Produced by ellinora and The Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet Archive)






                           Transcriber’s Note

 Obvious typos and punctuation inconsistencies corrected.

 Italic text is represented by underscores surrounding the _italic
   text_.

 Bold text is represented by equals signs surrounding the =bold text=.

 Descriptions of illustrations have been added to the text.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                       _NOVEMBER_      _25 Cents_

                                F I L M
                               T R U T H

                       “_That Little Red Devil_”

            [Illustration: Woman looking over her shoulder]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          F I L M   T R U T H

                   Vol. 2, No. 2      November, 1920

                        Published every month by

                            FILM TRUTH, INC.
                      2255 Broadway, New York City

                     25 CENTS A COPY      $3 A YEAR

              [Illustration: Side view of woman in dress]

                     _DEDICATED to the TRUTH about
              the motion picture industry and its people,
                written without fear, favor or malice._

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           The Shame of Smut


I am of the mire too dirty for swine; I am of the filth that
incinerators cannot destroy; I am of the stench that God’s own sun fails
to purify; I am of the corruption that lies at the most dismal depths of
man’s mind; I am the slime and slew that pervert the divine gift of
speech;—I AM “SMUT.”

I am the foul breath of disease; I am the tainted hands of sin; I am
Thought strangled by Shame;—I AM “SMUT.”

The muddied waters of the Ganges are to me as the rippling mountain
brook.

I am the refuse that Hell discharges.

I AM “SMUT.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

And it is to me that the great Master of the Motion Picture has turned
for succor.

I am selected as the tool to lure a vile profit.

To me it has been left to smirch the good name of a revered American
classic; to dig a Grave of the Nameless for a play that clean men and
women have loved.

I am the Satanic genius that makes an Artist—moulder of a pictorial
masterpiece—poison his triumph in gangrene.

I AM “SMUT.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

My words need explanation. Yet from my own foul station I hesitate to
descend. Here, however, is an advertisement that sullied the pages of a
New York newspaper on October 4th:

 “_Why does every girl have
   to battle against love?_”

“Why does every woman have to feel the straining power of seduction in
one form or another—the hot, alluring breaths of deceits?

“This thing has been, time and again, from the beginning of history,
through all the ages. Man’s most beautiful property, most sought after,
most desired, has been woman. And through all these ages it was more
through passion than the better desires.

“Even the saints of past history fought bloody battles; worked, dreamed,
struggled through their love for women—not satisfied with one or two or
three. These almighty men demanded hundreds—every variety of beauty,
dainty little girls in their teens; blondes from the Northlands; strange
slant-eyed brunettes from the Southlands. Mighty wars, broken nations,
wrecked civilizations over the Helens-of-Troy and Cleopatras.

“Doesn’t the same battle go on today, though changed and modified? Is
not every little girl still pursued? Why? What is this great mystery of
love?

“There is the greatest revelation of a woman’s soul and a woman’s
temptation in a tremendous play that is shaking the world; the greatest
uncovering of a woman’s inner soul ever given. If you know, then you
know all love and all temptation, joy and sorrow. You will know the
DIFFERENCE between the alluring passion of deceit that leads to bitter
ashes; the great overwhelming, all-enfolding SOUL LOVE that looks
through the body and finds the great WOMAN-HEART; the love that every
woman wants, with peace and purity, leading on and up to the great
happiness, with the masterful, overwhelming bliss, all centered love of
the great ONE MAN.

“To learn the great lesson of ALL LOVE you must see ‘WAY DOWN EAST,’ and
WOMAN and ALL WOMEN, and the story of Anna Moore in this play. And of
David the farmer boy, greatest of all lovers. And Sanderson, with the
old polygamous idea of deceit and shame for those women who fall in his
clutches.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

May my respected ancestors forgive me the quotation. May the minions of
Evil temper their contempt as I repeat:

“_Why does every woman have to feel the straining power of seduction?_”

“_The hot alluring breaths of deceit._”

“_Even the saints of past history——_”

“_These almighty men demanded hundreds._”

“_Is not every little girl still pursued?_”

Mephistopheles—thy pardon! Boccaccio,—turn not from me in repugnance!

