Pictures and the Picturegoer (Jan-Dec 1925)

66 The P/ct'vr'eVver NOVEMBER 1925 Olm lans are argumentative tolk as a rule, and the thoughts recorded upon these pages are many and varied. But there seems to be one thing on which They're all PICTUREAgreed ! GOER readers are all agreed — that there should be more British films. Luckily it's a wish that bids fair to be fulfilled, and I think anybody who sees some of the more recently made British productions will admit that England is learning to make films. What do you think about it? fT\e Bug writes : " Still we hear the cry ' What is wrong with the pictures?' I believe that the answer is — human nature. The picture business is obviously a What's Wrong gamble — producers With 'Em ? and actors alike are out to make a living, and, if possible, a fortune out of it, and there are very few people who can afford to work at ' Art for Art's sake.' Some do their best and stake a fortune on something ' better and finer,' and they generally lose it. The public goes to the kinema to seek entertainment and such is human nature that very few can find it in a fine idea or in a beautiful, imasrinative picture alone. They must have other senses tickled and be made to feel emotion, excitement, sympathy, suspense or hilarity. The star system is obviously wrong, hut 1 see no way out of the dilemma, for who can resist going to see their favourite in a new picture, however had they know it to be? In concluding let me extend my very sincere sympathies to Iconoclast ' and ' Bolshie,' who, I wouldn't mind betting, are in for some very heated replies for their thoughts in last month's PICTURE GOER." " TV/fay I remind Film Lover (Ox ford), that "The Movie Moon" would not be quite appropriate to name the most popular actor or actress. Does he A Little or she know what Astrology. a moon is? It is a celestial body which borrows its light from a star, a star having light of its own. The popular player would not then be very flattered. If Film Lover wants a new name taken from the heavens, why not Comet. A comet is a star or fragment of star with its own light, leaving as it passes, a luminous trail, just like a popular actor or actress would do. Also a comet soon disappears and is forgotten when another is announced, and a popular player is very much adored at first and is forgotten when another actor comes to the front, who eclipses all others by his brightness. Now what do you think?" — Leonid (Tooting). C iva (Norbury), gives her opinions ^ of a few stars. " I think Conway Tearle is too wooden and much too elderly to play any parts but those of ex-army ... , ._, ,, uncles, retired Mi*cd Thoughts husinf;ss men_ etc Ernest Torrence is the greatest actor on tht screen. I should like to see him in a " Rob Roy " type of part, filmed in his native Scotland. What a Macbeth he'd make, or a Wallas ! Ramon Novarro is a clever schoolboy, whose talent will improve as he grows older. Lon Chaney is a good character actor if he'd forget to use grease-paint quite so much. Von Stroheim is the greatest villain on the screen, the Brothers Beery are above criticism, Eugene O'Brien is too conceited and Thomas Meighan depends too much on his ' Irish ' smile." [So now we know, Siva. Thanks very much.] " I'm sorry to inflict this upon you," says Sandy (London), " but I've simply got to broadcast my thoughts about Clive Brook. In mv opinion he is one of London Calling ! th* few really S°?d * actors on the screen to-day. I think I have seen most of his films since This Freedom and though truth compels me to admit that one or two were pretty putrid, I forgive him the bad ones after seeing Declasse and The Home Maker. There couldn't be two films more utterly unlike, but he is equally good in both of them. His portrayal of the Jewish millionaire lends real distinction to the former, and he is absolutely delightful as the inefficient bungler in the latter." " I have just been to see the film version of Havoc, at the Capitol Theatre." writes E. M. (Dulzcich), " and I felt I must write and put in a word for this tt ., r • verv fine picture. II orth Seeing. T. -. rr ., u It is one of the most sincerely directed and acted photoplays I have seen for many a long day, and the war scenes in particular were splendidly handled. The critic who wrote in one of the London ' dailys ' that it lacked 'imagination' and 'nationalisation ' could surely never have been to the Front himself. Perhaps it would have appealed to his sense of patriotism if they had given us the usual type of weak-kneed movie hero spouting heroics over a Union Jack, instead of the human w h o to lift out of rut of ver y m e n helped Havoc the stereotyped films."' [I agree with you, E.M. Put it there ! Havoc is a fine film.] THE THINKER