The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

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.

Dec, iqj;6-Jan., zqT,y The Joiimal of the Association of Cine-Technicians 11 refer to those clapper-boys and very junior assistants who have often little but their enthusiasm to commend them. Before it is too late, studio executives must realise that among these boys are the cameramen of the future, and that some day, in the not so far distant future, they will be needed. Yet, with the exception of a few companies, no effort is made to help these boys to learn their job — their salaries are, quite understandably, low, but the worst of the matter is the insecure positions they occupy in the studio. They start in the industry full of optimism ; they cannot live on what they earn, so, with the exceplion of the very few with private incomes, they remain with their parents until they shall have obtained that experience which will enable them to command salaries sufficient to support them entirely. But more often than not, vou will find that after one or two pictures the parents will interfere, complain of the irregularity of these film jobs, which appear to consist of two months' work and three months' searching for more work, and our cameraman of the future will be put in*to a bank, or into some other job promising him a steady, if small, income. I am convinced that many of these boys should be kept in the trade, and my suggestion is this — that each company at the conclusion of a picture should pay the most promising assistants a small retaining fee. The boys retained at this salary would be obliged to fill in the interval before the next picture by attending classes dealing with every branch of the cameraman's work. These classes would be organised by the A.C.T. and, for financial purposes, might also be open to the general public. I think that this idea, developed in the proper way, might prove of great advantage in solving what threatens to become a very definite problem in the studios to-day, and I feel sure that studio executives would co-operate readily. In the meantime, however, the British film industry is on the threshold of one of the best years ever, and we cameramen are ready for it ! So here's to 1937. Bernard G. Browne. SQUAWKS AND STAR GAZERS 1936 is leaving us. By the time it does, some headaches will be eased, some projected into 1937. This year's production boom burst in upon us before you could say Jack Robinson, took us off our balance and left the studios gasping for experienced technicians. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who had an urge to gaze at the stars at work DUG MYERS Perivale 5185 or Gerrard 2366. FILM EDITOR Just cut " Beloved Vagabond " (English &: French versions) NOW WITH BRITISH NATIONAL. attempted to crash technical departments, and often succeeded. TheN' came through channels of influence, waving their old school ties and advancing to responsible positions. It dawned too late on studio executives that the star gazers cost productions more money than headaches, but that isn't to say the headaches weren't there. Watch out for that showdown in thirty-seven, when the fittest will survive and technical responsibihties will pass out of dilettante hands. The old proverb : "Penny Wise — Pound Foolish" is exposed in the fact that the new studios, making an advance in production quality in the matter of lighting equipment, have failed to do anything about new and better cameras, so the artist has been supplied with paint but refused brushes. Which confirms mv theory that film economy as it stands is good clean fun, but little else. And talking about film economy brings to my mind the Great Squawk that happened some time ago in regard to the salaries paid to lighting experts in England. I shall always say that these particular men are the lowest paid relatively to the good they contribute ; why do stars like Garbo, Colbert, Dietrich, Shearer, Davies and others have the clause put into their contracts that they shall have a say in the choosing of their lighting experts ? Since it can't be for their good looks (and I mean positively !) it must be for the simple reason that these men produce a high quality of work which assures the star that they will be photographed in the most glamorous manner and one that will prove a vital factor in selhng the film to the public. I could go on for pages on this subject, but all these executives who squawk about the technicians' high salaries VOR MONTAGU VICE-PRESIDENT ACT.