The Motion Picture Director (Sep 1925 - Feb 1926)

1925 ©irector 21 While in the Warner Brothers production of “The Cave Man” Matt Moore packs a realistic punch that is most convincing and which is THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PRESENT GENERATION. Give the public what it is in the habit of seeing. In that paraphrase of the old printer’s comment it seems to me is summed up the psychology of motion picture production, and is expressed at least one reason why the costume picture as such has so universally proved disappointing at the box office. Presenting a story of the Middle Ages on the screen with all its attendant qualities of unfamiliar costumes and unfamiliar settings is to my mind very much like setting a familiar nursery rhyme in old German type. The unfamiliarity of the type of itself would “stop” the average reader. The fact that the rhyme is expressed in English, that the spelling of the words is just the same as one is accustomed to see, is entirely offset by the unfamiliarity of the “costume” worn by the familiar characters. It isn’t real. Such a production, for instance as Romola, in which, despite the splendid work done by Lillian and Dorothy Gish, the careful characterizations and the infinite attention to detail, the unfamiliarity of characters, costumes and background destroyed the element of reality and mitigated against the box office success of that production to a marked degree. On the other hand, indicative of “the exception that proves the rule” Ben Hur possesses all the attributes which enter into a successful box office picture and the mere fact that the story is laid in its entirety some 2000 years ago will in this instance have very little effect on the final result. And while this may sound paradoxial, I believe it may be easily explained. Despite the period in which it is laid, despite the fact that it is essentially a costume picture, Ben Hur possesses an appeal to the American public — to the world public in fact, — that transcends any inhibition against costume pictures. Ben Hur is real, not only because of its long success on the American stage, not only because of the tremendous popularity of General Lew Wallace’s book on which that play was based, but because in Ben Hur are symbolized religious history and religious teachings which are familiar to the entire Christian world. As such there is to Ben Hur as there was to Quo Vadis an intensity of appeal that is entirely apart from other factors which so universally enter into the equation. GOING back into “ancient history” for a bit, some thirteen years ago George Kleine brought over Quo Vadis an Italian-made feature production — the first super feature to be exhibited in this country— and startled the cinematic world with the tremendous success that picture made as a box office attraction. Quo Vadis was an instanteous success throughout the country, partly because it was a novelty — a mammoth, spectacular production of unheard of pretentiousness for the films — but largely because it visu alized a story with which the whole w orld was familiar and because it visualized a period of world and religious history known to every man an woman. Between Quo Vadis and Ben Hur there is a distinct parallel, and what Quo Vadis was in its day Ben Hur is very likely to become today. And yet it is interesting to note that every effort to revive Quo Vadis has been disastrous. Going back to that Quo Vadis period, an interesting illustration of the point established is found in the fact that following the success of that production other productions of similar nature were imported and in every instance proved a complete flop. With all the power of Bulwer Lytton’s literary classic back of it, with all the spectacular elements that such a subject afforded, The Last Days of Pompeii proved a box office failure. Similarly Julius Ceasar, Spartacus at Rome and Anthony and Cleopatara failed utterly to measure up to the standards of box office success established by Quo Vadis. Marvelous as each production was, spectacular to a high degree splendidly done, each founded on a famous story or an episode in the history of the world with which all students are familiar, these productions lacked that seemingly intangible quality that made Quo Vadis a mighty success. The story each told, while fascinating in the extreme, true to the period in which it was laid, lacked that vital element of direct individual interest which characterized Quo Vadis and which is to be expected in Ben Hur. Still turning back the leaves of memory I am impressed by the fact that in nearly every instance plays in which period settings have been involved, or even where the entire action has been laid in foreign settings with costumes peculiar to those settings, have proved unsatisfactory as boxoffice attractions. I have already referred to Romola as one instance. There have been a great many others. There have been, too, many instances where stories have been laid in foreign settings with foreign costuming predominate, but leavened by the introduction of “home-folk” in familiar garb. For instance there was Graustark as played by Bushman and Bayne and the more recent Talmadge version. The costume element found relief in the fact that the interest of the spectator was focused on an American hero. The current production of The Merry Widow is another case in point. Not only is there the relief afforded by the presence of the troupe of American players, but there is a subtle touch of World War influence and modernism in military accoutrement, contrasting with the old world costumes. The result is an extremely colorful production in which there is sufficient realism as interpreted by the American audience to balance the unfamiliar settings and create an atmosphere of charm and interest for the whole. Add to that the (Continued on Page 50)