Cinema

“DAVID HARUM,” a screen drama adapted by Walter Woods from the novel by Edward Noyes Westcott, directed by James Cruze and presented by Fox at the Radio City Music Hall, with the following cast: This is a dissenting opinion and colored, no doubt, by a personal prejudice. The audience at the Music Hall was audibly delighted with Will Rogers’ portrayal of “David Harum” in the picture adapted from Edward Noyes Wescott’s famous novel. It seemed to like the ex-rope tosser as he whined his nasal way through the story of the shrewd horse-trader and banker in a small upper New York State town.

There is no particular point in retelling the story of “David Harum.” Suffice to say that movies take the usual liberties with the plot, emphasize the love angle and recast Harum as a sort of go-between for a couple in love. The main part of the film sticks fairly close to the printed version. The directing is good, especially in those scenes which show a typical small town in 1890’s. The acting, although over-done in the character bits, is not obviously annoying.

But to return to the question of Will Rogers. I am not a Rogers’ fan. I believe that this gum-chewing, sniveling gent is not, and never was or will be, an actor. He can play but one part–Will Rogers–and that is a character that has always left me unmoved. It so happens that in “David Harum” he has found a vehicle that he can ride comfortably but a real character actor, Henry Hull for instance, could really do things with such a fat role. Rogers, whether he is David Harum, an Iowa farmer or a Yankee in King Arthur’s court, is always Will Rogers, and that isn’t quite enough. I believe he is a third grade actor who could find popularity only in a country where a magazine like “True Story” has a million circulation, a play like “Abie’s Irish Rose” is considered great drama, and a book like “The Shiek” a best seller.

My reasons for disliking Rogers are not personal and I don’t suppose it makes much difference to him, but I do believe that he is a pernicious influence. He has made a cult of ignorance and his not so sly digs at learning and culture find a ready response from those who are not endowed with too much intelligence. I am especially annoyed at his utter disregard for facts, his ignorance of international affairs and politics and the authoritative manner with which he speaks. Considering the large audience he reaches this makes him downright dangerous. I have seen Mr. Rogers on the stage and screen, listened to him over the radio and read his remarks in print. I don’t ever remember him expressing a truly progressive sentiment. If he were an out-and-out reactionary I could admire him, but his role of great friend of the common folks is phoney and misleading.