Inside facts of stage and screen (March 8, 1930)

PAGE FOUR INSIDE FACTS OF STAGE AND SCREEN SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1930 Picture Reviews ~ Previews " Shorts By A. H. FREDERICK ‘THE LONE STAR RANGER’ Fox picture (Reviewed at Loew’s State) After “Old Arizon a,” “Rio Grande Romance,” and “The Vir- ginian,” this one falls rather flat for adult audiences. But the youngsters will like it, and also those of the adult population who like what the children like. Which is a good percentage'. It is one of those shoot ’em up, super he-man stories upon which you can walk in at any moment for best results, and exit similarly. The dialogue is terribly done, and the scenarization is under aver- age. Acting is nothing to get excited about, and when all is said and done the best thing about the picture is the exploitation pos- sibilities of a Zane Grey talkie, and some extremely effective pho- tography. Which gives the credit for what there is in “The Lone Star Ranger” to A. F. Erickson, the director, and to the camera- man. The situations are brought about with obvious effort, leaving one with the impression that the sce- narists marked in spots, for ex- citement, and willy-nilly got the story to meet the demands. The dialogue is equally forced, being far more the phraseology of the cowboy sired by the stage and foaled by the dime novels than the real thing. George O’Brien’s society accents, broken occasion- ally by an extraneous broad west- ern colloquialism, don’t help any. An example of the painful ficti- tiousness of the whole thing is a sequence wherein George, going to the rescue of a lady in distress—- the heroine, of course—does so shirtless, with no reason for it in the world other than that some- body around the Fox lot appar- ently thinks George’s perfect torso is boxoffice. Sue Carol’s legs are dragged in as inanely. And, the period of the story being when “horseless carriages” first ap- peared on New York streets, if Sue in real life had dressed the way she does in this picture (though modest for the present day) she probably would have been run out of town. Speaking of which, it is hard to see just why Sue was given the lead in “The Lone Star Ranger.” The lines as- signed her, being forced and not funny in themselves, required a great deal of talkie talent to get them across. This Sue has not shown to date, and the weak lines become, in her hands, embarrass- ingly ineffective, arousing feelings not unlike those which come when the pride of the school stum- bles through “Excelsior” at the year-end exercises. There is no need to follow the bang-bang of the Zane Grey glori- fied nickel novel. One line gives you the keynote to the whole thing, “Reach for your own gun, stranger; I never pull mine till the other fellow draws.” Kids W'ill like it. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: A Zane Grey talkie, and therefore proper exploitation will put it over to good returns. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: It is doubtful if the old type western can come back in the class houses. But mebbe so, mebbe so. Erickson’s direction of this pic- ture reaches its highest point when garnering pictorial effects. But he has a couple of situations which breed suspense. Dialogue is not well done. Total result is mediocrity in this department. CASTING DIRECTORS’ (Continued on Page 13) BEAUMONT STUDIOS SCENERY Drops, Curtains, Drapes RENTALS Los Angeles, Calif. 400 W. 96th St. YO. 8346 ‘THE BISHOP MURDER CASE’ M-G-M Picture (Reviewed at Loew’s State) With Paramount already having proved the S. S. Van Dine Philo Vance stories excellent screen mys- tery entertainment, M-G-M cinches the proposition with “The Bishop Murder Case.” One studio seems to have done as well as the other in translating these master-mind detective yarns to the screen, with Paramount’s edge being that Wil- liam Powell makes a better Philo than M-G-M’s candidate, Basil Rathbone. Also Eugene Pallette has more on the Van Dine dumb dick character than has James Donlon of the M-G-M version. Offsetting which, Roland Young gives a performance in the pres- ent instance which has not been equalled by any of the supporting cast in the Paramount Vance of- ferings. Why, however, these stories are forthcoming from two studios is not easily understood. Illusion cer- tainly will be destroyed for both by seeing the same man thus por- trayed by different actors. As with the run of Van Dine’s yarns, this one doesn’t depend on the thrill stuff for its effective- ness. There is an absence of slid- ing panels, groping hands, sudden shrieks and the like. It is a mental gymnastic for the audience, with several murders interspersed to in- crease the tangle and to bring suspicions of various of the char- acters to an abrupt halt. Because of the familiarity of the series and their likeness in gen- eral structure, there is no need to rehearse the story here. Suffice to say that suspicion is well cast about, four characters having the accusing finger definitely pointing at them at different periods of the story. The denouement is well calculated to surprise exceedingly, and yet is extremely logical. In other words a first-rate story. Love interest is nil. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: Another of the Class A mystery films, and as such a mighty good booking for houses where this stuff draws. Of course it’s great for the kids. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: With the exception of not elimi- nating confusion as to the relation- ship of several characters to one another in the beginning, and coin- cidentally not definitely explaining their status in the situations evolv- ing, direction by Nick Grinde and David Burton was up to all de- mands. Requirements were for straightaway story development only, with no nuances of emo- tionalism, and this they did well. For which they are to be com- mended heartily, as that is what is wanted by mystery story audi- ences. