The Film Mercury (1928-1929)

Page Eight THE FILM MERCURY, FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 1929 Hollywood, Calif. FILM MERCURY WINS TALKIE VICTORY Latest developments in the motion picture industry have proven that the Film Mercury has won a notable and remarkable victory in regard to its predictions and analysis on the eventual effect and outcome of the talking picture situation. The successful manner in which the Film Mercury has foretold the developments and limitations of the talking film is a noteworthy example of accurate, fearless and enterprising journalism. After weighing and appraising both the possibilities and the shortcomings of the sound film several months ago, the Film Mercury has steadfastly maintained that any idea that the talkie would be a panacea and a financial bonanza for the film magnates is a delusion. While other publications, and the film industry in general, were being misled because of the success of one or two talking pictures, the Film Mercury claimed that these were merely isolated cases and that in the long run sound films would be no better box office attractions than silent productions. It was also asserted that when the books were finally balanced the magnates would discover that their profits were no bigger than before but that they had needlessly sunk millions of dollars into sound stages and equipment that might have been utilized for dividends or other purposes. Box office reports collected throughout the country by the Film Mercury, Variety and other trade journals testify that the power of the talking film as a box office magnet is already rapidly on the wane and that good silent films are drawing just as much money as sound pictures — and in many cases more. The Film Mercury did not, nor does it now, assert that the talkie will completely die out, but this publication contends that the introduction of sound into films has brought little, if any, benefit of a lasting nature to the motion picture industry. On the other hand, the talkie has turned the film industry upside down and brought about a chaos that will last for a considerable length of time and will eliminate from the industry many of the men who have encouraged the sound craze. The Film Mercury believes that the Warner Bros, had a logical reason for introducing Vitaphone. It was a good piece of showmanship at a time when the Warner Company was in rather sore straits. As a novelty Vitaphone features were bound to clean up, and the Warner Bros, are now reaping the harvest as a result of having been first in the field with a new form of entertainment that was bound to draw the public for a limited time. Other film concerns, however, are getting into the field too late "for big profits and should have made a more gradual shift from silence to sound. Talking pictures may continue to be the vogue with studios, not only this year but for an indefinite period. This, however, does not mean that the talking film is a success nor that the public prefers sound pictures. The public does not always get what it prefers unless that preference develops to such a marked extent that the public will accept no substitute. Talking pictures, as far as the public is concerned, might be likened to four-wheel auto brakes. Some autoists like fourwheel brakes — others do not. Autoists, however, are not responsible for four-wheel brakes being placed upon cars. The decision rests with the auto concerns. If they decide to equip all autos with four wheel brakes, the public of necessity will accept them, temporarily at least, whether they prefer them or not. If the four-wheel brakes behave satisfactorily the public may accept them indefinitely, although neither the autoist nor the auto manufacturers may be the better off because of it. If, however, after a fair trial autoists come to the conclusion that four-wheel brakes are a nuisance and decidedly inferior to the old fashioned brakes, and make a strenuous kick to the auto dealers, manufacturers will be forced to discontinue the four-wheel brakes. The same condition applies to talking pictures. If the film producers turn out moderately entertaining sound films the public may continue to patronize the cinema without strenuous complaint. If the talkies do not show a decided improvement within the next few months, however, the public is almost certain to register disapproval by remaining away from the theatres. The main point to be stressed is: No matter which way the pendulum swings, the film industry is no better off than it was before and in all likelihood the film magnates have achieved nothing but the bringing down of a load of troubles on their own heads. These facts were all forecast and commented upon by the Film Mercury many months ago, and film producers could have profited by them if they were not so quick to label every constructive thought of importance as “destructive criticism.” As far back as the May 4, 1928, issue of the Film Mercury (eight months ago) the writer made the following prediction : “There are few A1 Jolsons in theatricals, but from the way the film moguls are grasping and scrambling for talking picture rights one would imagine that the world is down on its knees begging the celluloid monarches for talkies. As the sheep must have a leader, so must the average film company. In the same issue of the Film Mercury appeared an article by Anabel Lane containing the following prognostication : “Most of these simple folk think all that is necessary, is to have some dialogue and a song and the poorest production will be saved. After a number of talking pictures have been produced and the novelty has worn off with the public. the executives will find themselves in a greater quandary than before. For the fundamental requirements of a silent movie and a talking movie are the same. The dialogue, however, will be even more important than subtitles. In fact, stupid dialogue will be even worse than wisecracking titles. “The talking device will only help the producers for a little while. For in the long run, a talking picture will have to stand on its merits, not on its novelty.” In the Sound Film Number of the Film Mercury (the first issue of any film publication devoted to the sound era) published July 6, 1928, the writer commented as follows: “Because of their novelty, sound films should bring about a marked increase in theatre attendance for a certain length of time. After that, the film magnates will be pretty much back where they started from.” In the same issue, Anabel Lane offered the following comment : “The producers do not seem to realize that at present it is the Vitaphone versus the silent drama. Up to the present, the public has had no choice — if they wished to see a sound production, they have to go to the Vitaphone. Will the sound picture be so lucrative when almost every motion picture produced has sound and talking? “When all of the releases are sound movies, the multitudes will not run helter skelter to the theatre. The m. p. industry will then reach the situation it has always been in. The fans will choose the pictures they wish to see. Where now they have to go to the Vitaphone in the future there will be so many cinemas to see and hear, the novelty will have worn off and the selection of favorites will again be the barometer.” The Film Mercury was also the first publication to herald the fact that the box office power of the sound film is on the decline, as attested by theatre reports. Accordingly Anabel Lane in the November 16, 1928 issue commented as follows: “With most of the film companies producing talking photoplays the public has already issued its verdict by attending those which it liked and stayed away from others which did not appear pleasing. The stage where the multitudes flocked to the theatre merely because the talking film was a novelty has passed. The producers watched the Warner Theatre in Hollywood with crowds waiting to get in and believed they had found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What really has happened is, that the film cost has been increased (when one considers the cost of sound studios and equipment), and the making of a picture more difficult. Yet the result will be the same as it was with silent production — some sound pictures will be successful, others will not. —Tamar Lane.