Life, 1929-07-05 · page 27 of 41
Life — July 5, 1929 — page 27: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page contains two film reviews by Harry Evans from an early sound-era *Life* magazine (likely late 1920s). **"Four Feathers"** is praised primarily for its wildlife cinematography—baboons crossing a bridge and hippopotamuses diving—shot in Africa by Cooper and Schoedsack (famous documentary filmmakers). The review notes an early special effects technique where actors performed against blank Hollywood backdrops while African footage was superimposed behind them, creating seamless composite shots. The actual narrative—a British officer proving his courage in Africa after being called a coward—is dismissed as formulaic, overshadowed by the spectacular animal footage and exotic locations. **"The Fall of Eve"** follows a tired comedic premise: a man and woman must pretend marriage and share a bed to prove their relationship. The reviewer criticizes the dialogue as unfunny and notes that actors work hard to extract laughs from weak material. Patsy Ruth Miller's comedic performance is described as "amateurish." Both reviews exemplify early cinema criticism's focus on technical innovation and spectacle over narrative sophistication.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
New York Life “Four Feathers” T SHE reasons for the recommen- dation of “Four Feathers” by this department may be placed in two groups. One is a group of baboons photographed as they are crossing a swinging bridge which falls and precipitates them in the water where they struggle for their lives; and the other is a group of hippopotamuses (or is it—potami?) shown diving into the water from a steep bank in an effort to escape a jungle fire. These remarkable scenes were photographed in Africa by Marian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, the two men who produced those jungle epics, “Chang” and “Grass,” and without the photogra- phy supplied by these gentlemen, “Four Feathers” would have been just another si- lent movie. It may be in- teresting for you to know that the actors who play in this pic- ture have never laid eyes on some of the authentic African scenery that serves as a background during se- quences in which the cast is shown in the foreground. By a comparatively new process it is now possible to photo- graph scenery and later superimpose the action of players. In other words, Richard Arlen, Clive Brook, Fay Wray and William Powell appear to be doing their acting in the heart of Africa, whereas they really went through these scenes in Hollywood against blank backgrounds. The trick of combining the Hollywood acting and African scenery has been done so skillfully that the completed film shows no evi- dence of having been doctored. The story, which is an adaptation of the Mason novel, tells an almost un- believable story of heroism. The con- duct of a young British officer leads his friends to believe he is a coward, and he is presented with a white feather by three of his fellow officers and his fiancée. In expiation he goes to Africa and accomplishes three ex- ceptional deeds of valour in a cam- paign against native tribesmen. Rich- ard Arlen (whose mustache makes him look very much like Ronald Col- man) gives an excellent performance as the dashing hero, though at times he is inclined to be a bit too dramatic. One of the most unusual scenes this reviewer has witnessed is the one in which hundreds of the natives are shown mounting their camels and rid- ing off into battle formation. This sequence is made more effective by the use of the magnascope, a device which increases the size of the pictures and increases the visibility of detail in mob actions. The photographic work of Cooper and Schoedsack overshadows the ef- forts of the actors to such an extent that the plot is forced to run a poor second. However, it must be said for all the principals that they make the most of the opportunities offered them to compete with the interesting per- formance of the baboons and hippo- potamuses (or—potami). “The Fall of Eve™ Any motion picture built around the ancient bedroom situations that serve as a plot for “The Fall of Eve” is bound to creak audibly, and the fact that the players manage to create enough merriment on occasion to drown out the creaks is a definite point in their favor. It is the old story about a man and woman who are forced by circumstances to pretend they are married, and then have to go to bed (in a nice way) to prove it. The dialogue by Frederick and Fanny Hatton does not spar- kle with any great degree of consistency, and as a conse- quence the ac- tors work like the deuce in an effort to pro- duce laughs out of lines and sit- uations that are not humorous. Patsy Ruth Miller's efforts at com- edy are amateurish at times, a fault which must be laid at the door of the person responsible for the casting. She has a pleasant speaking voice and in a suitable réle she may do commend- able . talkie work. Ford Sterling weakens an otherwise consistent per- formance by overacting badly in his intoxicated scenes. Bessie Farrington, on the other hand, is not funny until she gets that way. We must warn you not to be mis- led by the tide. There is nothing in “The Fall of Eve” about apples. Fair entertainment. “A wifle risque, 1 fear—Sylvia.” comicbooks.com