The Hollywood Reporter (Jan-Jun 1933)

Jan. 13. 1933 RiPOBITER Pasje Three ANSWERS <^UESTI01\, WHAT DOES PllBLIt WANT?" 'Movies Made By Movie People' (Continued from page 1 ) the analysis. The list and a digest of the exhibitor's comments follow: Bird of Paradise: 'More of an optical treat than a mental entertainment. It was a simple, eye-appealing story and made a hit." Horsefeathers: "The greatest hit of the season, (t had many funny spoken gags and all of these were low comedy with mass appeal, but the funniest parts were the pantomimic scenes." Down To Earth: "A simple, easily understood picture with no involved plot, no pure diction and darned few two-syllable words. Back Street: "A human story in which humans behaved much as normal humans would, and who spoke the language of the masses." Grand Hotel: "I list this among the hits because, from its box-office 'take,' it deserves that classification. But from a 'popular priced' audience standpoint it deserves no such rating. The garden variety of fan heard about it and figured; 'It must be good if they can get $1 .50 a seat for it.' They came in large numbers and went away bewildered. And they were highly critical. They cannot accommodate themselves to a picture that lacks conventional beginning or ending and which deals with only those finer and more elusive nuances of emotion. The eighty million are more or less inarticulate and they call Grand Hotel 'highbrow'." Simplicity Scores Successful Calamity: "Far below the standard and capabilities of Arliss, but people raved about it. I am convinced the simp'e story was responsible. It was so simple it was almost stupid. You could anticipate it, scene by scene." Smilin' Thru: "Cne of those rare creations that lends itself to screen treatment and which reaches down and touches the fundamental human emotions. Also your movie audience prefers love in a cottage to love in a penthouse." Big Broadcast: "Gave the theatre the biggest profit this year, and if there ever was a s'mpler. more easily followed story. I can't remember it. There were long sequences that had no dialogue — just rr usic. Here was a chance for your old-time movie fan to come in, sit down and en;oy himself, with absolutely no effort. And he did." Love Me Tonight: "A 'gay farce in the French manner' — and that's the answer. Farce and satire have no place in any entertainment depending upon the masses for economic existence. In spite of many dismal failures, we cannot seem to learn this sad truth." Romance Is Lacking American Madness: "A superb picture, but business is not a theme for motion pictures. It lacks the aura of romance and adventure." Movie Crazy: "Here's a picture *Maedchen' Weekly Average $11,000 New York. — For its 12 weeks at the Criterion and five weeks at the Forty-Fourth St. Theatre, "Girls In Uniform" grossed about $185,000, or approximately $11,000 a week average. that stands out as the great exception to every rule. It's a glistening contradiction of every word that I have said. It's the inexplicable question that has troubled showmen since the days of the old Greeks. I haven't any idea why it flopped unless Lloyd had been off the screen too long or because of of the public's great aversion to anything that smacks of the inside of Hollywood. Can you recall one such picture that ever succeeded?" Phantom President: "Says Mr. Katz: 'Apparently audiences do not care for political satire.' Says I: 'That goes for any kind of satire, any kind.' This picture also demonstrates the 'Broadway-minded attitude' towards pictures. A small segment of the 80 million have accepted Schnozzie and his hot cha, but there's not enough of them to create a profitable following . . . and while George M. Cohan may be a big flash on Mazda Lane he's not even a twinkle out here." No "Common Touch" Blonde Venus: "Here's the sad result of an intellectual director trying to play down to the masses . . . the resulting accomplishment can be classified as neither fish nor fowl. As highbrow entertainment it's a total loss ... as mass entertainment it's a mess. Its director, artist that he undoubtedly is, hasn't the common touch If the 80 millions ever fall for one of his efforts you will have to attribute it to an act of Cod or a whim of Lady Luck." "And now," says this analyst, "let's get back to the question: 'What kind of pictures do people want?' I might say 'Cimarrons' with their sweeping scenes and stirring action. I could say 'Tarzans,' whose simple romance and improbable adventures constitute an escape from the realties. I could say 'First Year' with its timely philosophy and settings which mirror the attitude and experience of most normal people. But I would be falling into the error of suggesting types, and of all the besetting sins of the industry, that is the worst." Some Things They Wanf "But 1 can say that movie audiences want: " 1 — Motion picture personalities who move. Not languid ladies who read their lines perfectly. "2 — Stories that are simple, with adventures they themselves might conceivably experience. "3 — Pictures that do not force them to 'hang' on to every word in order to follow the story. "4 — While they revel in beautiful Urges Highbrows