7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

1/150

HOLLYWOODQUARTEditors

SAMUEL T. FARQUHARFRANKLIN FEARING

JOHN HOWARD LAWSONKENNETH MACGOWAN

FRANKLIN P. ROLFE

Assistant EditorsHELENE M. HOOKER SYLVIA JARRICO

VolumeI: 1945-1946

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESSBERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

2/150

COPYRIGHT,1945, 1946, byTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

3/150

ContentsARTICLES PAGE

The Hollywood War Film: 1942-1944, by Dorothy B. Jones ... ICreativeness Cannot Be Diffused, by Irving Pichel ........ 20Eisenstein and the Historical Film, by Ben Maddow ....... 26Chopin's New Audience, by Lawrence Morton ......... 31Men in Battle: A Review of Three Current Pictures, by Dudley Nichols . 34Radio Plays as Literature, by William Matthews ........40The Columbia Office of Radio Research, by Marjorie Fiske andPaul L. Lazarsfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51The Composer'sPlace in Radio, by Gail Kubik .........60Author's Moral Rights: Film and Radio, by Morris E. Cohn ....69Unhappy Ending, by Lester Cole ........80Television and Motion-Picture Processes,by William W. Brockway . .85Synthetic Sound and Abstract Image, by Leon Becker .. .... 95Warriors Return: Normal or Neurotic? by Franklin Fearing ....97Why Wait for Posterity? by Iris Barry . . . .. . . 131Seeing with the Camera,by Irving Pichel ... . . . . 138A Novelist Looks at Hollywood, by Robert Nathan . . . . . . 146A Change of Pattern? by Kenneth Macgowan .........148The Screen Discovers Psychiatry, by Franklin Fearing ......154Postwar Patterns, by John Grierson ............. 159The Documentary and Hollywood, by Philip Dunne .......166Death and Mathematics: A Film on the Meaning of Science, byBen Maddow ...................173Director's Notes, by Irving Lerner . . . . . . 182The Case of David Smith: A Script, by Abraham Polonsky .....185Introductory Note, by Sam Moore ............185Commentary, by Franklin Fearing ............195Director's Notes, by Cal Kuhl .............. 96Forms of Censorship, by Robert Shaw ..... ......199Postwar Radio Horizons, by Paul Porter .2..... 211Three Strangers, by Adolph Deutsch ............214From Score to Screen, by David Forrest ...........224Early Film Production in England, by Georges Sadoul ......249Acting and Behaving, by Alexander Knox ..........260They Stopped at Nothing, by John Elliot Williams . . . . . . 270Advanced Training for Film Workers: Russia, by Jay Leyda ....279Advanced Training for Film Workers: France, by Charles Boyer . . .287The Radio Siege of Lorient, by David Hertz .........291Educational Broadcasting: The Cleveland Plan, by William B. Levenson 303Educational Radio Rides the Range, by Jack Weir Lewis . . . . 312

[ iii ]

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

4/150

PAGEThe Copyright Dilemma of the Screen Composer, by Leonard Zissu . 317Brotherhood of Man: A Script, by Ring Lardner, Jr., Maurice Rapf,

John Hubley, and Phil Eastman .. . ....... . 353Animation Learns a New Language, by John Hubley andZachary Schwartz . .......... 360Music and the Animated Cartoon, by Chuck Jones ....... 364The Puppet and the Moppet, by Sondra Gorney . ... . 371Make Mine Disney: A Review, by Kenneth Macgowan .. .. . 376The Music of Objective: Burma, by Lawrence Morton ...... 378A Short Inquiry into a Form of Popular Poetry, by Everett Carter . .396The Interpretive Camera in Documentary Films, by Willard Van Dyke . 405

Report to the Stockholders, by Alex Greenberg and Malvin Wald .. 410A Film at War, by Harold Salemson ............ 416New French Films, by James E. Phillips ........ . . 420Law, Pressure, and Public Opinion, by Gilbert Seldes ...... 422Radio Daytime Serials, by George Rosen . ..... 427The F.C.C. Report: A Summary, by Paul Stewart ........429NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS

On Playing Wilson, by Alexander Knox ..... .... . oLegion or Leaven? by P. J. O'Rourke .. . . . . . . . . 112Wanted: Aids in Research, by Lawrence Clark Powell. 113Letter from a Serviceman, by Walter Hopkins ....... . 114Letter to the Editors, by Arch Oboler ...... ... 230Reply, by William Matthews .. ............ 230Hollywood-Illusion and Reality, by John Howard Lawson . . . 231An Experiment in Radio Education, by Jack Stanley and Everett Brown 233Negro Stereotypes on the Screen, by Leon H. Hardwick .. .. . 234Film Briefing of Air Crews, by Carl Beier, Jr .... .... 236Three-Dimensional Movies, by K. M .. .. ....... 237Educational Films in Sports, by A. M. H . . 238The Phi Beta Kappa Institute at the University of California,Los Angeles, by Paul Trivers .. .... ... 238The Returning Soldier: A Dissent, by Roy E. Grinker, M.D., andJohn P. Spiegel, M.D ................. 321A Reply, by Franklin Fearing ... ....... . 326Health Films, by Darrell A. Dance ............. 328Hollywood's Wartime Service, by Arthur Rosenheimer, Jr .... 330The Script Supervisor, by Marvin Weldon .. .... .. . 331A Radio Manual for Classrooms, by Nancy Holme .. .. . 333Feature-Length Picures: 1944-1945 . ........... 334J'Accuse, by Pierre Descaves ... ...... ..... 435A New Film Quarterly, by Morse Cartwright ......... 436

iv CONTENTS

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

5/150

CONTENTS vPAGE

French Film Teaching, by Pierre Gerin ....... .... 437Educational Films, 1903, by The Editors ... .. 438Short Subjects and Shortcomings, by David L. Hall . . 439

BOOKREVIEWSJohn Larkin: Movie Lot to Beachhead, by the Editors of Look .... 115E. N. Hooker: Best Film Plays of 1943-I944, ed. by Gassner and Nichols 116Charles G. Clarke: History of Photography, by Eder .. .. . 118John Elliot Williams: The Hays Office,by Moley ... . . 120Franklin Fearing: A Guide to Public Opinion Polls, by Gallup; ThePeople's Choice, by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet; Mandate from

the People, by Bruner .... ......... 121William Dieterle: Film-Kunst, Film-Kohn, Film-Korruption, by Neu-mann, Belling, and Betz; Vom Werden Deutscher Filmkunst, by Kalbus 124Boris Ingster: American Cinematography-D. W. Griffith, ed. by Eisen-stein and Yutkevich ...... .. 126Howard Estabrook: Economic Control of the Motion Picture Industry,by Huettig . ... .. .......... ... 127Carl Beier: Television Programming and Production, by Hubbell . . 128Kenneth Macgowan: The Technique of Motion Picture Production (asymposium) .. ........... . 129Man Ray: Images du cinema franaais, by Vedres .. .. 240Edward N. Hooker: My Wayward Parent, by Cobb . .. . 241

Harry P. Warner: The International Control of Radio Communications,by Tomlinson . ... ... . . . ... 242

Dwight Hauser: Radio's Daytime Serial, by Wilder ...... 243Franklin Fearing: Radio and English Teaching, by Herzberg; Teachingthrough Radio, by Levenson . ....... 245H. M. H.: Film News and See and Hear (two journals) .. .. . 247John Howard Lawson: Memorandum on the Post-war InternationalInformation Program of the United States, prepared by Macmahon .335Mildred Norton: Bad Boy of Music, by Antheil . ..... . 337Irving Lerner: Film and the Future, by Buchanan . .... . 339Sondra K. Gorney: Making the Movies, by Bendick . ... 340Cal Kuhl: Radio Drama in Action, ed. by Barnouw .... 341Nancy Holme: Adventure in Radio, ed. by Cuthbert . ..... 345Franklin Fearing: Man's Most Dangerous Myth, by Montagu; TheScience of Man in the World Crisis,ed. by Linton; The Social Systems

of American Ethnic Groups, by Warner and Srole; The PsychologicalFrontiers of Society, by Kardiner; The Jehovah's Witnesses,by Stroup;Race and Democratic Society, by Boas .. . ..... 345Milton Merlin: Franklin Delano Roosevelt: A Memorial, ed. by Geddes 350John Lund: The Craft of Comedy, by Seyler and Haggard .. . . 441

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

6/150

vi CONTENTSPAGE

G. S.: Autout des Dames du Bois de Boulogne, by Guth ...... 441Arthur Rosenheimer, Jr.: How to Run a Film Library, prepared byEncyclopaedia Britannica Films ......... . . 442Joseph Krumgold: Presenting Scotland, by Wilson ... . 444Lester E. Reukema: Two-Way Radio, by Freedman .. . . . . . 446Alexander Knox: The Use of the Drama, by Granville-Barker . . . 447Kenneth Macgowan: Mr. Lincoln's Camera Man, by Meredith . .. 448Charles Emge: Duke Ellington, by Ulanov ... . .. . 449W. L. Pereira: Plan for Film Studios, by Junge ... 450

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

7/150

QVartrLUEVOLUME INUMBER 1OCTOBER1945

UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIAPRESSBERKELEYAND LOS ANGELES

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

8/150

C o n t e n t s

Motion PicturesThe Hollywood War Film: 1942-1944 .DOROTHY B. JONESCreativenessCannot Be Diffused .IRVING PICHELEisenstein and the Historical Film.BEN MADDOWChopin's New AudienceLAWRENCE MORTONMen in Battle: A Review of Three Current PicturesDUDLEY NICHOLS

RadioRadio Plays as Literature.WILLIAM MATTHEWSThe Columbia Officeof Radio Research .MARJORIE FISKE AND PAUL F. LAZARSFELDThe Composer'sPlace in Radio.GAIL KUBIK

The Status of the WriterAuthor's Moral Rights: Film and RadioMORRIS E. COHN

Unhappy Ending.LESTER COLETechnology

Television and Motion-Picture ProcessesWILLIAM W. BROCKWAYSynthetic Sound and Abstract ImageLEON BECKER

