Inside facts of stage and screen (January 31, 1931)

Page Four INSIDE FACTS OF STAGE AND SCREEN Saturday, January 31, 1931 SIT TIN’ WITH THE PUBLIC By TED PRICE ‘ONCE IN A LIFETIME” Mayan Thearte (Reviewed Jan. 28) This is a natural, right in the middle of Hollywood’s sunken bathtubs. Hollywood without a stitch on it and the whole world looking through the transom. So ridiculously sensible and so sensi- bly ridiculous it may be called -reason gone rollicking mad; prophesy and history engraved in folly. “Once in a Lifetime” should enjoy a run. If it doesn’t hold up as long as there are adults in Cali- fornia within a street car ride of the boxoffice, then the legitimate theatre is dead both ways from the orchestra pit. If this show fails to hang up a record, I will post an obituary for the speaking stage under the Shubert real estate window every Wednesday afternoon at half hours until Carl Laemmle, Sr., runs out of relatives. “Once in a Lifetime” is satire, Shavian in its status, and with the added advantage of universal appeal. It is the artistic nose-thumbing of Gilbert & Sullivan in the language of today. The most delightfully nonsensical bit of high burlesque that has reached the stage since Weber & Fields. Moss Hart, the author, if lie survives the frowns of Hollywood, will go down in the annals of the stage as the man who restored a lost art. He has brought to the theatre in “Once in a Lifetime” a type of entertainment that is toxin long needed to energize and revitalize a body stricken with a strange and mysterious malady. Patrons of the theatre have long clamored for the needle of satire. "Once in a Lifetime” parades a Hollywood that is passing on. Those whom it discloses will be ired but they will vent a spleen that has dried in the glands. The juniors of production, the second generation will see the humor and the art of this thing. They will take Sid Grauman by the hand and compliment him on its mounting and presentation. — Ted Price. Pictures “THE BAT WHISPERS” UNITED ARTISTS (Reviewed Jan. 26) The tummy muscles of those ■watching this mystery thriller, “The Bat Whispers,” tighten like iron Lands. A suspense and tremble producer de luxe from the start. When the hinged fireplace slowly swung to, imprisoning the sweet blonde heroine in the secret room, fifty women in the audience swal- lowed their handkerchiefs in an ef- fort to choke back screams. That was just one of many scares legiti- mately secured and without ugly gruesomeness. When the bat came down the long maguafilm stircase full tilt at the audience a swell brunette let out a scream and clutched the writer around the neck. That is a way of saying this picture is a swell break for the bachelor. A good mystery picture is also a break for a guy with a blind date. It breaks the ice. The brunette took one look at this writer and let ■out a louder scream than she de- livered for the Bat. That's one scream the Bat would not ordinari- ly get—a break for the theatre. It was some small compensation to the management for the courtesies they extend me. Thrillers come and thrillers go, and some make money. The ush- ers won’t worry about the Saturday night pay cheque where they play “The Bat Whispers.” It is a sure- fire piece of workmanship. The exhibitor can start spending his profit on it the moment it is booked. It will be there in the boxoffice when he counts up. As to the story of “The Bat Whispers,” it was but a slight de- parture from the conventional mys- tery pattern, which matters little. The point is that it held the audi- ence breathless with suspense. The grizzly, black, clutching hand com- ing out of a mysteriously opened panel, the thunder and lightning crash at the moment of highest tension, the message of warning wrapped around a pebble and crashed through a window, the per- secuted heroine and the frightened constable. All present in familiar guise but skillfully blended. As to the cast, no single mem- ber seemed to feature. Chester Morris did not appear to advan- tage because his work was veiled in the mystery of his character and dominated by the suspense attend- ing the action, which incidentally is a fine indorsement of story con- struction and direction. Maude Eburne, as the frightened maid, stood out and is ready for -heftier parts. When she cracked that “The Bible is on the ouija-board to Icccp it quiet,” the house rocked. Spencer Charters, as the caretaker, beld up his. assignment nobly. He is recommended for rotes