Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep 1911)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 61 Possibilities of the Film By Edward R. Higgins, Staff Artist, Chicago Inter-Ocean. May an outsider be permitted a few critical remarks anent the moving picture business? Frankly, I believe few producers realize the possibilities of the film. The art of the photoplay is yet in its infancy. Development is bound to come. There are producers, notably the Selig, Vitagraph and Edison companies, whose work is generally excellent. Others occasionally publish fine pictures, but do not keep continually up to a high standard. Like the author, the artist or the actor, the film manufacturer will be judged by his poorest product. In these modern days of competition there is no room for mediocrity in film manufacture or anything else. The creative faculty never stands still — it must advance or retrograde. The motion picture has reached a high standard of mechanical perfection — a splendid vehicle for artistic expression. Yet day after day we see the same grade of mediocre photoplays produced throughout the country, with only an occasional redeeming film here and there. Are American film producers satisfied with the present quality of their wares? Will their splendid business opportunities be run into the ground with penny wise economies, cheap melodrama and comedy continually rehashed, inartistically arranged, poorly acted, the same old things over and over again? There is no mystery about public taste in the photoplay. People have become surfeited with monotony. Horse play and vulgarity cannot last. Audiences are sick of "Western Drama" — of the same old daughter of the same old sheriff and the same old gallant cow-punching gentlemen. Variety is needed and is essential to business development. Variety in class of films — fiction, history, travel, industry, science, trick films, etc. Variety in composition and arrangement of scenes — tinting and coloring. Variety in plot and locale of stories. Variety in type of actors. With all literature to call on for a plot, why do film producers putter around with cheap scenarios? One doesn't need to turn to a Shakespeare, a Dante or a Milton for spectacular ideas. The shelves of any library are filled with available scenarios; clever, strong, educational, uplifting stories which would grip and hold an audience. History is filled with available incidents for the photoplay. Some of the finest films ever produced are of this class — a reproduction of actual events. Surely more intelligent use could also be made of current happenings in which the camera has the advantage in competition with magazines and newspapers. Travel pictures offer logically a splendid chance for the camera man, but are frequently disappointing owing to poor judgment in view selection. Architecture and landscape, when artistically taken, are desirable, but must be supported with the human element. Foreign people, their markets, crowds on principal streets, their industries and amusements are tremendously interesting. The marvels of science are almost new territory for the moving picture. Natural history, botany, chemistry, etc., are an inexhaustible supply of material. An occasional trick film, if well done, is a welcome change from the sameness of the motion picture show. Why are they apparently dying out? Experiments along this line should be valuable educators for the camera man. In scenic arrangement the average director is manifestly deficient. More or less he is groping blindly for his effects. Stage craft, with it> traditions, set pieces, painted scenery and stereotyped effects, is the bane of the picture. An artist, preferably an illustrator, should be employed as assistant to the director for the working out of effects. The photoplay is a series of pictures — not a stage. The rules of composition and balance, arrangement of light and shade, etc., are essential to a perfect picture. The French understand this fact, and we have seen some remarkable applications of principles of composition in their films. However, aside from technical training, the use of common sense would improve the average scene. Interiors are habitually stagy — cluttered with cheap furniture, pictures, etc., and obviously made up. Landscape is more often than not poorly chosen. Directors might with advantage have men out making kodak records of promising landscape and architectural bits for future reference. As action of players close to the camera has proven effective, it is being worked to death. Variation in distance from camera is desirable. Tinted and colored films always make pleasing variety. While the new color process may not be available to the general producer, much can be done along other lines. The tinting of films should be studied and the natural color tone of the scene reproduced as far as possible. For example, the warm glow of the artificial light of a ball-room, the brown tones of the autumnal landscape the blue greens of ' the sea. Such effects would be economical and pleasing if subtly used. For spectacular pictures a combination of hand coloring and the tinting bath should give good results. In coloring film by hand, color scheme for each scene should be laid out by a competent artist. Speed of production would be obtained according to number of operators employed. Each operator handling only one color on six replicas of film, working with enlarging glass, if necessary, would develop almost printing press time. The general effect would depend on the excellence of original color scheme and careful supervision of operators. Enterprising producers cannot afford to be without an efficient color department. There is no profession so crowded with talent as the stage. Good actors are open for engagements at all times, particularly during the summer months — the best season for the camera man. Would not the employment of a good company of real actors with a well-known star for leads, be a paying investment if economically done? Surely it would attract new and desirable custom and give prestige and publicity to the producer. It would also raise the status of the present photoplayers as well as the photoplay itself. The present practice of not publishing cast by name on film is a mistake and cheapens the actors taking part . The time is at hand for the motion picture press agent. Producers must have publicity bureaus sooner or later. An evil they may be, but a necessity they are to any large amusement enterprise. Already producers are becoming known to the public. A Selig, an Edison or a Vitagraph film will attract custom simply because their names stand for excellence of product. How much more would this be the fact with judicious publicity? The time is coming when competition will be strenuous for excellence of workmanship, regardless of expense. A single inferior product will immeasurably cheapen the prestige of a producer. If there is a call for low grade films they should be published under a different name. • Two Interior Views of Majestic Theater, Winnipeg, Can.