Problems of CommunicationWarriors Return: Normal or Neurotic?FRANKLIN FEARING

ELv

PAGE1

20

. . .. . ......26

. . .. . . . ...31

. *.... * 34

..... .. . . 40

. . .. . . . ...51

. . . . . .....o

69

8o

8595

* 97

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

9/150

vi CONTENTSCommunications PAGE

On Playing Wilson ................ oALEXANDER KNOXLegion or Leaven? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112P. J. O'ROURKEWanted: Aids in Research .............. 113LAWRENCE CLARK POWELLLetter from a Serviceman .............. 114WALTER HOPKINS

Book ReviewsEditors of Look Magazine,Movie Lot to Beachhead . . . . 115JOHN LARKINGassner and Nichols, Best Film Plays of 943-I944 . . . . . 16E. N. HOOKEREder,History of Photography . ............ 18CHARLES G. CLARKE

Moley, The Hays Office ............... 120JOHN ELLIOTT WILLIAMSGallup, A Guide to Public Opinion PollsLazarsfeld,The People's ChoiceBruner, Mandate from the People ...........121FRANKLIN FEARINGNeumann, Belling, and Betz, Film-Kunst, Film-Kohn, Film-KorruptionKalbus, Vom Werden Deutscher Filmkunst ........ 124WILLIAM DIETERLEEisenstein and Yutkevich, editors, Materials on the History of theWorld of Cinema Art ............... 126BORIS INGSTERHuettig, Economic Control of the Motion Picture Industry . . . 127HOWARD ESTABROOKHubbell, Television Programming and Production ..... 128CARL BEIERThe Technique of Motion Picture Production ....... 129KENNETH MACGOWAN

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

10/150

E dEditorial StatementTHE WAR,with its complex demands for indoctrination, propaganda,and specialized training, emphasized the social function of film andradio. One of the firstcasualtiesof the conflictwas the "pure entertain-ment"myth, which hadservedto camouflage he social irresponsibilityandcreativeimpotence of much of the materialpresentedon the screenand over the air.The motion picture and the radio reflected the anxieties and hopesof the long crisis,and reported the tumult and prayerthat marked theday of victory. What part will the motion picture and the radio playin the consolidation of the victory, in the creation of new patternsofworld culture and understanding?

The editors of the Hollywood Quarterlyare not so incautious as toattempt an answer to this question. Rather, the purpose of the maga-zine will be to seek an answerby presentingthe record of researchandexploration in motion picturesandradio in orderto providea basisforevaluation of economic, social, aesthetic, educational, and technologi-cal trends. The first issue of the Hollywood Quarterly is necessarilyexperimental: the scope of subject matter, and the stimulating butsomewhatunsystematicdiversityof style and viewpoint that character-izes the variousarticles,suggestthe difficultyof selection and arrange-ment, and the lack of precedent even in limiting and defining the fieldof investigation. If a clearer understanding, not only of current tech-niques of the film and radio, but also of the social, educational, andaestheticfunctions, is arrivedat, the editorswill feel that the Quarterlyhasjustified itself indeed.

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

11/150

T h e Hollywood W a r F i l m : 1942-1944DOROTHY B. JONES

DOROTHY B. JONES is now associated with War-ner Brothers. For more than two years she was headof the Film Reviewing and Analysis Section of theHollywood office of the O.W.I. Previously, she hadheld a Rockefeller grant for the purpose of analyz-ing film content.TRADITIONALLY, the motion-picture in-dustry has maintained that the primaryfunction of the Hollywood film is toentertain. However, in a world shat-tered by conflict it has become increas-ingly evident that only through solidlyfounded and dynamic understandingamong the peoples of the world can weestablish and maintain an enduringpeace. At the same time it has becomeclear that the film can play an im-portant part in the creation of OneWorld. The motion picture can helpthe people of the world to share andunderstand one another's viewpoints,customs, and ways of living; it can in-terpret the common needs and hopesof all peoples everywhere. It is wellwithin the power of the film to reducepsychological distance between peoplein various parts of the world, just asthe airplane has reduced physical dis-tance. Whether or not the picturemakers of the world will meet this chal-lenge remains to be seen. In the caseof the Hollywood picture makers per-haps some indication of the answer tothis question may be found in an ex-amination of the way in which theymet their responsibilities to their na-tion and to the United Nations duringwartime.The present article reviews the Hol-lywood feature product of three yearsof war. It makes no attempt to examine

or evaluate any other part of Holly-wood's many-faceted war program.Furthermore, it does not presume toexplore the entertainment function ofthe film in wartime as such, althoughthe entertainment quality of films istaken into account in assessing theirvalue to the war program. By an anal-ysis of the war features released during1942, 1943,and 1944an attempt will bemade to evaluate how far Hollywoodhas aided in interpreting the war athome and giving a better understand-ing overseas of America's role in theconflict.

WHAT IS A WAR FILM?Any analysis of war films immediatelyraises the question, What is a war pic-ture? The term "war film" has beenbandied about very loosely in Holly-wood. Usually it has referred to filmsdepicting battle action. When Holly-wood producers said, "The public istired of war pictures," this is usuallywhat they meant. By this definitionWake Island would be considered awar film, whereas Forever and a Day,which was produced in the hope of in-creasing Anglo-American understand-ing, would not.

Topics relating to the war weremuch more broadly defined by the latePresident Roosevelt in his address toCongresson the State of the Union onemonth after Pearl Harbor. Emphasiz-ing the necessity for increased publicinformation and understanding aboutthe war, he outlined six aspects whichneeded to be more fully understood:

:i3

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

12/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYthe Issues of the War; the Nature ofthe Enemy; the United Nations andPeoples; Work and Production; theHome Front; and the Fighting Forces.This classification was subsequentlyadopted by the Office of War Informa-tion, and, because of its comprehensivenature, has proved useful generally inthe dissemination and analysis of wardata.

For purposes of the present survey,any film in which the main theme orplot is concerned with one or moreof the topics just named is considereda war film. This definition has led tothe inclusion of some films in whichthe war is not even mentioned. For ex-ample, The Ox-Bow Incident, a storyof the West in which several men arehanged without trial and all are laterfound to be innocent, is included be-cause it treats one of the Four Free-doms (freedom from fear) by exposingmob rule comparable to that used byfascists everywhere. Likewise, spy pic-tures laid in wartime are classified aswar pictures because the plots of suchstories center around fifth-column ac-tivities or acts of espionage or sabotage.Thus the Bob Hope comedy, TheyGot Me Covered, which revolvesaround an espionage plot in the Na-tion's capital, is included under theheading of The Enemy. On the otherhand, many stories which are laid inwartime but which are not primarilyconcerned with a war problem are notclassed as war films although they maycontain incidental references to ration-ing and other wartime restrictions.Other pictures which contain only iso-lated sequences relating to the war arealso omitted from the list.Some motion pictures deal promi-nently with several war topics. Thus,

This Land Is Mine presents a full por-trait of the Nazi enemy, and at thesame time tells a great deal aboutmethods of resistance in a newly oc-cupied country. This document couldtherefore be classified under The En-emy, or under The United Nations,because people of conquered countriesare regarded as allies. In such cases thefilm has been given whatever classifica-tion applies to the predominant themeof the picture. This Land Is Mine isclassified under the heading of The En-emy because it is concerned primarilywith Nazi tactics and the nature of thecollaborationist. In classifying filmsthere was rarely any difficulty or con-fusion in establishing the major themeor story point. Innumerable films wereviewed independently by two or morepersons, who almost invariably madethe same classifications.In order to segregate war films forthe years 1942-1944 it was necessary toreview the entire feature product ofthis period, a total of more than 1,300films. Most of these films were viewedbefore being classified. The classifica-tion of some was made on the basis ofa final script, and, of a much smallernumber, from reviews appearing in thepress. Approximately two-thirds of theentire three-year product was eitherviewed or read in the final script.

How MANYWAR FILMS?During the three years followingAmerican entry into World War II themotion-picture industry released atotal of 1,313 feature films. Of thisnumber 374, or approximately threein every ten, were directly concernedwith some aspect of the war. Thesewere distributed over the three-yearperiod as follows:

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

13/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-19441942 1943 I944Number of war films.... 126 133 115Per cent of total releases 25.9 33.2 28.5

Considering the far-reaching effects ofthe war upon the lives of almost every-one, it may surprise some that onlyone-fourth to one-third of Hollywood'soutput was concerned with the conflict.However, to those who are familiarwith the nature of the industry's prod-uct, who know the proportion of form-ula westerns, murder mysteries, domes-tic comedies, and musicals which go tomake up the bulk of pictures turnedout each year, it would appear thatHollywood gave a remarkably largeproportion of its output to war topics.

Obviously the test of the industry'swar effort in feature films cannot bemade' by considering the quantity ofwar films. As was frequently pointedout to the picture makers by their gov-ernment, a flood of pictures whichmight misinterpret important wartopics could prove harmful. The im-portant thing, of course, is the qual-ity of war films produced, which doesnot necessarily mean picture budget(though this is undeniably one factor),but picture content-the theme selectedfor screen treatment, its manner of pres-entation, and especially its timeliness.

FILMSTELLINGWHYWE FOUGHTWhen the Japanese bombed Pearl Har-bor on December 7, 1941, the Americanpeople were psychologically unpre-pared for war. Relatively few peopleunderstood why the conflict in Europe,like the war in Asia which had beengoing on since 1931, had inevitablybeen our concern from the beginning-why the very existence of fascist na-tions anywhere in the world was athreat to our democracy. Once this

country had been attacked, most peo-ple favored a declaration of war. Butunless Americans could come to a trueunderstanding of what the shootingwas all about, there was little hopethat they could wage an all-out warand win an all-out peace.

