Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1922)

rHE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY. JANUARY 1. 1922. 2 X AMUSEMENTS. SCREEN THE YEAR IN PICTURES THE movies threaten to become motion pictures. This Is tho alarming situation confronting those Philistines of the “ f ilium ” industry who are beginning to realize that they can’t make or understand anything but movies und that aono of their movies brings in the big aaoney almost any old strip of celluloid was worth a few ye^rs ago. As they flounder about looking for the cause of Lheir troubles, they are disturbed, it jeems, by the fear that others are beginning to make and exhibit pictures vhlch satisfy the public, but which go aver their heads and lie outside the narrow field of their capabilities. Such Matures appear as a menace to them, of course, so* in accordance with the lajv )f self-preservation, they §eelc to destroy hem, but the only weapon they can lay lands on is that bogy-word of the notion picture business, “ highbrow.’* rhey call everything that is beyond hem "'highbrow/* .and if any picture so condemned happens to be commercially iinsuccessful* or yields only a modest profit on the money Invested in it, they jioat over its misfortune and chorus. You see; the public doesn't want that tlnd of stuff. It's too highbrow/* The true explanation of the picture’s failure. In a majority of cased* is to be found In the fact that, although It Is tastefully and sincerely done* it lacks he photodramatic quality which even Intelligent people desire In their screen mtertalnment and which may legitimately be present in the most refined production | or, if the pleture has this quality, It may fail as a box-office attraction because the people who would pay for and appreciate It have been driven away from the theatres by the prevailing tnovles of the day. Th? man or woman, for example* who went to see " Male and Female ” because it was advertised as an adaptation of Barrie's " Tho Adinirable Crichton,” was not likely to take a chance on ” Sentimental Tommy.” But those who make and exhibit the Usual movies do not take these tilings Into account. Instead, they seek to reassure themselves and terrify the timid by shouting " highbrow ” at any picture that an intelligent person may be able to look up to. Now, as a matter of fact, no one is asking for highbrow pictures ; that 13, pictures which require special, or even extensive, education on tho port of spectators. What are wanted are pictures that people of ordinary intelligence can enjoy, photoplays, for instance, in which acceptable ideas have the benefit of generally Jogical and moderately Imaginative treatment. And at the present time the chief need is for more invigorating treatment of tho photodramatic subjects available. The common complaint of today Is that so many acceptable stories are botched on the screen through inadequate acting and Inexpressive, incomplete motion pictures. Tho vitality of iany subject depends upon its treatment In whatever medium it may be presented. Tho most dramatic of plots, for example, loses its force on the stage in a clumsily constructed, poorly acted play. No poetio conception becomes poetry until it is embodied in poetic language. Likewise, a photoplay depends for its strength upon well-composed, expressive motion pictures, upon the fluency of its kinetic photography So, it 1_% the photoplays that are most characteristically cinematographic, and at the same time acceptably motivated, that may be called truly significant, and to the number of such productions Lho year Just ended has added more than any previous year of the motion picture’s history. Taking only those photoplays which have come to Broadway in the last twelve months, one may make up quite an impressive, list of significant works, which, though varying in degrees" of excellence and suited to Afferent tasteg^. ara genuino motion pic tures, In the main, and prophetic of tho co;mplete realization of beauty and expressiveness on the screen. Probably no two observers woul^ select the same productions for such a list, and certainly no one is in a position to dogmatize about arty selections he may make — there Is too much room for Intelligent difference of opinion to permit that — but any list may be suggpstive, or at least it may serve to Illustrate an observer’s idea of tho direction in which the screen can most profitably develop, and, therefore, for whatever it may be worth, the present writer nominates the following fifteen productions as the most important photoplays of 1921, the pictures being named in the order of their appearance on Broadway screens : ” The Kid.” with and by Charlie Chap** Un. " ' " The Old Swlmmln’ Hole,” with Charles Ray, directed by Joseph De Grasse. " The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.'' ' directed by Rex Ingram. “ Sentimental Tommy.” directed by John 8. Robertson, with May McAvoy and Gareth Hughes. ” The Cabinet of Dr. Callgari,” with Werner Krauss. directed by Robert Wlene, with settings l>y Hermann Warm* Walter Relmann and Walter Rohrlg. ” Deception.*’ directed by Ernst Lubltsch, with Emil Jannlngs and Henny Porten. ” Gypsy Blood,” directed by Ernst Lubllsch, with Pola N'-rrl. “ The Golem,” with Paul Wegener* also directed by Herr Wegener. '* The Conquering Power,” djrected by Rex Ingram, with Rudolph Valentino and Alice Terry. ” Tim Three lUn.qkefp.ers-” with Douglas FahVanks, directed by Fred Nlblo, ” Little Lord Fauntleroy.” with Mary PIcUford, directed by Alfre'd E. Green and Jock Plekfora. ” One Arabian Night,” directed by Ernst Lubltseh, with Pola Negri and Herr Lubltsch. *' Hamlet,” with Asta Nielsen, directed by Sven Gade^ ” All for a? Woman,” with Emil Jannlngs and Werner Kraus9, directed by Dimitri. BuchowetzkL ** Vendetta,” With Pola Negri and Emil Janning3, directed by George Jacoby* In addition to these there were a number of photoplays which, while not so consistently significant as screen works, were yet sufficiently characterized by expressive motjon p!ctures to" claim a place in, any record of the year’s achievements* Some of them, it Is true, suffered from serious shortcomings, yet each of them, for Its special virtues, was good entertainment and an important contribution to the screen. Of such photoplays the present writer Baw twelve which, In his opinion, ought to be mentioned. They were i “ The Love Light,” with Mary tMckford, directed by Frances Marlon. ** The Passion Flower,” directed by Herbert Brenon, with Norma Talmadae, *' A Small Town Idol,” directed by Earl Kenton, with Ben Turpin, produced by Mack Bennetts ” The Old Nest,” by Rupert Hughes, directed by Reginald Barker. '* The Journey’s End,” directed by Hugo Ballln, with Mabel Ballln. " Dangerous Curve Ahead,” by Rupert Hughes, directed by E. Mason Hopper, ” Theodora,” directed by Arturo Ambroslo. ” Woman’s Place,” by John Emerson and Anita Loos, with Constanco Talmadge, directed by Victor Fleming. "Doubling for Romeo,” with Will Rogers, directed by Clarenoo Badger ” The Lotus Eater,” with John Barrymore, directed bv Marshal Nellan. ' ” Our Mutual Prlond,” a Norwegian production. ” Miss Lulu Bett,” directed by William Do Mllle, with Lois Wilson. And besides these, there are several photoplays which have not been shown in any of the Broadway theatres, but which have been exhibited privately urU (Tor tho auspices of different Individuals and organizations, and would undoubtedly go Into tho first of the foregoing groups' T they Imd been~ qualified by rcguLar release! There was, for ex ample. Abel Gance’s terrific ” J’ Accuse,” which vras shown last May at the RitzCarlton Hotel, but was so emasculated before It reached the public screen under the '.title "I Accuse” that it must be counted as lost. Another French production, Louis Mcrcanton's ” Mlarka, tho Daughter of the Bear,” with Mme. R6Jane In the leading r61e, which was shown under the auspices of the Com-' monwealth Centre at Town Hall in October, belongs among the leaders, [gypsy pas SION ADAPTED FROM . JEAN RICHEPINS FAMOUS GYPSY STORY MIDAIR IK A *1 The Child op the bear A Louis Mercanton Production of the quaint Gypsy story read by millions in Europe and America. VTOManSHHi ALBERT E. SMITH PRESIDENT