Indianapolis Times, Volume 39, Number 131, Indianapolis, Marion County, 10 October 1927 — Page 4

PAGE 4

SCR IPPS-HOWAJLD

All the People It is encouraging to note that Governor Jackson says that he is the Governor of “all the people.” Starting from this point, he should have no hesitation in calling a special session of the Legislature as requested by the committee in charge of the City Manager movement. For it is inconceivable that all the people would refuse so reasonable a request as that the State of Indiana right the wrong done by its Legislature at the last session. When Mayor Duvall was elected, the laws provided that the people of this and other cities could adopt the City Manager form of government at any time and put it into effect at once. v That condition was a part of the contract It is quite possible that very many citizens, if they had not felt that they had this means of protecting themselves, would have voted very differently in both the primaries and the election. That very provision of the law may account for the otherwise inexplicable actions of the voters of the Republican party in permitting their ticket to be named by the “nightgowned” leaders and the voters generally in later electing, or presumably electing, Mayor Duvall and the present council. One of the final acts of the Legislature was to pass a law under which Indianapolis cannot get the new form of government until 1930. The voters l>ave already shown by a majority of five to one that they want this change in government and thus get rid of not only Mayor Duvall, who is being taken care of in the courts, but the whole system. It is quite as important to get rid of the eity council and its shameful bargaining that borders on blackmail and would be blackmail if done in a private business. It is quite as important that Indianapolis be given back its rights to rule itself and set up a government that will function without the guidance of any kind of a political boss. George V. Coffin, now under indictment, is not the only menace to decent government in this city. It is true that the Governor signed this law’ which robbed Indianapolis, and did so over ihe protest of many men and women who pointed out the fact that it was an assault upon the rights of the people of this city. It may be unfair to construe the reply of the Governor as meaning that he will refuse a special session, because the entire State would have to pay the costs and the benefits would come only to Indianapolis. This State can afford to pay any price to be honest with its owm citizens. The whole State was dishonest and tyrannical when it passed the law which robbed Indianapolis. Os course, the Governor w’ould not wish to have any other inferences drawn from a refusal. There might be those who would be unkind enough to suggest that he wished no special session because the members, once gathered, might reverse the policy of last winter when it voted against any investigations. He, certainly, would not wish to have the people of the State think that he would do anything which would keep the secrets of the Stephenson “Black Boxes” locked in criminal courts. Certainly no one, except, perhaps, those who have some reasonable fears of what those boxes may contain, would hesitate to pay the cost of a special session if it did nothing else than to give Indianapolis justice and then make public all the facts which are now under the law hidden in grand jury deliberations. The people would very gladly pay the price of admission. If, as the Governor says, he is Governor of all the people, fie can prove it easily by calling that session at once. The Coliseum Project Now that the board of managers has narrowed the number of possible sites from thirty to five, they can perform one more service by postponing any action until there is a reorganization of city government and affairs are put on anew basis. The project will cost some millions of the people's money and should be spent with at least reasonable care. While the new coliseum may bring benefits of many kinds to the city, the project is so important as to demand widespread popular discussion before any decision is made. For the people, already burdened with the cost of bad government, will be called upon to pay for it. It is unfortunate that no more attention was paid to what seemed to be a reasonable suggestion that the present site of Tomlinson Hall, which is city property, be utilized and a million or more dollars thus saved. That suggestion came from a very important civic committee, but seems to have been forgotten. Perhaps it needs some more State legislation to be feasible, but that could be had. Very many who have looked over the five remaining possible sites have called attention to the lack of accessible railway connections which have been regarded as important and almost essential in other cities in similar projects. If the coliseum is to be used for vast and huge displays of industrial and agricultural products, transportation is not a mere detail. Prudence sqggests that there be a slowing up

The Indianapolis Times (A SCKIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER) Owned and published dally (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing Cos., 214-220 W. Maryland Street, Indianapolis, Ind. Price In Marion County, 2 cents —lO cents a week; elsewhere, 3 cents—l 2 cents a week. BOYD GURLEY. ROY W. HOWARD. W. A. MAYBORN, Editor. President. Business Manager. PHONE—MAIN 3500. MONDAY. OCT. 10, 1927. Member of United Press, Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance, Newspaper Enterprise Association. Newspaper Information Service and Audit Bureau o£ Circulations. “Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way.”— Dante.

