Inside facts of stage and screen (January 24, 1931)

Pane Four INSIDE FACTS OF STAGE AND SCREEN Saturday, January 24, 1931 SITTIN’ WITH THE PUBLIC Pictures “OUTWARD BOUND” ■- ^ Warner Bros.’ Hollywood “Outward Bound” is a mas- terpiece. It is an example of masterly skill in casting, dia- logue and direction. Every- one connected with preparing this Sutton Vane play for the screen showed a keen ap- preciation of their assignment j and held up notably the War- ner Bros.’ good judgment in selecting them. It is such an important contribution to the 'business that it should en- courage occasional forages in- to tomes of fantastic mate- rial. Every so often a -delv- , ing into the beyond like this 'will 'give* picture output the balance it constantly needs. “Outward Bound” cannot be praised too highly. Any eulogy by publicist or critic is well earned. This picture reads off a sermon on retribu- tion in terms and characteri- zations simple and under- standable to every person old enough to be out.of the house after 9 in the evening. It paints the thin shell of 'snob- bery and sham cracking un- der the all-seeing eye of the Great Examiner with artistic- ally decisive strokes. It leaves little doubt in the mind of Mister and Mirs. Audience, whether he or she be pluto- crat or polecat, just what is going to be looked upon as good and evil in their here- after. The first shall be last and the lats shall be first and the ■meek shall inherit the King- dom of Heaven. These truths are carried to the audience with telling effect. There isn’t a human of 10 years or over who did not feel the force of them. This picture should do an enorm- ous business. The clergy can take it into the. pulpit with a sincerity vmd enthusiasm that has never been -possible with any of its predeces- sors; the sci'olitic outbursts of Ce- cil DeMille included. It will in- *vite honest conjecture and discus- sion on a broad scale because the subject has been portrayed from a wide viewpoint. The critics will ■give it more attention and thought and fewer barbs. It is favorable to a generous concept and a more general idea of retribution, with- out being fanatical or creedistic in the slightest. The upper level in acting was reached by Leslie Howard, the nervous kid who couldn’t let liquor alone. He .carried the major ac- tion, that of revealing to the audi- ence that it was looking at a -cargo of death, in the flesh. A delicate assignment. He delivered like a veteran, never for a moment over- playing the tense, expectant, un- certainty of the moment. He gave a performance that beggars de- scription. He checked breathing, ,We will see more of Leslie How- ard; personable, vital, human, cap- able artist. A fine actor and one they will have no difficulty in cast- ing. Acting honors for the rest of the cast are not easy to portion ■out. Superb work by all. “Out- ward Bound” is the dramatic honor guest of the week. *‘THE MAN WHO CAME BACK” Criterion Theatre Fox Picture The novelty of seeing Gaynor and Parrel together again is’ the 'sum total of what makes this pic- ture good entertainment. Outside of the reunion phase there is nothing in the layout that recom- mends it. ft is a hybrid of vaude- ville, ten-twenty-thirty and button, button whose got the key to the moon. Granted, there are inspir- ing moments in which Gaynor and Parrel reach the heights of good ■picture drama, they are brief, merely and momentarily breaking iip a continuity that reeks with license, “You gave me $25,009 a ycar and it kept me away from the ■real fellows in co'llege. I’ll drag your name in the dirt,” says Far- ■rel. “I’ll drink with you. mister,” ■says Gaynor, loking like a gal who has crawled out of a crib after a bad night with the Navy. “I’ll go where you go, do what you do.” Mammy! It uncorked •everything but a slashing down- pour of rain and forked lightning', e la D. W. Griffith. Sweet, ephem- eral, innocent Janette Gaynor, a prostitute. Mary Pickford as “Dia- mond Lil." Natalie Moorehead do- ing “Peter Pan.” Whoopee! “I'm on my way to hell!” leers Gaynor in San Francisco -and two reels later, for no reason, she shows up in a hop joint in Shang- hai, and “You’ll not go that way,”' grates Farrel as he proceeds to choke her to death. Mammy! But lie was sorry. Perhaps he forgot himself again. He had forgotten himself twice, before that. Bad memory, that guy has. Anyway, we were back in the old Howard Theatre in Boston, and you could almost hear the crinkle of satin as the bustles fidgeted apprehensively in shadowy stalls. It was grand. The heroine was a winsome child. Grandma adored her. Site was all a-flutter when the sweet thing refused