The box office check-up of 1935 (1936)

PICTORIAL VALUES IN SCREEN ENTERTAINMENT €J What cinematography is doing to advance the effectiveness of the art of the film by CHARLES G. CLARKE, A.S.C. I OOKING at the trends of motion picture photography from the viewpoint «— of the motion picture cameraman we see many interesting developments. That the Directors of Photography have kept pace with ever-raising standards of technique is apparent to all who have seen the recent output of pictures. The high photographic excellence of such pictures as "Les Miserables," "Sequoia," Mutiny on the Bounty," "Anna Karenina," "Cleopatra," "Scarlet Pimpernel," "Midsummer Night's Dream," "Barbary Coast" and scores of others, is ample proof that an earnest group of workers are ever striving for perfection in their art. If the photography of the American picture was the standard set for photographers the world over during former years, in what manner then has it been possible to obtain still greater perfection? Probably the greatest aid to the photographer in obtaining the naturalness of lighting that he is working for, has been the recent perfection of a super-sensitive film of great rapidity which yet retains a photographic quality theretofore never achieved. This extra sensitivity has permitted a correct exposure with a substantial reduction of the amount of artificial light formerly required, thus resulting in more life-like lightings, proper relationship of shadows to highlights, and the other elements of naturalness inherent in normal lighting. One of the greatest benefits of this new film is its more true rendition of contrast. It has been generally necessary to resort to different forms of "diffusion" in an effort to imitate the gradations as seen by the eye, and this has destroyed a certain amount of definition. This loss of sharpness was especially apparent in some of the theatres throughout the country where the projection equipment had not kept pace with the times, and also in some of the theatres using the most modern equipment — that is, using high-intensity light elements, which by their nature further destroy the sharpness of the image thrown on the screen. With the newer film, provided the negative and positive receive the correct laboratory processing, the full gradations of contrast are preserved in the print without the use of diffusion, and thus a crystal dear image is recorded upon the film. The subject of diffusion is one that calls for understanding among the exhibitors and photographers. With the broad standards of projection that exist in the theatres throughout the country — good, bad and absolutely indifferent — it is natural that a production that appears perfect in one theatre will suffer in another where standards of projection are not so high; so the cameraman has been obliged to photograph his pictures with the former theatres in mind and feel helpless about the latter. I am glad to believe that the trend is towards brilliant, sharp pictures from now on. One thing that some critics should bear in min d is that the motion picture photographer must present his leading women on the screen without benefit of retouching in any form whatever. All must be done with skillfully placed lights, for make-up does not remove lines and age from the face and skin. Moreover the players are constantly moving about and changing positions in relation to the lighting, together with the limitations of bulkily blimped cameras with the ever-attendant microphone dangling close overhead; with this all the players must be advantageously photographed. In all cases the cinematographer must keep the story interesting with adroit camera technique, following the actors in motion from set to set and maintaining what we call "mood," or the type of lighting correct for the physiological interpretation of action and setting. To spectators who have given the matter any thought at all, the simple line, "Photographed by ," brings a consciousness of the skill necessary to achieve the results before him. Be that as it may, there is certainly room for better understanding of the problems of the theatre and photographer. The technical departments of the studios are ever working towards realism, and the advantages made by them are no less than marvelous. The majority of pictures produced contain a great portion of footage known in the studios as "process shots." Naturally there are innumerable ramifications of the process shot, but the simplest example is where the background is made, say, in some foreign country, then developed, projected and rephotographed with actors and portions of sets before it here in the studio. Witness a production such as "Mutiny on the Bounty," where a considerable portion of that picture was made in the above manner, yet by the skillful matching of the process scenes with those actually made in Tahiti, and on the boats at sea, the spectator can not distinguish the actual from the process scenes. Certainly the technical perfection of "Last Days of Pompeii" suggests some recognition of those unsung workers behind the cameras who have made all this magic possible. On all the larger productions nowadays there are a staff of photographers, each member especially skilled in his part and each group contributing its portion of scenes to make up the final picture. For exploitation reasons these men are never heard of, yet the present high standard of pictures could not be made without this background of artists. It is regrettable that the public is not more conscious of their efforts, for if their recognition and constructive criticism of the good and bad became more generally discussed, more definite goals of public approval could be striven for. THE BOX OFFICE CHECK-UP OF 1935 143