until at least the control of the board is not in the hands of beneficiaries of the present city administration. That fact alone would give more confidence in its decisions. The Franco-American Tariff Muddle Our tariff muddle with France is developing into an astonishing melange of right and wrong, tragedy and farce. America is right when she insists she seeks no favors of France but merely equality of treatment with other nations. French goods, she points out, enter Americn ports on an equal footing with the goods of other countries while American goods entering French ports are charged higher rates than other nations have to pay. Which is discrimination. Up to this point the argument is unimpeachable. But . . . France charges that American tariffs are in effect prohibitive. This America denies, citing figures. In 1921, she observes, France sold $142,000,000 worth of goods in the United States and $152,000,000 worth in 1926, an increase of about 7 per cent. figures, however, like the rabbit coming out of the magician’s hat, only seem to prove something. The goods France offers for sale are mostly luxuries or semi-luxuries which Americans are now consuming at a rate hitherto not even approached. In 1921 the wholesale value of passenger cars—a semi-luxury —disposed of in the United States amounted to $1,151,740,000. In 1926 it amounted to $2,506,000,000, an increase of more than 100 per cent. Meantime French trade barely held its own. France, therefore, rightly contends that it is not so much a question of what she actually managed to sell, despite the high tariff, but of what she might have sold had the tariff not been, in effect, prohibitive. At this point the grotesque enters. At the very moment when France was asking for reciprocity of treatment—lowered rates in exchange for lowered rates—and our State Department was telling France that only Congress has the power to lower the tariff; and while it was insisting that our policy permits only most favored nation treatment, forbidding reciprocity as against international good practice, in steps Seymour Lowman of the Treasury Department with a most disconcerting ruling. On the authority of the tariff act of 1922, it seems, he not only arbitrarily boosted the rates on certain French products, but lowered them on similar German products. “The Amercian policy,’’ Mr. Lowman of the Treasury Department is quoted as explaining suavely, “is one of reciprocity. That is our policy. They go up, we go up; they go down, we go dotfn.” Small wonder that in the neighborhood of the State Department there was something approaching panic. Just when they were framing a nice new note to France further driving home the impossibility of tariff reciprocity because contrary to American policy, along comes an official spokesman in another department saying reciprocity is American policy. “They go up, we go up ;they go down, we go down.” That has been France’s contention all along. “We are down, you come down.” And it is her defense of her recent tariff boost against American goods: “You go up, we go up.” The State Department can now explain all it wants to that the section under which Assistant Secretary Lowman aoted affects only certain special imports and this and that and the other, but the effect on the French mind will be very difficult to eradicate. It is just another of those devilish things which somehow have had a way of happening to put us in bad with public opinion abroad now for the last half dozen years. Our tariff is not only higher than the difference between American and foreign wages justifies, but is provocative of international ill feeling throughout. Like most of our contacts with foreign peoples, it is framed too much in the spirit of, to Halifax with the rest of the world. Wherein lies the tragedy of the thing. The Department of Agriculture reveals a scented fertilizer from the by-products of cocoa and chocolate. The farmer needs dollars and they give him scents. Some farm relief bills might do a lot for agriculture. With other measures, agriculture might be done for. The country is becoming more prosperous. Every pig you run over on your motor trips is a thoroughbred worth SIOO. Maybe the flappers keep so well because a good healthy germ doesn’t care to waste time on tidbits. The fellow who lived to be 132 years old in Russia must have been a diplomat at least. A trainload of automobiles burned on a siding near Detroit. Dozens of pedestrians were saved. Cheer up! If you swallow your collar button, at least you know where it is. Consider the tack and the automobile tire and don’t go around blowing yourself up.

Law and Justice By Dexter M. Keezei

A man ordered 100 bales of cotton by telephone. He thought he was talking to one broker when, as a matter of fact, he was talking to another. He subsequently refused to pay for the cotton on the ground that he had made no contract to buy it because he had been mistaken in the identity of the broker to whom he had been talking over the phone. He said there was no contract to buy the cotton because he had not understood with whom he was dealing. The broker who had received the order Contended that there was a contract, and sued to enforce its terms. His contention was that the mistake in identity over the telephone did not prevent the completion of a contract. HOW WOULD YOU DECIDE THIS CASE? The actual decision: The Texas Court of Civil Appeals held that the mistake in identity resulting from the use of a telephone did not prevent the existence of a contract. The reason seemed to be that in the cotton brokerage business, where many transactions are carried out by telephone, the buyer should be presumed to know with whom he is talking.

,THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

M. E. TRACY SAYS: Why Should Not Jesse James Have a Monument if His Relatives and Friends Are Willing to Pay the Bill, and Whose Business Is It?

Enter our old friend, Adolfo De La Huerta, albeit through the mouth of a press agent and from some place of safety on this side of tho border. He will presently “cross” into Mexico, we are told, at the head of 2,000 men, to be joined by no less than 70,000 more who are ready and waiting to revolt. Whether Gomez started this rumpus, as the Mexican government declares, or whether he was forced to flee with his follower because of the intrigue of Obregon, as he himself declares, De La Huerta is quite prepared to step in and take charge. Mexico, just cannot seem to have a revolution these days, without De La Huerta placing himself at the head of it. Jesse Janies Memorial Why should not Jesse James have a monument if his relatives and friends are willing to pay the bill, and whose business is it? Suppose he was a bandit, and did everything his imaginative biographers claim, suppose Captain Kidd, Robin Hood, Old Thatch, the Renos and scores of other individuals who labored under an anti-social complex had been obliged to do without impressive grave stones, and suppose that some people do not believe he is the kind of man whose memory should be perpetuated in a shaft of granite, marble or bronze; what then? There are lots of monuments in the world that you and I did not help build, and would not help build, even if we were invited, and that honor characters that did not conform to our ideals. Indeed, you can hardly think of a monument but someone is ready to sneer at it, or the individual whom it was designed to honor. According to law, Jesse James was a highwayman, but according to tradition he was a romantic figure. Most boys have read his exploits with genuine enthusiasm at one time or another, and if it were appropriate to embalm his career in so many thousands of books, why is a monument out of place?

Why Fight Movie Ban? The same faulty logic that professes to be astounded at the thought of erecting a monument to Jesse James is to be found in this dispute over the DempseyTunney fight pictures. If the show were all right to stage, why is it not all right to screen? No one seems to have made much of a fuss when tickets were selling at $25 a piece, when 140,000 assembled at Soldier’s Field and when a radio hook-up was made that brought the perfonaance directly into 10,000,000 homes. Now that it promises to get into the movies, however, there is a great hue and cry. We have a law, it seems, that prevents showing on the screen what was shown in the ring. Sometimes, one finds it impossible not to exclaim with a certain great philosopher, “The law is an ass.” Shaw’s Verdict on Tunney George Bernard Shaw would find a better subject for his entertaining sarcasm in this inconsistent attitude that quarrels with fight films after having seen or heard the fight than in arguing about who wen. Shaw is sure that Tunney won, which is superfluous, since the referee decided that question within a minute after the fight ended, and nothing has occurred to prove that the referee was wrong. It is a matter of no great consequence who won, but this picture dipsute discloses a situation with regard to law and its application that has become a veritable plague in America and that is gradually destroying public confidence in the sense and justice of such regulation. We can actually see them fight if we have the price, or listen to a description of how they are going it if we have not, but it is forbidden to look at the filmed performance. In what age of the world could you match that for trifling nonsense? Wealth Brews Distrust Riches constitute no barrier to law, as General Pershing declares. Instead they often invite it. If England had not been rich, Germany would not have visualized her as a rival, and if Germany had not been rich other European nations would not have been anxious to pull her down. When the United States was poor she had little to fear. Europe did not take her competition seriously and Lqtin American did not distrust her motives. Wealth, more than any other feature, has caused the United States to become a common target for world-wide envy. If some system is not devised to settle international troubles in a different way than war, the United States faces the necessity of providing a stronger national defense than ever. Is it possible to calculate how many pennies a jar will hold? One cubic inch holds twenty-six pennies. The number of cubic inches in the jar multiplied by twenty-six will give approximately the number of pennies.

Yes, Yes, but Who f s Going to Carry the Ball?

