The Motion Picture Studio (1921)

October 8, 1921 THE MOTION PICTURE ? STUDIO Editorial and /7 /a* . / Telegrams — Advertise Southernwood, ment Offices, 85, Long Acre, London, W.C.2. Vettm athe focal Rand, London. Telephone — Gerrard 9870. Vol. 1. No. 18 a Oct. 8, 1.921 The Censorship Danger. '“THERE is an increasing tendency to -*■ demand State censorship of the screen. And it is not confined to this country. Like all other questions which are taken up by extremists, the need for severely restricting the scope of the photo¬ play is grotesquely exaggerated. The reformers’ attitude that the screen should be emasculated so that it is fit for children is as ridiculous as would be a similar demand on literature, the drama, or art. Unfortunately, though going to violent extremes, the reformers have some ground for their complaints. To a large extent the making of pictures has been, especially in America, in the hands of men with little culture and misguided _ imaginations. It has also suffered from the cosmopolitan commercialist whose mind cannot get be¬ yond sensation and violence — who be¬ lieves that these are the things the public wants because they are the only things which hehimself can appreciate. Thus in the cruder types of films — and this ap¬ plies more especially to American films — there is a continual repetition of physical violence, viciousness and lust. In the more pretentious pic _ __ tures the tendency has been towards subtle suggestion and sensuous display. Better Men and Better Films. '"THAT these films exist gives the -*• reformers an excuse for their agita¬ tion. So do “ bathing girl ” comedies in which the bathing girl is only introduced in order to give the film a sex appeal. But the existence of such films does not furnish a reason for a rigid censorship that would regard the photoplay from the standpoint of the needs of children any more than a salacious play or a pornographic book would justify the imposition of such a censorship on the drama and literature. The film producing Industry is capable of putting its own house in order. Better men — in the sense of being more educated and more artistic — are being attracted to the photoplay; and the more of them that come in, the harder will it be for the pur¬ veyors of sensation and salacity to continue their bad work. But the imposition of a censorship — especially a censorship con¬ trolled by bureaucrats, disappointed women and people who are under the delusion that their mission in life is to regulate the lives of others — would be fatal to the development and growth of a screen art. To make a comparison with a similar form of censorship on literature, it would produce — or rather allow — nothing but “ Sandford and Mertons,” “ Danes bury Houses tracts. and Sunday school better pictures. It is better pictures and more of them. There can never be too many good pictures, either for the Trade or for the exhibitor. The greater the number of good films and the smaller the number of bad ones, the larger will be the expansion in the size of the public interested in kinema-going. Such expansion is good for the director and the artiste. They can do their part to bring it about by con¬ centrating on the production of better pictures and still better and more of them. Let America reduce her output. To make up her programs she will have to take in the best from the rest of the world. Already she. is doing so. French, Swedish and German pictures are getting on to the screens of the United SCREEN MEASURING UP “ The Fruitful Vine ” (Stoll) is one of Stoll’s best. It possesses technique of a high order, vyhile the story has been turned into a scenario with credit to all concerned. Interior sets are lavishly magnificent while the picture also possesses good scenic value. To Maurice Elvey great praise is due for beating the Americans at their own game: elaborate productions ; while his cameraman’s work beats the average American photography. The cast has been well chosen but the members are mere than types — -they are artistes. Mdlle. Valya’s performance is a triumph of histrionic art and Fred Raynham also con¬ tributes highly to the general success of the production, but Irene Rooke fails to make the best of her opportunities. “ Love at the Wheel ” ( Masters ) is quite good pictorial entertainment despite certain defects that it possesses. Clare Greet' s work is the best piece of charac VALUES THE WEEK’S PRODUCT terisation in the picture but Pauline Johnson's opportunities for displaying her talents are reduced to a minimum. Poor direction is responsible for much that is faulty in the production but not the motor racing scenes at Brooklands, and photography is never poor. “Laughter and Tears” ( Granger Binger provides a vehicle for Evelyn Brent to score another personal triumph. Her artistry is superb. She is a screen genius. The direction of the production has not been handled with the maximum amount of intelligent care and photography is not all it might be. In fact the technical properties of the production are much weaker than the artistic, for the chief characters are well cast. Adelqui Millar in addition to being the author plays lead and submits a good dramatic performance. Bert Darley, too, is really convincing and suggestive of greater possibilities. States in increasing numbers. It is our business to see that our pictures are good enough to get their share of this market A Film Shortage ? A NUMBER of people, including many exhibitors, hold the opinion that next year there will be a shortage of films, resulting in great competition, to the damage of the small exhibitor. This opinion is based chiefly on the fact that America has curtailed her output, which at present is less than 40 oer cent, of what it was a year back. Why this should postulate a shortage of films it is difficult to understand, for the real reason for the falling off in production is that America has been making far too many ordinary — and often mediocre — pictures. If she is now making fewer and better pictures, it is not from any ethical belief ; it is a necessity which is purely commercial. And while there is plenty of room for better pictures, it is surely a mistake to aim at fewer. What is wanted is not fewer and The Club. CUNDAY, Octo ^ ber 1 6, will witness the inaugura¬ tion of the muchneeded Club for those engaged in the artistic side of British film produc¬ tion. And with the advent of the Club the profession will vest itself with a new and necessary dignity. No longer should the film artiste be regarded as the Cinder¬ ella of the theatrical profession ; member¬ ship of the Club will provide the artiste with the same status that membership of the Green Room Club does the theatrical actor and of the Savage the literary folk. That there will be misgivings among many is a sure fact, but we are confident that these will be found to be groundless when the Qualification Committee comes to exert a strong and stern supervision of the individual merits of individual appli¬ cants. There have been futile attempts in the past to form a Club, but never has the suggestion obtained the influential backing that this proposal has. Providing the necessary financial support is forth¬ coming — there should be a flourishing centre of social intercourse by Christmas. And we welcome its advent because its effect will be to close up the ranks. 3