American Cinematographer - January 15, 1922 - 11

THE AMERICAN

January 1, 1922
1921

In the Movies

(Continued from Page 5)
Apocalypse" achieved the most prominent success of
any film here, outside of "The Connecticut Yankee,"
which really began its run during the preceding year.
"The Four Horsemen" had more than the one reason
that it was a good film, to account for its popular appeal.
It happened to be timely. It was the first picture about
the great war that the public reall y wanted. It happened to be taken from a widely-read book.
As far as its war stuff went, it was a fizzle; there
was too much hokum, for which I believe its director,
Rex Ingram, himself was not responsible. As far as its
artistry, as expressed in truth of setting and character
are concerned, it was the most notable, artistically, of
the popular films. Types that lived, scenes that were
real-life
itself, it gave in full measure. It was beautiful, and though it dwindled to an anti-climax, it retained its verity to reality until the final glimpse of the
graves of France's dead.
More artistic even was "The Conquering Power." A
bad transcription of Balzac, but a dramatically-impelling
picture, with character and with realism as its shining
attributes. Destined never to be popular, but destined
to be great from the standpoint of the technician and the
artist of the films.

THE

ARTIST MIND

Mr. Ingram, its director, is a sculptor by trammg,
He is an artist, a dreamer, and a thinker by birthright.
His future contributions have every reason to claim the
closest attention.
Penrhyn Stanlnws, who came to the films from the
world of painting, is another director whose artistry
may well be watched. The verity of his settings in "The
Little Minister" might be compared with even those of
Mr. Ingram. He has the painter's eye for composition
and shading, just as Mr. Ingram has the sculptor's for
depth of perspective and moulding of plastic material
and personality. Men like these we have really been
"waiting for to give a new vitality to our screen artistry.
It is fortunate that both also possess the dramatic sense
as well as the pictorial, although in Mr. Stanlaw's instance this dramatic sense is not as yet well-defined.
Much may be expected of him, however.
William De Mille may also be classed among the new
lights of the screen. He has done n-othing of tremendous
significance. But he has done a number of things well.
He has put Sir James M. Barrie on the screen in "What
Every Woman Knows" where others have failed miserably. He made "Miss Lulu Bett" a thoroughly interesring picture of American life. He has also made some
pictures that we could just as well have done without,
like "The Lost Romance" and "Midsummer Madness."
The more of these he spares the world in the future, the

La Cinematografia Italiana ed Estera
Official Organ of the Italian Cinematograph
Union
PUBLISHED
ON THE
15TH AND 30TH OF EACH
MONTH
Foreign
SUbscription:
7 Dollars
per annum.
Advertising
Rates on Application
Editorial
and Business Offices:
VIA CUMIANA,
31 TURIN
(ITALY)

CINEMATOGRAPHER

better it will be for his future, as the example of his
brother, Cecil, very well indicates.
How are the mighty fallen! I remember two years
ago rating Cecil De Mille as a coming Thackeray of the
screen. That was in the hey-day of his vein for satire
and domestic reality. The promissory note has not been
fulfilled in his instance. In fact, if recent achievements
be a criterion, he has gone to seed. "The Affairs of
Anatol." Ugh! "Forbidden Fruit." Phew! It's time
for a revision of principles, and standards, in the case
of this superlatively clever and ingenious craftsman,
who apparently has been fighting censorship too hard.
from a position decidedly unstrategic.
The stars were all negligibly successful during the
year. Mary Pickford brought out the most pretentious
offering in "Little Lord Fauntleroy," but it could be reo
made almost immediately. without hurting anybody's
feelings. Too slow, too tedious, too much acting by
Mary, and too little illusion of reality. A beautiful
picture, but a rather meaningless one.
Douglas Fairbanks did a lot better with "The Three
Musketeers"-so much better in fact that as I have before
made mention this deserves a place of the highest among
the year's films. Fairbanks wasn't D'Artagnan, we'll
admit, but thanks to himself, his director, Fred Nibl o,
and his admirable technical staff, he put over. a great
bit of romance in a high class and convincing manner.
Settings and casting were the most deficient elements in
the reality of this film, plus Douglas himself, but it had
everything to make splendid romantic 'entertainment.
And how have Neilan and Holubar and Tourneur,
and the Inee delegates been carrying on during the year?
Perhaps the next year will tell better than the present.
Neilan has "Dinty," "Bob Hampton of Placer" and
"Bits of Life" to his credit-four
bits as some critic
called it, indicating that it was worth 50 cents. This
episode film was different, anyway-thrilling
and-imaginative. It might not last 100 years, but it passed as a
film that stimulated somewhat even if it didn't please.
"The Last of the Mohicans't-c-a fair historic transcription-and
"The Foolish Matrons," rather genuine
character study, stand to Tourneur's credit. But they
haven't advanced his stature greatly. "Lorna Doone"
may.
"Man, Woman, Marriage," and you've said everything there is to say about Holubar. Too much, and too
little. Look to the future.
"Hail the Woman," from the Ince studio, is awaited
here eagerly, because they say it's a great picture. I
consider myself unfortunate in not having been able to
attend the preview. "Mother 0' Mine" was passable sentimental stuff.
'
J. Gordon Edwards contributed to the spectacular
enrichment of the season with "The Queen of Sheba."
Louis Gasnier, plus Otis Skinner, gave us "Kismet."
Both "Sheba" and "Kismet" might be reckoned among
the big features in their spectacle. Casnier's direction
was tame, however, but Robertson and Cole spent money
lavishly.
George Arliss, another stage celebrity, brought us
"The Devil." It came near being worth while, chiefly
due to Arliss's personality.
The directing was rather
inept, however.
(Continued on Page 13)

American Cinematographer - January 15, 1922

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - January 15, 1922