Motion Picture Magazine (Aug 1924-Jan 1925)

Letters to the Editor Too Good for Movies the Dear Editor : In a recent issue of the Detroit Times, Ralph Holmes, dramatic critic, complimented Constance Binney upon her triumphant return from the screen to the legitimate stage. "The stage welcomes her," wrote Mr. Holmes ; "she is entirely too good for the movies." I wish some fair and soundminded fan would tell me why Constance Binney is too good for the movies. Is it mental inefficiency on my part to wonder how anyone could be "too good for the movies," especially the actress under discussion? W! E are giving our readers a chance to express their opinions in print, and to be paid for it. For the best letter (which we will illustrate) we will pay five dollars. Writers of other letters published will receive three dollars ; extracts from letters, one dollar. Be brief, and to the point. Write us a snappy, interesting letter of from two to four hundred words in length. Give your reasons for your likes or dislikes. Do not neglect to sign your name and address, altho we will use your initials only, if requested. What about Mary Pickford, Norma Talmadge and Gish ? These three artists have given the screen some Lillian of the greatest productions we ever hope to witness, and do they think they are too good for the movies? I believe not. It must be admitted Miss Binney* is a captivating little creature and an excellent dancer ; but so far as dancing is concerned, the screen has Mae Murray, and if Mae has ever thought of retiring^ from the movies, she has never exposed her plan. It is my belief that Constance Binney did not retire from the movies because she considers her talents superior to the opportunities afforded by the silver sheet. In all probability she left the silent drama for the stage because she believes that in the latter she registers more fully. To catalog it as "another Ann Pennington case" would be safe, since anyone who ever saw Miss Pennington realizes that the place for her is behind the footlights, if her cuteness is to register in all its entirety. The movies are the entertainment of a far larger public than the stage. In view of this, how can anyone be too good for them? The crux of the matter is that not everyone "takes" on the screen. May not this be the reason for Miss Binney's change to the stage? L. J. C, Detroit, Mich. the rescue of the girl with the million dollar smile. Without doubt there is today an army of potential film fans who realize the unlimited artistic possibilities of the screen and who are far from simple minded, and who, until there is a higher percentage of productions from von Strobe™, Charles Chaplin, Lubitsch and their like, will remain away from the box office. This wail of the submerged one-tenth of film fans, "We cant get the kind of pictures we want to see," has apparently been uttered before. At one time it brought rumors of a Little Theater for the movies. Let us hope it matures. In the meantime we take off our hats to : Mr. Chaplin for A Woman of Paris; to Austria for hatching von Stroheim; to Mae Busch, Dorothy Wallace, Irene Rich and Maude George for besieging the citadel of the peroxide-gum-chewing, empty-nutted heroine ; to Nita Naldi and Barbara La Marr for giving a Dempsey wallop to that post-war atrocity, the girl with the boyish figure ! Yours for better pictures, W. G. P., Blackpool, England. Why Brand All the Fans As Dumbbells? Dear Editor : One of the best known luminaries of the film world in an unguarded moment recently unburdened herself of the statement that "Art is the bunk !" Similarly, an equally wellknown purveyor of film fare declared, "Art doesn't go. We've tried it !" While not flatly contradicting either of these opinions, I am convinced that the maker of films is foolish and not at all far-seeing in having 90% of the films which are produced, conceived, directed and acted for the one purpose of satisfying the soul cravings of our little friend, "Minnie McGluke." By doing so he disheartens the more ambitious souls who month after month invade the movie palaces in the vain hope that von Stroheim has done another picture ; and frightens from the box office that potential in — crease of movie goers who dare not take the risk of seeing still another handsome hero in a check shirt (T\ riding his fleet mustang to f70 lAtfg Changing the Title Dear Editor: The scene is set, the cast assigned, the picture half finished — when someone is stricken with a bright idea. "Let's change the title !" he cries. "The author has been too highbrow !" Follows a heated discussion as to whether the picture shall be called Flirting Fathers, Dancing Daughters, or Up In Gertie's Room. The company may have paid the author a colossal sum for the right to use his title, but that doesn't seem to matter. The public, believe certain film luminaries, is a fickle body that doesn't know what it wants and s primarily stupid, an insult which this infant industry delights to hurl in the faces of the American people. Here is an intelligent and imaginative nation, fairly well read and educated. Here are our present day novelists writing stories which become recognized under titles to which they have given a great deal of time and thought, in an effort to make them show originality, sparkle and inspiration. Why, then, do motion picture producers change these titles into somthing which makes the productions themselves appear cheap and trashy ? Why do they think the public would prefer to see a picture entitled Dont Deceive Your Children, instead of a dignified Mary the Third? Why Flirting With Love, instead of Counterfeit? Why a melodramatic and lurid Sideshows of Life, instead of The Montebank? Think it over, Mr. Producer. A. L. L, Cleveland, O. (Continued on page 110) as talent and art are concerned, the movies are on a par with the stage