Mothers of Men—thy prayers!

Verily, I am the dross that dares tarnish the sweet name of Woman; I am
the ulcers of leprosy; I am the spawn of hellions;—I AM “SMUT.”

Yet—

Am I the tool of the Master?

Am I the bait that is sought to lure scurvy dollars?

Am I to be the left hand of the Griffith?

                  *       *       *       *       *

FILM TRUTH will now speak:

Why, oh, why, does the name of Griffith have to be signed to the slushy
drivel of such advertisements?

“Way Down East” is a big picture; “Way Down East” can stand fairly,
squarely, flatly on its own feet. “Way Down East” is worth two dollars
of any man’s money.

We paid two dollars to see it—and we are going to pay again. Provided
Mr. Griffith’s advertising writers don’t convince us that our money
would be accepted as a response to the salacious; our two dollars a
contribution to the cause of promoting motion picture censorship.

“Way Down East” lived its life on the American stage honored and
respected—without the need of such truck and trash.

“Way Down East” made fortunes for its stage sponsors, and yet the “Way
Down East” of the spoken drama was as an amateur’s weak-kneed effort to
the stirring strength of the screen gem that Griffith has given us.

Then why the need for advertising what is cheap, tawdry and
contemptible?

The “Way Down East” of the stage did not need, and the “Way Down East”
of the screen does not need, an appeal that says:

“_Why does every woman have to feel the straining power of seduction in
one form or another—the hot, alluring breaths of deceits?_”

                  *       *       *       *       *

_The charming lady on the cover is not a bare back rider. Appearances
are deceptive. It is Norma Nicholls, one of a sextet of Vanity Fair
girls who, under Hal Roach’s protecting wing will delight the tired
business man in comedies to be released by Pathe._

_P. S.—The other five are just as pulchritudinous._

_On the inside front cover the attractive study by moonlight is one of
Lucy Cotton._

_And, we ask you, who couldn’t cotton to Lucy?_

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         Our “Flynancial” Page


No publication is complete today without its financial department in
which some thirty-five-dollar-a-week expert advises you how to get rich
on stocks and bonds. The guff is written principally for purposes of
draping around the ads of brokers who will give any sheet their money if
it will start an investment page.

So this is our page. We have everything but the advertising. And our
hopes are slim.

                  *       *       *       *       *

_The Fan Film Corporation_ is offering stock in a million-dollar company
to back Louise Du Pre, “Mary Pickford’s former understudy.” Charles
Giegerich is “vice-president and general manager.” The four-page
prospectus read interestingly until we came across a column and a half
of praise for Miss Du Pre reprinted from _Motion Picture Classic_ and
credited, “By Chas. G. Rich.” We hesitated. We pondered. “Charles G.
Rich”—“Charles Giegerich.” Why they must be one and the same! And so
they are.

Our “flynancial” expert hereby advises Fan Film that no matter how good
a proposition may appear otherwise, there’s a touch of the foolish when
you quote the press agent flub-dubbery of your own vice-president.

_The Cortland Pictures Corporation_, of Indianapolis, has an
honest-to-goodness picture director for president and some fine local
names on the board. They modestly hint that five thousand theaters are
going to set aside one or two days a week to show their pictures—with
net results at the end of the year of $1,497,500 in profits.

Wonder if someone has thought to tell the five thousand theaters what is
expected of them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                “Guilty”


Score one for “FILM TRUTH!” A bull’s-eye zipped right to the center of
the dot! A ten-strike down the middle of Swindler Alley!