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Basil Rathbone gives a highly polished and con- vincing performance of Vance, and whether or not his characteriza- tion is preferable to that of Powell will largely depend upon taste, though, in this reviewer’s opin- ion, Powell’s work is the better. Roland Young is the most strik- ing figure in the picture, again dis- playing his distinctive personality to high advantage and handling his assignment with a convincing ease. Leila Hvams is blondily the girl. James Donlon was assigned the task of being the chief laugh-get- ter, and accounted for all of his chances. Alec B. Francis brings his usual artistry to his part, and Zelda Sears makes a short role stand out. Others worthy of special mention for good work include George Marion, Charles Quartermaine and Clarence Geldert. Completing the cast satisfactorily are Carroll Nye, Bodil Rosing, Sydney Bracey, Delmar Davis and Nellie Bly Baker. Mumby Health Extension Institute SWEDISH MASSAGE CABINET BATHS REDUCING TREATMENTS WITH VITA-MOTOR Specializing in Electrical Facials and Rejuvenation 1107 S. Western Ave. Los Angeles Gladys S. Mumhy (We Keep Well People Well) EM. 2348 ‘THE GREEN GODDESS’ W. B. picture (Reviewed at W. B. Hollywood Theatre) George Arliss’ consummate ar- tistry, and the excellent direction of Alfred E. Green make this a picture of high merit. The story is nothing in itself, though a melodramaw hich rates well in the classification, but the line-work is splendid, the situations developed for full possibilities and the enter- tainment value high. Arliss, who went to a high ex- treme of admiration-gathering with his portrayal of the lovable “Dis- areli,” one of the ten best pictures of the past year, and also directed by Green, in the present release plays a smooth, polished, heart- less villain, and thereby brings an entirely new type of characteriza- tion to the talking screen. One sympathizes with his villain com- pletely, and it is only with an effort that one is glad when the people threatened by his evil-doing are rescued. The story opening shows three English nationals, H. B. Warner, Alice Joyce and Ralph Forbes, forced down from an airplane flight in a remote principality of India. Warner and Joyce are man and wife, with Forbes a respect- ful lover of the lady. Enter the rajah (George Arliss), who is a strange mixture, ex-offi- cio, of native barbarianism and European culture. Three of his brothers are about to be executed by the British for conspiracy. And Arliss cold-heartedly decrees that the three Britishers all be the sacrifices to the ancient Mosaic law. But in the meantime they are treated by him with the most polished courtesy. Warner, who is a British major, manages to get a message through over the radio, but the rajah does not know this and goes ahead with his plans for the execution. Warner he shot when he discov- ered him at the radio. Director Green has exhibited great prowess in this climactical scene, after keeping interest at a high place throughout. The hate of the natives, the cold-bloodedness of the rajah and the fears of those apparently doomed to die is gripping. But at the last moment a fleet of Brit- ish planes sails over with threats of bombing, and the captives are let go. A keynote of the sophis- ticated tenor of the play is in the last line. The rajah has given the woman the alternative of becom- ing his queen instead of dying. By threatening the aviator, whom she loves, with torture, he has driven her to a point of almost accepting, when rescue arrives. As the girl and the man exit from the temple, with expressions of goodwill on the part of the prince, he looks after them. Then he says, as only Arliss can say things: “Oh well, she probably would have been a damn nuisance anyway.” EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: With George' Arliss set in popular reception by his work in “Dis- raeli,” this one should go nicely. It has the stuff in it that will please the sophisticated; and yet, while they will miss the tang to some of the lines, it is equally good entertainment for the unso- phisticated and for kids. It has the punch. A good booking. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Alfred E. Green scores again with his direction of “The Green God- dess,” this picture and his “Dis- raeli” bringing him to a rating of as _ clever a director of smooth, polished, thoroughly enjoyable en- tertainment as the talking screen has developed. The picture was adapted from William Archer’s stage play of the same, name by Julian Josephson, and is a very creditable achieve- ment. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: George Arliss lives up to his reputation, and that is cum laude. The chief supporting players are good. H. B. Warner does his usual finished work in the hus- band role, Ralph Forbes is quite satisfactory as the airman, and Alice Joyce is adequate to the chief feminine role, though she displays no outstanding merit. Ivan Simpson scores as a cock- ney chief lieutenant to the rajah, and a consummate scoundrel to boot. Lesser roles are well done by David Tearle, Reginald Sheffield, Nigel de Brulier and Betty Boyd. ‘ROADHOUSE NIGHTS’ Paramount picture (Reviewed at Paramount Theatre) There remains as the outstand- ing argument against prohibition repeal the terrific, inroad it would make into the Hollywood story field. When in doubt do a boot- legger yarn,s eems to be the rule, and out they grind ’em by the score. “Roadhouse Nights” is among the curreht week’s crop of them. Except for Ben Hecht’s name attached thereto, there is nothing in this story that any tyro couldn’t have done—and probably been fired for doing. There is only one situation in it which rises about average, and that is the old gag, which every news- paperman wiil recognize as one of the traditions of his profession, of the newspaper reporter who taps out a message in Morse code while threatened with instant death if he speaks the message. The rest of it is the old trite stuff of the half-million dollar rum-running ring broken up by the efforts of our hero; that’s all there is, there isn’t any more. