Universal Filmlexikon (1932)

The speakiiijr drama miist think. But the film puhlic will not think. The film requires thought no more than Rembrandt's i>aintings or Michelangelo"« sculptures. Intellectual discussion is unnecessary. The "diah)gue" of the film is the contrast between one picture and the other. It relates spiritual and niaterial things in seconds — in contrast ing seconds. It teils the actions themselves, not ahout the intellectually expressed explanation and juslificatioii of the actions. In the drama the action consists in the discussion of action. the tJiought. of the action. The film does not require to think: it performs the action itself. The film has time. like a 600 page novel vvhich it condenses into a few seconds. The film maker is a genius in juggling with time. People expressing thoughts have no time, just as an 80 page drama has no time. Dramatist and Screen Author. The drama may be read. There is no qualitative difference between the book and the Performance. "Hamlet" remains '"Hamlet"' in the book as on the stage, even more completely so in the former case than in the latter. (For slow reading lends depth to the long thoughts. I The book contains the whole of the drama. On the other band, there is a world of difference between scenario and presentation, — the entire process of production. The scenario is merelv a draft of the work of art represented by the film. In the true drama the author is supreme. The producer is only the interpreter, one with sufficient imagination to incarnate the play. In the true film the producer is supreme. It is he that creates. The author of the scenario merely suggests possibilities. It is the film producer who creates a work of art on the basis of the draft suggesting these possibilities. The stage producer is the author"s servant (who sonietimes justifiably obliterates bis indolent master I . The film producer s power is absolute. He is always justified in wiping out the author who talks, writes and thinks. That is the fate of all screen authors. It is not words that matter in the film but actions, not dialogue but seconds. Change of Scene as "Dialogue". When I speak of the drama I mean its highest form — Moliere, and from Schiller to Ibsen and Schnitzler — where speech is more important than scenery and where the author Stands above the producer. Those were dramatists of the long scene. The short scenes of the modern German drama in many cases only prove its poverty of thought. For speech should coincide with thought and in this instance the producer has to incarnate a soulless drama. The short scenes of Shakespeare and Büchner are no excuse, for (in contrast with Schiller and Sophokles) their many scenes constitute a tech nically im])erfect contiiuiation of the basic idca. not of the pi'esentative idea of tlie modern j)roducer. The poor stage of Shakespeare 's time did not offer the least scope for panorama and in many cases Shakespeare s short scenes were notliing l)ut stop-gaps. The short scene is of no >ervice in scene changing, nor is it suited to the revolving stage. Its iisefulness lies in changing the trend of the dialogue. On the screen, however, pictorial scene-changing becomes the (lialogup of the ever changing contrasls. \\ here the stage producer devotes moi-e attention to tableaux than to speech, he is nothing more than a thwarted film director. Pictorially the film surpasses the thcatre. In the matter of speech, however, the position is reversed. Epic Drama? Scene-changing is the very life of the film, just as speech and counter speech is the life of the dialogue drama. In a few seconds the film connects, almost to simultaneousness, the greatest contrasts as well as the parallel course of different destinies. Speeches would retard the action, but cues, slogans, noises and cries whip the action onwards. On the screen words must be used economically. The telegraphic style is the best. Scene-changing is the death of drama, for it makes the drama pictorial. The longer the logical thought process the more intellectual depth is there in the dialogue. The dramatist must use tableaux — and seconds — sparingly and speech liberally. The "epic drama " a la Bert Brecht exists on film play technique. "Epic drama" is a contradiction in terms. The genuine film is also the most genuine "epic drama", that is to say, not spurious drama but an epic novel. The novel Condensed into seconds. Danger of Reciprocity. There is a danger in the producer-made drama which is at present being experimented with and which has almost ceased to be drama, though it is not a film either. For the former there is too little speech in it and for the latter too much. The films should be a warning to the drama. The drama must not be cut up into a series of scenes. It is the long scene on which the vitality of the drama depends. On the other band, the drama should be a waming to the talking film. The latter must not be swamped by speech. It is the short scene on which the success of the talking film depends. The genius of the dramatist lies in creating a plot by means of pictures and circumstantial factors — the epic tension of the novel. In the drama action consists in direct speech. The film relates stories that have happened. That is the secret of the difference between the film and the drama. 63