The Evolution of the Movies

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 538, 15 December 1928, Page 1 (Supplement)

The Evolution of the Movies

The Story Told by

a Master Maker

■ OW are the ‘movies’ made?” Like everything else that is elemental and primitive and progressive—by the trial and error method, ly speaking, there are fewer errors to-day and more trials than there were 20 years ago when I first became interested in motion pictures, which is conclusive and satisfying proof that the great industry is following the law of evolution. Long before the printing press deluged the world with a Niagara of words, pictures were employed to record deeds deemed worthy to endure for the instruction or entertainment of future generations. We are more dependent upon our eyes than upon any of the other senses. This accounts for the universal appeal of motion pictures; also, it places upon those who produce motion pictures a heavy responsibility. THE CINEMA LURE Granted that motion pictures are •till imperfect, as our manifold critics delight in pointing out, can any of the gentlemen who dip their pens in acid suggest any other form of entertainment or instruction that has made as tremendous strides forward in the same time as measured by years? Motion pictures are based on things elemental —so is youth. Struggle, sex, hope, despair, faith, tears and smiles—Life. The history of the evolution of “moving pictures” reads like a fairy story. Eack in the dawn of tl\e 16th century Leonardo da Vinci, intrepid experimenter, was groping for stark realism in pictures, puzzling over the laws of perspective with glass plates and images reflected through circular holes cut in his window shutters. Trial and error, through an imposing list of pioneers down to our own Edison and his Kinetoscope. Stalling with my own entrance into motion pictures, and the making of movies in the year 1907 —pictures had been moving for some time. The first experiment in running through the projection machine and creating the illusion of movement had been tried out on trained bears, famous dancers, contortionists and acrobats —anything that was guaranteed to keep moving. Trains in motion, boys diving from a springboard, a Chinaman chasing an unpaid bill had grown by a series of amazing leaps and bounds into regular screen stories—fifty feet in length! THE EARLY DAYS A language of the studio had sprung into being even at this early date —the term “set" was used to designate the two walls of compoboard, gaily Papered, with a door in one and a window in another, ending abruptly about seven feet overhead, which were all that was necessary to create the illusion of reality unless the cameraman was careless and “shot” an inch beyond his line. We still have '‘sets" but they frequently consist of three walls 25ft hieh. with decorated ceilings, spread out over the entire studio space. Twenty years ago the scenario for

a story was most frequently an idea jotted down hurriedly on any scrap of paper that happened to be lying about. Fifty feet was the length of the first so-called stories, then they developed into 500, which was considered quite enough film to tell any story in—even “Ben Hur.” When I,oooft was reached thd industry settled down to business. Now the scenario was quite a formidable affair —lt required sometimes 250 words to tell a story, although more often 75 or 100 would do. There was a cast of characters—for the most part three principals were sufficient —heroine, hero and villain; if a mother or father were thrown in or a hard-riding bunch of cowboys it was more in the nature of a grand gesture than because they were really essential. The actual scenario was usually in 25 or so scenes. Stage technic was followed. The entire action of the scene was played in what we now call a “long shot.” taking in the entire set and all the actors. The results were most unsatisfactory. Owing to poor lighting and amateurish photography the faces were frequently hard to see plainly, therefore all play of expression was lost. On the stage, even if you are so far back in the house that you cannot see faces clearly, you can hear the voice. AN INNOVATION

But there was no voice to interpret the meaning of the interminable mouthings, so wordy titles had to be flashed on the spreen, interrupting the action. In an attempt to remedy this glaring fault 1 first introduced what is now called the “close-up,” because literally that it what it is—the camera is moved close up to the subject, resulting in the same view one would get if talking to another person across a small table, say.

