REACTION IN THE AUDIENCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 114, 16 May 1931, Page 6 (Supplement)

REACTION IN THE AUDIENCE

DIFFERENT VIEWS OF PICTURE MAKERS

WHAT CAMERAS DO NOT TELL

(Exclusive to “The Chronicle,” by Joe Krum gold, from the Paramount Hollywood studios) . x • * Audience reaction is a vitally important factor in the making of motiun pictures. It is the ambition of each movie writer, producer and director to make a picture that will be received favourably by every theatre-goer in the world, but seldom, indeed, is this accomplished. So widely different are the entertainment requirements of individuals —some prefer comedy, others drama; some appreciate subtlety, others like it “spread on thick o —that the job of making pictures has become exceedingly involved. While careful research has. from time to time, revealed the general trend of public taste in entertainment, it is questionable whether a “perfect’ ’ film will ever be produced. Interesting, also, are the varied reactions of the studio workers as they watch a production in its many stages of development. It’s all a matter of viewpoint.

Nancy Carroll and Phillips Holmes, Surrounded by a number of extra players, had just completed a highly dramatic scene in Miss Carroll’s new Paramount picture, “Stolen Heaven.” Out of the range of cameras, a group of film workers had watched the action, yet no two had seen it alike. George Abbott, the director of ♦*Stolen Heaven,” had seen figures moving in gripping action. He noted faint flaws in the action, or timing of speeches to be corrected on the retake. Dana Burnett, the author, had heard •the words which he wrote, noting possibilities here and there of improve anents. The cameramen had seen the actors encompassed in a finder on their machines. the exact proportions of the finished film and the scene dissected across and down by two wije-lines which showed the exact centre'of the film. The film editor had automatically pictured cuts here and there, first a view of all the players, then of individuals, then in pairs, etc., from the * 1 takes” of the different cameras. The sound mixer had heard tones, loud and soft and a]ways varying without taking cognisance of action. The set engineer had seen the actors only as markers for his microphone to Test above to catch their voices as he moved his instrument back and forth. The dialogue script girl saw only shorthand lines which recorded every syllable spoken during the scene. The set dressers saw only a pleasing reproduction of Miami Beach and hotel in front of which moved players. Property men noted only the props being moved by hands. The electricians saw only lights upon moving objects, and the electricians on the scaffolding above could see only the tops of the players’ heads. The wardrobe attendants witnessed the many startling new bathing costumes displayed by Miss Carroll and other feminine members of the cast. The assistant director knew primarily that another scene was completed and that it was time to move to another if the shooting schedule was to be adhered to. The still photographer, snapping action pictures, saw the scene upside down on the ground glass of his camera. Outside, the watchman saw only a glowing red light and heard the ringing of a bell, signifying that no doors should be opened during the taking of the scene. When a scene passes the filming stage and is ready for a “rush,” a more enthusiastic motion picture audience is in attendance—the stars, featured players, director, author and film editor. To filmland, a “Rush” is a roughly {developed print of scenes just as they come from the cameras, without being cut or edited in any way. Often, Rtudio workers refer to them as “daises” because they represent a dav’s iwork. The public would be bewildered by •them. Motion picture folk understand them and see them eagerly, as they show how work is progressing and if ■ny changes are to be made. Incidentally. “rushes” come in fur criticism far mme severe than any meted out Jater by bored film critics and disgruntled theatre patrons. The daily screening of “rushes” provides an exacting test for the picture, and the audience reaction in this projection Xoom often, results in arguments of a fieated nature. Especially important are the rushes” to those making a feature comedy, for they clearly indicate the •development of the al I-vital laugh situations. For this reason every member of Leon Errol’s “Finn and Hatjtie” unit witnessed a showing each Evening after work at the Paramount. Studios. These “dailies” contain much which 13 not intended for use in the finished film. For instance, each “take” starts off with a boy holding a numbered elute. This is for the use of film editors in knowing what material they have before them. The cameras, started before the action, may show Errol, Mitzi Green and ZaSu Pitts silently recalling their fines. Voices may be heard shouting last minute instructions to move the microphone closer or adjust the light.

A sudden click is recorded and the lights blink. Electricians always do this to clear their lamps just before a scene starts. Then the voice of the stage engineer is heard—“ Take 258.” Director Norman Taurog immediately orders —“Start your action —camera!” Then comes the scene. It may suddenly be halted by Taurog crying “Cut,” if something is wrong. The “cut” also comes at the end of each perfect scene and, as the cameras slow down, actors may be seen calling offstage to ask how the scene has goae ur laughing over the action. It is all quite informal. Those who see “dailies” witness the same scene several times from different angles. This happens when more than one camera is used. So the audience players and workers see a series of scenes one camera, which are followed by the same scenes from another camera, shooting from a different position. 'Thus, they are able to criticise their work several times within the hour. But the world’s best talking picture audiences are employed in the laboratory on the Paramount studios. When, for example, Ruth Chatterton’s new starring picture, “Unfaithful,” is ready for release —these workers — all girls—will see the actress through 200 reds each. Each will see her in approximately 20,000 scenes and through the complete story twenty times. These figures are based on the fact that she has about .100 individual scenes in the picture which will be about ten reels in length. Seated in little booths, these girls project reel after red of film for testing purposes. The picture is shown upon a small screen while the sound comes to the workers through headphones. In this way, the sound of one reel cannot be heard in the adjoining booths. Not each girl sees the complete film twenty times, although 200 prints of “Unfaithful” will be made for world markets and ten girls divide the projection among them. One girl may see reel seven ninety times and the others in less proportions, the assignment of reels being made as they are completed by the printers and not always in consecutive order. So, in a few weeks, these girls may sit hour after hour for days and see nothing but Ruth Chatterton in “Unfaithful.” then are off on another subject. They are the screen’s veteran “audiences.” Their various reactions to the pictures they see would provide a most interesting study.

Before leaving Hollywood for New \ ork several months ago, Fredric March started to build a Hollywood home. It has been completed without his ever seeing it and his film schedule calls for work in New York for seevral more months. j