The Story World and Photodramatist (Jul-Oct 1923)

ADAPTATIONS— OR SCREEN PLAYS? 13 unprofitable. Without giving causes, that is the brief outline of the actual functioning of most adaptations. Now for causes: Allow me to quote a report of the Committee for Better Films of the National Board of Review regarding "The Sheik," a very successful adaptation of a novel, which comes in the class of the big, powerful, producercreated story, achieving success because of its superiority as popular entertainment to the novel from which it was taken. Quoting from the published report of their investigation, conducted in twenty-seven cities of the United States, "Those who were pleased with 'The Sheik' had not read the book, and those who were disappointed in the picture had read the book." This data was gained by questioning patrons as they left the theatres. Why are persons who read books and magazine stories disappointed in the picture versions of them? That question is easily answered. Modern human beings want fresh news. They want books they have not read before. They want novelty, new thrills, suspense, surprises, and sometimes mystery in entertainment. They think that they want to see film versions of novels and magazine stories that they have read. But such versions bore them, because the very life-blood of film entertainment rests upon the elements of suspense, surprise and novelty, which are not present in second-hand material; that is, if the original has been followed. If the producer has deviated widely from the published story, on the other hand) they blame him for "ruining a good fiction story." There are also minor contributing factors. The comparison afforded between the first impression of the original story with that of the film version is always unfavorable to the latter unless the picture is overwhelmingly superior in every way. The changes that must be made in adapting a published story to the screen, because of the great differences in technique in the two arts, are caught and resented by lovers of reading. Characters visualized differently by different readers from the deft, sketchy descriptions of skillful fiction writers appear on the screen embodied in complete, visible j persons, who represent the actor's visual ization only, and are certain to displease a reader who has mentally pictured favorite story folk before seeing the picture. If the actor's interpretation is presented to them as their first impression, as it is in seeing it on the screen before visualizing it from a printed characterization, there can be no such disappointment. The success of a production such as "The Sheik" is accounted for by the fact that it attracts an audience in which the readers of the original do not predominate. Theoretically, if readers do predominate, the production is "killed" by word-ofmouth condemnation; that casual remark of one friend to another that, "I saw a poor picture last night. Don't waste time on that one." If those who have not read the original are in the majority, as was the case with "The Sheik" (due to Valentino's following and the sensational features of general appeal in the advertising of that offering), the word-of -mouth knockers of the first night are out-talked by the boosters, resulting in a larger audience of non-reader boosters the second night, and so on. This "makes" the first runs, and reflected glory, all creditable to word-ofmouth advertising, does the rest. You will perceive that I have separated "The Sheik" from "The Clansman" class of production. "The Sheik" had good motion picture appeal, but just enough pull left upon that audience of readers of the original to produce a minority of disappointed spectators. "The Clansman" was so mighty in itself, so distinctly a motion picture, that even those spectators who had read the novel were overwhelmed. There are other excuses for using adaptations than that of their supposed advertising value. Some producers fear that they will be sold "originals" which have been plagiarized from copyrighted works. Obviously, this is mere lack of confidence in their scenario editors and reading staffs. The national magazines are confronted by the same problem and they solve it effectively. Other producers venture to state that they would film original screen plays in preference to published stories if they could get good "originals." I do not know whether to label this pure "bunk" or sad misinformation. The best way to "spike"