Be Sent Back Home sets and magnificent scenes they want pictures that reveal a culture approximately on a level with their own. (You can put Will Rogers in any kind of setting — you can dress him in silk stockings and satin breeches but he's still one of the 80 million . . . and therein lies his tremendous popularity). "5 — Finally they want entertainment that has been fashioned with only their tastes in mind, not revamped books originally penned for the intellectual '400' (American Tragedy). Not transplanted stage plays originally created for the amusement of a few thousand Greenwich Village sophisticates (The Guardsman). They want movies, made by movie men, for movie audiences. Possible Remedies "Now for a few recommendations in conclusion: "1 — Let the men who nursed this business from the days of the old Nickelodeon to the dawn of the talkie determine the type of picture to be made. Send the intellectuals, the sophisticates and highbrows who have nothing but supercilious scorn for this industry back home. "2 — Quit worshipping the stage; cease looking to it as a chief source for material, inspiration and techn que. "3 — In the field of current literature pay less attention to 'best sellers' and more to 'best renters' and regardless of whether it is 'best' in either class . . . film it only if it can be filmed . . . and then let it be adapted only by a person intimately acquainted with movie audiences. "4 — Cease making celluloid novels and transplanted stage plays . . make movies. Whaf Exhibs Know "Now is t+iis all a lot of theoretical nonsense emanating from some small town 'wise guy' who is disappointed with a fate that places him in a theatre manager's chair instead of a 'soft studio berth'? No. It's just what thousands of exhibitors are trying to say when they call a picture 'highbrow' . . . 'sophisticated' . . . 'smart'. Everything I have said is summed up in the general complaint that 'pictures are over the heads of the audiences." Few exhibitors will take the time to go into it as 1 have b'='cause they recognize the utter futility of tilting at windmills. Sad, But fustified Then the analyst adds a postscript. He says: "The reading of what I have written depresses me. It seems to be such a sad commentary on the tastes of the masses. But in a world where tabloid newspapers thrive, where pulp paper magazines are the most popular, where flagpole sitters can exist and where watkathons have prospered, we cannot expect much else." If strikes us as peculiar that the one organization that is most actively engaged in trying to rid the country of censors and other harsh irritants should get virtually no support from the picture industry. We refer to the National Council on Freedom From Censorship. They're an earnest, hardworking lot, who work for your greater pleasure and mine without benefit of much monetary contribution. . , . The only thing they have to spend money on is for a court fight to pay the legal expenses involved — and that doesn't mean lawyer fees; the legal talent for reducing existing laws to absurdity and laughing ridiculous restrictions out of court, is free. . . . Furthermore, there's a lot of fun to be gotten out of interesting yourself in the cause. For anyone who thinks Hollywood is the last work in the ridiculous, we offer him censorship, its cause arxJ effect. And there's no form of it that escapes their eagle eye. BUT they need support. And in connection with that is the case of the wood blocks. These particular blocks were carved by a world famous artist and imported into this country for exhibition purposes by a well known gallery. Two of these blocks failed to get through the customs because they were nude figures. .... So the council got busy and naturally assumed they would get the financial support of all art lovers in case the thing had to go to court. One hundred letters were sent to as many galleries, asking for one dollar from each to cover expenses. ONE reply was received and it explained that the dealer had no money to contribute, times are so hard Radio censorship is another of their tough battles. And if you've ever been a constant listener-in on weekly programs, you can realize how much can be accomplished for your benefit in that direction. Plays, books and movies, and most particularly movies — in their relation to both producer and distributor, complete the program of their unending and untiring work. A follow-up on that story about Cantor laughing the Pennsylvania censors into passing "Kid From Spain," is that it opened in Philadelphia last Saturday night and the crowds were so terrific that the theatre manager had to call up City HaM for permission to keep the house open twentynine minutes after midnight in order to empty it. . . . Now we wonder who gave the City Hall permission to stay open at that Sabbath hour? . . . They were discussing forms of entertainment for a benefit performance and someone got the brilliant idea of buying out the opera for a night, claiming that in order to make anything, the thing had to be done big. The bright member of the party piped up with, "That's swell. Now where are we going to get the guarantee money to lose on t+ie proposition?"