Close Up (Oct 1920 - Aug 1923)

PERSONAL CRITICISMS OE PHOTO-PLAY PRODUCTIONS Supervised by Emm. Ell. UNIVERSAL PRESENTS: “ONCE TO EVERY WOMAN.”— STARRING DOROTHY PHILLIPS Reviewed by Emm. Ell. Let us be frank and open our review of this particular feature by stating outright that it is misnamed. Had it been called “Ambition” there would have been a real reason for the story. We well remember Allen Holubar going through weeks of producing this picture, and it certainly shows that Universal has a great deal of acumen when it released the picture at this particular time, as Mr. Holubar is at the present time producing his star, Dorothy Phillips, independently. We claim that this picture will act as a splendid advertisement for “Man, Woman and Marriage.” The story, “Once to Every Woman,” starts off with splendid coherent dash, but like a great many features it slows up towards the end on the homesweet-home theme, which is almost boresome. None of us are particularly anxious to witness death, no matter how sweetly or peaceably this event occurs. Then again, we must find fault with Mr. Holubar for introducing a character which was non-essential to the actual plot in itself. In the person of Rudolph Valentino he introduced such a person. Not that we have any fault to find with the latter's acting ability, but we do claim that there was simply no reason for his pursuit of his beloved one. To begin with, he was too young for the part Had he been a real man of the world, presumably an Italian (but who unfortunately was wearing Los Angeles tailored clothes in Italy), we could have understood the situation, for no man is willing to help a young attractive woman without some future reward! Then again, we claim it was unnecessary for Mr. Holubar to recommit an historical national scene. When Abraham Lincoln was shot in a theatre in Washington a catastrophe occurred, but we do not see the aptitude of having a lovesick youth commit the same offense from a box in a theatre. And another mistake was in giving him a box in which there were no other occupants. The lighting effects in the theatre were almost lost and the flashes of the audience should have been withheld as the audience was arranged too uniformally to be attractive, it was a studied, stultified effect. This should be guarded against in future, but the acting was in capable hands. Of this there is nothing more to be said except that Dorothy Phillips surpassed her previous achievements. She arose to supreme heights in histrionical ability at several junctures in the play. William Ellingford made a capable father. Mrs. Margaret Mann was sweet-faced and wholesome and perfectliy capable for the part of the mother she pictured. Emily Chichester gave an unusual characterization of a modern Cinderella. Elinor Field interpreted the impish part to such perfection that she had us completely at her mercy with her clever ability. It is too bad that she was not cast for a deeper part because she belongs in a larger field of artistry. Robert Anderson was good — nothing extraordinary, just good. Mary Wise was excellent. Dan Crimmins and Rosa Gore did as much as was expected of them, while Frank Elliot as the Honorable Devonshire, gave a splendid interpretation of his part. There is nothing unusually good about the feature, but through the clever manipulation of the director we get a new angle of life of this particular phase during a period of time which holds us spellbound with interest as the plot develops. Fred Leroy Granville is responsible for the photography. Some of it is unusually good, and other shots were too indistinct. This will be a money-maker for the Universal Film Company. SAMUEL GOLDWYN PRESENTS BASIL KING’S “EARTHBOUND.”— DIRECTED BY T. HAYES HUNTER. Reviewed by Emm. Ell. Previous to “The Miracle Man” there had not been a photoplay worth the seeing, but when this feature was produced a new era in feature pictures was started. A worthy successor has arrived in “Earthbound.” In fact, we are inclined to believe that in the latter there will be found a greater message to the millions than in the former. Today throughout the United States, especially since our great war, there are millions of people who believe or wish to believe that they can communicate with their loved ones beyond the portals separating us from eternity. “Earthbound” comes to us with a clearly defined message. The underlying motive is one which is bound to elevate and bring us into a closer spiritual union with our dear departed It is immaterial whether the plot or the story is worth while — so long as the message is potent. We believe that this is merely a forerunner of something better in the cinema industry. We are merely scraping upon the thin edge of the outside of this complex question as yet, and as time elapses we will go deeper into a subject filled with possibilities and promise. The most unusual photography ever seen in pictures is brought out by Andre Barlarter. He has placed himself upon the supreme heights of cinema photographic fame. The direction by T. Hayes Hunter was something which could hardly be surpassed. At no time during the filming was there an incoherent moment. This feature should place him head and shoulders above the majority of directors in the game. The cast was an entirely worthy one. Wyndham Standing, playing the departed one, was dignified and splendid at all times. Naomi Childers gave a consistent performance as the wife. Billie Cotton was unusually good, while Flora Revalles was beautiful and alluring as well as perfect in her part. Alec B. Francis was commendable, while Lawson Butt gave a splendid characterization. Kate Lester was good, but the histrionic honors belong to Mahlon Hamilton. His shadings and expression throughout of a man who believed in following a selfish purpose was characteristically good, and the supreme moment of his acting ability arose at the point when he shoots his best friend to death. It was a marvelous performance and showed him to be the actor that he is recognized to be among actors of note. Norman K. Whisler should be given great credit for the lighting effects which he was able to put on at the California Theatre. Altogether, we claim that “Earthbound” may remain earthbound because there are no other worlds to conquer in a cinema sense.