“The First World War” and “Three Songs About Lenin,” two films based in part on newsreels were the outstanding events of an otherwise uneventful theatrical week. About the Russian picture I wrote at some length and this is just another reminder that you must not miss this pictorial tribute to the memory of Lenin. What I am chiefly concerned with at the present moment is “The First World War,” which had its premiere at the Rialto Theatre the other night.
Easily the most astounding film ever to be shown in this country, “The First World War” is a history of the terrifying conflict which disrupted a puzzled world some twenty years ago. The film was inspired by a book of photographs published under the same title by Simon and Schuster. Lawrence Stallings, one-legged veteran of the war, edited the book and also conceived and supplied the comments which are spoken by Pedro de Cordoba which Fox Films made under the direction of Truman Talley.
SURPRISING LACK OF HYSTERIA
There have been other films made about the war but this present version is by far the most comprehensive and thorough. It is done with a surprising lack of hysteria. Stallings’ almost laconic remarks are a brutal revelation of the stupidity of a mankind which permits itself to be destroyed to satisfy the vanity and pomp of a group of puffed up rulers.
The film taken from news reels, official pictures made by the various governmental cameramen and extraneous pictures taken secretly by unknown photographers has been skilfully blended into a smooth running and revealing history. It is divided loosely into eleven parts and begins with conditions in Europe in 1914 in which you are shown the rulers and other families of England, France, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy and the Balkans in various poses. Most of these shots expose the insipidness of regal pomp. Old King Joseph of Austria-Hungary, the Arch Duke Ferdinand, the Czar, King George and the Prince of Wales, the Kaiser and his many sons are all pictured as they accept often, with ill-concealed boredom, the plaudits of the masses. Then comes the war and immediately the camera takes you over Europe showing how the people in Berlin, Paris, London, Vienna and other European cities greeted the announcement of the coming slaughter. It is a little eerie to see young men marching off to a war bedecked with flowers when you know that you are to see, a few scenes later, these same men lying in grotesque postures dead in battle.
DOESN’T PIN GUILT OF WAR ON ONE NATION
In making this film Stallings did not attempt to prove that any one nation was justified in fighting. In one shot you see the German big guns roaring out messages of death and immediately after the English and French armaments are seen doing the same thing. The war in the air in its various phases is vividly projected and a good many feet of film is devoted to the sea battles. There is one particularly brilliant portion which shows the sinking of an Austrian battleship. As it slowly capsizes you watch 1,000 sailors trying to cling to the ship; and as it turns keel up the horrifying spectacle of these men who were not ordered to abandon their ship, drowning, is one of the most effective messages for peace that has ever been shown on a screen.
The war under the sea is not neglected and there are many scenes of submarines in action. How these wolves of the waves stole up on unsuspecting ships and sent them to the bottom is portrayed without regard to your feelings.
PICTURE IS DIVIDED INTO 11 PARTS
To give a better idea of the course taken by the picture it is perhaps best to set down the way in which the picture is divided: (1) Preparations for the conflict. (2) The Balkan Wars of 1912, foreshadowing the greater war. (3) Ferdinand assassinated and the mad scramble of the nations to get in the fight. (4) War on the high seas; the Dardanelles, Jutland and the Adriatic. (5) War under the seas; Germany’s restricted and then unlimited U-boat campaign. (6) War in the air. (7) America enters the fight. (8) Collapse of Russia; famine and revolution. (9) 1918—Foch as Generalissimo; preparations for the final offensive. (10) The big drive, following Germany’s offensive against the Channel ports; Foch’s counter attack on all fronts. (11) Armistice and after.
Besides its eloquent but unspoken plea for peace “The First World War” is interesting for its pictures of the world’s alleged great men. When you are shown Franklin D. Roosevelt as a young assistant secretary of the navy; Herbert Hoover, not so fat and smiling in Belgium, President Wilson looking spruce and vital, Kaiser William with a too-confident air, Archduke Ferdiand happy and pleased with himself on his wedding day, King Alfonso of Spain examining air craft, Leon Trotzky, confident and alert as he reviews the Red Army, Lenin kindly and vital in Moscow, the Czar looking sheepish and uncomfortable, you realize all at once how almost childish and unintelligent the idea of war really is. It is a forceful lesson that even a school boy can learn.
THE PLAY
Time only permits me to report on two legitimate plays this week—”Jayhawker” and “All Rights Reserved” and I cannot throw my hat in the air about either of them. “
“Jayhawker,” the work of Sinclair Lewis, who did not run for governor of California, and Lloyd Lewis, the Chicago dramatic critic is nearly a very good play. It deals with the political career of a Kansas Jayhawker who becomes a senator in 1861, one of the Huey Long type and finally, by the end of the Civil War, tames down and almost goes pacifistic. Fred Stone as the Jayhawker is the main prop of the piece and he does very well indeed. The play fails because the authors are unable to keep the tempo of their first act. It almost seems as though they shot both barrels and then could not find any more ammunition.
“All Rights Reserved,” by Irving Kaye Davis is much ado about very little. It concerns the tribulations of a female author who writes a very spicy novel about a woman who has many lovers. The husband thinks that the wife got this copy from actual experiences but as a matter of fact the lady is actually true to her legally made mate. This great truth does not come out until the husband has caused not a little havoc among his and his wife’s friends. Mr. Davis’ play, although containing some sharp and clever dialogue, never lifts itself out of its staginess. It all seems very unreal and unimportant.
THE AMERICAN THEATRE
If you are interested in learning how America’s better writers have felt toward the drama I suggest that you read “The American Theatre” edited by Montrose Moses and John Mason Brown (Norton). In this well documented book the editors have set down samples of dramatic criticism in America from 1752-1934. Among the critics whose comments on the plays of their time are reprinted are Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, Walt Whitman, William Winter and all the modern reviewers, including Sime Silverman and Jack Conroy of Variety and Walter Winchell.
THE CINEMA
“We Live Again,” with Anna Sten (sounds like the beginning of a bad poem) will play another week at the Music Hall. . . . The new film at the Paramount this week will be “White Parade” in which Loretta Young and John Boles share the billing. It is the story of a nurse. . . . At the Capitol “Evelyn Prentice” starring William Powell and Myrna Loy will be the picture. Jimmy Savo heads the stage show.
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.
