Am I the tool of the Master?
Am I the bait that is sought to lure scurvy dollars?
Am I to be the left hand of the Griffith?
* * * * *
FILM TRUTH will now speak:
Why, oh, why, does the name of Griffith have to be signed to the slushy
drivel of such advertisements?
“Way Down East” is a big picture; “Way Down East” can stand fairly,
squarely, flatly on its own feet. “Way Down East” is worth two dollars
of any man’s money.
We paid two dollars to see it—and we are going to pay again. Provided
Mr. Griffith’s advertising writers don’t convince us that our money
would be accepted as a response to the salacious; our two dollars a
contribution to the cause of promoting motion picture censorship.
“Way Down East” lived its life on the American stage honored and
respected—without the need of such truck and trash.
“Way Down East” made fortunes for its stage sponsors, and yet the “Way
Down East” of the spoken drama was as an amateur’s weak-kneed effort to
the stirring strength of the screen gem that Griffith has given us.
Then why the need for advertising what is cheap, tawdry and
contemptible?
The “Way Down East” of the stage did not need, and the “Way Down East”
of the screen does not need, an appeal that says:
“_Why does every woman have to feel the straining power of seduction in
one form or another—the hot, alluring breaths of deceits?_”
* * * * *
_The charming lady on the cover is not a bare back rider. Appearances
are deceptive. It is Norma Nicholls, one of a sextet of Vanity Fair
girls who, under Hal Roach’s protecting wing will delight the tired
business man in comedies to be released by Pathe._
_P. S.—The other five are just as pulchritudinous._
_On the inside front cover the attractive study by moonlight is one of
Lucy Cotton._
_And, we ask you, who couldn’t cotton to Lucy?_
------------------------------------------------------------------------