Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

February 5, 1927 MOVING PICTURE WORLD 407 What Makes Good Story Good By Epes W. Sargent 0 Scenes from Metro-GoldwynMayer’s “Flesh and the Devil,” now in its fourth week at the Capitol, New York. NCE a minor dramatist bragged that he could tell with unfailing certainty whether or not a play would prove a success. So we asked him why he had written five flat failures in succession, and the conversation languished. Any man who could make a fifty-fifty average calling the turn in advance of the public showing could make a million dollars a year saving dramatic producers from costly investments in poor plays. He could make more than that from a oneroom office in Hollywood. The trouble is that such an authority does not exist and probably never will. The uncertainties of prognostication were never more forcefully illustrated than in the case of "The Flesh and the Devil,” now rounding out its fourth week at the Capitol Theatre. It may be that it will be retained for a fifth week, though no previous picture has been held for longer than a fortnight. Apparently the releasing company was not quite certain about the value of the story, for it was scheduled for one week and the new Buster Keaton comedy was announced to follow. By Thursday the receipts had come to a point where the comedy was postponed to give the picture a second week, and this in turn gave way to a third and fourth. It would be difficult to point to any one particular feature or features which give this picture a distinction above the hundreds of other triangular plots, but its analysis may be of interest as throwing some light on the question as to what it is that makes a good picture good. The answer can be put into a single word. The picture has charm. But just what constitutes charm is not compressible within reasonable space limits. In the first place, as suggested, the story is not novel. This is not always a handicap, however, for the public is apt to puzzle over extreme novelty while reacting to old ideas in slightly altered guise. Boiled down to the bone, the story simply tells of the love of two men for the same unworthy woman. The situation is complicated by the fact that the men have been closer than blood brotherhood since their boyhood days. And right here we get the first angle. It is not interest in the two men's love for a wanton that makes tlm story. That portion of the plot is trite and not appealing. The theme of this plot really is the bond between the two men. Don’t get the idea that vqu can write of the love of two good men for the same bad woman and get another "Flesh and the Devil.” The charm of the olot lies in the skillful drawing of the friendship of the two men. The woman is merely the means of displaying this friendship and putting it to the test. It is here that this story differs from most developed on this triangle. It gives the saving grace of cleanliness to the otherwise unpleasant sex story of a woman’s unrestrained passion. But story alone is nothing. Scores of stories equally good are doomed to failure merely through unskillful telling. The second factor of the success of this play is the very able direction. Clarence Brown tells the story as though he loved it. He brings out the clean friendship through clever contract with the evil woman’s passion. He places the white, clean bond between the two men against the black sin of a woman’s animalism and the white gains greater contrast. This is merely Damon and Pythias in another guise, but the added material gives force and modern appeal to the ancient story. It is safe to say that there is no single factor of greater importance in the production of a hit than the direction. The story may be the work of a genius in the script and yet be brought to the screen in so slovenly a fashion that it fails utterly to rise above mediocrity. A poor story may be raised into a good one with skillful treatment after it leaves the author’s hands. Clarence Brown’s work in this production is masterly. He loses no points, obscures no meaning. But there is a third factor to be considered ; the acting. Even the best director is helpless (Continued on page 458)