Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

35 January 3, 1925 EXHIBITORS HER ALD Directorial Advancement Cinematographic Resume By GEORGE L. SARGENT A DIFFICULT problem confronts anyone who attempts to analyze the advances made by motion i picture directors in the pursuit of their Art during the past year. It is indeed a problem for many reasons, chief of which, perhaps, is that the advances are so numerous that the difficulty lies largely in one’s being wise enough to point out just which one — this or that — does not supersede the other. Shall we say the step forward in the matter of technical development is paramount ; or shall we say that directorial analyses of all forms of life have been presented with a more faithful appreciation of the demand of the public on the one hand and the projection machine on the other? These are matters of opinion, upon which no two minds can agree. In fact, it stands to reason that were you to attempt to ascertain from any one of your acquaintances identified with motion pictures, an idea of what directors have done most to accomplishment, his opinion would be as different from yours as lampblack from whitewash. The great advance, it seems to us, achieved during the past year has been not what the director has done to make the so-called bigger and better pictures, but what pictures have done to the director. It is true that in the past the director has been to a great extent a matter of experiment, but rarely has he been permitted to be experimental. He has been too stereotyped. He has clung to set principles of motion picture making until his technique has become assured and his aim positive. This technique, we might add, has been the product of years of experience wherein he served in the capacity of the fountain-head in every branch of picture making, from the time the raw stock passes through the apperture of the camera until the master print has been put to bed in its bright tin container, to be forwarded to the exhibitor. This procedure was, of course, undeniably right, in its way, inasmuch as it permitted any intelligent director to add to his versatility a fund of knowledge out of which has grown the established technique of his profession. But the old order of things is changed. Today he is surrounded by a group of individuals, each of whom is a master in his own highly skilled and highly developed department. It is obvious, therefore, more especially during the past year, that this former burden of detail which the director was called upon to sustain has been shifted to a group of shoulders, perhaps broader than his; and naturally this has permitted the director to become more specialized in the transmuting to the screen the intent of the author, the potential possibilities of the camera, and the diversified impulse of his own imagination. So you see the director in coming into his own has practically been forced into making great strides in order that those experts who surround him might not supersede him in their own several departments. Time was when the director relied greatly upon the inspiration he derived “spontaneously” on the set. We recall a few years back that one of our brother directors was pointed out to us by a press agent, who, with a grand gesture, informed us that he “never used a script.” However, this same gentleman, along with the rest of his ilk, is the first one nowadays, when in search of a definite bit of information as to business or what not, to scan the printed page of a carefully prepared scenario. _ We could carry on this simile ad infinitum : but the point we wish to make is that the careful preparation which has By FOSTER GOSS A RESUME of cinematography of 1924 probably will not, in general, reveal any startling changes from that of 1923. Yet there have been such changes and improvements, as imperceptible as they might be as over last year. The progress of cinematography has been gradual, though rapid; and the contrast only asserts itself when present photography is compared with that of two or three years ago. In addition to the evolutionary improvement that was manifested throughout the field of cinematography, the closing year saw photographic achievements that crystalized, in a vivid way, the advancement of the art of the camera since the advent of practical motion pictures. Douglas Fairbanks’ “The Thief of Bagdad” demonstrated what a flexible thing cinematography really is, and drove home its importance to the layman who, for some inexplicable reason, has always its rapid strides as a matter of fact. But just as the story of “Bagdad” itself intrigued the imagination, the cinematography therein did likewise, for the reason that both were so greatly predicated on each other. Aside from its other ramifications, this production of Fairbanks’ was an irrefutable contribution to the science of cinematography. It threw off a restraint born of timidness in production matters, and conjured a confidence for others to avail themselves of the fullness of a science which, like electricity, apparently has more before it than behind it. Let it be said that in encouraging cinematography, the producer is broadening the present and the future of the industry itself, for, without being committed to an ambiguity, the picture is necessarily circumscribed by the moving pictures. Too much credit cannot be given to the men responsible for the cinematography in “The Thief of Bagdad” — namely, Arthur Edeson, staff cinematographer for Fairbanks, and Philip H. Whitman and Kenneth MacLean, who worked with him on the special effects. All three are members of the American Society of Cinematographers. Another of the 1924 creations in cinematography which should graphically appeal to the popular mind is “The Lost World,” which First National is producing by arrangement with Watterson R. Rothacker. Speaking conservatively, this production should prove epoch-making. It is distinctly a “photographic picture.” It opens up a vista, the like of which has always been shrouded except for the highly imaginative pen. Arthur Edeson handled the dramatic filming in this production also, and First National evidently thought so much of its possibilities that they induced Fred W. Jackman to leave the directorial fold long enough to supervise the photographing of its special effects. With him were associated Homer Scott and J. D. Jennings. All are members of tire American Society of Cinematographers. Space could be consumed indefinitely in enumerating the meritorious cinemato graphic efforts of the past year, but let it suffice to mention those which have appealed and will appeal most to the exhibitors’ enigmatic patrons. In this regard, however, it might be well to recall “The Ten Commandments” which, _ though it should be properly classified rvith the previous year, was so revolutionary cinematographically that its results are still being felt. It was photographed by Bert_ Glennon, a member of the American Society of Cinematographers. Color cinematographv, through Paramount’s production of “The Wanderer of the Wasteland,” caused critics and public alike to enthuse, but the widespread adop ■And how's this for a New Year's costume? Not in Hollywood^ of course^ but on Long Island. It is Frances Howard^ who is playing the leading role opposite Richard Dix in his next Paramount picture^ **Too Many Kisses,** been the result of multitudinous conferences between the director and the various members of his staff have brought about a great advance from the methods of a few years back. The director has been forced into being careful. He is careful of the way he spends money and is, therefore, economical. He has perforce a more intimate and necessary knowledge of the business end of picture-making which indeed, rather than having forced his Art to suffer, has caused him, through certain processes of elimination of non-essentials, to concentrate on the utmost degree of excellence he could eke from the smallest amount of time, energy and money expended. We all had to pass through the early experiences which have lead up to this singular, yet propitious, development. Those of us who have had ideals have always resented the slurring assertion that our business was a “game.” Even though some' of us so referred to it, we all knew, however, that eventually there would come to us and to the public at large a full and complete realization that our unique profession was at the same time an Art and a Business. This process of development has been slow (^Continued on page 40)