Photoplay (Jul - Dec 1921)

CLOSE-UPS &diiorial Expression and Timely Comment M RS. LYDIG HOYT, the New York society matron whose advent into motion pictures was made much of by the newspapers, has changed her mind and renounced her ambition to be a screen luminary. She was to have appeared in a picture with Norma Talmadge, and the publicity department got the full benefit of the proposal in yards of newspaper space. Then something happened. There are those mean enough to suggest that five or six reels did not constitute enough space for both celebrities to move about in comfortably. As a general proposition too much fuss was made about Mrs. Hoyt going into pictures. She was not after publicity, but is a beautiful woman and sincerely desired to do something in a line of work she gave every indication of being fitted for. She had much more promise than cither Lady Diana Manners, who is starring in a British picture for Stuart Blackton, or Mrs. Morgan Belmont, whom D. W. Griffith used for a small "bit" in "Way Down East." The screen would be enriched by the addition of such a personality and we hope she will not give up. But our advice to any society woman who essays pictures would be to gag the publicity department, thus insuring her a fair chance and preventing injudicious exploitation of her personality in P. T. Barnum manner for the purpose of selling the pictures in which she appears. WE know of one young society woman of unusual beauty and intelligence who is going about it in the right way. She went to Los Angeles several months ago. Instead of using her own name, which is as well known as any of the above, she assumed a very common one and slipped by the "extra route." She is making good in small parts, and gives every promise of being worthy of featuring one of these days. She has had some very interesting experiences, and enjoys the work immensely. Among other talents possessed by this young lady is a decided flair for writing, and she has promised to write an article soon for Photoplay. It will be worth reading. REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL HERRICK, who is said to have made a fortune in Oklahoma with Merrick's Giant Yellow Corn and Copperfaced Hereford cattle before he came to Washington last year, has gotten himself into a very embarrassing position from which he is trying to explain himself out without much apparent success. He first achieved the limelight at the capitol when he introduced a bill forbidding beauty contests. Now it develops that he had a plan for a little private beauty contest and as a result several irate relatives of Washington girls went looking for the statesman with blood in their eyes. To fortynine entrants in a contest held by a Washington newspaper he sent letters offering his heart and hand, representing himself as one of the few men in the world who led blameless lives, holding out the hope that the chosen one might some day grace the White House and a lot of similar twaddle. The postoffice department got after Mr. Congressman, and he explained that he was just trying to get evidence to prove that "young ladies are very romantic, very impressionable and inclined to bite at any bait that seemed to have temptation tendered." Maybe he was, but as a congressman he is a successful corn inventor. HERE is another side of the motion picture art — We mean business. There are some producers who are making a sincere effort to get something into pictures besides gun-play, intrigue and sex. These men have an appreciation of the possibilities for beauty in the new art. They have an abiding faith in the increasing discrimination of the public. They want to give devotees of the motion picture theaters films that no censor can object to, that no writer or artist can criticize. Yet there is a practical side that no producer can ignore and stay in the business very long. " Wid's" is a daily paper in the motion picture trade field. It goes to many thousands of exhibitors and has earned their confidence. It points out that beautiful pictures like "Sentimental Tommy," "Broken Blossoms," and Vidor's "Jack Knife Man" were box office failures, and says: "Let's get down to cases, and then some more, with pictures. Put in the hokum — the red blood stuff. That gets them on the edge of that 20-cent seat. Let's get some of the beauty out and the action in. Let's find a thrill or two or maybe more. Let's get back to basics — primal emotions — that is what the fans want." You cannot have beauty in pictures unless you patronize the producers with ideals. You cannot expect them to continue making "Sentimenal Tommies" and "Jack Knife Men" when you show a cash appreciation of "Sex" and "Passion Fruit." AND now it is Geraldine Farrar and Lou Tellegen. The handsome Lou is suing for a separation because Mrs. Tellegen changed the lock when he went on a fishing trip and prevented his return to her New York house. The famous grand opera star is wisely refraining from discussing the affair in the daily papers and leaving the talking to friend husband. She was always a sensible woman. Divorce or separation is deplorable and a bad example to a community, but a public debate never settled a marital difference. WE were riding downtown in a street car the morning the news of the trouble broke in the newspapers. "Isn't it terrible," remarked a smug-looking person with thick eyeglasses and thin, straight lips, "how many divorces there are among stage and screen people. Something ought to be done about it. There should be a law against their marrying." We should like to see some statistics as to the relative number of divorces among people in these professions compared with small store owners, lawyers, or any of the rest of our population. The contrast might make my bus companion realize that divorce is not restricted to the "profession." It is an even chance that there is one hanging on her own family tree somewhere. DESPITE the clearly voiced opinion of the country that Clara Hamon, who figured so prominently and unpleasantly in the divorce and criminal courts of Oklahoma, should not try to capitalize her disgusting notoriety on the screen, she proceeded to make a picture. The National Association of the Motion Picture Industry is fighting to exclude it from the theaters. No decent distributor would handle it, any exhibitor that showed it in his theater should be run out of town, a"nd no man or woman with the least trace of self respect would attend again a theater that slapped public decency in the face by defiling its screen with it. 64