Motion Picture Magazine (Aug 1928-Jan 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.

Is the Less Said the Better? At the left, little Faith Brook, assisted by her mother, gives her father, Clive, his daily lesson in Mother Goose. Above, Emil Jannings, whose matrimonial skies are as sunny as his wife's hair this dashing gentleman posed as a romantic and lone bachelor. Unfortunately, though Mr. Bushman had but one wife, the children numbered somewhere between seven and a dozen, and they started bobbing up in all directions. When the truth was out, Bushman's fame was extinguished like a candle flame in a hurricane. I am convinced, though, that we movie fans of that naive period deserted his shrine not because he was married, but because he had denied it. He had broken faith with us. To prove that, in those days, we didn't care whether an actor was married or not, one need only bring up the name of Maurice Costello. This man, first of the screen idols, not only permitted the world to know that he had a wife and children, but frequently used little Dolores and Helene in his pictures. Two Hattons, one with a hat on. Raymond admits that this picture is symbolic, that Mrs. Hatton has him completely up in the air about her His career was never hampered by this frankness concerning his marital state. But this is 1928. The stars of yesterday are gone. Gone, too, is the awe-struck adoration which we gave them. The movie hero of today is dealing with the modern movie fan, or trying to. Competition for your favor is keen, and many of our married stars or leading men are convinced that the bachelor actor has the better break. Holding to this attitude, he wrestles daily with the problem of keeping the wife and children out of print. As I recall it, Percy Marmont was the first motion picture actor to make this request of me. Some four or five years ago, when this delightful Englishman was enjoying a great vogue in America, I asked him to pose with his wife and family for some home portraits. Very gracefully but definitely he declined. To do Mr. Marmont justice, I cannot say that he wished to give the impression that he was an unmarried man. I really don't know whether he did or not. The well-known and much-advertised English reserve may have caused him to say that he wished to keep his family out of all stories concerning himself. Literally a Private Family "T don't want them to become public property," is how he expressed it. Yet Clive Brook, his dignified and (Continued on page 90) 69