Wid's Filmdom (1920)

Sunday, June 6, 1920 DAILY 7 Awful Results from Attempt to Make Feature Marguerite Marsh in “WITS VS. WITS” Harry Grossman-Hallmark PR ETCRUA ANCL St oi’. . IES ss, 6 ss Harry Grossman PRL... eee aes «sos: Harry Grossman PSPS FRRCLCIE ERY ©. i EMD tint se adapts Not credited Ree ee eA INS... cep imets oc) dc tater pss Not credited -AS A WHOLE...... Very awful attempt at production of a feature. ey beaks Correa . Poorly developed generally—utterly mystifying—undramatic. PERSO) IN Boe, Pee. cus ns scab ae Terrible PCOMSOCEEALPELY patina sry o ea teh eee ees Poor REPU SE SELUIN CROTRE L:« HERE Vitis « cs WRN ES SA ese > Poor CAMERASWORK j29iiice vd. o0lit Saad: Average BRERA IN are gh The best thing about the picture, but her work counts for nothing. USECORCM SRS,” . Slee, 4 5s sos ville eee Passable Se AEC Bate. AM c's? 6) Selig es F City stuff INTERIORS ....... Mae GH: . sid teoeeag Satisfactory ES WMO, Re ey ane © ie ae a Ae ee None CHARACTER OF STORY..... Girl detective works way into gang of crooks and rounds them up LENGTH OF PRODUCTION..... About 5,000 feet “Wits vs. Wits” looks like a poor effort of poor amateurs. To make any sort of a showing these days a feature must attain certain standards, and these standards are set down as “average.” This picture doesn’t come anywhere near any of the accepted standards of the day. It is meant to be a mystery picture. Instead the action is hopelessly mystifying. You gather after a while, however, that Marguerite Marsh is a detective. For this reason she has worked things so that she is And that is the way matters stand until the crooks, work employed by a gang of crooks as stenographer. ing through a bank cashier, have succeeded in drawing out of the bank much more money than they have to their account. Then Marguerite gives the alarm. Detectives enter and presto! The crooks are captured. Just to cap the climax there is a sequence showing Marguerite explaining to the judge how she did it. And just to recap this, there is another sequence showing Marguerite in the august presence of a magazine editor to whom she has just finished reading her story, “Wits vs. Wits.” And still again follows a title saying, “Story by Harry Grossman.” The plot of the story, that is its bare basis, is quite all right. meaty action to carry it along. What action it has is But it isn’t well developed and it has no quite hopelessly jumbled by an atrociously bad introductory sequence that isn’t introductory because it doesn’t describe any of the characters or get them firmly planted in the spectator’s mind. There are many scenes showing the characters walking in and out of rooms and along the street. These stand out strongest after the picture is over. And there is another flock showing Marguerite hammering away at a perfectly good typewriter in a style fit to put it out of commission for life. These, however, are mere details. The whole picture reflects incompetency. The lighting is particuThe One reads “November 19,” which larly bad and the photography none too good. subtitles are poor. means nothing at all. Marguerite Marsh is the best thing about the picmost ture, but her work, professional in respects though it be, counts for little.. Looks the Same From All Angles Box Office Analysis for the Exhibitor The majority of the lesser attractions on the market have some redeeming feature about them. It may be a certain box office angle, a certain star, a certain big thrill or whatnot. But “Wits vs. Wits” doesn’t seem to contain the slightest whisp of a sraw for an exhibitor to grasp at, The popularity of Marguerite Marsh might have some weight, but the biggest star in the film firmament would have a hard time showing along side of the very poor material contained in this. Neither story nor production contain any redeeming features that might be employed as advertising angles.