Hollywood Spectator (1931)

July 18, 1931 11 indictment I will point out two. Robinson runs a gambling resort in which hundreds of people stake their money nightly, yet the district attorney informs us that for six months he has been trying to get into the place. And then, when he finally does procure a key by violating his oath of office, his men raid the place and break in from the outside. Just what prevented him smashing the windows a long time before is not made plain. The second item: All pictures must show that crime does not pay. Robinson runs the public gambling joint, consequently he is a criminal. Just before the fade-out we see him going to jail for manslaughter, as a man he knocked out struck his head against something and died. The moral of the picture, therefore, is that if you become a gambler, you will make a lot of money, but ultimately you will go to jail for manslaughter. And still Smart Money is a rattling, good picture, fastmoving entertainment that I enjoyed all the way through, even though I was aware of the absurdities of the story. The picture is drawing big audiences purely because of the intelligent treatment accorded it by Green in his direction. Under the direction of one of these gentlemen whom Hollywood has brought from the stage, Smart Money would be merely another talkie that would attract no attention. In the hands of a thoroughly trained motion picture director, it is composed largely of real motion picture technic, the one thing that the public always is willing to buy. Women Love Once HERE IS a Paramount picture that will do little towards dispersing the gloom of the box-office, even though it contains splendid performances by Paul Lukas, Eleanor Boardman, Juliette Compton and Geoffrey Kerr, and beautiful photography by Karl Struss. Edward Goodman directed. I am not familiar with Goodman’s background, but what I saw on the screen convinces me that he is from the stage. This will explain the fact that nearly all the dialogue is spoken with stage artificiality, and that throughout we have the impression that we are looking at actors going through parts, instead of attaining an illusion of real people, as we do when we’re looking at a picture directed with regard for screen fundamentals. Stage direction also is responsible for the fact that Women Love Once is just another talkie, just another example of the kind of screen entertainment that the public already has demonstrated most emphatically that it no longer wants. Women Love Once is a psychological drama in which the psychology is not developed. It is taken for granted. In the opening sequence Lukas is shown as a home-loving, steadygoing, companionable husband with an undeveloped flair for art. He goes to Paris and studies for one year. At the end of that time he comes home with free-living ideas that would take a normal man at least twenty years to accumulate. In this one brief year Lukas becomes an entirely different person, an impossible transformation in the man who is planted in the opening sequence, and in any event one that would require many years to develop. ▼ v All THE SITUATIONS are mechanical. We have one of those crazy scenes in which a woman, supposedly in her right mind, runs frantically through the streets without attracting the attention of anyone ; and then one of those fearfully distressing scenes in which a little girl is run over by an automobile, both of which are entirely unnecessary. I don’t know how the picture will appeal to others, but it failed totally to awaken my sympathy for any of the characters. I was indifferent to both their joys and their sorrows. Paramount gave the picture its usual superb production, and in several places there are examples of expert rutting, fitting scenes together to expedite the action, but these merits do not compensate for the artificiality of the whole thing. The work of Lukas is superb, and I never saw Eleanor Boardman give a finer performance on the screen. In this picture I saw Geoffrey Kerr for the first time, and he impressed me as being a most capable actor. Up for Murder WILL SOMEONE on the Universal lot kindly tell me what happened to Monta Bell’s fine newspaper story out of which such a gripping silent picture was made? I dropped into a neighborhood house the other night to see something that was called Up For Murder, and in which Lew Ayres was starred. I found that both the story and the direction were attributed to Bell, and when the first scene showed printing presses at work I anticipated a treat, for I knew that the story was good and I consider Bell to be one of the best directors in the business. When I found that things were happening that did not fit into my memory of what had happened in the silent version, I recalled that Bell left for the East as soon as shooting had been completed, and that various reports had seeped out of the studio that several people were doctoring his picture. This satisfied me that Bell was not to blame for the fact that Up For Murder is dull and uninteresting. In the original story the character of the boy, around whom all the events revolve, was drawn with care, and the psychology of the part developed in a capable manner. Apparently the doctoring process removed all trace of these merits from the version I saw. I have no quarrel with the manner in which the individual scenes were directed, and throughout there are many indications of Bell’s skill as a director, but the picture on the whole was a disappointment, due no doubt to the fact that there was not enough Bell in it. T T ▼ And, to Conclude — The National Council on Freedom From Censorship writes me a letter asking if it could count on my interest and support. I find on the board of directors names of some friends of mine. For instance. Bob Sherwood is one of them, as are also Rupert Hughes, H. L. Mencken and my very good friend Stewart Edward White. And still the council can’t count on my interest and support. I am not against censorship in the abstract any more than I am for it in the abstract.