During the first three years of Amer-ican participation the motion-pictureindustry released 43 features drama-tizing why we fought. This includedfilms depicting the Four Freedoms,those which examined the Americanway of life, and those concerned withthe problems of the peace. Films onthese topics, representing i2 per centof all war films and 3 per cent of theentire 1942-1944 product, were re-leased as follows:

1942Number of filmsdealingwith the issues of thewar ................ 10Percentof totalwarfilms 7.9

1943 I944

20 1315.0 11.3These figures indicate that the num-ber of pictures telling why we foughtdoubled between 1942 and 1943, andthat the latter was the top year forfilms of this type. A further breakdownshows that the high point for releaseof such pictures came in the third andfourth quarters of 1943, six such filmsappearing in each of these three-monthperiods.Most of the films of the year 1942dramatized this country's stake in thewar by reassessingour way of life. Out-standing among such films was JoeSmith, American, which brings vividlyinto focus what the average Americanwould feel about democracy should hefind himself, as does Joe Smith, in asituation which compels him to re-evaluate the many things about Amer-ican living which he normally takes for

3

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

14/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYgranted. This Above All, released in1942, tells the story of a young Britishsoldier fresh from combat tormentedby the question, What does the com-mon man have to fight for in this war?The failure of the film to answer thisvital question greatly limited the valueof what could have been an exceed-ingly useful and timely picture. Never-theless it excited intense controversy,which in itself had a salutary effect.Films presenting in new perspectivethe American way of living, for exam-ple, Happy Land, The Talk of theTown, and The Human Comedy, con-tinued to appear in 1943. These pic-tures have a special value for audiencesabroad because, unlike the averageHollywood productions, they give thetrue flavor of American life, thus tell-ing the world what Americans feel theyhave to fight for. The Ox-Bow Inci-dent, another 1943 release, gives amoving portrayal of a problem of civilliberties closely related to our fightagainst fascism. And Power of the Press,an unheralded "B"picture, undertakesto dramatize the responsibility whichfreedom of the press entails. Unques-tionably the outstanding 1943 film onthe Issues was Watch on the Rhine,Lillian Hellman's stirring story of anantifascist. New York critics voted thisthe best picture of the year.It is a significant comment on thechanging values in film making thatfilms focusing attention on the peacebegan to appear in 1944. The mostchallenging was Wilson, a film biog-raphy of the World War I President,screened against the factual back-ground of the political and diplo-matic events in which he played soprominent a part. Because of the his-torical parallels implicit in the parts

of the film dealing with Wilson's losingfight for the League of Nations, Wilsonwas a particularly potent and timelyscreen contribution. Another film ori-ented toward the postwar period wasNone Shall Escape,which looked aheadto the United Nations trials of the Nazileaders, reviewing in flashbacks fromthe court the case history of a typicalNazi criminal. Tomorrow the World,based on the New York stage play ofthe same title, examines the questionof what to do with the Nazi youthswhose minds have been poisoned bythe teachings of fascism.

Hollywood also showed itself to bepostwar-minded in its production, in1944, of several films spotlighting theproblems of returning servicemen.Unfortunately the several pictures ofthis type (When the Lights Go OnAgain, My Buddy, etc.) gave only themost casual and superficial treatmentsof this problem, and added little ornothing to public understanding ofthe question.

FILMS ABOUT THE ENEMYFilms dealing with the ideology, objec-tives, and methods of fascism, both athome and abroad, have been includedunder The Enemy. Such films weremost acutely needed during the daysimmediately following Pearl Harbor,when Americans not only knew littleabout the nature of fascism,but also hadsmall comprehension of the fact that wefaced enemies much strongerand betterprepared for war than ourselves.

During 1942-1944, Hollywood re-leased 107 motion pictures depictingthe enemy. These films represented28.6 per cent of the war product ofthese years and more than 8 per centof the total output of Hollywood:

4

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

15/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-19441942 1943 1944Number of films depict-

ing the enemy ....... 64 27 i6Per cent of total war films 50.8 20.3 13.9It is immediately clear that the numberof pictures dealing with the enemy de-creased as the war proceeded. The highpoint occurred in the third quarter of1942, when no fewer than 23 new pic-tures of this type reached the public;this represented 64 per cent of the warproduct and almost one-fourth of theentire output of the quarter. Althoughthere was particular need at the begin-ning of the war for films about theenemy, most of these early films wereinconsequential, and many were mis-leading to the American public. Of the64 films about the enemy released in1942, all but two dealt with sabotageand espionage activities, following thetimeworn spy formula. For several rea-sons, particularly at the outset of thewar, this type of screen treatment of theenemy was unfortunate. It tended tofocus attention on and to arouse sus-picion toward aliens in this country(the movie spies were often identifiedmerely as "foreigners"). It contributedto a sense of danger on the home frontthat was out of proportion to the actualsituation, thereby detracting from pub-lic realization of the real threat of Naziand Japanese military might. Further-more, the overemphasis on an unseenenemy at work within this country waspoor diet for a nation striving to be-come fully united in order to fight themost important war in its history. How-ever great was the threat from fifthcolumnists in this country, dangerfrom spies and saboteurs was greatlyexaggerated on the screen. Public state-ments of the Department of Justice inthe fall and winter of 1942-1943 indi-

cated that in this country no major actsof sabotage or espionage had been un-covered that were definitely traceableto enemy sources.Therefore, despite the great volumeof pictures about the enemy during ourfirst year of war, there were few whichcontributed to an understanding ofour foes. As a whole, they tended tostereotype them as the usual gangster"heavy,"identifiable by the fact that heeither "heils Hitler" and speaks witha guttural German accent, or has slanteyes and hisses his "s's." This newscreen villain (presumably our adver-sary in this war) turned up in all typesof Hollywood movies. Several studiosgrafted the spy plot onto the westernformula, resulting in films like Ridersof the Northland, a typical western ex-cept that the locale is shifted to Alaskaand the "heavies" are enemy agentsattempting to establish a military basein this territory and defeated in doingso, needless to say, by the Texas Rang-ers. The serials, which, like westerns,are part of the regular weekly diet ofAmerican youngsters, also picked upthe enemy spy theme. For example, ina serial entitled G-Men vs. the BlackDragon, a Japanese sabotage plot toblow up Boulder Dam is exposed, andthe saboteurs are shown damagingshipping and arms production. Norwas the spy menace a theme solely for"B" pictures. In 1942 it also appearedin such productions as All Through theNight, starring Humphrey Bogart; MyFavorite Blonde, with Bob Hope andMadeleine Carroll; and My FavoriteSpy, a Kay Kyser vehicle.In 1943 there were fewer than halfas many films about the enemy as inthe previous year, and quality beganto improve. Although the majority

5

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

16/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYwere still melodramatic stories aboutthe fifth column, this cycle pretty muchspent itself during the first half of theyear, ending with such glorified ver-sions of the spy theme as Northern Pur-suit, a story of Nazi attempts to estab-lish plane bases in the wastelands ofnorthern Canada, and Background toDanger, a tale of intrigue in the Bal-kans. At the same time, a new type ofstory about the enemy begin to appear.In films like Hitler's Children andThis Land Is Mine the industry beganmore seriously to examine enemy ide-ology. There were also several attemptsto portray American fascism on thescreen, notably in Pilot Number Fiveand Keeper of the Flame.As indicated above, only sixteenfilms about the enemy were releasedin 1944. These for the most part stillrepeated the spy theme (Waterfront,Secret Command, Crime by Night,Storm over Lisbon, etc.). There werea few exceptions. Most noteworthy wasThe Hitler Gang, a documentary-stylefilm which examines the Nazi ideologyand dramatizes the rise of the Party.Although there were more filmsaboutthe enemy than in any other category,this subject by and large received a dis-torted and inadequate portrayal on thescreen. Features of this type were thefirst to be produced in any quantity inHollywood, because they required onlya slight adaptation of the usual mysteryformula and thus provided an easymeans for capitalizing at the box officeon interest in the war. As the war pro-ceeded, films treating the enemy moreseriously began to appear. When takenin relation to the total number of filmsabout the enemy, however, such con-structively oriented pictures were rela-tively few.

FILMS ABOUT OUR ALLIESThe United Nations theme in picturesis important for several reasons. WithAmerican entry into the war, it wasnecessary that the American publicto whom the war was a distant, far-off event should come to a more inti-mate understanding of the role thatwas being played by allied nations.Most Americans knew little of whathad been going on in China for manyyears. Their knowledge of what theBritish people had been enduringunder the Nazi blitz was meager. Theyhad no comprehension of the horrorssuffered by the Russians when theirlands were invaded by the Nazis. Filmsabout our allies were needed tobroaden American understanding ofthe many aspectsof the United Nationsbattle. They were needed abroad astestimony of our appreciation of therole these people had played in ourmutual fight against the enemy.During the first three years of thewar, the motion-picture industry pro-duced a total of 68 films about theUnited Nations and peoples. Thisnumber represented 18 per cent of thewar films released during these years,and 5 per cent of the total product.These 68 films were released as follows:

I942 1943 1944Numberof filmstreatingUnited Nations ...... 14 30 24Per cent of total war films 11.1 22.6 20.9The number and proportion of filmsabout our allies more than doubled be-tween 1942 and 1943. The high pointin United Nations releases came in thefirst quarter of 1943, when twelve suchfilms were released, this number ac-counting for one-third of the war prod-uct for that quarter.

6

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

17/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944In 1942 most of the United Nations

pictures treated of life in conqueredcountries and included such films asParis Calling and Joan of Paris. An im-portant picture in the United Nationscategory, and in many respects the out-standing film of the year, was Mrs.Miniver. Despite its faulty portrayal ofmiddle-class Britain, this picture didmuch toward bettering an understand-ing between the American and Britishpeoples.

