Life — May 24, 1923 — page 32: what you’re looking at

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

24 The Sir Rupert the Bold AJOR RUPERT HUGHES is a source of untold satis- faction to this department. He is, apparently, the only important per- sonage in the movie world who reads my reviews regularly, Whenever I offer any critical re- marks concerning a Rupert Hughes picture, I know that the versatile Major will scan my ob- servations—and will take the trou- ble to answer them in kind. He never lets me get away with any- thing. He is a genuine comfort. In reviewing his latest produc- tion, “Souls for Sale,” I complain- ed that it was not a true picture of Hollywood life (as it was vehe- mently represented to be, in the sub-titles and in the attendant ad- vertisements). Major Hughes at- tempted to create sympathy for the film stars by proving that they risk their lives. I ventured the opinion that in this respect they have noth- ing on window-cleaners, pedes- trians, critics and other average citizens. S soon as these remarks had reached the news-stands, I re- ceived the following letter: “Speaking of bunk, what peculiar logic you use! To prove how false it was of me to show the risks the movie actors run, you say a win- dow-cleaner also runs risks! There- fore, if I had a window-cleaner hero and showed him on a ledge, you'd call it cheap and obvious, be- cause movie actors also run risks. If I had shown a movie actor in any other human activity, you would say that somebody else also loved, hated, brooded, or whatever other people do. “But what justification have you for saying that the characters are represented as ‘abnormal’ or ‘freakish,’ ‘under intolerable nerv- ous strain’ or ‘living ina weird lo- cality’? “I photographed actual people in actual scenes doing familiar things characteristic of the movie life. There was no propaganda about it except to show that they worked hard under certain hardships. “You are the hysterical, lurid, weird and freakish individual, and I am genuinely wondering what sort of plot you would write to rep- resent Hollywood as you saw it. I have not sold my soul, but you have mislaid your intelligence, if any. “T never read a sillier criticism. “Yours in trouble again, Rupert Hucues.” ELL, by way of answer, let us assume that Rupert Hughes had used a window-cleaner for his hero, and subjected him to the same treatment as that accord- ed Remember Steddon in “Souls for Sale.” The leading part would be played by a well-known window-cleaner, and other well-known window- cleaners would serve as atmosphere in the background of the picture. The hero would move through a melodrama as distorted and unreal as any that ever appeared in the pages of “Frank Merriwell” or “Old King Brady.” Much would be made of the fact that he daily risk- ed his life “for his art,” even though he didn’t make money enough to buy anything better than imitation pearls for his wife. Major Hughes would garnish this story of an ordinary human be- ing with sub-titles which exalted this heroic soul beyond all reason and extracted a tremendous moral lesson from his example; and the Goldwyn publicity department, in advertising the film, would proclaim the fact that “Rupert Hughes Has Drawn Aside the Veil of Secrecy Which Surrounds the Cleaner’s Life.” In that event, I should probably write another review like the one of “Souls for Sale”’ And Major Hughes would most certainly write another letter. Window- “Within the Law” LTHOUGH we are told that the United States is a law- abiding nation, it is singularly true that the public’s sympathy in a criminal case is nearly always on the side of the defendant. As- tute writers of crook melodramas usually make fools of the police force, knowing that their audiences will sympathize with the crooks. For this reason, “Within the Law” is distinctly popular material. As a play, it ran profitably for years; and it will probably repeat this success in the movies. With Frank Lloyd as director, Norma Talmadge as star and a splendid supporting cast, “Within the Law” is a fine picture. It plays havoc with the forces of law and order, it gets in a few digs at the moneyed interests and it proves conclusively that Barnum was right. Lew Cody is the arch-crook of the piece, and he is thoroughly lik- able in the part. He was also the villain in “Souls for Sale” (see column one), but his base treachery in that photodrama left me cold. When, in “Within the Law,” he shoots the stool-pigeon (accom- panying his bullet with such epi- thets as “skunk” and “rat’”’), I was moved to cheers, and I vowed that the next traffic cop who insulted me would be rewarded with a swift kick. Robert E. Sherwood. (Recent Developments will be found on page 32) comicbooks.com