Cinematographic annual : 1931 (1931)

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.

CINEMATIC TELEOLOGY 25 art are not seen in the theatre, this one reason is a sufficient one, though there are plenty more". The motion pictures, in a comparatively few short years, have passed through many interesting phases of evolution, from the penny peep-show attraction and journalistic report of prize fights to the embryonic foreshadowings of their present day developments; through complicated commercial juggling to elaborate producing and distributing organizations. There has been that period of ultra realism, competition among producers in elaboration, bidding for and exploitation of the stars. It finally reached a stage where it seemed that technical expedients were exhausted, dramatic ideas were beginning to redescribe its circle of repetition, story revivals, and there seemed nothing left, in the way of novelty, except the degree of daring in the presentation of sensationalism, or a few new personalities which resulted from the inevitable fading of the stellar lights. This uneasy condition was greatly relieved by the development of the sound adjunct, and now we have no immediate worries until we have passed that period of quasi-novelty, of rehashing old materials, redressing them in the new mode of the talkie device, when the talkies will have talked the new enthusiasm into an artistic conservatism, when this new device will become but another pigment on the artist's palette, another brush for the distribution of those already in use. But the great question arises; who will be the artist? Will it be big producing organizations, "giving the public what it demands", following the same old formulae? Will it be such organizations freed from the great army of personal following, choosing their staff with a sincere desire to exploit the best talent available? Or will it be the independent individual, such as Gordon Craig suggests, an artist making a picture first for himself, and next for his backers, and if his public doesn't like it, it will be very strange, for an artist is his own most earnest critic and when he is honest with himself, he has a big average success with his public. Shall our writers be of that type who are continually searching around for some sensational idea that goes the rounds of the publishers until it falls into the hands of one whose policies reflect the same ignoble appeal? Its title boldly suggest its motives, and it finds its way into the hands of readers of like tastes. The critics condemn it, and by so doing, advertise it for the benefit of those continually seeking such matter. Or shall it be he whose idea has been inspired by some unique experience, some sympathetic phase of his contact with life; some great moving problem. It becomes his obsession, an urge that overcomes all indolence, he writes because he cannot help it. He uses every dramatic expedient to force attention to his subject; his words have an eloquence that comes only with conviction and much thinking; they reflect sentiments that are his inherent characteristics, for the most convincing portrayals are those that are deeply felt. , In our concern over the ambitions of our beloved picture business, we must not overlook the importance of good, clean, rousing comedy; we cannot estimate its value to society. But we must distinguish