We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
process-shots seen in “ Alas de mi P atria" are a pleasant surprise to those of us who had thought this technique restricted to the studios of Hollywood and Europe. In " Puerto Cerrada ” the photography of John Alton. A.S.C. — a Hollywood cinematographer — justified the Argentine reviews which had given the cinematographer equal recognition with the star. In this connection. we hope one day to see the work of another Hollywood cinematographer, Tony Kornman, who recently travelled south to aid Argentina’s film industry. The work of both of these Americans should give a forceful answer to the people in Hollywood who think that photographic ability is miraculously restricted exclusively to the relatively few names found on majorstudio contract rosters!
We don’t know how many of the people who have been preaching the gospel of Hollywood films for South American audiences were alert enough to see these two pictures — much less how many of the people who should have seen them did so. But if only one of these executives did so he will agree with us that Don Gledhill deserves an Academy “Oscar” for bringing these films to Hollywood to show Hollyw'ood’s executives and creators what Spanish America wants in its movies!
Wf e’ve no patience with the spine
v less “critic” in whose reviews everything is perpetually good. But at the other extreme, we grow equally annoyed with reviewers who essay to pass expert judgment on something they know little or nothing about.
Photography is an excellent exam
ple of this point. It is a highly technical art. and subject to many conditions which, like had sets, costumes or make-up, limited schedules, indifferent laboratory work and the like, which are not always under the control of the Director of Photography. In addition, we have all of us seen instances in which a working-print was previewed, and gave an impression of poor photography which would subsequently be disproved by viewing a properly balanced release-print.
The technician, viewing a preview under such circumstances, can generally put the finger on these factors, and adjust his estimate of the cinematographer's work accordingly. The layman as a rule cannot.
In the very nature of things, few if any of our daily and trade-paper critics can he technicians. A few of them have the benefit of sufficient personal experience within the industry, or of serious practice of amateur still or movie photography, to give them at least a sympathetically semi-technical viewpoint on things photographic. But the majority, in so far as photography is concerned, are laymen pure and simple.
Since this is the case, it doesn't strike us as being quite fair for the lay critic to irrevocably damn the photography of a picture. This is particularly true because the cinematographers most likely to encounter handicaps beyond their control are the two groups most urgently in need of critical tolerance. On the one hand, there is the very young man, just struggling up from the ranks, trying, perhaps for the first time, to make good as a Director of Photography. On the other.
4