The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

From Hollywood 301 l/ith the game and didn't learn anything, ^ou have seen the pictures they make, i course. Why these people are permitted to go »n is one of the mysteries of the industry, public opinion, it is true, is against them, »ut public opinion is a funny thing— lost inconsistent, to all appearances. Vc are agreed that the bad picture, the rude and the trashy picture must be jot rid of, but the fact remains that there ire a lot of bad pictures on the market, md a lot more are being made, which ill sell well and draw full patronage. [ Last spring, one day, an official of a vorld-wide distributing corporation men- ioned in my hearing that he had been isked what the outstanding motion pic- ;ure success of the month was; and he lamed the picture. It was a melodrama jased on the very mellowest of the old dime novel thrillers, which had been r'rowned upon by the critics in every -eview I had read. "It's the worst collection of bunk and :heap hokum in the world," the speaker iaid, "but it's packing the houses." In spite of this condition, however, ■ere is a part of the motion picture pub- ic which is demanding something better —real stories, real actors, evidences of real direction and intelligent produc- tion. A good many of those in authority have realized the strength of the demand |nd have made some effort to satisfy it. To that end, they have renounced all cheap and vulgar and commonplace pro- ductions, and adopted as their slogan, "Bigger and better pictures!" But judg- ing from some of the results of this cam- paign, the average producer regards the words "bigger" and "better" as synony- mous. If it costs more, it must be cor- respondingly better. Again, Q.E.D. So now, instead of a little cheap vulgarity and commonplaceness, we get a good deal of expensive vulgarity and common- placeness, and the per capita tax is just that much higher. A magazine editorial on this subject said recently, "A river rises no higher than its source," and intimated that the esthetic and artistic morons now occu- pying the swivel chairs of authority must be ousted, and replaced by educated, cul- tured people—men of vision. Let it not be understood that I consider there are none of the latter in the movies today. On the contrary, certain names unques- tionably stand out in motion pictures. They represent the highest type of thought and expression that is anywhere to be found. Some of them even stand for genius. But in practically every case, the name is that of a director, a writer, an actor, and artist—not a producer. Some of these people, these artists, have realized the limitations that were placed upon them as mere parts of a producing unit, and they have escaped the curse by dispensing with the pro- ducer, and making their pictures inde- pendent of anything but their own high standards and the demands of an intelli- gent public. They have surrounded themselves with staffs composed of men and women who know their business or their art, and are the best of their kind. These are the sources of the really bet- ter pictures that we are waiting for. "Do you find many college people in the movies?" I asked a young fellow in a comedy studio. "Oh, lots of them," he answered—he was a university man himself—"and more are coming in all the time. And it's bound to make a difference in time. Why, Blank's private secretary," he named a prominent producer, "is a Rhodes scholar." Then he named a dozen picture men who were college products. I asked another man, a publicity man this time, where he thought the movies' greatest improvement in the next four or five years would be. "It will be in getting people of ability into the business," was his answer.