open book deco
open book deco
The Fame That Was
Just a brief line in one or two theatrical papers recorded what is, to us, one of the most interesting events of the month.
“Kay Laurel last evening stepped into the role heretofore held by Helen Barnes in ‘Ladies’ Night’ at the Eltinge theater.”
So it read. And our mind goes back to the Kay Laurel who but a few brief years ago was the toast of Broadway. The Kay Laurel of enticing face and figure of which artists and illustrators raved. The Kay Laurel who wed Winnie Sheehan, the left bower of the Fox Film Corporation.
Kay may have been seen many times lately on Broadway with the younger Selwyn of the theatrical clan of that name. And now we find her in an A. H. Woods’ piece. Perchance, we may be pardoned for lively curiosity as to exactly why Selwyn did not place her in a large, secure part in one of his own enterprises. Especially in view of the marked interest he apparently holds for her.
And the public, not conversant with what everyone in the business knows, may ask why Winnie Sheehan, all-powerful film figure that he is, has not relented and placed her with a picture company.
But the birds of film row whisper that Winnie’s heart is hard,—that there will be no more reunions. Kay, on the other hand, protests on every opportunity that her feeling for her husband, her big Irish lover, as she calls him, is as strong as the day he led her to the altar.
So Kay stands again before the footlights, and Winnie, well, Winnie watchfully waits. And Broadway smiles.
The Drugged Awaken
The famed coat of many colors of Joseph of Biblical fame, or the ever-changing chameleon, can’t pretend to hold a candle to the editors of the Coast publication “It” for variety and shiftiness of policy.
’Twas only a few months ago that this magazine, together with one or two others put forth here in Los Angeles were rising up on their hind legs and mouthing vapid denunciation at “FILM TRUTH’S” policy of getting right down to fundamentals and digging at the cancerous sores of the industry. Now comes to hand an issue of “It” thundering against the shame of many of the movie colony, terming them drug addicts, and calling for a thorough cleansing of the Hollywood section.
Well, well, well! Even Rip Van Winkle awakened in time. And so it is with “It.”
To pretend that all the men and women of Hollywood were lily white, beyond criticism, etc., has been a favored role with every publication devoted to the industry. FILM TRUTH’S entry into the ring was met with a holier-than-thou-don’t-dare-to-touch-us greeting by several publications. We have gone on our well-known way, and now we must compliment “It” for getting a little vision and editorially announcing that all is not well with our little colony.
“Two members of the colony carted off to the police station as drug addicts” is the gist of “It’s” editorial. But why stop at two? And why have certain publications risen in horror against articles appearing in a San Francisco paper giving the report of the State authoritiesthat twenty-five per cent of the registered addicts in Los Angeles are of the movie colony?
That the use of drugs is widespread in certain quarters has been known for some time. There is nothing that is new in the fact. It is a beastly shame that such a cancerous few should smirch the clean majority; that magnates should expect the public to take its entertainment from such hands.
At the same time we compliment “It” for finally removing the smoked glasses and “don’t touch” dictum from its editorial staff. And, might we gently inquire whether the move was through sincere desire to better conditions? Or—is “It” after wider circulation, and lacking in faith in the pulling power of its several really entertaining departments?
While on the topic, we might refer to a certain fan magazine which, with great fan-fare and blowing of trumpets, announces it will expose stock-selling, fake motion picture schemes. We respectfully refer the magazine to almost any one of our issues—and trust it will be as frank as we have been in such exposés.
Without patting ourselves on the back, we do hug close the thought, as we see other magazines announce departments and articles that “tell the truth,” that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
open book deco
open book deco
On the Toboggan
Slipping faster than automobile prices—and in the same direction—are two young ladies of the screen, yclept Mabel Normand and Mildred Harris.
In one case it’s a shame; in the other it’s the natural course of events.
When good fellows slip we are sorry.
On the other hand, water cannot run up hill, neither can matrimony make stars.
You can’t expect to find many tenants in the lofts of any screen star, but Mildred’s vacancy surpasses understanding. Hoisted by matrimony into the position of a First National star Milly fluttered along in haphazard, fashion. Now, we understand, the end has been reached. The coming Mildred Harris Chaplin productions will not be First National attractions. Some other means will be found to offer them to a not over-anxious public.
Mabel Normand’s case is more difficult of analysis. In the hands of Sennett, Mabel could have still been splitting honors with Pickford and Fairbanks. Now she’s playing on the “Maybe, yes; Maybe no” time. What’s the answer?
It seems to us that Mabel started to slip the day she got well enough acquainted with Samuel Goldwyn to call him “Sammy” and give him orders. Mabel’s orders brought her individual stardom and probably more money than the Sennett payroll afforded—but not the same pictures.
Not all the printer’s ink that artists can splash will hold a star in place if the pictures fail. High-pricedvehicles and expensive productions don’t balance for the genius of a Sennett.
Now that Sammy has been erased from the affairs of the company whose name he bears there is speculation in picture circles as to what effect this will have on Mabel Normand’s status. Two years ago this discussion would have been a burning one. The loss of Mabel Normand meant considerable to any company. Now? It’s just idle speculation that doesn’t seem to be heading anywhere and caring less whether it arrives or not.
It’s too bad!
For Mabel is the original good sport of picture players. You can’t find a Mabel Normand knocker if you travel the length and breadth of studio land. (Always excepting studio hands who have felt her tongue.) And that’s going some in a business where the dearest phrase is “I knew her when——.”
Give us Mabel Normand and Pearl White on one party and we’ll guarantee to turn rivers into burning oil. You can’t step so lively or so fast that you won’t find yourself trailing Mabel.
