ANTI-CINEMA PEOPLE.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17472, 5 June 1922, Page 12

ANTI-CINEMA PEOPLE.

IS THEIR PREJUDICE JUSTIFIED? (By D. W. Griffith, the world's greatest rPm producer.) Since I have been in England I have been asked by a number of people why the better class entertainment seekers do not go to tho cinema more cften Suggestions have been made to we that the film play lias not yet reached the same dignity in the entertninent world as the stage production. To answer these charge is a delicate task, because my remarks may be interpreted as reflecting on other members of lhe film business, and because 1 um tempted to bring my own productions to bear \vuness against the allegation that the best people in the land will not go to see films In America and iu this country we succeeded in shewing "Uay Jjown East and "Orphans rf tho Storm" at ordinary theatre prices. People paid half a guinea for a stall ta see ihs iirst-uauud picture at the Empire Theat:e. My triends who are putting on "Uiphana of the Storm tell me that many <ji the leading society people in Eond-ai have been to see this him, and that there is always a large number of orivato cars waiting to pick up people at each performance. The film a3 un entertainment suffers at piesent partly from being a new form of artistic expression, partly from being misherditd by a good uiany 2 jeo P^ e » most of aIL ircm prejudice. I must . contess that I have not much patience with the critic who sneers at the moving picture play because it is not like the singe piay; because it breaks away from the traditions 0i the theatre. Recently we lmv-i had a great deal of unreality, of stilted business and lack of naturalness in many stage plays. I believe that the fact that the work in some of our good cinematograph films has been done in the actual natural surroundings has brought a to the screen that is not prevalent in many stage productions.

For instance, a farm girl in a moving Eicture who draws reul water in. a real ucket from a real well in the natural aurroundrrtgs is forced by the fact of seeing the real water and Ice.ing* its real weight to do the act a3 a person would in real life. From dealing with actual outdoor scenes in this manner thoy must be influenced to follow up their naturalness in other things they do in the studio. That is why I am angry with the person who makes comparisons between the stage play and the lUni. They are entirely different. They are as unliko one another as the player on the boards is unlike a man who acts a part in the grfat drama of life. ' I have hardly more sympathy for the man who complains that tne technique of the film play worries him. He is the person who says ho does not. understand why there should be a sudde:i magnification of the •huroino'a face —what we call a "close-up"; he makes out that lie does not want to see parts of the film repeated —in what aro known as "visions" or "flash-bocks." This is the sort of man who is ready to pick holes in anything new, and I can only advise him to go to the pictures more often and learn the easiest 'of all languages, that of the human eye. Tlie "close-up," I may add, is used to shew the cxyressisn on the actor's face, since it is through his facial expression that hi is able to reveal his thoughts.

I am not suggesting that there is not room for, improvement in film production The moving. picture plays of to-day have many ■ faults which can be removed when those who are mok ng them have learnt the lesson of what the film can do.

Some films are bad to-day because they have been -adapted-from books unsuitable /or a slavish translation to the screen. Actors and nctresses are cast for parts they should not play because they may bo under a contract to appear in so many films. Too many pictures have been made which appeal only to sensation-loving audiences. These ore a few of the things which bolster up the prejudice against ihe moving picture today.

The presentation of a film play is another thing which may make all the difference between satisfaction and disappointment. Few films are shown with adequate and appropriate musical accompaniment. No music can be too good for a good film. I believe X am almost aJone ae a producer in selecting my own musical accompaniment for' the pictured I make. Again I am not satisfied to leave my films once they have been finished in the studio. I follow them up, .watching their reception by various, but typical, audiences, and edit them accordingly until I think I have done the best 1 can with them I am not alarmed Tsy tho suggestion that we are not getting the best people to patronise film entertainments. Even if I were to admit that it is so, I should say that they will not be able to resist the power of the film much longer. It is one of the greatest forces for education and mental recreation of all time, and it is comin r into ita own. °