Way, way back in its May issue—six months ago—“FILM TRUTH” turned its
trusty spear in the direction of one George A. Strader who was
victimizing would-be scenario writers on the strength of stationery
which proclaimed him “Formerly with the Famous Players-Lasky Company,”
and “a member of the National Association of the Motion Picture
Industry.”

George found the high muck-a-mucks of the magazine field willing to
carry his ads telling amateurs in glowing terms of the wonderful
opportunities in photoplay writing, and of his own intimate inside
opportunities to sell scenarios. After the sucker forwarded a story
Strader would counter with a letter suggesting that a few expert touches
were needed—price $10—and a sale would be certain. Of course a little
typing would be charged for too, perhaps. But the “touch,” the $10 was
the main thing necessary for the sale.

“Expert touch” was right—for nothing ever happened after George got the
ten dolderinos.

“FILM TRUTH” told the truth—way back in May, and regardless of possible
laceration of Strader’s feelings, his protests, wails or threats.

That was in May. The mills of the gods grind slowly, but October rolls
around, and, one bright Indian summer morning, we pick up our newspaper
to read: “George A. Strader was convicted yesterday in the Federal
District Court on an indictment charging him with using the mails in the
operation of a scheme to defraud.”

One down!

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         Letters of a Director


Dear Liz: Three cheers, kiddo! Hoorayeureka! I’ve discovered the place
where they bury the bodies. The secret is mine. Within six months,
dearie, I’ll be drawing down a thousand a week and owing more money than
the national debt. I’m going to be one of the big, bigger, biggest
directors.

Don’t laugh, sweetie. I know I’ve been piking my way making good
pictures for a slim three hundred a week for so long that you won’t
believe I can step out. But listen—I’m going to be a big leaguer if I
have to wear a pillow slip on my coat lapel. Watch my errors, Liz.

I’ve diagnosed my own case—and do you know what has been responsible for
the anaemia of the bankroll that has afflicted me all these years? My
early training was all wrong. Every time I spend a dollar I squeeze it
till the birdie cuckoos “One hundred cents!”

I guess that year I spent in school spoiled me.

I took them there copy book Maxims too seriously. You know the stuff I
mean. About—“Two bits saved is a jitney earned,” and “Save the pennies
and the dollars will draw four per cent.”

Well, here I’ve been in the fillum flurry a dozen years little one,
before the truth dawned on me. They shoulda put silencers on them Maxims
or else handed them to you with interpretations and reservations. Chief
of which same is this here: “Nothing in these articles shall be
construed as referring to THE BOSS’S MONEY.”

His bankroll is made to be shot; he isn’t happy unless it’s riddled. He
won’t say “Good Morning” to you unless you caused him to say “Good
Night, Mr. Receiver,” the day before.

I’m starting on a new picture now, Liz, and to tell the truth if I hired
an oil promoter for property man I don’t think I could spend more than
fifty thousand dollars making it a good picture. But I’ve learned the
secret—and if I break a leg doing it I am going to take more time on
this picture than George Loane Tucker needs; I’m going to spend more
money than Von Stroheim; I’m going to build more sets and tear ’em down
faster than Mickey Neilan at his best; I’m going to have a bigger
hospital bill than a Holubar production.

If I don’t spend more than two hundred and fifty thousand on this
picture I’ll be willing to take a job making LoKo comedies. Of course,
two hundred and fifty thousand doesn’t put me in the class with the big
boys but it’s a pretty fair start for a guy with wrong upbringing.

It was this nut Stroheim that give me the idea. You know, Liz, when this
Von got through serving the time in the army that all them Heinies has
to, he came here and first broke into the United States histories in the
packing room of a department store. He studied stagecraft wrapping
planks around “This Side Up” signs.

He musta come to Los in one of his own shipping cases for when I first
saw him hanging around the studios looking for extra parts he didn’t
look as though he’d ever possessed Mister Santa Fe’s price. The boys
gave him a rough deal in those days—you know it wasn’t a popular time
for gents with the “Von” handle on their monickers. But we had so many
beastly Berlin pictures that we all had to use him. He played more
German captains than there were in the Kaiser’s army.

