The Film Mercury (1926-27)

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.

Page Two | Tamar Lane | SfiiiiiiiiimiiiimmmimimimiiiT (Continued from Page 1) in Mr. R. E. Sibley’s recent letter to The Mercury with which I fully agreed. That was in regard to the cost of a picture having no bearing upon its value, as entertainment. While some persons appear to be under the impression that the more a picture costs the better it must be, it is absurd to hold to such an argument. A five thousand dollar picture can provide just as good entertainment as one costing five hundred thousand, and it can be just as fine a piece of silent drama from the critical angle. TECHNICAL FLAWS Technical flaws, as far as I can see, are also quite unimportant in appraising the value of a film, either as entertainment or first rate silent drama. While technical details may give some concern to certain theatregoers, they are of no importance in my young life — even as a photoplay critic — excepting where they effect plot and situations. As to whether the desert scenes had the right kind of sand in them or whether the Russian villain smoked the proper brand of cigarettes, I am content to let someone else worry about such matters. In over ten years of reviewing films, I doubt if I have taken occasion to point out over a half dozen technical flaws. * * * Universal Theater Dividend The directors of Universal Chain Theaters Corp. have declared the regular quarterly dividend of 2 per cent on the 8 per cent preferred, payable June 15, to stockholders of record June 1. COWBOYS interested in participating in a Rodeo Show at Fawnskin, Big Bear Lake, over 4th of July, see Norman Sprowl 1223 Taft Bldg., Hollywood. * THE FILM MERCURY, FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1926 Hollywood, Calif. LOUIS TO CO-STAR IN NEW WARNER PICTURE Willard Louis will be costarred with Louise Fazenda in “The Gay Old Bird,” for Warner Brothers. * * * Theatre Leaders Give Up Battle (Continued from Page 1) tried to force through any measures that might serve to aid in a last fight against the big film interests. Leaders who at other conventions were full of fight and vig'orously tried to urge their fellow exhibitors to unite in definite action and give battle to the interests opposing them, now sat quietly as though resigned to the fact that they were fighting for a lost cause. To the analytical observer sitting on the sidelines at the convention, it was plain that the big, far-seeing exhibitors recognize that it is now too late to weld the M. P. T. 0. A. into a powerful fighting organization. It was evident that Sidney Cohen, in withdrawing from his office in the organization, realized that it was no longer of any avail to give battle. Steffes, the fighting man of the Middle West, also gave up without a struggle. It was the same with all the others. When one or two men, such as Richey, of the Michigan group, attempted to do something constructive, they found their fellow exhibitors singularly indifferent and unresponsive. WE HUMBLY APOLOGIZE In one of our recent advertisements in this publication we stated: “There’s always room for one more at Fine Arts.” Today, with thirteen units now active on our “lot” and with others negotiating for space, we will soon have to retract the published statement. Producers contemplating a change of headquarters are urged to advise us of their requirements AT ONCE if they desire to number themselves among those progressive and far-seeing men who have found unequalled service, independence and a four-square policy of studio co-operation at our plant. FINE ARTS STUDIOS, Inc. 4500 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles. OL. 2131 I ^ ■ ‘J I Rewrote the last two-thirds of “MISS NOBODY” First National Production Injected three tramp characters and plenty of hokum. Mae Tinee of the Chicago Tribune One of the! few critics privileged to say what she pleases (and generally she’s pretty rough), says of “Miss Nobody:” “Reel by reel, in every way, ‘Miss Nobody’ gets better and better.” “The hoboes are screams. I loved the hoboes.” Harry Watts, the manager of A. H. Blank’s big Rialto Theater in Omaha, writes an enthusiastic, unsolicited letter. “I have just screened one of the most entertaining pictures I have seen this year, and it is called ‘Miss Nobody.’ I have not been so enthusiastic over a picture in a long time for being perfect entertainment.” Four Los Angeles preview audiences loved it. “Miss Nobody” is not an epic — it is darned good entertainment. The characters are lovable — it’s clean and there’s a lotta laughs. As Editorial Director I supervised the entire production after rewriting the story. I only hoped to be able to get “entertainment.” They say it is. Wid Gunning V