Harrison's Reports (1944)

188 HARRISON'S REPORTS November 18, 1944 statements as '25 retakes of one scene when three or four were sufficient1 and 'directors keep on shooting scenes over and over because raw stock is, in their opinion, cheap and 'the director wants to dazzle the industry . . . impress the studio head that he is a hard worker.' "The Screen Directors' Guild has called Harrison, in so many words, a liar. The President of the Guild, Director John Cromwell, attacked the statements of the film paper editor so viciously as to make the reader believe (if he did not know better) that Harrison knew nothing at all about his subject. "Let me intrude my two cents' worth by saying that while Harrison's arguments and citations should not include ALL directors, the hat certainly fits in many cases. The studios are constantly guilty of wanton waste, not only among the directors but among other branches of this creative art, such as actors who won't study their dialogue and writers who play too many 'night dates' and consequently prepare their scripts with foggy brains. "If Harrison wants proof of waste (which the Screen Directors' Guild asks him to produce), let him come to me and I'll fill his publication for a year. Furthermore, I think he is on the right track. I've long said that elimination of studio waste would work to the benefit of the theatre owners, who might be able to make a more decent profit if they could buy their pictures computed on efficiency in production." PRODUCER MARTIN MOONEY ANSWERS THE DIRECTORS GUILD Hollywood, Cal. November 11, 1944 Mr. P. S. Harrison Harrison's Reports 1270 Sixth Ave. New York 20, N. Y. Dear Pete: Harrison's Reports is always good reading. Your articles on "Wanton Waste in Production" and the subsequent objections made by the Screen Directors' Guild were to me especially interesting because I like controversy. Controversy should be encouraged for the reason that it brings out facts. It is apparent that the Screen Directors' Guild has taken the stand that your criticism of a condition is intended to place the blame for that condition on all directors. Perhaps this biased stand is due to the fact that the director claims the major share of the credit for the success of a picture and is not so eager to share blame for a failure. As a matter of fact, the average director's importance to the success of a picture is greatly overrated. He is invariably given credit for what the producer, writer, actors, cameraman and even technical crews contribute. Hollywood well knows that a good picture is the result of proper coordination between the creative, executive and technical contributions. Therefore it is obvious that a bad picture must, of necessity, be the result of loose teamwork, as in baseball, when a shortstop is all thumbs, or an outfielder can't see the sun. Concerning waste, some statisticians estimate that onethird of every dollar spent in making a picture never shows on the screen, and the annual total for all the pictures made runs into astronomical figures. Now some of this money is spent for unproductive overhead such as executive salaries, stock players, insurance, etc., but a large portion of it can be charged to waste through procrastination, bad judgment and (or) vanity. When I came to Hollywood 10 years ago, I was awed by the technical mysteries of production, and the "attitudes' of those who held the secrets and refused to distribute knowledge to newcomers. As a newspaperman accustomed to ferreting facts, this was a challenge to me and, after a few years of probing, I discovered that these "attitudes" were nothing more than "phony" fronts to camouflage ignorance and incompetency; that there was actually no "black magic" about making a picture. However, I don't mean to imply that all my colleagues are ignorant, or incompetent. Many brilliant men and women are engaged in the business of making pictures, and some of the most democratic people in the world are among them. Nevertheless this does not erase the regrettable fact that, interspersed in the picture business — and too many in high places — , are the "phony attitude" boys. These men are, because of their power, responsible for what's wrong with Hollywood. The purpose of this letter is to prove to you that you can't play ball with "one man"; likewise, you can't make a picture and say that one man "did it." It just can't be done, and no one is more cognizant of this fact than the people in Hollywood who have their feet on the ground. Unfortunately, there will always be some artistic idiots among us who walk "in the clouds" and insist that their genius must never share billing with any one else. I hope that you will continue to criticize what is wrong with Hollywood and to encourage those who are trying to put the accent on entertainment. Very sincerely yours, (signed) Martin Mooney (.Editor's T^ote: Mr. Mooney, who once was an outstanding newspaperman, is now a unit producer for PRC [Producers Releasing Corporation]. Among the many pictures he has produced are "San Quentin." "Bluebeard," and "The Great Mi\e." He is now producing "Crime, Inc.," and has several pictures on his schedule.) CLARIFYING AN INADVERTENT OMISSION Because the Fifth War Loan report of the Motion Picture Industry, issued by the National Committee for that drive, omitted mention of Harrison's Reports in its extollment of the trade press for its cooperation, I brought this omission to the attention of the Committee. The following reply was sent to me by Mr. Ray Beall, Director of Publicity for the industry's Fifth War Loan drive: "Dear Pete: "Your letter to Mr. O'Donnell regarding the omission of the masthead of Harrison's Reports from the illustration of trade press cooperation in the 5th War Loan report, was referred to me for answer. "Mr. O'Donnell and the rest of us who served on the National Committee for the 5th War Loan campaign, are certainly not unmindful of the splendid cooperation which you gave us and regret the injustice caused you by this omission. It was certainly unintentional and the blame will have to rest on my shoulders for not checking the art work more carefully. "Mr. O'Donnell wants you to know that if there is anything we can do to rectify the error which we made, we will be only too happy to do so. "Again assuring you that the omission was just an honest, human mistake and again regretting that it had to happen to you in view of your splendid and generous contribution to the 5th War Loan campaign, I am "Sincerely, (signed) "Ray Beall"