The year 1943,with its total of thirtyUnited Nations productions, was thebig year for films about our allies. Pic-tures about conquered Europe contin-ued to be prominent, including TheMoon Is Down, Tonight We Raid Ca-lais, and Edge of Darkness. There werealso several films about China, most lav-ish of which were China Girl and China,both of which give an inadequate andmelodramatic portrayal of the Chinese.Among the films about Britain, Jour-ney for Margaret, a story about Britainunder the blitz, and Thumbs Up, con-cerned with British war production,are exceptional and useful pictures.Films about Russia appeared for thefirst time. The most talked about wasMission to Moscow, which adapts thedocumentary form to a dramatizationof Ambassador Davies' book of thesame title. While this picture was criti-cized for the dramatic license which ittook with certain facts, it was an ex-tremely useful document particularlyfrom an international standpoint be-cause it gave the first' fundamentallysympathetic screen portrayal of ourRussian allies, who, for decades, hadbeen ridiculed and maligned on thescreen and in the press of this country.The City That Stopped Hitler, thestory of the battle of Stalingrad, based

on documentary footage obtained fromthe Russians, is also worth noting.In 1944, four more films about Rus-sia were released, including Song ofRussia and North Star.The latter char-acterizes the Russian people in strictlyHollywood terms, but neverthelessstands out as an effective and movingtribute to the strength and courage ofthe Russian people in the face of Naziinvasion. Prominent among films of1944 was Dragon Seed, portraying theheroic Chinese with warmth and dig-nity and paying high tribute to them intheir battle against the Japanese. Cor-vette K-225, on the Canadian navy'sconvoy system, was one of the best warfilms of the year, deftly combiningdocument and fiction. This same yearalso brought four films about the FreeFrench, hitherto untreated on theHollywood screen-The Impostor, Pas-sage to Marseilles, Uncertain Glory,and Till We Meet Again. Unfortu-nately, three of these (all but the last-named) dramatized the fight of theFree French through the story ofescaped criminals who fought for theFrench cause. The Seventh Cross givesan impelling portrayal of a Germananti-Nazi and his escape from a concen-tration camp.Some of the best war pictures pro-duced by Hollywood dealt with theUnited Nations. Usually, however,Hollywood writers, producers, direc-tors, and actors were severely handi-capped by their lack of firsthandknowledge of the people and condi-tions they were portraying. Even themeticulous advice of researchers andtechnical experts, upon which Holly-wood relies so heavily for authenticity,failed to overcome this hazard.The cor-rectness of every physical detail could

7

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

18/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYin no way substitute for the lack of in-sight into political events, or for thelack of understanding of the spirit andattitudes of people in Allied and con-quered countries. Despite this, there islittle question that some of the filmsalready mentioned did contributeboth at home and abroad to a betterunderstanding among the people ofthe United Nations. The sympatheticportrayal of our allies aided in increas-ing American world-mindedness. Andthe tribute to our fighting allies in pic-tures like North Star, Dragon Seed,and Mrs. Miniver were warmly re-ceived by audiences in the countriesportrayed. What was often recognizedby them as caricatures of themselveswas usually overlooked or accepted ingood humor because of the underlyingspirit of admiration and friendlinessimplicitly expressed. However, in someliberated countries where populationshad suffered severe deprivations therewas not the same tolerance towardHollywood misrepresentations of lifeunder the Nazis. When such films wereshown, they tended to causeresentmentand bitterness at American lack of com-prehension of privations endured un-der the Nazi yoke.

FILMS ON AMERICAN PRODUCTIONBetween the end of 1941and the begin-ning of 1945, hundreds of thousandsof Americans who had never workedbefore, or who had not been employedin industry for many years, were re-cruited for war production. Many ofthese were women who left their homesfor the first time to fill jobs on the pro-duction line. Considerable effort onthe part of government and industrywas required to stir up sufficient inter-est and enthusiasm to bring about this

change in American living. To whatdegree did the motion picture stimu-late interest in the production of warmaterials and thereby aid in the re-cruitment of workers to industry? DidHollywood provide films which wouldanswer the many questions of peopleoverseas where American war equip-ment had aroused intense interest andcuriosity about our production meth-ods and the life of our factory worker?There were relatively few filmsabout American production-only halfas many as in any other category ofwar features. During the three-yearperiod, the industry released only 21production-front pictures:

1942Numberof filmsdealingwith the productionfront ............... 5Per cent of total warfilms ............... 4.0

1943 944

9 76.8 6.1

The proportion of films about warproduction remained approximatelythe same for the three yearsstudied. Ananalysis of the films themselves revealsthat there were also no definite changesfrom year to year in the type of picturesmade on this subject. Of the twenty-onefilms, more than one-third were musi-cals (Mountain Rhythm, Priorities onParade, Hers to Hold, Meet the People,etc.). One of the best production-frontstories, and one of the first, was Wingsfor the Eagle, the background footagefor which was taken on the productionline at Lockheed Aircraft. Also deserv-ing mention is Good Luck, Mr. Yates,the story of an instructor in a boys'academy who leaves his teaching job towork in a shipyard. Another shipbuild-ing story, Man from Frisco, dramatizesone of America's miracles of produc-tion, the building of prefabricated

8

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

19/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944ships. Although preoccupation witha timeworn Hollywood plot causedthis story to fall far short of its poten-tialities, it does give an interestingglimpse of life in a war-industry townand has exceptional value for overseasaudiences. There were several filmsabout women on the production line(Swing-Shift Maisie, Beautiful butBroke, etc.), but these films contrib-uted little because of their generallyflippant approach.

Production-front films were not onlyfew in number; they were also poor inquality. The story of the Americanworker has always been one which Hol-lywood has dodged, and the height-ened interest in production due to thewar did not counteract this tendency.Some writers have suggested that themeager number of war films on thistopic has been due to the difficultiesinherent in developing stories aroundfactory life. Some producers havepointed out that war workers want toescape from anything which remindsthem of their jobs when they go to themovies. Neither of these reasonsanswersadequately the question of why so fewproduction-front films were made. Cer-tainly aircraft workers flocked by thehundreds of thousands to see Wingsfor the Eagle and enjoyed this screendramatization of their role in the wareffort. And while no production-frontepic emerged from the war, it is hard tobelieve that Hollywood writers wouldnot have been capable of developingsuch a story,had the right combinationof circumstances allowed. Perhaps theanswer lies in the fact that we in Amer-ica are too close to the miracle ofAmerican war production to realizethe true dramatic values of this story,and to recognize the gains which might

have been made had this story beentold on the screen for the benefit ofworkers all over the world. Such filmswould have been eagerly welcomedoverseas, where men's lives dependedon war equipment labeled "Made inU.S.A." Could our allies have seen whatwent into the making of these weapons,it would have benefited us much. Fur-thermore, such films could have aidedin cementing understanding betweenAmerican fighting men and theirbrothers on the production line. It isbeyond question that Hollywood faileddeplorably in its responsibility to por-tray and interpret the role of manage-ment and labor in the winning of thiswar.

FILMS ABOUT THE HOME FRONTIn a country like ours, which did notactually witness the hostilities, one ofthe most difficult problems was themobilization of the home front. Earlyin the war, civilians were called uponto volunteer for civilian defense. Amer-ican families were asked to conservefood, save scrapmetal and waste paper,and in many other small ways to assistin the war effort. The public was askedto cooperate in the prevention of in-flation and to buy war bonds. To mo-bilize the country for these and otherwar activities was no small task. Therewas a place for films which would stim-ulate interest in and dignify thesechores,and convince the public of theirimportance. In addition, it was ex-tremely important that films destinedfor overseas audiences which depictedAmerica in wartime should tell some-thing about these home-front activi-ties. In many countries, populationshad experienced enemy invasion orbombings. These people needed to

9

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

20/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYknow that we in America were notcontinuing with business as usual, butthat the American people were awareof the demands of the war, and weredoing something about it.

During 1942-1944 the industry re-leased 40 features concerned primarilywith home-front problems. These pic-tures accounted for 1 per cent of allwar films produced during these years,and for 3 per cent of the entire filmproduct of this period.

1942 I943 1944Numberof home-frontfeatures ............ 4 15 21Percent of total war films 3.2 11.3 18.3In the firstyear of war, when such filmswere most needed, only four were re-leased; 1943 brought almost four timesthis number of pictures with home-front themes; and 1944 showed a stillfurther increase.During 1942 and 1943 the qualityof home-front stories was consistentlylow. In most films, such activities weregiven a comedy treatment. This wasconstructive when the subject was thehousing shortage or other wartime in-conveniences, as in The More the Mer-rier. However, when Red Cross work,the duties of air-raid wardens andother civilian-defense activities wereridiculed, it was a different matter.Films like Blondie for Victory, DixieDugan, and Air-Raid Wardensbelittledthe seriousness of civilian war activ-ity and tended to hinder the recruit-ment of volunteer workers. From thestandpoint of the bombed populationsof Allied countries, such films were inparticularly poor taste and must havearoused bitter comment.

Among the home-front films of 1943and 1944 was a cycle of pictures por-traying life in wartime Washington

(Government Girl, So This Is Wash-ington, Standing Room Only, TheDoughgirls, etc.). The majority ofthese films were harmless enough asfare for American audiences. However,for audiences abroad which were un-familiar with the American scene andunable to distinguish between whatrepresented burlesque and what real-ity, these films gave a volatile andhighly uncomplimentary picture of ourwartime capital. The More the Mer-rier, already mentioned, was an excep-tion, providing good laughs withoutbelittling the capital's war activities.Also during 1943-1944 there was aseries of films that centered around en-tertainment provided to servicemen.The list includes such films as Stage-Door Canteen, Hollywood Canteen,and Follow the Boys.

During 1944, Hollywood released acycle about delinquency in wartimeAmerica: Where Are Your Children?,Are These Our Parents?, Youth RunsWild, I Accuse My Parents, etc. Thesefilms gave a sensational treatment ofthis problem, and offered little or noth-ing constructive toward a solution.Rather, such pictures caused concernbecause they tended to hinder the re-cruitment of women to industry. Con-scientious mothers, fearful that theirchildren might become delinquent, re-fused to enter industry where they werebadly needed to release men for thearmed services. It was generally agreedthat delinquency films of the type pro-duced by Hollywood created fear andhysteria, thereby intensifying the de-linquency problem.Thus the feature film did little todignify and interpret for Americanaudiences the home-front war. Instead,Hollywood pictures tended to ridicule,

10

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

21/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944exaggerate, or sensationalize these prob-lems. This treatment was particularlyunfortunate in its effect on audiencesabroad.

