IN 1939 WHERE SHALL WE BE

Radio Record, 25 March 1938, Page 12

IN 1939

WHERE SHALL WE BE

Gordon Mirams Turos Movie Astrologer

OW that the Academy Awards for the best screen performances of 1937 have been announced and the new pictures for 1938 have been lined up, it seems an appropriate time to attempt a little prophesying about the prospects of some of the cinema’s leading stars. In other words, what quarter of the movie heavens are they likely to he occupying a year from now? It is probably much harder being a star-gazer of the film firmament than an ordinary astrologer because the stars of the sky above move according to unchanging physical laws, whereas the stars of the screen are principally governed by the public’s fickle whim. So in my new role as prophet I expect no honour, even outside my own country. The best one can hope to do is make some sort of forecast of what might conceivably happen to wellknown players under certain circumstances-such eircum~ stances depending on everything from choice of stories and directors to unhappy private love affairs. It was not always so difficult to map the stars in their courses. There was a time when a player could build up

a terrific personal following by force of personality and hold his position practically unchanged for several years, even though the merits of his individual pictures varied greatly during that time. The star, like the king, could do no wrong. : But these days, competition is so fierce, the public so star-conscious, that a player can rise to fame with one picture and. disappear almost as quickly, Every single film he makes has an effect on his standing. To this general statement there are a few exceptions, Four or five planets have moved in the highest circles for so many years that as long as they care to go on making pictures, they will always command respect, A poor film may cause public confidence in them to waver slightly, but does not shake it seriously. A series of poor films would probably have that effeet, but by virtue of their special position these planets of the sereen are in little danger of being cast in unworthy pictures. The handful of stars whom I would single out as being apart from . the constant state of flux of the rest of the movie universe are Greta

Garbo, Norma Shearer, Paul Muni, Gary Cooper and possibly Ronald Colman. They, I believe, are fairly certain to be in almost exactly the same high position a year from now as they are to-day. And thereafter for as long as they care to go cn making picturesprovided they don’t go on until they are approaching senility. Take Garbo, for instance. Her latest film, "Marie Walewska," is in many respects her finest. Yet it won’t make her much more famous or popular; it will simply entrench her even more firmly in her present position, a position from which nothing short of sheer bad , taste or insanity*will dislodge her. It is much the same with Norma Shearer. Like Garbo she has almost become a tradition of the screen-but a good deal more alive than most traditions. Paul! Muni joined the select circle of the Big Five after three pictures-"Louis Pasteur," "The Good Barth" and "Emile Zola,’ but before then he was steadily rising. Similarly, after a long apprenticeship, Gary Cooper came on top to stay, after "Mr. Deeds" and "Souls ee ee, a ee

at sea." Unly Tank MisCastlis Will viilis Muni and Cooper tumbling down--and both are in a position to refuse to be miscast. There was a time when George Arliss seemed to be in the same position as Muni is to-day-ag the screen’s greatest character actor-but there is no real ° comparison. Muni can make almost any role convincing, whereus George Arliss is just a good portrayer of George Arliss! TM not quite so sure about Ronald Colman’s claims to lasting stardom, but "The Prisoner of Zenda" proved that he has uot lost his touch, and his reputation ‘is so firmly founded that it could be undermined only by a succession of flonssnd that isn’t likely. But he’s not getting any younger; he would be. wise to think about retiring before the romantic glamour werrs off, These, as I say, are the planets of the film firmament, and we cam be reasonably sure about their position a year from now. It is when we come to the other stars that we are very mueh in the realm of conjecture. This even applies (Contd. on p. 34).

Where Will They Be In 1939?

Forecasting The Fate Of Film Stars (Continued from page 12).

to Louise Rainer and Spencer Tracy, despite the fact that they won 19387’s Academy Awards, Miss Rainer will need to be careful. Two pictures-"The Great Ziegfeld" and "The Good Harth’-have skyrocketed her to fame, and in them she proved her versatility beyond doubt. But "The Emperor’s Candlesticks" was hardly more than an ordinary picture, and although I have not, at the time of writing, seen "Big City," the general critical opinion is that this film again stresses Miss MRainer’s capacity for artificial cuteness rather than her proven ability for broad cinematic acting. The point is that Miss Rainer has not yet consolidated her position in Hollywood, and good parts or bad ones at this stage will make all the difference between whether she is to be just another spectacular foreign importation or one of the screen’s lasting luminaries. And her accent does not make the choice of suitable parts any more easy. The path that lies ahead of Spence: Tracy is smoother, but I doubt if he is firmly enough established yet for his producers to afford to take chances, At the moment he ranks almost with Muni as the screen’s greatest character actor, and given a fair run should be in much the same position a year from now. It is doubtful, however, if Tracy will ever _be a smashing sensation at the boxoffice: character actors seldom are. For that, you need more of the handsome. romantic type. Gable and Taylor AND with that we arrive at Clark Gable and Robert Taylor. Wha: does the coming year hold for them? Gable, I think, has almost passed through the stage when sex-appeal was his biggest draw: he is depending more on pure acting ability. He has given ample proof that he is not lacking in this, and it should be enough to keep him at the top-again provided he gets the right parts. In my opinion he should eschew all-what shall I say ?- "stunt" roles (such as that in "Parnell" for which he was definitely not suited) and concentrate on being a modern American hero. Wither drama or comedy, but not history for Clark Gable. At the moment, Robert Taylor depends on his place as premier box-office male mainly because of the flutters he can cause in feminine hearts. But he, too, has siven us an occasional glimpse of something more solid behind his . prettiness; and if this something could’ be developed it might even make him the equivalent of Rudolph Valentino, who so suceess- ~ fully combined Sex-appeal with talent, Currently, however, there is evidence that too much reliance;is being placed upon Taylor’s purely. physical charmas, for instance, in "Broadway Melody of 1938"-and this charm in itself won’t be enough to keep him at the top.,

