Hollywood Spectator (1937-39)

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.

Hollywood Spectator Page Nine Shall we dance to the tune those RKO executives play. I, for one, am all for the organization of a Restitution Party whose aim will be the reversal of the decision by packing the RKO executive force with six primary-school children and asking for a rehearing. The children, God bless them, will uphold the question mark’s right to recognition. They will put Pan Berman, chief injustice of the RKO court, just where he belongs. The big sissy — picking on the cute little question mark! He need not think he has me scared. Bah! ???? That for him! For a picture which reveals such gross ignorance before it starts, Shall W e Dance? turns out to be capital entertainment, thanks chiefly to Fred Astaire’s contribution to it. He has more to do, and Ginger Rogers has less, than in any of their previous joint productions. Most of his dances are solos and each of them reveals his complete mastery of his art. His enjoyment in his task, the intelligence reflected in his approach, the exquite grace of his effortless movements, combine to make each of his appearances a terpsichorean treat which will create enthusiasm in even the most blase audience. And Fred is coming along rapidly both as an actor and as a singer, playing his part with more assurance and attacking his songs with more vigor. But his chief asset is the charm of his personality which illuminates everything he does. Those who see him only on the screen know as well as those who are acquainted with him in person, that Fred Astaire is a nice fellow, a rather shy, clean living, decent young man. That impression, more than his dancing, singing and his acting, is responsible for his box-office strength. We like the things he does chiefly because he, our friend, is doing them. That he does them so well is an added pleasure. r \JINGER ROGERS is another who is coming along as an actress, seemingly being more at ease in this picture than in any previous one. She still has some distance to go with her dancing before hers ceases to suffer in comparison with Fred’s. Her chief difficulty is the use of her hands. In the ballet sequence, Harriet Hoctor’s hands are fascinating to watch. When Ginger dances, her hands, particularly her right one, are just expressionless things at the far ends of her arms. But, I said in a review of their previous picture, I admire greatly Ginger’s grit in sticking to her determination to make her skill match that of her partner’s. Edward Everett Horton gives us another of his completely satisfying performances, and Jerome Cowan, Ketti Gallian and William Brisbane make favorable impressions. Eric Blore, always the brilliant comedian, rounds off his performance with a telephone scene which is one of the funniest things presented on the screen. It is a superb bit of comedy work. Harriet Hoctor’s extraordinary graceful dancing was rewarded at the preview with a hearty burst of applause. The screen could stand a lot more of what she can contribute to it. Mark Sandrich directed with the competence we have learned to expect from him. In story, production and music he had a wealth of material to blend into a smoothly running whole, and he has made a fine job of it. The music of the Gershwins did not appeal to me as having outstanding quality, but I do not set myself up as an authority on the subject. I will go just as far as to say that if I hear anyone whistle anything from Shall We Dance? I will be surprised. The story idea is amusing, but it is told in too many words and scenes. The production is magnificent, Van Nest Polglass and Carroll Clark having provided settings which prove strikingly effective. Their values are brought out admirably by the excellent quality of David Abel’s photography. There is one particularly beautiful shot of a ship moving along New York’s waterfront on a misty night. Nathaniel Shilkrets’s direction of the music makes the most of what values it contains. Russia Sends Us a Lesson BEETHOVEN CONCERTO. Produced by Belgoskino, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.; directed by V. Schmidthof and M. Gavronsky; scenario, B. R. Pkhor. Cast: Vladimir Gardin, A. Larikov, A. Melnikov, M. Taimanov, V. Vasiliev, K. Eliasberg. HE fellows who make pictures over in Russia have a quaint way of going at things. It is evident they are not profiting from what Hollywood could teach them. For instance, take Beethoven Concerto, a recent importation of the Grand International Theatre, which opens there May, 7. It has no romance, no stars, no villain, no acting, no comedy relief, no sex appeal, no thrills, no imposing sets, no strip-tease artists, no story complications. Anyone in Hollywood could have told the poor blundering Russians they would get nowhere with a production which lacked all these elements. At least half of them — or, anyway, a stripteaser and one other — must be on hand from the beginning if the picture is to have a ghost of a show of getting anywhere. But lacking Hollywood’s grasp of screen essentials, and, in any event, the only Gypsy Lee having been cornered by Darryl Zanuck to make audiences wonder what she would look like with no clothes on — a nice little touch which would add enormously to the atmosphere of good taste of the pictures she appears in — there was nothing for the Russians to do but carry on with their minus materials and make the best of it. And what they made is one of the finest bits of screen entertainment it has been my good fortune to view, one which cries to Hollywood to take heed and do likewise. Just before seeing it I had written a paragraph about Hollywood’s habit of making motion pictures out of money instead of human emotions. (See Easy Chair) Beethoven completely supports my contention. It lacks all the physical elements I enumerated, but is filled to the brim with emotional values. It is the theoretically perfect picture for American audiences, as our unfamiliarity with the players in it makes it easy for us to accept them as the people they play. Without effort it establishes the essential illusion of reality. HE theme of the story is one of high esthetic value. It is about music and children, but by no means is a picture for children only. It is clean and decent, spirited, at times amusing, at all times emotionally appealing. Two boys are preparing for a national contest to select students for the conservatory of music. Strong, loyal