FILMSABOUTOUR FIGHTINGORCESWith the exception of films about theenemy, more features dealing with theAmerican fighting forces were pro-duced by Hollywood during 1942-1944 than on any other war topic. Inthese years, 95 pictures about theArmy, Navy, and Merchant Marinewere released:

1942 1943 1944Number of films aboutAmerican ightingforces .............. 29 32 34Percent of total war films 23.0 24.1 25.4Approximately one out of every fourwar films produced during the threeyears following American entry intothe war dealt with the fighting man,his training, his combat experiences,his adventures when on leave, etc.In 1942, films about our fightingmen were primarily comedies and mus-icals, many of which were concernedwith life in the training camps (TopSergeant, Private Buckaroo, True tothe Army, etc.). Such pictures generallyused the army-camp background for acontinuous musical-comedy routinewhich had little to do with the seriousbusiness of preparing young men forbattle. Many of these early films cen-tered their comedy around the blun-dering, blustering, tough top sergeant.At the same time, however, therewere several efforts to portray our ser-vicemen more realistically. Of these,The Navy Comes Through, telling thestory of American seamen deliveringwar materials, is worth mention. Animportant film, and the first to approx-

imate the documentary form in thetelling of a combat story, was WakeIsland, a tribute to the Marines whoheld out there against overpoweringodds.

In 1943 the saga of the buck privatecontinued, with variations: Fall In,Adventures of a Rookie, Yanks Ahoy,etc. Also, a new type of screen storyabout the armed forces began to ap-pear, with such films as Air Force,Bataan, Guadalcanal Diary, Sahara,Gung Ho, Bombardier, Action in theNorth Atlantic. These films attemptedto approximate the documentary form,striving for a realistic and dignifiedportrayal of the American serviceman.In 1944 there was a tendency toswing back to comedy and musicalpresentations of the Armed Forces(Thousands Cheer, Up in Arms, Rain-bow Island, This Is the Army, HereCome the Waves, etc.). However, thegeneral tenor was far different fromthat of 1942-the war was treated lesscasually, and the humor was generallyin better taste. Destination Tokyo, thestory of an American submarine in en-emy waters, is an excellent war film,paying high tribute to the men of thesubmarine service. The screen versionof The Eve of St. Mark also appearedin 1944, dramatizing effectively the ex-periences of a group of young Ameri-cans from their days in training untiltheir losing battle in the Philippines.A Guy Named Joe, the story of a deadflyer who comes back to teach what heknows to a younger pilot, made thevaluable point that nothing is lost,that the mistakes and tragedies of ourday contribute to a better future. Otherserious attempts to dramatize the roleof our fighting men were not so success-ful. For example, Fighting Seabees

11

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

22/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYmakes the oft-repeatedthe war as backgroun(bare Hollywood plot, t]Japanese playing secormance. Likewise TheWassell, which could hepic, suffers from overomanticizing, and oveithe parts and situations

Analysis of the 95 ffighting forces released1942-1944, accordingportrayed in each film,lowing:Army................Navy.................MerchantMarine .....Women'sunits ........Miscellaneous ........

Total..............The proportion of Armwas about two to one.dealing with the Aircluded in the 51 Arm,half of the Navy pictureyear total of 26) dramzof the Marines. In storilife the primary empitraining (about two suc

error of using treatment given to army training andI for a thread- in some films even to combat sequenceshe war with the was in extremely poor taste. Otherid fiddle to ro- films about our fighting units wereStory of Dr. played strictly as melodrama-blood-ave been a real and-thunder stuff usually without oneerstaging, over- glimpse of understanding about therstereotypingof meaning of the war itself. In suchs. films there was often a swashbucklingilms about the American hero who conquered single-1 in the period handed. This particular type of arro-to the service gance won us much criticism abroad,reveals the fol- where we were accused of underplay-ing the contribution of our allies andNo.of * *films Per cent exaggerating our own role in this war.51 53.7 Also, Hollywood films tended to high-26 27.3 light instances of individual heroism8 8.4 to a degree out of all proportion to5 5.3 their importance in a war that relied5 5-3 mostly upon teamwork.95 100.0 On the other hand, Hollwood also

produced some fine films that drama-ly to Navy films tized honestly and constructively theEleven pictures fine job being done by American fight-Corps are in- ing men. Films like Air Force, Bataan,y films. Almost Guadalcanal Diary, Gung Ho, Sahara,Is(12 in a three- and Action in the North Atlantic con-itized the work tributed much toward a better under-ies about Army standing, not only of our fightinglasis was upon services, but of the whole meaning ofh pictures were this war.made to every one about combat),whereas for the Navy this ratio was re-versed.

In summary, the portrayal given ourfighting forces on the screen was unfor-tunate in several respects. The musicaland comedy treatment tended to un-derestimate the seriousness of war.Such pictures had a particularly ad-verse effect upon audiences in Alliedcountries. Not that comedy itself, northe wonderful American propensity tolaugh at ourselves, did not have itsplace in service films. But the slapstick

HOLLYWOOD'SARJOBThe analysis of Hollywood's war prod-uct shows that, of a total of 1,313 mo-tion pictures released during 1942,1943, and 1944, there were 45 or 50which aided significantly, both at homeand abroad, in increasing understand-ing of the conflict. This means thatapproximately 4 per cent of the filmoutput of these three years, or aboutone out of every ten war pictures, madesuch a contribution.There were many causes for Holly-

12

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

23/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944wood's failure to make maximum useof the feature film in the war effort. Tobegin with, the Hollywood industry,like most others in America, was un-prepared for the war emergency. Foryears, motion-picture studios had beenturning out six or seven hundredfilms a year, the great majority ofwhich were musicals, domestic come-dies, westerns, and murder mysteriesbased on well-worn formulas. For yearsproducers had been adamant in theiropinion that what the American pub-lic wants, above all else, is to be enter-tained. It is small wonder, then, that,faced with the task of making filmswhich would educate the public aboutthe war, most Hollywood movie mak-ers did not know where to begin. Theylacked experience in making films deal-ing with actual social problems. And,like the rest of America, they them-selves lacked real understanding of thewar.

The formula picture, and the tend-ency of many producers to cling to itas a safe and sure bet at the box office,proved a serious handicap during thewar years.Whenever Hollywood lapsedinto its usual formulas in the mak-ing of war pictures, the results weredisastrous, since the material itself be-came secondary to the development ofthe stereotyped plot. That is one rea-son why most of the war films producedby Hollywood were inconsequential,misleading, or even detrimental to thewar program (for example, the spyseries, or the blood-and-thunder com-bat pictures).Another important factor limitingHollywood's effectiveness was lack ofknowledge and concern about audi-ences abroad. Primary attention inproduction has always been focused on

domestic box office, the main sourceof industry revenue. With the adventof the war, however, Hollywood's in-difference about foreign audiences be-came a critical factor. Every film madein Hollywood either contributes to ordetracts from the reputation of Amer-ica and the American people overseas.In the case of pictures portraying therole of this nation and of our alliesduring this war, the influence of Holly-wood was multiplied a thousandfold.Yet most film makers failed to realizethat the melodramatic blood-and-thun-der combat film, with the Americanhero singlehandedly disposing of ascore of Nazis, would bring jeers andhisses in a London movie house, or thata musical singing out that the Yankshad done it once and would do it againwould cause a riot between Americanand British soldiers in a theater inBombay.The problem of timing was perhapsthe most difficult one facing the indus-try in its production of useful warfilms. A feature film cannot be written,photographed, edited, and releasedovernight. Production of an "A" fea-ture takes from nine to twelve months,sometimes longer. The releasing prob-lem itself caused further delays, par-ticularly in recent years when the largebacklog of unreleased pictures meantthat completed films might stay in thecan for many months before reachingthe screen. As a result, by the time theyreached the screenmany war films wereoutdated, or the time when they wouldhave had maximum usefulness waspassed. The industry as a whole didlittle about meeting this serious prob-lem. It might have been possible tospeed up production on a series of "B"pictures treating immediate problems,

13

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

24/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYand let the "A"-budget war films treatlong-range subjects which would notbecome outdated. Then, too, the re-leasing structure could have beenadapted to bring timely films to thescreen more rapidly. However, the re-lease of some important war films wasexcellently timed, notably Mrs. Mini-ver, Wilson, and Mission to Moscow.

Hollywood's experience with themaking of war films has led forward-looking writers, producers, story edi-tors, and others to the realization thatsomething must be done about theseproblems if the film is to play the vitalrole in world affairs for which it is soadmirably suited.There are many indications thatimportant changes are taking place inthe motion-picture capital, that thetraditional notions about film makingwhich have so long governed the in-dustry are slowly yielding to more pro-gressive ideas about the function of thefilm in the world today. This is re-flected in some of the fine films whichwere produced during the war, andin certain noticeable changes in thecontent of films generally (a moreconstructive portrayal of minoritygroups, more films realistically por-traying American life for foreign audi-ences, etc. The changes taking placein Hollywood will be accelerated bythe return of film makers who havebeen in the Armed Servicesmaking day-to-day use of the film as a dynamicweapon of war.

