Picture-Play Magazine (Sep 1928 - Feb 1929)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

84 Aren't Women Funny? Photo by Apeda Flora Finch was one of the first comediennes to achieve a following in the early days of the movies. Of course there are many who, appreciating the talents of our feminine stars, will say that women have a humor different than the usually broad, masculine variety, a humor which is less obvious, and which the casual observer may set down as cuteness or charm. There is probably considerable truth in this. But where is the female Charlie Chaplin, or Harry Langdon ? What comedienne is pulling audiences into theaters as Harold Lloyd is? But it is not the writer's intention to imply that women's comedy talents are "not so much." Rather it seems likely that women have greater comic possibilities than any one would suspect — possibilities that have been shamefully neglected by picture producers, and even by the women who possess them. When producers discover latent comedians, they develop and encourage them. But for the most part they have been singularly indifferent toward the women. Of late years, most of their efforts to gather in feminine comedy talent has been exercised in drafting from the stage such comediennes as Beatrice Lillie and the Duncan Sisters. The failure of these clever performers to put across their comedy on celluloid as well as they do on the stage has perhaps strengthened the impression that the screen isn't the best place for the funny woman. Audiences want girls with "It," the producers believe. Accordingly, they are searching the globe for beautiful Every year they give scores of girls their chances as leading ladies and featured players, to discover if they have that magical "It." They are yearning for more Clara Bows and Colleen Moores, and they are helping likely girls to get their stuff across. . But it is a pity that some of the frantic searching isn't directed toward the discovery and development of new comediennes like the Mabel Normand of other days SI Mabel Normand's drollery and infectious vivacity made her unique among comediennes. One of the things that set Miss Normand apart from the host of merely good-looking girls who thronged the old Sennett lot was that droll, slightly pop-eyed expression. That, with beauty and infectious vivacity, made her one of America's leading funsters. But, mindful of this, do producers scan the faces of unknown aspirants and say: "That girl is more than good looking; she has comical expressions and mannerisms ; let's give her a chance to play comedy — she might be a wow"? Very seldom. They are too busy looking for beauty-contest winners, conventional types, camera-perfect faces. And, unfortunately for the girl with the droll look, it is usually caused by a slightly unorthodox nose, slightly crossed, eyes, or some other minor irregularity of features. Or she lacks the poise and carriage of a clothes horse. And that, with most producers, rules her out. Why don't producers scan new faces for those quaint Normand eyes, for the saucy nose of Marie Prevost? There must be scores of girls, many of them now working as obscure extras, who have those little comicalities of expression and personality, which would make audiences laugh— and like them. It should be worth one million dollars to any producer to discover a good-looking young actress, with that droll, Harry Langdon baby stare, even if she should happen to have bowlegs. But instead of new comediennes, every year producers push forward countless new ingenues, sweetgirl types, maidens suspected of having the all-desired "It." Meanwhile many an ugly duckling, who might become a comedy swan, remains in the background. Only once in a blue moon does a new comedienne of great promise flash into the electrics. With few exceptions, the screen comediennes of to-day hark back to the old Sennett days, or even further back. Or else they have come to pictures from the stage, with reputations already made. To tell the truth, it is as much the fault of the girls themselves as of the producers, that there is so little feminine comedy talent on display. Girls are sensitive about. their good looks. The Continued on page 107