Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1924-Apr 1925)

OOD film is “Her Marriage Vow” recently shown here. The s tory offers splendid opportunities to nte Blue, who plays the leading n Ble role. A pretty young girl of affectionate, gentle type, turns own a wealthy and handsome suit Cus or of the butterfly type for a man of sound character and a promising fu abies; her husband steadily ad% neing »with his firm, until he be~ comes junior partner. But business his passion, and his young wife dom sees him. ‘To make matters orse he is unreasonably, almost inanely jealous. On her chance meetwith a former suitor in the apart"ment of a rather wild chum of hers, ‘the jealous fury of the husband’s ature appears, and no reasoning is ot no avail. Finally after a bad misunderstanding he turns her out and ess: too stubborn to retract when he _ comes to himself. The sight of his "supposed rival, whom his wife has in no way encouraged, enrages him afresh, At this point the picture de_ velops a bad attack of hokum. The _ wife comes in a blinding snowstorm to, see her children, the husband SS faints, and on her recovery, he forgives her a purely imaginary fault. _ The character of Carol, in which _ Beverley Baine makes her return to the stage, does not make many de= mands, but Miss Baine’s sweetness and beauty give it the requisite nen Monte Blue gives an excellent performance of the husband; his mobile changes of facial expression admirably denote the passionate Bee ericriess, and his wholesome perBie, sonality balances it and makes him attractive. Willard Louis is excellent as a fat profligate, and » Margaret Livingston is good as a wild and onstant divorcee. Spar «hak 4 = _KGINGLE WIVES” is another ex vr, J ample of the poor scenario and _ generally weak picture being redeemed by the splendid acting of all memers of a large cast. It deals with the estrangement between a _ sentimental selfish wife and a hard, business-enossed husband, equally selfish in his way. The chief difficulty in the s complete enjoyment is the one feels the attempt is le to win sympathy to the wh en Go Ne a! her a burglar—she . 7,» difficult choice, the husband is the natural recipient since he shows the saving grace of common sense on some few occasions. But the whole array of principal characters is rather unpreposgessing; there is the husband who never discusses anything but business, and asks his acquaintances immediately on introduction for information that will help him make more money ; the annoying wife who remembers what they were doing at this minute a year ago, and weeps because her husband is not equally dependent on the past for his enjoyment of the present; her mother, the submissive and unmistakably patient wife of a self-centred roue; and a diplomatist of the familiar type, philandering, and impatient of conventions. ‘The story turns on the fact that the mother for some reason or other desires her daughter to stick out an unhappy marriage and endure the misery entailed as she has done herself. When she sees her erring child seeking more amiable society than that of her rather boorish spouse she brings on a quarrel that nearly wrecks everything, but for the fact that the husband is seriously injured while rescuing a child. In the weakness of convalescence he breaks into sobs over the prospect of losing his wife, and she, being moved to sentimental depths by such a sight flies to his arms and all ends happily. Milton Sills gives a powerful performance as the hatd business man of boorish tendencies, and his emo= tional work at the end is of a high order. Corinne Griffith gives a finished characterization of the rather shallow irresponsible wife, and Lou Tellegan makes a very debonair diplomat, though one is left uncertain as to whether he is a philanderer or silent sufferer. Kathlyn Macdonald is good as the mother despite a certain monotony of style. In less prominent roles Phillips Smalley gives a most artistic rendering of a middleaged debauchee, and Phyllis Haver and John Patrick are most attractive as a newly married couple. In sympathetic but colorless roles, Henry B. Walthall and Jere Autin are also excellent. The direction is admirable but at times a little uncertain. There are beautiful interior sets, and fine photographic effects. The real fault of the picture is the conventional insipidity of its view of a society per ule to be sophisticated. Roe i ee i le ee Ol i ee DF a A Pictures in Toronto By HECTOR CHARLESWORTH 6efIND YOUR MAN” is the movie cousin of the old ten-twent’-andthirt’ melodrama in which all the world is unspeakably villainous except the suffering hero and heroine and the hero’s dog. Rin-Tin-Tin is beyond doubt a beautiful dog and a clever one. He is remarkably expressive in his canine way. It is teresting for all who have ever been well acquainted with dogs to watch changes of thought denoted by ears, eyes and tail, and even by mouth, for there is on occasion that eqttivalent for a grin that lends interest to dog’s faces. The tingling strength and alertness of the animal at moments when he is stalking or performing his wonderful feats of high jumping lend added enjoyment for dog-lovers. One is glad as well that he is not credited anywhere in the picture with more than animal intelligence. The story is about a young man and a young girl surrounded “by a number of people who lack any redeeming quality and who constantly plot against their happiness. The boy is first made the “goat” in connection with a lumber-theft, and then accused of murder. ‘The dog is the only witness to the crime who knows the actual murderer. His death howl, and his persistent hounding of the murderer, toward whom he has taken an instinctive dislike from the first, get on the man’s nerves to such a degree, that finally at the trial, where he is giving evidence that will hang the animal’s master, the dog’s repeated breaking into the room makes him confess the crime and virtue triumphs in the end. ‘The picture is ripe melodrama, with attacks on unprotected young females, brutal policemen in the big city, long runs across country, last minute rescues, and all that goes with it. Eric St. Clair makes an attractive hero, and June Marlowe is a pretty heroine, while Charles Harrison gives a good melodramatic characterization of the nerve-wracked, whisky-soaked villain. Bernard Shaw’s opinion on moving pictures outside of what he thinks of Charles Chaplin and a very few others is not what one might term as flattering. ‘To make a long story short we are a bunch of “dumbells.” The tragedy of Shaw’s opinion of us is in the fact that it has been said by highbrows, whereas his plays will suffer through Time, falling into oblivion, his criticisms on Music, the Drama, etc., will live forever. Someone should therefore begin to do a little proselytizing°on Shaw. K PUBLIC LIE or ees ee OT i et le es eed eT ad