Hollywood has gained immeasur-ably in social awareness and in newtechniques of film making as a resultof the war. Now that the smoke of bat-tle is clearing away, a world public iswaiting to see whether Hollywood willaccept the greater responsibilities and

opportunities that lie ahead by help-ing to create One World dedicated topeace, plenty, and the pursuit of hap-piness.[The followingfilmsare citedspecificallyby Mrs. Jones. Writer credits only aregiven. Our forthcoming bibliographicalsupplement,however,will list the entire374 pictureswhich form the basis of thisarticle,and will include producerand di-rector credits.-THE EDITORS.]Action in the North Atlantic; WB;

1943Unpublished story: Guy GilpatricScreen play: John Howard LawsonAdditional dialogue: A. I. Bezzerides,W. R. Burnett

Adventures of a Rookie; RKO; 1943Original tory:WilliamBowers,M.Coates WebsterScreen play: Edward JamesAdaptation:WilliamBowersand M.Coates WebsterAir Force; WB; 1943Screen play: Dudley NicholsAir-Raid Wardens; MGM; 1943Original screen play: Martin Rackin,Jack Jevne, Charles Rogers, andHarry CraneContributor o treatment:HowardDimsdaleContributor to screen-play construction:William R. LipmanAll Through the Night; WB; 1942Original screen story: Leonard Q. Ross,Leonard SpigelgassScreen play: Leonard Spigelgass, EdwinGilbertAre These Our Parents?; Mono; 1944

Original screen story: Hilary Lynn-Screenplay: Michel JacobyBackground to Danger; WB; 1943Adapted from novel by Eric Ambler

Screen play: W. R. BurnettBataan; MGM; 1943Original screen play: Robert D. AndrewsBeautiful but Broke; Col; 1944Unpublished short story: Arthur Hous-man

14

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

25/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944Screen play: Monte BriceAdaptation: Manny SeffContributor to screen-play construction:Wm. A. Pierce

Blondie for Victory; Col; 1942Original screen story: Fay KaninBased on cartoon, "Blondie," by ChicYoungScreen play: Karen DeWolf, Connie Lee

Bombardier; RKO; 1943Original screen story: John Twist, Mar-tin RackinScreen play: John TwistChina; Para; 1943

Unproduced play: Archibald ForbesScreen play: Frank ButlerChina Girl; Tw; 1942

Unpublished story: Melville GrossmanScreen play: Ben HechtThe City That Stopped Hitler; Para;

1943Documentary: compilation from news-

reelsNarration written by John WexleyCorvette K-255; Univ; Howard Hawks;

1943Original screen story: John RhodesSturdy, Lieut., RCNVRScreen play: John Rhodes Sturdy,Lieut., RCNVR

Crime by Night; WB; 1944Adapted from novel, Forty Whacks, byGeoffrey HomesScreen play: Richard Weil, Joel Malone

Destination Tokyo; WB; 1944Original screen story: Steve FisherScreen play: Delmer Daves, Albert Maltz

Dixie Dugan; Tw; 1943Based on character created by Joseph P.McEvoyScreen play: Lee Loeb, Harold BuchmanThe Doughgirls; WB; 1944

Adapted from play by Joseph A. Fields(prod. Max Gordon)Screen play: James V. Kern, Sam Hell-manAdditional dialogue: Wilkie Mahoney

Dragon Seed; MGM; 1944Adapted from novel by Pearl S. BuckScreen play: Marguerite Roberts, JaneMurfin

Edge of Darkness; WB; 1943Adapted from novel by William WoodsScreen play: Robert RossenThe Eve of St. Mark; Tw; 1944

Adapted from play by Maxwell Ander-sonScreen play: George SeatonFall In; UA-Roach; 1943

Original screen story: Eugene Conrad,Edward E. SeabrookScreen play: Eugene Conrad, EdwardE. Seabrook

The Fighting Seabees; Rep; 1944Director, second unit: Howard LydeckerOriginal screen story: Borden ChaseScreen play: Borden Chase, Aeneas Mac-KenzieContributors to screen-play construc-tion: Ethel Hill, Dale Van EveryFollow the Boys; Univ; 1944Original screen play: Lou Breslow, Ger-trude Purcell

Interpolated speech, "Soldiers in GreasePaint," by Joe SchoenfeldForever and a Day; Anglo-AmericanProd., Inc., RKO; 1943Screen play: Charles Bennett, C. S. For-rester, Lawrence Hazard, Michael

Hogan, W. P. Lipscomb, Alice DuerMiller, John Van Druten, Alan Camp-bell, Peter Godfrey, S. M. Herzig,Christopher Isherwood, Gene Lock-hart, R. C. Sherriff, Claudine West,Norman Corwin,Jack Hartfield, JamesHilton, Emmet Lavery, FrederickLonsdale, Donald Ogden Stewart,Keith WinterG-Men vs. the Black Dragon; Col; 1942

Original screen play: Ronald Davidson,William Lively, Joseph O'Donnell,Joseph Poland

Good Luck, Mr. Yates; Col; 1943Unpublished story: Hal Smith, SamRuddScreen play: Lou Breslow, Adele Com-andini

15

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

26/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYGovernment Girl; RKO; 1943

Adapted from serial by Adela RogersSt. JohnScreen play: Dudley NicholsAdaptation: Budd Schulberg

Guadalcanal Diary; Tw; 1943Adapted from nonfiction story by Rich-ard TregaskisScreen play: Lamar TrottiAdaptation: Jerry CadyGung Ho; Univ; 1943Based on factual story by W. S. LeFran-cois, Lieut., USMCScreen play: Lucien HubbardAdditional dialogue: Joseph HoffmanA Guy Named Joe; MGM; 1944Unpublished story: Chandler Sprague,David BoehmScreen play: Dalton TrumboAdaptation: Frederick Hazlitt BrennanHappy Land; Tw; 1943Adapted from novel by Mackinlay Kan-

torScreen play: Kathryn Scola, JulianJosephsonHere Come the Waves; Para; 1944Screen play: Alan Scott, Ken Englund,Zion MyersHers to Hold; Univ; 1943Based on story by John D. KlorerScreen play: Lewis R. FosterHitler's Children; RKO; 1943Adapted from book, Education forDeath, by Gregor ZiemerScreen play: Emmet LaveryThe Hitler Gang; Para; 1944Original screen play: Frances Goodrich,Albert HackettHollywood Canteen; WB; 1944

Original screen story: Delmer DavesScreen play: Delmer Daves

The Human Comedy; MGM; 1943Director: Clarence BrownAdapted from novel by William Saro-yanScreen play: Howard Estabrook

I Accuse My Parents; PRC; Alexander-Stern Prod; 1944Original story:Arthur CaesarScreen play: Harry Fraser,MarjorieDudley

The Impostor; Univ; 1944Original screen play: Julien DuvivierDialogue adapted from the French:Stephen LongstreetAdditional dialogue: Marc Connelly,Lynn Starling

Joan of Paris; RKO; 1942Unpublished story: Jacques Thery,Georges KesselScreen play: Charles Bennett, Ellis St.Joseph

Joe Smith, American; MGM, Loews;1942Based on Cosmopolitan Magazine storyby Paul GallicoScreen play: Allen Rivkin

Journey for Margaret; MGM, Loews;1942

Adapted from novel, Journey for Mar-garet, by William L. WhiteScreen play: David Hertz, William Lud-wigKeeper of the Flame; MGM; 1943Adapted from novel by I. A. R. WylieScreen play: Donald Ogden StewartMan from Frisco; Rep; 1944

Original story and adaptation: GeorgeWorthing Yates, George CarletonBrownScreen play: Ethel Hill, Arnold Manoff

Meet the People; MGM, 1944Suggested by story by Sol Barzman, BenBarzman, Louis LantzTreatment: Sol Barzman, Ben Barzman,Louis LantzAdaptation contribution: Virginia Kel-loggScreen play: S. M. Herzig, Fred SaidyMission to Moscow; WB; 1943Adapted from nonfiction story by JosephDaviesScreen play: Howard KochContributor to treatment: Erskine Cald-well

16

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

27/150

HOLLYWOOD WARThe Moon Is Down; Tw; 1943

Adapted from novel by John SteinbeckScreen play: Nunnally JohnsonThe More the Merrier; Col; 1943Original screen story: Robert Russell,Frank RossScreen play: Robert Russell, Frank Ross,Richard Flournoy, Lewis R. FosterMountain Rhythm; Rep; 1943

Original screen story: Ray HarrisScreen play: Dorrell McGowan, StuartMcGowanMrs. Miniver; MGM, Loews; 1942

Adapted from novel by Jan StrutherScreen play: Arthur Wimperis, GeorgeFroeschel, James Hilton, ClaudineWestContributors: R. C. Sherriff,Paul OsbornMy Buddy; Rep; 1944

Original screen story: Prescott ChaplinScreen play: Arnold ManoffMy Favorite Blonde; Para; 1942

Unpublished story: Melvin Frank,Norman PanamaScreen play: Don Hartman, Frank But-lerContributor to dialogue: Barney DeanMy Favorite Spy; RKO; 1942

Original screen story: M. Coates Web-sterScreen play: Sig Herzig, William BowersContributor to dialogue and on specialsequences: Frank Ryan

The Navy Comes Through; RKO;1942Based on Saturday Evening Post story,"Pay to Learn," by Borden ChaseScreen play: Roy Chanslor, Aeneas Mac-Kenzie

Adaptation: Earl Baldwin, John TwistNone Shall Escape; Col; 1943

Original screen play: Alfred Neumann,Lester ThanScreen play: Lester ColeThe North Star; RKO; 1944

Original screen story: Lillian HellmanScreen play: Lillian Hellman

FILMS: 1942-1944 17Northern Pursuit; WB; 1943

Adapted from short story, "Five Thou-sand Trojan Horses," by Leslie T.WhiteScreen play: Frank Gruber, Alvah Bessie

The Ox-Bow Incident; Tw; 1943Adapted from novel by Walter Van Til-burg ClarkScreen play: Lamar Trotti

Paris Calling; Univ; 1942Original story: Benjamin Glazer, JohnS. ToldyScreen play: Benjamin Glazer, CharlesKaufman

Passage to Marseilles; WB; 1944Adapted from novel, Men without Coun-try, by Charles Nordhoff, James Nor-man HallScreen play: Casey Robinson, JackMoffittContributor to screen play: Elick Moll

Pilot No. 5; MGM, Loews; 1943Original Screen story:David HertzScreen play: David HertzContributor to screen-play construction:Robert D. Andrews

Power of the Press; Col; 1943Original screen story: Sam FullerScreen play: Sam Fuller

Priorities on Parade; Para; 1942Original screen play: Art Arthur, Frank

LoesserPrivate Buckaroo; Univ; 1942Original screen story:Paul GerardSmithScreen play: Edmund Kelso, EdwardJamesContributor to screen-play construction:Jerry Cady; to dialogue, Lloyd FrenchRainbow Island; Para; 1944

Unpublished story: Seena OwenScreen play: Walter DeLeon, ArthurPhillipsRiders of the Northland; Col; 1942Original screen story:Paul FranklinScreen play: Paul Franklin

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

28/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYSahara; Col; 1943Original screen story: Philip MacDonaldScreen play: John Howard Lawson, Zol-tan KordaContributor to treatment: James O'Han-lonSecret Command; Col; 1944

Adapted from novel, The Saboteurs, byJohn and Ward HawkinsScreen play: Roy Chanslor

The Seventh Cross; MGM; 1944Adapted from novel by Anna SeghersScreen play: Helen Deutsch

Song of Russia; MGM, Loews; 1944Unpublished story: Leo Mittler, VictorTrivas, Guy EndoreScreen play: Paul Jarrico, Richard Col-lins

So This Is Washington; RKO; 1944Authors: Roswell Rogers, Edward JamesScreen play: Leonard Praskins, RoswellRogersStage-Door Canteen; UA-PrincipalArtists; 1943Original screen story: Delmer DavesScreen play: Delmer DavesStanding Room Only; Para; 1944

Unpublished story:Al MartinScreen play: Darrell Ware, Karl Tun-bergStorm over Lisbon; Rep; 1944Original screen story: Elizabeth MeehanScreen play: Doris GilbertAdaptation: Dave LussierStory of Doctor Wassell; Para; 1943Based on nonfiction story of Dr. Wassellas related by him and fifteen of thewounded sailors involved and alsoupon the story by James HiltonScreen play: Alan LeMay, Charles Ben-nettContributor to treatment: Jeanie Mac-phersonSwing-Shift Maisie; MGM; 1943Based on characters created by WilsonCollis

Original screen play: Mary C. McCall,Jr., Robert Halff

The Talk of the Town; Col; 1942Original screen story: Sidney HarmonScreen play: Irwin Shaw, Sidney Buch-manContributor to treatment: Dale Van

EveryThey Got Me Covered; RKO; 1943Original screen play: Leonard C. Ross,Leonard SpigelgassScreen play: Harry KurnitzThis Above All; Tw; 1942

Adapted from novel by Eric KnightScreen play: R. C. SherriffThis Is the Army; WB; 1944Adapted from play by Irving BerlinScreen play: Casey Robinson, CaptainClaude BinyonThis Land Is Mine; RKO; 1943

Original screen play: Dudley NicholsScreen play: Dudley NicholsThousands Cheer; MGM; 1944Based on story, "Private Mis Jones," by

Paul Jarrico, Richard CollinsOriginal screen play: Paul Jarrico, Rich-ard CollinsThumbs Up; Rep; 1943Based on story idea: Ray Golden andHenry MoritzOriginal screen play: Frank Gill, Jr.Till We Meet Again; Para; 1944

Adapted from play, Tomorrow's Har-vest, by Alfred MauryScreen play: Lenore CoffeeTomorrow the World; UA; 1944Adapted from play by James Gow andArnaud D'UsseauScreen play: Ring Lardner, Jr.; LeopoldAtlas

Tonight We Raid Calais; Tw; 1943Original screen story: L. Willinger, Ro-hama LeeScreen play: Waldo SaltContributors to adaptation: ArthurCaesar, Rohama Lee

Top Sergeant; Univ; 1942Original screen story: Larry Rhine, BenChapmanScreen play: Maxwell Shane, GriffinJay

18

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

29/150

HOLLYWOOD WAR FILMS: 1942-1944True to the Army; Para; 1942

Adapted from novel, She Loves Me Not,by Edward Hope, and play by How-ard LindsayScreen play: Art Arthur, Bradford RopesAdaptation: Edmund Hartman, ValBurtonUncertain Glory; WB; 1944Original screen story: Joe May, LaszloVadnayScreen play: Laszlo Vadnay, Max BrandUp in Arms: Avalon Prod., Inc., RKO;

1944Adapted from character, "The NervousWreck," by Owen DavisOriginal screen play: Don Hartman,Allen Boretz, Robert Pirosh

Wake Island; Para; 1942Based on records of the U.S.M.C.Original screen play: W. R. Burnett,Frank Butler

Watch on the Rhine; WB; 1943Adapted from play by Lillian HellmanScreen play: Dashiel HammettAdditional scenes and dialogue: LillianHellman

Waterfront; Alexander-Stern, PRC;1944Developedfromoriginalscreenstoryby

Martin Mooney and Irwin R. Frank-lynScreen play: Martin Mooney and IrwinR. FranklynWhen the Lights Go On Again; PRC;

1944Original screen story: Frank CravenScreen play: Milton LazarusWhere Are Your Children?; Mono;1944Original screen story: Hilary LynnScreen play: Hilary Lynn, George W.Sayre

Wings for the Eagle; WB; 1942Original screen story: Byron Morgan,B. H. OrkowScreen play: Byron Morgan, B. H. OrkowAdditional dialogue: Richard MacaulayWilson; Tw; 1944

Original screen play: Lamar TrottiYanksAhoy; UA; 1943Original screen story: Eugene Conrad,Edward E. SeabrookScreen play: Eugene Conrad, Edward E.SeabrookYouth Runs Wild; RKO; 1944

Original story: John Fante, HerbertKlineScreen play: John FanteAdditional dialogue: Ardel Wray

19

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

30/150

Creativeness C a n n o t B e D i f f u s e dIRVING PICHEL

IRVING PICHEL'S varied career has included stagedirecting on Broadway and in the little theater, andacting and directing for motion pictures. His mostrecent pictures include A Medal for Benny andTomorrow Is Forever. Currently he is directing TheBride Wore Boots.THE TITLE PAGE of a -book usuallymakes no more than three statements-the name of the book, the name of thewriter, the name of the publishingfirm. In small print, on the reverseside,there may be a copyright notice whichneed not be read. Somewhere in theback of the book, there may be a noteon the style of type and perhaps thename of the firm that set the type.Not so a film. First, accompanied bya fanfare, the name of the firm thatpresents the film. Then, the title of thepicture; or, more often, the names ofthe stars preceding the title, then thetitle, then the names of the secondaryor featured players. Then, as thoughto temper the excited anticipation ofthe audience, comes a series of credittitles informing the public who wrotethe story, who adapted it to the screen,who wrote the screen play, who wroteadditional dialogue, who wrote themusical score, who orchestrated it, whoconducted the orchestra, who designedthe women's clothes, the men's clothes,who directed the make-up,who directedthe dances (if any), who directed thephotography, who produced the pic-ture, who was associate producer, and,finally, who directed it. On occasion,these credits are only a little less fic-tional than the content of the picturethey precede. Even when they are lit-eral statements of fact, the facts fail to

impress the public that views the pic-ture, largely because the public whichsees entertainment through the eye hasno interest in the invisible personali-ties concerned in its making.Nevertheless, the battle for credit isan intense one. Even though the publicremains indifferent to the identity ofthe film creators and technicians, thefilm manufacturers are not, nor are thecreators and technicians. The glowwhich suffuses a successful picturelights up the names of those who con-tribute to that success. It follows thatscreen credit becomes an end in itself,and that the size of type, the positionof the credit card in the sequence ofcredits, and the number of times an in-dividual's name appears on the screenbecome matters of contractual negotia-tion. This accounts to a large degreefor the fictional character of manyscreen credits. It explains why thereare producers who do not produce, di-rectors who do not direct, and writerswho do not write the films on whichtheir names appear. This is contributedto by the circumstance, as it applies tothese three categories at least, that thefunctions of producer, writer, and di-rector are not and cannot be clearlydifferentiated. So it is not uncommon,however the screen credits may read,for a producer to feel some indignationat the contractual necessity for puttinga director's name on the screen, or fora writer to feel some bitterness at whatthe producer has required him to writeor the liberties a director has takenwith his script, or for a director to as-

E20o

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

31/150

CREATIVENESS CANNOT BE DIFFUSEDsure his colleagues and friends that oneof his pictures might have been a betterjob if he had not had producer interfer-ence or had had better writing. On theother hand, there are times when un-earned credit is given as a generousgesture to help a lad up; at others,with a gesture that looks equally gen-erous, credit is surrendered becausethe man to whom it belongs wants toevade the responsibility for what hefears will be a bad picture.

It is a truism to say that a work suchas a film with the attributes of a workof art should have the unity and styleof a single imagination. A Leonardo daVinci might divide the labor of cover-ing a wall space with an expansivemural by letting pupils and appren-tices paint in details, but the idea, thedesign, and the composition, the car-toon and the palette, were all stipu-lated by the master himself. While afilm may be given a factitious visualunity by uniform photography and cut-ting, it happens too often that the con-cept, the design as a whole, and themajor elements of character and eventare not the stipulations of one imag-ination or of the collaborative poolingof several, but represent the compro-mised quotient of divided minds or theimposed dicta of the compunctions,cautions, or plain misunderstandingsof a noncreative authority.The reason for this is simple enough.When the fiction film came of age dur-ing the second decade of this century,it was conclusively the work of a singleimagination. Whether D. W. Griffithevolved a story of his own like Intoler-ance or used a book like The Clansmanas a basis for The Birth of a Nation, theresulting film from concept throughshooting and editing was indisputably

his work. The term director as appliedto a man like Griffithwas inclusive. Hewas a storyteller in a new medium ofwhich he was the complete master.His films had the greatness and thelimitations of an individual mind.Whatever reservations we may havetoday concerning their content, theywere stamped on every foot with theconcise and integrated mastery of anew language of which Griffith was toa vast extent the inventor.

Griffith's contemporaries and theirsuccessors, almost to the time of theintroduction of sound, were, like him,the sole makers of their films. Duringthis entire era, films were not writtenor produced; they were "directed."Though successful stage plays and nov-els were adapted to the screen, the actof adaptation was the process of trans-lation into this new language in whichvisual images replaced description, inwhich speech was seen and not heard,and in which words played a minutepart as printed "titles," conveying onlythe minimum of speech or narrationnecessary to the advancement of thestory.Writers, during this same period,were little more than recorders of theexpressed intentions of the director, orcreator, of the film. They developed atechnical vocabulary for the indicationof shots, of actions and reactions, and,from association with directors,becameknowing in the ways of the screenand the film play. Equipped with thespecial vocabulary and knowledge ofdirectorial practice, they were pres-ently able to make "adaptations" oftheir own, screen plays which were, aswriting, as literature, no more thanpictures directed on paper. This wasnot, of course, a valueless evolution.

21

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

32/150

HOLLYWOOD QUARTERLYIt crystallized not only the form ofthe screen play; it tended to crystallizealso the practice of creative directorsand enabled less-gifted men to com-pound pictures from these prescrip-tions. Above all, the division betweentwo men of the creative function savedtime. Instead of waiting for a directorto prepare a script in collaborationwith a writer, the writer could preparea script while the director "shot" an-other, greatly shortening the intervalsbetween a director's pictures and short-ening also the time spent on the set.Two related disadvantages grew outof the separation of the two functions.The actual process of making a filmbecame, at worst, a less creative process,and, therefore, film making could becarried on by less creative men.The translation to screen terms of astory written originally in anotherform is not in itself a highly creativeprocedure. Nevertheless, when a filmis to be made, the creative processbegins with the concept of the termsin which the film story is to be told. Sofar as screen-play writing was removedfrom the supervision or control of thedirector of silent pictures, he wasstripped of part of his creative func-tion. He suffereda further loss throughbeing relieved of the need for impro-visation on the set, the need for instantinvention, for intense thinking andfeeling at the moment of work withoutreference to thinking and feeling doneweeks before by another person or evenby himself, alone or in collaborationwith another person.The advent of sound did more thanconfirm this separation of function. Ifit had not already taken place, it wouldhave become necessary when spokendrama supplanted pantomime. For

with sound there came not only theneed of good writing; there came playsfrom the theater, altered it is true forthe screen, but nonetheless plays writ-ten by writers. And quickly the play-wrights themselves followed to adapttheir own plays or others to the screen.Even where the director remained thechief functionary in making a film,he was now definitely teamed withand, in a new sense, dependent uponanother kind of creative worker withan assured and essential place in thestudios.

The new writers brought with them,also, their own amour-propre. Theycould not accept readily the secondaryplace occupied by their predecessorsand assigned to them by the establishedtraditions of their new field. Moreover,those who were experienced dramatistswere able after a time to penetrate thedifferences between stage and filmform, acquire skill in adaptation forfilm, and, indeed, to contribute to theevolution of the screen play. A largenumber of them, it is true, learned tocollaborate with creative directors. Agood number of intelligent directors,likewise, felt no loss of dignity or au-thority in working on equal terms withtheir writers. And, along with the writ-ers, of course, a good many directorscame from the theater to learn their wayabout in the new medium and acquireits technique. These men accepted asa matter of course the primacy of thewriter in originating and formulatingthe screen play. Between such directorsand writers there has grown up thatcollaboration peculiar to motion pic-tures which, at its best, brings aboutthe creation of screen plays in whichthe contribution of writer and directoris indistinguishable. Theirs should be

22

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

33/150

CREATIVENESS CANNOT BE DIFFUSEDa relationship which recognizes thefusion that must be achieved betweenideas verbally expressed but visuallyrealized. Their relationship is one ofinterdependency-the director andplayers, upon good writing; the writer,upon players skillfully and sympatheti-cally directed.Such collaboration, though dictatedby historic circumstance and economicconditions of the industry, did not be-come the universal pattern. There werewriters enough who found their workaltered in sense by directors. Therewere directors who could not welcome"mere"writersaspartnersor share theirfunction and importance. And beingtheir first with experience, great repu-tation, great earning power, and, letit be admitted, superior adeptnessin film storytelling, they held theirground and fought, not only while theyworked, but in the negotiation of theircontracts, for the importance of theirposition and for its recognition interms of screen "credit" and the posi-tion and size of their names in paidadvertising.The writers, too, have had to fightfor their position. They have insisted,and rightly, that the story comes first,that without stories there are no filmsand that the creators of stories have abasic and indispensable function, ashave the adapters of stories into filmicterms. They have worked for greaterresponsibility and greater respect and,as much as any other creative group,,for a greater use of the screen as a first-hand medium rather than as a formof reissue, comparable to drugstore re-prints of best sellers.On the economic side, they havestruggled to achieve proper standardsof pay and screen credits that accu-

rately represent their contribution.Thus, in place of the half dozen or sowriters whose names once appeared onthe credit cards, now, no more thanthree may be used. Even this, we mayfeel, is a misleading improvement. Itmay suggest to the uninitiated that onewriter alone was unable successfully toadapt a play or novel to the screen, or,at least, had not been trusted by theproducer to do so.More successful has been a certainwriter whose name precedes that of thetitle of the screen play, thus:

So-and-so's"Suchand Such"and then, in very small letters,

from a story by What's-his-name.In spite of a single, extravagant victorylike this, the fight to establish the pri-macy of the story and its authorship isfar from won. With the notable excep-tion of a few writers for the screen-secure by reason of exceptional skill orexceptional success-the writer has lit-tle recognition and little authority.It was inevitable, so far as this strug-gle was not merely an abstract one forposition but lay between two contend-ers, the writer and the director, that anumpire should be appointed. Known atfirst as a supervisor, later as an associ-ate producer and, in his own reach forposition, eventually as the producer,he functioned legitimately as a coordi-nator of the elements of a production.He functioned also as an adjudicatorof disagreements between writer anddirector, sometimes with acute intelli-gence, sometimes with crafty diplo-macy, sometimes with unabashed des-potism. He represented the authorityof the "front office"-generic term forthe vice-presidents in charge of produc-

23

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

34/150

24 HOLLYWOODtion, distribution, and finance -andused his delegated powers, accordingto the measure of his own personalityand talent, for the sake of agreement,economy, and efficient progress in thejob of film making by eliminating thesources of delays. Working with writ-ers, he might do no more than insiston ten pages a day, or he might aidin the solution of a story problemwhich was holding the writer up. Withthe picture in production, he might dono more than keep temperaments fromboiling over, or he might contributevaluable suggestions and criticism.

Today, the position of the producerhas grown in importance until it out-ranks that of either writer or director.The producer, to begin with, eitherrepresents or actually is the "frontoffice."He has authority. But more im-portant is the fact that, working in acreative medium, he has come to becreative himself; or, more often, crea-tive men are appointed to the job-menwho can make up for the deficienciesof less-talented writers and less-talenteddirectors by spreading their own talentover both. They may themselves haveonce been writers or directorswho haveescaped from the restrictions and con-trols imposed upon them to the greaterfreedom and authority of this semi-executive function. Or they may be ex-ecutives with an aspiration to have ahand in the pleasurable work for whichthey have in the past been paying.Fortunately, some of them have thenecessary talent. Frequently, they aremen who can work collaborativelywith writers and directors, releasingthe capacities of both to a fuller ex-pression, winning the respect and grati-tude of both without diminishing thefunction of either. Other producers,

QUARTERLYhowever, are writers by proxy and di-rectors by indirection; that is to say,they engage writers to do their writingand directors to do their directing.They assume a portion of the crea-tive function of both the writer andthe director and so remove by onemore step the creative process from theactual place and moment at which filmis being made. Such producers, supply-ing the talent their writers and directorslack, can make good pictures with me-diocre men under them. The curiousthing is that they usually employ themost highly paid writers and ablest di-rectors-which should, it might be sup-posed, be a guarantee of superlativepictures. That it is not is due to thesimple human fact that first-ratewrit-ers and directors cannot work bestwhen such creativeness as they mayhave is subtracted from to be exercisedby another, perhaps equally talented,man.

It is clear, I believe, that for threemen to work as one is all but impos-sible.For them to agree intellectually is

possible. For them to work togetherharmoniously is possible. For them tomake a better picture than any one ofthem working alone could make is con-ceivable. But for them to achieve theunity and singleness of aim, of feeling,and of style that a work of art shouldpossess, each functioning creatively, ishardly achievable. One of the three willdominate the other two, will usurp thecreative function of one or both ofthe others. Two of the trio will executethe intentions of the third.

Upon brief reflection, it will be re-alized that this is what takes placeand that, therefore, there are threekinds of pictures made in Hollywood-

7/16/2019 Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct., 1945.pdf

35/150

CREATIVENESS CANNOT BE DIFFUSEDthose which are distinctly "directors'pictures," those which have been "pro-duced," and those which owe their dis-tinction to the work of the writer. Ineach category, one man has given hisstamp to the work. If he is the director,he has used a writer to his own ends,imposed his feeling or his wit upon thewriters as definitely as he transmits itthrough the players. His producer, ifhe has one, is a co6rdinator of produc-tion who may contribute "suggestions"which are accepted and transmuted bythe director into something of his own.Such directors have occasionally beensuccessful enough to demand and se-cure the title of producer-director,which means that by combining twofunctions within himself he is able todominate the third.A few writers have likewise absorbedthe producer function in order to pro-tect the execution of their work and,sometimes, to preserve the collabora-tion between themselves and their di-rectors. This is true notably of the teamof Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder.Both began as writers, Brackett be-coming a producer as well, Wilder adirector. Within the past several yearsa number of writers have become di-rectors, among them George Seaton,Joseph Mankiewicz, Delmer Daves,John Larkin, and Oliver Garrett. Oneman, Preston Sturges, originally awriter, has absorbed all three functionsand is solely responsible for the realiza-tion in film of the screen plays hewrites. Writers who produce their ownscripts include Brackett, already men-tioned, Nunnally Johnson, DudleyNichols, Lamar Trotti, Seton I. Miller,Sidney Buchman, and Karl Tunberg.Occasionally a producer has turned

to directing. Another, David Selznick,has written the script for one of hismost ambitious productions and seri-ously contemplates directing. His pro-ductions are all stamped more clearlywith his own character than with thatof either his directors or his writers.The significance of these strains andcontests is this: creativeness cannot bediffused. A good film grows from anidea, and the idea unifies it and givesit its integrity. Ideas can be developedand nurtured by the interplay ofminds, but they are the initial off-spring of individuals. Whether the ideaoriginates with the man who sponsorsthe production or the man who writesthe script or the man who direct