Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-07-22
1C&s Daily Movie Magazine

every reason, good or bad, why he
should not marry the girl still exists,
but for some reason they are forgotten
and never again referred to. Is that
'movetic' license or Is It ignorance on
the part of the director? One thing
It surely is, and that is. 1t is an insult
to the intelligence Of the audience.
'"Those are the incidents that ruin
the movies for me, given q good cast
and settings. As nm art they succeed
to a certain point, but beyond that
point they fail in my opinion. Is 1t
because the proper type of director has
not yet been attracted to this new
SCIENCE to give 1t its highest sound
| ing name, or must the critics OF the
screen be less severe than they would
be with the same production on the
stage? ,. .. ..,,
letter; my excuse Is my sincerity In
trying to find out why don't admire
| the movies as work of genuine art
and if what I think Is the matter with
them really Is.
| IF you can enlighten me, without
occupying too much of the space that
rightly belongs to your regular custom
ers, | assure you 1t will be appre-
ciated and your opinion read with a
great deal Of interest,""
G'm frank to admit you place me
in a quandary. In the first place, your
intuition regarding the reason for my
frequent avoidance of questions of the
"higher art of the movies" know full
we'll that whereas such discussions
would plense certain of the Letter Box
readers land would interest me fur
more than the otherl nevertheless, they
would bore and displease so great
number of the correspondents that I
would call down on my head the most
terrible of all wraths-the flappers'.
I'm in that same position In regard
to your letter. Your criticism of
"Smilin' Through" and its death
scene is quite just. You have hit on
it's most vulnerable point. I've limited
q number of times that while / enjoyed
the picture immensely, doubt its claim
to even the screens highest art. And
when l use the word ''even," I'm
tactitly admitting that the plane Of
screen art is lower than that Of the
older arts.
I've managed to school myself
to judge screen art comparatively.
"Smilin' Through" I maintain, was
far, far above the average film patter.
Given the frankly romantic and lachry-
nose story that the author conceived,
the producers of the film did about as
we'll as could be expected with 1t. The
director was not responsible for the
absurdities you mention. They were
part of the story. Nevertheless, l
hasten to add that film directors time
and again make similar slips when their
ma terial is of the highest caliber.
The combination of a really notable
creation to start with and prOduc-
tion force Including director, technical
staff. actors and scenario makerl that
Is of uniform artistic excellence Is
something that the screen seldom sees
To my mind, ''Peter Ibbetson" was
. such a one, but I'd hesitate to name
another.
So you see. while agree with you ir
general on the failure Of the films tC
reach high artistic level, must argue
that in regard to "Smilin' Through y
the flm producers cannot be blamed
since the weaknesses lie in the Origina
story from which the stage play wa:
, made. The criticism you hurl at di.
rectors is not wholly deserved. This
one phase of picture making has beer
: more kindly treated than most. con-
, tanning as it does such men as Ballin
, De Mile, Stanlaws, Tourneur, Neilar
I. and Robertson. No, don't blame th'
director. And, I would add, dom
> blame the actors. Despite recent as
. sertions of well-known critic in New
! York, I feel that the lack Of balance
, the lack of poise, art, dignity and al
,, the rest of them. cannot be held up u
. the actors as whole tpoor rs some o
p them arel. l would put the blam
, with the scenario writer's, and, pri
Q marily, with the producers themselves
:. the men who lack the vision to giv'
| their directors and their staffs FREE
E rein, but invariably try to make thei
o pictures on financial foundation
= leaving the art to come afterward.