The Motion Picture Studio (1921)

THE MOTION PICTURE STUDIO October 29, 1921 “ CASTLES IN SPAIN” ACTION JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF H. LISLE LUCOQUE In our last issue we gave a full report of the legal proceedings in respect to “Castles in Spain," and the hearing was resumed last Thursday, when further evidence was called for plaintiff, H. Lisle Locoque, who sued Gaumont for money alleged to be payable to himself. I. Roseman, of West Kensington, who did the camera work for “Castles in Spain,’’ said it was a good film, and was well received at the Trade show. Col. Bromhead told witness that he was well satisfied with it. Mrs. Scott, of the American Co., London agent for the American Film Co., of Chicago, said the film was a good all-round produc¬ tion, but she would not call it a super film. R W. Rigg, him renter, of Leeds. New¬ castle and London. who> had seen the film, said it was a good standard British produc¬ tion. Films cost from ,£3,000 to ,£'40,000 to produce. flis Lordship observed that success was not always the test of a work or piece. Milton only got £20 for “Paradise Lost. Witness did not consider a garden scene from Virginia Water as out of place for the cottage of Milton of “Pasties in Spain." His Lordship : Shakespeare put a scene on the Coast of Bohemia, and I never heard of anyone leaving the theatre because of that. A E. Vaughan, of the Vaudeville Picture Theatre, Bath, said he was so* pleased with the film that he booked it, believing it would be a success . For the defence, A. C. Bromhead, managing director for defendants, said he told plaintiff he must decide maximum cost of production, and plaintiff said it would not be more than .£3,500. Witness said do not starve production, but make maximum £4,000. Plaintiff agreed that that amount would be ample. Witness had advanced ,£4,500 in respect of the film. W hen he saw the complete film he was dissatisfied, 'and told plaintiff he did not think much of it .as it was too patchy, with nothing else but titles and sub-titles. It was agreed that if there were a loss they should bear half each. Witness considered that the film told the story haltingly, abruptly and disjointedly and unconvincingly, and made no real suc¬ cessful appeal to the emotions. It was a waste of such good artistes as Aubrey Smith and Lilian Braithwaite. Witness had taken £3,200 in rent for the film in the United Kingdom. Reginald Bromhead, Secretary and General Manager for defendants, said there was a total loss on the production of about £2,500. The film had the elements of the story and actors in its favour, but the actual handling and direction were badly carried out. Paul Kimberley, of Hepworth, who had seen the film, pronounced it as not being a first-class British film according to the stan¬ dard of March, 1920. It was a second-rate film story, poorly told by means of badly worded sub¬ titles, illustrated by a moving-picture and contained many technical camera, faults Wm Gavazzi King, General Secretary of the C.E.A., said in his view the film was not a first-class standard one of the time. The production failed to conform to any cannons of criticism in respect to any of the particular characteristics which a film must possess. It failed as a story, photographically, and from the point of view of settings and from the dramatic point of view, not because of the capacity of the actors and actresses, but because the actors and actresses had not been given an opportunity to utilise their histrionic gifts. J. Brooke Wilkinson, Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors and the In¬ corporated Association of Kinematograph Manufacturers, considered the film a childish production with a lack of imagination .and artistic faculty on the part of the producer. Geo. Barrington, film reviewer for the Pro¬ vincial Cinema Theatres, Ltd., agreed that the production was a poor one. Crossexamined : Witness thought that the British standard of films were generally not lower than the American, though the latter had had fifteen years’ start Mr. Morris, K.C., for plaintiff, suggested that the production was full of sob stuff. Witness : It had hardly got that. It did not appeal to one’s nature. I. IL Davidson, a film manufacturer, characterised the film as amateurish. Mr. Hogg, K.C.j for defendants: What do you think of the charge of £40 to £50 for the hire of the dog? Witness : It seems excessive. It would have been better to* have bought a dog foT £2. (Laughter.) A. Bowler Reed, a film reviewer, expressed the opinion that it was deplorable to see a talented American actor acting as wet-nurse to a cat and a dog. He never realised what the builder of castles was at or after. Cross-examined : He thought the acting m most cases good. He could not express any opinion as to* the production, but only as to how it appealed to him as a film. Further evidence was given by H. W. Mason, of the Impartial Film 'Report ; I. Josephs, director of Butcher Films; and Gerald Ames, actor and director, of Hepworth. j. H. Taylor, formerly plaintiff’s partner, said the agreement with defendants was that the production should not exceed , £4,000. Plaintiff agreed to share any loss on film. Mr. Justice Coleridge, in giving judg¬ ment, said that the .agreement was on March 24, 1920, but the terms the parties thought they had really arrived at had not been put into writing. He had to decide what was the arrangement .and if there was any definite arrangement at all. Much of the controversy had turned ’on the question of the maximum cost of the pro¬ duction, and it certainly would have been an unusual and improvident bargain by the defendants if the plaintiff had been left at large in the matter of expenditure. It was reasonable to expect that the parties did agree on some sum. The defendants said the maximum cost was to be £4,000, and plaintiff said the moment was to be some¬ thing between £3,500 and £4,500. He thought it probable that a maximum cost was agreed on, although the letters did not help him on this subject. The defendants paid £4,500 at a time and on an occasion that seemed to bear the impress they thought that was the maximum cost, and not £4,000, and that by that payment they were discharging their obligations. The next question was : Was the film according to the contract? It was not expected that a film would be provided that would be accepted with rap¬ ture by the public, for the parties were only too well aware of the capricious and treacherous taste of the public. What the plaintiff agreed to produce was a first-class British standard kinematograph film from the scenario based on the story, and he (the Judge) had had the greatest difficulty in arriving at what was a first-class British standard kinematograph film. It was easy for experts to come and say, “ In my opinion it was,” or “In my opinion it was not.” These opinions did not guide him very much ; he had not personally seen the film, and if he had he might like it or dislike it on grounds other than those that the public might like it or dislike it. Nobody had described what the words “standard film” meant. It had been said that the words “British standard film ” meant the highest pitch of production, but on the other hand it was said British meant British in March, 1920, when we were fifteen years behind the Americans in productions, and when British first-class film was something not equal to the American first-class, although by now we had caught them up. Some of the experts said it was childish 10 suppose that anybody would sit it out, let alone go or encourage anybody else to go and see it. Experts for the defendants were most unappreciative and said they could not understand what it was all about. Yet others said it was just the sort of thing that was wanted, and that the public, when they had been sufficiently drenched with blood, assassination and adultery, liked to come back to the clean, old-English village life stories. He (the Judge) did not know if the wave of popular feeling did go to and fro like that, but what he was mostly guided by in this matter was what the parties seemed to have thought of the film at the time. There were shows of the film, and he found that the defendants paid £2,000 to make up the £4,500, and he thought they paid upon the footing that the plaintiff had fulfilled his contract. For the defendants issued an .advertisement in which they praised the film, as something extraordinarily good, and appreciatively referred to the Maypole scene. The defendants approved of it, and it was difficult for him (the Judge) to believe that they were entitled, when it suited them, to deny it and, when it suited them, also to praise it. He was bound to come to the conclusion that the defendants, by their conduct, recog¬ nised that whatever “ first-class British standard film ” meant, the plaintiff had ful¬ filled the contract. He was not satisfied that subsequently, when defendants claimed to treat the contract as ended, the plaintiff agreed to any new arrangement. It was now left to decide, was the cost reasonable? There was. an item of £40 for a bulldog. He thought that was 'extrava¬ gant, and he reduced it to £20. For the hiring of the motor for .a few weeks £211 was ridiculous, and would be reduced by £100. The figure for scenery was extravagant and £500 would be reduced by £325. He deducted £57 3 10s. altogether from the £4,500 due for the film. The net result of ihe account would be that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for £427, and also for £697 as indemnity for expenses incurred by the plaintiff for advertising. The defendants were granted a stay of execution on the terms of payment into Court in 14 days. BENJAMIN’S FOR BEST COSTUMES THE LARGEST STOCK IN LONDON OF COSTUME UNIFORMS, and CHARACTER DRESSES suitable for Kinematograph Productions. Phone— London Wall 75 6