Louise Brooks first appeared on a movie screen on July 19, 1925. The occasion was the debut of The Street of Forgotten Men at the Rivoli theater in New York City. (See the previous Louise Brooks Society blog post, "Today in history: 100th anniversary of Louise Brooks' first screen appearance," for more about this event.)
In the first few days that followed, the film’s debut received more than a dozen local reviews, as well as smaller write-ups in other newspapers located in the metropolis’ five boroughs, including Brooklyn. The majority of reviews were positive – even glowing, though a few were tempered, and one critical.
Connie Miles, film critic for the New York Evening World, was one who described The Street of Forgotten Men favorably. Miles thought the movie “. . . one of those too rare offerings that have everything to be desired in a film production,” adding, “As might be expected from the direction of Herbert Brenon, this Paramount picture has action from start to finish, moves gracefully over the course of an unusual love theme and reaches heights of dramatic values that might not have been except for such a capable cast.” Katherine Zimmerman, of the New York Telegram, echoed her colleague’s assessment. Zimmerman described the film as “an excellent motion picture,” noting “It has humanity, sentiment, drama, atmosphere and love. And it has Percy Marmont in the best bit of acting he has done yet". In a review titled “Remarkable Photoplay,” Dorothy Herzog of the Daily Mirror declared, “Every now and then, a picture that is different comes to the silver sheet. Such a picture plays the Rivoli this week.” Mildred Spain of the Daily News took a more nuanced approach, describing the film as “Altogether a nourishing movie meal, but not for the children.” Similarly, Donald Burney of the New York Review (one of the few male critics on the scene) thought the film an “entertaining and dramatically effective picture,” adding, “it should prove a winning attraction.”
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle also offered praise. The paper’s critic, Martin B. Dickstein, declared, “This is a film which misses by inches being Herbert Brenon's proudest accomplishment…. There are to be had in the Rivoli film more than one glimpse of ingenious direction. There is much evidence, as well, of capable acting.” A few days before, the Brooklyn Daily Times made a point of noting the picture “deals with the professional beggars who haunted the Bowery some years ago.”
A number of NYC reviews also emphasized the film’s local color. In “Old Bowery Days Pictured at Rivoli,” the anonymous critic of the New York American, who “heartily enjoyed” the film, thought it “Almost as fascinating as its setting, partly because of its setting.” Likewise, the New York Evening Journal stated “this unusual and extremely pleasing film” contained “some excellent scenes of the Bowery of two decades ago.” Connie Miles of the New York Evening World began her piece by stating, “The glamour of the old Bowery has been revived through the medium of the motion picture screen. It comes back via the Rivoli theater this week in the film The Street of Forgotten Men, comes back vividly in several phases of its interesting past.”
If Miles was nearly nostalgic, then Mildred Spain of the Daily News was almost rhapsodic. She thought the film entertaining and teaming with color, stating “The Street of Forgotten Men dips into the dark pools of life. It shows you the beggars of life – apologies to Jim Tully – and in showing them it shows them up. They aren’t beggars, they’re professional men whose art calls for more acting than a first performance on Broadway.” The New York Post held a similar, though more prosaic, opinion. The paper headlined its review “More of the Bowery’s Chicanery Comes to Light,” and suggested the film playing at the Rivoli “might be carelessly mistaken for anti-beggar propaganda.”
Even more than the film or its setting, its cast came in for praise. Most was heaped on the film’s star. “Percy Marmont, in a vivid characterization, ads new laurels to his fine career,” wrote Dorothy Herzog in the Daily Mirror. Connie Miles of the New York Evening World likewise stated, “Percy Marmont is such a capable actor that he seems never to be miscast…. Marmont scores one hundred percent in Pantomimic achievement.” Two others singled out for special praise time and again were John Harrington and Juliet Brenon. The New York Review, Daily Mirror, and New York Herald Tribune praised each for their excellent work.
One of the film’s most favorable reviews was published in the New York Morning Telegraph. Its article, titled “Herbert Brenon Contributes Absorbing Film at Rivoli,” was penned by Dorothy Day, a one-time bohemian journalist and later social activist who, in more recent years, has become a candidate for sainthood in the Catholic Church. Day begins her review by setting the scene. “The feature film at the Rivoli this week The Street of Forgotten Men, is an absorbing story, done by cast the people who really know how to act and directed in a skillful manner by Herbert Brenon. It is one of those ‘miracle men’ themes, showing the trade of a group of charlatans who play on the sympathy of people in order to make a living.... Day concludes by stating, “Mr. Brenon has done some interesting things in the directorial line and achieves some splendid effects. All in all The Street of Forgotten Men makes for an absorbing and entertaining session.”
A few of the other local critics, however, were less impressed with the production. After giving high marks to the entertainment which preceded the film, Harriet Underhill of the New York Herald Tribune opined, “Then comes the feature, The Street of Forgotten Men. This was rather disappointing, and we can’t say just why. Percy Marmont as Easy Money Charlie couldn’t have been better, and the scenes on the Bowery were very well done. The old cafe where, almost in the twinkling of an eye, strong, upright men become lame, halt and blind, was interesting, too. In fact, the screened prologue was full of promise. But…” Underhill added, “this promissory note was not redeemed.”
