Motion Picture Magazine (Feb-Jul 1926)

^[vjOTIONPICTURrP Indeed, it becomes very choppy and episodic. Clarence Brown is not in his element here. True, he has mounted it with an eye to atmosphere, but he doesn't bring out the potential possibilities of the story. Once in a while it leaves its rut and shows a flash of humor, but its good points are more than balanced by those that are not so good. Its "Don Q" and "Forbidden Paradise" flavor bring to mind that these pictures are much more in character.— United Artists. Lord Jim Drama Tt seems to be the custom when a story deals with the ■*• mental processes of its figures that the recent discoverers of Harold Lloyd must needs pounce upon the picture version and indict it as something sacrilegious. Here is Conrad's "Lord Jim." for example. Surely no one could possibly believe that this author's vivid pen pictures could be reproduced in their entirety. His keen knowledge of soul psychology cannot be recorded. One needs a quiet room to read Conrad. But we think the author's style can be caught in even fragmentary touches on the screen. Why rob the film of its dominant quality — action/ Surely Conrad must have liberties taken with him because of his word groupings which dissect the souls of his characters. It is enough that the salient joints of the novel arc brought forth here. Jim's coward ice isn't whitewashed here. He is the outlaw of the sea because he lacks faith in himself. Surely the dominant trait of Ins character is brought out easily enough — and Percy Marmont appears to be the right choice for Lord Jim. You catch his torment of soul — his mute suffering and his groping for faith. So much for the Conrad theme and characterization. As for the background, it mobilizes all the vivid scenes and projects them in terms of moving drama. It certainly has been approached with honesty and sincerity. It may not he Conrad, word for word, but it is Conrad in the scope of its moving passages. The acting is excellent. — Paramount. The Road to Yesterday — Drama LJere is a curious combination of good and bad picture elements. Carrying two distinct stories, thinly connected by a theme bordering upon reincarnation, it offers a glaring weakness in construction. The mediaeval plot, which is reached after a tolerably interesting modern story, sags thru the length of its scenes and the failure to convey any suspense. It brings out a mismated couple being reconciled, together with a happy solution of the romance between a spirited girl and a clergyman. Up to the concluding scenes we are treated to a graphic train wreck (winch is the instrument of peace and happiness when consciousness returns to the victims) exceptionally well executed. You can almost hear the cries of the helpless passengers and \"0 hiss of the escaping steam. We also commend the settings, all of which are atmospheric and in perfect taste — above the De Mille average. If it wasn't so long HJp*^* drawn •id the the fa tion ory les. could that r to be be finely shaded and the figures guided by strong impulses, it" would bring more emphasis to the theme. The people in this story cater Buster Keaton and "Brc N' so by abandc The on the before. too much to insignificant -worries. The acting, aside from Joseph Schild kraut's performance, is mediocre. Jetta yes" in "Go West" The King on Main Goudal and J 'era Reynolds are in the cast — Producers Distributing Corp. Street Romantic Comedy it since "A Woman of Paris" has Adolphe Menjou been so ideally cast as he is in this bright and gentle It is as frail, but as filling as a cream puff, made Menjou's sophisticated manner — and the charm. n and naturalness which marks his performance. piece, an adaptation of the play which was known stage as "The King," has been done on the screen John Sainpolis played the title-role. But it has (Continued on page 80) n 49 t PAGli