Pictures and the Picturegoer (Jan-Dec 1924)

66 Picture s and Pi chare $oer MARCH 1924 THE arm) of Wally Reid fans who have persistently "thought something about Wally ought to appear in the PICTUREGOER," will find their By Special wishes gratified in Request. this issue. These reminiscences came to us from a college student who was a personal friend and admirer of the popular screen star, and we have printed them exactly as written. The many others who have written asking why no more Wally Reid films are issued cannot, evidently, have read their Picturegoers' Guide pages carefully, for quite half-a-dozen films have been issued featuring Wallace Reid and duly dealt with therein. YY/TIEN Peggy, in accents disarming, transmitted " The Song of the Short," we all thought her parody charming; but what is her meed of support? Dc gasA Retort in tibus non dis Rhyme. putandum — one cannot dispute about taste. However, perhaps a few comments at random may not be misplaced. One question is — are we progressing? From standards of ten years ago? Some " fans," merely fairness professing, would say 'tis not utterly so. Their viewpoint might gain votes in plenty, for the times-thathave-been have their spell ; but I'd rather say that I think 1924 starts very well. Though films may get longer and longer, that's not an unqualified curse. Though stories may not be much stronger, at least they are not any worse. And of acting, for recent examples, The Son of the Wolf, Robin Hood, and sweet Sally Bishop, are notable samples — and notably good. So, Peggy, I think we're advancing — the wheel moves along as it goes. You'll find Sally Bishop entrancing, and a cure for the Wimbledon woes. For, Peggy, of such are the pictures that are not as short as they seem; and will lead you to feel that your " fan " and his strictures were only a dream !— E. J. F. (Bayswater). " "V^OU invite us to write and say what we think about British Pictures, so here goes. I think the subjects are generally good, the photography is Concerning always good, Heroes. interiors and ex teriors are among the most beautiful to be found anywhere on earth. The British Isles are full of romantic history and legend, and romance walks hand in hand with beauty, why then, do our film companies give us ugly or even plain heroes? True we have a few handsome ones but they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Every woman has a dream hero, and a good deal of the lure of the pictures is in seeing that' hero materialise. American producers have realised this and whatever else their pictures lack, the heroes are always handsome and generally clever. Surely all the handsome men with brains are not on the other side of the Atlantic — What do others think?— L. T. (H udders field). " AT the present time' we are told there are ' hundreds of experienced screen players out of work.' This means that a producer can pick and choose the A Few people to take Observations. part in his film. Then why, oh why, Thinker, do we still see film after film in whkh the characters are miscast? On the screen there is no getting away from type — one who has been formed by nature for an ingenue, will never be any good as a vamp ; yet I have often seen such a tranformation attempted. I have seen, too, plump ladies in slim parts, and slim ladies in plump parts ; an obvious American at ' the head of an old English family ' ; an obvious Englishman as ' a hard-headed American business man.' Actors who cannot act as stars, and actors who can act playing small parts. In view of this topsy-turvy state of affairs, and keeping in mind ' those hundreds of unemployed experienced actors,' I make my wondering protest."— An Onlooker {London). gPEAKING at the Cambridge University Kinema Club last month, Gerald Ames, who is in the midst of a highly successful tour in the stage play The Future of " The Dancers," the Films. delivered himself of some interesting, if pessimistic, thoughts on the subject of stars. Quoth Gerry, " People engaged in the Film Industry may be divided into three groups. a Photographers ; b Exhibitors ; c Actors. The future of the film belongs to the first group, served by the second. Group c, in which, besides actors, producers, scenario writers, studio managers and all connected with the making of photoplays belong is only an incident in the history of films, and I very much doubt, in so far as the stars are concerned if it will prove a permanent factor in its development. I do not believe that the future of Kinematography depends on the actors. Although I am one of the so-called ' stars,' I do not feel myself amongst the indispensables. Far from it. I think our existence, screenically speaking is so transitory that it would have been far better to call us comets — -stars of the stage, perhaps, but only comets of the screen." According to Gerald then, the future of the Industry is decidedly " not in our stars." What do you think? The Thinker.