Hollywood Spectator (1938)

Page Ten May 7. 1938 American pictures, will find the piece meaty and touched with engaging bits of originality. Players Distinguish Themselves . . . HE acting is superb. Rex Harrison, as the young writer, possessed of a keen sense of humor along with strong convictions on social justice, is flawless. He falls in love with the politician’s daughter, by the way. Vivien Leigh, as the daughter, torn between admiration for the young man and loyalty to her father, gives a well-shaded performance. Cecil Par¬ ker balances expertly the mean and the commendable qualities of the father, making him an understandable fellow. And excellent character work is done by a host of players, including Sara Allgood. A little dog billed as Scruffy plays a prominent part in the picture and I liked him too. Storm In a Teacup, strangely enough, had two directors, Victor Saville and Ian Dalrymple. The conclusion of the film, unfortun¬ ately, is abrupt and arbitrary, but one will retain a very pleasurable impression of the picture as a whole. NOT UP TO STANDARD . . . • ALONE; directed by Kosintsev and Trauberg; music by Shostokovitch. Reviewed by Robert Joseph URING the last few weeks the motion picture sec¬ tion of the New York Times has been the battle field for the lively topic Hollywood vs. Foreign Pic¬ tures. Film Editor Frank Nugent pointed out that Hollywood might take a leaf from the latest dozen foreign pictures. His point is that in England and on the continent better pictures are made for less money, and he cites a number of English, French and Rus¬ sian films. Howard Dietz, of the MGM publicity staff, writes a riposte. And the battle wages on mer¬ rily. It seems that Mr. Nugent is more than a bit right; but evidently he had not seen Alone. These Russian film producers do nothing by halves. When they make a good picture they make one like Baltic Deputy or Peter the First, outstanding films that will take their places with the great of film history. But They Make Them Bad . . . N THE other hand, they can make them bad, too, and Alone is such an example. Ten years ago this might have been considered a good picture. Today it can receive no such consideration. The day has pass¬ ed when the Russian director can throw racial types on the screen, minutes on end, and persuade his audi¬ ence that he is giving it something startling. Alone emerges as one of the old school. There was nothing vital or interesting about the story or the characters. I was not convinced that the heroine, a school teacher sent off to Siberia out of urban Moscow to instruct native children, was real. Accustomed to the Holly¬ wood product, I admit I am predisposed to pacing and timing and action. But then I believe the great¬ est of Russian directors depended on the camera to move the story, rather than moods to tell it. The cutting is spotty and executed without imagina¬ tion. There are innumerable shots of peasant faces, of city dwellers’ faces, of endless tracts of snow. of clouds, of clouds sweeping across mountain tops. Occasionally the directors found time to direct their camera on the characters of the story. A word about the acting might be pertinent as well. The heroine's dramatics smacked of the handclapping, giggling school of early cinematic days. Her bovine longing for her man was ludicrous. The saving grace of the picture is the outstanding music by Dmitri Shostoko¬ vitch. The music stirred me, and almost succeeded in giving the picture a depth it most certainly would have lacked without it. FILM INFLUENCED STAGE . . . Reviewed by Clark Bronson IGH as the Heaven, a play adapted from Alfred Neumann’s Patriot, a presentation of the Call Board Theatre at 8451 Melrose Place, is a vehicle which shows the unmistakable influence of the film. There have been some dramas within the past few years that have adapted the use of film technique in the direction as well as the production. Director Wil¬ liam Castle has tastefully woven the use of music, off stage sound and motion picture lighting to get the best possible effects. The play itself is not a good one, and the long periods cramped the styles of both directors and actors. The vehicle is dramatic enough, but not as vital as a more modern drama might be. However, the cast made this play one of the best Little Theatre plays I have seen in two years of reviewing. Motion Picture Material . . . SEVERAL members of the cast have definite screen possibilities. William Rees enacting the role of the mad emperor is another Charles Laughton. His Paul was an uncanny thing, and his subtle shadings brought out all the madness the part demanded. Credit to him for such fine restraint that in less capa¬ ble hands might have hammed the part. Frank Mar¬ tin as Count Peter Pahlan, the Machiavelli of the Russian Court, exhibited a fine sense of timing and pacing. He is a good looking lad with a carload of stage presence and a knack of acting that makes his work outstanding. Vera Paul as the Countess Ostermann, inamorata of both the emperor and Pahlen, has similar possibilities. She had a regal air about her. Add to this her mature comely looks and a low melo¬ dious voice, and she seems to represent good motion picture material. Gordon Wallace, well known to the English stage, enacted the role of the Grand Duke and heir apparent with feeling, and shows a knowl¬ edge of acting that merits attention. Phillip Mer¬ rick’s roles as Count Strogonoff, a court figure, and General Zuboff, an old war horse of many battles displayed an amazing ability to change character, voice and even mannerisms. The Call Board The¬ atre is one of the many operating under the EquityGuild ruling, and is doing well. The lavishness of the production, and the evident care are compliments to all concerned.