Film Spectator (1927-1928)

Page Four THE FILM SPECTATOR July 23, 1927 to protect their interests, but some goof gets up and moves a resolution setting forth that the producers should be “offered the heartiest co-operation.” Coercion, not co-operation, is what producers need, and it is not good strategy on the eve of battle to inform the enemy that your war clubs are stuffed with down. Actors have many legitimate grievances. They may disregard any protestations of holiness uttered by the producers and understand from the first that any improvement in their status will be granted by the producers only under compulsion, and only after it has been reduced to a written instrument drawn so carefully that the producers can not quibble their way out of it. In the matter of contracts thus far producers have had all the best of it. But all they should be made to yield is just what is fair. Even that much will agonize them. Hi ^ * Writers Have Their Great Opportunity The actors have led in one fight that all branches of the industry should take a hand in. The whole history of human endeavor shows us that there is a certain limit within which a man must confine his mental or physical exertions if he is to work at the peak of his efficiency. This certain limit has been established throughout the civilized world as eight hours in every twenty-four. The actors ask that this universal rule be applied to the manufacture of pictures. It is reasonable, just, and sensible. There is no more reason why a man should work overtime in making a picture than he should in making a piano. Over one year ago I said in The Spectator that every studio in Hollywood should close at five o’clock every evening and at one o’clock on Saturday. *At that time, as it is now, my only thought was for better pictures. I hold no brief for actors, writers or directors. As individuals they can work their heads off and become nervous wrecks without disturbing the serenity of a single moment in my back garden where I do my writing. But good pictures can not be made by tired brains, and therein lies my interest. For years producers have held to the mistaken view that there was money in squeezing every possible hour of work out of every actor on the set. That they lost money for every hour over eight that they made an actor work on a given day is a fact that they lack the mental equipment to understand. They really believe it when they say that you can not apply an eight-hour day to pictures. The poor fools! Only a year ago they were saying that the public did not want pictures made from original stories. They will tell you, too, that a perfect script is impossible. Poor, poor fools! Only the application of mass strength can penetrate the density of the stupidity of producers. Of all those engaged in making pictures the writers are in the prettiest position. It is a literary art and some day they must dominate production. They have more to gain in a material way than any of their confreres. They should follow the lead of the actors and make the Guild as powerful as possible. They should do battle against the producers with more zest than any of the others, for they have been more harassed by them. Recently I have been reading copies of the contracts writers have been forced to sign upon going to work in studios. Not one of them could stand up for a moment in a court of law, but as starving was the only alterna tive, I can understand readily why writers signed them. The abuses and the insults to which writers have been subjected at the hands of producers and supervisors should keep them in a fighting mood long enough to put over their demands for a uniform contract. But they should not rest there. They are as much interested in an eight-hour day as the actors, even though their work is of a nature that can not be limited by a time-table. They are interested because the improvement of all other conditions improves theirs. The first move of the reborn Guild should be to line up with Equity and to stand ready to join in any fight without being too finicky about whose fight it is. * * * There Is Nothing to Argue About This is written on Sunday, July ten, up to which date the producers have had nothing to say about the proposed eight-hour day. Perhaps before you read it some action will be taken. All I have read so far is that the producers “will give their answer.” The attitude of the actors, directors and technicians should be that their demand admits of but one answer, and that there is nothing to argue about. Executives who have brought to the verge of bankruptcy what should be the most pros-, perous industry on earth, have not the intelligence to understand how reasonable working hours would benefit them, consequently the matter should be decided for them by those who are affected most directly. With proper organization in the studios an eight-hour day can be instituted, the cost of production will come down, pictures will be made more rapidly and will average higher in entertainment value. Producers, of course, will disagree with my conclusions, but as they are the people whose ignorance and general incompetence have got motion pictures into their present mess, their opinion on anything pertaining to their business is really not a matter of great importance. No doubt they see in the demand for an eight-hour day only an effort by those whom it affects to get more pay by working overtime. No doubt some of the actors so regard it. Only to the extent that an eight-hour day becomes an actuality is The Spectator with the actors in their demand for it. Producers should see to it that enough work is crowded into the eight hours so that no overtime is necessary. It can be done, but I doubt if there is enough executive brains in the studios now to do it. An eight-hour day and a uniform contract are two things that all those engaged in making motion pictures should insist upon. They have their bosses — a timid bunch at best — on the run, and there is justice in their demand for these two reforms. The Spectator is with them most heartily. As soon as they show signs of abusing the power they possess The Spectator will be against them just as heartily. Extremes must be avoided. For instance, take the way A1 Rockett regards the demand for an eight-hour day. As a representative producer he is quoted in the Times as follows: “All I can say is that ii stars and other important actors insist upon the eighthour-a-day schedule, most of the producers will have to return to the bond business, or selling clothing, from which they started.” In a crisis like the present Rockett, and, indeed, all the rest of us, should remain calm and not look at the future through too rosy glasses. I am