Dorothy Gish - Photoplay, April 1922 - Artist: J. Knowles HareKnown for his drypoint etching portraits and his magazine cover
illustrations, John Knowles Hare (1884-1947) was born in Montclair, New Jersey. He was a member of the Society of Illustrators in New York.
Betty Compson - Photoplay, May 1922 - Artist: J. Knowles Hare
Rene Adoree - Photoplay, November 1926 - Artist: Carl Van BuskirkA letter to the editor from Elizabeth Van Deusen, New York, N. Y.
I do not agree with the spokesman of the reformers, Canon Chase. To me, pictures are neither moral nor immoral. Human beings are the only ones to whom the word "moral" may be rightly applied.
It is the obvious intention of some producers to subvert motion pictures to a base appeal, and many beholders will see evil in pictures whether or not it is there—we are so apt to find what we look for. But it is a happy fact that such producers and beholders are a small minority.
The hearts of men may need to be purified, but that is the job of the church. I don't believe in censorship, even when called regulation. "All constraint except what wisdom lays on men is evil."
Pictures may not be true to life. They are an escape, a surcease, between life's reality. I cannot imagine filling out one of Canon Chase's score cards. If I tried to write down my analysis of "The Big Parade" I would feel that I was dissecting the body of a friend.
My advice to those—with special emphasis for the co-workers of Canon Chase—who attend motion pictures with the idea of searching for " off " coloring, is—stay away. Pictures can not be worth the price of admission to such people. As regards sex, keep in mind there are only two sexes, and cheer up.
The producers are often mistaken as to "what the public wants," but the public doesn't know seven-eighths of the time. Pictures are the gift of God to the lonely transient, and we are, each one of us, at some time, and some of us at all times, lonely transients.
Dolores Costello - Photoplay, October 1927 - Artist: Charles SheldonA letter to the editor from John Irwin Zellner, Greensburg, PA.
I happen to be only one of the thousands of unfortunate movie fans who must live in the State of Pennsylvania. Coming here from Ohio less than a year ago, I soon discovered why the censors of this state are razzed more than those of any other state. Practically every picture shown here is cut to some extent; in fact, I have yet to see one picture in its entirety. If the action is not cut, then the titles are substituted and everyone knows what excellent title writers the censors are!
The first picture I saw here was "Variety," a picture I had looked forward to seeing for a long time. Words fail to express my disgust with the picture I saw. I felt like suing the theater manager for showing such a picture and announcing it as "Variety." But I could not blame him for the hodgepodge I saw. When "Flesh and the Devil" was shown here, it was but another example of what a censor can do. The stars were not allowed one kiss and the action was cut so badly that it was difficult to follow the story.
Recently I saw "Captain Salvation" in Washington, D. C., and I hate to think what the censors will do to it. Why, oh why, must we sit meekly by while a few feeble-minded persons do their best and worst to spoil our taste and lower our respect for the greatest form of amusement in the world?
Joan Crawford - Photoplay, December 1927 - Artist: Charles SheldonIt is stated in the table of contents that Charles painted this from life, but I have a hard time seeing the young Joan in this picture. Once in a while a quick sideways glance will almost convince me. What do you think, am I just missing something.
4 comments:
That doesn't look like Joan AT ALL. But I did look at each feature individually and I think the nose is right. The rest is all wrong, especially the eyes. I think a lot of the Photoplay covers take liberties, but that's by far the most "off" picture I've seen.
I think my grandmother had that Dolores Costello magazine, or a copy of that picture at least. There were several old mags I hoped to find when I cleaned out the family house, but didn't find a single one.
What strikes me even more than the anti-censorship sentiments is the power of expression ordinary letter-writing folk once had. "Pictures are the gift of God to the lonely transient, and we are, each one of us, at some time, and some of us at all times, lonely transients." Such a beautiful thought -- but can you imagine someone writing that to People Magazine these days? If they did, some intern would jettison the email thinking the correspondent had contracted some flowery form of madness.
I agree, the Joan picture is way off and I agree with Stacia that it's mainly the eyes, which were Joan's most striking feature. aquiline.
Good, we all agree that I am not losing my eyesight or facial recognition prowess :-)
Yes, as we know, the art of prose is shuffling off this mortal coil. We can point the finger in many directions, but it is a sad truth none the less. Even on the back of some of the postcards we collect there are some wonderful examples of thoughtful correspondence from those lonely transients.
You're not the only one on the young Joan Crawford picture. I don't see her. I don't see the Joan Crawford look but who knows if you see her through the ages from the 1910's to the 1950's, she looked different in every decade. Especially if you compare her in the 1920's with her looks in the 1930's. It looks like two different women.
Post a Comment