The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 2, 1927, Page 11

THE BETTER ’OLE, Cheerlo, old top! Bill is ‘ere in Chicago. And ’ell make you larf ‘till your sides ache! Blime if 'e won't! Syd Chaplin hiding behind the walrus mustache of the famous ¢haracter developed by the artist Bruce Bairns- father, gives us a characterization that is as good a bit of burlesque as ever given us by his brother Charlie. We call this burlesque. War is a, laughing matter and a minimum of patriotic molasses is stuck to it. The story opens with old Bill and his half- pint partner Alf (well played by Jack Ackroyd) in a shell hole under fire. Little Alf complains the hole is a poor one. Bill tells him: “If you knows of @ better ‘ole go to it!” and from this bright sally to the absurd end the whole picture is a scream, Qld Bill as portrayed by Syd Ohap- lin is a shrewd, stodgy, likable old duffer. With pipe always present un- der the bushy mustache his escapades in the war become classic, It’s true We are given the usual stuff in the plot where Old Bill saves half the army from the Germans, That is to be expected. However, there are re- markably funny situations to offset the hokum, In a theatrical performance the sol- diers give at the front, Old Bill re- fuses to become the ‘orses ’ind end and becomes the ’orses neck. He and his partner Alf are sewed into the hide of a horse and from then on and for an hour it seems their escapades are ag funny as any ever screened, The directing of “Chuck” Reisner (who collaborated also in writing the scenario) is a splendid job, The pho- tography is of a high order. The sub- titles are in humorous harmony with the picture which ranks with the very best comedies ever made, Syd Chap- lin is a great clown-and. this, picture puts him second only to the master- comedian, his brother. Blime if the Woods Theatre isn’t the Better Ole to go to sight now. Go to it! *s # ALSO THE VITAPHONE. A few weeks ago our New York critic gave us a review of the second performance of the VITAPHONE and only a brief mention of “The Better *Ole.” Reversing the order we have reviewed “The Better ’Ole” and make brief mention of the VITAPHONBE, forced also to repeat the enthusiasm “of the first review. ‘In the program of this remarkable invention George Jessel gives a clever monologue. A quartette, the Howard brothers and Reginald Werrenrath contribute song and humor. Al Jolson, best known “mammy” singer, is interesting to watch as he does his stuff. As a whole the program, doubled in interest with the addition of “The Better ’Ole,” makes an evening’s theatrical pleas- ure you will find it hard to equal. Ww. C. The Theater “THE EMPEROR JONES.” Eugene O’Neill’s famous play, “The Emperor Jones,” with Charles Gilpin in the title role is now playing at the Mayfair Theater, New York City. First produced several years ago, it is still considered one of O'Neill's best. In the present revival, Gilpin gives a fine performance and anyone who likes O’Neill’s style will spend an enjoyable evening at the theater. It is a “one man show,” practically no other character having an oppor- tunity to do very much with the pds- sible exception of Moss Hart,- play- ing the part of Harry’ Smithers, a British trader. The story concerns Brutus Jones, a Negro pullman porter, who having been sent to jail as a result of com- mitting murder during a crap game, escapes after killing the-keeper and finds his way to a West Indian is- land, where by trickery he sets him- self up as emperor over the ignorant and superstitious natives. A PEEK EACH WEEK AT MOTION PICTURES Pa \ Flamma Ardens (kinda warnish name, isn’t it?) most famous of all italy’s film stars. A DOZEN IN BRIEF _ WHAT PRICE GLORY—‘Excel- lent,” says J. B. (Garrick.) THE SCARLET LETTER—Passed by our slightly bored censor. THE BLONDE SAINT—‘“Heap much hokum’’—T. J. PARADISE—It isn’t. FAUST — “Janning’s acting re- deems many things’—J. B. THE WINNING OF BARBARA WORTH—Blah! THE TEMPTRESS—Greta Garbo vamps a few. THE BLACK PIRATE—Fairbanks makes him not as black as he has been