The screen writer (June 1947-Mar 1948)

REPORT ON QUESTIONNAIRE met in securing studio front office permission to reprint these scripts as the writers wrote them. The Committee will give renewed attention to this question. Another sharply defined main current of reader interest showing up in the questionnaire returns is the matter of markets. The demand for marketing information was almost as insistent as the concern with craft discussions. There were many requests for frequent analyses of story trends, and for articles by studio story editors presenting their needs. The Committee has not been unmindful of the interest in such material, and of its importance. The question has been discussed by the present and preceding editors. One of the hazards involved is the highly competitive story market in Hollywood and the doubt that story editors would be free to discuss with complete frankness their story needs. Fear has been expressed that any lack of full, authentic information might be the derailing switch shunting too many writers to the sidetrack of speculative writing. However, the Committee will re-examine this problem in the light of the questionnaire returns. Another prevalent request was for regular publication of motion picture reviews and criticisms. But many members remain unconvinced that in a magazine published by screen writers it would be wise policy to open the pages to critical review of pictures which represent the work of SWG members. Film criticism on a high professional level can be found in the Hollywood Quarterly. In THE SCREEN WRITER the editors believe there should be ample space for general critical surveys of the motion picture product, and for discussion of the technical problems involved in the writing of specific pictures. But they would prefer to leave the matter of film reviewing to general membership directive, hoping at the same time that the magazine will provide the nation's film critics with a better understanding of the writers' contribution to pictures and with a more informed basis for a fair, intelligent approach to criticism. Acute interest was expressed in the economic and employment problems of writers. Extensive comments were made in praise of the Screen Writers' Guild fight for the American Authors' Authority plan. Scores of suggestions were made for more articles dealing with the problems of young writers. These came not only from the younger writers, but from many old Hollywood hands who apparently have a sense of responsibility toward the younger writers and toward the future of screen writing. It was clearly evident that a great deal of emphasis is desired on the question of writers' rights, on employment and on the economic trends within the motion picture industry. Another regularly recurring suggestion was for more articles on censorship, the production code, and the use of films devoted to "pure entertainment" for presenting a misleading and immature picture of American life. Interesting to the Editorial Committee was the response to the question concerning format. As indicated in the tabulation, among SWG members there was a majority in favor of, or agreeable to a change to a larger and more flexible size. Among non-members the majority opinion was in favor of retaining the original small size. A general comment, however, was that content, not size or typography, was the important thing. There were a few rather violent objections to the inclusion of advertising, and a great many more opinions favoring the limited use of advertising to help SWG meet the expenses of the magazine. People with publishing experience were almost unanimously in favor of changing to a larger, more standard size. There were a great many complaints about the unshaded type hitherto used. In the questionnaire space left open for criticisms and suggestions there were hundreds of comments. Most of them were constructive, helpful, filled with praise for the magazine, and the Editorial Committee hereby expresses its gratitude for them. But the Committee is also grateful for the criticism, some of which was frank and barbed. It read with special interest and attention the 40 negative answers to the question of whether or not the magazine is succeeding in its objective to provide the SWG and the motion picture industry with an adult, useful public relations medium emphasizing the contribution of writers and their creative aims in the screen art. These negative answers concerning the success of the magazine were largely qualified by statements that it had only partially achieved its objectives; that it had failed to be sufficiently interesting and broad in its appeal; that it had failed to print illustrations mandatory in a magazine devoted to a visual medium ; that it was too much or too little of a house organ; that it had published too many personal political attacks, and griped too much about the economic problems of writers. Here are some of the more critical comments from SWG members: "It makes screen writers seem like a gang of chiselers more interested in their economic gains and political rights than in the artistic development of their craft." "Too partisan; keep it out of union politics." "Too obviously a public relations medium. If it were a better trade organ — a better magazine — it would naturally become a public relations medium but would not be so readily recognized as such." "Too much concentration on SWG problems." "It is too limited in its scope." "We sound like a bunch of disgruntled adolescents with chips on our shoulders, and most of the time not our own chips." "It has a general air of waspishness reminiscent of spinsters who couldn't get raped. Too much flimsy stuff by people who wont take the trouble to put body into their work. . . . A political attitude which may be right or wrong, but is pre-determined. Cut out the anonymous editorials. You are trustees, not owners." "Too often used to fry personal fish." "Too much space given to political indignation, too 31