“BIG MONEY” PICTURES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 5 July 1940, Page 9

“BIG MONEY” PICTURES

HOW THE BUDGET IS DIVIDED. With the re-appearance of what their American makers have called "big money" moving pictures, there comes also the interesting question of how that money is spent. From the huge salaries paid to slats it plight reasonably be inferred that others rcceivec. less in prepartion, and so it is, as a rule. The featured players are the largest single items of expense in the production of most films, but they arc closely followed by the director. His percentage, usually equal to about onetenth of the whole budget, is sometimes more and sometimes less than that received by the more-publicised ihespians. Twenty-five per cent of the money paid cut is, on an average, allotted to the stars, but this, of course, may be divided among almost any number tip to six. In "Gone With the Wind,” for example, Leslie Howard. Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland and Clark Gable divided something like this sum among them. The much larger groups of extras, bit players and character actors have five per cent of the money for division. It may sound small, but since thxy have usually a much longer screen life than the stars “little and often” has made for many of them sizeable fortunes. The less evident sides of motionpicture production, those dealing with sets, art direction, preparation of material and that sort, of unobstrusive background have bigger budgets. The money is spent approximately in this proportion: sets and art director, 12.5 per cent; story and preparation, 12 per cent; costumes, 2 per cent. The justification for this expenditure

is not always appreciated by the theatre-going public, which too often pays little attention to the accrediting sub-titles when the film is shown. As in the army, however, the proportion in the “front line" is very slight indeed, by far the greater number being engaged in less romantic but equally necessary work in the rear. Since the institution of the award system, however, these people have been receiving something more like their due; and appreciations of direction, settings and photography arc increasingly frequent. One of the smaller items is “cameramen and at 1.5 per cent. Think back on some of the films you have seen, and you will realise that this is indeed money well-spent. Probably the first thing an audience notices, conciously or otherwise, is the actual

representation of persons and scenes. Everyone is familiar with the mishaps that sometimes occur in the cinema resulting in blurred and faulty projection. Few people, however, could quote offhand a film in which the photography was so poor to have reused indignation and comment from die beginning. On the other hand films with good and often brilliant photography spring quickly to the mind. One of the most recent was -Of Mice and Men." the John Steinbeck vehicle, and among the older films there was the unforgettable "Zoo in Budapest.” Other percentages arc: Sound, engineering and negatives. 3.1 per cent: assistant directors. 2 per cent; publicity, research, etc.. 2 per cent: insurance. 2 per cent; lights. 2 per cent: labour, 1.2 per cent: tests, 1.2 per cent: cutlers. 1 per cent; film, negative. 1 per cent: make-up. .!) per cent; still photographers, .4 per cent: teachers. .2 per i cent. : Euphemistically labelled “indirect ' cost." is the second heaviest item, which usually represents 15 per cent. i and covers multitude of sins, from exi pensive scenes that are scrapped to I expensive protegees of executives who I should be.