FILM STARS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 13 November 1926, Page 11

FILM STARS.

VALENTINO’S death leaves a blank in the ranks of popular film stars which, however, one may speculate on the name of his successor, is actually unflllable. A screen idol is generally made by one picture, and since , the picture-going public requires an attractive personality much more than brilliant acting, his or her merit is by no means commensurate with the publicity accorded to it. x

At least four names come to the mind immediately. Ricardo Cortez, Victor Varconi, a new arrival in America from Hungary, Ramon Novarro, whose latest picture, “The Midshipman,’’ proved highly popular, and whose name was made by his initial appearance in “The Prisoner of Zenda,’’ and, finally > the English actor, Ivor Novello, whose apache role in an adaptation of “The Rat,” made him still more an idol of the women. Any or all of these might be said to be capable of becoming “the shiek lover,’’ but in fact they would all be entirely different in method; Navarro would always be Navarro, and not a new Valentino, and the same with the others.

Names on the screen can be made from a single appearance in a picture (Adolphe Menjou’s success in “A Woman of Paris,’’ is an excellent example of this), and a name that has not been before the public for a few months can be as easily forgotten. It may happen that a part is eminently suitable to an artist who is being given’ a first chance, and a new phenomenon is promptly hailed in the screen heavens. Valentino was made by his part in “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.’’

In John Barrymore we have a popular figure, and a great artist combined; Barrymore is not always only Barrymore, but the character he is setting out to interpret. There are very few artists of equal rneri" who have attained equal popularity, since popularity is never measured by merit. His performance in “Dr. Jekvll and Mr Hyde’’ still remains one of the most notable in tlie short annals of film history. And then of course there is Richard Barthclmess, whose claims cannot be overlooked.

As a contrast we have a consummate actor like Emil .Tannings who, while the pictures he appears in may obtain popular applause, may never be a personal attraction, or what one is forced to term “a box office attraction,’ in himself. His latest picture, ville,’’ is a fine piece of work, anu while catering to film habitues’ tastes, is also a remarkable example of brilliant- acting and screen technique which is full of promise for the future of pictorial entertainment.

Charles Chaplin, of course, still remains the most amazing figure in the history of the screen. He was one of the first to realise that he was dealing with an entirely new medium, and has always worked along the lines of pictorial rather than sub-title expression. He is supreme still in his comedy. Coming new comedians in Harry Langdon and Glen Tryon, whose first big picture, “White’Sheep,” was one of the few genuine film burlesques, may conceivably be classed near, but will never rival him.

Apart from the people who have appealed to the few by their brilliant acting abilities, such as Bernhard Goetzke, Werner Krauss, Paul Wegener, Koline, and, it must be confessed, a greater number of Continental artists than American or British, big personalities fall into recognised types. w e have the gentlemanly and pleasing art of Ronald Column and the undeniably attractions of the daring George O’Brien. Tom Mix still reigns stipreme in the Western drama, though closely run by Hoot Gibson. Douglas Fairbanks is in a class by himself, and is either liked or disliked, according to taste; as an actor ho is considered by some to be only fair; but as an .expression of virility and pose excellent.