FilmIndia (1939)

v Gallia s Ihis section is the monopoly of 11 JUDAS" and he writes what he likes and about things ivhich he likes. The views expressed here are not necessarily ours, but still they carry weight because they are written by a man who knows his job. EVEN IN HOLLYWOOD In Hollywood, as in India, film producers resort to all kinds of tricks to get favourable reviews of their pictures. This has been revealed to me by Frank Nugent, Motion Picture editor of "The New York Times" and Douglas W. Churchill, the Hollywood correspondent of the same paper, who have contributed one of the most entertaining chapters to "We Saw It Happen" (Harrap, 8 shillings 6 d.) This is Frank Nugent speaking: "As a critic, as well as an editor, I realized early that producers preferred favourable reviews to unfavourable ones, and occasionally tried to "do something about it." Cocktail parties and luncheons are harmless enough, but one producer made the mistake once of putting 5000 dollars on the line for a story ("You must have one in the bottom of a trunk, somewhere; every writer has; just retype it and send it along".) I admitted to the producer's uncomfortable emissary that most of his boss' stories sounded as though they had come from a trunk, but that my past sins would remain buried. It has been part of a critic's education too to give a quick hearing and forgetting to vague offers of studio jobs " Several film critics in India will find the situation familiar, though of course a mere couple of hundred rupees is supposed to be fair price for film stories in this country. Also, some of our own moviekings play the reverse game. A poor film critic who had dared to criticise a producer's pet child was slandered with the accusation that he had been spiteful because he had once submitted a story which had not been accepted by the said producer! BANNED FROM STUDIOS "It came as something of a shock," continues Nugent "when the mail from Churchill, on the coast, revealed that all was not beer and skittles on his side of the fence. He had just been banned from one studio, was in disgrace with another, and was eyed with more or less suspicion by the rest. A day later I heard on the q.t. that the publicity heads of several companies had met at the Hays Office to discuss the feasibility of revoking his press credentials. And now it is Churchill's turn to tell his side of the story: "There is no such thing as co-operation In Hollywood. The newspapermen covering the town must ride or be ridden arrogance towards the Press is everywhere evident. The industry either threatens or patronizes the Press, except in those rare cases where the papers have put their backs up and kept them there. The 'patronage' is so great that Hollywood is not content merely with preparing its own news stories but even writes its own reviews for a surprisingly large number of papers." My fraternal sympathies to comrades Nugent and Churchill. But I wonder how they would feel if they had to contend with the dictatorial arrogance of the Indian producers. But why wonder? They would feel what I feel. It is unprintable! CENSOR BOARD SECRETARY Sometime back the need was felt for a full-time secretary to the Bombay Board of Film Censors. The choice was left to the Bombay-Sind Public Services Commission. This Commission is composed of retired super-annuated bureaucrats called up from rest and retirement to preside over the destinies of India's aspiring youth. "All attempts direct or indirect to influence the secretary or a member Of the Commission will result in disqualification"— or at least so they say. It is alleged, however, that 'recommendations' and 'testimonials' from the high and mighty were obtained by several candidates. It also appears that there is a tussle between two candidates who are said to have secured 'recommendations'. The really qualified persons having been shelved, one of these two may be appointed. "All attempts "!! Meanwhile the public and the industry have been waiting all these many months for the appointment of a qualified secretary. The affairs of the Board of Censors show no signs of improvement. Pictures are being arbitrarily banned without the members or the inspectors being able to give any specific and valid reasons for the action. 7