The Cine Technician (1939)

98 THE CINE-TECHNICIAN Aug.-Sept., [937 Soviet film industry Alexandrov, former collaborator with Eisenstein, produced the first Soviet musical comedy, The Jolly Boys, known in England as Jazz Comedy, while Ptushko presented the first full-length puppet film in the world, The New Gulliver, in which boy actors played with a cist otherwise exclusively composed of puppets. The success of both these innovations was entirely eclipsed by the reception of Chapayev, a talking film of normal technique, directed by the brothers Vassiliev. This film combined all the ideological demands of the Soviet state with a high standard of entertainment. Only one film has since approached Chapayev in popular success, and that is one without a seriotis purpose, Alexandrov's second musical comedy, The Circus, the demand for which has resulted in the record printing order of 600 copies. PRODUCTION ROUTINE The excess of demand over supply in the Soviet Union has led in most industries to the adoption of mass-production methods ; in a slaughter-house for example, the Chicago method is used, whereby each carcase is halved, not by one man, but by three, who stand on three platforms, one beside and below the level of the next, and as the carcase passes by, hanging from an overhead rail, the top man begins the job with his electric saw, the next man carries on at his convenient level, and the man at the lowest level completes the work. In our film practice one may compare this method with the system of the camera crew of four technicians — one to light, one to operate, one to focus and one to load film, number shots and assist generally. In Russia a much slower tempo of film production prevails. Only two men serve each camera, of whom one lights and operates and the other does all the rest of the work. This is a far more satisfactory system, if time allows, as it does under normal Russian conditions. In Russia the week consists of six days. Of each month the 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th and 30th days are rest days, and the five days before each rest day are working days of seven hours each. In film production, six hours are spent on the floor and half-an-hour is allowed before and after shooting for preparations and clearing up. Overtime is occasionally undertaken, but is discouraged by the arranging of easv schedules. Overtime rates are invariably double time for the first two hours and time-and-a-half after that. This in itself is discouraging to a producer working on an easy schedule and answerable to a government department for every kopeck he spends. Producers, directors and writers, moreover, are not entitled to any overtime allowance, the producer being given a premium if he completes a production within schedule, and the director and writer sharing one-and-a-half per cent, of the gross takings of the film. The record sum so shared between director and writer is one million rubles, which represents very roughly about £25, 000 worth of most of our values. This same sum appears to be the average cost of a full-length film, although costume pictures and the need of large crowds raises this figure considerably. A recent film of the revolution, invoking a first-rate cast, several hundred troops and civilians, a large proportion of outdoor night scenes in a big exterior street set and a preponderance of fast action, cost 1 ,200, 000 rubles. The same film would have cos! in England every bit of £60,000 under a competenl producer. It is all the more remarkable with these low production costs that the average number of shooting days for a fulllength film is three times as great as that of a similar film in our own country. Normally from seventy to a hundred days are considered adequate. There is no scaling of films to Grade A, Grade 13, or "quickie" grades. Nor are there stars to be fitted with subjects, for that matter. Subjects are chosen with one eye on their cultural or political value, and once chosen they are written to the director's taste and budgeted accordingly. We found no record of a director making more than one film a year, and in the more important subjects time is a matter for small consideration. For instance, the brothers Vassiliev began their research work for the film C/iapaver earlv in 1932 ; after completing their researches thev spent six months on writing the scenario. They began shooting exteriors during the summer of 1933, made the interior scenes during the winter, returned to their exterior location during the following summer, edited the tilrn by the tu-i week in October and presented the film publiclv during the first week of November, 1934, more than two and a half years after receiving the assignment. And the result, to anyone familiar with the Russian language, was a good film — even exiles from the old regime have agreed to this. The explanation of the low cost of production can only be found in an examination of the whole social system under which the state regulates all prices. Wages are low but competitive. If, then, they were inadequate, the essential merit which must exist in a successful film would be lacking owing to the discontent that would prevail among players and technicians. It is a romantic Bohemian fallacy to believe that bad living conditions permit the production of good creative work. They only hamper an artist or craftsman, who would be far more productive under better conditions. Film finance in the rest of the world is a cross between a science and a racket. To finance a film in England money is bought and sold, middlemen take a five per cent, commission for introducing "gold-prospectors" to "goldmines," banks charge six per cent, for honouring postdated bills ; cigars, expensive office equipment, lavish automobiles, costly advertising add to the overhead costs ; and film stars have to be persuaded by fat cheques to appear in pictures in order to persuade the jaded public to risk being fooled again. In the U.S.S.R., stock exchanges and brokers and middlemen dealing in money have passed out of existence. There is only one bank in the Soviet Union. Every stick and stone in the country belongs in common to the people. And money is just a handy means of representing values from person to person. And so the cost of a film is what you see on the screen, not twenty or thirty per cent, more than what you see on the screen. Nor have the salaries been assessed on the understanding that evervone ha taken as much as he could wring out of the budget (a) as a measure of his own importance to the film, and (b) as an insurance against the decrease of his own importance in subsequent films (if he ever gets any more chances) The salaries have been assessed on the understanding that all power is in the hands of the people, that everyone has the right to education, to work, and to maintenance in sickness and in old age. Work is demanded from each according to his ability and is recompensed to each according to the work performed. All education, and full maintenance in sickness, convalescence, and old age, is supplied free to all. Human life is the mosl precious thing in the