, even allowing for the fact that in this picture he is putting on the dumb. It won’t raise his average any. James Gleason’s part is also not his best possibility, though he is very good. But the intimacy of the screen, as with Armstrong, makes it hard to believe he is quite such a tough boomer as the story pictures. Patricia Caron is pretty and ap- pealing, but just another fern lead insofar as her work is concerned. ZaSu Pitts follows her usual line of comedy, drawing her usual quota of laughs from those who like their characters overdone. Paul Hurst is up to standard as a two-fisted type, and Frank Hagney and Bud Fine instill ade- quate menace to their pair of heavy roles. PICTURE PREVIEW ‘OLD VAMPS FOR NEW’ Darmour 2-Reel Comedy (Previewed at Wilshire Theatre) Among the first to sense the change which talking pictures would necessitate in comedies, Larry Darmour went into build- ing up along the angles of situa- tion on a thorough scale which is now making his product as funny as anything on the screen, if this picture be a typical example. The audience on the night of preview were in the near-spasm state of laughter most of the time, the comedy going over as strong as anything seen by this revi&wer in the laugh line for a long time. This comedy was wholly situa- tion, slapstick being eliminated, and a decided gain being scored thereby. Despite the fact that the custard pie still holds a prominent place in garnering laughs, the pos- sibilities the talkies give of situa- tions make the custard pie laughs no less uproarious but the situa- tion builders ‘bring their product to a much higher general level. No pie-throwing ever equaled the genuine laughs garnered by “Old Vamps For New.” The story was one of those tangled things wherein the parents of the two romantic leads get into entanglements of extremely embar- rassing proportions, in this case the father of the girl being the judge who sentenced the boy to the custody of his father, much to the chagrin of the boy’s mother. The story had too many ins and outs for full relation here, but suf- fice it to say it was a darb, thanks to H. C. Witwer, who did the story originally and more so to Johnnie Grey, who made it ace screen material. Paul Whitman did the direc- tion, and a lion’s share of the credit goes to him therefor. A1 Cooke headed the fun-making brigade, with Alberta Vaughn the other featured member of the cast. Cooke is a nifty talker in addition to his well-known panto- mimic rating, and a comedy role is safe when assigned - him. He was a riot in this particular pic- ture. Dot Farley had. the role of his wife, foiling him well and also scoring laughs on her own ac- count. Alberta Vaughn’s cute person- ality and picture ability has re- ceived a boost by the ability to talk, and she’s a mighty good casting. Opposite her was Lewis Sergent, a ratable juvenile with a pleasing voice and personality. Joe Young had the judge role, utilizing his chances for excellent returns, and completing the cast well were Shannon Day and George Gray. The Harmony Four Quartette had two numbers, “Somebody Stole My Gal” and “Pal That I Love,” and vocalized them neatly. Musical arrangements were by Lee Zahler. The picture, made for RKO re- lease, is an excellent booking for the short end of any program, and more particularly so when drama is on the long end. ‘GLORIFYING THE AMER- ICAN GIRL’ Paramount Picture (Reviewed at Paramount) This picture may have started out with the intent to glorify the American girl, but in its final form it glorified nothing, includ- ing the name of Flo Zeigfeld. De- spite the fact that opening shots show girls from all over the world going to try for a break in the Follies, the outcome of this pil- grimage is somewhat less than mediocre, and the wonder is how Mr. Ziegfeld could turn out such a poor show with so much talent to chose from. The picture is one of those which New York, with a supercilious twist of the lips, declares “good for the sticks.” Maybe so, with the Ziegfeld name attached, but betting is that thence- forward the almost mystic name of the Follies producer won’t mean a thing to the so-called “yokels.” Flo supervised. • For its theme the “Glorification” film has no better than a moder- ately changed version of the much- made backtsage yarn. There is the girl who makes good and who permits her success to come be- tween her and her loved one, there are the overdone, under-talented ensemble arrays, and there is the old familiar laugh, clown, laugh fadeout. The one different angle, to-wit, an ambitious mother who urges her daughter forward to success at no matter what cost, is under-developed and the chances for good dramatic moments there- in are lost. And even that’s been done once in “Mother Knows Best.” Eddie Cantor offers his second- hand clothing store skit, done some years ago in the Follies and still good for laughs; Rudy Vallee again croons “The Vagabond Lover” and Helen Morgan of “Showboat” fame has a song which is beautifully mounted but otherwise unnotable. