Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-05-15
THE MOVIE FANS LETTERBOX
BY HENRY NJ. NEELY

Vendetta - Norma Talmadge's
husband is Joseph Schenck and the
Schenck of the vaudeville team Of Van
and Schenck is Gus Schenck. 1t Is
Connie Talmadse who is suing for di-
vorce, not Norma.
&C. B. s." writes: II note that the
discussion anent Foolish Wives still
RACES in your column. and | also note
that YOU take most uncompromising
attitude in regard to it.
IL cannot help feeling that you are
little too serious about 1t all, Tor 1t
seems to ne that the picture was OBJ
vIously intended as n thriller and a
shocker and that you are reacting 70
IL in n rather small town way.
think that you are playing th" author
| ,or the producer game by denounc.
ing the picture in such unmeasured
terms. IL I may say so, your attltude
| is moro that of shepherd Of his flock
than that Of u dispassionate and blase
! critic.
! "Nhcn your objections are analyzed
thew appear TO be that the photoplay in
question teaches no useful lessop ms
argument Is unanswcrable from the
standpoint Of the didactic in art. but
similar arguments can be adduced to the
disadvantage of many other plays ana
| pictures.
Your argument. as | reUember it,
was couched in n rather technical form,
and proposed that, inasmuch as the
punishment OF the villain was not log
ically worked out. the picture was NOR
ally reprehcnsible. This is fine point.
but one not readily grnsped by the rang
and file of our movie public. douDt
II any moral harm can be done because
of an error of technique on the part OF
the author The fault is academic ana
of small consequence as 1t affects the
average person.
II think you are combining artistic
and moral objectiOns in rather un- =
ethical way. We are not concerned,
for the moment. with the artistic as
poets OF the case, but purely with the
moral considerations on which YOU lay
SO much stress. ! think we can agree
that the most dangerous form or artls
tic seduction Is where vice is rendered
attractive. Now each one of US has his
own particular reaction TO appeals OF
this kind. but ! can truthfully say that
in nv own particular case ] was not
tempted to go and do likewise. and
doubt if any one not afflicted with i'm
becility could have felt such an induce
ment. In other words, ] consider that
the moral Of the story is negligible a.
far as an intelligent. or even grown
pcrson L. concerned, and at any rate nc
more Objectionable than many othcl
supar. coated stories Of tho kind that arc
eagerly gulped down by not too dis
rernng audience.
"I have not the knowledge that rhl
profess to have Of Won StrOhcim 5 !nne'
convictions, but do not think that thu
yillainy he portrayS is of Il kind 70 Sc
duce many from the paths Of righteous
ness. 1t is decidedly of tn" 'opori
bouffe' kind. which, together with th'
extensive advance notices that preceded
this picture. make the whole adventure
of n decidedly dime novel character
II do not think that many of YOU
correspondents feet will be taught Il
stray as a result of this picture, thougl
II such there be, ] should like to hca
Of it. II the picture proves anything
it proves the tremendous force OF ad
vertising that will induce US TO accep
things for what they are claimed to be
"A picture claims TO be shocking an
forthwith it shocks beyond measure
A man sets himself up as hateiul, an
he receives hate in Ovcrhowing bounty
Ii the critic will not scrutlnizc "A viii
. claim of this kind, but adds to the de
, sired horror and reprobation, who wi
, lead us into the light and expose thi
: pseudo -villainy for the impOsture tha
, 1t is?
ITO sum up. I think that Won Stro
helms claims 10 villainy should not b
1 accepted on his mere say-so, and tha
. if the picture fails, it is not living II
to advance notices. Much as ! wOul
like to be able to thrill TO its total de
I pravity as you seem TO. ] am still skep
I tiraI and feel that the whole action