to accept half occupancy of a flat in Greenwich Village with the dash- ing here, nee Farrel. “Not that!” she cried. The brute, grandma hissed. Then stricken with re- morse the brute asked the sweet thing to marry him. One at a time, men. Two minutes later he was Shanghaied, and Gaynor, heart- broken. disillusioned,' and otherwise put out, to say the least, decides that “lie is like all men!” -and takes the hall road alone with nasty de- tours deleted. But it turned out all right in the end; just a test ot the boy’s moral strength. What Fox was aiming at with this hodge-podge is about as clear as railroad restaurant hash oil Monday evenings. Then again, giv- ing- pause and deliberation, which is only fair, foresight, insight and wisdom was demonstrated here. Gaynor-Farrel are flapper fare, are they not,- so the box office gets a break in the reunion angle. The plot savors of 1898 and that goes great with the rocking chair cli- entele and the knitting society. The action and dialogue blobs and flashes alternately with logic and wall-wall. That gives Louella Par- sons and Welford Beaton some- thing to work on. Come to look at it from these angles the Fox outfit displayed superior showman- ship. They were very smart, or lucky, or both. Now it’s your turn. They tried to please everybody, and darned if they didn’t 'come close to doing it. It seems to me. though, with the picture trend toward the intel- ligent—not intelligenzia, my heart- ies, don’t get me wrong—a more suitable story could have been found for the Gaynor-Farrel re- union. But we will give Fox the benefit of the doubt. Yet I cannot get past the fact that three differ- ent techniques stand out in this picture like white traffic cops in Harlem. First the surprise twist, sketch pattern, made famous by Edwin Burke on the Keith time; the technique of the pre-sound era and the more advanced handling of thought and action. Get to- gether, boys. It’s a composite tech- nique, you know,' and those pets of yours should bow to the new medium, if we would move ahead. The day of logic is upon us. “CHARLEY’S AUNT” RICO Orpheum Theatre Columbia Picture Hurrying down Broadway I, said , to myself, as “Charley’s Aunt” ■ appeared to me in lights on the Orpheum marquee, here is a money maker for Columbia. Then I allowed a few pertinent facts to cre„ep into my appraisal. The story has been done before, the cast is practically unknown as far as the great picture audience'is concerned and the locale and atmosphere are English. To some, these factors may not make a whole lot of dif- ference but I. find oil looking over By TED PRICE Picture LEADERS For the Week ‘GOING WILD” AND “OUTWARD BOUND,” BOTH WARNER BROS. PRODUCTIONS, HEAD THE LIST FOR THE WEEK. the year’s output that they put every picture of like character in the doubtful class, as dividend earners. Because of this doubt and the error of allowing the chase se- quence between the guardian and Charley’s Aunt to run too long the picture is out l of the honor column for the week. Otherwise it is splendidly directed and played. Ruggies does the Auntie imper- sonation with a just right balance of Pansy and masculinity. "Charley’s Aunt” as screen ma- terial has outworn its usefulness. It is no'longer the essence of B. O. (Meaning box office.) It classes with “East Lynne,” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin. “ “Connecticut Yankee,” "Abie’s Irish Rose. It is Played Out. Good theatre but out-dated by a type of entertainment that has educated the public to seek portrayals of thought a little closer home, "Charley’s Aunt'-' has ex- hausted its appeal. Another factor ,that counts strongly against this picture is its setting and casting. As noted be- fore, it is typically British and therewith puts itself in a class with all foreign, though English spoken, plays. They cannot pos- sibly secure the sympathy, enthusi- asm and interest of pictures laid in America, arid played by an American cast. Outside of the drawbacks men- tioned. this picture is capital en- tertainment. It is capably and artistically cast. likable and in- teresting personalities carry the action. Good entertainment but average at its best and with less than average appeal due to low exploitation potential. Petticoats were grand in their day. JEWELS PARAMOUNT THEATRE (Reviewed Jan. 22) Oscar Baum of the vigorous pro- file started the display of jewels off with an overture that built to thunderous proportions. From or- chestra to harp and violin in, the upper box right and a crooning" radio trio left to two pianos on stage, then a pull away to two huge golden harps and an operatic soprano followed bv Con Manic