Motography (Jan-Jun 1918)

456 MOTOGRAPHY Vol. XIX, No. 10. Perhaps a still stronger light will be thrown upon the question if we go back over the list and view the negative side — the theatre man's urgent "don'ts": No. 1. — No vampire pictures. No. 2. — No tragedy — not now. And fewer "patriotic" pictures, many of which convey the idea that the people are not yet sufficiently imbued with patriotism. No. 3. — Nothing gloomy or depressing. No war pictures except topicals and news films. No. 4. — No violent war dramas. No. 5. — No historical or costume plays. No. 6. — No sad scenes. Less star and more play. Less mush and racial prejudice scenes, less religious motive. Fewer triangular plots. No. 7. — Scenarios not good. Poor treatment of scenario writers. Don't waste a good star on a poor story. We do not get the right kind of stories. No. 8. — The public does not care for war stories, nor for cheap slap-stick stuff called comedy. Keep away from the kissing scene finish. No. 9. — Less similarity in plays. Less negligence in working out stories or in fitting vehicles to stars. Less padding in two-reel comedies. No salacious or unclean pictures. More attention to titles, subtitles and printed leaders. No. 10. — No costume plays. No crystal-gazers or magicians. No sacrificing of the heroine's honor. No western train hold-ups or stage coaches. No hideous make-ups for "comedy's" sake. No. 11. — No slap-stick, no western stage coach stuff, no war stuff. Here, again, amidst an interesting conglomeration of prejudices, we have running through the whole composition the major theme of less gloom — more joy. This sentiment shows so strongly in all these reports — practically one hundred per cent — that it would be the height of lax policy to ignore it. We call the attention of producers to it without further comment; for it is not our theme, but the surprisingly unanimous vote of the theatre men themselves. And after reading this brief summary of a rather elaborate subject, we urge that all read the original communications as we print them. 'I* *K *i» The Author Scores Once AMONG the hundreds of queries and comments that come to our office from exhibitors, one that arrived the other day deserves some kind of a medal for originality. An Oregon man, sending his praises of certain well known features, asks to be told of more "by the same AUTHORS." Not necessarily by the same producers, mind you, or even the same players — or the same directors, cameramen, prop custodians, location finders or darkroom experts. The same authors! Now that, of course, is the way you buy books in a book store, or borrow them from a library or a friend. You do not ask for another volume produced by the Century Company or Bobbs-Merrill, or for a book edited by Jim Jones who used to work for them. You hunt for the same author's stuff, indifferent as to who published it. But in the motion picture business it is really quite an extraordinary request. The film title writers, indeed, do their best to disguise the fact that the picture has an author. We speak for a resumption of the practice of throwing the author's name on the screen with the title of the picture. Some of the exceptional features do carry it; but the habit should be universal, not exceptional. The poorest of fiction writers in the meanest of publications gets his name printed if he breaks into type at all. The object of making the author's name public is not because the public is crying for it; not even because a lone exhibitor has asked for "more by the same;" it is simply because the author himself would appreciate it, and it costs nothing. The gain to the producer, in extending to the author this apparent favor that is really his right, is that when the writer's self-respect is increased, and when those who already have self-respect are attracted, a better quality of work will be produced. Recognition is as important to the author as it is to any other creator. Perhaps the universal and habitual use of the "by-line" on films would lead, in time, to higher prices for scenarios. But not until they were worth it. And it would be a strange producer who did not welcome the chance to pay a higher average rate for a higher average quality of motion picture manuscript. P. H. W.