Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-09-06

I imagine the Aim IL accurate enough.
Canada is local option, I believe. Some
parts are dry, some wet and some
moist, but of course you can get 1t any
where.
Ter, 1 admit. 1t made me forgive Jones
his usual cowboy stuff. Why pick
flaws in melcdrama? OF course. there
are discrepancies and lots Of gas" but
always 60 back to- childhood at a
meller and enjoy 1t all, II It's only
half way passable.)
Devon-I'm 20 glad you like Douglas
Fairbanks. Lots Of people don't. It's
question Of a personality so strong
and individual that people either like
him extravagantly or dislike him in
| tensely. He's the one star who turns
| the Lady Who Goes to the Movies With
Me into The Lady Who Simply Won't
Go. She hates him; love all his pic
lures. And there you are.
Now come along and tell me what
you really think Of Rudy as the film
| Gallardo.
Philo Kinema writes: "Stage vs..
| Screen! There's discussion for your
Letter Box, one likely to draw the film
fans finest fire. Will the movies sur
vive as plays or as pictures? Mr..
Oberholtzer has said Everybody likes
| to look at pictures but is that enough
The popularity of movies is no doubt
due to the comparatively low admission
charged, the fact that one can see them
at any time of the day, the beautiful
theatres with their luxurious appoint.
ments, the music. and Mr.. Oberholtzer' 8
point, but. again, Is that enough to
make movies endure? Is the picture or
the play the thing?
"How shall we Judge or value the
movie play. Can we apply the same
measuring stick that We do to the stage
play? That the movie play must be
artistically done first of all goes with
out saying, from the fact that it Is
first of all n picture. The stage has
the voice. the movie has the music
accompaniment. but the latter properly
emphasizes mood only and does not add
to character delineation. In movies We
have the closeup seen by all in every
part of the house, as is every line Of
title and sub-t title. But in the matter
of the actors, are we ever en- rapport? Is
there ever the personal touch as in real
plays? Isn't voice and person neces-
sary to get character across? Aren't
the advantages which the movies pos
sess the least important things IN real
plays?
"What real actors have the movies
produced outside Of those who have
already been legitimate ones and the
character actors, the screens greatest
asset? Movies defy the leading ju-
venile, and there are SO many pretty
boys the old ten, twenty and thirty
stock company type. The screen seeks,
it seems. good looking types like the
magazine cover girls or those Of the
billboard poster, or the young men of
the street-Car card advertisements.
What screen stars can compare with
Maudc Adams, Richard Mansfield. Otis
Skinner. Nance O'Neil. Kyrle Bellew,
Mrs. Leslie Carter, Mrs. Fiske, Henry
Miller. James *. Hackett? True, the
movies are young.
"As for directors, what wonders they
have achieved in screen plays in spite Of
meager means and producers limita-
tions! Just think of what Griffith
could do If he did not so obviously cater
to the masses and the box office. Let
William DeAIille, Fitzmaurice and Mel
| ford choose their own plays, give them
carte blanche and see the result. Do
you remember how skillfully Griffith