Motion Picture News (Oct 1913 - Jan 1914)

FOR THOSE WHO WORRY O'ER PLOTS AND PLAYS William Lord Wright Sir Herbert's Confession THEATRICAL managers are noted for the poor quality of the drama they offer us. To quote "The Film Man," of the Dramatic Mirror: "Manufacturers of motion pictures, the men who exhibit the films, and the public that pays to see them, are within their rights in demanding treatment on a par with that accorded purveyors of stage entertainment." One almost believes that stageland managers would do better if they produced the plays they reject. A drama that they believe possesses popular appeal is put on the stage and immediately shunted off either by the police or an unappreciative public. Every season Broadway has been strewn with such wrecks. On the other hand, we read of plays, such as "Paid in Full," which went begging for months and was then produced only in a half-hearted manner by obscure managers, who afterwards reaped a fortune. Indeed, the query is pertinent — how many plays which we would have enjoyed have been suppressed by managers who seemingly have one hand on the till and the other on the public purse? Sir Herbert Tree, according to the Cincinnati Times-Star, has made a confession that will perturb the theatregoer, for Sir Herbert's sins must be few compared with those of his less intelligent rivals. The English actor-manager admits having re BENJAMIN F. WILSON as Cleek in "The Chronicles of Cleek" fused production to "Peter Pan," "Kismet," "The Prisoner of Zenda," and "If I Were King." It is a matter of theatrical history that they eventually found production and great success. This leads us to the inquiry: How many good plays have been refused in both stageland and filmland and have never found production, because, mayhap, the technical development was not such to suit some fastidious reader? How many "Paid in Fulls" and "Great Divides" have died premature deaths because of editorial rejection? It is something on which statistics are impossible, but it is nevertheless interesting as a suggestion. We dare some village Barrie to send a "Peter Pan" to the ordinary (we said ordinary) New York producer. If it ever appeared it doubtless would be expurgated of poetic charm and its name significantly changed to "Peter Punch." Kinemacolor Treatment "Kinemacolor Treatment" has become a significant expression among photoplaywrights. It means the best of treatment. We receive hundreds of complaints weekly, of all kinds and designs, but the magic name of Kinemacolor is conspicuous by its absence. It is a record to cause pride. Mr. Perry N. Vekroff, editor for Kinemacolor of America, writes the following interesting communication to the department: "Being somewhat overstocked at present, the Kinemacolor Company of America-is considering such scripts only as excell in originality of treat' ment and strength of plot and situations. We prefer stories that can be developed into one or two-reel comedies and modern dramas. An occasional melodrama. Western or otherwise, is also acceptable, providing it is written around some theme which can elevate as well as thrill and entertain. While the value of a scenario is determined according to the strength of the plot and originality of its treatment, the preparation of the script itself is also an important factor. The less editing a manuscript will require, the more its value w'll be when the check is made out to the author. In fact, technical perfection in this respect is fast becoming one of our principal requirements, it being the policy of this department to be abreast with the progress of up-to-date and efficient production. A concise yet comprehensive synopsis is generally the first ear-mark of conscientious effort in scenario writing. This should so outline the salient features of the story submitted as to enable our readers to grasp its value at once. Subtitles and the description of the action itself should likewise be short and clear. The author must bear in mind that the director will endeavor to 'put over' the story in as few feet of film as possible. Indulgence in details, other than those essential toward development of the plot, are quite unnecessary. The sad deficiency of most authors in this respect is perhaps largely responsible for the delay in their being credited upon the screen. Technically perfect scenarios are few compared with those that must be edited and practically rewritten that it would hardly be just to make a general practice of a courtesy to which only a limited number of authors are entitled. In the instance of our own department, the privilege of screen publicity is extended only when the benefit thereof promises to be of equal advantage to ourselves as well as to the author. As to the question whether directors should best confine themselves to directing and editors to editing, the writer's experience in both capacities has taught him to believe that best results can be obtained through the close co-operatlon of editor and director, rather than through any arbitrary arrangement between the two. During the course of production many a contingency is likely to arise whereby the play may be marred or improved, as the case may be. It would be a pity, indeed, if the director, for fear less he infringe on the editor's province, hesitated to make a change here and there which would improve the play as a whole. No matter how carefully a scenario may have been prepared at the editor's desk, parts of it are bound to turn out differently at rehearsals. The director, therefore, should be invested with sufficient authority to alter according to the dictates of his better judgment. For, after all, when all is said and done, it is he who is held responsible for the success or failure of the production." Fdilor Vekroff puts the proper relationship of editor and director concisely and logically. Anent his argument as to film and poster credit for photoplaywrights, we differ. If an