Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1925-Mar 1926)

February 20, 1926 EXHIBITORS HERALD 89 o n Picture s ^ j^HIS department contains news, information and gossip on current productions , It aims to supply a service which will assist the exhibitor in keeping in touch with developments in connection with pictures and picture personalities — and what these are doing at the box office. No prophecies on the entertainment value of pictures are made. Opinions expressed are simply those of the author or of his contributors and the reader is requested to consider them only as such. — EDITOR’S NOTE. RANCIS BUSHMAN IS A BETter villain in “Ben Hur” than he ever was a hero in anything. Wallace Beery is a better comedian in “Behind the Front” and other recent pictures than even he ever was a villain in previous pictures. Other recent transitions, to include those of Lewis Stone, Adolphe Menjou and, a little further back, Lew Cody, indicate not only a growing tendency toward “changing horses” but a gratifying readiness on the part of the public to permit it. On the other side there are the cases of Mary Pickford, whom the public will have none of save in her grimy gingham, Charles Chaplin, who doesn’t click save in slapstick, Tom Mix, Gloria Swanson and a host of others whose attempts to switch characters have been summarily disapproved by the people who buy the tickets. Undoubtedly it is a natural impulse which moves a star to change his stuff. At any rate, they all make the attempt, sooner or later. The record is presented here merely to the end that all may realize the majority experience is against the idea. If the attempt must be made, it is good judgment to confine it to one picture and see what happens to that one before going further. “DEHIND THE FRONT” IS QUITE J-Jthe funniest long picture in many moons. In it Wallace Beery and Raymond Hatton are a couple of rookies to whom things happen. Some of the best war jokes you have heard, and others that you haven’t are dramatized to provide the laughs and they are plenty. Mack Sennett made a two-reeler with Harry Langdon which was a beginning in this direction. Others followed with short features of similar character. This picture is as much better than these as it is bigger. I saw it at McVickers and the funniest part of the whole thing was the gentleman sitting behind me who kept assuring his fair company that the drama would begin in a moment. Yet the picture didn’t need this fellow to make it a scream. Mary Brian’s in it, too. OUR GANG, BACK IN McVICKERS for some reason or othef after a recent transfer to the Chicago, knocked them over again last week with “Better Movies.” I seem to recall having read reports of this comedy in “What the Picture Did For Me,” which may mean that it is not fresh off the griddle, but Chicago theatres are getting later and later on their first runs. This is a big step up for the Gang, their last two shown here sagging a bit from standard. I consider the recovery a development of utmost importance to trade and public, the latter especially. The reverse would be a calamity which I refuse to think about. This Week: Changing Horses Behind the Front Better Movies The American Venus Pathe Review The Sea Beast Exhibitor Reports Lord Jim Lady Windermere’s Fan The Eagle Mike Lights of Old Broadway Slippery Feet 1\T OW THAT THEY’VE MADE IN “The American Venus,” there seems no good use in going through with that project to picturize the Follies. This has at least as many legs, etc., and not even Mr. Ziegfeld could improve upon the picture, mechanically, pictorially or anatomically. I should like to have been able to take Mr. Ziegfeld and Mr. Sennett with me to “Venus.” The things they do so well have been done so much better that their respective faces should have provided a study — if indeed I could have spared eye for the inspection. There is very little opportunity to look away from the screen while “The American Venus” is upon it. There is a story of a sort but there is so much else that it doesn’t matter. The big item is the feminine form more or less divine and for the most part more. Walter Lundin, A. S. C., for many years Harold Lloyd’s cameraman, now making “For Heaven’s Sake,” Lloyd’s next feature. And in Technicolor, in black and white, stilled in tableau and unstilled in motion, draped and merely bejeweled. Ford Sterling, Esther Ralston and Lawrence Gray are the chief participants, Mr. Sterling providing the humor, Mr. Gray the heroics and Miss Ralston a bewildering assortment of unsuspected curves and contours. Fay Lanphier, Miss America herself, is in but briefly and runs a bad second to Miss Ralston as to acting and elsewise. Early exhibitor reports say the picture is a whale at the box office and enough of it got by the Chicago censor board to hold my attention the required number of minutes, so why write more about it? T WENT TO McVICKERS EARLIER L than usual last week and got in on one of the short features they screen only on the dinner show. It was Pathe Review and it got more spontaneous comment from persons sitting near me than anything else on the expansive and varied program. I don’t know the number of it and I don’t think it matters. Exhibitors who report on Pathe Review invariably say the same thing and you know what that is. The mystery is that McVickers or any other theatre should use so good a picture on the dinner show and then drop it out. There are plenty of reasons, of course, but no justifications. JOHN BARRYMORE IN “THE SEA J Beast” is still another John Barrymore. It is said that he insisted upon making this picture, having cherished that ambition these many years, and whether or not that be the case it is true that he worked out on it. The main item of the picture is Mr. Barrymore’s acting. And there are other items which would classify as big if it were not for the star’s dominance over mere events. There is a sea storm of staggering proportions and a whale killing which undoubtedly is impressive, but in each incident it is Barrymore’s behavior that stands out. Dolores Costello is the young lady in the case and suffers the same eclipse as the incidents mentioned. Undoubtedly she is at least as good as in “Mannequin,” but Barrymore is so much better than anyone in that picture that she seems less impressive. The same fate meets George O’Hara, who was the works as hero of “Fighting Blood” and is just a cog as the villain of “The Sea Beast.” Society paid five and ten dollars per seat to see “The Sea Beast” at the Goodman Little Theatre, Chicago, two nights before it opened at the Orpheum, the proceeds p-oing to some sort of charity