We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
Among the Magazines (Quite Informally) rIME was—and until recently it still was-—when our serious maga- zines would not deign to admit to eir pages discussion of the "Movies." ley have begun to do so, and, to judge the more conspicuous articles of the st few months, the motion-picture in- stry can hardly be overjoyed at the mor. For the good of the country, iwever, and for the ultimate good of e motion-picture itself, it is a highly i* in cant thing that serious writers and inkers are beginning to give attention the matter. The fact that these arti- ;s are now acceptable in such publica- )ns is certain evidence of a demand on e part of the intelligent public for corn- tent discussion of the question. So far, scathing arraignments seem to : the order of the day. Probably the ost relentless condemnation of the mo- m-picture, past, present and to come, tiich has yet appeared is entitled The Movies as Dope by Elizabeth Robbins Pennell in the North American Review for November To insure that her curse upon the mov- 5 be permanent, and so recognized by J readers, Miss Pennell begins by a reeping assertion that what has not en attained so far is hereafter and for- er impossible. "Millions and time have ready been behind the movies . . . > far from being in their infancy, they ive reached full maturity and, in attain- g it, have delivered themselves from all mptation to linger in the by-paths of ience and art." One may readily admit at "millions and time" are involved •re, but one may also have a calm sus- cion that it is a case of too many mil- »ns and too little time. ' When Miss Pennell claims, in support of her state- ment, that the movies began with "seri- ous, instructive" stuff, can she be refer- ring to the occasion in Indiana, in the early 90's, when Jenkins projected, for the first time on a screen, his pictures of dancing girls? Or is she thinking of the first feature film (about 400 feet long) called "The Great Train Robbery?" The following approximate quotation will make clear how little the writer thinks of photography: "Colossal capacity for boredom made man invent the imaginary world of relig- ion for relief. Then religion made drama. The drama in time drifted reluctantly away from religion into the hands of art- ists, just as now it is drifting joyously away from art.. It is not art that draws to the play, but the love of make-believe. When drama was in the hands of artists, the art was accepted for the sake of the make-believe. But forgetfulness was all that was wanted, so art oozed away. Tragedy, melodrama, comedy, musical extravaganza, farce, revue, and then, crowning achievement of modern prog- ress, photography captured the drama and the happiness of people was com- plete; and so also, incidentally, was the degradation of dramatic art. For pho- tography is not, never can be, art. The attempt to photograph art in motion—dra- matic art—is as foolish as the attempt to make Rembrandts and Whistlers out of photographs of people and places." This is strong argument except for its logic, especially in the last sentence which contains a rather masterful non^sequitur. Photographing art in motion is quite as sensible as photographing art not in mo- tion. If it is photography that has made 15