American cinematographer (Apr 1937)

132 American Cinematographer ® April, 1937 FRANK LLOYD HAILS MEN OF CAMERA F rank LLOYD paid rare tribute to the men behind the camera when speaking for the Academy at its annual awards he made the pres- entation of the photographic trophy to Tony Gaudio, A.S.C. “I was mighty glad a director was called upon to make the award to the cameraman for the best photography, as I felt that no one could appreciate the work of a camei’aman like a direct- or,” began this youngish looking vet- eran who for twenty-three years has sat alongside the cameras and guided the making of many of the biggest productions to come to the screen. The director was addressing twelve hundred diners—diners who, being human beings, and also being in holi- day mood, felt like talking themselves. Even more than that, they were talk- ing. There was sudden silence as the director began his brief presentation. There was deep interest and close at- tention as he continued. “The cameraman and the director work together on the story from its inception to its end,” Mr. Lloyd went on, “and if the two are in sympathy with one another the cameraman very often enhances the dramatic value of a scene by his sympathetic lighting. “The cameraman is one of the un- sung heroes of the industry, and it is too bad that only once a year are we able to acknowledge to the public at large the great importance of this par- ticular contributor to the making of a motion picture. “I consider this recognition of cine- matography one of the most impor- tant awards of the year.” Recalls Cameramen In a chat in his office on the Para- mount lot a week following the pres- entation of the awards Director Lloyd recalled thirteen cameramen who had worked with him. Every one is listed on the rolls of the American Society of Cinematographers. The first to be named was William C. (“Billy”) Foster, now deceased; Gilbert Warrenton, J. D. (“Dev”) Jen- nings, Norbert F. Brodine, Victor Milner, Arthur Edeson, John F. Seitz, Ernest Palmer, Ernest Haller, Hal Mohr, whose “When Love Is Young,” his first directing effort, was Pays Cinematographers Unusual Tribute When He Presents Academy's Award to Tony Gaudio previewed March 12 last in Pantages here in Hollywood; Tony Gaudio, Glenn Mac Williams and Leo Tover. One of the more notable facts in connection with Frank Lloyd’s work as a director is that across the twenty- three years he has made pictures but a single subject of his ever was pro- duced outside of Hollywood. The ex- ception was the great “Les Mis- erables,” a Fox production which be- sides bringing orchids to the director added to the fame of William Farnum in the part of Jean Valjean. It was released in January, 1918, and ranked as one of the best of the year. As a motion picture the subject shared honors with Pathe’s prior adaptation of the same story featuring Henri Krauss, a screen drama that at the time of its making outranked by and large all that had preceded it. It had an unusually long run in New York—and in an atmosphere decidedly unusual up to that time for pictures —Carnegie Hall. It may be interesting to note that Krauss is now being seen in the latest French version of “Les Miserables,” appearing twenty years after as the Bishop. Indicating his rank among his fel- lows and his relative position as judged by the members of the Acad- emy it may be pointed out that Frank Lloyd has won two Academy awards for directing, sharing honors in that respect only with Frank Capra. These awards were given for “Di- vine Lady,” in 1928-9, in which year also was directed “Weary River” and “Drag,” and for “Cavalcade,” in 1932-3. Last Picture a Hit Mr. Lloyd’s last picture was “Maid of Salem,” now well enough on its way to give abundant assurance the director’s judgment and capacity for selection and preparation and execu- tion are as keen as at any time in the preceding twenty-three years. In fact, his friends are certain his great- est work is yet to come. Bearing out the claim of genius for preparation ascribed to the director by these same friends were a couple of letters that came to the maker of “Maid of Salem” the day this reporter was in his office. One of these was from the secretary of the Essex In- stitute of Salem, the society which speaks with official authority in all matters historical in Northeastern Massachusetts—and has done so for generations. The two letters are illuminative of the critical examination expended upon the work of a director by per- sons expert in the subject touched upon, persons of unusual knowledge in certain directions who keenly resent errors of omission or commission on the part of picturemakers. So, too, it seems sometimes they are quick to praise one who engages in research, who takes heed of the old admonition of Davey Crockett. “Yesterday I saw the first showing of ‘Maid of Salem,’ here in Salem,” writes Howard Corning, secretary of the Institute, under date of March 6, “and I hasten to congratulate you on your success. As an interpretation of the particular incident and as a representation of the settlement at the time, it seems to me to be admirably done, not merely in the general as- pect but in the details. I have heard nothing but praise, and wish to con- gratulate you again.” Children Sit Tense One of the substantial citizens of Salem with whom Mr. Lloyd consulted prior to the making of the picture was Willis H. Ropes, who like Mr. Com- ing saw the subject on the screen March 5 and promptly wrote his com- ments on the day following. He ex- pressed his keen appreciation of the picture as a whole. Mr. Ropes saw the production in the afternoon. In the house were hundreds of “restless children,” gath- ered for a Laurel and Hardy picture. “As soon as the ‘Maid’ began,” says the writer, “they were still as mice. . . It was tense all through until the splendid climax.