Pictorial beauty on the screen (1923)

MASTERY IN THE MOVIES 155 best thing, then, is for the writer to limit himself to the bare subject matter of a picture, that is, the general action in which the characters are involved, while the director takes the responsibility for the pictorial treatment of this subject matter. Now comes an interesting question. Which has the more artistic weight on the screen, the treatment of the subject, that is the presentation of the story pictorially, or the subject as such regardless of its presentation ? The same question may be asked of any masterpiece of art; is it distinctive because of the subject matter or because of what the artist has done to that subject matter? In other words, would the subject matter remain distinctive even if it were badly treated ? There are sometimes happenings in real life that can hold one's unwavering attention, no matter how poorly presented in language or picture. For example, if a panic-stricken idiot were to rush to you and say, "It were quick, oh, explosion by Wall Street and lots Of fellers shut up dead and J. P. Morgan's windows all over bloody men every way," you would be shocked — not amused — and you would not stop to consider the ridiculous language of the report. And if by some strange coincidence a camera man had secured a motion picture of that explosion in Wall Street, you would be curious to see that picture, and would undoubtedly be impressed by it, no matter how ineffective might be its photography or pictorial composition. In fiction there may be certain chains of incidents, such as the action of a detective story, which might carry a strong dramatic appeal, even though the Ian