Close Up (Jul-Nov 1927)

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.

CLOSE UP I have rarely seen one that was not artistically revolting. Not one of the famous American directors has left a permanent mark on film histor}', or produced anything that would not deeply grieve the judicious. I must specially except Charles Chaplin, who, in addition to being a great actor, is a great producer. ''The Gold Rush*", while not perfect in some essential matters, was a great film. It would bear seeing twice. The future of the films seems to me to be in Germany. I have seen dreadful Gennan films. One of the silliest and worst was "'Metropolis". But I have seen two relatively good ones, "The Last Laugh" and, still better, "Vaudeville*'. "The Last Laugh" was too long, too confused, and too sentimental in the middle ; but towards the end the director pulled himself together and created real effective comedy which was conceived with a true appreciation of the medium. The photography frequently had beauty. "\'audeville" told a convincing story, spoilt only by lack of attention to detail. Surely it must have been obvious to even the common intelhgence that no g\Tnnasts engaged in dangerous acrobatic feats ever\ evening could possibly have indulged in the nocturnal excesses which the strong men of " \'audeville*" permitted themselves. The photography was beatitiful. By which I mean that the pictorial composition, both statically and dynamically, was beautiful. The eye was again and again charmicd by beautiful pictures made out of men and women and out of common interiors. To achieve this was a feat. 28