Then one day he negotiates a ten minute loan of Carl Laemmle’s ear and
comes out of the office with the title “Director.” He earned the
brackets by guaranteeing to make a picture for twenty thousand, and
faithfully fulfilled his promise by spending not a cent more than fifty.
What’s more it was a good picture.

Universal foolishly thought the gink would be grateful for the
opportunity they gave him so they turned loose the noisiest advertising
and publicity they could. That queered it. He started going loco then
and he’s three laps ahead of a flea-bitten coyote ever since.

Stroheim spends more money now on his own clothes than he guaranteed to
make that first picture for. Out here where every director has to look
like a Hartschaffner ad touched up by a futurist painter he manages to
hold the jazz record. What a swath he cuts with the extra girls!

As for his pictures—if he reaches a cent less than five hundred thousand
on this “Foolish Wives” he’s making now he’ll probably be so peeved
he’ll try hari-kari. Why, do you know, Liz, he’s spent enough money
building Monte Carlo’s up at Monterey to relieve the housing shortage in
six states!

Do I blame him? Not a bit. If he didn’t toss the coin that way people
wouldn’t believe he was one of the biggest directors. His company would
probably fire him for getting old-fashioned. Then they’d bail Ponzi and
put him on the payroll.

Once you hadda put a close-up in every ten feet to be ranked an
up-to-date director; now you have to find new ways for filling up the
Home for Incurably Insane Cashiers.

Another fellow whose boss has to make the money with a machine is this
here fellow Holubar. I think that Holubar and Stroheim musta formed some
sorta grudge when they hung out together on the Universal lot. Now they
take it out on the boss by racing neck and neck on the Expenditure
Extravaganza.

Holubar’s just finished his first independent feature starring his wife,
Dorothy Phillips. “Man, Woman and Marriage” they calls it. Al Kaufman,
who supplied the money, must agree that this married life is expensive.
Here’s one way they ran head-long into the subtreasury, Liz:

Holubar decides that a little prehistoric stuff showing a battle of the
Amazons with the Male Brutes would be good stuff. So five hundred horses
and five hundred dames are hired and turned loose for the action. The
janes are in the near-nude, and beside you can’t expect that many girls
in one city to know how to handle horses, so quite a few of them take a
tumble when the battle reaches the rough stage. The first thing you know
the ambulances are chasing to the Holubar lot as though they belonged in
the story.

Continuity calls for the women losing the battle for the obvious reason
disclosed when a later scene shows three hundred of them nursing babies.
A hurry call is sent out for three hundred infants willing to yawl a few
hours for the movies. How that assistant director got ’em I don’t know—
but he did.

“Shucks,” says someone then. “Now we gotta get three hundred women to
nurse the infantry.” That was a tough assignment—but some miracle worker
produced the women.

Do you know what happened then, Liz? The kids went on strike! They might
be of the nursing age but hang it, they were particular where and when
they nursed And they had no sympathy for the battery of cameras anxious
to grind.

All was at a standstill. What could be done? Then a clever chap who
deserves a Croix de Gerry Society had an idea. A few whispered words,
hurried telephone call, truck load of honey arrives. Honey applied to
the proper spot, youngsters start to work with a will. Cameras click.

Isn’t it a great life in the West, Liz?—Your own ex-chauffeur friend,
Bill.

                         [Open Book Decoration]

          _While they last, the publishers of FILM TRUTH will
          send the first six issues of the book, April to
          September, inclusive, to any United States address,
          upon receipt of $1._

          _Foreign postage, 25 cents extra._

          _Details will be found on the inside back cover._

                         [Open Book Decoration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           Corner in Chaplins


Sometimes we let our readers on the inside of a coming movie event so
far in advance that we are afraid they will forget all about our having
told them when the happening comes to pass.

