Screen Guilds Mag (September 1935)

The Critics Reply Cont’d I N July, The Screen Guilds* Maga¬ zine printed a copy of a letter sent by President Ernest Pascal to more than five hundred leading Motion Pic¬ ture Editors and critics throughout the country. Last Month, The Magazine printed a symposium, of the first group of replies to the letter which asked, among other things, what could be done to get the screen writer credit for out¬ standing work. Since the last issue, more letters have been sent and more replies have been received. Again, a majority of the critics have expressed an eagerness to aid writers in their efforts for recogni¬ tion, if they could be shown how to do it. O LLIE Wood, in a two column story in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, Saturday, August 3, keynotes the cur¬ rent batch of replies when he says: ". . . . Even Hollywood must have a reason for this system of collaboration. Its understanding and righting may pull the writer 4 out of the doghouse*. "That reason, I fear, is that screen writing, except in rare instances, has not yet progressed to the point it can accomplish a solo job. In Hollywood there is a bumper crop of first rate novelists, playwrights, short-story writ¬ ers and newspapermen, but how many of them have discovered the ancient ‘ shoot-it-on-the-cuff * principles of mo¬ tion picture making? ajj OW many of them have broken it- A away from their old habits of writing to construct a story ever mind¬ ful of the camera’s eye and so conscious of movie technique that it could be handed to a director as a playwright hands in his product or a novelist sends his script to the publisher? Obviously not very many, else why so many col¬ laborations ? Even munificent Holly¬ wood would like to save a few salaries. "Until this kind of writing is evolved the screen must wait for its ‘ classic lit¬ erature* and the writer for his more general recognition .... ** a 1C* OR as much as I hate to use the word, there *s the element of ‘ hack * writing in most of Hollywood’s product. In the first place, because a new race of cinema writers has not yet arisen, the screen cleaves closely to adaptation. ® 4 Your adaptor always has a ‘warming- over* job, though in cases (as in "The Informer”) he may exceed the original. In the second, even when original stories are submitted, usually another brace of writers is sicked onto the screen play . . * * ".While we are waiting for evolution to bring about true screen writers, might I suggest one possible method of popularizing the present crop and making the public more writer¬ conscious? The Screen Writers* Guild boasts many high-powered names, pre¬ sumably a force among publishers. Why not, under Guild auspices, publish in book form a certain number of film scripts each year, not for the sake of novelty, as was the case with the printed "Mighty Barnum” or "Silver Streak”, but for merit and trueness to film ex¬ pression? Maybe that would hasten the clay when screenwrights would have the same dignity as playwrights. air TNLESS I am being led astray by the vast number of amateur scenarists who weekly call the depart¬ ment, there is a definite market for such publications. * * In his letter, Mr. Wood says: "Would it not be a good idea for the Guild to send out, perhaps monthly, a schedule listing the stories on which its members were working? That might help to keep the screen credits straight in the reviews.” L EO Mishkin, in a column story in the New York Morning Telegraph seconds the suggestion of Philadelphia’s Mr. Wood, when he writes: "Mr. Pascal asked for a suggestion as to how screen writers could come into their heritage. The suggestion has al¬ ready been made, and has already been acted upon. Gene Fowler started it. He had his script of "The Mighty Bar¬ num” published in book form. Smart boy, Fowler. He knew that as a writer his medium was the printed word. My. Pascal and his fellow members of The Screen Writers* Guild might consider it.” I N a three column story in the Louis¬ ville Courier-Journal, Boyd Martin writes: ". . . . Certainly Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur got all that was A Symposium clue them from critics and public for their work not alone on "The Scound¬ rel,” but also on "Crime Without Pas¬ sion” because Hecht and MacArthur saw to it that they were press agented above anything else. . . . ". . . . Something really has to be done by Mr. Pascal and his associates to establish the one deserving of credit and then he can be recognized. After all, Thackeray did write "Vanity Fair”, Dickens, "David Copperfield” and Shakespeare, "A Midsummer Night’s Dream, ” although I am afraid Mr. Pas¬ cal may believe that when the last named picture is released, it will be Warner Brothers* "A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” It probably will be.” I N a letter, Hubert Roussel, Amuse¬ ment Editor of The Houston Press, says: ‘ ‘ Thanks for providing the good copy. Your case is a sound one and if any of your members read movie reviews in The Press—which they probably don’t, but which I modestly urge as a good habit—they will know that down here there is an earnest effort to make cine¬ ma patrons aware that it takes more than a sublimated waitress parading in an Adrian gown and a million dollars worth of pasteboard scenery to make acceptable drama on the screen. "I’m for you, of course, but I’ve taken the liberty of pointing out some more or less obvious answers to the questions in your letter.” M R. Roussel, in his column article, points out: ". . . . The favorite method is to as¬ sign anywhere from two to a dozen lit¬ erary slaves to any scenario of moment, then to take parts of what each has pro¬ duced and try to weld them all into a story .... (As a result) the reviewer sits through the picture, finds it good, perhaps, and sits down to write a fav¬ orable notice. If he is an honest and conscientious critic, he wants to give plaudits where plaudits are due. How¬ ever, he is so baffled as to where the work (of one writer) left off and the work of (the next) began .... that he (Continued on page 16) The Screen Guilds’ Magazine