Cinema Quarterly (1934 - 1935)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

CINEMA QUARTERLY Volume 3, Number 4 SUMMER 1935 The news that George Cukor, director of David Copperfield, Little Women, and other box-office successes, has been given a new contract for three years, with a salary of approximately £50,000 a year, is being widely interpreted as an indication that the director is coming into his own and at last receiving the recognition that is his due. And, coupled with the fact that stars' salaries are steadily declining, the inference is that the studios are beginning to think that the picture matters more than the personality of the star, and that the man who makes the picture matters most of all. The champions of the script writers, who believe that a good scenario — the theme, the idea, the purpose behind the film — is the most important creative force in production, will stoutly contest this argument. Others, with perhaps greater perception, will deplore the whole situation as farcical. A good director is of immense value in interpreting the scenario in terms of plastic image, composition, movement, sound — always dependent, however, on the expert assistance of camera-man, art director, recordist, and the host of other specialist collaborators. The results of his labours we admire on the screen in proportion to the physical reaction of our senses. But the argument of the film, the deeeper significance of its thematic qualities, its approach to reality, its philosophy, are the outgrowth of studio conferences and company policy. If the director has little claim to creative achievement, the scenarist, surveying the final form of his script, changed and distorted at the hands of numerous executives, has even less. Are we, then, giving the director greater credit than he deserves? The answer — a frequent one in cinema — is yes and no. Actually the work of a capable director and the technical experts under his command is the only quality of value in the average commercial film. But so long as his efforts are based on present methods of scenario construction and producer interference it is foolish to magnify his importance beyond the limits of his power. The fact remains that no one at present is directly and finally responsible for a film as an artistic whole. 191