Motography (Jan-Jun 1918)

354 MOTOGRAPHY Vol. XIX, No. 8 should not be, necessary for him to become a studio attache to solve the problem of screen acceptability. But the general run of free lance screen writers do not acknowledge that there is such a problem to solve. They persist in regarding a scenario as a story manuscript providentially free from the irksome fetters of style and punctuation. They think the picture business is a market which uses, and prefers, its diamonds uncut and in the rough. They fail utterly to realize that the picture diamond must be arduously polished into a lens. So Mr. Sullivan charges the free lance writers with a lack of screen study; and he must be right, because it is evident that screen study would turn the trick. Writers who do not know what is meant by the term would better stick to their type. And he charges them with other misdemeanors: Lack of consistency, because they are more intent upon making their incidents visible to the naked eye than they are upon fitting them together into a story. Lack of serious consideration for their undertaking, because of that mistaken faith in the demand for rough diamonds; their notion that in the kaliedoscopic rush and hurly-burly of picture production, as it looks to the layman, anything will do. Mr. Sullivan's excellent recipe for free lance success it to avoid the spectacular, mind the theme, and write about "human people doing human things." Following that rule will assuredly sell scripts, and give the producer an increased amount of stuff that, if not of extraordinary quality, at least will keep the studio pot a boiling. The production of first class free lance scenarios, equivalent to ten-cents-a-woH. fiction is another and weightier question. * * * We Are Criticised Abroad EAST AFRICAN criticism of American pictures does not carry enough of a sting to influence our methods. There is, indeed, considerable of a smile in the fact that any part of Africa should presume to censure, if not censor, a film made in the United States. But they have gone ahead and done it just the same, regardless of our sneers or our indignation. The Lourenco Marques Guardian, of Lourenco Marques, East Africa, is quoted by United States Consul John F. Jewell as containing a severe criticism of some American films shown there. "One," says the consul, "was condemned on the ground that it would lead foreign audiences to believe that in the United States it is a common thing for ex-convicts to become chiefs of police. "There has been reason in many instances for an erroneous impression to be created in the minds of those who have been schooled under different systems of thought and government, and an American, even with a saving sense of humor, would not hesitate to condemn films of this kind as a misrepresentation of his country. "Many persons abroad criticize an American film when it attempts to give a representation of court scenes without the proper surroundings, or causes the police to be represented without dignity or discipline, and as instruments to defeat justice. These criticisms are by discerning friends of American films and American institutions. "Another motion picture was characterized as a 'rank and evil-smelling' illustration of American justice and 'either a blot or a libel.' The film feature to which the paper referred misrepresented the uniform high sense of justice which is characteristic of the American people, its bar, and judiciary." This, at its very best, is perhaps a serious reminder of the burden of responsibility that rests so lightly, and even unconsciously, upon the shoulders of the American producer. Just as a writer "tossing off" a story before lunch is prone to forget the influence it may have upon ten or a hundred thousand innocent readers, so the producer ignores the swaying of human existence that may follow his display upon the screen. And it is well that it is so. If timidity and awe and stage fright should accompany each journey into the public eye, accomplishment would be at an end and none would venture beyond the deeds that their fathers had proved safe and sane. We cannot produce pictures, or write, or address meetings, without encountering criticism and making enemies. Universal approbation and applause is not the rule for success. Every producer knows what is right and what is not right, what should be shown and what should not. When he is sure of his own sincerity, let him go ahead with his product. Then criticism from East Africa or Chicago will deflect harmlessly from his armor of virtue. P. H. W.