Film Culture (1956)

navians. Imagination was sometimes carried to extremes. I cannot resist citing the original Quo Vadis (1924), starring Emil Jannings, which | photographed in Rome. At that time special process effects so widely used today were nearly unknown. Full size replicas of the buildings of ancient Rome were constructed in the gardens of the Villa Borghese instead of miniatures. Every one of the 300 extras was costumed authentically. Fortyfive lions from a circus were under contract for the duration of the shooting. Facilities for handling assorted personnel, human and animal, became something of a problem in logistics—a problem not always solved successfully, for one of the extras was killed by the lions, in preparation for their big scene with the Christians in the arena. The scene itself was filmed by turning the lions loose on dummies animated by wires outside the danger area, stuffed with overripe horse meat. My camera and crew were protected by a concrete pillbox enclosure which at least provided safety. The picture took nine months to shoot, much of the time being consumed in setting up such spectacular effects. Most elaborate of all was the burning of Rome. The huge sets were put to the torch and after the last day's shooting nothing remained of the glories of ancient Rome. When released, the film was shown, up to this sequence, on the normal size screen. Film from this sequence was hand-colored to increase the effect of the flames. A special projector was used for this sequence with an extra wide-angle lens, while the aperture of the screen was enlarged by opening the curtains. This was the forerunner of the wide screen of today. I hold no brief for size as such, and I think it was to the other extreme of the production scale that this period owes its greatness. By necessity directors, particularly in Europe, used location sets whenever possible. This inevitably influenced the selection and treatment of stories and characters to the point where they arrived at individual styles of great realism, a tradition which endures in the best of modern pictures from Europe. Necessity was not the only parent of invention in this case. While there were no ready-made audiences, there were no ready-made conceptions of box-office either, hence the exhilarating atmosphere in which film-makers worked. The sometimes primitive approach seen on the screen in the early films should be looked upon with humble respect because it is the foundation of today’s cinema. But it was not to the freedom of relaxed standards, but rather to a liberty to exercise critical and creative judgmenis freely and consistently, that the “Golden Age” owes its vigor. Since film making, even in the case of the most solitary genius, is a cooperative affair, the most striking effect of all this was the impact of creative personalities upon one another. It was not an uncommon procedure for actors, directors, writers and cameramen to work in the closest collaboration for weeks before shooting began on a picture, arranging and changing every detail until it was woven into the central theme. As production became more organized it was less pos sible for this cross-fertilization to operate in the same degree, but the spirit of dedication lingered on. How else could one explain the impact of such pictures as Jean Renoir’s The Human Beast and Marcel Carné’s Le Jour Se Léve, which I had the privilege to photograph? These later pictures follow in the tradition of the “Golden Age’. In mentioning the whole-hearted efforts of all concerned I intend in no way to decry the genius of the famous directors who more than any other one force gave film its greatness. A cameraman must of course become a sort of alter ego for the director during the production of a film. His is the eye that must “see” for the audience whatever the director is seeking to convey by incident and character. It is one of the working conditions of the craft. Jean Renoir, during the shooting of The Human Beast, for instance, explained to me his approach to it and described the effect of “documentary style” he wished to achieve on the screen. Without realizing it, he was asking me to throw away my effort of years to get away from the “beginner's state” of documentary style. Naturally, in due respect to him, I followed his wishes, but the habit of years of creative cinematography and all it implies of arrangement and style was too strong for me to be convinced without evidence. Black day! When I saw the first rushes I was sure that any documentary cameraman could have done better. I completed the picture feeling that it was my worst. It was only after the film was released and the press began to praise the “‘outstanding realistic photography” and the ‘“‘true documentary style, tailor-made for the film’’, that I realized how powerful Renoir’s inspiration really had been. However, it is true that, even though unconvinced of the final effect, I had been able to make suggestions during the filming which reinforced the director’s conception, and this made my wholehearted participation a contribution rather than a duty. As never before, the versatility and adaptability demanded by the film profession was borne upon me. It was my great good fortune to be young when film making was young, and I have written of it as if everyone who ever drew a paycheck in the industry felt the same challenge and fulfillment which I found in my work. I am certain that this was true of those who arc remembered as creators of the “Golden Age” of cinema, and that the same dedication will be found in those behind the films of today which can earn their place on Olympus. -—--— ese FILMS FOR FILM SOCIETIES. Productions by René Clair, Carl Dreyer, Eisenstein, Pabst, Pudovkin, Chaplin, Renoir, John Ford, Flaherty, many others. Free list ‘Motion Picture Notes.” BRANDON FILMS INC., Dept. FC 200 W. 57th Street, New York 19, N.Y., CI 6-4868 19