But this method cut off the subjects’ legs—and up to this time oply full length actors had been projected upon the screen. Even my cameramen objected; it was unnatural to show people without legs. I knew what I wanted but the flood of protests had its effects; perhaps I was wrong. I went up to the Metropolitan Museum and studied paintings from a new angle and with a new interest. Painters did not always paint their subjects full length—in fact, they seldom did. It all depended upon what, they wanted to show. So I boldly wasted film on the experiment—and, after a good deal of argument and objection, the picture was allowed to be shown with limbless ladies and legless gentlemen—and immediately the “close-up” became a popular innovation. The “flash-back,” which is simply cutting from one scene to another to get synchronised action, was another innovation which speedily became popular. The “face-out” helped to get away from long explanatory titles and “most photography” helped bring me a little nearer to the goal of genu-

ine motion pictures—painting rather. Most modern photoplays have come closer than ever before to painting with light. FIGHTING FOR IDEALS It was while I was with Biograph that I made a picture in 2,000 ft —Just twice the length of the usual feature film. It was called “His Trust Fulfilled” and I could not cut it down to I.oooft without ruining it. There were some stormy executive sessions and I finally refused to run it at all if it had to be cut to the I,oooft requirement. So we made arrangements with exhibitors to run one reel one week and the second one the week following. This was the first tworeel motion picture, but in a very short time all the companies were making them. The greatest stride forward in the making of motion pictures has been in the method of telling the story, and that includes that very important instrument with which it is told—he motion picture camera. We had just as good actors and actresses 20 years ago as we have to-day; we had the same priceless wealth of stories on which to draw. The crudities of those first motion pictures lay in the way in which the story was transferred to the screen- —in the way in which it was directed. The error there was in confusing a distinctly new method of expression with old forms—the motion picture is not merely another way of showing a stage play or novel—it is a separate and individual art. —D. W. GRIFFITH

£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H£H £ HD Important Announcements f| Are Made in This Issue by £ ffl H Paramount Pictures On Page 2 gg Fuller-Hayward Theatres .... „ „ 3 [JQ J. C. Williamson Films (N.Z.) . . „ „ 3 gg gg Thomas A. O’Brien Theatres 3 §3 H United Artists Films „ ~ 4 §§ §1 Fox Films ~ „ 6 if if British Dominions Films . . . . „ ~ 7 S N.Z. Government Publicity Dept. . . „ „ 8-9 ii !M1 Cinema Arts Films „ ~ lO §§ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer . . . . ~ ~ 11 [p] Australasian Films „ „ 12 “ Universal Films . . „ „ 13 ™ y Luna Park . . „ „ 14 || St. James Theatre „ „ 14 • gj His Majesty’s Theatre „ ~ 14 S The Strand Theatre (“Speedy”) . . „ „ 16 gg cH The current attractions at Auckland’s many theatres if and places of amusement are advertised, as usual, Jig gg in “Round the Shows,” on page IS. [jf if £ H£H£H£H£HEH£H£H£H£HEH£H£H£

MOVIES AND THE PEOPLE PHYSICAL. AND SOCLAL BENEFIT The motion picture is an essential oC modern civilisation. From a mental viewpoint, it is the means of educating thousands. It enlarges their outlook, gives them an insight into the lives of other people and nations. It breeds tolerance and charity. It shows us nature—makes us lovers of man, beast, and bird. JPeople unable to read see the world's news unfolded before their eyes, and are well informed. Who shall estimate the physical value of the motion picture to the community? If laughter is the best medicine, it is difficult to calculate in money its worth, as no heartier mirth is heard anywhere than in picture shows. With some films the enforced quietness and rest are the best sedatives in these days of bustle and nerves. The harassed business man, the tired housewife, the weary artisan, get the relaxation they crave. This conserved energy is invaluable to the community. Socially, the motion picture is the greatest modern invention. Rich and poor, high and low, meet on common ground. This intermingling breaks down social barriers, engenders better understanding. It is a League of Nations in itself, and a power for world peace.

On the economic, side, the motion picture employs thousands—from the greatest artists to the lowliest tradesmen. It displaces none, but creates several jobs where there was one. The motion picture holds the family together. It appea't 7j fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and at no other entertainment do we see so many family parties.