• s •' ' sV / jB6EpP^v v \ _,> ■•,'/ Mai ,XJ 'Vr'/

The Work of Emil Jannings in *The Way of All Flesh Proves He Is Greatest Actor Before Camera Today

Am convinced after seeing Emil Jannings as August Schiller in “The Way of All Flesh” that he is the greatest dramatic character artist on the screen today. This is his first American-made

movie under the Paramount banner and I am more than pleased to state that Jan-j nings has lost none, of his masterful j artistry in making] his pictures in this I country. You first meet! Jannings as AugustSchiller, a bank! cashier, getting up! in the morning to start another day. He wears an old-’ fashioned nightgown. He then goss into another bed-

Emil Jannings

room and there he awakens his numerous children. Just youngsters they are and we next see the father and his brood taking their morning exefeises, then the washing of the face, neck and ears. Then we see Schiller with his beard of over twenty winters. Schiller with his beard is the good man, the honest citizen and marvelous father. His prayer at breakfast is a ceremony as done by Jannings. Schiller with the beard is the'good man through and through. He Wien walks to tho bank after seeing the children off to school with as much ceremony as a man could possess who wears a beard aged twenty years. Here is a fancy beard, a part of Schiller. A ask you to study this make-up of Jannings because it is more than masterful. Jannings has completely transformed himself into his character. You do not see Jannings but Schiller, the man with a beard and a heart that is true gold. Schiller is as much an institution as the bank in which he works. Here he is the good citizen, the leader and defender of what is good. As Jannings plays Schiller, you get the feeling that you would like to see Schiller without the beard. Is he like Samson without his hair? Does his beard make him evil proof? As Jannings develops the character, I asked myself those questions and several others. Schiller faces temptation in the form of a street walker and a gangster’s stool pigeon when he leaves his home town to take a fortune in bonds to Chicago, where he is supposed to sell them. Here is an important mission and the man with the beard sets out to live up to the trust of his bank. On the train is a girl of the streets known as Mayme. She cares not for beards and does not get interested in the twenty-year fancy; growth until she sees Schiller open | his large purse and sees the fortune in bonds.

Mayme. then puts on her war paint, lifts her skirts and displays two shapely reasons for.her existence. The man with the beard can not keep his mind on his religious reading. It is here where you see “closeup acting” with a purpose on the part of Jannings and Phylllis Haver as Mayme. Here is the best double meaning acting I have ever seen. Here you see Schiller as ihe Maine Street boob, good man who did not understand, the language that Mayme spoke. Mayme’s campaign is so successful that as soon as they land in Chicago she compels Schiller to visit * barber shop. And then—a different character looks at you when Jannings gets out of the chair. He is now the man of flesh, the man who will yield, the man who will drink until he goes with this scum of the street into a cheap hour of the night “hotel.” Os course, Mayme makes off in the night with the fortune in bonds. More great acting on Jannings part .when he realizes that is a ruined man. Schiller makes one mad effort to make Mayme give back the bonds but Mayme had been shopping and looked it.

BY WALTER D. HICKMAN

I Schiller is attacked in the dive ■ and one of Mayme’s gang drags Schiller onto the railroad tracks. I As the gangster is taking all articles | of identification off the body of his victim, Schiller comes to and puts up a fight. As the train whirls by, it is the gangster who dies. Schiller walks the streets for days and finally runs onto a newspaper which tells the story of Schiller’s supposed death. Schiller then becomes the outcast, picking up papers and rags in the parks in the summer and selling hot chestnuts in the winter. Here you have the powerful portrayal of a man who is but the ghost of his former self. Here is cruel, but honest characterization. Jannings is the master of human makeup at all times. It is this shading of human emotions as expressed in face and walk thst makes Jannings such a great artist. The picture has a sad ending and I am glad that the director has been honest in giving us a consistent and logical ending. I admit that I must have cried for fifteen minutes when Schiller goes into the roost of a theater to hear his son give a great violin recital. I was not the only one that cried when I was in the Indiana. Here is such powerful acting of defeat and longing that I am sure that ninetynine persons out of every hundred will have at least moist eyes during these scenes. “The Way of All Flesh,” easily proves that Jannings is the greatest dramatic actor on the screen today. “Joy Bells” is a pretty stage presentation. The winners this week are Charlie Davis and his orchestra and the Roma brothers, strong gymnasts. Here is a great team. Davis and his orchestra are playing fine melodies this week, and they have several novelties, such as the bell number. Numerous other entertainers are in this revue. Bill includes Maurice at the organ and a news reel. At the Indiaha. GOOD FUNNY MOVIE AT OHIO I have seen scenes of many fires in pictures, but the funniest one yet is the one that Charles Murray builds to demonstrate his new fire extinguisher that he has just invented. Excitement, suspense and rare humor are woven into the picture, so that they stand out long after the rest has become a mere blur. Murray Is the fire chief of Elmdale Center and George Sidney Is the chief of po-

