The New Movie Magazine (Jan-Sep 1935)

iTT Are Handsome Men Safe in Hollywood? "No," says this writer, "for the very good reason that there aren't enough handsome men there to shake a stick at!" By RICHARD ENGLISH Gary Cooper, Robert Montgomery, John Boles and Charles Farrell. Are they really handsome or aren't they? GENTLE Reader, lend us thine ear Lend us thine ear and consider the awful plight of the handsome men in Hollywood. Awful? Yes! Why awful? For precisely the reason that there aren't enough of them (the really handsome ones) to go around. What could be more sad — or splendid — ■ than the sorry situation of any eligible male, with no mother to guide him, being pursued by a dozen of the luscious cinema ladies? Hollywood's consistent about everything: if a bathtub is needed in a picture, executives will promptly buy gold-plated ones; if new cuties are needed to gladden the screen the same moguls will import them in carload quantities of curves and charm. Yet for the past five years there has been a dearth of men in cinemaland and actresses have moaned, "What good is success without a man to share it with?" Consistent to the last, there just aren't enough men to go around! And have those executives done anything about satisfying the need for eligible men? A thousand times no! Maybe the boys are being selfish. Or maybe I'm being personal. But just the same the lack of presentable males has been one of the major reasons for the abuse now being heaped on Hollywood's hapless head! When titled husbands, handsome spouses and desirable fiances have been around and around in the dizzy circle of movieland's matrimonial merry-go-round, married to one star and then another, engaged reputedly to this one and that one, reformers have pointed out that "those screen people" lacked scruples. They don't lack scruples — they just lack men! Dick Powell is admittedly a nice guy and I'll go on record for that. Equally admittable is the fact that he's not the least bit handsome. The same goes for Jack Oakie. And Lyle Talbot. Dick might be popular in his home town of Little Rock, but in Hollywood he's more than popular, he's pursued! Jack Oakie's jokes are as old as his sweat shirt — which is plenty — and yet this perennial clown in clover has a phone book that I'll gladly swap my typewriter for. Lyle Talbot, in his home town, is a nice fellow, but in maleless Hollywood he's considered a 1935 reincarnation of Romeo! How come, you say? There are but two answers and they're both right. Those lads would be popular — but hardly harassed — in any town. Secondly, they are eligibles in the cinema bluebook; the unattached possessors of personality, prestige and popularity. The lack of handsome men is partially nullified by the screen's abundance of good eggs such as the above. But if these lads are hares in the local game of hounds and hares, think of the sorry plight of handsome men who, in some cases, have found that marriage is hardly a protection against feminine wiles. Beautiful women can no more help appreciating a handsome man than vice versa, and if he's married that's a problem they must solve individually — yet still please everyone and offend no one! Lovely spot to be in, isn't it? Consider John Boles, Charlie Farrell and Robert Montgomery, actors of accomplishment and happily married men. At various times all have been reputed to be on the verge of breaking up their homes, leaving their wives for some suspect, name unknown, but always referred to as "a prominent movie star." Now, now, don't get alarmed. It's always been a good story, one that's been going the rounds for years and years. Today it may be Montgomery or Boles or Farrell or any handsome married actor, the names seeming to be interchangeable at the teller's preference. Yet, despite the very apparent untruth, the way those stories start is quite understandable if you know your Hollywood. The fact that these men are married shouldn't spoil a good yarn in a town where a scarcity of males can drive a gal to her only other recreation — gossip. One hears that "Soandso was seen lunching, with that too divine Follies girl Colossal just brought out! Of course, he's supposed to be happily married, my dear, but I've seen his wife and she's nothing but a little wren!" The fact that the little wren may be as beautiful, as charming and talented as her more famous mate, is too conveniently forgotten. Or the fact that the little wren aided the man to success is disregarded. The old answer is always the same, "Of course, he's much too handsome for any one woman to hold!" So the story starts. It grows and the Apollos of the screen must pay tribute for Mother Nature's generosity in handing out good looks! There'll be little bits of gossip here and there, eventually wending their way into being regarded as the gospel truth. (Robert Montgomery once sued a paper and forced a retraction.) And thus it may cause a genuine break. I've actually known of screen marriages that ended in divorce courts because of circumstances as trivial as the above! It is usually agreed that Lew Ayres has a wistful appeal but is by no means handsome. Bruce Cabot gives an impression of restrained violence, his underlip denoting an iron will that is both frightening and fascinating to the ladies. Yet both of them, prior to their marriages, were in the upper five, ranking about fourth and fifth, respectively, after Powell, Oakie and Talbot, as Hollywood's better-off screen heart-accelerators. And they were never (Please turn to page 42) Ronald Colman, Lyle Talbot, Jack Oakie and Dick Powell. They're pursued, yes, but are they truly handsome? The New Movie Magazine, May, 1935