Screenland (Sept 1922–Feb 1923)

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.

JlJST what the Natalie-Buster romance will bring forth we have yet to learn — strictly as regards Art, of course. But the stories of their idealic and irreproachable romance leaves us in fear that Buster Keaton will never be heralded as the world's greatest emotional actor like Charlie Chaplin. He doesn't seem to be getting any noble suffering in anywhere. And, for the nonce. Norma Talmadge is content to lavish untold love on Natalie's baby. That is quite an innovation. After all, one can get a good deal of very righteous anguish by loving a baby, without the sting. Who knows but what Norma may have discovered a new and less conspicuous form of emotional inspiration for Art? Of course, David Wark Griffith is imbued with so much masterly discretion that we can't be sure whether the inspiration and genius which have made him "the greatest film director in the world" (vide advertisement) was an Act of God, or followed the romantically emotional processes so necessary to lesser Art. You see, one really can't believe all one hears — so we can't positively pro;re anything by him. But we have seen what romantic heart breaks have done for James Young. Clara Kimball was James' second exquisitely romantically painful venture. Then came the second Clara to be offered up on the altar of James' emotional and artistic development. The second Clara told mutual friends that James' heart still belonged to the first Clara and that she herself had merely been a hectic reactional interlude. Anyway, James' heart was broken for the third time — and now it looks as though Director Young's Art has reached that state where just one more grand passion, preferably with an unhappy denouement, will set him up on the dizzy heights. And as Miss Virginia Fair, so fragile and lily-like, is still on the unsatisfactory "only nearly" rung of the ladder of fame, it may be that some tremendous romance will sweep her into glory pretty soon. BlLL HART is trying to do the thing sentimentally, cautiously, painlessly. But you may have observed that Bill married just about the time he temporarily ceased making new pictures. His Art was in dire need of a fillip. While things went along in domestic bliss, there was no noticeable change. But now that the aromatic pain and suffering have set in, behold the announcement that Bill will resume picture making — and burst upon us with greater, finer glory. But if Bill has really "suffered," if for a violent emotional spell he endured all the pangful agonies of "love and the world well lost," if he has experienced the violent "cutting back, pruning, bulb separating" that ruthless gardeners practice for the greater glory of their gardens, — well, just you watch Bill grow. The separating, in fact, seems already to have set in. The question of Wally Reid is rather delicate. Wally looks the part. He even acts it quite naturally at times. Yet under the particular circumstances of his attachment wc can't be sure. The press agents depict Wally as an adoring husband and father. Nothing could conform more nicely with what Will Hays desires in these matters. After all, it is rather nice to have an exceptional star now and then who "conforms." We insist that it is the exception that proves our rule, however. Most stars do need continuous emotional sublimities and agonies to develop their finer genius. Look at Valentino. Watch him rise in the professional firmament coincident with his great emoti onal anguishes. Jean Acker broke his heart — oh, absolutely. Recalling his evidence in the sad partitional proceedings, we know that he loved mightily, generously, magnificently. Jean just misunderstood him. Then just when his heart was healing, his quivering soul readjusting itself to normal, behold the advent of No. 2. Once again emotional stress set in — and V alentino became a greater film-lover than ever. Then that dear impatient dash for the border — after all, a year is a dickens of a time to ask an artist to wait for the emotional nourishment his great soul craves. But again an inexorable Fate held Valentino's Art above his personal content. Vile law snatched the charmer from his very arms. More sumptuous suffering, more glorious emotional anguish — and more and greater Art for a palpitating public which hangs upon his every screen gesture. M ABEL NORMAND has not been exactly immune. A sizable dose of unhappy emotional ecstasy has been hers. If this experience runs true to form, watch Mabel come back. It may even prove as inspiring for Mary Miles Minter. I trust I have made it clear that these shining stars are plunged into these passionately inexorable romances, snatched, saved, and plunged ever again by the ruthless workings of Destiny which holds their Art and its essential inspiration above mere human suffering. 43 <5 "The question of Wallic Reid is rather delicate. Wally looks the part. He even acts it quite naturally at times. The press agents depict him as an adoring husband and father. Nothing could conform more nicely with what Will Hays desires in the matter."