TRUE TO LABEL?

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22436, 24 June 1938, Page 5

TRUE TO LABEL?

Some concern is being expressed by the film industry over the misrepresentation charges brought by- the Federal Trade Commission against Grand National involving the film version of Dr. Charles M. Sheldon’s Victorian best-seller, “In His Steps,” states a writer in the “New York Times.” The studio is accused of misleading the public and exhibitors by filming a story that has no relation to the original. The Hollywood practice of disregarding source materials in photographing well-known novels has long been the subject of protest by irate customers. But the studios have felt they were improving the stories in their adaptations and so have always chosen to ignore complaints. Official cognisance of the practice has put a different light on the matter and, if the commission is successful in issuing, a cease-and-desist order, the studios leel that they will have to turn from famous literary works and confine themselves to the few novels that can be transposed without alteration or, more likely, to straight original stories. The commission’s action will probably determine which of two philoso-

Films Based on Books

phies shall govern the manufacture ol motion pictures. The industry holds that, except in a limited number of stories, a literal translation from one medium into another is impossible and that bad pictures would result from too close adherence to originals. Students of the screen have conceded this as a general policy and point to such pictures as “Captains Courageous,” in which details were changed to make an outstanding film while the essence and flavour of the Kipling novel were retained. The public’s argument is that deliberate fraud is perpetrated when such well-known pieces as “Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm,” “Dante’s Inferno,” “Dance of Life.” and “The Way of All Flesh” emerge totally different from the works from which they were taken. The customers’ attitude .is that pictures are the only merchandise which the customers buy without seeing and against which they have no recourse when they are defrauded. The patrons have never made any serious protest over the casual alteration of a book to suit the needs of the screen, but they have offered strenuous objections, although it has never taken official form to the custom of using a famous title on an extraneous story. The Federal Commission’s action is another indication of a campaign to regulate the screen. The proposed Neely bill contains a provision which, would allow exhibitors to buy pictures from a synopsis and to cancel the order if the finished film deviated from the outline. The instances in which a producer can determine beforehand just what form his picture will take on the screen are few and the clause in the act would mean that pictures must be completed and previewed before sales could be attempted, a condition quite similar to that which governs the distribution o'f pictures in England, where they are bought after being seen at private trade showings for the exhibitors. If the commission’s action becomes official many properties on immediate schedule will be affected. “Kidnapped,” by Robert Louis Stevenson, has already undergone radical changes. “Gone With the Wind.” except for obvious deletions, is said to follow the original. Although it has been purchased, no picture could follow “How to Win Friends and Influence People." “Three Comrades” has undergone pronounced alterations. There are a dozen others of equal note on this year's schedule which will undergo revision for protection against any possible official action. Contrary to former practice. th« studios are now showing a certain disposition to make their stories conform to fact when dealing with historical subjects.