FUTURE OF “TALKIES”

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1929, Page 7

FUTURE OF “TALKIES”

PRODUCERS UNCERTAIN

SAN FRANCISCO, March 29

Serious critics in Ihe United States, in England, and on the Continent are discussing the future of the talking blni. It is quite clear that the producers, although they are all rushing th< production of such films, are by no means convinced that the demand will last.

One big firm has already announced that each of its new productions will be presented in two theatres iit Now York simultaneously—one for the talking film and the other for the silent film. The originators of the modern talkie, the Warner Brothers, make every one of their pictures with two negatives, one talking, the other silent. The idea behind this is not to supply those theatres which has not yet installed equipment to present talk* ing films, hut admittedly because the producers are absolutely at sea so far as to the final public reaction towards the sound film. Some idea of the concision that exists in tin* minds of the authorities at Hollywood regarding tlies films may he obtained from the fact that recently a picture in which a famous comedian appeared and sang hut in which there was little dialogue, was aeeliamed as an emotionalised film, whereas an all-talking picture was described as “ intellectual,” because of its constant conversation and the demand it made upon the attention of the public. The argument, reduced to its elemental foundation, seems to be that more than a sparing use erf talk in a film robs that film of its essential emotional appeal. What the public thinks about the talking films is of primary interest, since it is upon the public verdict that the producer stands or lulls. In this connection a sample concensus opinion was afforded in Syracuse, New York, where that city was the first to equip all its first-run theatres with talking picture mechanism. Elaborate questionaires circulated by Chester TT. Hahn, film critic of the Syracuse “Herald” dieted the following interesting illuminating results. — Do you prefer talking pictures?—Acs of) per cent; no, 50 per cent. Don you want silent films eliminated?—Yes, 7 per cent; no 93 per cent. Do you prefer orchestral music to a synchronised score?—Yes, 54 ; no 4b. Do you prefer organ accompaniment to a synchronised score?—Yes, 23; no, 77.

Would you limit sound in pictures to effects and music?—Yes, 38; no, 92. Do you object to part talkies?—Yes 31, no, (59. Is your interest increasing in talkies ?—Yes, G 9 ; no, 31. is your interest waning as the novelty wears off?—Vos, 23; no, 77. Do you that the talkies are a substitute for the legitimate theatre?— To this question 100 per cent voted in the negative.

It is obvious lrom these statistics that in this typical American city the public which, formerly patronised the silent film have been unaffected by the advent of the talking film, in so far as their previous attitude towanTs the silent film is concerned.

Statements from England show that there they are still regarding the talking pictures very cannily and there has been no extensive installation such as has taken place in North America. The great bulk of opinion, both public and critical, is that the talkies will never replace the silent drama and will certainly have no influence whatever of a permanent nature upon the legitimate drama. This was proven recently in San Francisco when the Shakespearean Players and the D’Ovley Carte Opera Company from London played to overcrowded houses at every performance proving conclusively that good actors and actresses with the old plays always will cause a rush to the box office. Concerning the talkies publicity S. Mormm Powell, the theatrical editor of the Montreal “Star” acknowledged the most talented critic in North America says: “The character of the publicity sent but from the Hollywood studios is rapidly reaching the point where one is compelled to doubt the sanu> 01 t u good faith of many of the organisation that pav for it. the claims made being too ridiculous even for a luntic nslyuni to accept.’ _____