ComicBooks.com Register / Loginit's free!

Life, 1925-05-21 · page 28 of 40

Life — May 21, 1925 — page 28: what you’re looking at

📖 Open the full issue in the page-flip reader →
Life — May 21, 1925 — page 28: Life, 1925-05-21

What you’re looking at

This page contains film criticism reviewing several recent movies. The reviewer dismisses most releases as mediocre or worse, particularly criticizing "Chickie" as pandering to audiences he considers "dull-witted" and "squareheads" (a derogatory term for working-class immigrants). The reviews reveal 1920s cinema conventions: "war relics" (films opportunistically grafting WWI scenes), sex dramas (melodramas centered on passion), and slapstick comedies relying on "wise-cracking" and vaudeville-style humor. Notably, the critic expresses prejudice against low-brow entertainment while grudgingly acknowledging talented performers like Nazimova and Ronald Colman. The tone reflects elitist attitudes common among contemporary critics who lamented Hollywood's appeal to mass audiences rather than sophisticated viewers.

📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)

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

is really serious in his campaign for thrift, he should do something to prevent the flagrant Nazimova’s fine talent. ais one of the great figures of the contemporary theatre, and during the past five years she has consecrated her- self to the creation of artificial réles in. trivial With an occasional exception, such as her own production of Oscar Wilde's “Salomé,” she has established as a record as any star in Hollywood. “My Son” represents an appreciable lift above her usual form; it at least gives Nazimova a chance for the dis- play of her own authentic emotion, Nevertheless, as pictures go, it is not so much. It relies on false sentiment rather than on legitimate drama. Jack Pickford, under the spell of Nazimova's influence, is much better than usual. Two War Relics famous struggle for democracy some belated publicity in two recent pictures—"Recompense” and “The Crowded Hour.” In “Recompense,” the war comes in at the start—and in he Crowded Hour” at the finish; and the only in- terest in cither picture is provided by the scenes of strife. If the two were lumped together, with the first half of “Recompense” glued to the second half of “The Crowded Hour,” a pretty fair story would result. Nor would there be any appreciable break in the continuity, for the heroine in each instance is a rather jazzy young lady, who, by one of those characteristic pranks of Fate, meets her lover somewhere near the front line in France. The war scenes in “Recompense™ are much more realistic than those in “The Crowded Hour,” and Marie Prevost's performance is vastly better than Bebe We oy receives Danicls’s. Otherwise, there's not much to choose. “His Supreme Moment” JF SE LASKY recently announced from Olympus (Calif.) that the day of the sex drama is done. Neverthe- less, a picture called “His Supreme Moment” seems to be cashing in well at the box office. Here is flaming passion at the height of its caloric intensity. Turn Ronald Colman and Blanche Swect loose in a tropical wilderness, and picture the re- sults for yourself. Mr. Colman and Miss Sweet are hoth extremely good, and they appear to be intelligent. If so, they couldn't have believed any moment of this story, including the supreme one (whatever it was). “Chickie” HIS seems to be a terribly bad week for your correspondent. All the pictures herewith are obvious financial knockouts, and none, with the possible exception of “My reviewed WOROTHY MACKAILL IN) “CHICKIE” Son,” appealed to me as anything above the average level of shop-worn stuff. “Chickie” was apparently made by men who think of their audience as a dull-witted mass of squarcheads, bo- hunks and Lizzies. It is the story of a sweet little stenographer who gets int fast company and then into trouble. She wears costly gowns, goes canoei brings disgrace into her humble home and finally marries—all for no reason whatsoever. Dorothy Mackaill in the title role is beautiful and good. “Proud Flesh” HE far from gentle art of wise- cracking seems to be flourishing, just at present, in the Metro-Goldwyn studios. The actors there are being schooled in the vaudeville technique ; they persistently “feed” each other lines which are converted, by the sub-title writers, into nifties and wows. “Proud Flesh” is saturated with spoken gags, and what might have been an extremely pleasant picture is thus converted into a screen version of “T! 100 Best Traveling Salesmen Yarns.” Some of these sub-titles are really funny, but I confess that I am prejudiced against them on_ principle. As Mack said to Moran, “I wouldn't like it even if it was good.” LL panning and no praise makes this a dull page. I know that, and I should be delighted to improve the tone of my reviews if the movie producers would only offer a little co- operation. They seem to be unwilling to help, however—and so, in self-de- fense, I shall ultimately be forced to take radical action, One of these days I intend to turn sweet and praise every- thing. E. Sherwood, (Recent Developments will be found on page 29) comicbooks.com