Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1925-May 1926)

Page Two CANADIAN MOVING PICTURE DIGEST What’s Wrong With the Public? E have heard so many versions of “what’s wrong with the Movies” that it might be interesting to take a survey of some of the artistic financial flops in order to discover what is wrong with the public which attends movies. : Let us go back to Fox’s “Queen of Sheba” directed by Edwards and which forever identified Betty Blythe as the Queen among movie stars. This picture is said to have cost about $500,000, but despite the beauty of the production and its sensuous appeal, it did not register the financial success it deserved. “The Daughter of the Gods” with Annette Kellerman which preceded it, was also a great financial disappointment to Fox. Following the tremendous success of “The Birth of a Nation,” D. W. Griffith, whose name has become synonymous with successful productions just sufficiently different from other successes in quality to make Griffith an outstanding figure in our Industry, gave us his production of “Intolerance.” Filmed two years in the War, this picture costing around $300,000, did a gross business of about $600,000 and although satisfying the director’s ambition to present the screen with an Immortal motion picture legacy, it turned him in no profit in dollars. “Broken Blossoms,” “Isn’t Life Wonderful?” and “America” too can be added, as receiving the endorsation of the press in general and those who believe in the Art of the screen as disappointing to Griffith from the box-office angle. Cecil B. De Mille’s production of “Joan the Woman” with Wallace Reid and Geraldine Farrar gave the producer only a minimum profit, although critics have said it far surpasses his direction of “The Ten Commandments” which appears to be rolling in the shekels. Thos. Ince was also among our producers who were ambitious to do something big, unusual and he gave us his message in “Civilization,” but unfortunately the message of Peace in the time of War propaganda was as popular as Ford’s peace ship; and what might have been profitable to-day is a production failed probably because the mood of the public was not receptive. Charles Ray spent his last dollar following the big picture idea with “The Courtship of Miles Standish,” but this together with what is considered a gem of a picture, another Ray “The Girl I Love” gave Charles heart-aches instead of dollars. Chaplin’s “Woman of Paris” must have been an eye-opener to Charley. The Industry received it with open arms and even those who usually go to the movies to scoff, remained to pray. Did the picture establish box-office records, ask Charley and he will say, “It was no Gold Rush.” Lubitsch’s “Marriage Circle’ was another heart’s balm to the lovers of Better Pictures but like “The Last Laugh” its very artistry appears to have been its point of defeat. In connection with “The Last Laugh,” the financial failure of this masterpiece affords much room for thought when producers are considering what kind of pictures to produce. Perhaps no picture had such a phenomenal send off as “Foolish Wives” and perhaps no picture proved a greater shock to its promoters. Universal are said to have expended MAXIMUM LIGHT about one and a half millions on the production, but it may have been the public expected “the impossible” from the exploitation and witnessing just a fine picture, the advertising by word of mouth dampened the ardour of the public who might have been interested enough to pay for the pleasure of seeing. George Arliss in “Disraeli” is also credited with establishing friends for the manager of the theatre, but these were from the select followers of Arliss and Disraeli and were not of a sufficient number to register profits. Barrie’s “Sentimental Tommy” was another financial flop, “The Beggar on Horseback” will be another, “Grass” and “Romola” augmenting the list. Nazimova contributed her share with “Salome” and “A Doll’s House” while Europe contributed “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and “The Golem,” pictures of a superlative degree, but evidently not what the public wants sufficiently to give their producers a substantial profit. Mary Pickford and a few of our other world-renowned stars presented “The Salvation Hunters” which they considered might be another “Miracle.” It was in that it proved miraculous that such fine material should be obliged to go a-begging. One could record “Kismet” with Otis Skinner as among the expected successes; and yet as I remember “Kismet” it was not produced to its best advantage, nor was Skinner as appealing on the screen as he is on the stage. Prize financial fiascos register “In the Palace of the King” under the direction of Emmett Flynn and “Greed,” “Monsieur Beaucaire” with the Sheik Valentino must be crowned as the greatest sure-fire failure. The bets on it within the Industry made it the favorite, but Valentino did not comeback, the ladies fickle in their mood toward lovers had evidently forgotten how they annoyed their husbands and brothers in their adoration of this “sheik” and even seeing him all “dolled up” in laces and furbelows did not rekindle the old thrill. These are only a few of the Better Movies which editors write about enthusiastically in relationship to the progress of the screen. That they, with but a few exceptions, were unusual pictures is evident to anyone who knows an artistic effort when it is presented. Why did they fail while “Over the Hill” made even William Fox, who is accustomed to counting profits, laugh long and loud, is a study which every producer could make to his profit. There is evidently nothing wrong with the pictures, but something radically wrong with the public, if one can count it a misdemeanor not to appreciate the artistic. I have often thought that these outstanding pictures of a superlative art atmosphere should not be presented in the usual way. There should be as much difference in their publicity and exploitation as there is between their appeal and the general run of good pictures. The audiences that stay away from the mob-appeal pictures should be reached for these special ones. How are you going to reach them? This is the question which should first concern producers who are ambitious to produce Art and not Hokum, to make profits not working entirely for the glory of Art. —The Rube From Canada. PERFECT FOCUS GUNDLACH MANHATTAN RADIANT PROJECTION LENSES The new “Radiant” Gundlach Manhattan Projection Lenses are a revelation of perfection when compared with any other lens made. The “Radiant” transmits the maximum amount of light that it receives through the film, the focus is brilliantly sharp over the entire picture image, and there is an entire absence of fuzzy rings of light or out of focus spots. projection condition. Colored images register as truly as black and white because the “Radiant” is corrected to meet every If you consider buying new lenses, why not let your common sense advise you to purchase only a lens that has been universally satisfactory. You may be told many things about other lenses being better—the “Radiant” predomin ance is its test. RADIANT No. 1—$35.00 RADIANT No. 2—$65.00 The Coleman Electric Company 258 Victoria Street Toronto (2), Ont. Before Buying Pictures Read The Digest Advertising Pages. Google