that will give his, comedy potentialities more elbow room. The new magnafilm presentation completely filled the stage opening. .Objects and humans stood out with satisfying clarity. I recommend magnafilm for mystery stuff. Pho- tographic embellishments and mountings were augmented without distortion. This picture presenta- tion is one of the best coming out of the United Artists studio in months. “MAN TO MAN” (Barber John’s Boy) ’Warner Bros. HollywGod Reviewed Jan. 23 Here is a poser for you; a pic- ture that fixes interest all the way, yet fails to win unalloyed approval. Compelling in its drama, artistic in its direction, dialoging and charac- terization, yet failing to inspire the unstinted praise you want to be- stow’ upon it. "Man to Man" may easily send you out of the theatre with the impression that you have -seen a masterpiece. This was my -fleeting reaction. I warm to the wine of good direction and acting. This one had it. yet it left me with s slightly flat taste. I consulted the opinion of brother showmen, on the deficiencies of this splendid production .though a nega- tive audience reaction graphically revealed them. The concensus of disapproval fastened itself upon one characterization. Barber John’s cronies and leading townspeople had condoned a crime he had committed eighteen years before in taking the life of a “bad guy” who had killed his brother. Everybody was for Barber John. They were all at the station to meet him. John's boy alone alibied himself out of going to the station. The sympathy for Barber John was so great that the son’s inability to join in with it made him for many sequences look like an ass. At first glance one would attri- bute the son’s indifference to his father an error in writing and direc- tion; that the director and continu- ity writer might have justified the boy’s attitude by explaining instead of implying that "eighteen years had passed and Barber John was a total stranger to his son.” In say- ing that this was implied I call at- tention to the moving shot of the surrey rolling down Alain Street and old triends calling greeting to Bar- ber John. So much time had elapsed since John had seen them last that he had to ask his companion who the people were hailing him. This action implied that he would be a stranger to his son, but later on, when father and son come face to face, the effectiveness of the impli- cation was dissipated by the one word “father.” The years he had been absent were almost obliterated by their nearness and the knowl- edge that the same blood ran in their veins. It made the son’s cold- ness hard to accept. If the father had justified the boy’s coldness and diffidence by saying immediately after his depar- ture that “eighteen years have passed and I am a stranger” instead of excusing his son because he was “just a boy” it woUld have carried more conviction. This failure to give a more clarifying emphasis to the real reason for the boy’s atti- tude is not, however, the basic cause of the picture’s one weakness. This is merely incidental justification. Barber John’s boy of the fiction version made the Phillips Holmes’ personality look assinine, because Holmes the actor is intelligent, manly and courageous and Barber John's boy of the story version was no doubt a weakling and “just a boy.” The banker who magnani- mously hired the boy whom nobody would give work, and the father, who forgave his son, tried nobly to make the audience- believe that he was “just a boy.” The handicap was too great, not only for a great director, a clever dialogue writer, but a cast of fine actors. The major error was in casting. Responsibility for this leaves the bag standing wide open and no one holding it. It is no fault q) the casting office. It occurs to me that it was a misappraisal of values. Phillips Holmes is good box office. His billing was essential, yet the Warner Brother’s reputation for turning out grade “A” pictures com- bined with Grant Mitchell’s superb performance, would have justified sacrificing the Holmes billing to a personality that was more of "just a boy.” It’s an open question. “MOTHER’S CRY” WARNER BROS. DOWN- TOWN (Reviewed Jan. 23) The story version of “Mother's Cry” dramatizes the cycle of mother life, its eternal sacrifice, the meager joys and the inspiring patience of it in a way that gives a full and satisfying picture of normal motherhood but the pic- ture version is jerky and inade- quate. Dialoging and direction in this