The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Musings on the Movies piculous. Furthermore, morality at of place comes dangerously close being immoral. Artistically such ocedures are criminal. Imagine iving to listen to a "moral" con- rning jealousy or ambition •uched in scenarioisms before and iring and after a presentation of. thcllo or Macbeth. Yet morality id motion pictures survive the ;adliest blows of their dearest iends. During the last century play- rights learned that the appeal to e eye may be stronger than the )peal to the ear, that spoken dialog ust often be sacrificed to panto- ime. The scenariowright must arn that printed explanations and alog have no place in his art. He ust drop them as the dramatist has •opped the moralizing chorus and ie explanatory monolog. Of course te motion picturist says it cannot j done, that the audience will not iderstand what is happening. The Line protest was made by the ramatist centuries ago when the .idience got weary of having the lorus ram morals down its throat; was made when the audience rose :> in its wrath and kicked the mon- og off the stage. In each case a reater burden was placed on the ramatist; but he bore it and dra- latic art benefited greatly. Motion picture spectators must :er the moralizing and explanatory iptions. In the town where I see totion pictures, the more than audi- ble jeering has begun. Sickly mor- ality and sentimentality in the cap- tions are greeted with healthy bursts of Homeric laughter. Long captions and printed dialog draw forth cries of: "Hurry up! Go on! Cut it out!" The closing captions carefully de- signed for the nine-year-old mind, even when the pictures have been artistic and dignified, give rise to impatient booing. But a film like The Journey's End is received in what Forbes Robertson calls "blessed artistic silence." Printed words are only symbols of sounds which appeal to the ear. Motion picture art need not appeal to the ear even in this vague way to be understood. Artistically it must not appeal to the ear. It is solely a visual art, and as soon as it tries to appeal audibly the psycho- logical effect of the art instantly suffers. If- a law could be passed forbid- ding captions, the "movie industry" would become the art of motion pic- tures. Pantomime,— the very soul of this art, would develop to an un- dreamed perfection. The spectator would be given a part in the artisti* creation. He would feel the artistic thrill of understanding. He would be allowed to draw his own conclu- sions, to interpret the story under guidance of the action so delicate as to be unnoticed, instead of being led through the story like a mule, with unnecessary pulling and kicking. If any one says this cannot be