Stars Of To-Morrow Overlooked

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 109, 10 May 1941, Page 6 (Supplement)

Stars Of To-Morrow Overlooked

By Sheilah Graham

VERY little is being done at this moment to introduce and/or nourish the new screen acting blood that must take over when the current crop of big-shot actresses touch 40 and are no longer eligible for the romantic centre of their films. Except in a few case, nothing is being done to develop future Crawfords, Loys, Stanwycks, Colberts, and so on. At one time each studio had a stock company where the young of the screen-acting species were taught their paces. But the recent economy wave rooted out this healthv branch of the industry. For a young actress (or actor) to get an opportunity in pictures now, and more important, to hold the ground gained, she must be unbelievably lucky or have such obvious and instantaneous appeal that she is given the opportunities that will send her to-the top. Not Encouraged There are quite a few promising young actresses in Hollywood, but the treatment they receive is not conducive to star-building. Take the case of Ellen Drew. Recently she was co-starred with Joel McCrea in "Reaching for the Sun." "Swell," said the people who are pulling for Ellen. "This is a milliondollar picture with a popular lead-

ing man and ace director William Wellman to help her along the stardom route." At this point Paramount should have bolstered its investment in Miss Drew by putting her in another big picture, and then another, and another; and it would have had a star attraction on its ES?™ 11 -, But no - First Picture for Ellen after "Reaching for the Sun" is a quickie, "who-done-it," to be followed by a Hopalong Cassidy' So with one picture she is lifted. And with two others pulled down. This is not the way to create a star. Similar is the case of Patricia Morison, who came to Hollywood with a good acting reputation and a contract paying her 500 dollars a week that has expanded to 1000 dollars. Now that's a lot of money to pay a young girl, but it is wasted unless she is given roles to match it. As you know, Patricia refused to appear with Gene Autry and his horse in an eight-day quickie; preferring an eight-week suspension that would have cost her 8000 dollars. But her bosses relented—or were hard up for a feminine player —and she is now working in a couple of good films that should enhance her reputation and help to make her ready to take over for the older actresses when time taps them on the shoulder and says, "Your day is over."

I wonder why Dorris Bowdon has not had a good picture since "Grapes of Wrath," in which she showed acting ability? She has married in the interim, but wants to continue her career and is still receiving a salary —but no jobs come her way. Ann Rutherford's Future? Ann Rutherford is another youngster whose promise has not been allowed to develop. But with Ann it's because she has been forced to repeat the same role over and over again. She is a younger or older edition of "Polly Benedict" in every one of her films. And while it was good enough the first time to result in a long-term contract, she ought to get something more adult as training for the near future vacancies in feminine ranks. Bonita Granville would be a star of to-morrow—if they gave her the right' roles now. But she is currently playing a bit in a Kildare film . . . and Laraine Day—l don't think Laraine ought to continue as the nurse in the Kildare series. Anyone can play that nurse—as long as she is pretty, and pretty girls in Hollywood come by the hundred. Laraine ought to continue biting her teeth on films of the "My Son, My Son" and "Foreign Correspondent" calibre. Because here is talent, and it should get the right sort of air in which to breathe and grew.

The same studio—Metro —is showing more good sense with regard to Kathryn Grayson, the cute little actress of "Andy Hardy's Private Secretary." She waited two years for that one. And will wait as long for the next —unless something comes along sooner that will serve as an adequate show case for her talents. As bad as too little opportunity, is too much attention for young actresses who are not ready for it— in the mistaken Belief that big pictures will confuse audiences into accepting them as grade A stars. There's Lana Turner, who gets a tremendously important role in "Ziegfeld Girl," in which she has to run the gamut of the emotion. Will the part be too Dig ror her? In recent pictures, Lana has not impressed me as a powerful dramatic actress, and if I had been casting her I would have given her something easier. But she may come through, and if she does, Metro's reward will be a new profit-bringing property. Among the young stars of 1946 we can be sure of finding Deanna Durbin, Judy Garland, Betty Field, Joan Fontaine, Olivia de Havilland and Ida Lupino. All have bridged the uncertain gap between promise and* performance. But of the other young players of to-day, I wonder which, if any, will be more than a memory in five years' time. And in that case, what will happen when all the aging stars retire?