The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Sep-Oct 1922)

12 THE FILM RENTER &. MOVING PICTURE NEWS. October 7, 1922. A WORD FOR THE KINE-DRAMATIST. Has the Novelist with the Big Name Failed to. Deliver the Goeds ? BACK .TO THE ONCE heard an astute business man remark, ‘‘ You can sell anything if you only go about the right way to do it.’” I think he should have added, ‘* But you can’t sell a pup twice to the same person, unless he is afcol.”?) TIns about sums up the position in the film trade regarding the story of the average film and the attitude of the public concerning same. By going the right way about it certain sections have sold their films, and the method employed has been chiefly that of boosting the author’s name, controlling the release dates, sumptuous productions, and publicity and allied * tricks of the trade,’’ but the public are not fools, and they are not going to ‘“* buy a pup ”’ twice. When you consider the comparative youth of the film as an art it is really wonderful to think of the pitch of perfection it has reached since its inception, but even more wonderful, I think, is the way the publie have been educated in film matters. In reality they are ahead cf the average production of to-day, and when the public get dissatisfied with an article they have a nasty knack of withdrawing their financial support, and, hey presto! there’s the rub. That they are becoming dissatisfied there is no doubt; that some people are becoming aware of this again there is no doubt, hence the cutery for ‘‘ good stories.’ Now we are told that good film stories are very searce, in fact, can hardly be got. I don’t doubt this for a moment, and yct it seems a very strange state of affairs when one considers the fact that in the U.K. alone we must, ab least, have 200 proved fiction writers, whose ugeregate works must run into several thousands. Against this we barely have twenty producing firms, and yet we can’t get the story! What is wrong? It seems strange on the face of it, but is very easily explained. Novel writing and kine dramatising are two entirely different arts. T he rising kine dramatist has been starved out at his inception by the boosting of the novelist’s name, and, in consequence, has become the scenarist, commonly called by the novelist a ‘‘ hackwriter ’’—and, be it noted, the novclist has failed to deliver the goods. The truth of the whole matter is that the novelist, like the public, has been spoofed. By the cornering of certain authors’ works whose names alone are sufficient guarantee of sale, the prices have soared beyond the wildest dreams of the author, who, being only human, naturally fell for the financial gain, The public in the meantime have gone to see their favcurite book ‘‘ take life.’’ At first, when they found the filin version not quite the same as the original, they were interested, and liked to compare the differences (it might be as well to say here that the earlier adaptations were nearer the book than the latter day ones, owing te the technique of the film not being so far advanced then as it now is), but as they have become more educated so have they seen through the spoof. Those who did the spocfing were well aware that a large percentage of the works adapted were entirely unsuitable for filming, and so farcieal did their methods become that in a good many cases only the author’s name remained, not even the title of his work was left. But these ‘‘ get-rich-quick ’? johnnies had counted without their host. Not cnly did the public rumble them, but the authors: began to get suspicious, and, not under Google »” “HACK WRITER.” standing the film as a means of expression, immediately laid the blame at the door of the poor old ‘‘ hack-writer,”’ whose only sin was that-he had spent his time plodding away, keeping up with the rapidly increasing technique of the film, and, having hopelessly failed to get a hearing when he endeavoured to point out the futility of adapting certain works in the hopes. of making a good. film from them (and let it be noted that for reasons. financial he lad to go warily in the matter), he did the only thing he could, namely, made the best he could. of his adaptation. Of course the authors could not possibly. be expected to know of this state of affairs, for the spoofers saw. to it that the adapter and author never met, why, Heaven only knows, unless, as I suspect, they didn’t realise how very important the story was to the film. Then one day (tiearly two years ago to be precise) the great news went forth that we were going to have the best brains set to work on the writing of film stories. But the seenarist did not tremble in his shoes, for he knew full well that the greater the novelist or dramatist (stage) the less chance he hid of making good with the films as a medium of expression, for the kine dramatist knew that cne must have the film sense and think in pictures to make a kine dramatist. But he could not help noting with a touch of envy the fact that the studio doors were thrown open to the “‘ best: brains ’’ and opportunities to study the quickly advancing technique of the film as they were getting would be of priceless value to him, in so much as these opportunities would curtail endless struggles and study entailed in keeping up with the times. You see the kine dramatist is really an artist, though from report it would be hard to divine this. But, in spite of all this, where are our great authors and their original scenarios— —where are they? Let me just pause for a moment to answer the critics of the ‘‘ hack-writer.’’ Believe me, he takes a great pride in his work, and the greatest compliment he can receive is to be told that he has adapted a work for the sereen as well as the author would have done had he had the necessary technical knowledge. Having to . live, the financial side of the question is bound to affect him, and you can take it from me he is not paid for writing an * original’ story. Why should he want to then?—he gets no kudos. In short. the situation is this: the producer, the artiste, the art director, the cameraman, the electrician, the property man, the film manufacturers—all the lot of them have gone ahead, but the story has remained at a standstill. The author with the name has failed to deliver the goods, and the kine dramatist has been practically starved out. There is only one way to deal with this situation, and that is by facing the facts, and they want some facing. Look at thenr: (1).The story, say. what you may, is the d’étre’’’ of the film. (2) The author with the.name can’t, or won’t, deliver the goods. . (8) The kine dramatist (with a.few exceptions) has been starved out. (4) The art of kine dramatising cannot he Jearned in a day. Even for those writers who know their work _ (Continued at foot of next page). “* raison