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: The worth of this booking is to be measured by exactly how much pull you can get through the name of Ziegfeld. It won't do anything for itself. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Direction by Millard Webb is good technically but his dramatic unfoldment is slow and weak, totaling litle help for the very mediocre story. J. B. McEvoy and Millard Webb are credited with the story. The music, which is about aver- age for the class of production, is by Walter Donaldson, Irving Ber- lin, Dave Stamper and Larry Speir. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Mary Eaton fails to show as much in this picture as she did in “The Cocoanuts.” Her part is extremely routine, the highlights being hoke of an over- used kind, and she puts only the standard requirements into it. Edward Crandall, opposite, is about average, having a pleasing personality and an adequacy of acting ability. Olive Shea, in a sympathetic other girl part, has an appealing personality and does everything demanded by her role, which isn’t much. Dan Healy. portraying a typical hard-boiled small time vaude actor, does it in accepted form, and above average. An uncredited player puts over a nifty bit as Ziegfeld’s stage manager. Sarah Edwards is just average as the mother. Kaye Renard assists Dan Healy in a dance. CORRECT MIKING You’ve Got to Train Yourself—the Studios Won’t Do It COMPLETE COURSES IN TALKING AND SINGING VOICE PLACEMENT IN SIX WEEKS DORIA BALLI-WEAVER PUPIL OF WORLD FAMOUS MASTERS Have Pupils Now Playing on All Lots Phone: Hollywood 7980 WEEK’S BEST IN PICTURES BEST PICTURE: ‘SHOW OF SHOWS’ Warners’ elaborate “Show of Shows” easily topped the cur- rent week’s offerings. The only other production offering was Paramount’s “Glorifying the American Girl,” and it was very weak. Pathe’s “Oh, Yeah,” had good humorous moments but wasn’t an unqualified laugh knockout. Tiffany’s “The Lost Zep- pelin” was a good thriller of moderate dramatic worth, and M-G-M’s “Their Own Desire” was draggy with many uninter- esting spots. Bests of the week follow: Best performance: Nothing outstanding. Best comedy performance: James Gleason in “Oh, Yeah.” Best comedy performance, opposite sex: ZaSu Pitts in “Oh, Yeah.” Best heavy: Dan Healy in “Glorifying the American Girl.” Best direction: John Adolfi’s “Show of Shows.” Candidates for ten best pictures of the year: “Show of Shows.” ‘SHOW OF SHOWS’ Warner Bros. Picture (Reviewed at W. B. Downtown) Warner Brothers for the past couple of years have got the habit of taking the jump on the rest of the industry, and that’s just what they’ve done again with their “Show of Shows.” They’ve combed their own rosters and the freelance and borrowable talent of Hollywood for names for the picture, and the theatre manager who can’t find ballyhoo in the 77 names listed is a poor exec indeed. W r ith the names worked into routines, and not merely introduced for a bow, there are angles galore to work on, and boxoffice, properly gone after, should be proportionate. But not only have Warner Brothers spotted namds with a lavish hand; they’re also turned out a highly entertaining picture, with many sensationally good scenes spotted throughout, and, all in all, the real stars of the opus are John Adolfi, the direc- tor, and Larry Ceballos and Jack Haskell, the ensemble directors. Adolfi has a tremendous task in selling the talent handed him with consecutive interest sus- tained. and he did it. As for Ce- ballos and Haskell, they’ve turned out numbers and ensembles which surpass anything yet seen in talking pictures for sheer beau- ty of imagination. Staircase num- bers, ladder numbers, black and white numbers — they’ve utilized these in a manner which is en- tirely new, and that’s a lot to say in these days of elaborate production. Music is good but not as out- standing as that in Warners’ “Gold Diggers of Broadway.” The outstanding numbers are “Lady Luck” and “Singing in the Bath- tub,” the former written by Ray Perkins and the latter by Ned Washington, Herb Magidson and Michael Id. Cleary. The picture is strictly a revue offering, with no continuity what- soever, and held together merely by the m. c.