The Motion Picture Studio (1923)

August ii, 1923 THE MOTION PICTURE STUDIO those which have been popular successes, have been harshly criticised as stories which have many faults. When these stories have been picturised, these faults have become so apparent that the film has been a failure, and to th$ author’s astonishment he sees brought to life in moving pictures what may be, even to himself, the author, very distasteful. It will be noted that the producer, who is so frequently assailed with accusations of illiteracy and crudity of mind is, at least, more temperate in his language and qualified in his outlook than certain of our famous novelists. This is surely a point in his favour — even if it is only a small one. We are confirmed bv the above views in our own belief that the approval or dis¬ approval of the kinema on the part of this or that author depends in nearly every instance upon the individual experi¬ ence of the writer concerned, and that therefore any wholesale abuse of the screen story as such is pointless and of little value. To those novelists wrhose experience has been unfortunate, we can • •illy express 'the liope that one day they may realise upon investigation that there are intelligent, sympathetic and creative men in our Industry with whom they (as many of their brother craftsmen have found) can collaborate. It is also worth pointing out again that the critics of what is wrong in our Indus¬ try have no monopoly of carping by virtue of their being outside it. Denison Clift’s attitude is typical of that of many of his colleagues. There are “duds” amongst us, and to say that there are not is simply behaving like the proverbial ostrich which hides its head in the sand at the advent of danger. There are as many critics ot films from every angle within the Indus¬ try as without it ; and tneir criticism should be voiced on every possible occa¬ sion. All the gibes and jokes about films are to be matched by others, and we are big enough to laugh at ourselves. But, in addition to those novelists who have lately expressed their approval, many names could be cited from among writers who see in the motion picture a wonderful field for story exposition and treatment. On the Islington studio floor this week, for instance, we chatted to Michael Mor¬ ton, who deciared that as a general rule, when an author grumbled it was his own fault. Mr. Morton thinks, very reason¬ ably, that until authors make up their minds to take a serious interest in the screen as a story-telling medium, they will have only themselves to thank for bad results. “Woman to Woman” is the result of much collaboration, and in that recently completed picture and the present Graham Cutts production “The Awaken¬ ing ” (which, by the way, is an original Michael Morton screen story), he is con¬ vinced that the author’s position is often misunderstood. Mr. Morton believes that the unprejudiced author will find in the screen a wonderful medium for the ex¬ pression of dramatic ideas and atmo¬ sphere, and that the intelligent director and script-writer will find co-operation with the author indispensable. He scouts the recently promulgated doctrine that the screen-play stultifies the imagina¬ tion. “ On, the contrary,” he told us, “the film is the greatest stimulus to the im¬ aginative faculties of mankind ever de¬ vised. ” Screen MEASURING UP TE “ The Little Door into the World ” Dewhurst Productions — Story and Scen¬ ario by George Dewhurst — Directed by George Dewhurst — Photographed by Gustav Pauli and Frank Cadman — ■ Leading Players : Lawford Davidson, Nancy Baird, Olaf Hytten, Peggy Paterson, Victor Tandy, Arthur Mayhew. HIS picture has an unusual story, a good title, some beautiful settings and a capable cast. Yet it falls distinctly short of being a successful picture. The theme is a charming one, with a strong leaning towards fantasy — so strong, in fact, that the settings of a nunnery and a fancy-dress ball are indeterminate as regards period, and help to convey a suggestion of universality in the story, until some flash-backs and visions defi¬ nitely set it as modern. As a story, it has the merit of being unhackneyed. The novice from the nunnery, who saves a dancer from her own father is a good idea. Its development, however, soon becomes unconvincing, and it is not easy to determine exactly why. The scenario progresses fairly logically, but the action becomes unreal. The characters are not wonderfully interesting, and few of them seem to have much per¬ sonality. Their meetings and procedure seem to be rather casual, and their con¬ duct unnaturally expressed. In some re¬ spects, and to some degree, the direction must be at fault. Many of the scenes convey very little and hold up the story. Coming Trade Shows “ Guy Fawkes ” Stoll — Adapted from Harrison Ains¬ worth’s novel — Directed by Maurice Elvey — Art Director, Walter W. Murton — Photographed by J. C. Cox — Leading Players : Matheson Lang, Nina Vanna. Scala Theatre, Tuesday, September 4.. at 3 p.m. “ Chu Chin Chow ” Graham-Wilcox — Adapted from the plav by Oscar Asche and Frederic Norton — Directed by Herbert Wilcox — Photographed by Rene Guissart — Leading Players : Betty Blythe, Her¬ bert Langley, Judd Green. Marble Arch Pavilion, Mondav, Septem¬ ber 17. “ Out to Win” Ideal — From the Shaftesbury Theatre of the same norm — Directed by Denison Clift — Photographed bv Wil¬ liam Shenton — Leading Players : Clive Brook, Catherine Calvert, Nor¬ man Page, Cameron Carr, Olaf Hytten, A. B. Imeson, Ivo Dawson, Robert English, E. Dagnall. Marble Arch Pavilion, Friday, August 17. at 11 a.m. Values 1 WEEK’S PRODUCT The atmosphere is one of corrupt reck¬ lessness and turgid emotion during a large part of the story, with the result that the onlv two characters who are at all admirable are the worst played — the voung girl who becomes a nun, and hei lover. The one is colourlessly virtuous and the other does nothing heroic to speak of ; and both are indifferently enacted. There is also a most unpleasant flavour to the revelation that the man who attempts to seduce the young girl is in fact her father. The visions and flash-backs are rather excessive. Nancy Baird, as the heroine is. in our opinion, an example of the inadvisability of placing a leading part in the hands of an inexperienced artiste. The producer’s efforts to get something from her are as obvious as her failure to respond more than partially, and whatever credit is due to her performance must undoubtedly be his, as her part is in more senses than one, that of a novice. Arthur Mayhew is also distinctly wanting in personality. But the other and more competent and ex¬ perienced players also fail to convince. Lawford Davidson, who looks too young to be the gift’s father, is quite ordinarily unpleasant ; and his personality has not been well exploited. Olaf Hytten’s is the most successful performance, although his part, intended to be sympathetic at the end, quite fails to destroy previous impres¬ sions. Victor Tandy, in an inadvisable religious costume, has very little chance to do much, and Peggy Paterson does not seem quite at home. There is one factor which adversely affects the performances of everyone, and reduces the interest all through ; and that is the photography, which is unaccount¬ ably below the very high revel of the cameraman’s usual work. Why this should be so is a mystery ; perhaps also the fact of all the scenes being night ones has something to do with it ; but the effect is undoubtedly to obscure the action very seriously. Some very fine exterior light¬ ing effects, and one or two good interior ones are impressive in long shots ; but where the action is intimate they fall short. The! interior scenes are handsomely mounted, and the crowds are capitally handled. There is an evident sincerity about the picture; but its inconclusive direction and obscureness of treatment by players and cameraman do much to minimise its grip; and although it cannot be dismissed as a bad or inept production, yet it must be regarded as a most disappointing one, especiallv to those who know what ex¬ cellent work the director and those asso¬ ciated with tim have done in the past, and will, no doubt, do in the future. It is certainlv no testimonial to Germany as a field for British film-makers. Summary Direction : Fair, but uneven. Story : Excellent in theme, but patch' in development. Scenario : Fair, but lacking grip. Acting : Unconvincing. Exteriors : Very good Interiors : Excellent. Photography : Mediocre. 7