Inside facts of stage and screen (March 15, 1930)

PAGE FOUR INSIDE FACTS OF STAGE AND SCREEN SATURDAY, MARCH 15, 1930 Picture Reviews ~ Previews ~ Shorts By A. H. FREDERICK “THE GIRL SAID NO’' M-G-M PICTURE (Reviewed at Loew’s State) This is another picture for those who like William Haines’ showoff- isms. In this respect it is just about the same as the general run of the Haines product, though some serious moments are intro- duced. And the serious Haines is not as good as the other. In addition to this change, Marie Dressier comes in for a compara- tively short sequence and takes highest laugh honors away from the tsar with the utmost ease. Polly Moran threatened to do the same thing in a previous part of the picture, but her footage is not sufficient to give her the break Miss Dressier takes unto herself. For another angle, the picture serves to introduce Francis X. Bushman, Jr., as a new and a very excellent type of heavy. So nice is this lad’s screen person- ality that even his villainies win sympathy, particularly as they are at the expense of the ungallant and egotistic Haines. Watch Bushman, Jr., Mr. Casting Director; he’s due to get away up the line in talking pictures. The story, by A. P. Younger, now head of Tiffany’s story de- partment, did not, it is to be hoped for the good judgment of Tiffany, get him his present job. It is a very lame affair, and were it not for the gags so ably administered by that excellent comedy director, Sam Wood, the whole picture would be flat as a pancake. Haines starts out in his usual way by making life burdensome to girls upon whom be caddishly forces his attentions. This time Our Hero wrecks one girl’s car, and then runs off to leave her to pay the damages; breaks up the evening’s pleasure of another by causing soup to be spilled down her escort’s neck (what a standard of gentlemanliness to hold up to the younger generation!) and then continues to annoy this girl in every way possible, and the ways he finds possible makes the de- partment of a street corner masher seem the very acme of courteous chivalry. Along about the time the girl is pleading with Haines not to make himself so pernicious a pest, tragedy occurs in his family, and we are expected to sympathize with him. Quite impossible, and the sob scenes dropped dully in the aisle on the day of review. Then there’s some more along the intermingled lines of a chas- tened smart-aleck who occasion- ally breaks out, until finally there comes the wedding day and the kidnaping of the bride, done in the way it has been done some thousands of times before in Hollywood. Now, that Sam Wood manages to make such a story as that en- tertaining redounds most highly to his credit. But he does so, and the Haines fans will find it well up to the Haines standard. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: Another Haines picture. If _ they like him out your way, it will go good. And the one comedy se- quence contributed by Marie Dressier should build up word-of- mouth. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Sam Woods needs no proof of his comedy directoral prowess. If he did, his touches in this one would be an exhibit. Story by A. P. Younger is just another Hollywod twice told tale. Sarah Y. Mason did the _ adapta- tion, and presumably provided the gags. If so she takes the palms of the writing trio who contrib- uted. The third member of it, Charles MacArthur, rendered _ as his share dialogue which was just so-so. Ira Morgan’s camera work was up to standard. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Haines again plays Haines; and opposite him is again Leila Hyams, with her blondness again the outstanding feature of her work. Marie Dressier does a cum laude of comedy; and Polly Moran sweeps in her laugh-chances with a (Continued on Page 9) BEAUMONT STUDIOS SCENERY Drops, Curtains, Drapes RENTALS Los Angeles, Calif. 400 W. 96th St. YO. 8346 “SONG OF THE WEST’ WARNER BROS. PICTURE (Reviewed at W. B. Downtown) As the first all-color, all-outdoor (or sufficiently so to warrant the appellation) western, and with the name of John Boles heading the cast, “Song of the West” should make itself a cheery boxoffice swath. But insofar as entertainment values are concerned, there is room for much improvement. There is too much music, for one thing, there being an appeal to the romantic coloring of the story which tolerates impatiently its fre- quent stoppage to interpolate some song. The film would have been made much more entertaining had only three been retained, Vivienne Se- gal’s “Come Back to Me,” John Boles’ regimental number, and Joe E. Brown’s “The Bride Was Dressed in White.” And this takes into consideration that one of the most amusing numbers is Boles’ “I Like You As You Are.” In- deed, this reviewer believes