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: This looks like an off one, finan- cially speaking, from the usually reliable Paramount lot. Neither Helen Morgan nor Charles Bug- gies, the two leads, are hot at the box-office, and it probably would be good to do part of the exploi- tation around the Hecht name and the balance, the major portion, on the “thrilling story.” “Road- house Nights” is a good title upon which to center the latter phase of publicity. PRODUCERS’ . VIEWPOINT: Hobart Henley, director, got what there was out of this script and story, which wasn’t so much. But he put in some very unconvincing stuff, which was both unnecessary and inexcusable. For instance, with the roadhouse guarded by the rum-gang, with no one to be admitted, Ruggles slips through the transom of Helen Morgan’s room. Helen is the sweetheart of the gang chief, and knows all about a murder he has recently committed when another newspa- perman got in his way. Do Helen and Charles get perturbed over fears that the chief may step in upon them? They do not; with the hazards of their position im- minently threatening, they calmly sit down and talk about life in the old home town! Again, if we accept the fact that the rum gang could seize a whole town, imprison the chief of police and his lieutenants and reign undisturbed in the city hall for several days (and that, it must be admitted, is a lot to swallow); still why mar the big scene, the telegraphing incident, by overdoing it? Anyone would have become suspicious if this had occurred as pictured. If done naturally, it would have been both more dra- matic and more convincing. Ben Hecht doesn’t increase his prestige by such trite stuff as this. Scenarization is better than the story deserved, and dialogue holds up to fair average. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Helen Morgan is without doubt a very capable ac- tress, but her screen appeal is slight. She hasn’t that It for leading roles of love interest, and her excellent singing voice and song delivery ability does not make, up the difference. It is a similar case with Charles Ruggles. His drunken reporter of “Gentlemen of the Press” was a classic, but since then it has been badly over-extended in footage, and (Continued on Page 13) ‘STREET OF CHANCE’ Paramount Picture (Reviewed at Paramount Theatre) A smooth, most commendable performance by William Powell; smooth most commendable direc- tion by John Cromwell from an equally smooth and commendable script; and a general high stand- ard in the work of the cast make this a picture of great merit. It won’t be any boxoffice panic, but it is one which will surely please, and one which the men will like equally as well as the women. By the masculine con- tingent, indeed, it will be liked better than some 75 per cent or so of pictures to which they accom- pany their women folk. Or may- be this percentage should be raised to 85 or 90 per cent. It is a man’s story. Opening finds William Powell, known as “Natural” Davis, a suave New ’York gambler, after the manner of the lamented Roth- stein. Because his activities keep him away from home so much, his wife (Frances Kay) is divorc- ing him, even though she still loves him. Powell has a younger brother (Regis Toomey), who has been a no-account, and to whom the gambler has sent thousands of dollars for maintenance. The younger brother’s weakness is gambling. From Toomey comes the wire that he is to marry, and Powell send him another $10,000. Tearing the summons for di- vorce up, Powell calls upon his wife to plead for one more chance. Be tells her that he will give up gambling after the couple of weeks it will take him to clean up the pending affairs. She demurs, in- sisting that he must quit at once if she is to take him back. He protests that his obligations call upon him to give men from whom he has won money a chance to win it back, but, she being adam- ent, he consents. The gambler leaves his wife to make the rounds of those who have been his tip-off men as to where the games are held. He tells them he is not playing any more. Meantime the younger brother has arrived in New York with his bride (Jean Arthur). He has run the $10,000 up to $50,000 by gam- bling, and has come to New York with the intention of run- ning it up to $150,000. He is in search of “Natural” Davis, not knowing this notorious gambler to be his own brother. The brothers meet and Powell attempts to persuade Toomey to go back home without gambling, and to quit it for good. But Toomey refuses, so Powell first taking back the $10,000 he has given him, promises to put him into a big game. Powell then frames with a pal (Stanley Fields), to take the kid’s nioney. away at stud poker, think- ing this the only way to cure him. He calls upon the bride and gives her the $10,000, making her prom- ise to reform her husband. But the frame doesn’t work. Toomey’s luck holds and he wins from the three gamesters whom he plays. Stanley Fields, suspicious of a frame between Powell and Toomey, sends word for Powell to come immediately. Powell does so, is revealed to his brother as “Nat- ural” Davis, and forces the kid to engage to play until one or the other is broke. Toomey’s luck still holds, and the great “Natural” is going down to defeat. Desper- ate in the thought that more than ever Toomey will now be a gam- •, bier, Powell cheats for the first (Continued on Page 13) 19# SEASON (OG IN CAST SION ,4/SAW GABRIEL R.D.Mac Lean as frayjunikro serra EVERYAFTERNOON-EXCEPT MONDAY-2.'^ — WED. AND EAT. EVE 8‘S PRICES 7$e •'/»« 4/So $2P°