A reader has just written us, “I know you’ve told us about the delay on
Chaplin’s new picture, but why is it we don’t see so many old Chaplins
either? A couple of years ago every other theater was playing a Chaplin,
some of them so old the prints could hardly hold together.”

Some four months ago we told “FILM TRUTH” readers about the Chaplin
serial that is already made—or rather, assembled—and about to be
launched whenever the moment seems ripe. Well, in that inside note, is
also contained the explanation for the scarcity of old Chaplins.

The market is being scoured and cleaned. Every granddaddy Chaplin that
shows its head is being bought and retired to the home for the aged. If
you have a friend in the junk business tell him to look over that pile
in his backyard. It may disgorge a Chaplin print. And today it can be
sold.

The men who hold the Chaplin serial up their sleeves are the wisest of
the wise. They won’t say the word “Go!” till the stage is set. One of
the essentials is freedom from junk competition.

So wait a while longer for the Chaplin serial, readers. But when it
comes remember that “we told you so.” There are thousands of folks deep
on the inside of this movie game to whom it will be the surprise of the
year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         S’s’sh——! Some Gossip!


Is it unfair to ask what Garret Hughes can see in Mildred Harris? Or
vice versa?

                  *       *       *       *       *

“Forbidden Fruit” is the next DeMille production in titular succession
to “Why Change Your Husband?” Just think of all we are going to see of
Elinor Fair, Gloria Swanson and others. The Los Angeles Hosiery
Hucksters and Lingerie Lizards have entered a protest against the
continuous overtime.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Oft in the still and starry night we have paused to wonder why DeMille
is willing to share so much of his favorites with the general public.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Temperament? If you want to know the meaning of the word ask Maxwell
Karger, director general of Metro production, about Ina Claire. Karger,
being a diplomat, probably won’t answer you. But anyone else at the
studio can tell you that Ina has the tempestuous, rock-bound coasts of
Maine licked to a frazzle forty ways when it comes to the stormy stuff.
Ina is only making her screen debut in this Metro picture but she knew
what she wanted—and by all hemlock cantankerousness, she got it, too.

                  *       *       *       *       *

It takes some pepper pot to create any notice in a studio where Nazimova
has worked.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Isn’t it rather sad, to say the least, to have fame affect some of our
stars, as it does? Our attention has been directed to Charles Ray—rather
more strongly to Mrs. Charles Ray. Charlie’s rise has affected her—so
much ’tis said, that there is a dearth of chauffeurs at the Ray villa.
This in spite of the fact that a half score or more have entered employ—
and rather quickly tired of it. One of ’em tells us his reasons, and we
admit they would peeve a brass Buddha.

And, by the way, was it Mrs. Ray whose attitude toward a grocer’s
delivery boy who carelessly let his Ford drop a bit of oil on a
macadamized driveway, caused so much mirth around the colony lately?

                  *       *       *       *       *

An event long looked for in the Somborn household (Gloria Swanson of
yore) has occurred, and a bouncing girl is announced. Months ago we were
told that Gloria’s contract with DeMille, at a comparatively small
salary, could be broken only by such an event. Mr. Somborn, being a
picture magnate, is said to naturally have wanted to star his wife. Now
the way may be open. We shall see.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Mutterings around a certain railroad ticket office in New York the other
day, boded ill for the husband of the deceased Olive Thomas, had he
dropped his dignity and approached in person. His valet, through
association or education, we know not which, has picked up a domineering
attitude, and the tantrums he went through over the phone at various
times with every clerk in the office, got under the skin. “Don’t you
know who my master is,” chirped the valet. And just as chipperly the
railroad clerk said, “I do, and I don’t give a damn.”

Party of four, two staterooms on the Century huh? We are slightly
curious, just slightly.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Would you believe it? There’s someone afraid he won’t be given credit
for making “Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge,” the propaganda picture which
FILM TRUTH exploded in last month’s issue. The director, George
Beranger, is the man. At that, Beranger is in the right. He is an A1
director, fully capable of making his own pictures. There was no need of
anyone else claiming credit for “supervision.”