painted. (Belmont.) DON JUAN—Barrymore no, Vita- phone yes. VARIETY—One classics. . LONDON—A goulash of the rich and the poor. BREAKING CHAINS—We insist you see it! bs of the movie He manages to secure large amounts of money by various meth- ods from the unsuspecting Negroes and hopes to continue to do so as jong as they are willing to be fooled. When the play opens we find that the natives are beginning to awaken to the fact that they are being swin- died and Jones attempts to escape to the coast. The rest of the play shows how he is trying to escape, the fears and ter- ror that overcome him ag he goes further and further into the forest and without knowing it, turns around in a circle into the waiting arms of the natives who kill him, ; Most of these latter scenes are in semidarkness and Gilpin here shows’ his remarkable acting ability. A note in the program states: “The action of the play takes place on a West Indian island not. yet self-deter- mined by white marines,...” As the “Emperor Jones” is a short play, it is preceeded by a one-act cur- tain raiser by William DeMille, call- ed “In 1919.” It is stupid and not worth mentioning. If you come late and miss it, not much harm will be done, Sylvan A, Pollack. 4 2, _ Old Or New Culture? HY do authors write? Whom do they write for? Is American cul- ture dead? Is the “machine aga” fa- tal to art and culture? Should artists form their own trade unions? It it true that writers and artists are Bol- sheviks? These and other questions on s0- ciety and art are answered by four- teen poets, novelists, newspaper men, and critics in the January issue of the New Masses. Under the title, “Are Artists People?” are grouped an- Swers On a questionnaire sent to Har- bor Allen, Bruce Barton, Van Wyck Brooks, Heywood Broun, Stuart Chase, Babette Deutsch, Waldo Frank; Robin- son Jeffers, Joseph Wood, :Krutch, Llewellyn Powys, Edwin Seaver, Up- ton Sinclair, Genevieve Taggard, and Edmund Wilson, HE answers prove that the major- ity of these writers have faith in American culture, hail the advent of the machine age, want an artist’s un- ion, and believe that artists should take an active part in the material ‘| fights of life like their more substan- tial neighbors. They express doubt about the “hope for a new world cul- ture thru the rise of the working class to power,” but barring a few excep- tions, they are “sympathetic” towards economic and social evolution. The charge of egoism hurled against artists since the beginning of time is verified in answers to the first two questions, “Why do you write?” and “For what audience do you produce?” Bruce Barton, sole altruistic excep- tion, writes to “make his family com- fortable” and intimates that it isn’t hard to find “an appreciative and prof- itable audience.” The rest write frankly for themselves because they like to write, and are rather choice about their audiences, They all hope -get..audiences, of course, but sev- eral confess that they write for audi- ences of people like themselves or for other writers. LL of the writers high-hat “literary prostitution,” which they define as writing solely for money or fame. Ed- mund Wilson points out, however, that Shakespeare’s plays were often “made to order.” On the query, “Do you believe contemporary American culture decadent?” the nays have it by a vote of six to four. Van Wyck Brooks comes out with a flat accusa- tion of decadence, while Genevieve Taggard thinks it is “dormant and rather more commercial than de- cadent.” A few take side wallops at American art by stating that what has never been can’t decay, By a vote of six to three the writ- ers give a clean bill of health to the “machine age.” They believe the ma- WHY AUTHORS WRITE AND LIONS HUNT chine will change culture and art but not kill it. Exception is taken by Up- ton Sinclair who fearg that if ma- chine-made ware continue there will be neither old or new culture; by Joseph Wood Krutch who “gets little aesthetic satisfaction out of machin- ery;” and by Brooks who believes “the tendency to worship the machine, or even reflect