HERE AND THERE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Issue 1568, 13 May 1920, Page 4

HERE AND THERE.

Probably no motion picture film has ever undergone the vicissitudes that befel the wonderful Hurley pictures of the ill-fated Shackleton Expedition, and the exhibition of this permanent tribute to British daring and dogged pluck can raise only deep wonder that any human beings were able to survive the awful hardships that this intrepid band of explorers endured. The pictures and slides are an education in themselves, and as presented by the International Attractions, with the associate lecturer with Captain Hurley, Mr. George Dean, they furnish a treat both instructive and entertaining that no man or woman or child of British blood should miss.

A New, Zealander now resident in the province of Manitoba (Canada) writes to a Dunedin friend concerning the operation of Prohibition in that country:—“Prohibition in this Dominion has not prohibited up to date, and there has been more whisky consumed since Prohibition

came into operation than ever before. But that is due to the Act itself, which it has been found impossible to carry out. The Provincial Legislature is now engaged amending the Act, which will be made more stringent. In a few months the people will be called on to say by means of a referendum whether liquor of any kind shall even be imported into this province. In the United States they now have complete Prohibition, and I am informed on reliable authority that in that country the new law is being administered very strictly. On the other hand, there is considerable dissatisfaction in some parts, and a great many believe that the Prohibition law of that country will either be amended or considerably modified.”

During his visit to America Mr. Beaumont Smith, who returned to Sydney last month, found that more pictures than ever were being produced, despite the fact that film production had restarted in England and Europe. He went away to test the outside market for Australian films, and to watch the latest methods of production, having in the last two years bought the rights of most Australian books of consequence. “Today,” he says, “is the great day for the independent producer. Good 'films are wanted, and wanted badly, but poor films have no hope. It doesn’t matter now who produces a film, or where that film is made, so long as it is a good film. There is a market for high-standard Australian films, but anything careless, cheap or mediocre is hopeless. We have been labouring under many disadvantages out here in our local production efforts, but now that we are going in for film production seriously, we can easily overcome these. What I found to be the greatest disadvantage was the lack of proper artificial lighting equipment for the making of interior settings. There was no such equipment in Australia, but I have brought back with me the best studio lights obtainable in America, and their value will be demonstrated in new Australian productions.”

The subjoined excerpts from an editorial in the “Chicago Tribune,” under the heading, “Asking for More of Charlie Chaplin,” expresses public sentiment so aptly that they are reproduced here. “Mr. Charles Chaplin is a matter of serious concern in this democracy. He is the corn and circuses of the Republic. He is distributed and presented to maintain that general good humour upon which the safety of Empire, autocratic or democratic, rests. Mr. Chaplin has been the salvation of us masses. He has been the pink in life. He has made. the millions laugh, and laughing millions are safe millions. With Mr. Chaplin in the arena we knew that the Republic was safe, and lean and hungry Cassius could not plot successfully against the security of principles and institutions necessary to the well-being of the American nation. With one picture a month we could live in anticipation of compensating pleasures. Mr. Chaplin is a matter of serious concern because he seems to have been infected by the idea prevalent in other industries that prosperity and contentment can be arrived at by limitation of production. We are opposed to involuntary servitude except in the case of Mr. Chaplin. In his case we favour injunction and mandamus, search and seizure, compulsion, and a return to slavery. If he knew that he would be sold down the river if he did not produce this Republic would be upon sounder foundations.”