The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

May, 1935 The Journal of the Association of CineTechnicians 15 Connery Chappell ("Sunday Dispatch" Film Critic) One of the things which hits you between the eyes about beini^ a film critic is the painful necessity of occasionally wanderin,i< up W'ardour Street. One wisecracker argued that it is the only street in the world which is shady on both sides. We ourselves have never found that. Indeed, we argue that, as far as we are concerned, it keeps up an amazingly high standard of hospitality. Howe\'er, it does contain Ken Gordon, who looms before you, like a traffic jam, and blandlv cuts off advance and retreat. Before you know where you are you have promised to write an article for the first number of a new paper, devoid of ideas, minus in humour, sadly lacking in theories, and suffering from a mild dose of 'flu. So you see the position we are in. However, the old pulpit has never conked out yet. So we can start off by telling you film technicians exactly where you get off. But before we get really personal, we can add that we don't altogether blame you. We know perfectly well that there are producers in this country who expect to give their men a couple of torch lights and an eye-glass and still get the sort ot results which make Lubitsch comedies look as though they are out of focus. But we also know, thank goodness, that those producers are rapidly fading out. 000 I do think, when you look back on it, that you must agree that the technical standard of British films has improved in the last three years by approximately ten million light years and a couple of astral planes. This is not altogether due to the sudden discovery that we have technicians among us capable of good work, but rather to the fact that producers are at last giving them a chance. That there is still room for improvement cannot be denied, but we can be fairly certain that such improvement will be made. I know perfectly well that it is very difficult, and often very unfair, to blame technicians for bad work when the responsibility of it is not theirs. Take the case of the cutter who has e\"ohed a masterpiece which looks about as long as the Bible and about as interesting as a railway time-table. The critic, sitting back among his caviare and his cigars, with an assortment of nubile maidens ministering to his slightest wiiim, is inclined to yawn, stretch for the champagne bottle, and describe the picture as "lousy." I Make a Bet He then blames the cutter for having done a job of work which makes eternity look like a second. But why blame the cutter, when the quickie producer who sponsored the epic deliberately stipulated that the film must run 7000 feet — and then only shot about four reels, in duphcate ? 000 It's the same story witli most other branches of film production. If you're in a studio where they give you a chance, you can deliver something worth while. If you are not, the lad round the corner judges by results and says you're overpaid at a fiver a week. ♦ 00 But, to be deadly serious, there are some insults I want to pour on you long-suffering title-stealers. First of all : stills. You, being a sensible fellow, know perfectly well that stills seU pictures. You also know that art editors of important newspapers are pretty good judges of a good still. And, unfortunately, you equally know that in the great majority of cases the average still man is given about five seconds in which to do his stuff. The result, more often than not, is pretty dire, and the still man gets blamed. It isn't his fault ; he has a perfect alibi, but nobodv, except the people who understand, will believe him. 000 So I do suggest that if an Association of Cine-Technicians is to mean anything, the first thing it should do would be to get better working conditions for the men who indirectly sell pictures. I'm not denying that we have good still men ; we have. But I do deny that a single one of them gives anything like his best work. And, seeing the conditions under which he is expected to make Nelson's Column look romantic, I don't blame him. 000 Next in my list of do's and dont's, we can get down to cutters. We have already agreed that the poor de\-il who pads out quickies should be let off with nothing worse than a caution. But I do seriously think that cutting is the one branch of the film production racket where you lads take a painful landslide. The best British pictures are nearly always cut like a funeral procession, without the business of quota footage as an alibi. Of course, you can come back with the reminder that it's always the fault of the producer, but I doubt it. Cutting, over here, seem to me to be sadly under Hollywood standard. Our cameramen do good work, some of them amazingly good. But our cutters don't, with perhaps two exceptions. There is far too much suggestion of old-fashioned technique about our editing. I don't like the way British cutters blandly cross cut between sliots whose light intensity on the screen is so [Continued on page 1(S