Film Spectator (1927-1928)

THE FILM SPECTATOR Page Five July 23, 1927 a firm believer in an eight-hour day, and I believe it will do pictures a great deal of good, but in my wildest imaginings my optimism never has matched A1 Rockett’s. If * he can demonstrate that his prophecy would be fulfilled any argument that I could advance in support of the reform would be weak and puerile. In fact, the argument would be closed. It would be the height of silliness . for any one to criticize adversely a movement that would send our present crop of motion picture producers back to the clothing business. But I can not share Al’s enthusiasm. In his support of the reform he should show more restraint. Anyway, it is dangerous to drive our producers into other lines of endeavor. Apparently Louis B. Mayer and Cecil de Mille wandered into the moneylending business, and see what happened to them! ♦ ♦ * Why the Producers Abandoned the Idea The haste wdth which the producers agreed that, after all, they didn’t care so very much whether there was any salary cut was the high comedy spot of the very comical flurry that was staged four weeks ago. There is no reason why the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should take too much unction to its soul in connection with the action of the producers o in abandoning the idea of a raid on salaries. The Academy merely provided the producers with an opportunity to bow themselves out gracefully. It was their own shrewdness that prompted them to take advantage of it. With the aid of their press agents they got out rather well. Pete Smith •made the best job of it, getting Louis B. Mayer from under quite gracefully. Jesse Lasky is the only one in the bunch whose course I admire. He was the first to take a stand for lower salaries and the last man to stand by his guns when retreat was sounded. He has not yet surrendered wholly. He may enforce the salary cut on the first of Augnist. I do not agree with his views; I believe that he personally is responsible for the inefficiency which exists in his studio, but I admire him for having enough nerve to try to see the thing through after he had started it. Those whom a salary cut would affect should not accept too seriously the protestations of the Mayers and Schencks that the idea of the reduction was wrong. They tried to put it over, and withdrew it only because they discovered that if they did not withdraw the world at large would find out how hopelessly incompetent they are at running their own ends of the business. They did not abandon the idea of a cut in salaries because the Academy asked them to, or through any regard for the welfare of their employees. There is not one in the bunch who would not cut salaries to-morrow if he were not afraid that his efficiency would become a point at issue between him and his employees. Louis B. Mayer retreated in exactly the same manner as I would have if I had been in his place. He made a virtue out of a necessity, and had Pete Smith write him a beautiful speech about how much he had the welfare of his employees at heart. There was nothing 'else left for him to do. Of course it is all bunk, and coming from Mayer, is funny. His whole career in pictures has been one of selfishness. His standard employment contract is notorious for its one-sidedness, and he would scream at anyone who would ask for time to consider it T)efore signing it. Yet when he deserted Jesse Lasky he issued a statement dripping with his high regard for the interests of his employees. Only fools would be deluded by it. The truth of the situation is that the producers never for a moment imagined that their royal decree would not be received by their employees in the same spirit of humility that always has been manifested on the lots. As soon as the employees pointed out the real cause of extravagance in production the producers beat a hasty retreat. Their cowardice, not a higher motive, prompted the action. * * ♦ What Constitutes Studio Extravagance The cost of production should come down, but nothing that the producers have done yet would indicate that they know how to do it. Lasky’s effort to stem extravagance is pathetic. He organized a committee which includes among its members such well known economists as Bebe Daniels and Wally Beery, and he generously offers to lend the committee to the Academy in order that the whole industry may profit by contact with it. I have not much faith in Lasky’s method, but I have respect for the honesty of his intention. Mayer’s statement would indicate that he l^s organized all his employees into one vast committee oiraavings, an equally futile move. The crust of inefficienc^^at coats the Mayer organization is too thick to yield delicate treatment with a lancet. It is a blasting proposi^n. A lot of incompetents must be jarred loose from th^ jobs before saving can be effected. It will be time en^^feh for any studio to apply a remedy when it understands^ the disease. What contributes to the excessive cost of production? Let us consider the Metro organization. The conclusions we arrive at in our examination of it will apply to other organizations. The first thing we discover is that it has a gigantic overhead for which there is no justification whatever. Enormous salaries are paid for fifty-two weeks to people who do not work for a quarter of that time. Actors and directors roam around the lot ready for work, but there is no work for them. Writers with capable picture minds are not allowed to reflect their personalities on the screen, the quality that the screen needs to give it the variety it so sadly lacks. Irving Thalberg has a certain flair for pictures, but more than offsets it with a total ignorance of the economics of making pictures. I suppose he wastes more money every year than any other man connected with any industry in the world. Harry Rapf is one of the most decent chaps in the business, but he doesn’t understand what kind of a business it is. Hunt Stromberg and Bernie Hyman know nothing about screen values. There may be others, but I believe these four men dominate Metro production. Under them shooting begins on pictures before the scripts for them are developed. Thousands of dollars are spent in erecting sets that never reach the screen. Actors work for weeks and all we see of them on the screen could be shot in one day. Twice as many scenes are shot as can be crowded into the footage required for the completed picture. Some pictures are so awful that they are shelved, every dollar spent on them being a total loss. Others for which actors are employed and receive salaries for weeks are never begun. I have personal knowledge of a case of one actor who received a call to go to work on the Metro lot. He roamed around for a