The Film Spectator (Mar-Dec 1928)

December 1, 1928 THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Nine about by the fact that each of its products has been a separate creation. On account of the lack of intelligence on the part of directors, each product of screen art has not been a separate creation. The patrons of the art were forsaking it because pictures became monotonously alike. Not more than one in tivo score of them contained a suggestion of a new thought, and it is only on new thoughts that any art thrives. I have opposed the importation of stage directors on principle, for I think it is of importance to us to remember that we still are in the motion picture business and have not been taken over by the stage, but at the same time I can not see from where producers are going to get e>iough directors with sufficient intelligence to handle talking pictures as they should be handled. Heretofore the stupidest director had the cutting-room to rely upon to help him m-ake a good picture. With talking pictures, intelligence must be displayed all the time shooting is in progress. That is what is going to make it tough for most of the directors we have now. There is another thing, a little difficult to explain, but very irritating on the screen. I saw it exemplified in Jolson's Singing Fool — all the more noticeable in an otherwise perfect picture. His little boy is dying. He arrives at the hospital trembling with agitation and opens the door. It is a small room and the bed with the boy in it is right in front of him. Does he make one dash to the bed? Certainly not. Says the director: "Get suspense!" So he stands looking hither and yon with an agonized expression, then, my God! He sees the bed! Hah! He sees the child!! . . . And the rest goes on all right. It is the same when a person receives an important letter or telegram — one that he has been expecting with impatience, as it means life or death to him or his hopes. The message arrives and is handed to the actor. Does he snatch it, tear it open and devour the contents at once ? Oh no, no, — nothing like that. He invariably looks at the person who has given him the letter — a long, bewildered stare — then his eyes travel north, south, east and west before he glances down and sees to his surprise that he is holding the letter. Then the thought dawns in his mind — the audience is not spared any of the dawning — "Hah! I will open the letter." Which he does to everyone's relief and to my own private and particular rage. — An Admiring and Constant Reader. // Constant Reader has read my comments on the note from A Director, she can fix the responsibility for the stupidities of which she complains. No director knows why he makes an actor look searchingly into the eyes of another actor who hands him an important letter. It always is done, and that is enough for the average director. Nor can any director tell you ivhy A, when entering a room in search of B, does not make a quick survey of the room and spot B, but instead, looks elaborately in every direction e.rcept the right one, and then, by a process of visual elimination, finally discovers B directly in front of him, at zvhich he shakes himself violently, looks astounded, extends his arms and then hops off in the direction of B. These utterly ridiculous things are variations of follies zvhich the screen inherited from the stage, and the fact that practically all our directors use them is one of the reasons why I have a poor opinion of the mentality of directors as a class. Of course, not all the stupidities in a given picture are blamable on the director. There are producers and supervisors it'/io can see no virtue in anything that is not done as it always has been done since the first man did it. They remind me of the hens on Uncle Will's farm. When I used to visit the farm as a boy, Uncle Will had a dog. Rover, whose chief duty it zvas to cliase the hens out of the vegetable garden. Soon the hens learned not to zvait for the dog; zvhen they heard the call, "Rover!", they zuould beat it. That zvas over forty years ago. To-day on the same farm, zvhen the hens get into the vegetable garden, someone calls "Rover!" and they scurry through or over the fence. They don't knozo why they do it, and because they have no greater reasoning faculties than the average motion picture director, they never zvill find out ivhy. the place of the prologues which have hitherto been a feature of Mr. Grauman's theatres. My contention is that we can see these Vitaphone comedies any day for a very moderate price of admission, but there is only one Chinese theatre. (The Carthay Circle apparently having abandoned stage shows as part of their program.) With the exception of Robert Benchly and Edward Everett Horton, I have found these Vitaphone comedians very third rate. Surely you do not seriously mean to suggest that a couple of vaudeville comedians acting funny in front of a camera and a microphone can take the place of the gorgeous tableaux which preceded and formed a perfect atmosphere for King of Kings? And what of the waste of the possibilities of the magnificent stage at the Chinese, second largest in the city, I believe? ROBERT S. SHILLAKER. Mr. Shillaker makes the same mistake that nearly all of my other correspondents make in their letters to me about sound pictures. He seetns to think that audible screen art already has progressed as far as it is going to. When I stated it as my opinion that the Grauman prologues some day would be presented on the screen instead of on the stage, I did not mean that the change would be made until there zvas available screen entertainment tliat matched in quality the stage entertainment tliat hitherto has been proz'ided. All my enthusiasm for sound is based on the promise given in zvlmt zvc have seen already, and I have accepted nothing that I have seen yet as more than a suggestion of zvhat we zvill see in the future. As to the zvaste of the Chinese stage — that will be more than offset by the saving that sound prologues ztfill effect. One feature of all industrial progress is the process of scrapping equipment that has been outgrozim. It is waste that is absorbed by the greater earnings of the new development. No one can bemoan the passing of anything that is succeeded by something better. The Louise Gude Studios OF SINGING 1004 Beaux Arts Building, Los Angeles For Information Telephone DUnkirk 5515 — Voice Trial Gratis — NEUMODE HOSIERY Specialists Selling Nothing but Perfect Hosiery NEUMODE HOSIERY STORES 6429 Hollywood Boulevard Warner Bros. Theatre Bldg. I hope you will turn out to be a false prophet in predicting that Vitaphone short subjects will take Our particular pride is that we are able to please folks who are pai-ticular about the kind of printing they get. The OXFORD PRESS, Inc. 6713-15 Sunset Blvd. GR. 6346 ■^ J