lice. The widow Jones is the cause of hard feelings on the part of both. But from “Walnut Shells” springs a hatred for a certain character that makes his living by being a little smarter than the other fellow. And, of course, there must be a love affair. The son of the police chief falls in love with a girl that Murray finds hid-

l Hi? mi

George Sidney

ing in his store one rainy night. This causes a pause in the friendship of Murray and Sidney. The fire and subsequent proceedings patch that up, however. The “Life of Riley” is one continuous uproar from start to finish. The fire chief has banked his all on the fire extinguisher and he demonstrates it to a select group—and burns up his store, for the fluid in the extinguisher had been changed. But the girl really sells it, for she puts out a fire in the car of the prospective purchaser. I’m not trying to tell the story of the film in its entirety. That would be impossible after having seen it but once. It is chock full of comedy that has been handled differently. Murray and Sidney are anew comedy team, but they are fast proving their worth by such things as this.

The “Life of Riley” is a fast moving, clean comedy of the little town. Just a cross section of the lives of two men who are “friendly enemies.” Each tries his best to outdo the other. Murray succeedes in marrying the widow, but you are not convinced that Sidney hasn’t the best of it after all. You’ll have to figure that out for yourself. Connie and his band make their initial appearance this week at the Ohio and have Jimmie Hatton as a soloist. Jimmie is an Indianapolis boy and appeared at the Ohio several times when Charlie Davis was holding forth there. Joe Alexander is featured with another of his organlogs. A news reel and a comedy complete the bill. At the Ohio this week. (By the Observer). “UNDERWORLD” IS MIGHTY GOOD MELODRAMA. Before I saw "Underworld” with George Bancroft, Clive Brook and Evelyn Brent, I had heard much that was good and even great about it. As I have stated in this space before, we are running to crime and underworld plays this season, both on the stage and on the screen. “Underworld” was written by Ben Hecht, who has the reputation of understanding life. Hecht knows

how to spin a yarn around real characters. This movie is notable because the director never permitted the scenery or the atmosphere to become stronger than his four chief characters. In “Underworld” you meet “Bull” Weed, a burglar and safe blower who knows his business. “Bull” is a power-

WJ |||& <y M

Clive Brook

ful egotist and a cracking good burglar. He is a power in the underworld, but he has a rival in the cruel and cunning “Buck" Mulligan. They are always fighting and trying to frame each other. "Rolls Royce” is one of those underworld types who isn’t, underworld at all at heart, but a man who has gone wrong and drifted into evil company. “Rolls Royce” becomes the polished tool of “Bull” Weed. “Bull” has a girl by the name of “Feathers,” and we see the old tri-angle-two men and a girl. “Rolls Royce” refuses to have anything to do with “Feathers” because she is “Bull’s” gal. "Rolls Royce” has principle in this because' he is a gentleman at heart. Os course, “Feathers” likes the honesty of “Rolls Royce” and she comes to live mentally at least upon a high level. Open warfare breaks out between “Bull” and "Buck.” “Buck” cashes in first and “Bull” Is found guilty and is given the death penalty. “Rolls Royce” plans a get-away for “Bull.” but the gangster misunderstands the motive, thinking that “Rolls Royce” wants "Feathers” for his girl. So “Bull” stages his own jail delivery and then follows one of the most exciting manhunts that has ever been pictured on the screen. Here is the real article for thrills. Powerfully done are these scenes. The cast is as follows: "Bull" Weed George Bancrolt "Rolls Rovce" Clive Brook "Feathers” Fvelvn Brent "Slippery" Lewis Lsrrv Semon "Buck" Mulligan Fred Kohler Mulligan's Girl Helen Lynch Faloma Jerry Mandy "High Collar” Sam Karl Morse Your interest, of course, will be centered upon the big four—Bancroft, Brook, Miss Brent and Kohler. It is difficult to say which of the four do the better work. 11 feel satisfied that “Underworld” is j the best of the melodramas this season. It is corking good theater. The Circle has augmented its program with a presentation in the form of a prologue to the picture

