The Film Spectator (Mar-Dec 1928)

Page Six THE FILM SPECTATOR December 1. 1928 band is recaptured when he and his comrade are endeavoiN ing to escape; the friend gets through, reaches home, and falls in love with the wife of the man for whom he almost sacrificed his own life. The story reaches the peak of its drama when we discover that the friend and the wife love one another. Prior to this discovery I think it should move faster than it does to bring us more promptly to its more engrossing stage when slow tempo is more permissible. The husband returns home while the friend and the wife are out. We see them returning, and we anticipate a dramatic encounter when they reach the apartment in which we had seen them li\'ing together in a respectable manner. Pommer builds up suspense by having the camera follow the two every step of the way while they mount three flights of stairs. Another effective travelling shot takes us along the entire route that one of the men takes from his ship to the apartment. There is but one example of those composite shots that we used to regard as the foreign trademark. The friend and the wife are sleeping on opposite sides of a partition, and filmly superimposed shots acquaint us with the thoughts of both in a distinctly striking manner. For Hollinvood an interesting feature of Homecoming will be the appearance in it of Dita Parlo, whose performance earned her a trip from Germany to Hollj'wood and a contract with Paramount. She is a beautiful girl, an accomplished actress, and if the difficulty of language is not a too great handicap, she should prove a good investment. Lars Hansen, whose performance in Captain Salvation is one of my pleasant screen memories, is the husband in Homecoming, who eventually returns to the sea, leaving his wife to his friend. He gives a splendid performance of a serious role. The friend is played by Gustav Froehlich, and it surprises me that Paramount did not send for him also. He is an intelligent, convincing artist. It is seldom that we turn out in Hollywood a picture as good as Homecoming. It is not screen fare for morons. It will appeal to the mezzobrows, and from there up, for it has much in it to interest those who view screen offerings intelligently. I don't know how our audiences will react to the ending, which shows the husband relinquishing his wife to his friend. No other ending was possible if the degree of intelligence that distinguishes the production throughout its course was to be continued to the fadeout. But you can't always sell intelligence. ♦ * * Panning Dick Jones and Then Telling Him That He Made a Good Picture MARY Brian and Buddy Rogers climb to the top of a hill while on a picnic jaunt in Someone to Love, a title that would fit practically all the motion pictures ever made. The fact that they have no breath left is shown by the director, F. Richard Jones, in an exceedingly long shot. Later in another shot just as long, we are told exactly where the young people would like to place the piano in the dream house they would build on the top of the hill. Judging by the rest of the picture, it is fair to assume that these sequences would have been treated in close-ups if it had been possible to squeeze the business within narrow camera lines. This not being possible we are fortunate in having the scenes presented to us exactly as they should be. Later, when she reaches home, Mary tells her father that when Buddy asked her to marry him, "I whispered 'yes', but I felt like yelling it right out loud." Mary need have no misgivings. The director yelled it right out loud, vulgarly and blatantly, by means of a huge close-up of the bethrothal kiss. Because he could not help himself, he brought out all the values of the picnic and piano-placing scenes by showing them in long shots, but when he came to something so delicate that, as the title intimates, it should be whispered, he takes all the tenderness out of it, all the beauty of the boy-and-girl romance, and presents his bethrothal scene as all other directors have presented them and for the sole reason that it is the way that all other directors present them. At the beginning of this year I said I would present a gold medal to the director who shot the best love scene of the year, and I have not seen one for which I would present the pin that keeps a medal on. In Someone to Love Jones had the setting, the sentiment and a couple of attractive and talented players at hand, all the ingredients required for the ideal love scene, and all he shows us are lips clinging to each other. And Dick Jones does another thing of which he should be ashamed; he fades out finally on another kiss. It is the standard fade-out to which not the slightest trace of intelligence need be applied. In fact, if any thought were applied to it, it would be fatal, for no director who gives thought to his final fade-out possibly could give us one of that sort. Now, having panned Dick quite enough for one paragraph, I would like to remark that he has made a nice little picture of Someone to Love, a clean, jolly little thing with a pleasing atmosphere, well dressed people, and in good taste all the way through except for the undue intimacy of the camera, a fault that can not be ascribed either to the story or to the acting. And I don't think the things of which I complain will affect the picture greatly at the box-office. If people stayed away from pictures that contained too many close-ups they would see about one a year. But the abuse of close-ups undoubtedly was one of the factors that contributed to the alarming falling off in attendance prior to the advent of sound — not because of the fact that they were close-ups, but because their uniform treatment made pictures monotonously alike. In Someone to Love Rogers has a part that suits him admirably, a light but vigorous part that presents him as a charming American boy. I have spoken already of my high appreciation of Mary Brian's acting. It is a far cry from her dramatic role in The Big Killing to her romantic flutterings in Someone to Love, but she is equally at home in both parts. William Austin, Jack Oakie, Mary Alden, James Kirkwood and Frank Reicher round out an excellent cast. The picture is a remake of Charm School and is going to give general satisfaction, despite all the nasty things I have said about it. * * * Doug MacLean Wants to Get Most of Sue Carol's Earnings QO back a little way: Douglas MacLean was induced to engage Sue Carol to play opposite him in Soft Cushions. She was a girl with no serious thoughts ■ of a screen career, and the idea appealed more to her sense of humor than to any artistic or commercial sense. Her first contact with the material aspect of the adventure was when MacLean told her that to get the Soft Cushions part j she would have to sign a contract placing herself in hisj