The critic for the New York World, writing under the initials W.R., also professed a vague dissatisfaction. “We could not summon any fierce enthusiasm over this melancholy matter. It does not bother much with the subtleties of sorrow nor cry its heart out quietly. It sighs for sympathy in bulk.” The Moviegoer, the anonymous by-line for a critic writing in the New York Sun, similarly thought the photoplay “picturesque and interesting,” but oddly added, “to me it seemed somewhat undramatic.”
Underhill’s review in the New York Herald Tribune and The Moviegoer’s review in the New York Sun come-off as opaque rumblings of discontent. Not so with the New York Times, which was far more exacting in its critique. The anonymous critic who penned the piece may or may not have been Mordaunt Hall, the first regularly assigned motion picture critic for the paper who worked for the Times between 1924 and 1934. However, Hall’s writing style, which was described in his Times obituary as “chatty, irreverent, and not particularly analytical,” seems at odds with this particular piece. Unlike other critics, Hall was said not to be interested in analyzing cinematographic technique. Yet, this review is full of such analysis.
The Times review, titled, “The Bowery and Afterward,” begins “This picture just misses being a notable one, but it will never be accorded the highest rank, although a great many people are going to like it. Unfortunately it is not a case of there being one or two week spots, which could be ignored in favor of the whole impression, but of there being continual infinitesimal blemishes…. What appears to be wrong is the lack of imaginative elasticity in the directing, that is to say, elasticity enough to take in all the detail of the production.” The Times reviewer concludes by putting forth some favorable aspects to the production, noting “There is much to interest audiences in the picture, however, all these things aside. No one can say it is not unusual and colorful."
Surprisingly, none mentioned Louise Brooks, despite the fact she was something of a minor celebrity in the city. The actress would have to wait until her next film, The American Venus, was released in order to receive a review in a New York City newspaper.
With all the attention (pro and con) paid to the film in the New York press, The Street of Forgotten Men proved to be a BIG hit. Originally scheduled to play just one week, the film was held over and played a second. It also outperformed the competition, which included a new Norma Shearer film, A Slave of Fashion, and the popular Rin Tin Tin vehicle, Tracked in the Snow Country. In fact, the Brenon film took in more than $60,000 in admissions during its two-week run – a remarkable amount considering Rivoli tickets were then priced at 50, 85 and 99 cents. Variety observed “Ben Bernie and this feature surprised” before breaking down the numbers for the second week. “Figured after first week’s big box office return business due for drop and it would be off possibly to the extent of $3,500 or $4,000 dollars. Instead, house got $30,410.70. [Only] $400 less than business of previous week.”
During the summer of 1925 the Rivoli experienced a $100,000 increase in business over the prior year, according to reports from the time. What’s notable is that a substantial part of the theater’s summer boom – more than $60,000 – was taken in during the two-week run of The Street of Forgotten Men. Some of that increase was due to the overlapping appearance of the popular musical act, Ben Bernie, as well as to newly installed air conditioning – though the Capitol, another NYC theater with a new air-plant, failed to see a rise in its summer revenue.
Within a week of its July debut, The Street of Forgotten Men opened in a handful of other major markets including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and Bridgeport, Connecticut – followed by Philadelphia and San Francisco. As the film’s national roll-out continued, and as prints shipped out from one of the 30 Paramount exchanges located around the country, The Street of Forgotten Men came to play in most cities and towns across the United States and Canada. By the end of 1926, there were few North American markets that hadn’t shown the film at least once. In fact, the film continued to play here and there well into 1927 and even 1928. In an era before home video and streaming – when the only way to see a movie was in person – popular or well-regarded films continued to show as long as there was interest. The Street of Forgotten Men’s two-week run at the Rivoli marked not only its debut, and also the start of the film’s long, four-year exhibition history.
 |
| Can you spot Louise Brooks in this screen grab? |
* Most of the above information and images was adapted from my 2023 book, The Street of Forgotten Men: From Story to Screen and Beyond. It is available on amazon and other online shops. Click HERE to purchase a copy.
This 389 page book includes numerous illustrations, a bibliography, index and more, as well as two forwards -- one by film preservationist Robert Byrne, and one by film historian and Academy Award honoree Kevin Brownlow. The Street of Forgotten Men: From Story to Screen and Beyond is a publication of the Louise Brooks Society.
More about the
film can be found on The Street of Forgotten Men (filmography page) on the Louise Brooks Society website, which this year is celebrating its 30th anniversary online.
THE LEGAL STUFF: The Louise Brooks Society™ blog is authored by Thomas Gladysz, Director of the Louise Brooks Society (www.pandorasbox.com). Original contents copyright © 2025. Further unauthorized use prohibited. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
