The screen writer (Apr-Oct 1948)

I Jay Richard Kennedy [Continued from Page 4) the long-haired gab. Motion pictures isn't an art, it's an industry." Unless that is meant as constructive criticism of how Hollywood short-changes the artist by over-delegating authority to the industrialist, it is shallow-minded sohpistry. Financing, distribution, exploitation, budgeting, back lot efficiency, etc., are all the sinews of an industry — and an industry of a high and complicated order at that. But the story, the performances the direction, the photography, the scoring, the editing — in short, the film itself, is, was, and always will be, art. The limitations of time do not allow for detailed proof of what I am about to say, but I submit that no film has ever been made, either here or abroad, that was truly great, or even moderately so, which failed to use plot as the foundation upon which to achieve characterization. Perhaps in discussion this can be examined with regard to such films as The Informer, The Best Years of Our Lives, Carnival In Flanders, Henry V , Open City, and Brief Encounter. Now, obviously, the film, like any other art form, should concern itself primarily with people — that is — with characterization. But the method for doing this is different in the film technique than it is in other art forms. The paradox is that when a film is truly great, the audience, after seeing it, frequently has the impression that it was so because so-called "pure characterization" was achieved. The fact is, however, that the power of that characterization was made possible by a meticulous regard for the brick by brick construction of the dynamics of plot. ' I ' O be sure, because of the blunt-* ness with which the film medium attacks the spectator's senses, there is a constant danger of bad taste, of blatancy and of shallowness. The need for subtlizing relationships, the need for ingenuity, is greater than in any other art form. Plot, in a good motion picture is the result of an artist's careful selection of specifiic environment and an equally careful specific introduction of his characters to this environment. The dramatic effect is the product of the explosion when these two forces meet. In a motion picture, this is an externalized explosion. We are not permitted to guess its effect. We see it. TTOR these reasons, I believe that * the major failing of Hollywood's critics concerning the subject under discussion today, lies in their demand that Hollywood abandon its concern with plot in order to achieve characterization. By sheer experience, the Hollywood film maker senses that abandoning the plot destroys the foundations which yield characterization. Plot in a motion picture is not needed for its own sweet sake. It is needed so that characterization may be disclosed through action — a unique requirement of the motion picture art form. This is the central point. Unfortunately, the result of line production has been that all too many Hollywood film makers give maximum attention to clever plots and original plot gimmicks and do so without regard for the fact that plot is needed primarily so that it allow for the full disclosure of character. The result is they are then compelled to distort human behavior so that their characters conform to the unrealistic requirements of their ingenious and "commercial" plots. The demand that must be placed on Hollywood, I believe, is not less plot action, but for true plot action, materialized through equally true production values. True plot action would eject plot gimmicks, which were contrived for their own sake, or for the sake of some ersatz star performance. True plot action would allow for the flowering of true characterization and would open the path for many characterizations in a film, rather than one or two which are themselves more often than not, false. When one bears in mind that the film reaches the largest number of people of any art form, a more balanced approach can be taken to the relative merits and demerits of the foreign film. It is not realistic to appraise foreign films by their effect on the, as yet, limited and generally sophisticated audiences which have seen them. One must anticipate the effect these films would have on audiences as large as those now enjoyed by Hollywood's product. Except in the rate cases of the really great foreign films, they err as frequently as does Hollywood, but in the opposite direction. Their error comes from an indifference to plot, which ironically enough results in an audience indifference to the consequent weakening of characterization. Even the best of foreign films reflect the tradition of underestimating plot, as the best of Hollywood films reflect the opposite tradition of overestimating plot. It is interesting that when a foreign film attempts to correct its tendency, without fully grasping its source, or when a Hollywood film attempts in the same fashion to correct the opposite tendency, they frequently wind up with the error characteristic of the other side. The French film, The Raven, in an effort to preserves a plot notion concerning a mentally diseased individual who causes anxiety, chaos and suicide by sending poison pen letters under the signature, The Raven, forces all the characters, with the exception of two, to comply to the rigid requirements of the plot gimmick. The two exceptions, the nymphomaniacal crippled girl and the brain suregon are proof that the author could conceive characters maturely and authentically. The other cardboard cartooon characters are proof that the exercise of brute force on characterization to achieve its submission to plot, can end in disater in Paris as well as in Hollywood. '"IP HERE are many Hollywood ex-*r amples of the reverse result when a director and/or writer attempt to free themselves from line production "Gimmick" fetishism by loosening up plot to the point where the foundation is made of sand instead of brick. Frequently such films achieve mature and unusual characterizations which do not, however, save the film from becoming tedious and slow moving. Ultimately, the very characterizations The Screen Writer, May, 194 21