Photoplay (Jan - Jun 1919)

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.

jLJLave J\ nown By Pauline Frederick ing their bait is frantic rage \\ n h an actress who wai trying to explain that nice women are not supposed to prance out into the street all smothered in jewels, thai ladies do n<ii receive men callers during the middle of the afternoon in ee and other absurdities even more grotesque. The anecdotes about the ignorance of these con numerous that one forgets them .1 soon .1 one bears them ["here are no anecdotes and no legends about the Hugh Fords, the Chautards and the Hobarl Henleyg for the obvious reason that there is nothing ludicrous about ability. Outside of a limited circle inside the profession nobody knows how much Hugh Ford, for one, has contributed towards the improve* menl and 1 leanliness of pi< tures, ( Contintu d on page my) f** incredible and inconceh -^ able of creatures — ^^^^ A * a theatrical man who hates publicity. He really does hate it; perhaps he would be worth a great deal more money today if he did not. The only thing he pays any attention to — with the exception of his wife and daughter, who is not merely the apple but the pomegranate of his eye — is his job. It frequently irritates and wearies me to hear the snobbish and supercilious absurdity that the cinema people consist entirely of ignorant, illiterate mountebanks. (I am not talking about the actors now. Let some one else defend them.) But whenever I see that statement in print and think of men as cultivated as Hugh Ford, Frank Reicher, Emile Chautard, to say nothing of a host of others, it rather annoys me. It is an unfortunate fact but the ignorants, the humbugs, the creatures who don't know whether Balzac was an author or a face powder, seem to be the standards of judgment in pictures. Of course the humbugs do exist and in large numbers, among directors as in every other branch of the craft. I have seen some of them t his is a most recent portrait <>f M iss Frederick. Below — with Rokri't \ i }■; 11 o 1 a f another of her directors. Frederick and Tom Meighan. Mr. Ford, -who was Miss Frederick's right of this picture, his back to you.