The Motion Picture Studio (1923)

THE MOTION PICTURE STUDIO August ii, 1923 Producers Reply to Novelists Attacks on Screen Resented by British Directors JT was not to be expected that some of the bitter onslaughts on the film by British novelists would remain unchal¬ lenged. In the current number of John o’ London’s Weekly a fairly representa¬ tive collection of the opinions of British directors is given, and we congratulate our contemporary upon its fairness in opening its columns to both sides. We reproduce here the opinions ex¬ pressed : Maurice Elvey The film art lives and thrives in the giare of an intense publicity, and I think our failures are more often commented upon than our successes. In all film pub¬ licity the name of the author is given much greater prominence than in the theatre. The business side of the film world has no desire to hide an author’s name — on the contrary, for obvious busi¬ ness reasons. Mr. Locke’s stories seem io me to be not so much plots as themes, and I have come to the conclusion that this is the medium in which films must be expressed. Mr. H. G. Wells, besides being a genius, is an extraordinarily irritable gentleman. Mr. Wells must remember that his vietys are propaganded by almost every film production, and that a great man such as he is (the most helpful in¬ tellect of this generation, in my opinion) might be advised to be patient and con¬ structive. Mr. Ian Hay and Mr. Frankau seem to belong to the class of author who will sell you his book for the biggest possible price, and then refuse to bother, to ad¬ vise, or to help in any wav. Strangely enough, I have met many authors like this. The infinite patience required to make a film production : the technical know¬ ledge necessary, the long hours of arduous and creative work, seem to “ put ’em off. ” Yes, I do contend that film production and acting are creative. Is it argued that John Sargent is not creative because a Miss Wertheimer suggested herself as a subject for him to paint? Why, then, should not the actor, or the picture pro¬ ducer, be creative in dealing with some¬ one else’s subject-matter? I agree with every word that Mrs. Lowndes and Mme. Albanesi have written. I contend that, except in very few in¬ stances, the author i§ entirely callous as to what happens to the child of his brain once sold, except in so far as publicity is concerned. I note, by the way, that it is the authors whose books are filmed least who grumble the most. Denison Clift Mr. Wells is only partially right. There are many illiterate, gutter brains in the business, forcing down the artistic level ol pictures to meet a fictitious low level of public taste. But there are also many men of the highest literary and artistic achievements in the American studios to¬ day — men from the Universities, the theatres, and publishers’ offices — who are seriously working to lift picture-making te an art. It is untrue that picture producers all unite to dim the author’s voice in pro¬ duction. I know many producers, both here in England and in California, who go to the fountain-head of the idea — the author— for further inspiration. If a personal word may be permitted, I have directed in England the film version of “Sonia,” “Diana of the Crossways,” “A Bill of Divorcement,” and “This Free¬ dom.” In the case of “Diana of the Crossways,” 1 consulted George Meredith’s son, Mr. William Meredith. He joined us in our initial conference, read the com¬ pleted scenario, and was invited to the studio to witness the picture being made, and he made valuable suggestions. The identical procedure took place with Mr. Stephen McKenna, Miss Clemence Dane, and Mr. A. S. M. Hutchinson. In the studio, as the work was proceeding, all of these representatives of famous works expressed their pleasure and satisfaction. Percy Nash Producers have sometimes a great amount of ignorance to contend with in connection with the film financier. For instance, on one occasion, when I was asked to produce Kingsley’s “Westward Ho \” 1 consented on condition that I had Seymour Lucas with me during the pro¬ duction. I was asked “what part he was to play,” and I had to explain to the “powers that be ” that I required Sey¬ mour Lucas because he was the living authority on the “period.” It is perfectly true that pictures have been directed bv so-called producers who have had no right to take such a responsi¬ bility. Producing cannot be learnt in a day, it takes great experience to become a competent film director, and education has something to say in the matter. Miss Marie Corelli does a producer the honour of complimenting him on the film of “Temporal Power.” I had the plea¬ sure of directing that picture in Rome. Can you Afford to miss ‘The Motion Picture Studio ’? T T is obtainable at a limited number A of newsagencies, and may of course always be ordered ; but why not become a subscriber ? For the ridiculous sum of 2/6 it is sent post free to any address in the kingdom for 3 months ; 6 months, 5/-; one year, 10/-. It is the only organ devoted to the interests of British picture-making, and is to be found in every British studio. Don’t think it over, but do it now. Send a remittance to 93, Long A ere, W.C.2. Hugh Croise The “treatment ” of Omar Khayyfim’s famous verse is a successful example of the art of adaptation in excelsis. But what an excellent subject ! The subject, bought for its “publicity” value, regardless of film-play values, may even be a “best-seller.” In this con¬ tingency the producer, more often than not, will find himself confronted with three hundred pages of contradictory, illogical characterisation and other salient imperfections successfully obscured by a cloud of giddy verbiage, which he is opti¬ mistically expected to transform into an actionable, well-constructed film play. Many of the eminent contributors evade or apparently overlook, the fact that most of us, dramatists, novelists and film producers alike, write or produce our wares with a view to hitting the fickle taste of that utterly desirable section of the community who pay their money but don’t always get their choice, and who, to quote Mr. Wells, may be described as “ utterly damned fools.” Walter West Certainlv many producers fail to col¬ laborate with the author, but they are more exception than the rule. In any case, many authors know little or nothing about screen technique or values, and some of them think they do and must be a perpetual worry to a producer who knows his job. The author’s limit is his imagination, the film producers’ limitations are the mionev which he has at his disposal for the production, the market for which the film is to be made, and the eye of the camera. Tom Terriss A film is not produced primarily for the author’s gratification or glorification, but to interest the general public, and by so doing presumably benefit financially the people who have provided the money for its making. Producing a film requires technical skill as well as artistic sense — the former can only be successfully acquired by experi¬ ence, nnd the latter, while it should be innate, is also greatly improved in the same school. Jeffrey Bernerd Having been one of the staunchest sup¬ porters of English authors, and probably the purchaser of more stories written by English authors than any other company, I feel it my bounden duty to reply to some of the stinging criticisms which have been hurled at the film Trade gener¬ ally. There can be no question that there have been great disappointments in the picturisation of a great many novels. In some cases it is quite possible that the stories have been badly treated, and the scenarios have not been of the best, but there is one very important point which must not be overlooked, and that is, I must point out, with the greatest defer¬ ence, that some of the novels, and even 6