Screen Guilds Magazine (October 1935)

Nobody rose to this bait. The present revision of the Academy Writer-Produ- eer Code, containing in it a spnrions duplicate of demands made by writers through the NRA Five-Five Commit¬ tees, is the newest and most deliberate attempt to destroy the Guild. Changes in working conditions, at the suggestion of which five years ago producers shook their heads in horror, they now appear to be granting with charming grace. It is inconceivable that the Producers have had a change of heart. It is the menace of the Guild’s organized power which has forced them to seem to give in, and purr, ‘ ‘ How could you misunderstand— we ’ve loved you all the time. ’ ’ But an analysis of these new “im¬ provements” will disclose how counter¬ feit these protestations of affection are. Back of them always lies the machinery of the Academy—with its peculiar air of duplicity, its peculiar psychology of knee-bending — and the ever-present, friendly producer’s hand, so ready to reach at the next moment for the black¬ list he keeps under the blotter. Let’s Adopt The Orphan I T is generally agreed that the theatre in Los Angeles has fallen to a very low estate and last month’s Screen Guilds’ Magazine made full acknowl¬ edgement of this sad truth through the medium of several articles expressing various viewpoints of the same subject. Ampng them Mr. Ivan Simpson’s ap¬ peal to the screen actor, “for the good of his soul” not to cut himself off en¬ tirely from the theatre, must have struck many a responsive chord, while Mir. Edwin Schallert’s keen and realistic analysis of the conditions which have led to the present state of things shows clearly the difficulty, not to say the hopelessness, of any campaign to return to the old order. Mr. Harlan Thomp¬ son’s suggestion is constructive and for¬ ward-looking, but for the finished edifice which he envisions foundations have yet to be planned. Without too much repetition of ac¬ cepted facts, the present situation may be summed up in three straightforward statements. Exceptions to these could be advanced, but only just sufficient to prove the rule. There is no really first- class theatrical organization in Los Angeles. There is a wish among back- stage folk to see such a theatre estab¬ lished, and an audience for the front of the house if only it could be rounded up. There is one great obstacle, the fact that moving-pictures claim the entire time and attention of all actors, writers, and directors of real prominence. The producer is not mentioned above because he is inseparable from another question, that of capital, or backing. But if the question of the supply of plays, directors, and actors could be answered, the producer and the capital would be automatically forthcoming. Meanwhile, in the suggestion now to be put forward, they become unessential, at any rate for the present. A REALLY fine permanent theatre in and of this city is at this moment a dim and distant vision. The road to it looks long and hard. But when the first few steps have been taken along that road, who knows how it may not open up, or what that vision may not grow to be on near approach? The Screen Guilds could lead the way, for those first few steps at least. They have a splendid organization, machinery that really works. That machinery has proved its efficiency in various direc¬ tions. This new demand would not be beyond its power. As a beginning, a one-year plan is here suggested, on the model of the In¬ corporated Stage Society of London, which functioned successfully for many years, and showed the way to a number of similar organizations. The object was to produce fine plays which for various reasons were difficult to sell to the commercial theatre, and the aim was to produce them in the finest manner, with the finest obtainable casts. Only two performances were given of each production, on a Sunday night and a Monday matinee. Director and cast were picked by invitation from among the most prominent and successful people in London, most of them current¬ ly appearing in regular commercial suc¬ cesses. Capital was obtained by sale of memberships in the Society and sub- By Murray Kinnell . . . who suggests the first steps towards a Guild Theatre proposed in these col¬ umns last month by Harlan Thompson. scriptions for seats to either the full year’s series or single performances. W HY could not the Guilds sponsor a similar plan? A series of four or five productions might he projected, and subscriptions sold ahead. Guild members and their best contacts should be first on the list, then with a few good names to start the ball rolling the right kind of public would soon rally round. Productions could be made at inter¬ vals of about ten weeks, and play two performances apiece, either a Sunday and Monday night, or two successive Sundays. Rehearsals would be con¬ ducted two or three evenings a week, from 8 to 11, other preparation at other convenient times. Picture work would not be interfered with, and the sky would be the limit in quality of casts obtainable. There would be no salaries, but pos¬ sibly a tiny expense-check all around to preserve everyone’s professional sta¬ tus. In London, people invited to work for the Stage Society considered it an honor. For them too there was a tiny check for the sake of appearances, but they were glad to do it for their art’s sake, for the opportunity to play fine parts and broaden their professional scope. They had fun, and so did their very distinguished audiences. And oc¬ casionally a commercial pearl turned up among their uncommercial plays. ‘ ‘ Jour- ney’s End” got its first showing with one of the Sunday-producing societies. Once more let it be thoroughly under¬ stood that this one-year plan is intended to be only the very thin end of a wedge. A permanent commercial establishment of the highest class, like Mr. Harlan Thompson’s, or bigger, still would be the final goal. How about it, the Guilds? 3 • October, 1935