                  *       *       *       *       *

While on the subject of Levey’s fillum it might not be adverse to
whisper that we have at hand letters from live wire exhibitors stating
they have thrown it out of their houses after finding it purely
propaganda.

                  *       *       *       *       *

From a press agent comes a screed concerning a production under way at
Los Angeles called “The Perfect Man.” And in the cast we find a player
named Andrew Sous. We’ll say so!

                  *       *       *       *       *

How soon are the dead forgotten! Ollie Thomas has not had time to get
settled in her grave, when here we find brother Duffy reported
gallavanting around New York one evening, imbibing the atmosphere, and
then some, in company with a fair damsel who has a husband somewhere or
other, and to whom an unbroken Arabian steed is as a lamb.

                  *       *       *       *       *

My, my, it does seem hard for a young lady to keep a “steady” in this
dear Los Angeles these days. Take little Lottie Pickford for instance.
Before going east, Gossip Row on the coast hummed with a hair pulling
match said to have been staged very, very openly, with Lottie in the
role of challenger, and a former Ziegfeld Follies beauty as defender.
’Twas said Lottie’s sweetie (who came on the scene following her
divorce) had been weaned away by the newcomer. Hence the fireworks.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Anytime you see an “it” on the streets of Hollywood wearing English
riding breeches wider than an embarrassed pancake, leather puttees wound
round legs thinner than a producer’s heart; a waxed and pointed mustache
sillier looking than shirred humming-bird’s eggs—lay a hundred to one
bet that you are looking at a moving picture director pulling down a
measly thousand a week. The question of the Sphinx: Must movie men of
the studios look like Asses?

                  *       *       *       *       *

These here now fillums make strange bed-fellows. “Determination” now has
in its cast both Lieut. Maynard, “the Flying Parson” and Maurice
Costello, who used to appear every now and then in Brooklyn police
courts to answer wifey’s objections to the pugilistic form of argument.
Remember when “Cos” was the shining matinee idol of the screen?

                  *       *       *       *       *

The Unkindest Cut of All: One of our contemporaries discloses to a
palpitating world the fact that Reeves Eason, the director, started life
as a butcher.

                  *       *       *       *       *

George Walsh was anxious to wind up his Fox contract while brother Raoul
was hitting on all twelve cylinders as an independent producer. Wonder
how George feels about it now that Mayflower’s limping progress
threatens to embarrass Raoul’s activities.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“Brewster’s Millions” is going to be made in pictures again. Producers
must work on the theory that they were entirely successful in their
efforts to kill off the earlier generations of fans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         “The Public Be Damned”


The high faluting talk of art for art’s sake and such high sounding
expressions, placed on the lips of some picture magnates, is humorous
enough to make the Gods of High Olympus crack a smile in view of the
penny-grasping, public-be-damned attitude adopted when opportunity
presents.

Twice within a month a big picture, meritorious in every sense, and one
which the public which supports the poor pictures of the same producers
should by every right have opportunity to see, has come out advertised
as not to be released for general exhibition for a period of years.

Griffith started it with “Way Down East.” He stuck an exorbitant
admission price down for the New York showing, and then advertised the
picture would never be seen in any but the large houses in the large
cities. In other words, that the real motion picture public, the real
exhibitor, he of the small center, could whistle for this picture, but
could pay for the inferior stuff instead.

Fox now comes forth with a masterpiece in the form of “Over the Hill.”
And his ads carry a line that the picture will be seen in the first run
houses only for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922.

The consummate gall of such maneuvers, even in this business where one
feels like keeping a hand on his watch when in certain neighborhoods, is
somewhat appalling even to those of us who should be hardened.