picture is either not suited to or out of sympathy with the Picture LEADERS For the Week “THE ROYAL FAM- ILY OF BROADWAY,” PARAMOUNT, AND “LITTLE CAESAR,” WARNER BROTHERS, HEAD THE LIST FOR THE WEEK. story. In itself the story of "Mother’s Cry” is so powerful in its appeal that even obvious mis- handling failed to retard its ef- fectiveness. The’ picture faded in a street car, 1891 model, and a crowd of merrymakers singing, “A Bicycle Built for Two” and what promised to be a composition and character- ization in the delicate tints and highlights of a chromo in pastel. Fading out on two posters of Mc- Kinley and Bryan opposed for the presidency and a bulbous-cheeked fathead yelling for McKinley be- cause “he wanted his beer.” A prohibition thrust sadly out of place. Raucous burlesque of 1931. A beautiful scene unnecessarily smudged. Later on, a prospective son-in- law, looking over the family al- lium, observes on seeing- a naked baby picture of his sweetheart that she “hasn’t changed a bit—that is, her face.” Cracks of that odor are looked at askance even in vaudeville. The remark here was more to be regretted because the baby picture in itself gathered a sufficient and refreshing laugh. There are many instances of bad taste in this picture. The "bad one” in the family, the black sheep who wound up in prison death row, was altogether too vicious and brutal in his treatment of his mother. It is well to create sympathy for the mother, but wholly unnecessary for dramatic- purposes to so vilify the son. Waywardness and weak moral fibre in a son arc enough of a tribu- lation, a trial and a menace to moth- your name appears in this column, Inside Facts considers you eligible for pictures. Robert Sinclair Who played “Lester Vail” in “Once in a Lifetime,” Wednes- day evening, substituting for Moss Hart, who was ill. He directed the play in New York and also here. or happiness. Branding the boy with the dye of viciousness is pour- ing ink on mud. Alan Divan and Leuore Coffee, two very intelligent craftsmen, fumbled an opportunity here to carve themselves an impressive niche in the movie hall of fame. To a certain degree this story was epi- sodical which might be offered as an excuse for its jerkiness. “Tom Sawyer” was a series of episodes, yet it drove across its story with the force and conviction of a chase. “War Nurse” is another story en- joying the enormous book plug of "Mother's Cry,” and “War Nurse” dissipated its literary value in like manner. Inadequate preparation arid processing of dramatic values seems to be the thing that devital- ized both. These disparagements, however, will not detract from the money making potential of the picture. There was much choking back of sobs and grief over the mother-suf- fering. The tears of mothers in the audience served to bring a hush of respect despite questioning glances and uncontrollable restless- ness on the part of many. “ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY” Paramount Feature FOX’S CRITERION (Reviewed Jan. 26) “See yourselves as others see you,” is; the message “The Royal Family of Broadway” conveys to the actor. “Get a glimpse of the private life of any family of tlies- piaris horn to the curtain call,” is its communication to the public. It is a picturesque and faithful por- trayal o( the blue bloods of the the- atre listening, to the newest musical score from Vienne while they help themselves to a buffet lunch of ham, green onions arid pumpernickle set out on the piano top. Perfection is a state of mind and not of being and not to my knowl- edge has it been achieved outside of a dream but in this production of the Royal Family it comes so close to flawless realization it will have to do until something better comes along. “The Royal Family of Broadway” wings to a place away up there in the front rank of fine performance and direction on sev- eral counts. It pictures the acting fraternity being themselves, con- stantly suspended between make believe and reality. It presents a phase of theatre life that has not as yet been exposed to public view; and high time that it was because it is the very essence of drama. Some may carry home the belief that this is the story of the Drews and Barrymores. Perhaps it is but much riiore, it is the story o,f any profession vainly trying to pull up the roots of its heritage. To fit it- self into a life that life has not fitted it for. It spells the futility of trying to find happiness in a world not its own. It is the eternal con- flict between the glamour of the theatre arid the lure of the green pastured monotony of lay existence. And habit wins. "To bed, to bed, to eat, to eat.” Every utterance and movement in the posturing, the stridence and gesturing of a role. Taking a bath, entering the parlor, consciously playing a part. The theatre is their hobby, their diversion, their job and their religion. Ever of the theatre but never a moment theatrical. Al- ways real arid very human. A splendid play. The audience ap- plauded it. “LITTLE CAESAR” W. B. Picture V/ARNER BROS.’ HOLLYWOOD (Reviewed Jan. 29) A lot of interest has stirred in Holiywod over the. phenomenal suc- cess of “Little Caesar” in New York. Far down the schedule of Hollywood’s series of gang pictures and falling naturally under the brand of “just another” gang pic- ture many wondered what phase of underworld life it could represent that it should rate all of this in- terest. Curiosity was well satisfied at the premiere last night. The an- swer to it was in a combination of good story, appreciative direction and fine performance. It is a Very fine picture for the very reasons that “The Doorway to Hell” was NOT a fine picture, even though it made money. “Little Caesar” does not ask the audience to accept a romantic “baby faced killer with the power of a czar” as fine drama. “Little Caesar” gives me great glee. It gives me a good! oppor- tunity to crow a little louder that fine drama is bigger box office than names; that good pictures make names oftener than names make good pictures. “Little Caesar” grabs a record without a big name as 'names” nowadays rate. No Ernest Lubitschs, no Emil Jannings, no Zane Greys in thi» opus. Just Le- Roy, Robinson and Burnett to carry this little Caerar of the cinema, gentlemen. Those who were hopped up on the virtues of “The Doorway _ to Hell” did another kind of hopping an my carcass because I refused to throw a rave over it. I maintained .that major values in “The Door- way to Hell” were devitalized by its deference to name value, both in star and title. I still maintain that it would have made more money than it did if they hadn’t 'brought so much of the "Western Front” into it with Lewis Ayres. If you are interested in knowing why I defended this (belief go and see "Little Caesar,” produced by the same company. It is a better pic- ture by their own admission. Whether it will net more lies in comparative production cost. Little. Caesar pushes this, picture off with a gas station robbery in the sticks. He declares his ambi- tion over a cup of coffee in a lunch wagon and reaches his goal in a futuristically designed apart- ment house and the leadership of the North Side. He finishes a crumpled heap of ebbing life be- hind a billboard riddled with ma- chine-gun bullets. His glazed eyes and bloated lips read astonishment when he realizes that it is the end of Little Caesar. Simple story? Very. And the only machine gun I saw in the picture was operated by a detective of police. But how can a gang picture be great with only one machine gun in it? You wouldn’t believe me if I told you. Presentations LOVE LETTERS IDEA Loew’s State I LOS ANGELES (Reviewed Tan. 29) When Bert Hollowed syncopates or philharmoriizes a Rhapsody of the South, mister its a Southern Rhapsody and music that socks in- to every corner of the listening throng. This boy knows how to lay it out and serve it up. Another high spot on the program was the Hollywood Hill Billies, and a yodcicr who made those Swiss Alps turns in the upper register with the cast of a bird. This whole troup of songsters and instrumentalists work as though they enjoyed it and they got the same reaction from the audience. If all of the F. and M. Ideas come through as colorful and en- tertaining as this one I am strongly for a straight Idea policy. The sparkle and vitality of action, move- ment and talent backed up by these F. and M. settings and blendings augments stage entertainment im- measurably. This Love Letter Idea opened up with a love letter big enough to record the affairs of Clara Bow. After advising the payees what it was going to be per the rhythm way and some neat tap- ping they pulled away to a colonial set, full stage, of a class that made the Fanchon outfit famous. Mem- ory Lane, appealing as ever, arid a ballet dancer in white plumes with kicks as graceful as the undula- tions of the plumes. Sixteen girls were next in mili- (Continued on Page 7.)