The Motion Picture Studio (1921)

THE MOTION PICTURE STUDIO October 8, 1921 KINEMA CLUB BASIS OF THE The Formation Committee has now com¬ pleted its recommendations for the forma¬ tion of the proposed Kinema Club, and these are given below. They will be con¬ sidered and discussed by a general meeting of all directors, artistes, scenarists and cameramen, which will be held in the Court Picture Theatre, at the corner of Tottenham Court Road and New Oxford Street, on Sunday, October 16, at 2.45 p.m. prompt. Name of Ciub. — The following names have been suggested : — Shadow_'Club, Lotus Club, Kinema Club, Anima Club, Focus Club, Iris Club, Pan Club, Kinema Art Club. Object. — The primary object of the Ciub is to cultivate the fraternal spirit among those engaged in the artistic side of British film production. It is further suggested that sub -committees be formed for the furtherance of sports and the provision of legal and medical assistance if required. Membership. — Restricted to directors, artistes, scenarists and cameramen. (a) Ladies to be admitted to membership on the understanding that distinct and separate quarters are provided for them with a main room for general (mixed) intercourse and refreshment. (b) Bona-fide kinema journalists to be ad¬ mitted as Associate Members, but to have no voting power. Constitution. — To be on the basis of the constitution of such clubs as the Garrick, Savage and Green Room. Qualifications of Membership. -{All appli¬ cations for membership have to pass the Quali¬ fication Committee). (a) Artistes. — All recognised screen actors and actresses to be eligible for admission. Each application will be rigorously judged on the merits of the individual by the Qualification Committee, the ruling policy of which will be to make the Club as exclu¬ sive as possible, and to prevent undesirables, either amateurs, supers or screen -struck, getting in. (b) Directors. — Directors wlm have been responsible for the direction of at least six productions ; Assistant Directors and recog¬ nised Art Directors with twelve consecutive months’ experience as such shall be eligible, subject to. passing the Qualification Com¬ mittee. (c) Scenarists. — All Scenarists who have had at least five scenarios accepted within the three previous years and all Scenario Editors who have held such position for more than six months to be eligible, subject to passing the Qualification Committee. (<fi) ( ameramen. — Any Cameraman with a minimum of two consecutive years’ experi¬ ence as a Kine-Cameraman (studio or topical) siiall be eligible, subject to passing the Qualification CommitTge. Subscriptions. — Those joining withip one month of the inauguration of the Club be admitted to full membership on payment of an annual subscription of Three Guineas, and such members shall be admitted free of A 7 a me Vt ill you also send notice of the Meeting to Name . . entrance fee. Those elected after that period shall be admitted on payment of an entrance fee (to be determined later) and a yearly subscription (to be determined later). Members may be admitted to Life Member¬ ship on payment of Twenty Guineas. Associate Members, on payment of One Guinea per annum, free of entrance fee. Finance. — To inaugurate th5 Club on the best possible lines it is necessary to start off with a fund of ^1,000, this to be secured either by Vice Presidents’ subscriptions, twenty Life Members or 300 ordinary members. General Meeting. — All are urged to be present at the meeting on October 16 (see above) to discuss these recommendations and assist in the inauguration of the Club. Signed. — Eille Norwood, Rex Davis, Sydney Paxton, Bertram Burleigh, Arthur Walcott, George Ridgewell, Duncan McRae, Fred Paul, William J. Elliott, Adrian Brunei, George Woods-Taylor, Alfred H. Moses, Frank A. Tilley. FILM SLANDER CASE In the King’s Bench Division, on Wednes¬ day last, before Mr. Justice Rowlatt, a slander action was heard in which parties in the film industry were concerned, the plain¬ tiff being Simon Dupaic Abrahams, cf 1, Alexandra Mansions, West Hampstead, who had been employed as travelling manager and cashier to the Stoll Picture Productions, Ltd., and he sued Wm. L. Folkard, 4, Regent Street, W. (known as Maurice Elvey), of the Stoll Picture Productions, Ltd., Temple Road, Cricklewood, for damages for an alleged slander uttered on November 20, 1920. The defence was a denial of utter¬ ance of the words alleged. Mr. Heddon, in opening the case, said that damages were claimed for alleged slander. Plaintiff was the travelling mana¬ ger and cashier 'of the Stoll Picture Produc¬ tions, Ltd., and the words complained of were said to