Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1932)

what a scenarist finds they want DRAMATIC TYPES Action 12% Comedy 6% Comedy-Drama 22% Drama 50% Spectacle 10% EMOTIONAL TYPES Farce None Comedy, straight 7% Comedy-Drama 25% Drama 53% Tragedy 11% Horror 4% HOLLYWOOD'S interest in what the exhibitor wants, as indicated in his response to the Herald's recent survey, extends somewhat beyond the degree represented by casual group discussions and the taking of mental notes, in an analysis submitted by John Francis Natteford, himself an author of some 70 motion picture stories and dramatizations. "I have spent a very pleasant two hours analyzing your, article on book and play preferences of exhibitors," he confesses, "and thought the results might interest you." Thus the survey, published' September 10, becomes worthy of a moment's revival, for Mr. Natteford's pleasant two hours have been spent in identifying the books and plays listed in the Herald, according to rather basic dramatic and emotional types. "All stories were rated," he assures us, "on the basis of knowing them — no guesses." And applying pretty well established indices, he has determined that 53 per cent of the titles show a preference for more or less serious drama. The impression, quite likely, has been different. To comedy-drama Mr. Natteford gives the respectable figure of 25 per cent, but to straight comedy only 7 per cent. "The average degree of seriousness preferred" is represented by the figure 3.96 — "indicating," Natteford finds, "that a strong dramatic interest should be relieved with little comedy." He, too, recognizes that this is hardly what one would expect, and . offers the explanation that "only thoughtful and serious exhibitors would answer such a query as to their preferences, therefore the books and plays listed represent the preferences of older and serious minds." The explanation seems logical, but does not hold in the face of the facts of the survey, which was participated in by every type of theatre from small independent houses operated by "old-timers," to circuit theatres managed by "young fellows." It may be, however, that the exhibitor tastes represented are not so serious as Mr. Natteford's formulaic tabulation would indicate. After all, the responding showmen did not indicate the treatment desired, and few are the serious stories in which one does not at least now and then encounter amusing characters and laughable situations. The obvious emphasis on the more serious emotions may mean merely that more of life's true currents are wanted, and these currents are inclusive. In them is both the chuckle and the tear. It is only natural that most of all they involve sober purposes, for — as someone has said — life is like that. Perhaps no analysis lending itself to tabulation would indicate this more complex interest. Fiction with the full breath of life is not so readily pigeonholed. But subjectively and fundamentally, such an interest involves verisimilitude. Self-identification. All life, essentially, but intensified. The list of books and plays in question at many points tends toward the epic. Throughout it are reflected those universal by which the person in the audience achieves a kind of rebirth, in a more interesting form, upon the screen. It may well be that novelty, which is so frequently relied upon and which is so obscure in the list, offers neither the laugh nor the tear authentic enough to provide a satisfying human experience in the theatre. None of these other considerations, however, disturb the general significance of Mr. Natteford's analysis, the full findings of which he shows in the adjoining table. In addition to the information tabulated, he offers his calculation that only seven of the titles listed represent morbid, depressing or sexy stories, while fully 46 are to be classified as wholesome. Of the musicals, he adds, three are farce, one is a comedy, and eight are comedy-dramas with strong romantic strain. [8]