Le Courrier Cinématographique (Nov 1920)

10 LE COURRIER CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUE ! The French Film World By PIERRE A. RSC Le D'URVILLE ji} ft «The right to review » 1.1 Kinematograph Weekly discused a very important matter, which interest everyone of us, laying on the duty which a trade journal owes the exhibitors; Not very long ago there was some little agitation in one of the Américan film trade journals because the Selznick corporation made a request that its films should not be reviewed. That request was, a8 might be expected, refused, and it thereupon became a demand. The result of its continued refusal was the withdrawal of advertising. Ultimately, however, the trouble died out, but not before the trade journal had established its right to tell exhibitors what new pictures were like. Things have not reached this pass on this side. But, in another aspect of the same matter, a worst position exists. It would be a question open to a certain amount of discussion whether a producing or distributing firm was within its Trade rights in refusing to allow the Press to review its pictures. It cannot, however, be disputed that it would not be within its rights if it insisted, or even suggested, that its films should be given unfairly favourable reviews as a price of advertising. To some extend this is done. Many renters, as à relie of the bad old days of film Trade journalism, regardit as the function of … a Trade journal not to review their films, but to write them up. They discuss reviews as « writeups », and take the attitude that, whatever the demerits of the film, the review should take the form of an editorial puff. : That attitude, it may be, receives a certain amount of support in Some quarters. Regardless of whether a firm showing a film is an advertiser — as a potential advertiser — the review staff ought to deals with each film strictly on its merits. Many renters have yet to be desabused of the idea that if they do big advertising on a picture in advance of its trade showing they are entigled to a « write-up » in the review fea-tures instead of an unbiassed opinion. no They re not. È The first duty of a respéctable Trade journal is to the person for whose use the review is written. Reviews should be written in order that the exhi . them which isa very different thing. 14 infaillible. We are as likely to make a mistake bitor who does not see the film himself may obtaif a true and honest expression of its merits and its fault. They are not written to help the renter ta sell his film. Î fi They are written to help the exhibitor to puy, Itis perhaps, only natural when a film is sever ‘rely criticised the renter concerned should he annoyed. That is human nature. He has probablÿ paid a lot of money for the film, or, more probable still, spent a lot in troying to put it over. whef he finds that itis critisised and its bad points 418 exposed (we are stating now the case of bad film he feels a certain amount of resentment becau#® we are not assisting him in « putting it over » But he is wrong. He does not understand that it doës him real harm to have a bad picture praisei almost as much harm as it would do us if MS praise it, Exhibitors — and renters know this a$ well as we do — are not altogether fools, and the tag as to being once bitten might almost have been invented about them. If, by the assistance 0 a venal Press a renter succeds in unloading «dud », they remember it, not only to the detfi ment of the journal, but to the detriment of the renter. And no sane renter, in his calm moments really wants us to help him to acquire a bad reptf tation. Unless, of course, he is an in and out prof snatcher. à Everyone knows that the reviews given in our columns, are often severe. But the are hones: and we do at least say what we really think. The exhibitor wants to know, and ought to knoWr ‘about a film. We do not say merely what W il please the advertiser and leave his customet® with a grave doubt later on as to our honesf, and his. Now, many renters — it is not the publicity me? who are at fault, it is their superiors — will give à Sue : 0 a Trade journal more or less advertising 1n pr j ng portion to the favourableness of its reviews: ? how long do they think this specious way of dot business is going to last ? Here is the real point ; It is theexhibitor who buysthe films, and whef the exhibitor comes to realise that he is bei tricked he ceases to have any faith in the re who is tricking him and in the journal who } assisting in the process. : This is not to claim that all good reviews 28 is the renter over a picture. But the point Ü desire to emphasise is that, even if one of © 2 Lt ee de NE CEE a re te ra