that an enhancement of the story _ value, with Warner Baxter, Antonio Mo- reno ,or some such romantic figure in the lead, would have made a better picture of this than the Boles casting. But of course such a course would have been consid- ered very inane considering that “Song of the West” is an adapta- tion of the operetta “Rainbow.” It seems impossible to' mingle story and song as is done on the operetta stage; and soon, is our prediction, songs will be put into pictures logically or not at all ex- cept in those pictures which are so frankly screen operettas that their story does not attempt to convince. The picture is lfiid in the gold rush days of ’49, opening scenes being along the trail and closing ones in the village of San Fran- cisco. There are wagon trains, bad men, liquor plaaces, etc. Such plot as there is details how Boles fled from his army commis- sion when he struck down a fel- low officer under unexplainable circumstances. He meets up with his regiment in the profession of pathfinder over the uncharted trails. The girl of the story is the daughter of the colonel of _ the regiment, and one of her suitors is the officer with whom Boles formerly had the fracas. Another is Boles’ best friend. Boles and the girl fall in love with each other. Then the _ heavy again insults Boles, and in the scuffle the heavy is killed. Boles escapes disguised as a preacher (a sequence which is entirely uncon- vincing), but is forced to leave the wagon train when his friend dis- covers that he is in love with his own loved one. The girl goes with Boles, and they are married. Also going with Boles is a mule- skinner, the comedy relief. Boles and his wife drift about, with the man making his liveli- hood bv gambling. When some of the officers of the regiment find them Boles realizes that the girl belongs in the army life, and he departs with another girl after in- sulting his wife. Reconciliation comes in San Francisco, and Boles is reinstated in the army, though why or how is left wholly to the imagination. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: Angles above mentioned make this a good booking, provided proper exploitation is employed. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Ray Enright’s direction is straight- away, and up to all requirements of the script. Screen version was written by Harvey Thew, and, like Enright’s direction, is straightaway _ and up to all requirements of straightaway stuff. The music by Vincent Youmans is good; and Grant Clarke and Harry Akst score with the “Come Back to Me” number. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: John Boles plays this role like, and up to the stand- ards of, his former ones, strong on the tenor singing and mediocre on the acting. Vivienne Segal adds to her most excellent voice an acting ability which makes her part far more convincing than is that of Boles. Joe E. Brown plays the mule- skinner broadly, after the manner of those who burlesque the old- (Continued on Page 9) ‘THE VAGABOND KING’ Paramount Picture (Reviewed at Paramount Theatre) Singing excellent, filming splen- did, drama lacking. That sums up “The Vagabond King” for those who saw the E. H. Sothern stage interpretation and for those who read the ultra-dramatic • Justin Huntley McCarthy novel, “If I Were King.” The thrilly moments of the stage and paper vehicles are lost on the screen. There is that never-to- be-forgotten climax when Francois Villon, under sentence to hang “to the nearest lamp-post” is saved by the “old sober-sides.” “And who are you that interferes with the king’s justice?” asks Thibault. “The king,” replies the other. “Good Lord, it is the king!” ex- claims Francois whimsically. A masterful scene, but one which loses its punch in the manner of handling it is given in the film. So with the duel between Fran- cois and Thibault, and the scene with Katherine in the garden, and with that in which the disguised Villon reveals himself to his former comrades, and more so than with any other, with the gallows scene. For this reason there is going to be much dis- appointment for those who have loved the Villon story in its former versions. But offsetting this are points of high virtue. There is a consistency of excellent production, many of the scenes rating no less a term than gorgeous; there are the sweet singing voices of the star, Dennis King, and the feminine lead, Jean- ette MacDonald, and there is a thrill to some of the music, par- ticularly to the “Song of the Vagabonds.” And for another matter of commendation, the color work is, comparatively, excellent. The story in general follows the McCarthy theme, opening in the Fircone Tavern (herein called “The Tavern of the Vagabonds”), showing Villon’s love for the noble Katherine, his rescue of her—but here let