A common fault made by contemporary critics of the early talkies is to contrast them with techniques that we have since become accustomed to. Audiences as well as actors once knew only stage productions. When films began to be shown in the same halls in which plays were performed, they conformed to the play format. The "drawing room" dramas were little else but filmed plays. Moreover, movable cameras did not always exist. Stage acting was highly stylized and preferred by audiences. For one, voices had to carry—and without the aid of microphones. Thus, diction had to be clipped and enunciation precise so that dialogue would not be muddled by the time it reached the ears of those in the back rows. This compensation remained a necessity in the early days of sound film as audio equipment had yet to be more developed. A later desire for "natural" acting was accommodated by more advanced sound techniques in movie making. Again, it was expected that actors "acted." Thespians were to be more emotive than ordinary people in ordinary conversation. Movie-goers did not pay to see—and later hear—people that they could see for nothing on any street corner. As to the plot of this drama, it had the elements wished for by the paying crowds. Movies then, like movies today, were and are a commodity. They either speak to their time or they go bust. Again to the plot: we have had exposure to nearly ninety years of filmmaking since "Inside the Lines" was released. Much that rings familiar now was new at that time. Plot devices we see coming were at this time novel. In defense of this production, it was well written, directed, and performed, according to one man's opinion.
Review of Inside the Lines
