SELLING OF FILMS ON MERIT

Wanganui Chronicle, 31 January 1947, Page 7

SELLING OF FILMS ON MERIT

Just what, effect the new American order requiring the “movie” companies to sell each film in the States acto its individual merit, instead of the previous variations on the block booking system, will have on the production of films remains to be seen. Probably it will go unanswered for another year or more, because of the large back-log of completed films already stored in the vaults of the major studios. It seems logical to assume, however, that the producers will be considerably more particular both with respect to the selection of subject matter and the quality of the finished work. Competition among the various studios will undoubtedly be much keener than it is now, for the Tirm producing quantity rather than quality wiil be sure to suffer. Already the major studios are going into the matter, and their decisions will affect moviegoer s in New Zealand as much as in America. Universal, for instance, has dropped, all its low-budget “fill-up” shows, and studios which in the past have operated on specific and pre-announced production schedules intend to switch to “flexible” policies. According to some trade sources, this means the beginning of the end for the doublefeature programme. This has been a bone of contention for a long time, however, and it is certain that the trade will not overlook the fact that many people are hap-pier paying to see two mediocre shows than one better class feature.

No one seems to know just how the short subjects stand in relation to the new decree. It has been a general practice to contract for these in bulk, and rising costs of production are stated to have made their overall margin of profit slim. There is significance in the fact that ther e are already rumours that the major companies may cease making shorts. Walt Disney is said to be conteplating such a step. To give some idea of the production costs involved-, a two-reel technicolor short cost s up to 70,000 dollars, plus the cost of prints, which amount to about another 15,000 dollars. This is startling when one considers that a top-rank Broadway play (other than a musical) can be put on for about 50,000 dollars or less.

It would appear that the elimination of the dual bill is of vital importance to the continuation and betterment of short subjects. Worthwhile shorts still make money and have an appreciative audio:? ', as witness the popularity of the r.C ch of Time, the Passing Parade, Caic;/ Wilson Miniatures, and Crime Does Not Pay. Perhaps now that the big-name producers have less major films to worry about, they will be prepared to devote more of their time to making worthwhile and profitable supporting films.

DOCUMENTARY ON MODERN AUSTRALIA A one-man unit of J. Arthur Rank's new monthly film review, “This Modem Age,” will leave for Australia shortly. Clifford Hornby, documentary cameraman, has been assigned to the important and responsible job of preparing and shooting a factual film dealing with the Commonwealth’s position in th e post-war world. Armed with introductions to the Piime Minister and State Premiers, he will recruit an all-Australian team to work under his direction. The fiim will show Australia’s development in the world scene, and how Australia has changed in the last six years from a unit within the world. Many films have been produced in Australia about the various aspects of industry and political growth, but this marks the first occasion that an overseas film company has set out to produce a documentary report on the political and industrial developments which have brought Australia into active participation in world politics. The Australian Government and in-ter-State Governments have agreed to give the project their full-hearted support and have offered all facilities.

SOVIET FILM CRITIC REPROVED Major-General Galaktinov, a wellknown military commentator, writing in Pravda, accused the Red Army newspaper Red Star of failure to call a spade a spade in reviewing a new Russion film, “Admiral Nakhimov,” writes a London correspondent. “The review says the film i s dedicate/! to the Crimean War, but does not even mention against whom Russia was fighting,” General Galaktinov writes. “True, the review mentions the Turkish Fleet, and it could be concluded that the war was being waged only against Turkey. But, as is known from history and clearly shown by the film, the war against Russia was headed by an Anglo-French coalition in which Turkey joined. . . .Britain and France attacked Russia without a declaration of war, which came only at the end of March, 1854. “The Red Star ignored the attack against Russia and the heroic defence of Sebastopol against the AngloFrench usurpers. Why all these incomprehensible silences? Do the author and editor think it possible that to satisfy their prejudices they may distort historical truths? They have apparently forgotten that for Soviet journalists and editors it is not permissable to distort history.”