us pause. Why was the change made from the original in (his rescue sequence? A really dramatic scene, wherein the tat- tered vagabond challenges the Grand Marshall of France to a duel for the love of his revered lady was transformed into a very weak rescue from three clownish footpads? What excuse is there for such a butchering of real screen values for nothing approximating it in strength? Abandonment of the Fircone duel for the footpad incident was plain stupidity, mar- ring one of the big chances of the year for an apex of dramatic thrill. Then Villon goes to the palace, drugged, and is made over into the Grand Marshal, this part be- ing stretched out to a tiresome length and made ridiculous. Girls in tights are the pages. Anyone with any knowledge of past ages must see the absurdity of this. A decent girl’s legs in those days were absolutely kept hidden, as McCarthy himself points out by having Huguette’s male attire com- mented upon. And these pages, reinforced by dwarfs and other ridiculous attendants do a “Mar- riage of the Painted Doll” dance to render him service. Those re- sponsible for this sequence should upon each occasion of seeing it, blush. It is one of the cheapest matters of “Hollywooding” that has ever marred good screen ma- terial. But why go further? Those who have not formerly known the Vil- lon story probably will find this enjoyment of a high order; those who realize what could have been done with the story will carry away a lingering feeling of dis- appointment. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: This is a good booking. It is a costumer, but apparently this is not generally a detriment in the romantic, singing talkies. Dennis King will need selling on his stage record, and there’s no other name in the cast to draw where names are the big bet. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Someone erred badly in translat- ing this one from book and stage form to the screen. With depart- ments so intermingled in Holly- wood it is hardly safe to guess just where the fault lies. But, were all departments strictly ac- countable for their own apparent portions of the entertainment, fault would be assigned to Herman (Continued on Page 9) ‘MEN WITHOUT WOMEN’ Fox Picture (Reviewed at Criterion) This picture is one which no man should miss, unless he be of the slushy type which can’t think beyond the erotic. As for the ladies, some will like it, and some won’t. It is probable the latter catagory will be in the majority. John Ford, director and co-au- thor of the story, went to the Rus- sian School of Cinematography for his treatment of “Men Without Women,” and in so doing made an immeasurable advance over those directors of submarine pic- tures who have stuck to the American methods. Columbia’s submarine story, for instance, was a well done exposition of the old hokum of two buddies, one of whom is caught in a sub disaster and the other the only diver in the world who could effect a rescue. Not so Ford’s. His moves forward with no spot of hokum in it, not even when one young lad stops to say his prayers; the feeling is there that this is just what many a lad has done under similar circumstances. It is dis- tinctly an artistic achievement to be rated much to Ford’s credit. His story weaknesses in “The Black Watch” and “Salute” are not found here, because there is no story: just one vivid glimpse after another of the tragedies which are stalking the individuals as they face death. In Russia where the masses have become more important than the individual, this is no new thing; but, in the recollection of this reviewer, it is the first American-made picture which has dared assume the form of this “art of the future.” The picture moves forward with the relentless inevitability of a news-reel. Arrival of the divers is not vaingloried with any race with death and all that truck, ex- cept insofar as it happens in real life. Again 'be it said that it is a picture which no one should miss, and particularly those of Holly- wood connected with the industry. Ford has offered a highly artistic example of a new (to America) technique, and one which, whether it becomes the technique of whole pictures or not, is under any cir- cumstances one which could be used to advantage in many, many pictures to build them up to many times their size otherwise. Ford was preparing for this by his di- rection of “The Black Watch” and “Salute,” his high points in both of these films being mass rather than individualistic. It is to be hoped that Fox will turn him loose with another of the same variety, and soon Ford will have a niche in Hollywood as pre- eminently his own as those now held by King Vidor, Cecil B. De- mille and D. W. Griffith. The story, as before remarked is negligible, but that by no means is to be construed as indicating that it ever gets uninteresting. There is not a dull moment in the whole picture, and it is one which many will find as entertain- ing the second and third times as the first. The picture opens with a bunch of sailors carousing in Shanghai’s “longest bar in the world.” Color is rife in these scenes, as is humor of the he-man kind, and interest. Then a sub crew is called back to duty, and their craft sails. It is rammed and sinks. Remainder of the film shows the trapped men waiting for death or rescue, and— how much is Ford to be com- mended for it!