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.

•M^ THE SCREEN MAGAZINE OF AUTHORITY <KM-<3 ?n<\ VA>Oi-^_i January,, 1929 MAJOR GEORGE K. SHULER Publisher LAURENCE REID Managing Editor DUNCAN A. DOBIEf JR. General Manager • am era. t IT is not news that with the inception of talking pictures there has come about a westward-ho movement of stage players, fired with the hope of finding for themselves at last places in the sun-arcs of Hollywood, of finally, after many years of envious waiting, getting a chance to dip into the heavy-sugar bowl of motion picture salaries. Nor, is it news that the erstwhile so securely seated office-holders of stardom in the silent drama have become uneasy over this development. That they have sought rather feverishly to renew contracts about to expire; that they have undertaken education of their voices against the need of using them; that they have, if both steps proved futile, gone to considerable pains to prove that the talkies are but a fad and a passing one. These facts are not news, but from them has been evolved news, this: that the great ones of the screen are no more than public servants, and that the sole motive activating them in the pursuance of their careers is that of an unselfish devotion to the common welfare. MORE HONESTY, LESS HOOEY THIS information has come from the very best of authority, that of the stars themselves, and so there can be no question of its accuracy. A number of prominent film players have brought it out recently in a number of conversations. They have wanted to know how the public and producers can be so ungrateful to them, after their many years of service to the world at large, as to permit the speaking actors to come in and usurp their places. It's not the money, it's not the fame that it hurts them to lose. Those things are important, of course; but in relation to the removal of the opportunity further to labor for the betterment of the world at large, they are as dross. Their single aim is to serve; bereft of that, they are bereft of everything life has to offer. All of which is not only just so much hooey, but a very inferior brand of it. Pictures have for years been infested with a certain brand of actor and actress whose real ability is that of a salesman, whose genius lies in an amazing aptitude at self-exploitation. And picturegoers have for years been compelled to pay perfectly good money to sit and watch the performances of these high-pressure pedlers. And these are the boys and girls who are setting up the howl. The fact that they have chosen to switch their argument plane of nobility and self-sacrifice is the best proof possible that the real reason for their squeal is an inner conviction of their own incompetence. They have directed their aim, of course, at the men and women of the stage who are finding, in the talkies, a better market for their abilities than Broadway can afford to be; and who moreover are quite frank and honest about it. And except for one fact, one might think there were cause at least for a little downright resentment and envy. MUST HAVE THE GOODS THIS fact is that a stage actor is not necessarily a good talkie actor — and this even though he may screen well. There is a difference in voices as heard firsthand and as heard through the medium of the mechanical devices of the talking pictures. A man's voice may sound perfect coming over the footlights, yet be too strident, or too soft, or possessed of any number of other damning deficiencies when emanating from the speaking screen. And it so happens that many of the players in pictures have not only better screen faces than the stage actors, but better screen voices. In short, the requirements for talking pictures are neither those of the screen nor those of the stage, nor a combination of them. They are distinctively of themselves. It is thus quite as unfair of the calamity group among photoplay actors to blame it all on Broadway as it is hypocritical of them to introduce the moral element into their bellyaching. The talkies are, for everyone concerned— for the producer, the director, the scenario writer and the player — making things a lot more difficult. They require more than the unspoken sort of picture. More and something different besides. If an actor has the qualifications, he'll last and flourish. If he hasn't, he won't. But he'll get a lot more respect from that public he weeps over if he will bend his attention to becoming something worthy of its notice rather than to a belittling of a group of players who are worthy of the opportunity that producers have made for them on the now definitely changing screen. 27