Judge — August 6, 1921 — page 24: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

NEW MOVES IN THE MOVIES Some Short Reel Opinions COSTUME PLAYS OR many years producers gen- F erally have pooh-poohed the costume play. They have told us that we, the people, did not care for them. Producers usually gather statistics of our likes and dislikes from the ex- hibitor. Exhibitors often figure solely from a box-office viewpoint and from the chatterings of friends and flappers. Intelligent fans never kick hard nor long enough. They should, but they are usually too disgusted to ejaculate publicly. When they do, the exhibitor will learn a lot about pictures. And so, while intelligent fandom is unorganized, the exhibitor is amassing a mess of mis-information regarding fan-food to pass along to the producer. Producing a costume play costs lots of money. Producing an asinine and frothy sex or society drama does not cost as much. Business is busi- ness. The fans will come in any- way, so why not give them something easy to make and mushy to view? And long have they been doing just that little thing. But after a man has partaken of five-reels of vermicelli every day for a year or so he is liable to turn to another bill of fare and become deeply interested therein. That is why we poured forth in countless multitudes to view “Decep- tion,” “Passion,” “The Queen of Sheba” and “The Four Horsemen.” All these may be termed costume plays. Germany, Fox and Metro guessed right. We do care for costume plays if a real story is among those present in the wardrobe. A NEw UNION AME RUMOR, or Dam Rumor— or one of the numerous Rumor family—has whispered that a union is being formed of the screen’s lead- ing-men, By Harry J. SMALLEY S’pose the first thing they’ll insist on is time-and-a-half for kissing lead- ing ladies who are prone to place onion-sandwiches above their art. Yes, and if they’d strike there’d be a whole lot of you fellows trying to get their jobs at that! Who’s afraid of an onion-sand- wich? BEAUTY (CERTAIN motion picture maga- zines and newspapers are con- tinually pulling off “Beauty Contests” for screen aspirants. The most beau- tiful grab the medal, the praise and sometimes the job. Why should all these decorations be heaped upon the possessor of beauty? Their beauty is simply an accident of birth; same as a club- foot or crossed-eyes. The owner is in no way responsible for it. Their beauty was not attained through any endeavor on their part; why festoon them with prizes for having it? The greatest actors that ever lived and whose names still live, were not Pictures Worth Watching: THE GOLEM German half-futurist story of the clay image that came to life to help the Jews. WAY DOWN EAST Variegated Griffith melodrama, that with all its faults is still a great film. THE FOUR HORSEMEN A long episodic drama that helps raise the level of American films above med- iocrity. EXPERIENCE Well-done morality play of the now well- known “Everyman” order. A YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT Satiric humor of Yankee wit in ancient surroundings, inspired by Mark Twain. DREAM STREET Poetic melodrama of the London slums, one-tenth Burke and nine-tenths Griffith. DECEPTION Splendid foreign-made spectacle drama of Henry VIII and his times and wives. GYPSY BLOOD Depressing but artistically splendid very sion of the Merrimee tragedy “Carmen.” THE KID , Chaplin's latest and best—until the next one comes out. THROUGH THE BACK DOOR Mary Pickford movie with splendid photography, moderate entertainment, and not very much sense. OVER THE WILL. Homely but gripping drama of mother- love and ingratitude. SCRAP IRON Charles Ray story in which mother's prize-fightin’ son does everything except accept the girl. pretty by any means. All the great- est men of history from Adam to Harding were somewhat unadonis. Communion with your history will show that all the famous feminine beauties of the past were either silly, brutal or naughty—often all three, Why boost beauty? WE LEARN EVERY DAY WHEN our dear old physiology professor back in our careless campus days sought to saddle our in- grown brain with the glorious truth that the human body contained 198 bones, we thought the dear old dear was kidding us. We imagined, of course, in those hilarious days—and nights—'twas merely a form of speech—for in- stance, like saying a pair of pants contained thirteen buttons. Last night, however, we learned the professor was right. We sawa tenuous and famous star in a one- piece bathing-suit and we counted ”em. They were all there! PANTALOONS AND OPINIONS RVIN S. COBB, the world’s great- est literary comedian, is strong for men discarding their trousers and — (don’t go away!) — wearing knickerbockers. Pressing the subject, a film actress, portraying a boy in one of her pictures, complains: “Gee! I’m glad I’m not a man and forced to wear these things all the time!” Another lady sky-light sews on a few verbal buttons thusly: “I am for trousers for women! Everyone knows a woman has two limbs, as a man has, and that she doesn’t end in a tail like a mermaid; so why be prudish about it?” While these sentiments are inter- esting they appear to be as divided as the subject. Let us hear from one, who being in-and-out of the things more often than anyone else, is fully qualified to enlighten us— Is Julian Eltinge in the house?