Motion Picture Reviews (1934)

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.

i Motion Picture Reviews Three MOTION • PICTURE • REVIEWS Published, monthly by THE WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY CLUB LOS ANGELES BRANCH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN Mrs. Palmer Cook, General Co-Chairman Mrs. John Vruwink, General Co-Chairman Mrs. Charles Ommaney, Preview Chairman Mrs. A. M. Marsh, Business Manager Mrs. Charles Booth Assistant Preview Chairmen Mrs. Thomas B. Williamson EDITORS Mrs. Palmer Cook Mrs. J. Allan Davis Mrs. George Ryall Mrs. Walter Van Dyke Mrs. John Vruwink Address all communications to The Women’s University Club, 943 South Hoover St., Los Angeles, Calif. 10c Per Copy $1.00 Per Year Vol. V JANUARY, 1934 No. 1 EDITORIAL Lee Shippey in his column in the Los Angeles Times recently criticized the reviewing groups and organized club women quite severely. He said: "The reason the club ladies don’t censor books as they do movies, course, is that no one else will give them such free-for-nothing opportunities as the film producers do.” Also “the club ladies who so earnestly select and recommend certain films, privately tell their friends about ones they don’t recommend so that they don’t miss them.” Now, really. Does he honestly believe that? He says himself that “good taste is the best of censors.” Why does he think that we, too, cannot subscribe to that best of all criteria? Perhaps he misses the point of our reviewing. He implies that we have the power of censorship, which we neither have nor desire. But we know that we reach many who have similar tastes with ourselves, and more than that, we reach parents who are distracted over the movie problem for their children and those growing out of childhood into maturity. To these the professional critic offers no help. And so in spite of the authority of Mr. Shippey’s column, and those of his many confereres, we shall probably continue to take our “free seats” at the Academy and to pay weekly at theatres to see and review these releases which are not shown at the Academy (they are a large percentage, too!) and report our comments to those who are interested in our opinion. In this respect let us suggest several pictures which we think worthy of special notice. “Little Women” is delightful. Its appeal is not because of its period setting nor because of a glamorous star (although Miss Hepburn and her supporting cast add reality and sincerity to the story), but because of its sweetness, its humaness, and its appeal to the emotions. As a book it stood the test of several generations. The picture, through its taste in presentation, stands the test and satisfies our demands. “Alice in Wonderland” will revive glowing emotion in adults and introduce a charming Alice to youthful audiences. You must not miss it. Its absurdities will enchant you and its satire delight. The best artists in Paramount have submerged their personalities to give us this rare treat. “I Am Susanne” is a delicate and beautiful production which will appeal especially to