Hollywood Spectator (Apr-May 1939)

responsible for all the woes the film industry is suffering. But a new order in pictures is being ushered in by the pressure being applied from the outside. We always will have pictures. Among prop men, cutters, assistant directors, young directors, writers there are the makers of the pictures of the near tomorrow, and each of them should study every scene in "Vigil In the Night," should see it first as entertainment, then several times as a study in technigue. Camera Tells the Story (JThe outstanding feature of the technigue is the manner in which the camera is used to tell almost the entire story. In the opening seguence the atmosphere and mood of the production are established without the sound of a voice being heard; several other seguences are wordless, two of them being the most dramatic in the highly dramatic picture. But even in dialogue scenes spoken lines depend greatly upon the camera to give full expression to their meaning. The approach to a scene, its composition and the facial expression of those who speak in it, are what give full story significance to what is said. All lines are spoken guietly and get their emphasis from what we see, not from what we hear. The camera, too, developes characterizations. In one shot we see two sisters conversing; one dressed plainly, carelessly, even her smile suggesting seriousness; the other neat, hair dressed meticulously, her seriousness suggesting a frivolous background. The camera tells us all that, and it is what gives meaning to what the girls say to one another. Truly Stevens wields an eloguent camera. And It Is Good Box-Office <fl But, after all, the thing which counts is not the technigue employed; it is the public's response to the picture as a whole. Picture making is a business, and has George Stevens made one that will attract money to the box-office? He has. I had a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes when I saw it first with a big audience. The lump came back and the tears returned when I sat alone and saw it the second time. Nothing Stevens has done with his story means a thing at the box-office unless the sum total of his effort evokes emotional response from those who view it. I am confident "Vigil In the Night" will get such response from all who view it. But whatever its financial fate, it comes as a boon to the motion picture industry if the industry proves itself intelligent enough to recognize that George Stevens has the cure for the financial ills it now is suffering. Only more camera and less microphone will revive picture-going as a public habit. I have urged that a hundred times. On the screen, how to do it is demonstrated by Stevens in a hundred minutes. * * * WE VISIT CRADLE OF TALENT OOK advantage of a previewless evening to visit one of the cradles of acting genius, the Bliss-Hayden School of the Theatre, which was presenting a play with a cast composed of some of its pupils. When the film industry developes an adult mentality we will have schools in Hollywood which will teach screen acting, but at present we must be content with looking for screen talent in the ranks of those who are being taught the alien art of stage acting, which, at least, gives them an opportunity to develope the personalities which make them valuable to pictures. Three of the people in the cast of "Good-Bye, My Love," the play I saw, should engage the attention of screen talent scouts. Mariam Jay, who played the leading part, has beauty, brains and personality to recommend her as candidate for picture honors. The part she played gave her an opportunity to display a wide range of emotional acting. Mary Jane Karns, Roscoe's eighteen-year-old daughter, is another whom some studio should grab. Good to look at, with a rare grasp of comedy values and ability to express them, Mary Jane is going places. The third player who attracted my attention is Rian Randal. He, too, is going places. If you forget the name, I will remind you of it in a couple of years when I boast of having predicted for him the success he then will have achieved. * * * WARNERS MAKE WISE CHOICE PUTTING V irginia Bruce under a long term contract * is a wise move on the part of Warner Brothers. Possessed of charming personality, beauty of face and form, real acting ability, Virginia needs only the right roles in the right pictures to put her away up on the list of box-office ratings. There is something wrong with a system which makes it possible for a studio practically to put an end to a player's career by signing her to an exclusive contract and then keep her off the screen. I hope Virginia's Warner contract stipulates that she is to grace the screen with her presence at least twice a year. * * * NEW YORK CRITICS NOT CONFUSED OMMENTING on the New York film critics' selections of the best performances for last year, a woman of Gotham is guoted as follows in Louella Parson's column: "Jimmy Stewart does not deserve the award, fine as he was in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' because he played a role that was tailor-made. Jimmy is an acting stylist. Ditto Jean Arthur. Ditto Bette Davis. Contrast these players, who play themselves in every role, with a characterization such as Robert Donat turned in with 'Goodbye Mr. Chips,' Paul Muni is another great actor who characterizes. I am afraid the New York critics have confused great personalities with great artists." I think it is the writer of the letter who is confused, not the critics. The screen derives its strength as popular entertainment from its "tailor-made" roles. It is not an acting art; it demands of a player that he absorb his role until he becomes the person he is playing. Great personalities, not great artists, are exactly what give the screen its great appeal. Jimmy MARCH 1, 1940 PAGE THREE