Movie Classic (Mar-Aug 1936)

Why is Shirley Temple — seen above in Captain January — Public Favorite No. I today? Everyone has a different explanation. What is yours? Tell us! lour KJwn \dt eas $15 Prize Letter A Hint from Hollywood — In the final analysis, you — Mr. and Mrs. General Public — are the makers of stars and, equally so, the unmakers of them. And here is a point that I would like to make. There are in Hollywood a number of stars now wavering on the brink of oblivion because you have made too much of them. They have gone ego-crazy, demand exorbitant salaries, forget old friends and, if nothing changes them, are on their way out. For studios, merely by keeping a player off the screen for a time, can relegate him to the has-beens — and they do it. So it is my humble suggestion that when you learn this is the case with some favorite player— get busy. Instead of mash notes, send him some to help bring him down to earth. Stars listen to fan-mail (it's their box-office pulse) and your letters might save them. Recently, one of the former great stars of the screen confided to me that she knows now that she sank to obscurity only because she completely lost herself — thought the world revolved around her. It didn't ! — Mrs. Floe Coolidge, 5555 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, Calif. $10 Prize Letter Pertinent Point — I wonder if others, like myself, are not irritated at times by music out of place in the movies? For instance, in Curly Top, Shirley Temple stands in her chair at the dinner table and sings Animal Crackers in My Soup, accompanied by Rochelle Hudson at the piano. Well and good. It is a believable incident. But when an unseen orchestra joins in, I feel it is out of place because my reason tells me that orphan asylums do not keep orchestras hanging about to accompany little girls who sing surreptitiously at table. Also, in Naughty Marietta, when Nelson Eddy leads his cohorts through the Louisiana swamps, they sing to the accompaniment 90 You can express them here! Tell us what you think! You may win a prize! of a full orchestra ! Could anything be more ridiculous ? Those voices would have carried the scene without any accompaniment whatever and been much more realistic. My point is this : the very illusion that the director is trying to create (and we must have a sense of reality built up for us if we are to enjoy the films) is often destroyed, or made impossible, by introducing orchestral music into a scene that would be more effective were it left out. — Catherine Anderson, 42 Riverside Drive, New York City. $5 Prize Letter In a recent issue, a reader stated a belief that American movies should be for American players only — and that Hollyzvood could dispense with European stars, stories and settings. This letter brought a deluge of mail doivn upon our heads. Fully a tenth of this month's mail was on this one subject. The majority of correspondents disagreed with the attitude expressed in Reader S chuff's letter, on these grounds: In Defense of Foreign Stars — Why not give us foreign movie stars who are not merely trading on their foreign names and reputations, but are honestly good? Who can forget Charles Laughton's performances in The Private Life of Henry, the Vlllth, Les Miserables or Ruggles of Red Gap ; who can forget any of Leslie Howard's pictures or Merle Oberon's The Dark Angel f . . . To deny ourselves the pleasures that such performances can give us would be like denying ourselves the pleasures of reading all of the Old World Literature. No sensible person would listen to a proposal that we should not read Shakespeare simply because he was not an American, but this is just what the reader was proposing when he suggested that Hollywood should no longer use foreign stars. Europe is old in the art of acting and we, as Americans, would be foolish if we did not avail ourselves of the best that European talent can afford us. Please do not take this to mean that I think our own stars are not good. I am simply saying that it would be poor judgment to discontinue using foreign stars simply because they are foreign. — Dorothy Cross, 1003 E. 53rd St., Chicago, III. $1 Prize Letters Also, in a recent issue, we mentioned the persistent Hollyzvood report that Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers might be separated as a screen team, going their individual starring ways. We asked if readers approved. This also brought a downpour of letters — and the end of them apparently is not yet in sight. To date, the tzvo schools of thought are about equally divided, along these lines: Foresees an Eruption — Separate Rogers and Astaire? Behead the first executive who dares to suggest it ! They alone were responsible for the rise of musicals and if they are separated, you will have the immediate downfall of the musicals, also. Why, to break up this team would be like taking the curls from Shirley Temple; the voice from Grace Moore ; the cream from coffee ; and U. S. from U. S. of America. Ginger without Fred is like beautiful scenery without an artist, and Fred without Ginger is an artist with a crippled hand. Please, don't ever suggest the horrifying thought of breaking them up. Together, these two stand for happiness, wholesomeness, beauty and everything good in life. If someone wants a movie eruption, just break up this team! — Mildred Sheridan, 1591 Dorchester Ave., Boston, Mass. Favors Partial Parting — I think it would be a very good idea for Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire to be separated for a while. Of course, the public loves them together, but I'm afraid it would tire of them if it saw them co-starred too frequently. Starred separately, they would prove whether or not they could make equally successful pictures. Fred Astaire is just as good an actor as he is a dancer and single stardom would give him a chance to show his talents as an actor. Ginger Rogers also is successful as a dramatic actress. I think it would be suitable for them to be co-starred in two pictures annually. When the time came for them to be together, the public would look forward eagerly to their pictures and they would certainly be, and stay, public favorites. — Helen Gronowski, Blossburg, Pa. New Discovery — Hollywood has done it! It has found a man as handsome as Clark Gable and as fine an actor as Leslie Howard, and cast him perfectly in a fastmoving, thrilling drama. I predict that, as Peter Blood, he will become one of the most popular actors on the screen. Errol Flynn, here's to you ! — Scottie Fitzgerald, Cambridge Arms Apts., Charles and 34th Sts., Baltimore, Md. A reader raises a provocative question in the follozving letter: Big, Happy Family — If my family suddenly went back on me, and I had to choose my family from the movies, whom would I choose ? Here they are : Grandpa, George Arliss ; Grandma, May Robson ; Father, Frank Morgan ; Mother, Pauline Lord ; Sister, Rosalind Russell; Brother, Nelson Eddy ; Husband, Charles Boyer ; Children, Jane Withers and Freddie Bartholomew. — Mabel Baker, 3874 West 10th Ave., Vancouver, B. C, Canada. WHAT is your favorite movie topic — your reaction to new pictures, new performances — your newest idea for the betterment of films? Tell us, and you will also be telling the world. And be in the running for one of these cash prizes for each month's best letters: (l) $15; (2) $10; (3) $5; all others published, $1 each. The editors are the sole judges and reserve the right to publish all or part of any letter received. Write today to Letter Editor, MOVIE CLASSIC, 1501 Broadway, New York City. KABLE BROS. CO., TRINTEES