American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

THROUGH the EDITOR S FINDER THIS year's Academy Award for "special-effects" raises a question in our mind and, we believe, in the minds of a majority of the camera profession. Briefly, that question is: for ivliat sort [[of "special-effects" achievement is that Award given? We've talked with a number of the Directors of Special-process Photography who were members of the ^committee which determined that Award. All of them expressed more or . less amazement at their committee's decision. Some of them frankly told us that they had voted for a different production, one in ' which they felt the achievement in special-effects photography was greater and more significant. ways imply that the accompanying use of sound may be equally outstanding — and by the some token, outstanding special effects-sound does not necessarily have to be accompanied by correspondingly noteworthy photographic effects. It seems to us that trying to judge special-effects work under the present system, where photography and sound But the membership of the committee included not only photographic experts, but also recording engineers and Art Directors. These men, looking at the nominated sequences with an eye (and an ear) to achievements in their own fields, 'did not see eye to eye with the photographic members of the group. Accordingly, |we see a production in which there was acknowl edgely outstanding special !use of sound, and special j set-construction, but which from the photographic point of view, while excellent, was none the less inferior to some of the other nomi; . ations, given an Award which, in the minds of the industry and the general public, is synonymous with outstanding achievement in special-effects photography. The actual phrasing under which the Academy's special-effects Award was set up states, we realize, that it is given for out ': standing achievement in the I special-effects use of sound ' and photography, so in the "strictly technical sense, the Award has probably been given correctly. But in a broader sense, we wonder if this set-up does not make for injustice to all concerned. Sometimes a special-effects sequence may combine outstanding photographic effects and outstanding special-effects recording, as was the case with "San Francisco," winner of a few years ago. But in general, outstanding achievement in the J visual field does not by any means al Directors of Photography present Academy Awards classifications has grown so much of late that it is in danger of becoming unwieldy. Clearly, there must be a limit to the number of these Awards if they are to continue to mean anything. But our industry is big enough to recognize outstanding achievement in production sound and photography and should in justice to the men involved, and to the Awards themselves, recognize that special-effects achievements in sound and in picture are two distinct entities, and as such entitled to in(lirithuil recognition. Unique Artists-Executives! THE Director of Photography or First Cinematographer is a creative artist, functioning in an executive capacity — unique and irreplaceable! This is not the statement of the writer, the A.S.C., or any of its officers — though this has been the Society's contention for more than two decades — but the considered opinion of official representatives of labor organizations which during recent years have previously taken the exactly opposite stand, holding that Directors of Photography or First Cinematographers were in the same category as other members of the photographic staff, save, perhaps, as regards salaries and conditions, and should be so considered. But during the closing week in March, at an official hearing before the Wages and Hours Division of the United States Department of Labor, these gentlemen repeatedly stressed the fact that the work and responsibilities of the First Cinematographer or Director of Photography are essentially different from those of his photographic crew. They testified that the Director of Photography or First Cinematographer was the creative artist of the photographic staff — a professional man, an artist and an executive, and as such, to borrow the favorite phrase of studio contracts, "unigue and irreplaceable," and therefore not within the provisions of the Wage and Hour Act. We would like to thank these gentlemen who so very recently held such different views for the excellent way they have summed up the status of the Director of Photography or First Cinematographer. What we have been saying for more than twenty years, they now say for us, and make it a matter of court record. We appreciate the compliment. w are considered together, must inevitably work an injustice on either the sound or the picture achievement. Would it not be better — and vastly more fair — to provide separate Awards for specialeffects photography and special-effects sound ? We fully realize that the number of HEN an important major production is released, the critics usually reward the Director of Photography with complimentary phrases, terming his work "georgeous, "breathtakingly beautiful," and so on. When on the other hand, the industry's less important films are previewed, the critic, if he acknowledges photography at all, usually dismisses it briefly with the comment that it is "adequate," "standard," or some equally innocuous phrase. Yet frequently the man in charge of the less pretentious production has, in his way, achieved more greatly than the man on the highly-publicized superspecial. All too often he has heart breaking conditions with which to contend. He seldom has new sets; instead, he must make remodelled old ones look new, concealing the fact that the same set has appeared previously in at least one "A" production and probably many a "B." He often has limited facilities as regards equipment; we've known of cinematographers who have incurred the displeasure of "B-picture" producers by insisting on half-a-dozen "snouts." And always he is fighting the clock. Where his fellow on the big picture, shooting perhaps halfa-dozen set-ups per day, can take the time needed to produce perfection in every detail and effect, he must make from thirty to fifty or sixty set-ups per day, and every minute spent in polishing lighting", or moving props or walls to permit more effective cameraangles is considered so much valuable time wasted. American Cinematographer April, 1941 107