at the organ and all together on tile last eight bars piano fortis- simo, tornado' made the offering verge on the spectacular. Con Maffie who seems to have a way with him that audiences can t resist had ’em all warbling like folks vocalize Only in their bathtub. A jewel box started off the stage* proceedings with the Foster Girls emerging from their individual compartments for a split and back-bend number that pleased, fire Baltimore trio again filled for a scene change to an enormous golden clock. Another number by the Fosters and then the Roma brothers suddenly came to life as gold ornaments at the base of the clock and finished to a good hand. Jerry Coe did a fast and slow motion snake hip dance and gave it plenty of temperature. Ross and Edwards bowed in with an argument that led to a row of affected speech nifties that kept the customers laughing. Lillian Shade dished out a song and Olga Morselli delivered with iier violin. A speedy, well balanced, colorful bill that blended for class all the way. “THE ROYAL BED” RKO THEATRE (Reviewed Tan. 22) RKO can be proud of this one. 1 hey can keep Lowell Sherman on this brand of entertainment from now on and enjoy profits and everlasting good will. If you are willing to overlook one error you may freely say that this is about the most delightful thing that has come out of the RKO studios in many moons. Overlooking two long drawn out soliloquies on the uselessness of Kings and the futil- ity of things royal, it kept audi- ence, interest right up there where it should be—a high suspense and mirth provoking level. This Mr. Sherman is a finished performer in the gentle art of pointing. The contrasts he slips into every time lie makes one of those sophisticated comments are classics. The man is alone as magnetic and compelling as any actor on the screen today. But that habit of soliloquizing- is going to get him if he don’t watch out. That stuff, you know, has been out of date since prohibition. “ The Royal Bed” is comic opera dc luxe with the opera removed and not missed. It got away to a rollicking start and held the pace every minute of the going. I have, never heard the divine right of kings so hilariously ridiculed in my life. Such royal tomfoolery is rare on the screen today and the thread of heart interest was woven in so skillfully that the offering as a whole classes high. “THE BLUE ANGEL” PARAMOUNT theatre (Reviewed Jan. 22) Sublime acting as expected. Tan- nings delivering in the approved Jannings style and a new person- ality from Marlene Dietrich, who is, of course, a natural. Direction by Josef Von Sternberg is sensible throughout but nothing to weigh ■on as being unusual, startling or different. Explanation lies in the fact that direction in general has shown such a marked improve- ment the much touted artistic genius of Sternberg can no longer highlight. As for the story of “The Blue Angel,” if you are in the mood to accept the- seductive, tender, sexy Marlene as the wife of a Verboten German professor of English well into his middle fifties, tire story will he to y(}}.ir taste. If you can go. for a sincerely sentimental marital alliance between a darling of the musical "halls arid a simper- ing old idiot -who displays about ■as much “it” as a ’ tub of butter, even though he be the sacred Emil Jannings, you will go off your nut about this picture. To top the alliance she doesn't even marry him for money; she keeps him. Despite all of its insufficiency and straddling of credence the audience went for this Janniiigs- Dietrich affair ."clear to the hips. They enjoyed it. reveled in it, thrilled to it, but when you are saying that, credit for the enter- tainment value in this picture goes to that superb craftsman, Emil Jannings, you have the whole answer 1 . Oh, the German Jeanne Eagles shares in the bouquets but write it in .the book that Jannings sold the picture. GOING WILD” Flow do you do. hello and am I glad to see you? Close rny eyes if it isn’t you. This is a surprise, and a pleasure. Old boy Comedy himself. No disguise, not a thing to mis- lead and in this day. Well, I’ll be — How did you make it? From story and scenario right through -the. director to the screen and never altered your identity a particle How d:id j a ever? I'll bet it was a rough journey, arriving in character, like this. Jostled ■about a bit wern’t you? Tell me about it? Who gets the credit for bringing you 'through in such fine shape? Was it William Setter, the director, or the two writers, Humphrey Pear- son and Henry McCarty, or was, it just three good show- men wlio. knew their funda- mentals and relative values arid how to get together? If