The Film Renter and Moving Picture News (May-Jun 1923)

May 19, 1923. AMERICAN STARS IN Will Their “ Featuring” (By SYDNEY HIS question of featuring American stars in British film I plays seems to be one of value for money. It is, of course, quite reasonable that an actor or actress should demand a larger salary over here than at home because of their necessarily increased expenditure and the fact that their absence may cause them serious loss. Inflated salaries eventually indicate higher prices for films, and anything which tends to increase the cost of film hire must be vigorously fought by every exhibitor, but anything which increases the box-office attraction of a film is something to be encouraged. If we are to have American stars in our pictures it must be at o reasonable and not a grossly inflated salary, and they must be suitably cast. Will American artistes secure the entrée for British films in America? If so, then we must have them. Admittedly, there is a dearth of real screen talent over here, but if American artistes are indispensable, why do our producers not look for latent talent in American studios? Obviously it is there for the asking. ** Sheer lunacy "’ are the only words which can describe the action of British producers who are recklessly extravagant in any direction. I have always thought that one of the reasons of the failure of most British producers is that they spend their money in the wrong direction. I do not cavil if they spend it on THE FILM RENTER & MOVING PICTURE NEWS. 9 BRITISH FILMS. Defeat Its Own Ends ? BERNSTEIN). American screen stars who will bring money into the British exhibitors’ box-office, and if it means the entrée of British films into America, but the English film industry is not so heavily capitalised that it can afford to engage American stars simply on the publicity value of their names as a box-office attraction irrespective of talent. It is also possible that eventually the prolonged “‘ featuring '’ of American players in British productions might ultimately depreciate their popularity in America materially, which would defeat our own ends. If British producers are going to launch out into increased expenditure, it will probably be better to spend more money on matters of technicality and general accuracy than on huge salary bills. I have no doubt that many American screen stars who have been imported into this country have increased the boxoffice value of films in which they have appeared, and that most of them have returned to America ardent supporters of British ideals and British inspiration It is all a question of value received. If Miss Betty Compson and Miss Betty Blythe do all that their English producers anticipate of them, they are not being too highly paid, but I fear, as does the Fim Renter, that in the future the introduction of the American star system may be exploited to the detriment of the advancement of British productions. UNCENSORED FILMS—Continued. Committee, and the film ‘‘ Cocaine,’’ which the Board rejected and which the Watch Committee allowed to be exhibited in Manchester. ‘* Most of the big towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire, ’ he added, ‘‘ do not attach any importance to the British Board of Film Censors.”’ Mr. Mahaffy, in his speech for the defence, advanced the argument that even if a film had not been censored and no notice had been given to the Local Licensing Authority, the only legal ground for proceeding against the exhibitor for showing the picture, under the existing regulations, would be that of indecency. He quoted several authorities in support of this contention, and also pointed out that there was not the slightest suggestion of anything objectionable in this film, As stated above, the summons was dismissed. IMPORTANT PREVIOUS RULINGS. A particular ease cited by defendant’s counsel in above action was tlt of Fillis v. Dubowski and another, decided in the Kiny's Lench division on July 12, 1921. The respondents exhibited a film which was not certified for public exhibition by the Ronrd of Film Censors, and were summoned under section 3 of the Cinematoyraph Act, 1909, for breach of the conilifions of licenee, The magistrates dismissed the summons on the ground that the Licensing Committee had not served on the respondents any notice of objection to the exhibition of the film. It was held that the Licensing Committee were not entitled to hand over to the Board of Film Censors the power to decide what films might be exhibited, and that, therefore, the respondents were not liable to be convicted. This view was upheld on appeal by three judges without a dissentient vote. As, in view of the case just decided at Stoke, the judges’ findings in the action tried in 1921 are of essential interest to the kinema industry, we give a summary of them below: I think that the conclusion to which the Justices came can be supported upon the true construction of this [Licensing] condition . . that this requirciment of a certificate by the British Board of Film Censors before any film could be shown is a bad condition, and ultra vires the Committee to impose. . They have no power to direct anybody to agree to so arbitrary a condition. I think it is highly convenient that no film should be exhibited which has not passed somebody, but that person must not be a dictator capable of finally deciding what the film is. It must be a matter of precaution only, and not of absolute prohibition. Judge Lawrence said : Judge Avory agreed that the condition that no film shall be shown which has not been certified for public exhibition by the British Board of Film Censors is so unreasonable as to be ullra vires the licensing authority. Judge Sankey concurred with the views expressed by his brother judges (and based on decisions given in previous actions) that it was not legal for licensing authorities to impose the condition that films uncertified by the Censor should not be shown.