The Cine Technician (1935-1937)

128 The Journal of the Association of Ci^ieTechnicians Feb. -March, 1937 Collingburn says ' ok. for stnis?" IF the above title could be written without the query, the title alone would suffice, and further comment on the subject would be quite unnecessary and superfluous but, unfortunately, it seems that not only is a single query essential, but inadequate, as I see more than one question to be answered before everyone concerned is satisfied that the money spent on stills is well spent, and equally well earned. The ensuing observations will not be in the nature of any personal complaints with regard to treatment or conditions, as I have my own methods of overcoming them both ; nor do I criticise the quality of stills made in England. Such criticism is for those who buy them and is completely outside the scope of this article. Much rather would I erKleavour to analyse the general situation as I have heard it from producers, directors, cameramen, and lastly from the men who really work for their living, the Still-Men. To the still-men themselves, I say this. Providing you know your job thoroughly, your success or failure depends chiefly on your own personality and your ability to get others to help you. Don't forget that you are an isolated imit. Apart from n\aking essential continuity stills, vou do not enter into the production at all, that is, from the point of view of all the others who ha\'e their own particular job of work to do. I am not applauding this system of working, because I think it is wrong. But that is not your fault, neither is it the fault of those working on the ■ Is^ i. ^^wKi jv^^^l M i po i'J mk ii^ ^ I still] Production at Metropolitan Studios. ^Collingburn Still] floor. The producer is the man who employs his staff, from director downwards, and it is up to him to see that all of them have adequate facilities for performiing their jobs. If those facilities are not available, the proper person should be notified immediately, and things put right without delay. You have only yourself to blame if you try to make do with unsatisfactory conditions to the detriment of your work. It is not fair to your employer or yourself. It is useless to make excuses at the end of a film ; make your complaints (if any) in writing, at the time. If nothing is done to ease an impossible situation, sit back and draw your money. It will not be your fault if you are not earning it. Now the producer's side of the question. One producer confided to me that he had completed a picture, to find at the end that he had no stills. Yes, he had employed a still-man, one recommended to him by someone else on the unit. No stills at all seemed incredible to me. However, on going into details, I discovered that the still-ma;! was second assistant on the cine-camera as well, and did his best to make a few stills in between He had taken a few dozen exposures with a .|-plate camera, using "Ordinary" glass plates (not even panchromatic), and out of these there were but four tliat were even barely printable. The remainder were multiple exposures, blanks, and blacks. This is probably an isolated case, but nevertheless, it serves to err.phasize the necessity for a producer to ascertain the qualifications of his staff. It is difficult to extend a great deal of sympathy to one who is so uninterested in his stills, before and during production. Hut he alone realised the valu(^ of what was missing on comjiletion of the film. To producers may I be ])ermitted to offer suggestions whereby money will be saved by making due allowance for the importance of stills ? In the first place, do you allocate any percentage of your scheduled time for making your film to stills ? Or do you just employ a man and turn him loose on the floor to get the best he can, and in any way he [Coiiingburn can 1 That seems to be the general system, but do you