Tullar's Weekly (October 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.

It is claimed there is little or no art in pictures; that this is the fault of those in con- trol; that pictures are made with an eye on the box office, and that philanthropy and mar- tyrdom should bring out some real new lead- ers to supplant the lost ones. But we have seen great art manifested in pictures in the last decade. To say otherwise is to close one’s eyes. Producers are engaged in business for profit. They have a right to be. It is every man’s need and duty to earn some money. I wonder if Tamar Lane writes publicity for picture people gratuitously, or for art’s sake, and does he think that some philanthropist should give everybody $10,000 worth of pub- licity. The producers, the artists, the direc- tors of pictures are selling their wares and services for the most they can get—that’s what any normal person does. As to the advancement of the cinema, there are plenty of big concerns who will pay plenty of cash to anybody who can really advance it; they are anxious to find the advancer, and they are constantly experiment- ing with new ideas for this purpose. I want to say the moving picture has advanced mar- velously. This harping at people with means is not sound economically. This demand that some- body give of their means for art’s sake is a dangerous principle. It’s not being done this season. THE NEWS REEL By all means an exhibitor should run a news reel, and with appropriate music. For years, when 1 was a layman member of the audience, 1 was always delighted when the news reel came on, and sorry when it ended. It taught me important things to know, and had a certain thrill to it. Today, I always look at a theater’s advertising to see that it has a news reel before I go to the show. But an exhibitor is foolish to run the identical reel that a competitor has run. I have seen this done, and it always makes me sore at the theater that runs it last. Like- wise, the news reel should always change with the rest of the program. Some exhibitors, as in Hollywood, are making their own “News.” This is not so good. If you want to run a good house, you must have quality, such as Pathe and Inter- national, for example. The expense and exertion put forth today to make news reels are a marvel of the picture industry. Even some years ago, I attended Taft’s inauguration in Washington, and the next day I saw it on the screen in Chicago. But I want to tip the news cameraman off on one thing. When he “shoots” a speaker, the camera should be placed before the speaker begins, and preferably before the audience arives. It is very annoying to the speaker and to the audience to have a cemera- man and an assistant stalking around the speaker’s platform and moving through the audience with a camera and tripod and a suit- case while the address is going on. This prac- tice will prejudice many people in the audi- ence against such pictures. Cameramen should also avoid including each other in their pictures, if they can. Too many exhibitors send to their ex- change at the last moment for a comedy or other short subject. These matters should he arranged ahead of time, so the exhibitor can make an intelligent selection. Then he can announce what lie is going to have. No in- ferior short subjects should ever he run, be- cause it leaves a bad impression with the audi- ence, who may then naturally look for some other house. We are going to make it our business to know what is good and bad in the short sub- ject; we are going to give it to exhibitors, straight from the shoulder, regardless; we are not going to handle anything else, except inci- dentally; we will write full length, careful reviews of short subjects, and treat this field with the care that its importance and size now warrants. By following our reviews, an exhib- itor can always run meritorious product, if he wants to. Exhibitors are already showing us their pictures before release, so we can give you up-to-the-minute information. Fair comedy, with long popular star “A BUSY BODY” Burr Hodkinson STARS Charley Murray, Mary Anderson and Raymond McKee. CHARACTERIZATIONS Average PHOTOGRAPHY Average The star comedian, Charley Murray, has made as many people laugh as anybody. In this one he hits pretty well, but lie has done much better. Mary Ander- son is certainly pretty in this one and does her stuff O. K. Raymond McKee is also featured, and the billing tells us it’s an all-star cast. The titles are not as funny as they should be, and one or two do not have enough footage. Today comedy titles have got to hit and keep on hitting, because a lot of clever fellows have set a fast pace. It takes too long for the fun to get under way in this one, although there are quite a few laughs before the end. Charley Murray is a mighty good comedian, with good gag men, good directors and some real comedians to support him. The main title doesn’t mean much to this film.