PRODUCERS “GO ONE BETTER”

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 24 August 1935, Page 11

PRODUCERS “GO ONE BETTER”

How Faked Jungle Films Killed the Picture

‘‘JgEFORE the war, natural history cinematograph films were a constant wonder to the public and always a draw. But those of us who were pioneers soon had imitators, and these imitators, as invariably happens, tried to ‘go one better’ than the men they copied,” writes Cherry Kearton, in his book, “Adventures with Animals and Men.”

thrills. With the resources of double exposure and trick photography let us have fights between the animals (what does it matter if naturalists say that such animals have never been known to fight each other ?), let us havq trick pictures showing natives being eaten alive by lions, let us have gigantic apes, and let ns fit imitation ears on to Indian elephants to make them seem the more dangerous-looking African elephants. It may be that rhinos go singly or in groups of three or four, but it would look much more exciting on the screen if twenty of them charged together—then why not? Anything to provide the public, with fchrils and to swell the box-office returns.

“As the cinematograph became more popular, its story-telling possibilities ruled it, and films which did not tell a. story came to be classed as ‘educational.’ Mammon in the shape of boxoffice receipts ordained that however exciting a ‘true’ cinematograph film might be, it would not have the popular appeal won by one story of the suplanting of villains and the triumph of true love. Accordingly, it became clear that the natural-history film must become either a thing to be shown only to school children, or else jt must be impregnated with a sex story. Again Mammon triumphed over art; and the wild-life ‘story’ film came into being. “Unfortunately, the producer who is ruled only by his box office is much more concerned with excitement than with truth.

“So said, in effect, the' new producers in wikl-life pictures. And if such productions involved cruelty, what did that' matter? The public wouldn’t know how the pictures were procured. “Thus, amazing films appeared on the screen, and the public gasped. This was far better, they thought, than the dull old ‘true to life’ stuff which they had been shown before? This was what they would want to see next time. “So the real natural history film, of which I had been the pioneer, ignominously died. And with it threatened to go all my work as a natural history cinematographer. . . • “Because I felt so strongly on these points, I decided to stand for truth in natural history films. But since it is now clear that a film that had an element of fiction in it was meat for adults, whereas one that contained nothing but the truth could only be exhibited mainly to children, I determined to include stories in my films —and yet to avoid departing from my principle's. My films should showstories, hut the setting of them should be truth.”

“Why he often declares, need films showing’African animals be taken m Africa? That is merely an unnecessary expense, when the requisite animals can be obtained from dealers or private zoos and photographed in prepared enclosures; and if more animals are needed in a single shot than the zoos can provide it is easy to fall the background with the help oi a taxidermist and a scene pamter. An since excitement is the one thing apart from love —that the puhlnwants, why limit it by a strict regard xo truth? , “If we go to the expense of taking some of the shots in Africa, let us do the job thoroughly and get in some thing znora than the maximum of