Camera! ()

Page Thirty-two 'The Digest of the Motion Picture Industry" CAMERA! YEAR BOOK WHY IS A SCENARIO WRITER? During the year in which Camera! has been in existence, this office has received many letters asking where and what kind of scenarios can best be sold to operating studios. The fol- lowing paragraphs are dedicated fo that portion of the population of the United States not yet successful in selling screen stories. The information given in this article has been secured largely through in- terviews with the different scenario departments of various producing or- ganizations, from the writer's person- al experience, and from looking over several hundred stories submitted for production. In a questionnaire submitted to the various studios in Hollywood and vi- cinity, three questions were asked. First: How many scenarios were pur- chased during the year 1918. Second: How many were rejected. Third: What was the chief reason for rejec- tion? To give a fair idea of the re- sults obtained from the questionnaire, the following answers are enume- rated: The American Film Company, at Santa Barbara, California, purchased 15 scenarios and rejected 3072. The Brentwood Film Corporation pur- chased one and rejected 50. The Brun- ton Studio, which during the lore pari of the year 1018 were purchasing sto- ries for Bessie Barriscale and Louise Glaum, rejected 2450 scenarios and ar- ranged for the purchase of 100. The Chaplin Studio rejected 3500 and purchased one. The Christie Stu- dio read 5000 stories, bought 110 and produced 104. The Fairbanks Studio purchased six stories out of 1171 sub- mitted. M. M. Stearns, of the Dorothy Gish Company states that ninety-nine per cent of the scenarios submitted were rejected. That of the remaining one per cent, four were purchased, and several are now being held on option, awaiting the star's decision, whether or not to purchase. D. VV. Griffith bought 15 stories during the year. He rejected in the neighborhood of 9000. Win. S. Hart reports the purchase of eight stories, out of a submitted 3000. The Metro Pictures Corpora- tion, in answering the questionnaire, stated that 60 stories were purchased, and that they presumed somewhere in the neighborhood of a million had been turned down. The National Studios purchased 12 stories out of 1872. Mary Pickford bought one submitted scenario, and has been rejecting an average of five a day. On the question as to why the sce- narios were rejected, it was obviously impossible for the studios to give this answer in detail, but many different personal answers have been given, which show that, first of all, the inde- pendent screen writer has no idea as to what material will picture and what will not. It is quite probable that twenty per By E. M. ROBBINS cent of the scenarios submitted de- pend on dialogue to tell the story and at least forty per cent leave character- ization entirely out of the synopsis. These two things undoubtedly have most to do with the rejection of orig- inal stories. The critic, writing in the newspa- pers, laments the lack of plot origin- ality. Whether or not this same criti- cism has been made, concerning cur- rent magazine stories, is unknown to the writer, but comparison of the two will seem to show that there is at least as much, and probably more or- iginality in screen productions than between the covers of the average monthly. The material, at least, comes from approximately the same source, with the studio paying from three to twenty times the price paid by the average magazine. That the producer is not alone at fault In this matter of the re-hash of old plots, may be concluded from the statements by various studios, that in many cases ,the same identical plot, dressed up in a little different costume, is often submitted as many as five times in one week, and when it is re- membered that there are but thirty- three possible plots, both the writer* and the producer may take courage, despite the objections of the critic. Further questioning, verbal in this case, has brought forth from the dif- ferent producers the statement that the two things most wanted are char- acterization and situation. The char- acterization must first of all, suit the star, and next, the situation must suit the characterization. In the case of a few independent producing companies, such as Tour- neur, who uses no cast twice, the suit- ability of the characterization to any- one particular player, means nothing. Given the characterization, he will find the player. On the other hand, it is almost impossible for the aver- age producing company to accept a story and suit it to the players at that time on the pay-roll. Present meth- ods of production make it imperative that the organization be gathered and held intact .and the salaries paid, make it still more imperative that the players be kept busy. If the item "scenario purchased" gives hope to the budding photoplay- wright, he should remember in addi- tion, that the scenario purchased is by no means produced. D. W. Griffith reports the purchase of fifteen stories. It is also announced by the Griffith scenario department that each of these stories were purchased namely for one idea, and that the balance of the story has not been nor ever will be used. This is also the case with many other producing companies. With the mushroom growth of the Motion Picture Industry, there have sprung up. in different sections of the country, dozens of schools of photo- play writing, prospectuses of which promise to teach the young idea just how and where to shoot. Many of these schools are merely "get the money" concerns, while others, some of which are still in existence, at- tempted to be of real help both to the writer and to the Motion Picture in- dustry. There are several people now em- ployed in Hollywood, whose funda- mental training in scenario and con- tinuity writing, was gained largely through instruction received in this way. On the other hand, it might