Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1929)

December 28, 1929 EXHIBITORS HERALD-WORLD 55 SERVICE TALKS Incorporated in this department of the Herald-W orld, which is a department containing news, information and gossip on current productions, is the Moving Picture World department, "Through the Box Office Window." WHAT IS WHAT J N just one issue each year, or rather in the preparation of this page for just one issue, I have a good time. That one is the issue in which I sit me down, look at the lists of 104 Biggest Money Makers, Most Popular Stars and so forth, and obtain for myself, as you obtain for yourself, the real what's what. I get a big kick out of it, not to mention relief and benefit, as you do and everyone must who takes his sustenance from this big whirligig industry. It's all very well for me, and people like me, and even people like you, to sit up straight in our chairs and tell what we think about this or that angle of the business. We even begin to think we know what we're talking about, don't we? But how many of us still think so after we comb these lists? Any? No, not any. Because the lists are not human, they are not subject to human influence, as you and I are, and they reveal with a somewhat terrible integrity exactly what is what. What is not always what we like it to be, but in all good sense we must realize that it is better than it would have been, for us and for everyone, had it coincided exactly with our individual preferences. THE 104 MONEY MAKERS In scanning the list of 104 Biggest Money makers there is little joy for honest old fellows like your reporter, who say always frankly and seldom wisely what they think about pictures. I note that "Abie's Irish Rose" leads all the rest and feel badly because I walked out on the picture after about three reels. I less clearly recall "Wings," the runner-up, but do seem to remember that I didn't write an epic about it. As for "Uncle Tom's Cabin," the third in order, I cannot even remember which one of the innumerable versions I've seen was the Universal version that is indicated here. The fourth picture, however, gives me cheer. "The Singing Fool" was my right guess for that year. Against the panning of everybody in ear or eye shot, I stoutly held out for my belief that this was a great picture on any basis you wanted to regard it. It gives me more than the usual joy to find it riding high among its fellows. Thank God the world agreed with me at least this once. I shall go on. I seem to have been right, too, about "The King of Kings," but wrong again with respect to "Lilac Time." "Broadway Melody" catches me in tune again, as does "On with the Show," By T. O. Service but I flopped again on "Weary River." After that I did better. "Gold Diggers of Broadway" looked good to me, so did "The Trail of '98," and I didn't complain about "The Desert Song." After that, though, it's pretty much too bad for my batting average. I didn't even see "The Flying Fleet," "Noah's Ark" gave me a pain in the neck, "The Pagan" was even more severe, and I'm lucky that Chicago hasn't yet seen "Show Boat" because I'm aware, now, that the thing to do about this one is boost it; it's been proven good. THE LADIES T _|_ HE list of leading stars (feminine) is scarcely less disturbing than the list of pictures. Miss Bow, leading the list again by a staggering margin, is not one of my reasons for continuing to see pictures. But Miss Moore, second in box office standing, drags me through snowdrift and cyclone to every new appearance. As does Nancy Carroll, third in the running, whereas Joan Crawford, fourth, has kept me away from a lot of pictures (until she began talking in "Untamed"). Clearly there must be something wrong with the mob reaction to Misses Bow and Crawford — or with mine. I suspect, naturally, the crowd's. Bebe Daniels, sixth, is okay, of course, one of the staple picture girls of all time, but how come Alice White trails here so closely? Then there is Mary Pickford following Dolores Del Rio, and Marion Davies after Dolores Costello. At this point it becomes quite clear that I know nothing at all about the charms of fair women, and so I hike briskly away from this topic to a sterner one. THE MEN I GET a break in this division, if only a momentary one. I have never regarded Lon Chaney as other than a great actor, much as I have panned some of the things in which he has been cast. I thank the world for being right with me on this score. Then I turn around and ask the same world what it thinks it's doing when it tosses William Haines into the second spot. I'm unable to score either way on Hoot Gibson, since his pictures never get to my theatres, but I'm okay on Richard Barthelmess, one of my enduring favorites. I miss again on Ken Mayuard, and on Tom Mix, whose vehicles are not downtown Chicago stuff, but I'm on the right side of Richard Dix — the screen's best male bet at this time in mine and the general opinion — and somewhere near the middle of the road with Ramon Novarro. Al Jolson, of course, is one of my reasons for believing in Santa Claus and Davey Lee, and I'm almost mad about George Bancroft's failure to get higher up than next in the listing. I'll risk a bet that he steps up not less than six notches in 1930. But there are plenty of inconsistencies further down in the list. Look at John Gilbert, above Douglas Fairbanks. (Ouch!) And loads of guys are ahead of Maurice Chavelier (no doubt because he's new). None of which are glad tidings for we folks who think we know what the people who pay us are supposed to think we know. Tough, I calls it. REFLEXES ^^^ITHOUT going into the other classifications, animals and teams, I think I've succeeded in completely ruining any respect for my judgment which may until now have been lurking in odd corners of the industry. And I think this was necessary as a preamble to mentioning the things which you, and each of you, ought to take for your guidance in booking pictures instead of listening to the braying of some wise guy like me. These things are the reflexes, which are not usually pretty but are always accurate. The reflex (if that's the word I think it is) is the animal reaction of the human being to other human beings. You know how it is — one personality makes you want to smile, another calls a snarl to your face, a third makes you straighten you tie and wish you'd worn the other suit. Well, these are the things that guide the public to the pictures and the stars that make the money. It is not for you or me to know in advance which pictures and which stars will excite which reflexes. But it most emphatically is for you (it doesn't matter about me) to get hep to the ones that do and the ones that don't and bet your shirt on the ones that do. Human nature doesn't change; people bite today on the same stunts that took them in yesterday, and on the same individuals. I'll go on being smart and wisecracking about them, but youse guys better just put your money on the red and ride straight across. You can't miss.