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.

(ecember 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Seven ands for a period of five years. He assiired her that it lerely was the usual routine of getting such a part. She aid that she supposed that it was all right, but that she new nothing about contracts and would like to consult er mother before signing anything. That would not suit he MacLean forces; she must sign there and then or lose he part. The privilege of playing opposite such a great tar was a rare one, it was pointed out to her, and she /ould lose it if she insisted upon carrying the contract way for anyone to read. And again she was assured that here was nothing unusual about the matter, that all girls ecured their first parts in that way. Sue signed. A clause .rovided virtually that if she made a hit in Soft Cushions he contract bound her; if she proved a failure, it did not ind MacLean. At the end of any six-month period Mac^an could drop her, but she could not free herself from dm until the end of the five-year period. MacLean risked ieither money nor judgment in the transaction. He secured , leading woman for one hundred dollars a week, and if he proved a success he could get that much money back ly renting her out for two or three times what he had to lay her. Sue Carol's personality appealed to the public. i.lmost overnight she became a great favorite. She has m extraordinary personality whose dominant note is niceless. She is in demand by producers— and they must deal vith MacLean. Already she is worth, and he is paid, sevTal times what she draws from him. She merely is a ihattel to rent out for what she will bring. Some individlal producers have players under contract to assure them leing available when they are wanted for their employers' )ictures. Not so MacLean. He doesn't use Sue Carol in lis own pictures. He can rent her out for several times What he need pay someone else to play opposite him. If le wants a new suit of clothes, Sue need work only a day 3r two and earn it for him. If he wants a new car, a few weeks of Sue sweating before a camera on a stuffy set, or shivering through night work on location, will earn it for him. He risked nothing — took no chances — invested no oaoney— spent no time in teaching her anything— but for the next four years, if the courts uphold him, the golf balls he uses will be paid for by her labor, the suppers he serves his friends will represent hours she spends on sets, and he can laugh at a dollar lost at poker because he can get it back from Sue. Rich already, and with a princely income, he snarls his way into court to fight for the extra dollars that this girl's labor will bring him. Like Shylock, he has but one argument: "It is so nominated in the bond!" A contract that outrages all sense of fairplay and decency may be legal, and perhaps the courts will present Sue Carol with the alternative of leaving the screen or keep»-----■■■---***■■"*■*''''*''**'*'''''" Louise^ "^nee VITAPHONE — MOVIETONE VOICE CULTURE SINGING — SPEAKING EUROPEAN METHOD ANNOUNCES the removal of her Studio from 7175 Sunset Boulevard to 4857 BEVERLY BOULEVARD (Corner of Van Ness) Telephone DUnkirk 9901 ing Douglas MacLean for the next four years. I would have no quarrel with this if she had been told frankly in the first place what she was signing, if she had not been given to understand that it was the only way in which a girl could get a part, or if MacLean had contributed anything, no matter how little, to the success of her career. Nor am I interested in it as a personal matter between the two of them. I regard it as a reflection upon the motion picture industry which tolerates such practices. MacLean claims that he has made but little money out of the contract. Why, in God's name, should he make any? And, as for the truth of his statement, will he permit me to appoint an accountant to examine his books? He may accept that as a challenge. * * * FROM the Literary Digest of November 10th: "The excitement over the prospect of hearing the movies talk hasn't dealt much with the problem of what they will say. We have worried, as have the actors themselves not a little, about how they will say it, but what— that has been neglected. When crucial scenes come on the silent screen even the continuity writer is silent. The climax of the love-scene is that gulping kiss, and the preliminary instant in each case seems to give evidence that the lovers intend to swallow each other. It is a relief to see some of these features of the film drama discussed at last in The Film Spectator (Hollywood), and it is not less interesting to see that the words proceed from The Spectator's 'eighteen-year-old critic', Donald Beaton, who treats the subject with vigor." The Digest proceeds to quote Donald at length, and devotes the remainder of one of its valuable pages to quoting my remarks about the vulgarity that is injected into screen love scenes. Estimating on the basis of its circulation. The Digest has at least five million readers. It has not gained this great number by publishing what it deems the public ought to know. It has become one of the world's greatest publication successes because it gives the public what it wants. It would not devote an entire page to quotations from such an obscure little paper as The Spectator if it did not know that the quotations dealt with a subject that would be received with favor by the public. In other words, The Digest knows that its readers are fed up on vulgar kisses, and it pleases its readers by quoting from a publication that has put into words the thoughts of these Digest readers. And in still other words, if The Digest did not know that The Spectator's criticisms were sound, that the evil complained of is a real one, it would not devote one inch, much less one page, of its space to a discussion of it. • * * ALEXANDER Korda directed Night Watch with rare intelligence, succeeding in making it one of the most enjoyable pictures I have seen for some time. The story formula is interesting. One difficulty that is encountered when a story is told in cut-backs is telling the story convincingly under the handicap of being forced to tell only that part of it that could be known to the person from whom the cut is made. For instance. A, in giving testimony in court, can not repeat a conversation that took place between B and C when A was not present. Night Watch gets away from this difficulty cleverly. Billie Dove takes the stand at the naval court martial of her husband