Photoplay (Jul-Dec 1922)

THE PUBLIC CONDEMNS WEAK PICTURES, HIGH $10 Prize: MISS. A. C. WILSON THERE are two types of motion picture fan: first, the kind that "takes in a show," knows little or nothing of screen personalities, or really good pictures. That kind will keep on attending picture theaters, so long as no other more interesting or cheaper form of entertainment offers. The other type is more discriminating, has a knowledge of screen personalities, even of directors, and certainly of good stories, and this is the type that is staying away from the theaters. Producers seem to have laid down rules regarding the material they consider suitable for photoplays. They picturize a book which is world famous, with an interesting plot, and turn it out a typical "movie story" — impossible, untrue to life. Intelligent people will not waste two hours in a theater looking at a star and wonderful settings. They would not read a book that had no plot or a ridiculous and impossible one. The novelty of the photoplay has kept them fans until now, but the novelty has worn off. The producers will have to get down to business and raise photoplay plot to the level of book plot, or be satisfied to cater to fan type number one. Honorable Mention: MRS. W. D. HOWARD WHAT fun is there in going to pictures when you know after the first five minutes, not only how the story will end, but all the phases through which it will pass before reaching that end; when you can shut your eyes and see how the hero and heroine will look; and when, if you were not too self-conscious, you could give beforehand a demonstration of their reactions to all emotions brought into play? The world will never grow tired of pictures, for pictures are stories, and all ages have loved stories, but the most thrilling romance loses its tang after many retellings. So, also, the loveliest faces and forms cease to interest when seen too often. Familiarity, however lovely, eventually breeds contempt, and the same countenances forever mouthing at us from the screen become as monotonous as the personalities of a stock company. The greatest need, however, is for original acting. No two persons in real life react alike to the same emotional stimulus, nor does any one react twice in the same way. Why then, should stereotyped expressions and gestures in pictures denote always certain emotions? What is the matter with the pictures? SAMENESS? ARTHUR J. LEE FROM my own limited observation, I believe the following factors are responsible for the falling off in motion picture theater at tendance: unemployment, scandal, and the kind of pictures produced. The first two factors are temporary disturbances. The last is of a permanent nature. Business in my locality has been extremely bad for two years. During the past five months the attendance of one theater I have in mind has, I judge, been cut 30 per cent. Unquestionably, this is due in very large measure to unemployment. Then followed the fierce light of publicity that was brought to bear on the frailties of movie folks, following the recent scandals, and the affection and regard felt by the public for their heroes and heroines cooled markedly. Lastly, the plays do not satisfy. People cannot react forever to thrills. Something else is needed, something built on the deeper desires of human nature. As the child outgrows the merry-goround, so does the adult, with movie vision matured, reject that which only thrills for that which satisfies. DOROTHY C. WALTER S(3ANDAL§ IN Hollywood It looks as if "teacher" had forgotten to study the next day's lesson and her bright pupils have caught up with her. The public is now through its film a b c's, and tvants something new UAIDE&eSTlMATlOM pusue's s. |rvTELLI(Se/\l(2£ LATELY I attended movies over a large portion of our country. Whether spectators were Vermont Yankees, Washington government employees, Florida climate seekers, EI Paso soldiers, conglomerations in Mexican border towns, miscellaneous groups in cheap theaters, rich, blase invalids in southern California, or satisfied well-to-do middle westerners, their reactions to pictures were curiously alike. They like "human" plays, sad or glad, with sensible, spirited plots. They frankly enjoyed slapstick. They were disgusted by films whose action was left to subtitles, whose sets and costumes predominated over acting, or whose emotional appeal did not ring true. They went to the movies expectantly, but often came away disappointed, if their expressions and comments meant anything. Why? POOR PICTURES. It must be that. I heard "Fine show," when jazz did its worst with a charming picture, and "Poor stuff," when a conscientious orchestra left nothing to be desired but a worthy film. High prices and unemployment cut admissions at one end of the social scale, misleading and degrading publicity at the other, but the real reason for diminished attendance is disappointment. People have seen too many good films to like the crude, disjointed, falsely sentimental performances which constitute fully one-half our picture plays. RUTH GIORLOFF TO my mind the motion picture is one of the greatest mediums of amusement, entertainment and education in the world; but at the present time there seem to be numerous causes contributing to its decline in popularity: 1. The tales of scandals in motion picture centers (much exaggerated, I have no doubt) spread by various papers. 2. The elevation to stardom of some men and women obviously unprepared by either training or experience for such positions.