be added that the complete scenario is one thing that is not wanted by any producing company listed in these pages. The student may acquire a very good technique of scenario and contin- uity writing, but unless that tech- nique is augmented by a knowledge of the local working conditions of every studio, it is a fine piece of folly to attempt to write a finished scenario for any story submitted. It may be done in the most polished form, but if the cost of production as outlined is $150,000 and the studio decides to produce the story for $28,000 ,it is quite evident that there will be some changes made. This is one of the many reasons why the average prod- uct of a school of scenario writing has not made an enormous hit with the producers. Not every story that is interesting to read or to listen to, will be inter- esting to watch in pictures. Sermons, philosophy, and a few other subjects are rather hard to get over with the audience, without the use of fifty per cent subtitles. If the foregoing has given any kind of an idea as to what not to .do, then the writer hopes that the following will give a fair idea of what should be done. First: If you have a story, by all means submit it. Don't tell the pro- ducer how to produce it. Don't tell him that it is a good story. Don't te:l him how long it took you to write it, nor how many of your immediate friends have told you that it would be a howling financial success, if his star appeared in it. But just sit down quietly, using a gocd black record ribbon on almost any kind of a typewriter, and in ju3t as few words as possible, tell the real meat of the story, giving the princi- pal characterizations in full, and not overlooking any situations that might add to the suspense or general inter- est. A story recently purchased by the Famous Players Lasky people, con- tained 370 words, and brought one thousand dollars. As a better exam- ple of what happens to a story on its arrival at the studio, it may be stated that in this particular case the scena- rio reader, after going through tnia page and one-half of double spaced typewritten manuscript, said to the man at the next desk, "Here is a whale of a story," and, leaving the department, went to the director-gen- eral, who read the manuscript, O K'd its purchase, and in not more than thirty minutes later, the letter of ac- ceptance and check were on the way to the writer. Almost any studio would rather pur- chase original scenarios, than screen- rights to popular novels, except in cases where the novel has had an enormous sale, the author being wide- ly known, and when much money is to be spent on production. There has been a general kick-back in the ma- jority of cases of production of pub- lished stories, in that the story is sel- dom suited to the screen in its orig- inal form, and that many changes must be made in production. The audience attending may be | drawn partly through having read the i book, and as a rule are disappointed I in that some particular thing of spe- cial interest to them was left off of I the screen. This is not true in the production of an original scenario. Furthermore, the leew-ay in produc- tion costs makes the original stories much more popular with the producer. Screen rights to popular books and magazine stories have risen to such i a figure, that many small producers can not purchase such material. It is rare indeed that any novel brings less! than one thousand dollars for the' screen rights ,and this figure is said to have reached as high as fifty thou- sand dollars. From the standpoint of the writer, then, it would suggest itself that he first have his stories published in magazine form, and scenario buyers have come to the conclusion generally^ that most of the stories submit ten have probably been the rounds of Mie magazines before reaching the still dios. The day of the scenario thief is past, or very nearly so, but the day of the plagiarist writer seems to have scarce- ly more than dawned. Out of every ten scenarios submitted, it is safe to say that at least three are outright steals from current magazine stories, and the mere fact that the stealing' was done by the writer is no protec- r tion for the producing company. It isl probably as much exper.se to the pro-fi ducer, as a rule, to find out whethed his selected story has been done beJ fore, either in print or celluloid, am it is to get the story. Any person wdio has the intelligence! to put ideas down on paper, stands an! equal chance with the greatest writer; in the world, when it comes to selling, stories for the screen. The mere facM that five or six hundred scenarios are rejected, to one acepted, would deter' no one from submitting material, could that person have a few brief moments to look over the material rejected. So if you have an idea, and if you know any thing about pictures, put the idea down on paper, review your knowledge of stars and producing com- panies, and send it immediately to the place to which you think it is best suited, and you may have a pleasant .surprise awaiting you. However, en- close postage for return. EDUCATIONAL FILMS The National Board of Review has been requested by President George A. Strayer of the National Education Association, to arrange a series of exhibits on visual education for the na- tional conference to be held by the Association in Milwaukee the first week in July. The board reports that it has noted a great increase in the interest of churches in the use of motion pic- tures. The ministers recognize the social value of films, it is said, and are planning to introduce them, not only for community evening services, but but general neighborhood entertain- ment throughout the week. Requests for assistance have come in from States as widely scattered as Maine. Arkansas, and Montana. The board has also received a num- ber of inquiries regarding films avail- able for use by municipalities, confer- ences of city officials, and social or- ganizations.