COSTLY MOVING PICTURES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20271, 2 December 1927, Page 7

COSTLY MOVING PICTURES.

HOW THE MONEY IS WASTED. When you read that a spectacular American film cost 2,0W-000dol to produce, ye**- can accept the fact as evidence that ab„ut half the amount was wasted owing to the utter stupidity and inefficiency of the producers. This is the testimony of Mr Welford Beatoh. the editor of the Film Spectator, of Los Angeles. In the September number of the American Mercury, a lively New York magazine edited by Mr H. L. Mencken, the provocative critic of American life and letters, Mr Beaton gives a remarkable account of the ways in which money is wasted in producing films at Hollywood. He states that such an article printed in his own paper would not cause the slightest stir, because the waste has been going on for years, and at Hollywood and Los Anglos, where his paper circulates, the facts are so commonplace that no one discusses them. The subject lias become far too stale for ordinary conversation. “ The motion picture industry has plenty of brains,” writes Mr Beaton, “but it doesn’t carry them in the place that is best adapted to promote their efficiency —in its head. They are scattered throughout its system, which reduces their power to function. The business of making pictures is conducted with such amazing inefficiency simply because its losses are absorbed by a docile public. All that you pay in excess of 25 cents (one shilling) to see any picture you may regard as a sacrifice to the gross extravagance that entered into its making. Do Mille presents ‘ The King of Kings ' as a 2,000,000d0l picture. It really did cost that much, but what you see on the screen did not cost that much, but what you see on the screen did not cost more than a quarter of that sum, the remainder is on the cutting room floor. The 14-reel ‘King of Kings’ is a very poor picture, because its 14 reels are hacked out of 64 reels that were ‘ shot.’ If De Mille had worked on his script until it contained only 14 reels of action, he would have been given a much better picture, and he would have saved 1,000,OOOdols.” Mr Beaton proceeds to give details _ol how money was wasted in the production of “Duloy,” in which Constance Talmadge was starred. Mr Joseph M. Schenck, whom Mr Beaton regards as “ the greatest individual figure ” in the picture industry commissioned Anita Loos (author of “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes”) and John Emerson, to write the script of “ Dulcy,” but they submitted such a very ineffective treatment of the play that the producer asked Frances Marion and C. Gardner Sullivan to try their hands at it. “At that time Miss Marion was the most dazzling light in the literary department of pictures, and it took a cheque for at least £4OOO to get her even started on the story,” says Mr Beaton. Sidney Franklin. a well known film director (in the film business a director is a glorified stage manager who arranges and supervises the scenes that are to be ‘ shot ’ by the camera; went to work on the script without anybody in authority realising that the script from which a seven-reel picture was to be made contained 20 reels ot action. Mr Joseph Schenck had not, apparently taken the trouble to investigate this vital point beforehand, nor had Mr Sidney Franklin; nor had Miss Marion and her collaborator in the production of the script attempted to keep it within the limit ot seven reels, or even been told to do so. According to Mr Beaton’s account, Sidney Franklin .“shot” the picture for a couple of monhs, and then realising that th.i length of the film was already excessive, although ho was scarcely halfway throug i the script, he said ho would not " shoot ” another foot of film. In actual fact, he did “shoot more,” but ho cut the remainder of the story so drastically as to go a long way towards spoiling it. He then set to work to cut tho film of the early part of the story. His first cut got the whole picture down to 16 reels. Ho struggled with it again, and got it down to 12 reels, and then announced to Mr Schenck that lie was through—that ho would have nothing more to do with the job. So Mr Gardner Sullivan, who in collaboration with Miss Marion had written tho script for tire play was called in by Mr Schenck to see what ho could do. He “managed to piece together an indjfferent new story out if some of the pieces of the original one, ’ writes Mr Beaton. This was regarded as a remarkable achievement, but, adds Mr Beaton, “No one seemed to remember that he was tho man who wrote 20 reels of action for a seven-reel picture." The same thing happens in the pro ductlon of all big pictures at Hollywood, according to Mr Beaton. Most of the pictures have to bo limited to six or eight reels, but the producers “shoot” about twice that amount of film, and then ekii in experts to cut down the film, instead of calling them in to cut down the script before any of tho scones are photographed “If a building contractor," writes Mr Beaton, “ intended to '.erect a seven-storey building, he would not be advanced enough money to construct 12 storeys, and then pare them down to seven. His banket would think ho was crazy if he made any such suggestion. But that is what itu. picture producer does, and tho banker does not know it. Jtle is satisfied because his loan is repaid, and the producer is satisfied because his extravagantly made picture still yields a profit. But you can t fool dollars permanently. Some day Wall Street is going to get wise to tho appalling inefficiency of the picture producer. It ,s going to find out that it is lending two dollars to do tho work that ono should do. It is going to realise that the market price of movie shares is conditioned by tuo inefficiency behind them; and that if efficiency stepped in they would double in value. It is going to learn that no re form can be accomplished as long us the present personnel controls the industry, and it is going to lock its strong boxes until there is a clean sweep.”

There aro other directions m wlucn money is wasted in the movie picture bus ness, according to Mr Beaton. He gives an illustration of waste in the " shooting ” of a lake scone in “ Tho Man Who Fights Alone.” In that picture there is a scene of a man and a woman in a canoe on a lake, with weeping willows overhanging from tho shore. In the centre of a park in Los Angeles there is a lake which has been photographed more often than any other lake in the world; it has achieved a sort of fame from the number of (ilm policemen who have had to fall into it. There is another much-photographed lake in the Busch Gardens, at Pasadena, near Los Angeles. Bach of these lakes can oo reached in half an hour from Hollywood. But neither of them would suit the fastidious producers of “ The Man Who Lights Alone.” Someone suggested that Huntington Lake, in the Sierras, ‘ 7000 ft above sea-level, was the ideal place for “ shooting ” the scene. So 60 people, with several tons of equipment, travelled from tiollywohd by train all night and the best part of the following morning to Lakv Hunt ington—-only to find that there was no water in itj and that it had been dry tor three years. Tho party had fo then to pack lip their traps and proceed to Lake Tahoe, where the scene was ‘‘shot,” though it could have been ‘‘shot” just as effectively and at a tenth of the cost at either of the two lakes within half in hour of Hollywood.