AMUSEMENTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 360, 3 September 1930, Page 11

AMUSEMENTS

GRAND THEATRE AN UNUSUAL PICTURE “Framed,” now showing at The Grand Theatre is a gripping story of gang warfare in a large metropolitan centre. The drama is entirely different to any previous picture of its type, and is adopted from Paul Schofield’s' thrilling story. Evelyn Brent, fascinating heroine of a number of talking picture successes ,and Regis Toomey, likeable young player, portray the leading roles. Miss Brent numbers among her successes such outstanding films ns “Underworld,” “Interference,” “Fast Company” and ‘‘Slightly Scarlet.” Toomey, originally from the Broadway legitimate stage, achieved motion picture fame by his unforgettable portrayal in “Alibi,” and recently added to his laurels with fine work in ‘‘Street of Chance.” The supporting programme includes latest Fox News and “Mickey Luck” a clever child comedy. On Saturday the Fox Movietone “The Golden Calf” will be the attraction. This picture is a great laughing sensation with a brilliant cast of players such as Sue Carol, Marjorie White, Jack Mulhall, El. Brendel and about 100 artists models in various scenes. Seats may be reserved at the Theatre office or by phone 3152. THE REGENT "THE AVIATOR” Based on the popular musical comedy, “Going Up,” a screamingly funny musical talkie, “The Aviator,” commences this afternoon at the Regent Theatre for a three days’ season. Commenting on “The Aviator,” the Christchurch Sun wrote as follows: — “No better comedy work has ever been seen in Christchurch, either on the legitimate stage of the screen, than that done by Edward Everett Horton, in ‘The Aviator,’ which rocked Saturday evening’s audience with laughter from beginning to end. Many Christchurch people nave enjoyed the stage play ‘Going Up’ on which ‘The Aviator’ is based. But the talking picture has the advantage of presenting not only the delightfully amusing dialogue, but also—what the stage could not achieve—the most amazing and thrilling stunt flying. Imagine an aeroplane looping the loop round a railway viaduct and flying through a tunnel. Horton is inimitable as Robert Street, the nervous author, with a deadly fear of aeroplanes and high places, who is induced to put his name to a war-time flyer’s autobiography and then finds himself forced to accept credit for the aviator’s deds. Induced to pose for his picture in a ’plane with the engine running, the epitome of nervousness, he accidently opens the throttle and finds himself stunting madly in the air. Landing miraculously in a haystack, he is acclaimed a hero, and finds himself forced, for the sake of the girl ho loves, to engage in a stunt-flying

competition with a French ‘ace.’ Then the laughter and thrills really begin.” Supporting Horton in the cast are Patsy Ruth Miller, Lee Moran and Johnny Arthur. Of “The Aviator” Amy Johnson says: “It is not only too funny for words, but Horton’s hairraising stunts are the most remarkable I’ve ever seen.”

“NO, NO, NANETTE” SPECTACULAR AND ROMANTIC MAJESTIC’S FINE ATTRACTION To laugh, to smile, to catch the infection of sportive gaiety, to moyu forward always and to move easily with the swing and rhythm of things; to enjoy now and then a beauty not grotesque; to be pleasantly shocked by a grotesque that is not beautiful; to feel the humour of the ridiculous; is not this to find real entertainment in musical comedy? Such an evening’s diversion “No, No, Nanette” supplies at the Majestic Theatre, where it is now showing through the medium oi the Warner Bros.’ screen version oi the popular old stage success. A talented and beautiful actress, an attractive baritone with a touch of real artistry in his voice, a great chorus, and settings that mingle regal magnificence with the pageant of youth m all its jollity and rosy-spectacled romance — all these combine to make one of the most brilliant productions that have yet graced the talking screen in Wanganui. What is best in the programme is most legitimate to the theatre, and in consequence is to be greatly enjoyed. The score is one of delightful variety and charm, and the whole production is full of the gaiety and distraction which go to make up good comedy. The choruses are exceptionally good, and with the exquisite dancing they give to the show a warmth and vitality that are as acceptable as they are exceptional in the average song and dance show of this nature. The cast includes two inimitable stars in the persons of Alexander Gray and Bernice Claire, and the performance of each is sufficient to stamp them as the pivots around which the production revolves. The portraits drawn by the players, whether considered separately or collectively, are brilliant, even to the slighter sketches. Alexander Gray has a dashing, handsome, and distinguished appearance and a delightful voice which records excellently, whilst Bernice Claire combines daintiness, grace, perceptive humour, and a rare vivacity in a wholly pleasing delineation. “No, No, Nanette,” is one oi the most popular pictures of recent times and should not be missed. It is doubtful whether any production oi this kind has ever achieved such a perfect compound story, spectacle, and action. There are magnificent scenes, beautiful ballets, and tuneful musical numbers, but at the same time there is a plot that has vigour and verisimilitude. The comedy work has been admirably executed, and the dialogue is a constant source of the most hilarious mirth.

he saw the manager of tho Fanners’ Organisation Company at Wanganui.) Mr Hassell, general-manager of the | company, was also present. As a result[ of the interview he applied for a, position. He was successful and ho commenced work on October 2. Ho remained in their employ until May 31, 1930. At no stage was the termination of his employment discussed. There was never any stipulation as to notice He expected the position to be permanent. Ho did his very best in the interests of the company, but there was a decided slump in the market and this greatly lessened his volume of business. The reason given for his dismissal was that he was a disappointment and that he had failed to do what was expected of him. This lie attributed to the slump in the market. “I was not given a fair chance in the point of time to open up new business,” he said. “The business was competitive. He left tho firm at the company’s direction on Alay 31, having been paid up to that date at the rate of £4OO a year. He had been unable - to gain similar employment. He was a married man and he had been dismissed at the quiet period of the year. The position, at the first instance was not sought by him. He understood that the position was of a permanent nature.

Cross-examined by Air Taylor, plaintiff said that he was with his preivous firm for six years and five monthsHis wages at Hawera w r ere paid monthly. Prior to that, ho was employed by Dalgcty’s Ltd., and his salary was a fixed sum and was payable monthly. He did not remember whether Air Goldstone or Mr Hassell had told him that they would not bo a party to taking one man away from a sister company. He did not remember whether Air Goldstone said the permanency of the position depended on his success. At no time did he state to a director of the company that he regarded his appointment as being for the term of one year.. . At this stage, Air Taylor moved that the plaintiff should be non-suited. The

evidence, he said, showed that since 1919 he had been engaged in identical positions and that his positions with the three firms had been terminated with a month’s notice on either side. Ho submitted that the actions of the plaintiff went to show that there was nothing to show that his posiion was by yearly hire. The Magistrate intimated that he could not grant a non-suit at this stage and the Court rose shortly after for the luncheon adjournment. On resumption, Mr Brodie stated that a satisfactory settlement had been reached- The company would make a payment to plaintiff which he would not mention, without any admission of liability on the company’s part. He stated that he had the more readily advised the plaintiff to settle on the terms suggested because of the body of evidence available to the defendant of the existence of a custom recognised in the stock business, that the employment of a stock agent might be terminated by a month’s notice on either side. Each side would pay its own costs.