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 27 )ciates broken china with domestic ;es. Jor are we spared the "happy ending," ich is not so sure in the novel. In latter, a more or less commonplace lu still tucks her stray locks behind ears, speaks ungrammatically, and ties down to life with an equally color- 'i and commonplace mate. Whereas the film, a rejuvenated Lulu turns iderella-like into a winsome woman isessed of considerable personal charm, rtainly the film schoolmaster is of a re intellectual type than the music re keeper, and one feels that Lulu a chance in the future to lift herself somewhat higher levels, heodore Roberts gives a splendid in- oretation of the father of the family i Ma Bett (Ethel Wales) is amazingly e to life. BOY Vhatever stretch of the imagination story of a small boy wandering, un- tested, through Ellis Island to the ms of New York, requires, "My Boy" a picture to enjoy. Despite too its idicap of an unconvincing grand- ther (unconvincing in her friendliness I her philanthropy) and the poor mentation of the old sea dog (a ».nce for a strong second character t) My Boy becomes worth while be- ise Jackie Coogan "is back." The ural, sweet kid of the Chaplin picture h none of the awful and irritating •histication of "Peck's Bad Boy" is s immigrant orphan from Belgium, ere are gestures here and there that /e an artificiality about them. Yet y may be but the precocious touches md to occur in the work of a lad of age with the poise an inherent talent ; given him. Whatever roughness the ture as a production had, you can 3rd to overlook. The lesson, however, that with a more careful selection of the other two members of the cast we might have had a production that needed no saving by Jackie's wistful charm. THE MOST WONDERFUL THING One of the barely acceptable of th( many mediocre films. Yet because o. her splendid work in the past a reviewer ■wants to praise Norma Talmadge. In the hackneyed vehicle one hopes for some twist to vitalize the story to give her a chance to be strong despite the fact that she is miscast in a role, which is too young and too delicate for her frank maturity. She manages, how- ever, to get over, in the important mo- ments, the sweet . sincerity of the impulsive Jacqueline. Mr. Ford is pic- turesque and Julia Hoyt convincing as a snob, eventually humbled. But in the end .one wonders what has happened to the Norma Talmadge of an older day. Is it poor vehicles or has she lost even the sex strength of her appeal? UNDER THE LASH Again the filming of a well known stage play betrays the hopeless gap be- tween the two mediums. "Under the Lash" is not an adaptation of "The Shulamite," as announced, but rather a story suggested by that play. I remem- ber the last act, presented to vaudeville houses throughout the country, by Olga Petrova. The voice qualities, the flawless poise, and the emotional depths of Madame's ability stood in the way of Miss Swanson's merely pretty Shulamite. And yet Miss Swanson was hardly to be blamed. Simply, the emphasis in "Under the Lash" had been shifted; it was a dif- ferent story and should have been intro- duced as such, with credit given for but the general suggestion. Adaptation im- plies too close an adherence to the orig- inal form. Mahlon Hamilton is always strong and sincere even though he, at moments,