The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

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.

Theatrical Film Critique Conducted by M. F. L. OUR PURPOSE: To analyze with fearless sincerity the current films representative of present production. Theoretically we are concerned with an art, limitless in possibilities because it should be a composite of various time-tried arts. With the highest possibilities of these combined arts as a background against which to throw present production—com- mercial, not artistic, in aim—we wish to point out the good and bad in films, remembering that the photodrama public, like any public, is a composite of varying human capacities and under- standings, demanding therefore legitimately a range of screen production from Rinehart sentimentalism to Galsworthian realism. This department, therefore, addresses itself to those thinking individuals who are logical enough to be patient with the meagre materials at hand, and reasonable enough to recognize occasional excellence even though it be but relative. Amid the discourag- ingly huge and endless output of films maudlin with sentimentality and bad taste, the "Movies," this two-decade-old brat of man's creative ingenuity, occasionally emits something more promising than a lusty howl. On the part of those who catch this promise, this department calls for intelligent optimism and understanding cooperation. Free A Future Art From A Present Industry OREVER First, the drama of Peter Ibbetson be- ■mes, not itself in celluloid, but another ory embodying its spirit. Second, its nematographical presentation of the >irit world of dreaming true is perfect. r e do not have the transparent wraith the ancient ghost story, but nearly >lid figures, touched out to a white :licacy convincing enough to make the earn garden as believable as the pic- red world of actuality. The spirit tone as sustained, too, in the accurate dream iychology presented. As for its cast, without exception the lpport is excellent, no characterization eak at any point unless in Mr. Dexter's ither self-conscious love making from is balcony window to his wife in the arden below. The two leading roles ust be considered at greater length. Miss Ferguson is a composite of those any adjectives applied to her work fre- quently enough to make them synono- mous terms with her name. She is an exquisite Mimsey. Her make-up as the elderly lady among her charity children is a remarkable demonstration of what make-up on the screen can achieve. This is reaffirmed in Wallace Reid's make-up as an old fanatic dreamer behind prison bars. Perhaps no casting of any well known star has caused more comment, unfavor- ably, than did the choice of Reid for the screen echo of the great Barrymore. As I watched Mr. Reid in the first scenes I realized how stupendous a barrier (to any appreciation of him here) was my well grounded impression of his former specialization as an averagely debonair young chap, vigorous and gallant. Per- haps Mr. Reid felt it himself. At any rate he .ought not to have used the twisted smile and the lift of the eye- brows as he came down the staircase of 25