AST year, Janet Gaynor made a remarkable come-back in "A Star is Born," proving that she has passed beyond the sickly sentimental stage and is capable of being a mature actress if given the chance. Her plans at the moment seem indefinite, but she might have a bright future if this new side of her screen character is properly developed. March’s Chance With Janet Gaynor in "A Star 1s Born," Fredric March also staged a come-back. He has always been a very able exponent of swashbuckling "costume"’ roles, but the public was becoming tired of the same Fredric March in picture after picture, until he showed what he could do with a subtle but untheatrical modern role in "A Star is Born." This film opened up a big possibility for him-it remains to see if he will be able to develop it. If not, Tm afraid Fredric March will be on the way down by 1939. What "A Star is Born’ did for March, "Night Must Fall*® did for Robert Montgomery, who was definitely going into eclipse as the screen's typical playboy. It would be absurd to suggest that Montgomery should now concentrate on melodrama films as a result of his macabre triumph in "Night Must Fall’; but all the same, that picture did reveal a versatility and depth of talent previously unsuspected. If this results in a wider range of roles for him, he should remain a fiture. If not.... Ym doubtful about Joan Craw‘ford. Her work in recent years shows marked signs of improvement, but she now seems to be plastering on the glamour at the expense of her dramatic ability, and, if this process continues, it must eventually affect her popularity. Her own ambition, it is said, is to be a. serious actress rather than an exotic one; if that is so, and she is wise, she should take her fate in her own hands at an early date, otherwise the Gorgeous Hussy may be just a Faded Orchid by 1939. After a long, uphill struggle against tragic motherhood and "refainment," Kay Francis appears definitely to be losing ground. She might, perhaps, be able to stop the rot with one really worthwhile’ part, but I think myself she is past her prime as a star. And though I hate to admit it, because I admire him greatly, I’m almost equally afraid that William Powell has reached his peak, and isn’t likely tv stay there-that is, not unless he can break away from the stereotyped "Thin Man" variety of role. His decline will be gradual, but none the less ‘certain, unless they can give him something rather more substantial to act than he has had in his past few pictures. LAUDETTH COLBERT’S forte is intelligent, sophisticated comedy. She has had many ups and downs, and one of the most serious "downs" was caused by her miscasting in "Maid of Salem." Her next picture, "I Met Him

in Paris," pulled her up a bit, and her coming part in "Tovarich," should also give her a helping hand on the climb back to the top. As for Marleng Dietrich, ’'m afraid that unless a miracle happens she won’t be among the big ones a year from now. The miracle would be a succession of roles that suited her as well as the one she had in "Desire’-roles that would disclose a human personality and not just a fantastic and artificial beauty. A similar miracle-in this case a sliccession of filmg as good ag "Stage Door"’-is necessary to save Katharine Hepburn. If you want to back winners, I would suggest that you keep an eye on Joel McCrea, a young man who has been steadily improving in recent pictures, and who probably needs nothing much more than a haircut te make him fairly soon g really important star. Also watei out for Cary Grant, who is losing his self-consciousness and being — given more and more important assignments. Next year may see him very near the top of the ladder. That goes also for Annabella, the delightful French star of "Wings of the Morning." However, I fail to see eye to eye with those who are predicting greai things for Carole Lombard. In spite of the fact that she earns the highest salary per picture of any star in Hollywood to-day, she ig a victim of typing in crazy comedies; and sooner or later -if, indeed, the process. hag not al ready begun-the public is going to become heartily sick of seeing her act like a half-witted, spoiled child. British Prospects N the British front, Charles Laugh: ton is important enough to catch attention any time he likes to make an appearance. Yet he suffers slightly from what I call "Ariiss’s Disease’always being too much himself, Merle Oberon is now an experienced actress and ig likely to remain a fixture very near the top for some time. Yet the most promising stars on the British screen to-day are probably Vivien Leigh and Rex Harrison, seen together in "Storm in a Tea, Cup." Vivien Leigh has been well grounded in her career by Alexander Korda. Her rise is likely to be steady rather than spectacular, but none the less well worth watching. Rex Harrison is still not quite sure of himself, but once he gains confidence 1 think England will have a new type of leading man to be envied by Hollywood -and probably stolen, This survey of the movie heavens is not really a survey but a glance here and there at some of the most interesting stars. I have omitted otherg probably just as interesting-what about Leslie Howard, Robert Donat, Hrrol Flynn, Marian Hopkins, Irene Dunne, Rosalind Russell?-and I have not touched on the musica! stars, the child prodigies, nor the starlets (such as Olympe Bradna, Jon Hall and Dorothy Lamour)-whose light is likely to grow brighter as the year goes on. But I think. I have commuted myself quite far enough as a prophet; and I would now ask you all to tear out these pages and burn them so that you will have no evidence to hold against me a year from now.