Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1912)

130 • MUSINGS OF "THE PHOTOPLAY PHILOSOPHER" Speaking of objectionable Moving Pictures, why is it that nobody has punished the thief of Mona Lisa? Before it was stolen, few cared much for Mona Lisa, but now every visitor is crazy to see the frame from which it was stolen, which shows that the art of stealing is more interesting than the art of painting. Motion Pictures are a form of the gesture language. In prehistoric times> before primitive man could speak, he communicated his thoughts by means of gestures. Gestures came first, and speech came next, but thousands of years have failed to abolish the gesture language as a means of communication. Actors use it, orators use it, and even in polite conversation we find gestures and facial expression useful to emphasize words of mouth. Sometimes we can say more by a look than we can by a word. Eecently, in New York, a company of Irish players were severely criticised for talking too much and acting too little, and shortly after, a company of German players appeared with a play which was all action and no speaking. This play was received with great favor r and it created a sensation. The Boston Transcript sent down a critic, who reported in glowing terms, in part as follows: "Mere description can give no notion of the vigor, the frenzy, the vitality, the vividness of this pantomime. . . . You lose not a touch of reality." Shortly before this play was produced, Professor Reinhardt had said that he wanted to produce a play in which acting, pure and simple, was to have full sway, so as to provide a wider field for the actor's personality. In this play without words the actors "express thru their individuality, their bearing, their eyes, their action, their whole beings, feelings which would otherwise need expression so powerful and pregnant as to be within the reach of only the greatest poets.' ' Now, this play, "Sumurun," has created a sensation. But why should it? All that these clever German players have done has been done thousands of times by the Motion Picture players, and is being done every day. The time is coming when the picture theaters must have a scale of prices to accommodate two or more classes of patrons. We are not all democratic enough to be willing to sit with our wives and daughters, attired perhaps in evening dress, when directly alongside of us sits our butcher, baker and candlestick maker, attired in their shirt sleeves. This does not usually happen, it is true, because the humblest of tradesmen have some regard for the propriety of .things, and they are generally willing to dress in a manner becoming to a public entertainment. But, once in a while, a negro, or day laborer in overalls, finds himself sitting next to a banker in evening dress, and if the former does not feel just a trifle cheap, the latter does. The same thing may happen in a regular theater, but the higher prices usually keep the different classes in separate sections. It is a problem, however, to know just how to divide a picture theater. Some think that the back seats are preferable, and some prefer the front seats. If the seats are raised, then the people behind cannot see. Boxes are objectionable, because they are usually at the sides and do not yield a straight view of the screen. Now that the Church has found its attack on Sunday Moving Pictures unavailing, altho, no doubt, the latter is a competitor of the former in the hunt for followers, perhaps it will presently make an attempt to suppress the Sunday newspaper supplements. As long as people are supplied with good reading matter for five cents, and enough to keep them busy all day Sunday, they tan hardly be expected to go to church.