New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-04-11
Mere Man Gets BeIated
Recognition Which Was
Monopo1ized by Curls

Where are the curls Of yesteryear?
To the motion picture fan who would
ask such question only one reply
can be made. The curls are still with
US. They are as great an asset to tho
motlon picture industry as ever, but
shey are not as conspicuous as they
were q few years ago. One with q
memory running back into onlv the
when curls and dlmpIes and white
teeth flashed in smile were sufficient
1or a manager who wanted to produce
some nifty pictures a year.
Times have changed. Producers have
changed. Perhaps the public, that most
mysterious of entities, has changed.
The curls are still there, but they have
70 support them now the best photo
dramatic material that money can buy.
from the typewriters of the worlds
pest paid writers, and they also have
more adequate support from the cast
IN general which to-day surrounds
star; All in all. in the old days no one
much cared hoorah what the LEADING
man did so long as he managed to
grow soulful and was in his place when
the time for the clinch came. No one
cared tinker's proverbial epithet what
the other members of the cast did:
10y wS'e CoHcerneo only with the
beautiful heroine whose name appeared
In staggering letters on the billboards
and the screen.
But to-day men have come into their
own. Aside from such names as
Charles Ray and Douglas Fairbanks
and Charlie Chaplin, there are the men
who play opposite a starred woman
and who bring to this formerly sub
merged role real contribution. Such
men as Percy Marmont and Richard
barthelmess play leading man to their
OF the star Is not able to outshine the
ability Of such men as these. There are
such men as Charles Lane and Charles
Ogle and Bert Lytell, who appear fire.
quently before the screen public in
roles which have mono Of tho appeal of
the old curly hair days. Yet the public
has learned somehow or other to ap-
praise the work Of such actors with q
truly critical eye and to recognize tho
pure value Of good acting aside from
the merit of tho picture itself. A pic
ture no longer stands or falls az its
woman star succeeds or fails in getting
across; rather 1t has come to be the
case that good acting will be recog-
nIzed IN mediocre picture as it occa-
sionaiIy Is recognized and applauded in
an unsuccessful Broadway play.
The reasons for the arrival OF the,s
better days for Nero men are many.
One big reason lies in tho present
source Of screen material Perhaps he
majority Of screen plays produced to-
day are adapted from a stage success
or . we'll known book or short story.
The authors of the plays or books. Of
course, not being obsessed with tho
spiendor of life made up all of curly
haired, smiling Pollyannas. have writ
ten stories demanding as much from tha
male members Of the cast a. from 10
women stars.
Moreover. the hysterieal DAYS when
they tried to produce . picture a week
are over. and many Of the most promi-
mont stage stars, convinced of the in
cfeasingly serious purpose Of motion
picture producers, and convinced not
little by the resemblance Of a rood
s'sed motion picture company to a
sub-treasury or the mint, have roma
over to the screen. The more civilized
working. conditions Of the last year or
two make 1t possible for them to do
both stage and screen work. The re-
suit is that you have such prominent
stage stars as John and Lionel Barry
more, Willie Collier. Taylor Holmes,
Lowell Sherman and dozens Of others
turning to the photoplay as a new
vehicle Of expression In art and as
an eminently profitable occupation.
Now that pictures are produced under
less pressure, the life Of the studio Is
far easier than the life Of tho stage