Film Spectator (1927-1928)

Page Eight June 11, 1927 becomes somewhat difficult to determine what we are supposed to be interested in. It has a most fascinating girl who plays opposite a rather colorless juvenile, and the romance between them, planted at the opening, comes into the picture at intervals without drama and without complications. There is another romance between the boy’s mother and the governor of the district, both parts which are played excellently, and to me this is the major love interest in the film. That a love affair between two young people is not essential to a picture, something that everyone except a producer knows, is demonstrated in Aftermath. It also is demonstrated that foreigners can make pictures devoid of those camera angles that we have grown to look for in them. There is not a weird shot in this picture, but there are plenty of beautiful ones, reflecting good photography and intelligent lighting. It is not fair to attribute to Alfred Hustwick, who edited and titled the picture for the American screen, the story weaknesses of Aftermath. He had a tough job on his hands. He was handed a positive print and had no excess film to work with. He had to use the original fade-ins and fade-outs as he found them, and was circumscribed in other ways. He had to rely largely on titles to tell the story, and he wrote excellent ones. He presumed that the characters were speaking colloquially in their own language, thus he used American colloquialisms in translating their speeches. He would have been at fault if he had made an effort to preserve a European atmosphere in the wording of the titles. Aftermath is the first of a series of foreign-made pictures to be imported for screening in this country. Walter W. Kofeldt has undertaken to supply American audiences with the best European productions, and it is to be hoped that the success that will crown his initial efforts will be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the continuance of the importations. Everyone engaged in picture-making in Hollywood owes it to himself to view the pictures made elsewhere. Even those who do not consider Aftermath superior screen entertainment can not fail to derive some benefit from viewing it. I found it quite entertaining and will look forward to the others that Mr. Kofeldt will show us. It will do none of us any harm to know that there are people in other countries besides our own who know something about motion pictures. * * * Mary Philbin Does Well in “Surrender” WHEN they were about to begin on Lea Lyon out at Universal I remember the papers saying that they could not make up their minds whether to cast Lya de Putti or Mary Philbin in the name part. I could not figure out how two girls who differ so greatly one from the other could be considered for the same part. I have seen the picture, now called Surrender, and quite approve the final decision to let Mary Philbin play Lea. The part calls for a spiritual quality which Mary possesses and which no characterization in which I yet have seen Miss de Putti indicated that she possessed. Under Edward Sloman’s direction Mary gives the most satisfactory performance that stands to her credit since she registered her inaugural hit in Merry-Go-’Round. Her forte is heavy drama or tragedy, and she never is convincing when she gets far away from either. Ivan Mosjukine, the Russian who played the lead in Strogoff, plays opposite Mary in Surrender. I like his acting. The European tendency towards heroics is missing from his mannerisms, and he plays his part with sincerity and conviction. He impresses me as being a valuable addition to our ranks of actors. One performance in Surrender that greatly pleases me is that of Nigel de Brulier. It pleases me not only because it is a splendid characterization of a Jewish Rabbi, but because it presents a good opportunity to a fine old trouper to demonstrate to the young people of the screen just what acting is. We have many fine actors in Hollywood and I always am glad to find one of them in a role that gives him a chance to display his art. De Brulier’s performance in Surrender is one of the features of the production. The direction of Ted Sloman is an example of what can be produced by sticking to motion picture conventions. I can find fault with no individual scene. The production is an elaborate one and mechanically the picture is perfect. Each scene is presented as we have grown used to expecting it to be. The book is a powerful presentation of the persecution of the Jews in Galicia, and Edward Montagne and Sloman made a satisfactory screen story out of it, but they stuck to accepted screen traditions. The picture seems to lack a soul. I have tried to fathom its weakness, but have not been successful. It has one big dramatic punch, the drama being sustained throughout a long sequence that is directed splendidly. Lea goes to a Russian prince. The sacrifice of her purity is the ransom price for the lives of her townspeople. It is a powerful situation and its transition into a love scene between the two is natural and compelling. It is the only part of the picture that stirred my emotions. The story is one that should have had a strong appeal, and the number of tears that I have shed in projection rooms prove that audiences and music are not necessary to awaken emotional reaction in me, but at no time during the unfolding of this picture in the Universal projection room did its inherent pathos move me. The constant irritation of poor punctuation in the titles may have had something to do with it. I was conscious, however, that I was looking at some fine photography for which Gilbert Warrenton was responsible and which made the picture an artistic delight. There were many notable examples of grouping and lighting which resulted in pictures with a Rembrandt quality. Surrender was produced under the supervision of Paul Kohner. It is a good picture, but might have been a great one. * * * On the Importance of the Little Things Lovers is the kind of picture that you see quite often on the screen. There is no excuse for its being as poor as it is. It has everything. The theme is a strong one — gossip forcing the wife of one man into the arms of another. The screen story of Douglas Furber and Sylvia Thalberg developes the theme in an entirely satisfactory manner. The production is a sumptuous one, every reel presenting a series of beautiful pictures. The ' cast is particularly strong. Ramon Novarro, Alice Terry and Edward Martindel play the leading parts, and the minor roles are in the hands of such very fine actors as Edward Connelly, John Miljan, Holmes Herbert, George K. Arthur and Roy d’ Arcy. Story, production and castare the big things that enter into a picture. All of them I