Tweet

You would be wrong were you to assume the reviews of movies in the “New York Times” have always been as immature, neurotic an sociopathic as they are currently. Only a few years ago they were commercially the most important reviews published, and intellectually among the best informed. As a matter of fact, the “NY Times” was one of the first major newspapers to raise motion picture criticism to the status accorded the so-called “legitimate” stage.

For this reason the reviews of motion pictures published by the “Times” since ’13 comprise a body of information about movies that is invaluable, and the offset reproduction of these reviews in five large (9 1/2 x 12 1/2″) volumes, plus a sixth in which everything is indexed, provides cinemaddicts with a research tool of inestimable worth. It also provides them with fascinating reading. Unfortunately, the price of the six volumes is $395.

The set is titled The New York Times Film Reviews. Volume I contains reviews published from ‘l3 through ’31: Volume II. ’32 through ’38; Volume III, ’39 through ’48; Volume IV, ’49 through ’58; and Volume V, ’59 through ’68 (when Bosley Crowther ceased being the “Times'” critic). There are about 16,000 reviews in all, plus articles about movies and moviemakers, and photographs of players and others.

A work of this sort is not something you read from cover to cover, but neither is it something you only consult when you want to know what was said about a particular picture at the time of its original release. I have had a wonderful time turning its pages and reading the reviews of some of the films I especially remember.

Here are some of the things the “Times” said:

1913. There are only three items. QUO VADIS was called “the most ambitious photo drama yet seen here,” and note was made of the “mechanical orchestra player” which supplied a musical accompaniment. THE LIFE AND WORKS OF RICHARD WAGNER was said to have been shown with “a narration and an organ recital”. Women were said to have comprised “fully two-thirds” of the audience which saw THE INSIDE OF THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.

1914. Eight items. CABIRIA’s mechanical effects were praised. A symphony preceded its showing and “a large chorus and orchestra greatly add to the effect of the play.” D. W. Griffith’s THE ESCAPE, which “treats of eugenics and sex questions,” is “cleverly done.”

1915. THE BIRTH OF A NATION was reviewed in about six inches of type and was called “the advent of the $2 movie” and “an impressive new illustration of the scope of the motion picture camera.” Geraldine Farrar’s CARMEN elicited this: “A curious commentary on the crazy economy of the theatre that a supreme dramatic soprano should give any of her precious time to a form of entertainment – to an art, if you will wherein the chief characteristic is a complete and abysmal silence.”

1916: Thomas Ince’s CIVILIZATION is “an excellently elaborate photo pageant on the physical horrors of war.” In THE DUMB GIRL OF PORTICI, in which Anna Pavlowa made her screen debut, “all but the most incorrigible movie fans will be disappointed.”

1917. D. W. Griffith’s INTOLERANCE, in spite of its “utter incoherence, the questionable taste of some of its scenes, and the cheap banalities into which it sometimes lapses,” proves Griffith is “a real wizard of the lens and the screen.” Its Babylonian scenes “are so splendid it seems pity the story was not deleted.”

1917. Sarah Bernhardt in MOTHER OF FRANCE “atones for most of the sins of the movies.” Mary Garden’s screen debut in THAIS “is not grand opera but it has the quality of seeming to be.”

1918. SHOULDER ARMS: “There have been learned discussions as to whether Chaplin’s comedy is low or high, artistic or crude, but no one can deny that when he impersonates a screen fool he is funny.”

1919. BRAKEN BLOSSOMS is “a sincere human tragedy” with “all of D. W. Griffith’s “mastery of film-making – many of the pictures surpass anything hitherto seen on the screen in beauty and dramatic force.” Cecil B. DeMille’s BODY AND SOUL is “a typically American movie romance” and one should not go to see it “hoping to find Barrie in it.”

1920. Griffith’s THE IDOL DANCE, is “not convincing”. John Barrymore’s DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE is “special and extraordinary,” and Barrymore’s performance is “flaw less.”

1921. THE KID is “not only Chaplin’s longest comedy but it is real comedy – has something of a plot its people are characters, and the fun of it is balanced with sadness. And Chaplin is more a comedian than clown.” The direction of Rex Ingram in THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE is praised, as are its cinematography and the performances “of those who have the more extensive roles . . . especially Rudolph Valentine [sic] as the young Julio.” THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI is called “a cubistic shocker” and is said to be “significant . . . all of its element its settings, its plot, its people, are expressive, eloquent, and, for the most part, harmoniously so.” The merits of SIR ARNE’S TREASURE were extolled, not by the “Times’ ” critic, but by Frances Taylor Patterson in a letter.

1922. Compared to NANOOK OF THE NORTH “the usual photoplay is thin and blank.” Lubitsch’s FOOLISH WIVE “teems with scenes that mean something, that throw light on character and action, that strike the spectator fairly between the eyes.” After ORPHANS OF THE STORM opened Griffitlh “not only deleted certain scenes but has made others at his studio in Mamaroneck and put them into the photoplay.” To “Zorro and D’Artagnan, Douglas Fairbanks has now added Robin Hood and ROBIN HOOD is the greatest of the three.”