It’s a shame to see Mabel start to slip. Won’t somebody bring forth another “Mickey”? You can’t expect Sammy to do it alone. Won’t somebody give him an idea?
He who laughs last laughs loudest. And the former Mrs. Goldfish-wyn—Jesse Lasky’s sister—is getting too many of the ha-ha lines in the script.
decorative bar
decorative bar
The Final Touch
We are reaching the stage in this series of hints on photo play writing where our readers are beginning to drop us little notes something like this: “I think now that you have shown me how to build a story but I don’t know yet how to write it in scenario form. I have never seen a scenario and know nothing about the technical phrases. Will you please send me a sample scenario or tell us in an early issue of ‘FILM TRUTH’ how to write one?”
To which we hasten to reply: “We will not.”
And why not?
Because, aside from the correspondence school experts, no one who claims to know will let any aspiring writer spend five minutes of his time on the study of the pseudo-technical junk of a scenario. The men who make their bread and honey by convincing you that you must learn a lot of mysterious inside phrases and bunk still work the specimen scenarios. Naturally, that’s where their gasoline bills are paid.
But it isn’t done any more by those who know. So don’t let any “FILM TRUTH” readers bother with a fear of their lack of knowledge on the scenario score.
If you think you have gained an idea of the method of discovering story germs, constructing a plot from them, holding suspense and building a climax—then prepare to sit down and write your tale. It is called “writing a synopsis.” Forget the word if it sounds too technical.Sit down and tell your story!
I say that because at this point someone has probably asked, “How long should a synopsis be?”
Then when you set out to tell them how long mostsynopses are you suddenly realize what a damphool you are making of yourself. And you wind up half-exasperated with, “A synopsis should be just as long as is necessary to properly tell your story—and no longer.”
That’s the right answer. Don’t set out with the intention of telling what happens in each reel in three hundred words—or three thousand. If your story is a real story it won’t let you set limitations. If you are a real story teller you won’t run to three thousand words if fifteen hundred would really tell your plot in a manner that would hold the interest of the reader.
Sit down and tell your story!
Tell every bit of detail and good atmosphere that you feel adds strength to your tale; tell every bit of action that you can be sure brings screen pictures to the eyes of the reader. Don’t tell a word more.
And don’t attempt to get technical. Just because you see it done that way—and you’ve heard the word—don’t say “Fade-out on the two lovers.” That isn’t doing your story any good and it is eating up space that could add strength.
Put yourself in this position: You’re sitting before a fire-side with a close friend. You’ve got a story to tell him. You don’t want him to yawn in the middle of it. You don’t want him looking at his watch.
That’s the time you are going to tell a story naturally, but also picking every word. Every phrase and incident is going to be placed at the point where it will do the most to arouse your friend’s curiosity and interest in what is to come.
Can’t you picture the situation? Then bear it in mind when you sit down to write that synopsis. And for the best lesson ever written on the art of story telling go to any library and get a copy of the Richard Harding Davis story, “Out of the Fog.”
BACK NUMBERS OF FILM TRUTHScores of requests for back numbers of FILM TRUTH from its first issue of April, 1920, have been received each month from new readers.The filling of these requests has resulted in a dwindling number of “extra” copies kept on hand, until some issues have been nearly exhausted.A limited number of complete sets of the first six numbers, namely those dated April to September inclusive, have been made up.These will be mailed to the first applicants at one (1) dollar for the set.The number of sets is necessarily limited.In the event of applications being received over and beyond the supply on hand, the publishers will return such money as is sent.
BACK NUMBERS OF FILM TRUTH
Scores of requests for back numbers of FILM TRUTH from its first issue of April, 1920, have been received each month from new readers.
The filling of these requests has resulted in a dwindling number of “extra” copies kept on hand, until some issues have been nearly exhausted.
A limited number of complete sets of the first six numbers, namely those dated April to September inclusive, have been made up.
These will be mailed to the first applicants at one (1) dollar for the set.
The number of sets is necessarily limited.
In the event of applications being received over and beyond the supply on hand, the publishers will return such money as is sent.
FROM 800 TO 63,000The sale of this issue of FILM TRUTH will reach 63,000 copies.Eight months ago when the first number of the magazine made its appearance, just 800 copies were printed.Then, in but one city of one state was the magazine distributed.Now, 683 cities in 29 states are served.Volume circulation has not been forced. Rather it has been cried down, owing to the manifold difficulties that have confronted the publishers, and all publishers in general.The public has shown it wanted a magazine of FILM TRUTH’S calibre—a magazine that lifted the lid off this great, but over press-agented industry.And to its constantly increasing host of friends, FILM TRUTH reiterates its original promise to tell the truth without fear, favor, malice or advertising considerations.800 to 63,000The figures speak for themselves
FROM 800 TO 63,000
The sale of this issue of FILM TRUTH will reach 63,000 copies.
Eight months ago when the first number of the magazine made its appearance, just 800 copies were printed.
Then, in but one city of one state was the magazine distributed.
Now, 683 cities in 29 states are served.
Volume circulation has not been forced. Rather it has been cried down, owing to the manifold difficulties that have confronted the publishers, and all publishers in general.
The public has shown it wanted a magazine of FILM TRUTH’S calibre—a magazine that lifted the lid off this great, but over press-agented industry.
And to its constantly increasing host of friends, FILM TRUTH reiterates its original promise to tell the truth without fear, favor, malice or advertising considerations.
800 to 63,000The figures speak for themselves
800 to 63,000The figures speak for themselves
800 to 63,000
The figures speak for themselves