ENTERTAINMENTS
THE REGENT. "WATERLOO BRIDGE”—A DRAMATIC MASTERPIECE. DARING THEME BRILLIANTLY HANDLED. Not even a shuffle throughout the screening was heard from the crowded audience at the Regent Theatre last night when the remarkable film “Waterloo Bridge” again gripped its onlookers. Georjc Bernard Shaw once divided the majority of his plays into two categories—“ Plays Pleasant” and "Plays Unpleasant.” If that division could, be maintained generally through the whole field of dramatic literature, “Waterloo Bridge,” in its play form, would probably be classed more in the nature of an unpleasant than a pleasant play. Its theme —the love of a soldier for a street walker —is a daring, though by no mans an impossible one, but, in its adaptation to tho screen, the picture has received such delicate treatment at the brilliant hands of its director, James Whale, that it has been completely lifted aloft from any sordid atmosphere and has become a most impelling production, wonderfully acted, and providing an engrossing, dramatic story which is never once carried beyond the borders of feasibility. The theme has an elemental force about it that leaves the onlooker almost awed, profoundly moved, for the story is one that pulsates with life from first to last, lacking nothing in its tense appeal and dramatic conception. “Waterloo Bridge” is a moving picture of London in war-time, telling of two young peapie, both Americans, who are swept together in that great metropolis during the four years of war madness, and of the outcome of their companionship. Myra, the girl, has been in the chorus of “Tho Bing Boys on Broadway,” but two years of lack of work find her fallen. Into her life, curing an air raid, comes a young soldier who has enlisted with the Canadians, and the personal drama of the two becomes the main theme. The soldier, young and oo his first leave, is much impressed with the girl,' whom he places on a pedestal, ard, before he goes to France again, his regard has strengthened into love. The boy has no conception of her real position, and the situations which follow are strongly emotional and dramatic, and the audience is gripped right to the happy climax, where full play is given to the invincible law of compensation. Mae Clark displays brilliant histrionic ability in the part of the unfortunate girl who refuses to drag her soldier lover down to her own level, notwithstanding that he is the only man she has ever really cared for. Her acting—with its many poignant and highly dramatic touches—commands the admiration of all, and she gives a very intelligent portrayal of a difficult role. Kent Douglass, as the keen, fresh, Canadian, deeply in love and willing to do anything to bring happiness into Myra’s life, also gives a delightful interpretation of his part, and his acting throughout is of a high standard. Tiro supporting cast has been carefully chosen and all loyally co-operate with the two principals to create one of the finest dramas ever screened in Invercargill. With such an impelling and poignant production filling the main part of the night’s entertainment, the choice of a long Slim Summerville comedy in support is particularly appropriate. Everyone knows Slim—-his face is enough to make one scream—his actions reduce one to tears. A popular newsreel rounds off a typically well-balanced Regent programme, which provides sound entertainment and which will bo screened for tho last time this evening.
BIGGEST LAUGH YET. “MY WIFE’S FAMILY” AT THE MAJESTIC. It would scarcely be an exaggeration to say that “My Wife’s Family,” which will bo shown at the Majestic for the last time tonight, is the brightest farce yet seen—and heard —in Invercargill. Certainly the laugh that went up almost continuously from last night’s audience was tho biggest that has been heard for many a day. English producers are particularly happy in their comedies, but it has well been said of “My Wife’s Family” that it is the most amusing yet produced in England. Monty Banks, who has made some fine talkies, deserves special commendation for his direction of “My Wife’s Family,” in which there is not one dull moment from start to finish. The hilarious situations are put over with great gusto by a strong cast, every member of which thoroughly enters into the spirit of the entertainment. The team work is excellent. The central situation in which a piano is mistaken for a baby, is sophisticated to a degree but the irresponsible fooling renders the proceedings entirely innocuous and no one can possibly take exception to the breezy innuendoes running through the clever dialogue. The übiquitous and omnipresent mother-in-law is, of course, the object of much of the derision. Scarcely ever has a better performance in a farce been given than that of Gene Gerrard. If one pauses to recall the brilliant farces of the talkies and the silent films one is compelled to hand the laurels to Gerrard. He is a natural comedian. He is the life and soul of the party, and the success of the film owes much to his breezy performances and likeable personality. As the domineering and interfering relation, Amy Vencss, who is well-known on the English stage, is admirable. She at no time loses her dignity and is .a battler for her womanly rights till the finish. She does not admit defeat. Miss Veness gives an admirable characterization. And next in the honours is Jimmy Godden, the sparkling comedian who delighted audiences throughout Australia and New Zealand on several tours in musical comedies with Elsie Prince. When the theatrical slump came, Godden returned to England, and this is his first appearance in the talkies. He is in capital form as a wandering jack of all trades and medicine man. Godden is a splendid foil for Gerrard. A most amusing study of the henpecked father-in-law is drawn by Charles Patten. The supporting cast is very strong, and is headed by Dodo Watts, as a moviestruck school girl, Molly Lamont as an intriguing maid, and Tom Helmore as a young father who “gets left with the baby.” Altogether it is a picture no one in need of a tonic should miss.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19320223.2.91
Bibliographic details
Southland Times, Issue 21636, 23 February 1932, Page 7
Word Count
1,025ENTERTAINMENTS Southland Times, Issue 21636, 23 February 1932, Page 7
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Southland Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.