American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

i 16 MM Home Movie Previews THE GREEN ALBUM Costume "home movie," 300 feet 16mm. Kodachrome (sound speed.) Filmed by Miss Agnes Marx. The maker of this film sent it in with the explanation that it was the result of her first experiments with filming Kodachrome under artificial light and with personally-made titles. If so, it has all the earmarks of a graduate student's thesis, for it is one of the best examples of Kodachrome lighting and of good titlemaking we've seen lately. Every inch of the film is technically excellent. The interiors are unusual among amateur-made Kodachrome interiors in that the whole of every scene seems adequately lighted, with no falling off in exposure values in distant corners, or on dark furniture or woodwork. The generally light-colored walls of the room used for most of the scenes no doubt helped, but careful attention to lampplacement and illumination-values was chiefly responsible for this excellent technique. There are two effect-lighted scenes with silhouetted areas used to frame the main action of the scene — one when "Dad" brings the trunk from the store-room, the other in the scene showing the amazing abundance of petticoats worn forty years ago. These are extremely effective pictorially, and well done technically. In some of the other scenes a trick of professional lighting was used to good advantage: concealing lights behind people or furniture to illuminate the back-wrall and make the foreground action stand out more clearly. This deserves hearty commendation. The titling is, as we've mentioned, uncommonly good. The opening title makes very effective use of wooden block letters against a suitable background. The other titles employ white letters, apparently of the metallic stickon variety, against a solid green background. This makes an excellent color combination; and one which, unlike the blue and white combination so commonly used, should stand up quite well in the rather unlikely event today's Kodachrome should fade as did the earlier emulsions. The lighting was even, and the lamps placed effectively to give relief to the three-dimensional letters. From a picture standpoint, however, some suggestions could be made. The film is technically excellent, and has a reasonably interesting subject-idea — that of a couple of young women exploring Grandmother's trunk from the attic, and trying on the "gay 90's" clothes it contains. But to the general audience, there is a certain tendency toward dragginess. This could be greatly improved by the use of close-ups, especially immediately preceding and following the many spoken titles. A good example of this is in the scene where it is suggested the trunk is in the store-room, " — so let's go see." With the title cut into a longshot, either the young woman or the little girl could have spoken it. Therefore we would suggest making a close-up of the young woman speaking, cutting in the title, and returning to a close-up of the woman finishing speaking. This could be followed by a medium close-up of the little girl, expressing pleased excitement, and starting to stand up quickly before the scene is cut. In the middle of the movement cut to the longshot, just at the point in the latter where the little girl is seen rising. The film could use a number of other close-ups — as, for instance, one of the women calling "Dad" to help with the trunk, another of him hearing her call, and so on. Close-ups of the woman and her friend as they admire each other's appearance in the forty-year-old styles would also be helpful. We'd be inclined to suggest, too, deferring the revelation that the woman is trying on the clothes until after her friend arrives. This could easily be done by showing her only in close-ups as she makes the phone call — close-up of her hand dialing the number, close-up of just her face as she talks. Then, after the phone talk is over, cut or better fade to the friend arriving — taken from outside the door — and cut to a shot toward the door, as her friend opens it clad in "gay 90's" attire, after which it would be logical to cut to a surprised close-up of the visitor, and so on. And as the two young women try on the clothes, it would be effective to intercut close-ups of the little girl as she watches, registering surprise, amusement, etc. We would also suggest that it was sometimes difficult to be sure whether some of the titles were intended as spoken or descriptive titles. Therefore it would be well to do as was customary in silent pictures, and set off all spoken titles by quotation-marks. DEMOCRACY Documentary, 50 feet 8mm. black-andwhite. Filmed by Joseph F. Hollywood. This film, a companion-piece to "Mr. Hitler Never Loses," by the same filmer and reviewed in last month's issue, is another unusually clever example of turning the home-movie camera to the task of setting forth on film one's political ideas. This film is what might be called "a Republican's-eye view" of last fall's election; as such, its sentiment is somewhat dated and not wholly in keeping with the events and sentiments of 1941. But its technique is still powerful; it makes one wonder why more amateurs don't try using their cameras as a means of expressing their views on public questions. Technically, the picture is a clever combination of animation, superimposed title technique, and live-action closeups. It is excellently done in in every respect. The defeated Presidential candidate is shown in semi-silhouetted longshots, with pertinent quotations from his speeches superimposed in title-form. As in many a Hollywood (California!) movie, unquestionably a "double" enacted this part, a person with just enough physical similarity to suggest the desired character, and with his real identity concealed by the semi-silhouetting lighting. The effect is extremely good. The winning candidate is indicated by a simple cut-out of a pair of spectacles and a long cigarette-holder superimposed on titles quoting this individual's speeches. The result, again, is to perfectly suggest the individual intended. The contrast between the two methods of presentation is also a clever way of indicating the Aimer's estimate of the two actual personalities. The live-action scenes, shown usually in close-ups, indicating audience reaction to the two speakers, the outcome of the voting, etc., are also capably handled. The cutting is, as was the case with "Mr. Hitler Never Loses," more than ordinarily capable. The film builds to a definite climax, the tempo, as established by both action and cutting, building swiftly and effectively. While perhaps a less striking example of film-craftsmanship than "Mr. Hitler Never Loses," the film is none the less a technically fine and dramatically compelling piece of work, which presents its ideas more favorably than many a professional epic. All told, both of Mr. Hollywood's productions make one wonder why, since the silent film is such a forceful means of expressing even abstract ideas, more users of 16mm. and 8mm. cameras don't try to use their cameras that way. And seeing what this filmer has done in this direction while employing virtually no physical resources which couldn't be available to any amateur, we can commend it to other movie-makers. Almost all that is really necessary is a basic idea, visualized. But ideas, we'll admit, aren't as easy to get as Mr. Hollywood's films make them seem! American Cinematographer September, 1941 435