1923. THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME is “a drama that will appeal to all who are interested in fine acting, artistic settings, and a remark able handling of crowds, and who don’t mind a grotesque figure and grim atmosphere.” A WOMAN OF PARIS “lives, and the more directors emulate Mr. Chaplin the better it will be for the producing of motion pictures.” Probably “no more wonderful spectacle than Mr. DeMille’ THE TEN COMMANDMENTS has ever been put before the public.” James Cruze’s HOLLYWOOD “can be seen more than once and still be enjoyed.”

1924. Lubitsch’s THE MARRIAGE CIRCLE is “unalloyed bliss.” John Barrymore’s BEAU BRUMMELL is “a gem.” John Ford’s THE IRON HORSE is “instructive and inspiring.” Buster Keaton’s THE NAVIGATOR is “an excellent panacea for melancholia or lethargy.” HE WHO GETS SLAPPED is “beautifully told and flawlessly directed.” GREED is “sordid . . . deal only with the excrescences of life such as would flabbergast even those dwelling in lodging houses on the waterfront.” In December of ’24 reviews signed by Mordaunt Hall began to appear.

1925. THE LAST LAUGH is “a highly artistic film masterpiece.” THE SALVATION HUNTERS “deals with mud, indolence, and depravity . . . and the chief characters are an intensely lethargic lot.” The wonderful photography and model work in THE LOST WORLD are weakened by “subtitles and unnecessary protestations of affection by hero and heroine at inopportune moments.” GRASS is “unusual . . . remarkable . . . instructive . . . compelling.” THE GOLD RUSH is “as much a dramatic story as comedy . . . Chaplin’s acting is more sympathetic than in any of his other productions … THE GOLD RUSH has more thought and originality than THE KID and SHOULDER ARMS.” Fritz Lang’s SIEGFRIED is “a worthy effort” and “at times absolutely fascinating.” Stroheim’s THE MERRY WIDOW is “not a picture to which one ought to take those who have finer sensibilities.” THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is “a well-dressed thriller with capable acting by the villain.” THE FRESHMAN is “a regular Harold Lloyd strip of fun, made all the more hilarious by the introduction of something resembling suspense in the football sequences.” THE BIG PARADE is “an eloquent pictorial epic,” and BEN HUR “a photodrama filled with so much artistry that one wants to ponder its scenes.”

1926. MOANA is “a poem … joyful . . . a thoroughly artistic contribution to the motion picture.” VARIETY is “the strongest and most inspiring drama ever told by the evanescent shadows.” Several Vitaphone shorts that had sound won favorably reviewed on October 8.

1927. In THE FLESH AND THE DEVIL Clarence Brown “mingled adroitly hard and fast realism with soft an poetic glimpses . . . Garbo is undeniably alluring . . . Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Hansen give sound performances.” Buster Keaton’s THE GENERAL “is singularly well mounted but the fun is not exactly plentiful.” METROPOLIS is “a technical marvel with feet of clay, a picture as soulless as the manufactured woman of the story . . . Nothing like it has been seen on the screen.” WINGS has “amazing air duels and an impressive study of aviators . . . Magnascope, which gives a picture twice its usual size, is used to a great extent in this film.” CHANG is “an unusual piece of work beside which all other big-game hunting films pale into insignificance.” THE JAZZ SINGER was reviewed on October 7 and its success “is due to a large degree to Mr. Jolson’s Vitaphone renditions. The Vitaphone songs and some dialogue have been introduced most adroitly.”

1928. Chaplin’s THE CIRCUS “will prove a little disappointing . . . there are passages that are undoubtedly too long and others that are too extravagant.” THE CROWD is “a powerful analysis of a young couple’s struggle for existence in NYC.” WHITE SHADOWS OF THE SOUTH SEAS is “a fair picture.” In THE END OF ST. PETERSBURG Pudovkin has “a striking facility for pictorial expression he succeeds in keeping to the thread of his story.”

1929. Carl Dreyer’s THE PASSION OF JEANNE D’ARC is “a production of unequalled artistry . . . a most poignant study of the last eight hours of her life.” In THE LOVE PARADE Lubitsch “serves Chevalier well.”

1930. LITTLE CAESAR would be “an ordinary gangster film but for W. R. Burnett’s compact story and Edward G. Robinson’s performance.” CIMARRON is “a stupendous undertaking in view of the time that is covered and the host of persons in its scenes.” CITY LIGHTS “is a film worked out with admirable artistry . . . Chaplin proved, so far as he is concerned, the eloquence of silence.” In KIKI Mary Pickford is “more the imp of her early films.” TABU is “an enchanting piece of photography synchronized with a most pleasing score arranged by Dr. Hugo Reisenfeld . . . but otherwise a silent film . . . It’s like a picture poem, with its sunshine and happiness in the beginning and its stormy drama in the end.” René Clair’s LE MILLION “avoids the errors in SONS LES TOITS DE PARIS” and is “scintillating entertainment.” THE MALTESE FALCON is “Ricardo Cortez’ film, not director Roy Del Ruth’s.” The trial scene in AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY is “emphatically stirring” and atones “for the disappointment in the early episodes and to a certain extent for the none too effective closing sequence.” THE GUARDSMAN makes one realize “it’s a pity there are not more Alfred Lunts, Lynn Fontannes and Ferenc Molnars to help out the screen.” FRANKENSTEIN is “a stirring grand-guignol type of picture that aroused so much excitement many in the audience laughed to cover their true feelings.”

Continue to page: 1 2 3