LOST OPPORTUNITIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21562, 5 August 1933, Page 11 (Supplement)

LOST OPPORTUNITIES

BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY MR. J. B. PRIESTLEY'S PLANS There are three main types of English life, and not v one of them has really been tackled on the screen, writes Mr. J. 11. Priestley, author of " The Good Companions," in a recent'article. There is, first, London life. The big London film has yet to be made. Then there is provincial town life. Films like " Hindle Wakes" have given glimpses of it, but that was a stage plaj" made into a film, And there is rural life. When I started to plan my first original film story, which is to be done shortly by Gaumont-British, and is at present titled " Hey, Nonn.v," I thought, " What distinctively British things have we to offer on the screen?" I decided on two. There is that type of sleepy country town which exists nowhere else. Other countries have small towns, of course, and Germany, for instance, has pictured that phase of life on the screen, but anyone who knows the small towns of rural England is? aware that there is something about them which is unique. Then I thought of that wonderful Bupply of character actors we have. No oth*T country possesses so many actors of tho class of Cedric Hardwicke, Edmund Gwenn, and Ernest Thesiger. So I decided to provide a number of character parts. With 'the foundation of these two eharacteristically-EngHsh features I Jpreated my story. Roughly, it is tho ;*tory .of how a -young man effectively /-wakens up a small, sleepy, country town in a single afternoon. I have not written any dialogue yet, and I shall not do 6o until the film is cast. One writes different lines for different players. The fault I find most frequently in British pictures is their failure to deal bodily with one subject—and only one subject—in each film. British producers have imitated many characteristics of American films in the past, but the

quality they ought to imitate is concentration on a single subject. The American producer decides to make a film about gangsters. He does so. There is never a moment's doubt that gangsters are the subject. There is no wandering from that central theme. One of, the few British films which, in my opinion, have preserved this unity of subject, is " Rome Express," in which the central idea of the train continuously dominated the action. Too often British producers appear to be afraid of sticking to their subject. Perhaps they imagine that by introducing as many different lines of interest as possible they please a greater number of people. I think they are wrong. British producers are undoubtedly "making great strides, but their progress would be more rapid if they stopped imitating and went out for big ideas. The position, unfortunately, is at present that, while there is a distinctive " school " of picture-making in America, France, Germany, and Russia, there is no such thing in Britain.' I think it will come, but only when pro■ducers haye developed a British stylo. It is folly to attempt the high-speed American tempo in British films, for American life is lived at a different pace. It'is more melodramatic, and, for "that season, more obvious film material. I think we shall see greater achievements in British films when more risks are tak'en, and the only sensible way producers can afford to take risks is by ■eliminating, unnecessary costs, such as ■arise from the indiscriminate buying of screen rights in plays and novels. That has always been a mystery to me—though it applies even more to Hollywood than to Britain. Only two types of subject are worth buying for filming, I think. First, there is the subject which brings with it a leady-m'ade public—like " Cavalcade," ■or >" The Good Companions." The other the story or play which has in it the fcerm of a film idea. Whether it has been ■a success as a novel or a play does not really matter. What I cannot understand is the purchase of successful •drawing • room comedies just because 'they .have been successful. That leads Howhere.