it was, then Warner Bros, are well advised if they keep the combination intact for several pictures at least. Dbn’t mind me if I wax a bit enthusiastic over this pic- ture, but it is unusual to see a comedy come through our prevailing maelstomic proces- sing of stories with gag, tag, business and situation as well placed, spaced and balanced. This “Going Wild” picture is a gem in that way and the likes of it are so few and far between it automatically nomi- nates itself the honor guest for the week. Put another leaf in the table and uncork a bottle from, that basket in the private locker. “Going Wild” sits at the head of the table this w'eek on throe counts. Laughs, box office and all ’round good show- manship. This is the type of en- tertainment that pulls ’em in high- ly expectant and sends ’em out fulsomely satisfied. This is reali- zation topping anticipation. It was a series of, diaphragm'laughs from the beginning,' with dramatic relief placed right, where it gave the audience just enough time; to take' a deep breath for the next series. Here, you guys- who wet-nurse a bug on art. Here is your definition worked out for you. Knowledge, skillfully applied for a desired re- sult, laughs, skillfully obtained and in large quantities. And permit me to add, for the benefit of those who. spell “art” with their own special and peculiar alphabet. “Go- ing Wild” is a living example not of the art of. farce, burlesque nor comedy-drama. It is comedy, the art of which branch of entertain- ment the design and engineering require as much skill as in any other, ,$o, that for your frenzies. Special attention is called to the air race sequence. Never has any- thing been funnier than Joe Brown, seated helplessly in the cockpit of a plane, frantically waving* off an- other plane that threatens to crash him, and the look on his face when it barely misses him. The nitrate threaders deserve a ' gold plated upper magazine for the pho- tography ill this. That’s all on "Going Wild.” See you in the cellar. your name appears in this column, Inside Facts con- siders you eligible for pictures. Believing that everything possible should be done to give recognition to those who have perfected themselves in the art of entertainment and showmanship, Inside Facts this week starts a column devoted to the selection of artists appearing in vaude- ville, iegit. and presentation, who are of a personality arid talent suitable for talking pictures. Selection will conform to the method in force at the studios. Suitability will be determined by voice ranine, tone quality, per- sonality, type, character, style of delivery, authenticity, etc., etc., etc. Your qualifications, noted in the regular review of the act. play or presentation you appear in in the theatre will also appear under your name in this column. The purpose of the column devoted to calling attention to talent suitable for screen test is to give- those who measure up to a high standard of personality and performance an added plug with the casting offices. Inside Facts feels that stage tal- ent is entitled to any assistance a trade paper can give it in getting a break for the big market. If your name does not appear in the column devoted to this purpose it does not detract from your status as a performer or your ability as an enter- tainer. Names selected for the current week are: THE THREE McCANN SISTERS “THE PASSION FLOWER” LOFW’S STATE THEATRE (Reviewed Jan. 22) There is going to be disappoint- ment three ways on this picture. There is practically nothing in the story for Louella Parsons to rave about, Welford Beaton is going to shudder at the title, and Charles Bickford won’t have a thing' to knock or grumble about. That,. my pals, is another way :of .saying that this splendid picture, despite all of its artistry in direction, is “on the spot.” . Not since “The Right to Love” have I seen a picture that offered so much of both logic and drama at the same time. Aside from an error in casting—Charles Bickford is about as suitable to this kind of a story as Tom Mix—this picture very closely approximates perfec- tion. It is a simple story most effectively told. - It’s the eternal triangle again but this time putting up the great- est argument for decency, loyalty and intelligence that I have seen in many years. Nothing maudlin, or far-fetched yet intensely inter- esting. A dutiful husband finds himself in the toils of a woman who could melt stone .and the wife, relinquishes all claim to him. A letter telling him about the chil- dren and that their mother wants him and loves him no matter what she has to forgive, brings him (Continued on Page 7.)