Film and Radio Guide (Oct 1945-Jun 1946)

November, 1 945 FILM AND RADIO GUIDE 41 equal extent. Lewis Jacobs and Terry Rainsaye, these have been primarily historians. Leo Rosten wrote a book which could have established closely the integial relation of Hollywood to the United States; instead he contented himself with emphasizing its special characteristics, documented with statistical tables. Actually Hollywood has been best understood by such a writer of fiction as F. Scott Fitzgerald, whose “The Last Tycoon” was a penetrating study of the industry’s internal nature. But not yet has there been a man to write of movies as, for example. Van Wyck Brooks has written of New England and the Puritan tradition. Not yet has anyone tried to explore — it would be an enormous task — the relation of Hollywood and its product to the patterns of our national life. % * :{{ At present any close liaison between the critics and Hollywood must inevitably establish a tie between critics and screen writers — almost by default of other groups. Among those who actually make the films, the actors, most publicized and most paid, neither determine or greatly influence the content of the films in which they appear; their influence is limited to the extent that vehicles are provided for their talent and/or personalities, but there it ends. The directors, still secure in the out-dated niche which the silent era gave them, have remained the rugged individualists of the industry. They have felt little need to initiate group action toward establishing new patterns or standards save as the accidents of their personal talents allow. Today directors influence content greatly and sometimes even more than the producers themselves, but it is always on the basis of individual taste. Even those who have done work of great stature have remained essentially isolated figures. The screen writers are singular in that they alone have created a solid core of craftsmen, closely bound, articulate and aggressive in trying to establish higher and more worthy patterns for the industry as a whole. One of the other articles in the June Screen Writer, Harold Medford’s “Report from a GI Typewriter,’’ will interest audiovisual educators. It deals with the production of training films and documentaries. What Mr. Medford might well have made clearer in his otherwise able article, however, is that in any producing organization making documentary and educational films, the writer plays relatively a much more important part than in a Hollywood studio. America’s leading textfilm producing organization. Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc., reports that thus far 75 percent of its production costs have gone into the preparation of scripts. Fact-film scripts require a great amount of research work. Technical production in such films is a relatively simple matter. The director and the actor are less important than the writer. But in Hollywood the good director is the sme qua non of successful production. A poor script in the hands of a good Hollywood director will make at least a fairly entertaining film; a good script in the hands of a poor director, however, will make a poor film. No entertainment film can rise above the imaginative power of the director. On the other hand, in the fact film, the director is controlled by his script. An outstanding script, even with routine direction, will make a satisfactory fact film; but a poor script, no matter how clever the director may be, will not result in a good film. The July issue of The Screen Writer features an article by Richard J. Collins on the filming of the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations. He states : The Conference is filmically the best and most widely covered single event in history. The roving Eyeino cameras picked up some wonderful material on the floor. For example, there are several shots of Stettinius and Rockefeller on the day of the memorable Argentina debate. Stettinius sits puzzled while behind him Rockefeller gesticulates vigorously, explaining his position. The camera returns to them a few moments later. Rockefeller continues to plead his case and finally Stettinius, still not completely convinced, nods his head. At least thirty cameras covered every speech. * ❖ ♦ The influx of Nazi film experts into Spain will have a decided effect on the postwar Latin-American film market. The Nazi technicians bring not only a reactionary political point of view to Spanish films (which under Franco they have always had) but more importantly from a commercial viewpoint, they bring great technical facility. Whether Spain remains fascist or not appears therefore to be a legitimate matter of concern for us in Hollywood. Included also is an excerpt from Frank Butler’s notable screenplay version of the Steinbeck story, A Medal For Benny. The scene comprises about a dozen shots in which is depicted the reaction of Charlie Martin when he finds that the local Popsters have removed him from his dilapidated home to a pretentious mansion only for the period of the festivities at which Charlie is to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. Mr. Butler, as co-author with Frank Cavett of the screen play of Going My Way, was the 1945 winner of the Academy award for screen writing. Ring Lardner, Jr., co-author of the screenplay version of Tomorroiv the World, in “Tomorrow a New Germany,’’ states : Fundamentally, the pessimists in regard to Germany are also pessimists about democracy. They do not see that the very success of the Nazis in their educational process should give us hope for ours, and that the more unsound an educational structure, the more easily it can be toppled. Surely we must believe that it would take longer to Nazify a soundly-educated American boy than it would to regenerate the character of Emil Bruckner in “Tomorrow The World!” A direction that horror films may take is suggested by Henry Myers, scenarist, who believes that the same horror world may