The Motion Picture Studio (1921)

October 8, 1921 THE MOTION PICTURE STUDIO YOUR CORNER FRONT COVER BIOGRAPHIES XV.— CLIVE BROOK After five years’ fighting Clive Brook took up a stage career in August 1918. He played two tours with “ Fair and Warmer ” and then accepted a years’ contract with Reandean. Under this management he played lead in “ Over Sunday,” at St. Martin’s Theatre (his second part on the pro¬ fessional stage) and in " Just Like Judy.” He also created leads in two provincial productions for Reandean. He subsequently played lead with Iris Hoey in the sketch “ Hurbury Pearls,” at the Coliseum, and the princi¬ pal provincial halls. He was featured in his first film, “ Trent’s Last Case,” in July 1920, and since then has tempo¬ rarily relinquished a career on the stage, of the most exceptional promise, to play in “ Her Penalty,” “ Kissing Cup’s Race,” " Loudwater Mystery,” " Daniel Deronda,” “ Sportsman’s Wife,” " Christie Johnston,” “ Sonia,” “ The Experiment,” and “ Shirley.” He has been connected with films for only fourteen months. SCREEN COMEDIANS by MILTON ELMORE Are Stage Comedians Natural Screen Comedians ? In my opinion, they are not ; for, whereas the stage comedians have the assistance of dialogue and music for their interpretations of the characters enacted, the screen comedians have no such aid, and must rely upon the chances afforded by the scenario and their mimetic powers. There are instances of comedians showing great versatility and adaptability both on the stage and before the camera ; but in these cases the comedians have been not merely comedians for either the stage or screen, but earnest students of both branches of art. They have learned that the exaggerations of facial ex¬ pression which have scored to the anti¬ cipatory guffaws on the stage convey very little on the screen where the action must be quickened to save the audience from boredom. Similarly, the light comedian minus witty dialogue and mannerisms is the hopeless inanition of what should otherwise be a frank impersonation of character. The best screen comedian is he who by his mimetic powers can convey to his admirers by so little as a single gesture the ideas or thoughts which would be conveyed by dialogue spoken from the stage. I have met comedians, with not much stage experience, who seemed to me to be born artistes, and after giving them the chance of exhibiting their abilities in the studio have found them to surpass the trained and schooled variety. The passive and impressive qualities which should be the great assets of screen comedians are seldom found in those that have migrated from the stage. Those that are not hampered by thea¬ trical traditions as a rule seem to be most suited for the parts allotted. LETTERS TO WHOSE FAULT? On perusing the pages of your very excellent weekly dated September 17, I noticed therein an article written by a gentleman named M. P. Prout, whose work I have yet to see on the screen. I hope this genueman is aware that the “loss 'of moulding” in an artiste’s face might just possibly be the very splendid work of the present-day printing establish¬ ments.— Basil W. G. Emmott. BAR DUD FILMS Have you noted the public disfavour with which many imported productions, so-called “comedies ” especially, have been viewed lately? Similar stuff on the speaking stage would, I am convinced, quickly “get the bird,” but the silver sheet has no feeling. It is a great pity, but many good pictures are ruined by a senseless, plotless, what I would term “get-rich-quick” production, and, although this sounds revolutionary, it is about time they were outed. What criticism does the above-mentioned rubbish get from the British public before it is foisted on it? I have noticed myself how these films are received, and I have no hesitation in saying that with the slightest stimulus the public will boycot them. It is evident that the directors responsible are not out to keep picture making a fine art, and that is why I used the phrase “get rich quick.” We criticise our own work harshly enough, and yet we allow the market to become glutted with films that bore one to tears. I would like to see a system evolved whereby the general public would be enabled to show their favour or disfavour of a certain type of film. At the present time they are handicapped for reasons which you will quickly see yourself. If your valuable paper could do anything in the matter the effects would be far reaching both for British films and British picturegoers. — H. C. Newton. A CONTRADICTION In your issue of September 24 it is stated by International Artists Films that Will Howse photographed “The Man who For¬ got ” for Hanna. I, myself, was entirely responsible for the photography in that pro¬ duction, with the slight exceptions of a retake of one scene after I left Harma, and a few titles and stills. — Phil Ross. PUBlIC AT FAULT As one who has a great deal of interest in the production of British films, I most emphatically protest against various daily papers publishing in their columns articles entitled “ What is the matter with English films,” etc., and thence following a dis¬ course on the failings of the British film director in general. I wish to state in my humble estimation that the fault with our films lies not with the director, but with the British public. We are all well aware of the public pre¬ judice against a well-known boxer at the present time, and a similar campaign is going on against British films. The public not only very gingerly supports the films for the most part, but are continually grumbling on the lack of English Mary Pickfords, etc. At one of the best kinemas in London, a week ago, two extra big films were being shown, one a picturisation of one of Dickens’s works, produced by an English company, and the other an American one. Despite the fact that even to the crudest of minds, that in the case of the American film, the plot or rather what was THE EDITOR meant to be one had been built around the heroine — in view of her past successes — the public generally was enamoured with it, while in the case of the English film, which was far superior in every detail, it was received with silence except by a few who could appreciate it. One self-possessed critic of the films declared in a loud voice to those about him that he had never heard of the English film company, and it was therefore no good, and that I fear is synony¬ mous with the opinion of the general British public ; because a film had been produced by Englishmen it is no good. If we were in Germany I might understand this, but in England, never. In, conclusion, I wish to say that with the public’s support behind him, the English director would be the best in the world, and it will be a red letter day when they realise that England CAN produce some good films. — Hu Forster. THE CLUB Is a Kinema Club advisable? Most certainly, but for heaven’s sake do only allow as members the real professionals — the experienced — and do not accept Jane, John and Jack only for the sake of collecting fees. Let a member pay a small fixed fee for the year ; let the engagement go through the Kinema Club, and let every engaged artiste pay to the club 3 or 4 per cent, of his weekly salary. The Motion Picture Studio Mr. HERBERT MAULE, Riding Master. PUTNEY RIDING ESTABLISHMENT, la, Camball Road, Putney Hill, S.W.15. Horses supplied to film companies : riding' less-ns given. Terms moderate. ’Phone : PUTNEY, 1984. should be supplied free of charge to every member, the cost to be paid by the club. Take care that to be a member of the club means superiority— an introduction in social life. Would not that be the most secure way to get a sound trade? This would kill the breeding of artistes like rabbits. — Maresco Maris i n 1. THE FREE-LANCE WRITER I like your paper, and I am very pleased that you are making a point of putting forth the case of the F ree Lance Writer, for ‘there will never be any really great films until the Original Screen Play Writer is properly aciknowl edged and properly paid. All the work I have sold in the past — original work, with full scenarios — has been produced as I wrote it, and, save in the case of one. where the director put some of his own stuff in, have met with success and favourable notices in the Press. (Strange to say, the bits he put in had nothing to do with the plot and were the ones that were com¬ mented upon unfavourably, which was most annoying to me, as T never wrote them.) I also note with interest “The Scenario Market and What Producing Firms Require.” Some are hopeful and some are not ; the nols are the firms which seem to want to buy a story for a few pounds, place it in the hands of the firm’s hack writer, or for the purpose of the director to write up the film for some special star, and so cn, and the story has to take its chance and possibly be nothing like the author’s theme. I shall also be interested ' to hear more about the formation of a much-needed Kinema Club, and would like details of the scheme. — Muriel Alleyne. 9