have been uttered to persons who were still employees of that company, and who had been subpoened to give evi¬ dence. These people were Paul Berger, the' photographic manager of the company, Joseph Grossman, the studio manager, and Jeffrey Bernard, the managing director. The plaintiff was appointed travelling manager and cashier in respect of a tour in France for the purpose of making a film, “A Gentleman of France.” The defendant, Mr. Folkard, who was known as Maurice Elvey, was directing the production, and plaintiff and defendant were in the touring party, and they went to Aurrillac. There was trouble between the plaintiff and the defendant from the beginning, the arrangements that the plaintiff made for the party were constantly interfered with by the defendant and a lot of dissension resulted. Mr. Justice Rowlatt : Could you not make a film of “A Gentleman of E'rance ” without going to France? Counsel : That 1 do not know ; but I think Address Address it was necessary to get a suitable place where the light was good, the scenery suit¬ able, and there was the necesary “ local colour.” Counsel proceeded to add that Mr. Abrahams experienced much difficulty by reason of the upsetting of the arrangements made. When they got to Aurrillac the defendant said the place was quite unsuit¬ able, and at greatly increased ’expense the party went to Nice, where there were alleged to be joy-rides to Monte Carlo, etc., and plaintiff (it was alleged) was asked to pay unnecessary expenditure out of the assets of the company. The party returned on November 18, and on November 20 there was a meeting at the studio at Surbiton, at which the affairs of the tour were reviewed. In the course of that meeting a communication was made to the plaintiff by Mr. Grossman and Mr. Berger, and as the result of that the plain¬ tiff consulted his solicitors. The plaintiff’s complaint was that the defendant used the words : “vHe (meaning plaintiff) has been receiving illicit commissions and wilfully wasting the firm’s money.” The plaintiff was dismissed from the firm's employment, and he now claimed damages. Simon Abrahams, in his evidence, said he was demobilised from the Army in May, 1919, and he entered the employment of the Stoll Picture Productions, Ltd., in December, 1919. Joseph Grossman gave evidence that he was the studio manager in the service of the Stoll Company, and was now present on subpoena from both parties. At the meeting in question there was a general discussion with regard to the tour, the finances were gone into, and it transpired in the discussion that Mr. Elvey had had brought to his notice by one of his assistants that a certain amount of commission had been returned by a French firm. The commission was supposed to have been returned by one of the French firms from whom horses had been hired, and the matter had originated by Mr. Elvev saying it was a French custom to return commissions. They did not look upon that in France as a corrupt practice. The name of the plaintiff was not mentioned in connection with this commission busi¬ ness, and no mention was made of any irregularity on the part of the plaintiff. Mr. Berger was next called, and he deposed that the defendant first raised the question of the commission, and made a remark about Mr. Abrahams not being capable enough for the job. Mr. Elvey was asked if he suggested that plaintiff was dishonest, and he said “No.” Witness said that the discussion about money matters did not con¬ cern him, and he did not interest himself much. He remembered Mr. Elvey saying they could have saved money on commis¬ sions, and that he believed commissions had been returned, but he did not say to whom. Jeffrey Bernard, managing director of the Stoll Picture Company said the conversation about the commission was started by Mr. Elvey. In a general discussion about the tour witness made bitter complaints of the expenses incurred, and Mr. Elvey said he remembered occasions when Mr. Beverley, an assistant, had ben offered the return of commissions by French firms, mentioning that that was quite a usual thing in France. Leading out of that, witness put a leading question to Mr. Elvey to the effect, “You don’t suggest Mr. Abrahams is dishonest? ” To this Mr. Elvey replied that Mr. Abrahams was too much of a fool to be dishonest. Peggy McCall, the scenario editor, was also called, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case Mr. Justice (Rowlatt said no slander had been proved. Judgment was entered for the defendant with costs. Fill in this Form and post it to ihe Hon. Secretary, c\o this Office. 1 desire to be present at the GENERAL MEETING of the KINEMA CLUB. 8