Judge — January 16, 1932 — page 24: what you’re looking at

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

OGWG TM HeRE was a time when, fresh nd full of hope in the future, I believed that talking pictures might producers to kill off, slowly but surely, the brood of little girls with flaxen hair who from time to time have posed for bath salts, hair-removing devices and other na- tional necessities under the name of movie actresses. It was my fond belief that the really talented hard-working and fairly intelligent young women might usurp forever the doll-faced girls. It was an idle dream. Right now there is a young lady called Marian Marsh whose last picture might just as well have been filmed in the days of the Griffith Gish as in this day of the Great Engineer. I am not acquainted with actresses personally and I hesi- tate to voice any personal dislike which might strike the car as some- thing called forth by personal spite. But for the life of me, I can not un- derstand stardom for the likes of Miss Marsh when before has the ge and sereen presented such a host really talented young ladies. In “Under Eighteen” Miss Marsh shows her teeth and plays a sweet blonde in- nocent girl But why? I tell you. \ Letter from an unknown critic 4% brings up another actress and nother point. Resenting marks I time ago about Miss Helen Twelvetrees my critic ex plains: “Helen did not want to be in ‘Bad Company.’ She fought, balked and protested. ... It is truly a pity that any actor or actress has to sub- mit to being judged for histrionic ability, diction or carriage when they are forced, cajoled and bullied into doing things that they know are com- unsuited to their particular s.""... And so forth, cause never can not some re- made some ic does not change y feeling ut Miss Twelve- trees. As far as I am concerned her JUDGE By PARE LORENTZ “particular talents and abilities” do not include acting, but the fact that my critic apologizes for the material h Miss Twelvetrees had to deal with is interesting. In the first place, a fair actress can make herself seem importa her material frightful. Miss Sydney did “Confessions of a Co-ed” so well it was embarrassing beeause what might have been a el trap story suddenly seemed real when it became real it became vulgar and cheap to the point of 1 And her sincerity only served to make Phillips Holmes and Norman Foster look like roung men prattling lines without skill and understandi which, I fear, is exactly what they are. usea. ue faet that an has little choic when one of them rich or important cnough to select material he or she inv actor or actress n material, that, becomes riably picks a grand piece of trash, is one of the deep reasons I profoundly dislike most actors and actresses. Your older a tor, when he launches forth as a pro- ducer, invariably picks an_ historic play with cither con, Cas. , or some other cl ster who ¢: be dressed in t pants and allowed to boom about em- pire and such things, or Christ. The actress of the same age and reputa tion chooses the mistress of Napoleon, Casanova, et al. having to do Either their profes- sion makes it necessary for them to rant and cant in another man’s words, Recommended “ Arrowsmith’ “Blonde Cra nkenstein” achieves its 1 riller that “Monkey Business” — Th « Brothers in a natural. “Street Scene”—Dignified production with the brilliant Miss Sydney Marx OVILS é. good or bad, or else this constant effort destroys their judgment to such an extent that by the time they reach independence they can not tell an O'Neill play froma Minsky sketch. There is a difference in’ writing what you please, and writing under nd while I believe that truth in writing is as exaggerated a virtue as honesty in polities I know that this truth is the only measure of respect in the profession. When I hear that Miss so-and-so hated her part I can not feel sorry or respectful any than I do when I hear that so-and-so hates to write Republican Editorials. Furthermore, if allowed to choose for herself, Miss so-and-so would doubt- less pick the oldest lemon that ever rotted in an agent's desk. However, furthermore, and in’ conclusion, neither Miss Marsh nor Miss Twelve trees rate ability enough to occasion a discussion about ac! more oxy” makes me liked “Skippy.” tancity, no genuinely and i and that 1 It has no spon emotional scenes an obvious attempt to re-ms re-sell what was a very movie the first time it was produced sorry I* “Tonight or Never” Miss Swan son in shows her naiveté by attempting to disguise with Chanel frocks, a few girlish mannerisms and some terrific fact that s not and never has beeh an ac tress. (Again I feel called upon to remark that she has tried hard, that she has tried even ambitious and meritorious things.) She was for tunate this time to have Mr. Gott- schalk, who is and has been for a long time fine actor, But the with, is built around Miss Swans If it had been a Laurel and Hardy comedy, which is one thing I believe she could play, it might have been a different story. As it is, “Tonight or Never” is very limp farce, with little or no acting to smooth out its depressions. gestures. the she comicbooks.com