Hollywood Spectator (1937-39)

Page Fourteen January 7, 1939 kind of a story they give him in the future he shows every promise of standing out. His current effort is one of those fast-moving, zippy melodramas that punches its way from beginning to end. The story doesn’t ask for much by way of intense dramatics, but when it does ask, Garfield answers with both barrels. Warners have, as they know, star material when they have Garfield. Here’s a hope that his next stories have the force and strength that is on a par with his abilities. Story Has Novel Twist . . . rO THE eternal credit of Screen Writer Sig Herzig and to Authors Bertram Millhauser and Beulah Marie Dix, they have concocted a fighting story with original twists and a fresh background. The audience will be in there with the hero boxing every round and hoping he wins. That is a lot to expect of any audience which has been fed years of fifteenth round victories. And John Garfield, the champion, loses his fight, too. The story recounts the career of a cocky wiseguy who wins the championship and gets himself involved in a newspaper man’s murder. On the advice of his lawyer he hotfoots it out of town and disappears. He hits the open road, changes his name and tries to change his life. He almost does when he reaches an Arizona date ranch, but one New York detective, who was never convinced that he had been killed in an accident as reported in the press and accepted by headquarters, goes out to find him. When he does he starts to bring the accused back, realizes at the last moment that although all evidences points toward his guilt the lad is really innocent. He returns to New York empty-handed, convinced that as far as he is concerned the boxer should be dead. The audience knows, of course, that Garfield is innocent, since they see the crime committed. But it leaves an unfortunate impression at the end when the audience realizes that although another man who really committed the murder paid for his crime with his life in the burning auto crash, Garfield is never exonerated. Here, as in Angels with Dirty Faces, Warners raise a moral problem which they never answer. Cast Excellent . . . SUPPORTING Garfield are the Dead End kids and Gloria Dickson. The Kids are as fresh as ever, and I for one do not tire of their toughness. The Kids are a little less boisterous than heretofore, most of their acting is polishing up, and in this instance they did little mugging. Gloria Dickson as the date farm heart interest gives a well-paced performance. May Robson as the mother of the date farm brood, Kids, Gloria and Garfield, is her old excellent self. Claude Rains as the ambitious detective who hounds Garfield down was hopelessly miscast in a part that he underplayed, something to his credit. Rains is too good an actor to waste on a role that practically anybody might have essayed. Ann Sheridan was convincing as a night club something-or-other and John Ridgely stood out in the role of the murdered newspaper man. Louis Jean Heydt has been doing so well with minor parts that he deserves feature role consideration. Director Busby Berkeley has forsaken terpsichore for drama, and has given us an excellently paced story. To Jack Killifer praise for imaginative cutting and timing. James Wong Howe’s camera work is of the highest quality. CONSUMERS' CINEMA By Robert Joseph N Films Come From America, a book by Gilbert Seldes, recently reviewed for these columns, the author makes one significant point. He believes that corporate structure, political jockeying and Wall Street financing notwithstanding, the movies really belong to the millions of people who have poured billions of dollars into the business since the days of the first peep show. The obligation which the industry owes these public underwriters is one of which film executives are not acutely aware. The interest of the industry in its public ceases at that point where the ticket purchaser slides his quarter across the brass ticket plate. In contrast a recent issue of Time told of the attitude of the automobile industry, and General Motors in particular, toward its buying public. Recounting the career of one of the company’s designer-executives, the article pointed out that many of the thousands of suggestions which came to him were actually put into practice. The likeliest ideas for comfort and improvement were manufactured into reality. The writer cites, if I am not mistaken, the V-type windshield, flushed dashboard gadgets, foot courtesy light for passing at night, the ash tray and cigarette lighter. These are all standard equipment in the new models, and all of them were originally suggestions and hints by disinterested motorists. What Does Consumer Know? . . . / \UITE correctly the executive will ask, “Well, what does the consumer know about picture making ? Sure, we’ll listen to suggestions about more comfortable seats, wider aisles, maybe better recording.” Unfortunately, the executive’s analogy is neither complete nor fair. The auto dealer is selling a physical commodity, of which comfort is an intrinsic part. The picture producer is selling a kind of mental stimulation, of which comfort, except for clear vision and clear sound, is not an intrinsic part. It does not seem amiss to give the right of suggestion to the consumer. And it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that there can be some good suggestions and ideas out of an American movie-going public of eighty million weekly. Consumers’ Cooperatives are growing throughout the country. They have come into existence, not because people liked the idea of making it difficult for large distributors and purveyors; they came into existence because they filled a need. Cinema Consumers Cooperatives . . . HE latest field to be invaded by the co-op movement is the motion picture industry. Cooperatives wield a considerable influence by the power of boycott, as a single example. More than this they can be a