Have you noticed that during the past few years the moving picture companies have gradually acquired a sense of restraint in ballyhooing new pictures? Whether this is another manifestation of the depression is not certain, but evidence points to that October day when stocks tumbled because, immediately after that, the boys whose job it is to pep up possible cinema palace patrons became subdued.
NOW USE DISCRETION
I do not mean to even hint that the publicity getters have forgotten or cast aside their adjectives. It is simply a case of discretion. In the not so old days the press department never said a picture was anything less than colossal. Now it has descended to a mild magnificent. As a matter of fact, press departments do not whoop-it-up for a new film unless it is really believed that the picture has merit. Instead of panicking people into seeing a picture and then have them signifying their verdict with an audible raspberry the press agents now save themselves for something worthwhile.
As a result picture fans are now inclined to put some faith in advertising and publicity. "Cavalcade," "Henry VIII," "Catherine The Great," "House of Rothschild" "Viva Villa," were all introduced with the loud beating of drums and each picture justified the noise. "Eskimo" although pushed hard didn’t go over, but that was because of its subject matter; the picture itself was a fine and honest artistic effort. The producers were exuberant over "Nana" but there the company was introducing a new star and even at that it was not really a bad picture. The one over-praised picture of the season was "Alice In Wonderland" which after all, isn’t such a bad record!
COMPOSITE DIRECTOR
No one can say that directors, the fellows who are responsible for the final version of a film, have not had their share of publicity. Fox sends out an interesting item about these gentlemen. According to the press department of that company the following is a composite view of the average Hollywood director:
"An American, five feet eleven, weighing 174 pounds, brown hair, blue eyes, about 41 years of age, may be wearing glasses. He is a sports enthusiast, a good golfer, an omnivorous reader, a regular attendant at football games, and a good story-teller. He is sympathetic, and slow-spoken, and a good deal of a diplomat. And he bears no resemblance whatever to the movie director of fiction for he never wears boots and riding pants. He has spent some 14 years in the picture industry, and has directed something like 42 productions during that time, nearly half of them talkies. Probably he is under contract to a major studio, for which he has made about 14 of his 42 films.
Half of him was, or were, on the stage before going into pictures, mostly in the acting end of the-atrical work. And in most cases he started in Hollywood as an actor or a writer or a property man—seldom as a director, although since talking pictures, several stage directors have transferred directly to screen directing.
MYSTERY OF QUEEN’S HATS SOLVED
It took a movie company to find out why Her Majesty, Queen Mary of England, wears those funny little hats that have been a constant inspiration for tired jokesters these past two decades. Paramount Pictures hired Madame Grenier to work for them in their costume department. This lady, for years a personal attendant to Queen Mary and Royal Dresser of Her Majesty’s wardrobe gives the following explanation for the Queen’s hats:
"The Queen’s hats are that way because Her Majesty wants to please the King. King George is very proud of his wife’s beautiful hair, and doesn’t want her to cover it. As you know, her hats are very small, and perched on top of her head, allow her hair to be almost completely visible."
Listen lady, don’t change the subject. Does the King like those hats?
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