Mr. and Mrs. Public can see and pay for the ordinary film. But if, by
chance, the lordly producer makes one of exceptional quality, then
admission prices will be jacked up, exorbitant rental be demanded of the
big exhibitor—and the small towner can do without.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            Boosts and Boots


“PEACEFUL VALLEY” (Kane-First National). Charles Ray back to the role he
can play. No real story, but none needed. Star appealing and pleasing in
rustic setting. Dramatic moments interjected here and there. A hundred
times better than “45 Minutes from Broadway.” We take our hat off to Ray
once again.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“BEHOLD MY WIFE” (Paramount). From Gilbert Parker story. Somewhat above
the average production. Englishman of high birth marries half-breed and
sinks to degradation. Unconvincing motive. Mabel Julienne Scott, as we
have said before, is a real find.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE BRANDING IRON” (Goldwyn). Realistic action throughout, yet rather
unconvincing. Barbara Castleton excellent in part of girl who, it is
feared, may become lady of easy virtue through heredity. Jimmie Kirkwood
makes screen bow after long absence.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE TRUANT HUSBAND” (Rockett Film). First release by this independent
concern. Very human production, and will please most audiences. Mahlon
Hamilton and Betty Blythe best known in cast.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE FURNACE” (Realart Special). One of strongest plays of the month.
Will hold any audience from start to finish. Action throughout. Special
cast. See it.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE GILDED DREAM” (Universal). The bunk. Minus plot, action, or playing
out of the ordinary. Carmel Myers featured. Let it pass by.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“PASSION” (First National). A German made picture. Version of “Du
Barry.” Releasing corporation said to be worried as to whether public
will stand for German made picture. Feature is spectacular and except
where anti-German feeling is still particularly strong should appeal.
Pola Negri, whose reputation is known on this side, is Countess Du
Barry.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE SONG OF THE SOUL” (Messmore Kendall-Goldwyn). Falls short in
dramatic appeal. Kendall and associates are said to be looking for an
“out” in their contract with Vivian Martin. Vivian is not a star by any
manner of means, though she does her best work in this. There is really
material for good picture, but director and cast fall short.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE LEOPARD WOMAN” (Associated Producers). Merely another opportunity
for Louise Glaum to regale the public with her limbs and other physical
attributes. There are other players whose physical appeal is far
stronger. As usual she wears many stunning costumes, and picture is
lavishly made. Falls short on entertainment.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE RIDDLE WOMAN” (Associated Producers-Pathe). What a lemon this
release is! Apparently made with the single purpose of keeping Geraldine
Farrar continually before the camera. And she does nothing that a
mechanical doll couldn’t do. Pathe much worried over picture. An awful
dent in some one’s bankroll will follow in wake of this release. Farrar
is passée as film attraction.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“OVER THE HILL” (Fox). Greatest human document we have seen on the
screen. Doubt if there is a player in cast drawing over two hundred a
week. Puts “star” pictures to shame. Mary Carr as Mother gives greatest
characterizations we have witnessed. Inside story of picture is that no
one in Fox organization, even Director Harry Millarde could “see” the
film when screened. Fox himself, with his showmanship instinct, alone
visioned the sensation it would create. Short-sighted release policy is
treated in a special article in this issue.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“THE DEVIL’S ANGEL” (Clark-Cornelius). A strong state right attraction,
depicting life of the Latin Quarter. Produced by Lejaren á Hiller. Some
parts may not get by the Board of Review unless cut.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“SO LONG LETTY” (Robertson-Cole). From the stage version of the play of
Morosco’s. Replete with bathing beauties. Those who like such—and there
are many—will have their fill.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“YOU NEVER CAN TELL” (Realart). Bebe Daniels’ first for the concern.
Good entertainment. Comedy-romance of check room girl who yearns for
riches, finally “falls” for supposed chauffeur, only to find her dream
came true and he is wealthy. Miss Daniels fulfills every demand of her
part. Pleasant evening’s entertainment.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“SWEET LAVENDER” (Realart). Just what title indicates. A sweet, homely
theme that appeals. Mary Miles Minter her usual capable, charming self.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“EVERYBODY’S SWEETHEART” (Selznick). The last appearance of Olive
Thomas. Heroine from county poor farm. Pleasing though pathetic story.
The past has evolved an axiom among film men that death of star almost
makes pictures as yet unreleased, valueless. On good authority this
picture is said to be an exception, the public crowding the house
wherever shown, and will gross more than any picture this star ever
made. Last scene made just before she sailed for Europe, and death.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“HELD BY THE ENEMY” (Paramount). Though this company looks forward to
big business for picture, it is doubtful if public will care for it. War
play of civil war days, well produced—but still a war play. Based on
William Gillette’s stage production.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“NOMADS OF THE NORTH” (First National). Strong melodrama well and
carefully produced. Ernest Shipman responsible. Sure fire anywhere.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“ONCE TO EVERY WOMAN” (Universal). Excellent picture, realistically
produced. Dorothy Phillips is better each time we see her. A refreshing
production in a month of rather ordinary ones.