it passively but admir- ingly in pictorial art, is destructive of life,” HE question “How should the artist adapt himself to the machine age?” finds the writers flying in al] direc- tions. Robinson Jeffers is for “adap- tion without excitement.” Harbor Al- len is for “epic conquest.” Sinclair and Stuart Chase advocate using the new power offered by machinery, Ed- win Seaver says “accept it.” Babette Deutsch says “understand it,” and Heywood Broun asks to “claim exemp- tion.” Opposite viewpoints are taken by Krutch who doesn’t want to “spend any more time on machinery than he has to;” by Llewellyn Powys who advises the artist to beat a retreat; by Brooks who says “the artist must not adapt himself to the machine age;” and by Miss Deutsch who is sure he can’t, unless he “is of it, born deep in it.” She knows only one ar- tist able to do this, but lots who are trying. The hope of getting bigger royalties and a chance to exchange ideas urges seven out of ten writers to vote for artists’ unions, Heywood Broun, how- ever, doesn’t see how “huddiing is going to help them.” Miss Deutsch is doubtful, and Krutch is sure some of them. want to be left alone, NLY three, Upton Sinclair, Gene- vieve Taggard, and Harbor Allen risk a definite “yes” to the question: “Is there any hope for a new world culture through. the rise of thes - ers to power.” The rest, though “sym: pathetic,” have doubts. Jeffers thinks a new culture after a proletarian revo- lution “could rise only beyond the Lethe of a new dark age.” “It might. Who knows?” speculates Broun. “Is there hope? Yes,” comes from Stuart Chase. Krutch feels also that there is “hope.but not certainty,” and Miss Deutsch declares that if working class culture comes it will be like the cul- ture of the middle ages. She advises workers to have their revolution first before speculating about the resultant art, Edmund Wilson temporizes with “it depends.” Brooks alone says that there will be no new culture, or at best, a “worse culture than we already have.” Waldo Frank states that since an artist gets his values not “from the air, but from facts, he cannot be epirit- ually alien to the revolutionary work- ng class movement.” THE TINY WORKER A Weekly, Editor, Charmion Oliver, San Francisco, Cal. Johnny Red, Assistant Editor, Vol. 1. Saturday, January 1, 1927 No. 31 PICKLE AND CAN By Charmion Oliv- % ‘ It was a_ cold, FROM LIVING- ee Paes ahelscn, windy night. STON * Johnny Red’s ae _ dog was barking 4 The world’s boss- like anything out- Little “Tommy es now have thots ide. r — ane 0.” who is only that cause them opene the oor regrets, and in walked the ave years old Tho they pickle dog with a piece | Writes to us from and can everything of cloth with white Livingston, I11i- that they can ‘ grew a nois. He says: Oh, just why “Holy Cow there Ba iy can't they pickle must be a Santa T am only a lt and can soviets? Claus" Johnny tle tiny worker. shouted laughing. But I have learned “Those must be hi 5 OH, CHARMION! pants!" | that It's:no fun to _ The next nmifnute work and pray That was good |* Petar & man came push- and live on hay.” stuff. So were the ceric ing in swearing | 7 would like to join other. things you blue streaks.” It was Mr. Gotrocks, % mle your ranks even if sent! the owner of a factory near them, tay ie og pane “Whose blankety blank dog is that?" ‘ wo HEY KIDs! he asked In his underwear. His coat years old. Charmion sent in was torn and his whiskers slipped. WELCOME some, dandy little “Did you kick that dog?” Johnny's TOMMY! things — jokes, i P poems and every- father asked. thing. . Just watch “Yes, and he bit me!’ shouted Got- cks, THE PANTS OF SANTA CLAUS THE TINIEST TINY WORKER Ghee we're glad them in the next Fo: to see you with us, issues. But don't “Good dog,'* Johnny's father said. Be sure to write let her crowd you “He doesn’t believe in Santa Claus again and to write out! Come on— either, And if you don’t stop kick- often. You're the send in your ing that dog your name won't be Got- tiniest tiny worker things too! rocks—it will be Gotnopants!” we havel ,