Star-dust in Hollywood (1930)

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.

Hollywood — The Qomic Film important lots. Expense was cut to the lowest limits. The scenery was the simplest that could be devised for the purpose, since in the comic film the movement goes so quickly that little picture-making on artistic lines can be attempted. No orchestra stimulated the actors to higher flights of comedy. Perhaps few musical pieces are comic enough for the purpose. A genuine comic film depends neither on scenery nor on plot. The work of raising laughter is no comic matter, for almost all genuine laughter grows out of solemnity. A good comic story needs to be simple and to have good situations. Although building up comedy from simple scenes is more difficult the result is more comic than one which strains after exaggeration. The appeal is more fundamental and universal. For instance, what could be more everyday than the arrival at a seaside lodging of a family embarrassed by too much luggage ? It may happen to anyone. Yet over that situation we watched Lupino Lane, his brother, who acted seconds to him, the author, the director, the camera-man, and even the gaffer (or chief electrician) work for a whole afternoon. The situation was debated as seriously as if it were a Parliamentary Bill. Each person had a favourite notion of how the thing should be done. After a long discussion, tending at times to become acrid, for no man can be more bitter and obstinate than one who has an idea he believes to be funny, Lupino's brother rose and dramatized his version. With this the author disagreed. He in turn took the stage, pointing out where the brother had been weak and where he, the author, was right. In the middle of the subsequent argument the camera-man acted his version, to be followed by the director. Although, as visitors, we were outside of the game, each disputant eyed us, hoping to catch our smiles approving of his idea. But the thing was so serious that we [217]