Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

28 EXHIBITORS HERALD January 3, 1925 ture. You will have your Conrads and Hardys for the novel, you will have your Eugene O’Neills and Bernard Shaws for the stage, and you will also have an equally notable company of men and women whose stories will reach you through the shadows of the screen.” Judges Issue Their Report The report of the judges in full follows ; “Report of George Barr Baker, Ellis Parker Butler, Edward Childs Carpenter, Charles Dana Gibson, Allan Dwan, Frederick Roy Martin, Elmer Rice, Mary Roberts Rinehart, Robert E. Sherwood, judges on the $10,000 award given by Adolph Zukor for the best motion picture story of the year. “The judges have decided to award the prize of $10,000 to Rafael Sabatini for his novel, ‘Scaramouche’, which was adapted to the screen by Willis Goldbeck, directed by Rex Ingram and distributed by the Metro Pictures Corporation. “According to the terms of this award, as outlined by Mr. Zukor, the prize should go to the author of that story or play which ‘makes the best picture to be produced on the screen and publicly exhibited in a theatre during the year beginning September 1, 1923.’ ‘Scaramouche’ fulfills these conditions, and it is the sense of the judges that Mr. Sabatini is well worthy of the prize, and of the distinction that must inevitably go with it. “ ‘Scaramouche’ was, from all viewpoints, an exceptional motion picture. It possessed that fluidity of action which is essential to effectiveness on the screen ; it reflected realistically a particularly dramatic period of history — the period of the French Revolution. It possessed great pictorial beauty, in costumes, backgrounds and the composition of scenes. It was directed with skill and appreciation by Mr. Ingram, and played by a brilliant cast. Above all, it was a good story — founded on the basic principles of drama and embellished with striking detail. “The credit for this is Mr. Sabatini’s. He wrote ‘Scaramouche’ with consistent attention to the continuity of his narrative and regard for the eloquence of dramatic incident. The strokes of his pen were broad — his mood heroic. For that reason, ‘Scaramouche’ provided ideal material for a motion picture. Mr. Goldbeck, the adapter, could mould it into the necessary scenario form without sacrificing the vigor, the flavor or the sense of the original. Believe Intentions Fulfilled “The judges are satisfied that, by their decision, they have carried out the intention which inspired Mr. Adolph Zukor in offering the prize : That the authors will be encouraged to write for the screen, to adapt themselves to the style which is best suited for reproduction on the screen ; that they will recognize the motion picture as a legitimate medium of expression. “It is not necessary to point to the extent of the motion picture’s audience, or to the consequent breadth of its appeal. The statistics on this are well known and need not be detailed in this report. But there are many authors who still regard the motion picture as an undignified form of entertainment which may buy their products but can never command their respect. “To these, ‘Scaramouche’ may be held up as a conclusive proof of the motion picture’s genuine importance. Mr. Sabatini need not be ashamed that his name is connected with the production of ‘Scaramouche’. Indeed he has ample justification for pride. His characters as he conceived them were brought vividly to life on the screen, and they and the historic episodes through which they moved were represented and understood in every part of the world. Donor ADOLPH ZUKOR, president of Paramount and sponsor of the annual award to the writer whose story is the basis of the outstanding motion picture of the year. “ ‘Scaramouche’ is no less a good novel because it became also a good motion picture. The elements that made it adaptable to the screen did not detract from its quality on the printed page. The same may be held true of Blasco Ibanez’ ‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,’ of Dumas’ ‘The Three Musketeers,’ of Joseph Hergesheimer’s ‘Tol’able David,’ and of Emerson Hough’s ‘The Covered Wagon.’ “Authors who ignore the motion picture have no real right to complain of its occasional stupidity and vulgarity for they, by their indifference, are doing nothing to remedy a condition which, in view of the motion picture’s universal popularity, is of vital importance. The possibilities of the screen as a field for the expression of intelligent ideas are markedly apparent in ‘Scaramouche.’ This shows what the motion picture can do with material supplied to it by a creative artist. That it does not do it more often is due rather to the artists’ unsympathetic attitude than to any limitations of its own. “These facts were brought home forcibly to the judges by the surprisingly large number of worthy pictures that came under their consideration. The final decision narrowed down the seventeen productions as follows: “ ‘The Dramatic Life of Abraham Lincoln.’ “ ‘A Woman of Paris.’ “ ‘Scaramouche.’ “ ‘The Iron Horse.’ “ ‘The Marriage Circle.’ “ ‘The Sea Hawk.’ “‘The Ten Commandments.’ “‘The Thief of Bagdad.’ “ ‘America.’ “ ‘Anna Christie.’ “ ‘Beau Brummel. “‘Girl Shy.’ “ ‘The Humming Bird.’ “ ‘Merton of the Movies.’ “ ‘Monsieur Beaucaire. “ ‘Secrets.’ “ ‘The Enchanted Cottage.’ “This number was finally reduced to three — ‘Scaramouche,’ ‘The Thief of Bagdad’ and ‘A Woman of Paris.’ Deserves Great Credit “In the case of ‘The Thief of Bagdad,’ the committee members were unanimous in praising its spectacular beauty, its fantastic charm and its remarkable entertainment value. Douglas Fairbanks and his associates deserve vast credit for their achievement in recreating the Arabian Nights as a photoplay that was both imaginative and ingenious. But this prize was offered primarily to a story teller, and the authorship of ‘The Thief of Bagdad’ is indisputably obscure. Founded on the various legends that have come down to us from the court of Haroun A1 Raschid, it was the work of many minds, whereas ‘Scaramouche’ was primarily the work of one. “ ‘A Woman of Paris’ was notable not because, of the story, but because of the genius with which Charles Chaplin directed its individual scenes. Mr. Chaplin displayed a directional technique which was radically new in motion pictures, and that he has exerted a profound influence on other directors is evidenced by the trend of subsequent productions toward simplicity and economy of expression. “It is worthy of note that ‘The Thief of Bagdad’ and ‘The Woman of Paris’ were stories written directly for the screen as were ‘The Dramatic Life of Abraham Lincoln,’ ‘The Ten Commandments,’ ‘The Iron Horse,’ ‘America,’ and ‘Girl Shy.’ There is great significance in this for it is in the original screen story written by one who actually thinks in terms of pictures that move, that the future hone of the cinema Inevitably rests. “Already a few distinguished authors, including Booth Tarkington, George Ade and Blasco Ibanez, have written directly for the screen, and it is to be hoped that others will follow their example. As yet, however, the technique of the motion picture is not understand by many people outside the studios, and the development of the screen story has been neglected. It is as though the writing of novels were left to compositors and printers, and the writing of plays to staple hands and ushers. “These thoughts were uppermost in the mind of Adolph Zukor when he made this offer, and the judges believe that his confidence has been justified by the results of their deliberations. Mr. Zukor’s prize has done much to enlist for the motion picture the interest and respect of intelligent people, without whose constructive support it can never be established as an art. Only by calling attention to that which is worthy on the screen can the undeniable worth of the motion picture itself be definitely establised. “The judges therefore conclude their report with an expression of the appreciation for Mr. Zukor’s disinterested motive in offering this prize. He was actuated solely by a desire to promote the cause of creative artistry and intelligent thought in the production of motion pictures, and to gain for the cinema the serious recognition which it most emphatically deserves.”