Hollywood Spectator (1938)

Page Four August 20, 1938 The time to start building names is now; the place to start, Hollywood, for it is to Hollywood that capital will come in search of names. * * * HE SEEMS TO LIKE US . . . ITH a check from a new subscriber comes a note: “I want the Spectator regularly because it is the only paper intelligent enough to see the weaknesses of Marie Antoinette and honest enough to give ex¬ pression to them.” ♦ * * HOW TO PICK THE WINNERS . . . HO says there is no system by which one can beat the races? The subject is one which can be dis¬ cussed legitimately in a film publication as for the duration of the three race meetings which take place yearly within a short distance of Hollywood, the thoughts of the people responsible for the quality of the nation’s screen entertainment are on the horses more than on the pictures. In many instances this works to the advantage of the pictures, although the general effect is harmful. The Spectator is devoted solely to the improvement of the quality of Holly¬ wood’s output, and in line with that policy I feel it my duty to acquaint picture people with a betting system, one which has been tested and found fault¬ less, which makes short work of selecting winners and thus permits studio workers to think less of horses and more of their work. I claim I can speak with authority by virtue of my regular attendance at race tracks, having been once at Santa Anita, once at Inglewood and once at Del Mar. Here Is the System . . . ECENTLY the Paramount publicity department was host to picture reviewers on an excursion to Del Mar, one of the best organized and highly en¬ joyable affairs of the kind it has been my pleasure to experience in my dozen years of contact with the film industry. As Phil Scheuer, who writes so grace¬ fully and discerningly for Los Angeles Times, could not make the early train, Connie, his charming wife, was entrusted to the care of Mrs. Spectator and me. When we reached the track, and I had purchased a program, Connie remarked that she had been at Santa Anita once and could pick all the winners, so she went over the day’s entries with me and I check¬ ed off her selections for the entire eight races. I lost my bet on the first race, won the second, lost the third, and won on the next four. She had not been sure which of two horses would win the eighth, so I bet on the two of them for place and cashed in on both, thus winning on six of the eight races and twice on one of them, which was plenty good enough for me and had the additional advantage of saving me the mental anguish involved in picking winners. My system? Oh, just ask Connie. * * * CHICKENS ARE HOMEWARD BOUND . . . ETRO’S exploitation of Norma Shearer is back¬ firing. The extreme folly of characterizing her as ‘‘The First Lady of the Screen” is being demonstrated by the flood of indignant fan letters she and the studio are receiving. Metro is presuming too much in telling me Norma is the first lady of the screen when my first lady may be Barbara Stanwyck, Madge Evans, Jeanette MacDonald, Margaret Sullavan, Joan Crawford, or any one of a score of others. It is on a par with the atrocious taste of Louella Parsons in permitting herself to be termed ‘‘The First Lady of Hollywood” in a weekly radio broad¬ cast. I happen to be married to the first lady of Hol¬ lywood, as you are, and you. The devoted fans of one star resent another’s being arbitrarily set on a higher pedestal. Norma’s Marie Antoinette’s exploi¬ tation has been made glamorous at the expense of the picture as a whole, and has put her in the position of being charged with responsibility for the production's disappointing box-office record. What to Do With Norma . . . HEN Marie was launched, the exploitation was dignified and somewhat cold, quite in keeping with the mood of the production. When attendance proved less than expected, exploitation took on a sex complexion — “A queen whom all the kings of Eu¬ rope loved,” or something of the sort; and that prov¬ ing to lack force as a box-office stimulant, dignity again was resorted to with no better results. Feminine psychology figures her only as a sophisticated child of luxury, a girl who did not rise from rags to riches, and one far removed from the stenographers and shop workers who form such a considerable portion of film theatre audiences. They have grown to resent her, as her fan mail reveals, and the glory surround¬ ing her in Marie Antoinette does nothing to lessen the degree of resentment. If Metro is to realize fully on Norma as an asset, it should present her in two or three down-to-earth stories in which she plays pov¬ erty stricken girls in neat, but not gaudy, gowns. What would go a long way towards restoring the popularity to which her talents entitle her, would be to present her in a picture in which her idea of heav¬ enly bliss would be a two-room apartment shared with the handsome taxi driver she loves so dearly. We have seen enough of Norma pouring tea in the drawing room. Let us see her making it in the kit¬ chen for someone else to pour. ♦ * * BY A MORE DIRECT ROUTE . . . SEEMS to me that more permanent good would be done if instead of spending one million dollars advertising the slogan, “Movies Are Your Best Entertainment,” producers would devote all their thought and energy to making movies our best en¬ tertainment. * * * WHAT A SHIRT CAN TEACH . . . HERE is a line of dialogue in the recently pre¬ viewed MGM picture, Rich Man, Poor Girl, which would serve as a text for a cinematic sermon. The present box-office slump is due largely to the fact that the majority of pictures deal with themes which have little application to the everyday affairs of peo