Hollywood Spectator (1931)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

November, 1931 21 Notes From Some Other Spectators By Dalton Trumbo Although we don’t mention it very often, the Spectator mail box usually bulges with reader communications. These letters can’t be termed “fan mail.” A unique intelligence runs through the majority of them. Their substance seems to indicate that the Spectator is more of a stimulus to its readers than an entertainment. Not all of them are complimentary, nor are they all in agreement with the views and opinions variously set down in the pages of this publication. But it is a matter of relief to those who read them that they distinctly are not the usual run of letters which reach an editorial office. Not once have we received the regulation sort, which inevitably read: “That article by Joe Gumpus is a wow. Let us have more of Joe Gumpus! The kids just fight for your pleasant home publication, and our friends, too, think it’s simply swell !” The discussion of television inaugurated by Bob Sherwood and abetted by the editor, has produced a reply or two that merit consideration by anybody. L. F. Sturgeon, who appears to know his subject, writes in this fashion: Anyone knows that if miniature golf could alarm the box-office boosters, as it did last summer, that good television art will not only cause some excitement, but will also walk away with the grand sweepstakes unless those to be affected wake up. Furthermore, television will not send through the air to the home anything, art or otherwise, that does not come up to the requirements of both, and while it is undoubtedly true someone will have to produce negatives for some of the television programs, it’s high-time for those experienced and at present in a better position to make such negatives, to start learning something about art and its place in the theatre and/or home, or competition will play no part whatever between the motion picture industry and television. ▼ ▼ And Frederick Davis, discussing the same subject, goes into it even further. Says Mr. Davis: You say that people, especially women who stay at home all day, are not going to give up outside diversion. Certainly they won’t — much. Humans are gregarious; but that doesn’t mean that, once they get outside their front doors, they head automatically for the nearest movie palace. They aren’t doing it now; motion-picture patronage has never been at a lower ebb. We agree that the depression is not wholly to blame for this slacking up of movie custom. People are getting their evening’s diversion without such general recourse to the movies; they’ve got to have it, but it needn’t be movies. It may be the beach, or outdoor games, or bridge, or simply driving ai'ound in the car. Everybody will keep on hooting around outside the home, even after television invades the living-room. But when folks want their allotted measure of entertainment from moving images on the screen, why shouldn’t they get it at home? When television busts loose, the novelty of it will cause a nation-wide upheaval in people’s amusementgetting habits. For a little while talkie houses will be almost deserted. The novelty will wear off — and will television then sink into a bog, as the talkies have done? I think not. Why not? Because television will be supported by advertisers. The advertisers will demand value for their money. They will see that interest is kept up and that the public gets what it wants. In other words the fate of television will be determined by business men. Not so the talkies. Nobody in the studio is trying to make money for the company. Nobody working on a picture has the shadow of a thought about earning money for the stock-holders. The chief thought of the movie workers is, has been, and will be this — just to hold onto their jobs in any way possible. Politics and backslapping will keep their jobs for them much longer than the quality, if any, of their talent. The quality of televised programs will, then, in the long run, be decidedly higher than the movies in the scattered neighborhood houses. ▼ ▼ Walter Merrill, who knows something about motion pictures himself, doesn’t mention the threat of television, but he does have some interesting things to say about diversification and cycle pictures: It simmers down to this: If you had to eat cake all day, would you not get sick of it? I ruined my taste for cake that way. If a producer would pick a story carefully, regardless of its type, and such story to suit its particular needs for its stars, and being assured that they had a good story, select a director who seemed best equipped and capable of directing that story. The director should have some say-so about his players, for after all, he has to direct them, and who knows better about just what he can accomplish with the players than the director himself? Now, if this good story, assuming that it is, is well-prepared and as you say: “If the story is in the script,” then how can a studio miss getting screen entertainment? What do the public care if the story is gang-, western, society, sex or what-haveyou, if it is good? If a studio made a successful society picture and drew returns, then why kill the good taste left in the mouth of theatre patrons by overdoing it? I am convinced they should pick an entirely different type of story to follow and produce it just as well and then they would keep up the public’s interest by diversifying the diet. And just to show that Mr. Merrill’s attitude is not purely a professional one, there is a note from Louise Schmidt, who lives in Mountain View. She professes complete studio ignorance of motion pictures, and perhaps it is significant that her views should elaborate upon those expressed above. She writes : I have observed that pictures come in what might be called quality cycles, especially in and near such a city as San Francisco. . . . By that I mean that for a few weeks there will be in each theatre good pictures with outstanding stars . . . then will follow a period of only fair pictures in nearly every major theatre . . . following these comes a horde of poor and impossible pictures that are really an insult to even the uncritical person’s taste and intelligence. This may be just a coincidence, but it seems like a scheme to have what might be called a balanced competition so that all releases will have a somewhat equal chance at the public’s money. It is really so infallible that I can wellnigh plan by weeks a schedule of motion picture entertainment alternating with other kinds, if the need arises, and I am sure I want to see certain pictures. I once guessed exactly when during that year a certain star’s pictures would be released in San Francisco, learning from some news item what pictures would be made by that star in that year And then I predicted that certain other pictures would be released in that period, with other stars; and my guess was correct.