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.
110
CLOSE UP
Is Clyde Griffiths guilty or not guilty in your treatment?" asked the boss of the Paramount Californian studios, B. P. Schulberg. " Not guilty," was the reply.
But in that case your scenario is a monstrous challenge to American society. . ."
I explained that I regarded the crime committed by Griffiths as the net result of the social conditions to whose influence he was subjected at every stage in the evolution of his character and career as unfolded in the course of the film.
This, in my opinion, constitutes the whole interest of the work . . ."
To which the}' replied : " But we should prefer a strong, simple detective story about a murder ..."
" And about a love affair between a bov and a girl ..." they added with a sigh.
The possibility of two such radically opposite treatments of the central protagonist of the story is not really surprising.
Dreiser's novel is as broad and shoreless as the Hudson ; it is as immense as life itself, and it admits of any point of view in relation to its theme, like every central fact of Nature herself. His novel is 99 per cent, exposition of facts and 1 per cent, commentary upon them. This epic of cosmic veracity and objectivity had to be worked up into a tragedy, which was unthinkable without some well-defined philosophical standpoint and direction.
The film bosses were concerned with the question of guilt or innocence from an entirely different point of view. Guilty meant unlovable. And for the principal hero to be suddenlv unlovable ! — What would the box-office
say ?
And if he were not guilty . . .
As a result of the difficulties arising out of this " confounded question," " An American Tragedv " lav untouched in the Paramount portfolio for more than five years.
It was tackled by Griffith (not Clyde this time, but the patriarch of cinematography, David Wark) and Lubitsch and a great many others.
With their customary prudence and caution this time, too, the bosses evaded a decision .
They proposed to us that we should make up the scenario " as you feel it " — and then it would be easier to judge . . .
From what has been said, it is perfectly plain that in this case, as distinct from others, the divergence of opinions did not in any way turn upon the treatment of a particular situation ; it was very much more profound and far-reaching ; it concerned the sociological treatment of the work as a whole.
It is curious to note how production, conceived in this way, begins to determine the structure of the individual parts; and how, above all, by its