The Film Spectator (Mar-Dec 1928)

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 Twelve THE FILM SPECTATOR April 28, 1928 love with her, contrives a reconciliation. The story is unconvincing because Boles is presented as an impossible, surly ass, whom a wife not only should leave, but whose throat she should cut just prior to her departure. Those who think will find that Boles' characterization ruins the picture. To have any strength the story must create sympathy for the deserted husband. Man-Made Women creates no such sympathy. If Boles had been stripped of his gloom and had been given a sense of humor, the audience would feel sorry for him and the story would have some point. In one sequence Seena Owen tries to shoot Leatrice Joy, and again we have action based on the silliest reason. In his original story Pascal may have established the logic of his situations, something that the screen story absolutely fails to do. By paying as much attention to cause as to effect, Man-Made Women could have been made a clever and refreshing treatment of the triangle theme. As the picture presents it, we have the noble lover persuading the -nif e to go back to her husband, while the audience hopes she won't, for after about one month with such a husband a wife would have to leave him, shoot him or go crazy. It is too bad that all the beautiful production, clever direction and good acting could not have had a story back of them that was constructed with more logic. * • * Can't Eliminate Character Simply By Not Showing Him THERE is a sequence in Easy Come, Easy Go, a new Richard Dix picture directed by Frank Tuttle, that in a striking manner demonstrates that you can not eliminate a character from a picture simply by eliminating him from scenes. In a recent Spectator I discussed the same idea as it related to close-ups, and criticized directors who pick out one character in a group with a close-up and have that character do something to which the others in the group do not react when the shot is enlarged to embrace them. When the presence of a character in a sequence is established it must be kept in mind while the sequence is being shot. In Easy Come, Easy Go we see the conductor of the railway train that is the locale for the sequence, enter the wash-room, and take off and hang up his coat and hat. He gets a hurry-up call and leaves the wash-room in his shirtsleeves. This is the last we see of him. He is in the picture to provide Dix with a disguise when he dons the conductor's hat and coat. I can't remember any other picture going to such elaborate pains to be wrong. When all the rest of the sequence is being run on the screen any intelligent person in the audience must be wondering what the conductor is doing. We know there is no place in a train of Pullmans where he can hide, and we know that conductors of crack passenger trains do not roam around in their shirtsleeves. No picture should make an audience wonder about something that it does not explain eventually. It would have been an easy matter to have shown Dix finding a hat and coat in one of those little cupboards that occupy what would be corners on Pullman cars. Then we wouldn't have worried about the conductor. Easy Come, Easy Go is the poorest Paramount picture I have seen for some time, although it by no means is a total loss. It has rather more of a connected story than most of the comedies of its kind, and it is only by comparing it with other recent pictures from the same lot that I find it indifferent. It lacks that quality that Paramount has begun to put into its pictures: cleverness. But it has story enough to hold your interest and to keep you wondering what is going to happen. It is rather a conventional role that Dix plays and he plays it with his accustomed zest and ability. He is a much better actor than most of his parts give him any opportunity to demonstrate. The outstanding feature of the film is the performance of Charles Sellon, who plays an old crook. It is a superb characterization that should bring this fine old actor other good parts. Nancy Carroll, who scores so heavily in Abie's Irish Rose, is the girl in Easy Come, Easy Go. It is just a girl part that allows a girl many opportunities to display her beauty and none to display her ability. But Nancy is all right. We'll hear from her. The titles are a drawback. A great deal of the humor of Sellon's characterization was lessened by the kind of titles that were given to him. But on the whole, Easy Come, Now Playing 'The Qossipy Sex Phone GL. 4146 Prices: Mat., 50c to $1.00; Eve., 50c to $1.50 Matinees Thursday and Saturday VINE STREET THEATRE T^rinters of The Film Spectator and other high-class publications The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood, Calif. Telephone GRanite 6346 r— An established reputation for handling the greatest variety of the finest silks and ready to wear. BOLGER'S THREE stores: 446-448 Beverly Drive 6510-6514 Hollywood Boulevard 7615 Sunset Boulevard ■'I