The Washington times., 1929-08-01

luS Oh Inc Cuts 4uc baAnS
! woman turned up again in
Australia.
"Then, during the war, / was
recruiting at the plinth in Ira
falgar Gquare, in London, when
! noticed q woman in the crowd
apparently trying to catch my
eye. ! couldn't take my mind
off my work, but when was
through she came up to me.
didn't recognize her. She took
my hand and pointed to the
SCARED knuckle
Don't you remember ] put
peroxide on that in Los An
geles," she said.
"Oh, I'm used to condolences.
They don't worry me any more"
He will tell you he had
brother, killed in the war, whose
strength an dstature were cause
for comment. While on the
present tour, an old man pre-
sented McLaglen with a silver
ring in which are visible the
marks Of the brothers teeth
he had tried to bite the ring
in two, favorite stunt.
In New York, McLaglen was
reunited with an old friend,
Hume MacD Donald, whom he last
had seen in Seattle. They had
parted in anger, after an argu-
ment about their respective
chest measurements. And so
it goes.
McLaglen is enthusiastic about
his new picture. It was written
for the screen by the authors
Of "What Price Glory" Laur-
ence Stallings and Maxwell An
derson, and the title alone was
bought by Fox for not less than
$4,000.
Sitting at the right hand Of
Big Vic is one Jack Francis, a
newspaper man who saw the.
light and became a technical
director.
Not only that, but Francis
may be remembered by Wash
ington fans who saw that fine
talkie, Through Different
Eyes" He was the newspaper
man IN the pressroorn scene who
had a brief but eloquent bit
with the two gals who simply
had to get in to see the trial.
Now don't get him mixed up
with Dewitt jennings, who did
the Irwin S. Cobb irnpersonation
in the same scene.
Mash notes may be sent to
Suite 206, the Washington.
We recommend to students Of
motion pictures a shrewd analy-
sis of the talkies by Luigi PIE
randello in the Sunday magazine
Of the New York Times.
what is happening to the
cinema is the same misadven-
ture which happened to the vain
peacock" he writes, when, flat
tered by the fiendish fox, he
spread his mouth to show his
voice and made everybody
laugh"
Pfrandello assures the dra-
matte and musical worlds that
they need fear no serious en-
croachment upon their preserves
by the talking pictures.
'It is not the heater that is
asking ts/ become CINEMA" says
he "but the cinema that is beg
ging tt. be turned into theater;
and tn greatest victory which
the cinema can ever hope to
achieve, in invading more and
more the theatrical domain, will
be that of becoming q more or
less bad Photographic and me-
chanical copy ct the theater,
which, naturally, like all other
copies. wiz always stimulate q
desire for the original"
Serious-minded, intelligent mo-
ton picture men will dispute
little of Pirandel1o's article.
After all, he is not the only one
who thinks the talkies are an
artistic blunder The erudite
Wexford Beaton, of the Film
Spectator, great friend of the
true cinema, continually belabors
the producers for taking up with
the talkies.
However, let's not forget that
the producers are not primarily
aiming to create q new art by
the talkies. Their goal, nat
urally, is production of COM
mercially successful pictures. II
the talking pictures entertain
the playgoers, give offense to
as few as possible and make
money for the industry; that's,
all the producers desire.
II it so chances that some of
this product is accepted by the
critics as art, so much the bet
ter, say the producers. The i'm,
portant thing in their eyes is to
keep the money rolling in.
Pirandello's remarks are fine
food for thought, but it is OBJ.
vious, as one .reads along, that
his attitude toward the motion
picture is anything but friendly.
He adheres to the esthetic
standard of the cinema, forbid
ding it's entry upon "a track