-ing of Frank Fay. The names are worked into num- bers very cleverly, they being as- signed no more than would be given performers ordinarily in such offerings, and a part of the number being the casual introduc- tion of them, either by them- selves or by others. Outstanding in the individual talent is a marvelously ringing bass note struck by Noah Beery, singing by Nick Lucas, a com- edy interpolation with Frank Fay, Louise Fazenda, Lloyd Hamilton and Beatrice Lillie, and stolen by the personality of the latter, Bull Montana in a dress suit singing a love song with an apparent sin- cerity that makes it a wow, a Shakesperian soliloquy by John Barrymore, and a ballad by Frank Fay. Winnie Lightner; that excellent comedian, who was the real star of “Gold Diggers of Broadway,” is up to her excellent comedy singing delivery, but lack of op- portunity for her to put over her talking comedy as well is missed. Frank Fay peddles a sentimen- tal number which wows ’em and Irene Bordoni has a number which rates well. Georges Carpentier sings a song which is fair enough, and Ceballos and Haskell top it off with an ensemble offering which makes it a payoff. Ted Lewis and his band play a jazz tune in their usual style, with Ted strutting his King of Jazz attitude. (Continued on Page 5) COMING JAN. 30th “CHIC” KENNEDY Is the ORIGINAL Turn to Page 6 ‘THE LOST ZEPPELIN” Tiffany Picture (Reviewed at Million Dollar) This picture is a thriller with some marvelous shots of a Zep bucking the chill blasts and rag- ing storms of the South Pole, and crashing there at. Great for the young and the young-minded, but lovers of sophisticated drama will find but little entertainment in the would-be dramatic sequences. The story is mediocre, and it is upon the Zep shots that the progress of the picture must wholly de- pend. In the neighborhoods where adventure pictures are welcomed, it should go to great boxoffice. The story opqns with Conway Tearle, wedded to Virginia Vaili, about to captain a Zep expedition to the South Pole. Among the commissioned personnel is Ricardo Cortez, and upon the eve of de- parture Tearle discovers his wife in the other’s arms. It is then disclosed that they love each other. There is some very trite and obvious action and dialogue rung in at this point. The expedition hops off, reaches its objective, and then crashes. All are lost except Tearle and Cortez. Rescue arrives but the pilot of the rescuing plane can only take one man back with him. Tearle declares that the happiness of his wife is more important than the life of either of the men, and he orders Cortez back because he thinks that it is Cortez she loves. Hope for Tearle is abandoned. Cortez returns to civilization and to a gala welcome, but the wife refuses to see him. Then news flashes that Tearle also has been rescued, and she sends him a mes- sage that she loves him. Tearle’s joyous contemplation of this tele- gram is the fadeout. " EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: This is a good program booking for the average house and an ex- ceptionally good one where the play is to those who like their movies movie. Angle to hit is the Zep flight and crash, to be ex- ploited as sensational. Combine this with the names of Tearle, Vaili and Cortez. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Edward Sloman directed the “Lost Zeppelin,” and his angles on the Zep stuff are exceptionally effec- tive, rating him high credit. His direction of the dramatic sequences are well enough done, though not striking, due to the lack of pos- sibility in the script. Story, by John Netteford, is sufficient skeleton upon which to hang the more interesting shots of the Zep’s adventures and mis- adventures, and the adaptation, by Frances Hyland, is ditto. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Conway Tearle’s ease and polish of manner raise him head and shoulders above the rest of this cast. Tearle is a real talkie trouper, always putting over his role for a maximum. Virginia Vaili is adequate to her part as the wife, which calls for a range of dramatic emotions; and Ricardo Cortez handles through his part well except for a certain lack of flexibility. Katherine McGuire gets in the feature billing, though why is not obvious as she has only one line to speak, and that a minor one. Others in the cast include Duke Mortan and Winter Hall. IN U. A. PICTURE George Fawcett and Torben Meyer, Danish actor, have been added to the cast of “The Bad One” at United Artists. REGGIE MONTGOMERY GEORGIE WARD M. G. M. STUDIOS