Motion Picture Magazine (Aug 1928-Jan 1929)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

++++ THE SCREEN MAGAZINE OF AUTHORITY +«-«-«• firVRI ^v.y«v November, 1928 MAJOR GEORGE K. SHULER Publisher LAURENCE RE1D Managing Editor DUNCAN A. DOBIE, JR; General Manager am era. ! IN "The Grand Duchess and the Waiter," the picture which about two years ago brought both its director, Malcolm St. Clair and its leading woman, Florence Vidor, very much to the forefront of public attention, there was a subtitle which seems to relate to motion picture producers today. The story of the photoplay, fans may recall, had to do with the affairs of a Continental noblewoman who had had to seek safety from an uprising of her countrymen. She had gone to Paris to be out of their reach. But this rather against her own will. She saw no reason why she should not return to her no longer loyal domain; she did not understand the situation at all — or at least, if she did, she would not admit it. In explaining the grand duchess's attitude in the matter, some one said : "Her country is in a state of revolt but she refuses to know it." This is the subtitle which might well be applied to the situation which undoubtedly exists today in the business of making films. The fans are in a state of revolt, but those who pretend to serve them refuse to know it. The fans are not, of course, bloodthirsty and howling for revenge of some sort. But they are, beyond doubt, come to a state of mind which might be described as stubbornly indifferent. IF IN DOUBT, COUNT UP IF anyone should question this, he has only to look at the manner in which attendance at the theatres has within the last few years begun and continued to dwindle. Hehasonly to consider that all sorts of inducements have had to be brought forward to shepherd the public through the doors of the houses: more and more elaborate presentations, stage acts properly the province of vaudeville, a personality to act as master of ceremonies over the whole performance. And, last and certainly not least, the advent and the reluctant adoption of the talking picture. This state of affairs has not come to exist because pictures today are worse than they were. Indeed, they are on the whole better. But they are not so much better that they can command today an admission price of from five to ten times the size demanded back in the days when Mary Pickford was at the height of her glory and Norma Talmadge could always be counted upon for standing room. That, for one reason. And for another, motion pictures today no longer have entirely at their disposal the casual spare time of everyone. The radio has obtained a good bit of it and, it may be added, with its regular improvement in instruments and in the character of the entertainment to be enjoyed through them, it is steadily getting more. A DOLLAR IS A LOT OF MONEY IF film shows were today offered to the public for the fifteen cents or a quarter — to quote a high scale of the earlier days — people would not be so hesitant to go to them and not demand that they every one be masterpieces. But when one has to put out any amount of money from half a dollar to three times that, one expects to get quite a bit of lasting enjoyment for it. In the larger cities, where there is a stage show thrown in like a side-dish of cole slaw with the sandwich, the theatregoers still march up with their dollar bills for seats. But when the films which there charm this currency from the wallet are shown in smaller houses at not much less cost and without extra inducements, it is something else again. To remedy this manifest objection on the part of the public to cough up rather larger chunks of money than it feels like doing, the talkies have been taken up. They can offer canned vaudeville acts and the like which can be distributed everywhere. They can pretend to be a tremendous new thing to augment the virtues of the feature pictures. They offer to the producer the greatest potential device today for maintaining admission prices which are too high. THE PHOTOPLAY'S THE THING BUT the makers of movies should see that in the long run neither extra portions of vaudeville or of jazz band or noise from the screen is going to improve the appeal of the prime product of their business: screen plays. These are only expedients, and they are costly ones. And somebody has to pay for them. It would be far better that the extra money these adjuncts cost be put into the pictures themselves. Whether they be silent or sound movies does not really matter much. That they should be intelligently and carefully done, does. 27