The Picture Show Annual (1928)

16 Picture Show Annual Charlie or anybody else when he set out to make a name on the film. He took a line of his own and pro- gressed steadily, almost slowly, at the beginning, but he never looked back, and he is now a thoroughly established favourite. Buster Keaton, who has also a strong screen following, has a distinct style, and Harry Langdon, once hailed as Chaplin's successor, has made some good pic- tures, but also some very mediocre ones. Walter Hiers, the fat comedian, is the one successor to the famous John Bunny. Walter can be very funny when he gets the right material. There are, of course, other well-known comedians, but, having regard to the great demand for comedv, it is surprising how comparatively few first-class artists in this line are to be seen on the pictures. The Vamp—Old and New Style In the early days of the pictures the vamp was con- sidered an essential figure in any screen story, and in this role Theda Bara reigned unchallenged, though she had many imitators. Theda played the part of the vamp in the old-fashioned melodramatic style. She was tho- roughly bad and utterly without a conscience. The present-day vamp is just as wicked, but she is more human. The ill-fated Barbara La Marr was a great exponent of the vamp role and Nita Naldi has her own corner in screen wickedness. But the biggest change in screen villainy was made by a man—Adolphe Menjou, when he gave us that masterly study in " A Woman of Paris.' Here we had a sophisticated man of the world who broke women's hearts with such exquisite politeness that even the broken-hearted one could scarcely cherish feelings of revenge. Menjou has played many parts since then, and he has gone from success to success. His superiority over the old-time villain lies not only in his perfect manners but is also due to the fact that he possesses a rich sense of humour. If things go against him, he does not rave and curse like the old-timer, but accepts the rebuff with a smile and a gesture of indifference that nobody could imitate. In regard to screen heroes, too, there has been a great change in recent years. Rudolph Valentino specialised in sheik roles and much of his success was achieved because we saw in him a romantic figuie with a spice of devilment in him. Other " heroes," though quite different from Valen- tino, have ceased to pretend to be as immaculate in morals as they are in dress. Ronald Colman, for instance, is not quite impervious to temptation by a witching Eve, even when he is violently in love with the heroine, and one of his greatest assets is that he can lose his temper at irritating trifles, just as a man in real life does. There is a naturalness about Colman which appeals to men as well as to women. John Barrymore, too, is no plaster saint even when playing the role of a good man. In regard to its villains and heroes, the screen has made big strides in the past two years. They are more human, more true to life. Character Actors But the greatest development in screen acting has been shown by those who play character parts. In the early days of the pictures very little attention was shown to character studies. The camera was on the hero and heroine all the time with the " crowd as a background. To-day practically every film of note contains one or more character parts and very often we get the finest acting in the picture from these men and women. They are no longer stop gaps, pushed on when the hero and heroine are out of the picture for a few moments, but a big part of the play. And what fine artistes they are ! Mary Carr, Louise Dresser, Mary Alden, Theodore Roberts, William V. Mong, Noah and Wallace Beery, Snitz Edwards, to mention but a few, have turned many a poor picture into a success by their splendid acting. Standing out on his own as a master of make- up is Lon Chaney, also a great character actor. In this respect the screen has nothing to fear from the stage ; m fact, it may be said that in regard to character players the screen is superior. Two comparatively newcomers to the screen that I have purposely refrained from placing in their category are Emil Janmngs and Lya de Putti. Here we have ability outstanding, as was seen in that marvellous picture, " Vaudeville." To my mind, there has never been such a wonderful characterisation of a vamp as that given by De Putti in this film. She has the face of a madonna and the soul of a siren. She can do more with her eyes alone in one second than most screen vamps could accomplish in an hour with the aid of Paris frocks and a setting of Oriental magnificence. As for Janmngs, he can play any part. In " Vaude- ville," he showed us a man broken in spirit without his face being once turned to the camera. We only saw the broad, bent back of a convict, yet he gave us a sense of terrible tragedy. British Plays and Players If any two particular screen players may be said to have kept the movies moving in England, I think that honour ought to go to Betty Balfour and Henry Edwards. In Betty we have a comedienne who is second to none, and had she been an American star she would have had a world-wide reputation. As it is she has kept the flag flying in the dark days of stagnation in the British film industry. Edwards is another who has never had the world-wide recognition his talents entitled him to get, but he made a welcome and triumphant return to the screen in " The Flag Lieutenant," after a period of stage playing. Since then we have witnessed a revival in the British film industry. In the matter of historical films, such as " Zeebrugge," "Mons," and "Ypres," we have made pictures which are classics, even when judged by the highest standa rd, and we have also made great strides in the making of picture plays. " Hindle Wakes," for instance, can challenge comparison with the best that America, Germany or France has given us, and what is far more important, we are going steadily but surely forward. E. W.