                  *       *       *       *       *

“SINS OF ROSANNE” (Paramount). Better to leave this one alone. For some
reason they hand Ethel Clayton poor material all the time. Unbelievable
in theme. Pass it up.

                         [Open Book Decoration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           It’s a Stormy Life


Tempestuous winter visits its venom on the country for but a quarter of
each year.

Wherefore, why cannot “Ma” Pickford take example and cast the winter out
of her soul for at least a portion of the time?

This woman, mother of our greatest screen actress, has occupied our
pages off and on for some time—without much credit. Now, once again we
feel called upon to devote a little of our space to the latest caper of
what those who should know—(including son-in-law Doug) have designated
as a sour disposition.

Lately the fair metropolis of New York has been graced with “Ma”
Pickford, and daughter Lottie, the erstwhile Mrs. Rupp. Lottie has had a
good time. Why not—Manhattan is an Oasis in the Sahara. But “Ma,” as
usual, stepped off with the wrong foot.

It seems the two went east with a film in which Lottie has the principal
part. And “Ma” decided to act as sales-manager—the “managerial” instinct
growing stronger with age.

The second act reveals a projection room on 42nd Street. Dr. W. E.
Shallenberger, President of Arrow Film Corporation and of Federated
Exchanges, “Ma,” Lottie, and several members of the Arrow film offices
enter down stage (though “Ma” might appear to be “up-stage”).

Reel one gets by O. K. Shortly thereafter Dr. Shallenberger with an eye
to business, injects a laugh into the plot. Those who know the Doctor’s
disposition insist it must have been a forced laugh, a business prop as
it were, in order to inform others he did not think so much of the film—
with a natural drop in the “asking” price a possible consequence.

But it didn’t work out. True to form, “Ma” pugnaciously arose, and,
according to those present, irately questioned Shallenberger exactly
where he “got off at” as a critic, vehemently flung a few minutes more
berating from her 75 millimeter vocal channel, and then, getting warmed
up and into form, proceeded to “bawl” out the head of the Arrow Film
Corp. to a fare-thee-well.

Then came the startling part of the affair. “Ma” is not used to being
crossed. Except for one occasion when daughter’s husband laid down the
law (which was related in a past issue of FILM TRUTH) she has seen all
adversaries crumple like grains of puffed rice when she really got
started. This time she got another unpleasant surprise.

The Honorable Dr. Shallenberger said not a word. He arose, told the
operator to shut off the projection of the film, opened the door and
walked out.

So, we judge, “Ma” is now peddling her daughter’s film around other
companies where the buyers have a conception of “decency” which Doc.
must, in her estimation, be lacking in.

                         [Open Book Decoration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           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 authorities that
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 Decoration]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            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-priced vehicles 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                            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 most synopses 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 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 63,000


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 63,000=

                  =_The figures speak for themselves_=