The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (Nov-Dec 1922)

76 THE FILM RENTER GIGANTIC PREPARATIONS FOR ‘*THE PRODIGAL SON.” Great Church Scene. sets NE. of the biggest * ever erected for film) purposes O in this country has just been distnantled at the Stoll Tt consisted of a faithful representation ot the nave of the famous Madeleine, which is one of Paris, and it was erected for what ; in the super-film studio at Cricklewood. of the recognised ** sights * is technically known as a ** vision scene” adaptation of Sir Hall Caine’s novel, ‘* The Prodigal Son,” upon which A. It provided a full view of the nave, with altar, reredos, and Ik. Coleby is engaged. : g the great cust window--this latter being a full-sized, stainedglass affair. The measurements of the set will give some idea of its size, though only a personal inspection could have con240 veyed any adequate idea of its magnificence. It was feet long and 100 fect wide! A Faithful Representation. Most studio sets are lacking in height, but height is esscutial when ‘Jong shots? are to be taken of a building as vast as this one; consequently, the walls and columns instead of being dwarfed by the floor space, towered 35 feet towards the studio were of the same roof, The colutms supporting the nave in the real Madeleine, and conse size us the real columms quently measured 26 feet each in circumference, Roughly, about 40° carpenters and labourers were engaved in the erection of this set, to say nothing of 20 scenic artists and property inen, the art director and his colleague, the master carpenter. And these people were busy for about three weeks, working day and night to get it ready in time for the scenes to be filmed in it. Double Photography Triumphs. Yet the scenes themselves occupied but a few hours in the taking. © Oscar, the prodigal son of the title, having wasted all his substance at the tables of the Casino in Monte Carlo, returns penniless to Paris, and wanders into the Madeleine. There are only a few people in the dimly-lighted building when he enters, but while he is standing repentantly there, several incidents in his past life flit before his eyes. That is allbut the Madeleine is the Madeleine, and it had to be accurately represented. Furthermore, the were not nearly as simple as they sound, because ** visions vi for double photography on the floor. The scene showing Henry Victor as Oscar walking up the steps of the Madeleine has yet to be taken in Paris; but this is quite a commonplace of the film world, where events hardly ever follow one another in natural sequence. scenes on the sereen call Tue SCENE IN THE MADELEINE. Digitized by Gor gle €& MOVING PICTURE NEWS. “UNDER TWO FLAGS.” November 18, Fox and Universal Controversy, November 14, 1922, To the Editor, The ‘Film Renter and Moving Picture News,” a Dear Sir,—In vour issue of October 21 you printed an article concerning an alleged controversy that was pending between the Universal Film Co. and Fox Film Corporation over the foreign rights to their production, ** Under Two Flags.” To was rather surprised that you should have published this article without first verifying the facts, and, inasmuch as I about the unpleasant impression conveyed -I kaew nothing existence of such an oituation—which was unmistakably wrote to New York, and sent them a clipping of vour article. Enclosed herewith T hand you the reply I have received from our General Counsel, Mr. Saul Ee Rogers, which constitutes a complete refutation of the misleading and unjust statements in your journal, and which L trust will now be the subject of a refutation by vou im your next issue. Faithfully yours, L. S. Levix, Managing Director. COPY OF LETTER FROM FOX FILM CORPORATION, NEW YORK, TO : November 2, 1922. ! Mr. Lewis Levin, For Film Co., Ltd., 13, Berners Street, London, W.1., England, “Dear Sir, reference to the Your letter to Mr. Sheehan of October 20, with ‘Under Two Flags ’ turned over to me for reply because the facts in that matter situation, has been aré within my knowledge, and the matter was entirely handled by me. ‘The statement contained in the clipping that we obtained the foreign rights to * Under Two Flags,’ and held up or hold up the Universal without foundation. We have no foreign rights in attempted to Company, is wholly that picture, and to our knowledge never had any, When the Universal Company was prepared to release their picture, “Under Two Flags,’ they knew of our former production, and requested that we should not release our old production in competition with theirs. We assented to this only on condition that the Fox theatres should be given a fair deal on showing the Universal production of * Under Two Flags.’ ‘““This was cheerfully consented to by the Universal Company, and we made a contract with them in which we gave them very substantial prices on the Universal picture to be played at our various theatres. There was no controversy whatever with reference to the matter. Our negotiations were very amicable and terminated with absolute good will on the part of both parties. We have, in the meantime, absolutely withdrawn our ‘ Under Two Flags’ production for a period of one year and have sent notices to our Exchanges to that effect. We never asked the Universal Company for a single penny with reference to this matter, and any statement to the effect that we are holding up Universal, or even attempting to hold ‘them-up, directly or indirectly, with reference to. Under Two Flags,’ is absolutely ridiculous from any point of view. on ieueie ‘Very truly yours, * Saut IE. Rocers, General Counsel.” Original from NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY