RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STAGE PRODUCTIONS
Although the mounting and staging of photo-plays has been greatly
improved, the art has still many imperfections. This is partly due
to the conservative character of the industry. There is a lack of
initiative and enterprise; the producers are content to keep in the one
groove which was established years ago. No one can deny that enormous
sums of money are expended upon the mounting of the productions, nor
assail them from the photographic viewpoint. But there is a lack of art
which at times is sadly jarring.
This was to be expected. When the English pioneers embarked upon the
play-producing business they knew nothing about stage-craft. Their
ambition was rather to perfect the photographic quality of the films.
So rapidly did the movement advance, however, and so insistent was the
public in its demands for better, larger, and more lavishly staged
plays, that the pioneer found himself out-distanced. At this juncture
came the man who had won his spurs in the theatre, and who was
thoroughly expert in the technique of stage-craft. His professional
knowledge lifted the art out of the hands of the pioneers, who retired
from the scene.
The introduction of the professional element commenced in France, and
was taken up immediately by the Americans. These two countries went
ahead so rapidly that Great Britain was soon left behind. The world
became flooded with French and American productions, and in this
healthy race the latter soon went ahead and took premier position.
The French industry, being threatened, pulled itself together, and
taking a cue from American methods it overhauled its organisations and
increased its expenditure, with the result that it soon attained the
level of excellence achieved by the United States. At a later date the
Italian industry, which was in a languishing condition, followed suit.
Money was sunk in the enterprise, huge studios were built, and talented
artists were engaged to act before the moving-picture camera.
Great Britain lagged in this race, and it is only recently that the
British producers, by a change of method have been able to make up
the leeway. The British movement was rather of a sporadic nature. It
was left to one or two enterprising firms to show the way. But others
have followed, and to-day there is the keenest rivalry in producing,
nor is expense considered so long as the public gets what it wants. To
sink £3,000 ($15,000) in a single production has become quite a common
venture.
In many cases, however, in spite of these changes, photo-plays still
follow the lines that prevailed ten years ago. The blemishes, defects,
and anachronisms are just as pronounced now as they were then, though
they are suffered in silence by the public. Many faults are hidden by
the gorgeous and lavish mounting of the scenes, while the rapid action
of the players serves to distract attention from the shortcomings of
the environment. But the feeling of actuality, which ought to be the
great feature of the cinematograph, is missing. The scenic accessories
might be left out for all the effect that they produce.
As a matter of fact the photo-play stage occupies to-day the position
of the theatre twenty years ago. The scenery is for the most part
make-shift, crudely painted in the neutral black and white, the stock
room being ransacked to discover pieces of canvas to fit the situation.
There is no attempt to create an artistic effect. Also there is an
entire absence of reality or individuality. A cell scene, for instance,
bears every sign of being built of canvas and battens, and so does the
exterior of a mediæval castle, or the inside of a conservatory, and
completed by a factory hand.
[Illustration:
_From the "Cinema College," by permission of the Motograph Co._
TREE LIZARD, WITH A SPIDER, WHICH IT HAS CAPTURED, IN ITS
MOUTH.]
[Illustration:
_By permission of Pathé Frères._
THE DIGESTIVE ORGANS AND EGGS OF A WATER FLEA.]
[Illustration:
_By permission of Pathé Frères._
THE MOVING-PICTURE NATURALIST AND THE LIZARD AT HOME.]
Sometimes the shortcomings of the studio-stage are avoided by setting
the plays in an outdoor surrounding, and in this instance a far more
realistic effect is produced. The audience is unconsciously carried
away. This has been specially realised by some of the American, Danish
and Italian firms.
In France the Gaumont Company has shown equal enterprise. So far as
possible the elaborate productions of this company are acted in a
scene suited to the plot, whether it be a sixteenth century castle or
a modern hotel. There is ample opportunity for doing this, and the
present popularity of the photo-play proves the wisdom of the policy.
During the summer months as many as six different companies will be
working in as many different corners of Europe, acting plays in the
open air for the picture palaces. Even the interiors in Gaumont films
are often real and not merely constructed for the occasion. As a rule
the studio is used only during the winter when the climatic conditions
are unfavourable for outdoor work. This is the chief reason why the
Gaumont films to-day are in such demand, and why the company has forced
its way to the front.
The conveyance of players to a suitable natural setting is expensive,
but it represents all the difference between success and failure. Of
course, there are occasions when a natural setting demands a certain
amount of artificial embellishment. This was the case in the filming
of Hamlet, as presented by Sir Forbes Robertson and his company. A sea
background and a battlemented castle were required. The former was
quite easy to find, but the combination of the two was more difficult.
The problem was solved by the choice of Lulworth Cove as the scene
and by erecting a solid set to represent the castle. In this case the
preparation of the extemporised castle was so thorough and careful that
it looks like a weather-beaten stone building.
The photo-play stage will be forced to emulate the current practice
of the theatre. It must bring the artist to bear upon the work. At
the moment it is merely a combination of the photographer and the
stage-manager or producer. The latter is not always an artist, though
he is clever at making existing facilities suit his purpose. The
theatre is holding its own principally because it respects the artistic
side of the issue. Individuality is encouraged. The photo-play stage
will have to follow the same line of action. Directly this is done the
picture palace will become a spirited rival of the theatre.
For this reason the efforts of Sir Hubert von Herkomer, the eminent
British artist, are being followed with interest. He was attracted to
the photo-play producing business owing to the artistic atrocities
perpetrated by the professional producer of film plays. He is not
attempting to achieve any revolution, except in the mounting and acting
of plays for the camera, but in this sphere he hopes to bring about a
recognition of the part that the artist must play.
There is a complete absence of sensationalism about the
artist-producer's work, and in this respect he goes against the
conventions. He is deliberately flouting many of the accepted tenets
of the photo-play production, and his attitude is certain to meet
with some hostile criticism. But from the realist point of view he is
correct. His matter-of-fact productions give verisimilitude to the
scene and story, and brings them within the range of probability. There
is no straining after effect. No detail is introduced unless it has a
distinct bearing on the subject. The costumes are faithful to the last
button. If a sixteenth century farmhouse is wanted, it is built, and
built so well that in the picture it has every appearance of having
been built of stone.
A feature which will be appreciated in the Herkomer productions is the
suppression of the harsh and distressing blacks, greys and whites,
which under brilliant illumination often convey the impression of snow.
Nor do the players seem to be suffering from anæmia. These appear to
be trivial matters in themselves, but they greatly affect the ultimate
whole. The robust aspect of the peasant who lives out of doors is
faithfully conveyed, and he is thrown up in sharp contrast to the
white-faced townsman. In the conventional picture-play, on the other
hand, there is no individuality of facial expression, because one and
all are made up in the same way.
Sir Hubert von Herkomer has commenced his work in a logical way. He
confesses that until he began it he knew nothing about it. He was
not harassed by a partial knowledge of how things are done. He is
essentially a pioneer, content to work out his own ideas, and possessed
of views upon stage-craft which are not to be despised. They had a good
effect upon the theatre twenty or thirty years ago, and have lately
been revived by another enthusiast. So Sir Hubert von Herkomer is not
likely to be the slave of tradition.
He maintains that in the average photo-play everything is sacrificed
to rapid action. This is true, and it is done purposely to distract
attention from the weakness of the rest. The spectator must fix his
attention upon the characters or he loses the thread of the story. No
time is given him to see the deficiency of atmosphere or environment.
The result is that everything is rushed through as if the villain and
hero were racing the clock. To realise this it is only necessary to
follow the film-play of a well-known historical story. Familiarity with
the incident here gives the spectator a chance of taking in the setting
and the mounting. If there are mistakes, interest gives way to mirth
and all concentration is lost. The picture is followed with no more
enthusiasm than a pantomime. This is the main reason why producers are
chary of portraying well-known historical episodes upon the screen.
One educational authority has described such films as burlesques, and
that is among the causes of opposition to the cinematograph as an
educational medium. In one instance an attempt was made to film an
incident in one of Fenimore Cooper's stories with white actors made
up as Red Indians. It was acted in a well-kept private forest instead
of in the wild woods of Canada. But young and old proved to be too
familiar with this author's works. They had too true a notion of the
Canadian timber wilderness to be impressed by the substitute on the
screen, and received the presentation with the ridicule it deserved.
The sight of a Red Man slouching through the bush with out-turned feet
and trying to conceal himself behind a tree less than six inches
in thickness, proved to be merely comic. But other things equally
ridiculous are found in many of the films of to-day, and that is the
reason why the scenes are so judiciously rushed.
By slowing down the speed of acting, though without reducing the
sustained interest, Sir Hubert von Herkomer contends that the public
will be put in a position to grasp the whole subject, and will be able
to follow it more rationally and comprehensibly. At the same time the
players will have time and scope to perform their parts properly.
There is not the least reason why this should not be achieved without
allowing the action to flag or the interest to drop.
The lighting of the subject is another important feature to which
Sir Hubert von Herkomer is giving attention. The illumination must
be arranged to suit the situation, and as cinematography offers
the utmost latitude in this respect, it is unnecessary to rush to
violent extremes. In many productions the studio stage is suffused
with such an intense glare that all facial expression and shadows
are sacrificed. Sir Hubert has realised how great is the scope for
improvement in this direction, and is altering the whole principle
of stage lighting. Similarly, in outdoor work he is supplementing
sunshine with arc lights, so as to secure the steady illumination
necessary for good effects. The combination of brilliant daylight and
artificial illumination is a novelty in photo-play production, but when
the action is taking place under trees, where the shadows are heavy and
in sharp contrast with scattered patches of brilliant sunlight, the
players are apt to present a phantom appearance. Sometimes they are
scarcely distinguishable. The introduction of auxiliary light relieves
the shadowy places and softens the general effect. Needless to say
the manipulation of powerful arc lights under such conditions demands
skilful handling, but in the Herkomer films the improved results
certainly show that the labour is not wasted.
Whether the combination of artist and producer will prove successful
time alone can show. There will be a certain amount of commercial
opposition, lacking in artistic feeling, and hostile to innovation. But
the appearance of the artist and his resolution to work out his schemes
logically should surely be encouraged by the public. The same reforms
that changed and improved the theatre, enabling it to hold its own
against the all-conquering picture palace, have a mission to the latter
also. They can lift it to the higher level that is its obvious destiny.