Rail-Sitting

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 460, 15 September 1928, Page 24

Rail-Sitting

Film Producers Try To Avoid Offending SOME CHANGED SCENARIOS

American producers are finding that the plots of certain films are apt to cause offence, not only in nearby countries, but in parts of the United States. For that reason, stories which portray nations and peoples in an unfavourable light are being watched carefully, and altered where necessary.

The growing policy of changing scenes and settings is not regarded favourably by many disinterested film fans, but the principle is a sound one and an outline of it explains why so many well-known works of fiction are altered or abridged for screen presentation. ITALY’S BAN Not long ago Italy placed a ban on “The Temptress.” The scenes were

laid partly in South America and partly in France, and the reason for the trouble was a mystery. Then it was discovered that the Argentine Republic considered the portrayal of the lives of its people to be distasteful. Italy sympathised. Norma Talmadge’s “The Dove” was a popular stage play, and no one could understand why the settings for the picture

I were altered. It was because “The Dove” as a play included an extremely wicked i Mexican villain, and the scenes were made in Mexico. America likes to be friendly

with little Mexico, Norma Talmadgc so the locale of the story was changed to a vague country on the shores of the Mediterranean.

It was all very stupid, because many of the characters of “The Dove” were obviously Mexican. The railsitting policy was subjected to more than a little ridicule on this account. A short time ago, pictures of the racial type came in for no small share of difficulties. The one to suffer most was, perhaps, “The Callahans and the Murphys.” Very drastic action was taken against it by various Irish organisations. They contended that it disclosed the American-Irish people in a most unfavourable light, because of the vulgarity of certain episodes. In some places the picture encountered so much trouble that it was withdrawn altogether. No end of objections were raised to certain portions of “The King of Kings” by the Jewish public. Quite a few changes were made, from the original Biblical version, before the picture was presented, and still more were required after it was shown. BOOZE AND KISSING The word “booze” cannot be generally used in sub-titles. In “The Noose,” one title, “I’m off the booze trail,” was reduced to “I’m off the trail.” An interesting rule reads as follows: “Excessive kissing is forbidden, particularly when one character or the other is a ‘heavy.’ ” Only heroes and heroines can therefore give an enthusiastic demonstration of their affection. Which, perhaps, is what is logically expected.

HAPPY ENDINGS

SCREEN ART AND REALISM “Whatever do people who make motion pictures mean by ‘art?’” asks John Barrymore. “I think it very impertinent of them to try and ‘instruct’ their audiences, or cram ‘art’ down their throats. “People visit pictures to be amused. If they are courteous enough to see us act, w>e should be courteous enough to consider their wishes.” With his customary direct vigour, Barrymore adds that it appears to be the modern custom to talk loudly about “art” and “realism.” Realism, he says, seems to be interpreted as misery and degradation. “I am all for happy endings—whatever they may be! The thing that seems to be considered a happy ending is where two people embrace, with the supposition that they are about to be married. But it is possible for tragedy to leave a happy impression, as in “Romeo and Juliet,” where two lovers have their great moments and then die.”