Motion Picture Classic (Jan-Dec 1920)

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 Celluloid Critic The Month's Photoplavs in Review Bv Frt'deiick James Smith AN u(kl and liuiiicly little tale. >liiiiiiig uut of an execedinglv dull photoplay month is "Honest Hutch," an unpretentious Will Rogers effort which, to our way of thinking, is the best thing ever done by Goklwyn. Interesting it is to see this simple story of a village loafer easily displace all the expendituri' and elaborateness of a long line of Goklwyn productions. "Honest Hutch" is just another proof tliat real film drama is the drama of every-day life, minus cla])trai) and melodrama — that the really big play may revolve around the simjilcst daily events. "Honest Hutch," which by the way, is built fr.nn a short story by Garrett Smitli, has a delightfully (koli thesis The shiftless, happy-go-lucky Hutch, with his embittere<l drudge of a wife and his brood of ragged children, lives a life of utter laziness — until he finds a bo.x containing fifty thousand dollars in SiO.OOO bills. Hutch suddenly realizes that the money is useless to him, since no one vvili believe him the possessor of an honestly acquired $10,000 bill. It is a case of going to work, thus aci|uiring a reputation cc|ual to his money, or throwing the fifty thousand away. Hutch, reluctantly, goes to work, altho he has a sneaking doubt that the money isn't worth the labor. How, in the end, he finds real joy in work — and in bringing happiness to his family — is brought out with homely humor. Rogers is Hutch to the life. It is an honest, close to the soil performance, and his best celluloid role thus far. We congratulate h.ini. ( )ur hat is off, too, to Clarence Badger for his directorial handling of "Honest Hutch." In interesting contrast to""Honest Hutch" is "Madame X," Goldwyn's visualization of .^.lexandre Bisson's superheated Parisian melodrama. With all its expensive outlay, "Madame X" does not come within a hundred miles of "Hone closeness to life. Bisson is a master of adroit stage techni(|ue. He knows how Xi> build with fine theatric effectiveness. His characters may be puppets neatly maneuvered to get the greatest dramatic efifect, but lie, at least, achieves the result he seeks. "Madame X" has a scene of big emotional ajjpeal. ".Madame X" tells the story of a young French wife who leaves her husband and baby-boy for love of another. Later, when her husband refuses to forgive her, she drifts to the moral de|)ths, a drug wreck. Finally, she commits murder and is brought to trial. Without realizing her identity, htr hu.sband. now a man of affairs, is a visitor in the court-room while their son is appointed to defend her. She is steadfast in her refusal to say a word, but the boy by a brilliant and impassioned speech, wrings a verdict of "not guilty" from the jury. Then her wrecked constitution gives way, but not until there is a reconciliation. This court-room scene was an electric thing behind the footlights, but it is lost in the screen adaptation. This is due to several reasons. Director [•"rank Lloyd launches his story in loo high an emotional key. Consequently, he steadily loses effectiveness. .Again. Pauline Frederick did not touch us anywhere as the wretched Jac(|ueline. Her performance, in a measure due to the director, of course, lacks all gradation. From start to finish it is a drab uncolored thing on the verge of hysteria, without the building u]) necessary for sympathetic appeal. Again, Casson F'erguson is an unfortunate choice as the son. Here is a big role in every sense of the word. What Richard Barthelmess could have done with it! Indeed, the whole cast of "Madame X" disappointed us. "Xomads of the North," ( F'irst National), a James Oliver Curwoo I storv, liad enough theatric ingredients, including a forest fire, to have been an effective ]iicture. It fell down largely thru inferior direction. \\'ith the CanadianNorthwest as his background, Curwood has unfolded a story of a cruel factor, his scoundrelly son, an innocent cutie of the wood(CotitiuKcd oil piu/c 101) (Forly-fivc} Above, Pauline Frederick in "Madame X," left. Alia Nazimova in "Madame Peacock," and below, Constance Binney in "39 East" st Hutch's' wasKmrJKTTV«ml6Zijc^