GOOD-BYE to GLAMOUR

Radio Record, 14 April 1938, Page 12

GOOD-BYE to GLAMOUR

Sounder Technique, Surer Aating, Greater Reality Give Death-Knock to’ Delusions of Cinema

Special to the "Record" by

JANE

RAEBURN

TY HE other night, as a large woman with a bag of chocolates stood on one of my fallen arches in a theatre queue, I reflected woefully how much this shadow business has in common with Rugby. Just as much kicking and scrumming, anyway, and twice as expensive. The only fundamental difference between the two sports is this: whereas Rugby is not what it was (oh, no, you softies!), films grow steadily more stupendous, colossal, heart-stirring and thundering with every fresh issue of the newspapers. Jack on his Beanstalk could not hope to top the heights of these Hollywoo4 climbers in verbosity. And the odd thing is that they are telling the truth--eveu though they do blow it up to ten times its natural size. Films really are getting better. In nearly every picture you see to-day there is sounder technique, surer acting and a closer approach to real life. About three times a year there is even a plot with meaning and power. Don’t You Agree, Sir? Mr. Film Critic Mirams, of the "Record," will no doubt be pleased to endorse this, for he has been telling us for some time now, with fatherly pride, how the screen is emerging from its gooey babyhood and learning to toddle und say a few coherent sentences, But perhaps the strongest proof Mr. Mirams hus given of the larger stature of the fins was the recent article in which he prophesied the ups and downs of the bestknown stars this year. Though I cannot agree with all his divinations, I do agree unreservedly with the essence of them. Yor Mr. Mirams’s forecast revealed an interesting thing. It showed that the screen is saying good-bye to Glameur aud is relying more and more upov the acting ability of its players. Grx or sevel years ago, glamour was just about the only thing cinema owners could be sure would sell. Balance

sheets from Theda Bara to Clara Bow proved it. And now? The earning powers of stars only go to prove that glamour has taken a seat far back. The few stars and producers who have not woken up quickly enough to this fact are undergoing in a big way very much the feeling of the man who takes a hearty crack at a nail and only succeeds in crushing his own. Marlene Dietrich is the best example. She started off in "Morocco" by standing exotically in doorways aud lifting her eyebrows-and skirts, "Morocco" was an original and a good film in its day, and everyone "fell" for the Dietrichian poise und high-cheeked beauty Wh» would not? But then Marlene got lazy. She thought people would be content to watch her grasshopper eyebrows indefinitely. That was a mistake. Irony and Marlene. "Morocco," "Shunghai Express" and "Song of Songs" gave the public, in portmanteau American slang, an ‘eyebrowful." "The Scarlet Empress," "Garden of Allah," yes, and "Angel," have effectually out-glamoured this misguided star, and Mr. Mirams is surely right when he sees her only hope of survival in the return to less goggling films, like "Desire." Whether she will be able to return is doubtfyl, At present she is without a part, for the comedy upon which she had set her heart-"French Without Tears," for which she had persuaded Paramount to purchase film rights for, £10,000-has been given instead to Carole Lombard, And this is ironic, For Carole Lombard’s forte lies in caricaturing exactly that glamourous posing which once made Marlene so important at the box office, ANOTHER of the "lovelies" who believe that the film public desires no more of them than to look like Helen of Troy, is English Madeleine Carroll, Joan Crawford, again as Mr. Mirams noted, is a third who places too much importance upon camera angles and Adrian’s gowns. True, she is different from Madeleine Carroll to the extent she has proved herself also a capable actress. But so did Marlene Dietrich-once. When you have seen WUnise Rainer yearning her way through maternity and the "Big City," you may realise just how much out of date this decorative artificiality has become, The first attack upon Clara Bow’s (Contd. on p. 39.)

Good-bye, Glamour

"IT Is Out-Dated (Continued from page 12). "IT" technique, came probably when filmgoers saw Marie Dressler and Wallace Beery in "Min and Bill." Those two old, ungainly, ugly stars smote at glamour with every twist of their rubber faces. And maybe Charlie Chaplin had done a little private assaulting before them. "Sort of Boring" Marie Dressler was yoted the most popular star of 1932 and 19338. After her death, first place was taken among American stars by lovable, © slifmouthed Will Rogers. And since his death, easily first) in fayour has been Shirley Temple, in 1985 and 19386. I have an idea that in 1987 the child star has been displaced by Gary (‘ooper-Cooper who once said that glamour is something that "sort of flores the public.’ ACCORDING to the Oxford Diction‘ary, glamour may be on the one hand, "beauty or enchantment" or, on the other hand, -"delusive or alluring beauty." Now, let me make a list of the dozen best stars on the screen to-day-not a list with which you will agree, perhaps, but one which is fairly representative for all that. Among the men are Paul Muni, Spencer Tracy, Leslie lfoward, Gary Cooper, Charles Laughton and cither Walter Huston, James (Cagney or Edward G. Rohinson. The women haye at the top Greta farbo, Norma Shearer, Bette Davis, Imise Rainer, and perhaps Myrna Loy und Katherine Hepburn. Glamour Loses Tricks There is not one of those players relving upon glamour alone-in either of itS senses, Moreover, you will find that the more they, and others like them, rely upon "glamour," the less fervent grows their fan-mail. Ronald (‘olman is losing popularity simply because his tricks of glamour, such as the quizzical raised eyebrow, are becoming a little too obvious. MONG men who are nearest to the old matinee idol type are Clark Gable, Robert Taylor, Tyrone Power, Nelson Eddy and the new young man of "Hurricane’-Jon Hall, Clark Gable exploits his "glamour" about one-quarter as much as he used to do. Robert Taylor ig polite about his face but frightened of it. Recenr films show clear signs of an attempt to throw (own a less fortuitous anchor to popularity. Tyrone Power is also improving in acting, and Nelson Eddy has a yoice. Jon Hall is Samuel Goldwyn’s Olympie Champion of Hollywood. Goldwyn even stopped him buying a dress suit when he heard that Hall was being described as "Goldwyn’s Gift to Women." T is the same tale again with the women. Myrna Loy was once listed in the Hollywood casting office for "temptress roles," but no one took any notice of her until she turned wiseeracking wife in "The Thin Man." Claudette Colbert nearly tumbled right down almong the featured players when

she tried to act glamorous Queen Cleopatra. PERHAPS it really is true that the film business is emerging from its notorious infancy. It is realising thai glamour itself is a very small part of any fine player. It is realising that acting comes from the head and the heart, not from the make-up box, and that the voice is its best medium. May not glamour be merely a hang-over from the night before the film: found its voice? Whatever the reason, we must say good-bye to glamour, N.Z. Baritone N=WTon GOODSON, the New Zealand singer who has been appearing in a special programme from 2UB

Sydney on Tuesday and -Thursday nights at 9.50 is rising fast in the broadeasting sphere in Australia, having previously appeared in the popular 2GB feature, "Radio Pie." One Australian writer compares his voice with that of Nelson Eddy. "Although Mr. Goodson’s voice is a pitch higher and a little lighter in execution, he has qualities that definitely tend to liken him toe Nelson Eddy. His tone and vocal mannerisms remind one of the American ‘Singer, Moreover, Mr. Goodson, being in the class of a lighter baritone, adds to his-otherwise confined range." not here, Glamour. So please close the door quietly upon this disillusioned realism that is ours.