The Bioscope (Apr 1932)

24th YEAR. SUBSCRIPTION ; Home 10 '6 per annum. Abroad 30/ per annum. The Independent Film Trade Paper (FOUNDED BY JOHN CABOURN) Faraday House, 8-10, Charing Cross Road, London, W.C. 2. Telephone : Temple Bar 7921, 7922. Telegrams : ‘Gainsaid, W estrand London.” No. 1331, Vol. XCI. APRIL 6, 1932 PRICE 6d. As We See It The Beckenham Scandal The Beckenham Pavilion has closed down ; many a cinema has switched off its lights because public patronage has been insufficient to keep them burning ; many will doubtless meet the same unhappy experience. But it should at once be made an impossibility for a cinema, or any other legitimate business enterprise, to be hounded out of profitable existence by bureaucracy, as the Beckenham Pavilion has been. The Beckenham Council, in January last, created a local censorship panel of nine. Not content with the constitution of the British Board of Film Censors and the special representation local authorities enjoy through its newly formed Consultative Committee, these local censors of Beckenham have so interfered with local cinema programmes as to alienate a large section of the local public, who, resenting the spoon-feeding attitude of their local Bumbles, have transferred their patronage to cinemas outside this area of petty tyranny. Beckenham Council should now renounce its policy of interference. It cannot repair the damage it has done, but it can discontinue this scandalous system of so-called censorship before other local cinemas — alreadv suffering the results of heavy taxation and reduced public spending power — are forced into liquidation and removed from the head of the list of local ratepayers. Selfridge Salesmanship “ We want to make of London the centre where the finest work is done, and that having been accomplished it must be associated with publicity and the whole world told. . . . " Publicity can do almost everything.” Gordon Selfridge, the uncrowned King of Storekeepers, thus epitomised his faith in publicity as a driving force in salesmanship ; a faith which has been mainly responsible for placing him where he is. Mr. Selfridge was the guest of C. M. Woolf and the directors of Gainsborough Pictures and had just heard outlined Michael Balcon’s plans for the filming of part of the next Gainsborough picture, “ Love on Wheels,” in the great Selfridge store. It is to unfold a tale of 3-oung London store assistants ; a story of eveiy'da^^ life. What better background could be found for a British film ? Again Mr. Selfridge reminds us that an American journalist has computed that women devote 50 per cent, of their conversation to dress and of the remaining 50 per cent, half is taken up in discussing the movies. But that is in America, where the publicity’ “ outlook ” which characterises Mr. Selfridge, and all too few other British business men, is fostered generally. It will be a good day for British trade when more of our leaders grasp the import of Mr. Selfridge’s message. And that da^ can be hastened most sureH' by the spread of a film publicity sense such as prompts the Gainsborough Compan}^ to seek and Mr. Selfridge to concede, facilities for real British backgrounds in British films. ” Trade follows the film ” seems a sound and simple slogan, but it has so far proved a hard one for the British mentality' to absorb. “Hitch” To Cure “Itch” Alfred Hitchcock, principal film director attached to British International Pictures, the largest single unit in British film production, is to undertake supervision of a number of B.I. productions during the next twelve months and will ” tutor ” young film directors. John Maxwell, B.I.P. Chief, is to be congratulated on his courage and sporting spirit, if the object of this new studio policy is to increase the supply of efficient film directors available for creative work, on behalf, not only of his company, but ultimately of rival British producers. That is the spirit which has been so sadly lacking in British production ; its absence has so far held in postponement the realisation of an absolutely neck and neck race between Elstree and Hollywood. Hitchcock is acknowledged as a creator of motion pictures : he is one of the veiy^ few in Britain, although there are plenty of “ film directors.” He has been called a screen stuntist, an artist in publiciW, a critic vamper and a megaphonic spoofer (or things to that effect). But he has made pictures which may be written into British film history without necessity for italics or underlines. He is a film craftsman with that rare faculty for homogenising the artistic and the commercial in motion pictures. That ability alone endows him with qualities of studio leadership. The important question is, will he, as supervisor of British International productions, be given his head ? Will he be permitted freety to encourage ; to evolve ; to create ; to supervise ; to lead ? Will he be able to insist that his efforts, and those of the sapling directors in his charge, shall be free from interference on the part of an executive with admirable qualifications in many other spheres, but none for the making of successful motion pictures ? Elstree has given us our surprises ; it has also given us our disappointments. Too few of the former and, of late, too many of the latter. And the reason advanced those with a facilitv for reaching the truth has always been the same — lack of freedom on the part of directors to develop individual ideas. Elstree has had too much “ itch.” The substitution of a " Hitch ” should work wonders. The new Elstree policy' may represent an economy' idea, but it can produce not only cheaper, but better pictures. In This Issue — page Agitation Against Double Features 8 French Exhibitors’ Tax Relief ... 8 B.I.P. American Distribution ... 9 Beckenham Cinema Closes ... 9 Personally Speaking 10 British Production Field... ... 10 Talk of the Trade 11 Bo.x Office Film Reviews ]2, 13, 15 Financial News and Views ... 14 News from the Territories .... ]6 B.K.S. Symposium 17 Showmanship Activities 20 Gaumont Palace, Hammersmith 21 Coming Trade Shows ... ... 22