American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

Hardly a "B!" Phil Tannura, A.S.C., (right) films Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth in Columbia's special, "You'll Never Get Rich." EVERY so often someone comes along with an impassioned plea that we ought to have some means of making experimental films, with which we could experiment with new ideas, new personalities and new techniques in a way that can't always be done on regular production. It's a nice idea to toy with — and one I am sure even its strongest proponents must realize is, for the present, at least, thoroughly impractical. Besides, it seems to me we already have what is to all intents and purposes a full-scale experimental laboratory, just waiting for our use! Of course I'm referring to the so-called "B-pictures," which every studio makes, whether they call them that or not. They're unpretentious little affairs, turned out cheaply and economically — to say nothing of being made quickly. Already we've seen plenty of top box-office stars, directors and writers graduate from this unnot iced training-ground. But so far, very few cinematographers seem to have recognized that an assignment to direct the photography of a pro The Experimental "B's" By PHIL TANNURA, A.S.C gram picture can be an opportunity to try out new technical ideas which, though they've been rolling around in the cinematographer's mind for months, he would never dare to try out on a picture of major importance until he had had a chance to prove or disprove it in practice. But on a "B" picture, so long as the resulting scene is photographically adequate, the cinematographer has an opportunity to try out new ideas without running disproportionate risks for either himself or the producer. Take such a thing as the use of coated lenses, for example. Some studios and some cinematographers have had opportunities to make extensive tests of them, and are using them enthusiastically. Others, after perhaps equally extensive tests, don't care for them. But I know of many other cinematographers who, having had the oppoi'tunity to make only very sketchy tests of such lenses, or perhaps none at all, have told me that while the lenses seemed to offer interesting possibilities, they none the less felt reluctant to use them on their next "A" production because they didn't want to take the risk. But suppose at that point you're assigned to a "B" picture. If you try the lenses out on a sequence or two of that picture — perhaps even the whole production— you're not jeopardizing either a big investment or the appearance of an important star, for most of your cast will probably be young players on their way up — youngsters who can stand much less careful photographic treatment than the average established "name." On your part, you're learning what the lens can do and how to use it under the only conditions that really count — those of actual production. If you succeed, you've found something valuable; if the experiment isn't so successful, you're still likely to be ahead, for you've been concentrating on your camera-technique rather than "walking through" the assignment, and the producer is likely to get a picture better photographically than he expects. Lately we've heard a good deal pro and con about the idea of using superfast films like Super-XX on production. One of the men who first did it — a chap who is pretty much an "A-picture" specialist— has said that he used it on some four or five productions before he felt satisfied that he had developed the right technique of handling it. Wouldn't it have been better all around if he could have done that experimental wrork on low-budget "B's," rather than on super specials where his own reputation and a six or seven-figure investment were at stake? The results, scene for scene, would have been just as instructive — and he would probably have learned quicker, since he would have turned out more scenes, under more varied conditions, in the same amount of time. Similarly, we've all of us lately dis cussed the so-called "pan-focus" tech nique Gregg Toland employed on "Citi zen Kane." Gregg has admitted he developed it slowly, over a period of several years, using a bit of it here in one picture, another bit there, in another, as | conditions warranted. And he himself admits, I believe, that the technique . isn't by any means completely stabilized yet; there are still quite a few questions as to the how, when and where to use it that can only be stabilized by further experience. If this experimental work could be spread over an equal or greater number of program films, isn't it possible that the answer could be reached more quickly and economically? In all of this, I certainly don't want it thought that in suggesting that the "B" picture can be used as a field for experiments, I am implying that the photography of these program releases is necessarily of a low order. Sometimes it may be, but not necessarily so, by any means. Very frankly, I have frequently seen (and photographed) "B" pictures in which I felt the camerawork was distinctly better than the same man was able to achieve in other more pretentious pictures. For there are times when, in making a high-budget picture, you may find that the setting or mood of the action aren't such as lend themselves to particularly pictorial effect. You may find a director who is not particularly inclined to cooperate with the photographer, or a star who requires a certain specialized and conservative type of camera-treatment. On the other hand, in a program-picture assignment, you may very well find everything playing into your hands — interesting settings or locations, a story (Continued on Page 443) 420 September, 1941 American Cinkmatographer