FilmIndia (May-Dec 1938)

"Cecil DeMille's Blunder" Paramount^ " Buccaneer " Offensive ! By Mr. P. S. HARRISON, Editor, "Harrison's Reports", New York. In the issue of January 15, there was discussed in these pages by Cecil B. DeMille's New Orleans' statement, by which he suggested that the exhibitors should pay more money to the producers, because to-day pictures cost more. In that discussion, I stated that the producer could get more money from the exhibitors without exacting from them a higher percentage of the intake, simply by making better pictures. After looking at DeMille's "Buccaneer", I can conscientiously say that a more sensible piece of advice could not have been given to the producers in general and to Mr. DeMille in particular, for the "Buccaneer" is not the sort of picture that would entitle Mr. DeMille to demand a greater share of the exhibitor's intake. There are no individual blunders in any of the situations or in any characterizations; it fcs the whole story that is a blunder. How could Mr. DeMille hope to interest the picturegoers in the doings of a leader of a band of cutthroats, a person who sent to death any one who contested his authority? The making of "Buccaneer" is a blunder also from another viewpoint; it offends the sensibilities of the British people, for it shows a band of hooligans de6 feating the British Army. Does Mr. De Mille think the picturegoing public in Great Britain and the British Dominions will accept this picture without resentment? I have heard it said that Mr. DeMille's pictures go well abroad; and since eighty per cent of the "abroad" market consists of Great Britain and the British Dominions, it is natural for any one to ssume that Mr. DeMille exercises great caution in the choice of his story material. But such does not seem to be the case in this instance. For him, then, to have spent nearly two million dollars on a picture that could not help offending the greatest part of his foreign market, which brings approximately fifty per cent of his pictures' total intake, is an injustice, not only to the exhibitors, at home as well as abroad, but to the Paramuont organization itself, which is entitled to receive some profit from its hard work in selling his pictures. In order for Paramount to obtain enough returns to be enabled to recoup the cost of production and pay the cost of distribution, even if it were to discount any profits, Neil Agnew must devote the energies of his entire organization to exploiting this picture almost exclusively, taking money away from the appropriation of other pictures, which could perhaps have brought better results in proportion; and the exhibitors must try to make the public believe that it is a great picture, with the result that the picture-goers, if many of them should find its entertainment values highly exaggerated, will lose faith in the exhibitor, to the detriment of the entire industry. But this is not altogether the fault of Mr. DeMille; the blame must be placed chiefly on the shoulders of the bankers, who, without knowing the first principles of picture production, have undertaken to take over film companies. They know nothing about story material; consequently they are in no position to pass upon the suitability of stories presented to them by a director for approval. They approve budgets amounting to millions of dollars, without knowing the first principles of business. Any wonder then that they are compelled to dig into their pockets for more funds to enable the studios to finish their schedules? Harrison's Reports suggests to Mr. Agnew not to exert his organization's greatest efforts on Paramount trade mark to use it this picture; he should retain the faith the public still has m the Paramount trade mark to use it for future pictures that may be entitled to such efforts.