American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1928)

August, 1928 AMERICAN CI N E M A T 0 G R A P H E R Twenty-five ers from experience, beginning from the rational period of babyhood, in building up in the brain a system of comparative values, in estimating the results of the combination of sight and sound. We hear a sound, and this reference system in the brain immediately sets a value upon it: We recognize its source, its character and estimate its distance. We see an object, and our experience reference estimates its nearness or remoteness. In both cases it is merely an estimate and considered individually, this estimate is satisfactory, but the moment we try to associate unrelated values of sight and sound it immediately violates this reference system and the results are unconvincing. To illustrate this further we cite the long practice by ventriloquists, in trying to furnish a voice that will fit their manikins. The success of their efforts lies in trying to furnish the combination that agrees with the experience of the auditors, and this experience refuses the possibility of a deep, gruff voice issuing from the diminutive figure of the manikin. We may also cite the shock to this experience of ours when we hear, for the first time, a man of great stature speak in a delicate, high-pitched voice, or a Lilliputian address us in the deep basso of a giant. To illustrate the idea of illusion by an extreme example, and one that peculiarly fits the subject, we may recall having attended some vast gathering, listening to a speaker, who stands at such a great distance as to be unable to recognize him, and over our heads is a loud speaker flooding us with a tremendous volume of sound. Do what we may, we cannot associate the sound with the far-distant speaker. But cut off the microphone, and we immediately become conscious of the real effect, although we see of hear very little of the speaker. We stood close beside a director, who was directing a great scene through the microphone and it was impossible to associate the sound, coming from the various loud speakers, with the man at our side. This introduces a serious point of criticism, — this matter of illusion. We hear on all sides discussions which indicate that the auditors are satisfied that synchronism is accomplished ; but that there is a feeling that only at rare times does the sound seem to come from the proper source. They view a medium close-up that appears to fit the sound, there is a gasp of delight audible over the entire audience, the illusion is perfect; then comes a large head, covering the entire screen, the lips move in perfect synchronism with the sound, but there is a sense of disappointment in the audience; then a cut to a long shot, and we begin to get the effect of that speaker in the stadium. We hear the remark, "why can't it all be like that one scene?" It is because that one scene embodies a perfect relation between the picture area and th sound volume, — a perfect co-ordination between the elements of sound and sight that agrees with that reference system furnished by our experience. This situation is not alarming, for we see sufficient to satisfy ourselves that the scientist has done his part; he has furnished the artist with the means, and it merely remains for the artist to employ these agencies in ultimately developing a refined and perfect product. To accomplish this, both the scientist and the artist are dependent upon sincere and honest criticism rather than prejudice and antagonism. The only danger we see to the success of the talking pictures lies in the multiplicity of systems now engaging the attention of producers. Standardization is largely responsible for the success of pictures in general. Standardization in the talkies is what now concerns, not only the producer, but more particularly the exhibitor, who has to pay for the expensive equipment. It will resolve itself into the survival of the fittest as regards the various systems. Whether it shall be the phonographic system, the variable area (photographic), the variable density (photographic), or the stylus engraving on the celluloid of the film (phonographic). But no matter what developments may furnish in the matter of standardization, there will never be any question as to the importance of the technique of the talkies. Tribute to An A. S. C. Were he to have achieved no more in the transitory period that constitutes man's life upon this planet than to invent the photographic lens that bears his name, Karl Struss would have been entitled to the plaudits of the multitude. In the design of this lens Struss made, perhaps, the greatest single contribution to the advancement of pictorial photography since Stieglitz initiated his noted revolt against the smug, self-sufficiency of his fellow-craftsmen twenty years and more ago. The Struss lens brought shockingly different concepts of the photographic art, and its maker promptly was characterized as an anarch and viewed distrustfully by the conservatives. But his device, intelligently utilized, revealed the lyricism latent in even the most prosaic objects. Struss photographs thus became the vogue of captious New York. When moving pictures began to draft competent artists for service behind the camera as well as in front, Struss became a cameraman. I'm told that he's one of the highest paid and most sought-after in the business. I believe it. His moving-picture photography evidences the same intimate knowledge of pleasing composition and the value of light and shade that won for his photography such widespread acclaim. But though his vocation is with the films, his avocation continues to center about pictorial work. Seldom does he resort to the conventional, in subjects, and if he does, he deviates so far from the conventional practices of photography that the ultimate result becomes very different. His knowledge of the potency of light is little short of phenomenal. By the use of appropriate filters he photographs with the red, the yellow or the blue rays of the sun's light, in accordance with the demands of the subject. When Touring .Topics inaugurated its pictorial section, Struss was one of the first among pictorial photographers to contribute. Few issues have appeared in which he has not been represented. He ventures afield on every occasion, and when he returns he brings to us a group of engaging prints, a friendly gesture of co-operation to the Automobile Club of Southern California, which he so much admires. — Touring Topics. George Meehan, A. S. C, is doing a series of children's pictures for Smitty Productions at Tec-Art. George Marshall is the producer. Charles Schoenbaum, A. S. C, holds the A. S. C. record for continuous employment with one production organization in motion pictures. He started with Lasky in 1916, his first picture being "The Girl Who Came Back," starring Ethel Clayton, directed by Bob Vignola. His last was "The Water Hole" by Zane Gray. On his last two pictures Mr. Schoenbaum used Mazda lights exclusively for interiors. He did his first work in pictures with D. W. Griffith in the lab. September 5, 1914. Mr. Schoenbaum has made an intensive study of sound pictures and is now at liberty to undertake contracts for this kind of production. Elmer Fryer, A. S. C, is the luckiest still photographer in Hollywood! Having recently affiliated himself with Warner Brothers Studio, Fryer shot the stills and special art studies for Warner's million-dollar production, "Noah's Ark," starring Dolores Costello with George O'Brien in the leading male role. His second assignment was Al Jolson's Vitaphone special, "The Singing Fool." For twelve weeks Elmer Fryer listened to the peerless voice of Jolson and was paid for it! It is hard to imagine anything more pleasant than receiving one's weekly wages and at the same time having the opportunity to hear Al Jolson's repertoire as only he can sing it. Fryer will have to get along without listening to Al Jolson's "Mammy" singing for a while as he has started work as still man for "The Redeeming Sin," Howard Bretherton's next directorial assignment for Warner Brothers, starring Dolores Costello.