Photoplay (Jan - Jun 1922)

84 Lena. — From Palcstina? Charmed, I'm sure. I've heard about you before. How le do love to gossip! No, I am not Delight Evans or anybody else but me. I'm sure I don't know why you should think I am a woman. Perhaps because I am so vehement in my denials of it. Hester. — Lester dc Fester's sister? Charmed — charmed again. Mary Miles Minter has not married since you last asked that question. Billie Burke was born in 1886; this makes her — let me see — Oh, figure it out for yourself. I never was good in arithmetic. Crystal May. — And then again — Why, Bessie Barriscale is appearing on the stage in ''Skirts." Yes — that's the name of the Questions and Answers (Continued from page 83) play. She was born in 1885, and is married to Howard Hickman, and is the mother of a son. ' Natalie is the middle Talmadge, older than Constance and younger than Norma. Kermit, Mass. — May McAvoy is the radiant acting child with Lionel Barrymore in "The Devil's Garden." She played Grizel in "Sentimental Tommy-' and then became a star. Since she has become a star she hasn't done much acting — she hasn't had a chance in "A Private Scandal" and stuff like that. Her latest are "Everything for Sale" and "A Virginia Courtship." Let's hope the "Courtship" will be good. May is a marvellous little actress, and I believe she has a wonderful future if — they give her a chance. Isabel M., Hasbrouck Heights, N. J. — The Talmadges use their own name. Their father is living. He is employed at the Talmadge studios in New York. Norma is Mrs. Joseph Schneck. Constance, Mrs. John Pialoglo. Natalie, Mrs. Buster Keaton. Those girls sure married well. Bobby. — I don't blame you for not going to that barber shop any more. That was one of the last refuges of man. Now where can he go? (Chorus of ladies: — ) Marguerite Clark is married and has retired from the screen. Her last picture was "Scrambled Wives." Whether or not she returns depends upon whether or not she can find a good story. And whether or not I answer you next time depends upon whether or not you sign your right name. (Continued on page 122) Style Invading the Mennonites Are the "Movies' ' Responsible ? By FREDERICK E. LYTLE DOWN around Lancaster, Pa., travelers ten years ago used to hang out of train windows in order to see the' Mennonites in their quaint costumes. They still do — but in a lesser degree, because the great god Change has been at work and today the costume has been largely replaced by ordinary clothes. In those days, Mennonite men, women and children dressed according to the prescribed pattern. Most of the men have broken away from the conventional straight cut coat with stand-up collar, but until recently the women still wore the plain drab dress, wide of skirt and tight of bodice, with a little triangular shawl down the back affording the only relief from a rigid plainness. But today the tight little bonnet of the sect, beside which a sun-bonnet is a frivolous affair, is the only distinguishing sartorial feature of the younger generation. The older women still wear the regulation dress, but it is evident that the younger women are in revolt. Can the change be traced to the influence of the movies? With no inspiration, or with no examples before her, a woman may permit herself to wear a dowdy costume. But show her a few fashion plates or a few pictures of pretty clothes, and there is bound to be a change in her appearance. Only a ribbon at first, perhaps, but eventually the ever victorious Fashion will emerge triumphant. If the movies have done nothing else, they have spread the gospel of fashion far and wide, and few there are who can resist it. So the Mennonite costume of plain gray, blue or black is gradually being replaced by more becoming clothes. A few of the bolder spirits even go so far as to If the movies have done nothing else they have spread the gospel of fashion far and wide wear frilly hats to church instead of the customary bonnet. As yet they are in a minority, but they are undoubtedly pioneers of the new movement. Never yet has a costume designed by a man for women en masse been successful unless it has been becoming. And the Mennonite costume is notoriously ugly. Therefore it is doubtful if it will withstand a sustained revolt against it. At the same time, ugly or not, a certain amount of oldworld picturesqueness is lost in the transition to everyday clothes. Particularly in the church itself, where the women, set apart from the men, removed their bonnets and displayed their little linen caps. These are the only attractive feature of the whole costume, and in a way it is strange that no Fifth Avenue milliner has adapted them to city wear. With a little adornment they could be made quite charming, bewitching even on some few. Certain adverse elements are predicting the downfall of this church because of its apparent laxity in the matter of clothes. But the change has not been unaccompanied by bitter controversy, and perhaps the guiding spirits realize that their tolerance in the matter will do more to prevent a break than a rigid enforcement of obedience to the old laws. There is always, sooner or later, a natural reaction from ugliness to beauty. And from an aesthetic standpoint there is as little of beauty in the religion itself as in the adopted dress. So, while it may be worldly to wear pretty clothes to worship, the chances are that the Mennonite maidens have found it much more agreeable. They have evidently come to the conclusion that the maximum amount of spiritual beauty does not necessarily require a minimum of exterior attractiveness.