OCT. 10, 1927

Thumb-Nail Sketches

Old Mr. G. sat down his luggage on the porch of the little hotel which had been both a home and aa business for him. While Mrs. G. held the “For Sale” sign in place Mr. G. nailed it stoutly to the doorway. Then they went heavily down the steps, quite unaware that in one of the upstairs rooms they had left a guest. He was a sorry looking guest, to be sure. His eyes were bright with fever. His once rotund body was emaciated and thin. His cheeks were sunken, but on them burned bright pink patches. For three weeks, until the hotel was sold, this guest trudged wearily twice a day to a small “eat shop” near by for doughnuts and coffee—never anything else. But at last the proprietor saw him no more, even for this simple repast. He must have lain fdr a day or two all alone in that hotel, practically unconscious, before the agent brought a perspective buyer to look over the property. In going through the rooms, then, they found this old fellow, lost in stupor, lying in one of the beds, covered up with a!l the bedclothes available. He was wearing all his clothes, including his overalls, his shoes, his overcoat, his hat, his gloves—even his umbrella lay on the bed beside him! They called the Flower Mission Society and a little later took the still unconscious man out to the clean, white bed waiting for him. Papers found in his clothes showed that his sisters, living in Germany, had been appealed to for aid but that they were too poor to help him. The Flower Mission is doing all it can for this victim of a dread disease. Its resources for these poor people are available because of YOUR COMMUNITY FUND.

called “River Front Frolics,” wlf-B Bart, Willey and Shell. The bill includes a news reel and an overture by the orchestra. At the Circle. “MOCKERY” IS A STRANGE MOVIE Since seeing “Mockery,” with Lon Chaney, I have been troubled with the fear that the movie owners may be running

short of appropriate vehicles for thjg man of many faces. Chaney has registered the best when he actually created fear and horror, but in “Mockery" he is the only one who has the fear. He is cast as a slowthinking Russian peasant, who has always felt the heel of the nobility. He has a chance to shake

MUBi <

Lon Chaney

off, for a brief time, these chains when the czar is kicked off the throne and the “mob" goes into a riot. One will not recall with any great degree of satisfaction, according to my way of thinking, that Dhfiney appeared ii “Mockery.” The story is really foreign to our way of thinking, and I doubt if any of us are greatly interested in the sight of a peasant chasing a countess around the house when the servants go on a riot when the new order of government is ushered in. The sight of seeing a savage looking individual actually brutal and wild is not a pleasant one. What ever interest that “Mockery” holds for me rests of course In the makeup of Chaney. He had learned the trick of horrible makeup about as well as any one in the business. This time he is called upon to play the role of a sluggish and slow thinking servant, who suddenly becomes as inflamed as the revolution. Most of the time Chaney attempts to show this spiritual and mental struggle, but the story is so foreign from our sympathy and understanding that at no time did Chaney make me interested or sympathetic toward the character. The real shortemoings of this movie is to be found much more in the story than in Chaney. Chaney uses only one makeup and this becomes rather tedious at times. Chaney is supported by Ricardo Cortez and Barbara Bedford. As usual, be your own judge, but I maintain that the story is weak and does not contain subject matter iu which American audiences react to. Ray Winnings is giving on organ this week. The bill includes a news reel which has corking good scenes of play by play of the first game of the world’s series. Bill Includes a cartoon comedy and “The Mechanical Cow.” Other theaters today offer: “Merton of the Movies,” at the Colonial: "Is Your Daughter at the Murat; "Alias the Deacon,” at Keith’s; Jack De Sylvia, at the Lyric; “Hello Paree” at the Mutual; “Black Jack” at the Isis; movies at the Rivoli, and the TunneyDempsey fight movies at the Band Box.

Movie Verdict OHlO—Sidney and Murray show what can bo done in the way of fires in “The Life of Riley,” which is a dramatization of a cross section of life in Elmdale Cen er. It is good, clean, funny comedy and will not go amiss. APOLLO—Lon Chaney is handicapped in "Mockery” by having a theme that does not appeal to an American audience. CIRCLE “Underworld" is marvously effective melodramatic theater. Powerfully acted by a great cast. A real thriller and not to be missed by those who enjoy action. INDIANA—“The Way of All Flesh” proves beyond any doubt that Emil Jannings is the greatest dramatic cliaracter actor on the screen today. One of the real emotional treats of this season. Jannings is as powerful in this movie as the late Richard Mansfield was on the stage.