The screen writer (Apr-Oct 1948)

will receive royalties, time without end. F producers want us to do our best unstintingly, even within the formula, let us, as Mr. Goldwyn suggests, by all means work as people do in the theatre, but let's all do it, not just the writers. In complaining that writers say to him, "I can't even think about your story unless I'm being paid," Mr. Goldwyn overlooks the fact that the operative word is "your." Today the story is the producer's in every sense of possession. He owns the basic material, he can dictate the inclusion or omission of every line of dialogue, he is, in fact, by contract deemed to be the actual author, he, or M-G-M or something else incorporated in Delaware. Is it surprising that there should be a mildly venal and suspicious attitude' on the part of the "writer? That he lacks selfless enthusiasm for working on a story he cannot make "his," by no matter what effort or skill? In passing, it should be understood that Mr. Goldwyn is not the personal target of this article. Rather, he is to be respected for the intention of the sentiments he voiced and to be thanked for giving writers the opportunity to clarify his thesis and to carry its implications further. "VTOW we come to the challenge. *• ^ We cannot ask the motion picture real estate enterprise to stop making pictures down the groove in the foimula which more or less satisfactorily fills its eight-five million seats. But there is a possibility of making other pictures, filling other seats, appealing to another audience. Again, let us do as they do in the theatre, where the producer spends only as much money as he considers wise in respect to a possible audience and seating capacity for a specific show. The Theatre Guild, to illustrate briefly, does not commit itself to the point where it has to attract the patrons of Minsky in order to break even. The ordinary motion picture cannot be made for a selected audience like the Theatre Guild's. It costs too much money, and must, therefore, aim a little higher than Minsky and a little lower than the Theatre Guild. So be it. We challenge producers to try something new, to take their proper place in revitalizing the American film, to make some pictures for a spe* cial audience. It could be done, not easily, but it could be done. As follows: Pick an unusual group of stories for an unusual audience, without reference to the PTA, without requiring the interest of untold millions, stories that appeal to mature or at least inquiring minds. Make pictures at an absolute minimum, enlisting the cooperative participation of actors, writers, directors, cameramen. Let no one, including yourself, expect any sure return until it has been earned. Be prepared to be happy if you don't lose money. Forget about names. Cast as the story demands to be cast. Advertise these pictures as not being for the general public. Be bold and warn children of all ages to stay away, that this is not their cup of tea. Make a boast of denying the fetishes we are all hampered by. Reject, by rejecting their patronage, the right to apply their taboos of the many organizations that lay clammy hands on originality. "W THERE would you release such * * pictures? You can work it out. You control the machinery that would make releasing possible. There is a nucleus of theatres now that would welcome unconventional films from the American studios. Today they are playing foreign pictures or odds and ends. There are other theatres that can be conditioned to playing selected films for a limited audience, and can make money at it, theatres, for instance, in the thousands of college towns in this country, with a readymade and possibly eager audience. There are, even, ordinary neighborhood houses which have been wallowing under a burden of ineffectual A's and lamentable B's that might for three days or a week each month like to have something unusual to spur the lagging interest of the disillusioned greybeards over thirty-five. This program, of course, could be carried out only if such films were made with the utmost economy, if you bravely face the fact that you are gambling, if you took a real chance — like the producers in the theatre. But what are you afraid of? There are many of you producers and producing companies who have made out of motion pictures fortunes which put you beyond any conceivable danger of going broke if you gamble on a reasonable scale. Do producers really want vital and independent writing? Then they must realize the crippling restriction that is imposed on stories by the mass production of pictures and they must take a calculated risk, provide the opportunity to make vital and independent pictures, and create the market for them. hr1 An Urgent Appeal In its critical legal fight against blacklisting, the Guild is proud of the quick cooperation of its membership in voluntarily contributing over $13,000, but this is not enough. We know that many of you, recognizing the danger to all of us, will want to add your contributions to our fighting fund. Please help us to help you. Make out your checks to SWG. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD 16 The Screen Writer, May, 194