This is How Movies Should Be Made

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

. . . whose main claim to fame seems to be that she was not THE Betty Jane Graham of COVER GIRL (1944). In fact, 1944 marked the final year of the ORIGINAL "Little Miss Vitaphone's" film career as a minor, which ran from when she was 4 years old in 1927 through her "big break" in the Vitaphone Family in the Warner Brother's puff piece, AN INTIMATE DINNER IN CELEBRATION OF WARNER BROS. SILVER JUBILEE (1930--which was certainly NOT intimate, nor a dinner that looked as appetizing as sliders from White Castle) to the role of "Autograph Seeker" in BR0ADWAY RHYTHM (1944). How is it that Betty Jane Graham Number One had a hiatus of 22 years (!!) following her minor acting career, only to have her major acting body of work consist solely of coming out of retirement to play the "bit part" in John Wayne's EL DORADO (1966), before she succumbed to mortality two weeks shy of her 75th birthday in 1998? Though I haven't seen most of her other 45 minor film roles, she seems such a presence rattling off the names of everyone from Warners Brothers stars Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler to the scrub lady and team videographer (oops!--I'm confusing this with the endless reading of the roster on opening day in a baseball park--sorry) that it seems life's promises were somehow snuffed out for Betty Jane Graham Number One by the improbable emergence of a Betty Jane Graham Number Two the exact year that One reached her majority.

... and for the film history buff this kind of stuff is priceless. I just love the very early Warner Bros. talkies and their goofy themes - "Dancing Sweeties", "The Mad Genius", "The Green Goddess", etc. Only at this time - 1930 - and at this studio could such films be possible, and this short helps explain how they were possible.Only in 1930 at Warner Brothers - a studio with poverty row roots and a wad of cash from its part in the birth of the sound revolution, much like a bus driver winning the lottery, could you see such an awkward struggle to join the big leagues forever enshrined in celluloid. Let's start with the cast. How often can you find Sidney Blackmer, Evalyn Knapp and Claudia Dell billed above Edward G. Robinson and Joan Blondell? And there are Rodgers and Hammerstein, sitting at the same table, renowned for their music, but not together. At the time Sigmund Romberg and Hammerstein are collaborators and Rodgers and Hart are in partnership. Much ado is made about Marilyn Miller's presence and her next picture "Sunny", when the truth is Ms. Miller was to never have a hit picture again after her initial success in talking films - "Sally". Even mistress of ceremonies Little Miss Vitaphone - named after a sound system whose time had passed by the time this short was made - has to explain the absence of Warner's biggest stars - Richard Barthelmess, George Arliss, and John Barrymore. Telegrams are presented that are supposedly from the missing stars mentioning their next films where they are on location. As for obvious big gun Al Jolson, by this time he had already made his last film for Warner's until 1934 and - let's face it - Warner Brothers probably worked for Jolson as much as he worked for them during their three year collaboration 1927 -1930. Not even the studio system could ever put a harness on big Al.As for the premise of this short, it is completely false. The only milestone 25 years before 1930 would have been in 1905 when the Warner Brothers opened their first nickelodeon in New Castle, Pennsylvania, and then only as distributors. They didn't dabble in film creation for another ten years after that and got their first hit with what was basically a WWI propaganda piece - "My Four Years in Germany" in 1918. 1923 is really the birth of Warner Brothers as we know it, when they incorporated as a film production company. Today, 1923 is the date that WB counts as its birth year. Up through the 1970's though, you could still see references to 1905 as the date of the company's beginning.The proceedings in their entirety are basically ironic. Two years later 23 of the stars here - and yes I actually counted them - had been fired by WB and drifted into cinematic obscurity. Still others such as Walter Huston and Walter Pidgeon went to other studios and had long careers elsewhere. All of these were replaced with players that could better project the urban look and feel that would take WB all the way through the 1930's and into the 40's - James Cagney, Dick Powell, Bette Davis, Warren William and others.My recommendation - if you are into film history this short is priceless and probably even worth repeat viewings to pick up all the movie titles and names being thrown about. If this is not the case, you'll probably not really enjoy it.

Warner's Intimate Dinner is a historic curio indeed. The phony Mr. and Mrs. Warner Brothers Pictures yields to baby Vitaphone, who then proceeds to provide publicity to each actor and actress seated at the dinner table. Little miss Vitaphone introduces them one by one or in pairs as they appeared in their own or each other's films at the time. A high majority of the "stars" at the celebration weren't really stars at all but were just starting their film careers or had only a few movies under their belts at the time. This includes even Edward G. Robinson, who is referred to without the "G" here. Many of those present worked only a few years in films before flaming out, including the director of this piece. An unexpected but pleasant surprise is seeing the several composers appear who weren't really tied to Warner Brothers, so one can only wonder why they made appearances here. Due to to the talent involved, or in some cases, the lack of it, it seems as if this film is simply a shameless excuse to promote new talent for Warner Brothers, especially considering the fact this was no where near Warner's 25th anniversary.

I am not a huge fan of short films from the 20s and 30s unless they are comedies. However, when I saw this on TCM, I still watched it because I was excited about seeing a film that was essentially a commercial extolling the wonders of Warner Brothers. That's because I wanted to see their stars and see how they looked when they were young. Well, unfortunately, I noticed that in 1930, they had very few stars anyone would recognize today. I am really good at film trivia and there were several I simply didn't recognize and many who I did recognize but knew them only as small-time actors. Plus, three of their biggest stars weren't in this short and they simply showed photos of them and inserted fake letters from them to the audience. Not having John Barrymore, George Arliss and Richard Barthelmess was a real disappointment and the audience had to be content to watch a few small-time actors (with the exceptions of Loretta Young, Walter Huston and a couple lesser stars, who were in the film). The film's structure was also something I myself didn't like--having the film star a small child called "Miss Vitaphone". Yes, I understood the significance--Vitaphone was the new unit from Warners responsible for sound pictures. But, I'm not much of a fan of precocious children.All-in-all, this is a curio and that is all--and not a very interesting one at that.