—each and every one remains a human being to the last, not a one degenerating into a Hollywood glorification. Like little lightning flashes come their revelations of their thoughts, and glimpses of their past lives. EXHIBITORS’ VIEWPOINT: With proper exploitation, this one should go over. There are numer- ous angles to intrigue the public imagination, and the not-so-good main title is nevertheless ready to be tied up with the thought that these men without women talk and think women even in the presence of death. No drawing (Continued on Page 9) “THE CASE QF SERGEANT GRISCHA” RADIO PICTURES PICTURE (Reviewed at Orpheum) The first run house booking this one will need the services of a live-wire and angle-minded public- ity man. for the picture lacks box- office both in story and in cast names. But there are angles there, a plentitude of them to delight the heart of a vigorous exploitation expert, and, properly worked, the returns can be made to show this possibility realized. Anti-war so- cieties, veterans who got enough of war, debates, endorsements, etc., are potentially lying in wait for ballyhoo for “Sergeant Grischa.” So much for the boxoffice. Ar- tistically the picture rates high; from a standpoint of courage in producing it, it ranks even higher. There is nothing of Hollywood in it, and Radio Pictures made a dis- tinct step out of the safe and beaten path when this one went before the cameras. For those who like the different and the more serious, “Grischa” probably will rank among the ten best of 1930. The “movieites” will won- der what it’s all about. Personally this reviewer recommends it for high honors and nominates it for a place in that small vault of cel- luloid worth keeping for posterity. A great achievement in many ways. So was “Hamlet” when P. T. Barnum was packing ’em into his Musee down the street to see the Petrified Mermaid. The story gets under way in a German prison camp in Russia with Grischa, a Russian, impris- oned there. He 'is a young fel- low so beset by homesickness that he risks death to escape. He finds refuge in a hut in which are clustered a group of Russians who have rebelled against German dis- cipline. Among them is Babka, who falls in love with him. But. Grischa’s homesickness forces him from the refuge towards home. He is picked up by the German M. P.’s and falsely claims to be another Russian whose identifica- tion tag he has come into pos- session of. He does this to escape being sent back to the same prison camp. But, ■ it turns out, this other Russian has come under the pro- visions of a new rule anent re- porting to German M. P.’s, and Grischa, in this identity, is sen- tenced to be shot as a spy. Now Grischa has become very popular with all the German sol- diers who have been set to guard him, and this popularity reflects itself in the attitude of the divi- sional officers. The general, a kindly hearted man, sets out to get the sentence reversed because of the mistake in identity. He travels to the eastern army’s head- quarters and pleads with the Prus- sian officer in command. But the latter is a stern disciplinarian, and declares he cannot interfere with routine in the interests of an in- dividual. However, when the other has gone, he relents and tries to get a reprieve through. But the wires are down. This writes the final decision, as the commander feels the whole matter of but little moment anyway. So Grischa, to whom has come Babka, is shot. This is but a bare outline of the story, which can only be ap- preciated by seeing the picture. EXHIBITOR’S VIEWPOINT: See this one run off before you book it. There is prestige in it, and boxoffice for those who are clever enough to capitalize it astutely. Otherwise it won’t do so well. PRODUCERS’ VIEWPOINT: Herbert Brenon, the director, has some splendid touches in this one, but he also has allowed draggy moments to creep in. Casting is partially responsible for this, as, while the majority of the cast were chosen excellently, the two leads were poorly selected from the standpoint of story value. Elizabeth Meehan did the adapta- tion of the book well. Photography by J. Roy Hunt is excellent. CASTING DIRECTORS’ VIEWPOINT: Chester Morris (Continued on Page 9)