Motion Picture News (Nov-Dec 1925)

2186 Motion Picture News Projection Optics , Eleetr ieity,Prdetical Ideas ^ advie Inquiries and Comments We Are "Bawled" Out T seems that when the editor of this department made a statement, a little more than a year, to the effect that the Law of Inverse Squares applied to the light beam of a motion picture projector he started something. Despite the fact that proof was advanced at the time that statement was originally made which tended to preclude any arguing on the matter the editor, ever since, has been busy warding off attacks from every side which come, more or less, in the nature of incredulous disbeliefs. It seems strange that such a casual statement of a perfectly obvious fact should elicit so much criticism — particularly from persons whom we have accredited all along with being in full possession of all the facts concerning projection fundamentals. Yet such has been the case, much to our surprise. In connection with this needless controversy we paid particular attention to answering the critical comments of a writer for another trade publication, and who, by the way, appeared to be our most persistent critic, thinking that we might thereby effectively silence the spasmodic attacks from our readers. In this we have apparently been unsuccessful since only recently a Brooklyn projectionist, one Richard Kuester by name, takes us to task for the critical attitude which we, in turn, have assumed toward our critics, for he writes : Dear Sir: "Being a projectionist and therefore interested in all matters pertaining to projection, I subscribe to several trade journals just to get information and new ideas on projection (a laudable ambition which may well be emulated by the rest of the fraternity — Ed. ) "In the October 10th issue of Motion Picture News you devote an entire article, or rather the entire section on projection to criticise an editor of a projection department of another paper. "I happen to be a subscriber to both papers and know whom you mean. To my idea this editor is just trying to elevate those who work in the projection room and make projection a respected profession. This editor is man enough to admit when he is wrong or does not know. "True enough, everybody has the right to argue for what they think is right, just as scientists and others argue against well known laws of nature. Wants to Know "As a projectionist and a subscriber, I am going to ask you to be so kind as to set forth in plain English your knowledge on this subject of light action so I, as a projectionist, will understand the subject a little better. ..." Who'd'a thought that this matter would develop into such a word-slinging contest anyway? As a space consumer it rates "A-l." After all the explaining and argufying that we have already passed out along comes a chap like Kuester with the naive request that we start it all over again so that he "as a projectionist" can understand it. Well, we as an editor are not going to do it. No sir, not by a long shot. If you want to understand what this feud is all about, Friend Kuester, you'll have to go right back to the May, June and July issues of Motion Picture News of last year (1924) and do some tall reading. The best explanation we could hope to make is contained in those issues — I think one of the July issues would be particularly interesting. As for starting it all over again — Never ! Tired As far as our criticism of other writers is concerned, why, we too, have been hauled over the coals so it is only natui'al for us to turn around and do a little bit of the hauling ourselves. We are going to be even more critical than the other fellow, especially when he attempts to ridicule us. If anybody crowds us we are going to crowd right back. We too arc trying to elevate the projectionists' standing in the field but not, however, by patting him on the back. The utter self-complacency with which many projectionists assume a know-it-all attitude is one of the direct results of such actions so we believe it is better to give them a jolt every now and then in order to keep their thinking apparatus in proper trim. Our motto has been "Spare the oil and spoil the rod." As far as arguments go, nothing could be better to bring out ideas and develop one's knowledge of the subject, including the editors. This particular argument, however, has been dilly-dallying hack and forth for over a year along the lines "Yes, it is," "No, it isn't" and that is too long. So we say again this is positively the last time we are going to mention it. Other things of more importance are on the schedule. Shades of Jesse James Just recently we received word of the existence of a Projection School in the middle west, from 0. Record of Grain Valley, Mo. Friend Record writes again giving the address of this school as follows : Kansas Citv School of Motion Picture Projection, 109 West 18th Street, E. J. Si me, Manager. A clipping from another journal in the motion picture field accompanied the letter and this clipping forms very interesting readbig. It appears that the M. P. T. O. of Missouri and Kansas are cooperating with the school, which is conducted on a non-union basis. Recently, some handbills were distributed explaining the purpose of the school to theatre managers. Whatever was contained in those handbills certainly brought results — but from a different quarter. A nice friendly group consisting of about twentyfive members of the local union paid Manager Sime a visit, the nature of which can be adduced from the fact that Sime promptly "drew a bead" on them with a Colt Forty-Five, or whatever they use to draw beads with, and, according to the news item, "successfully stood off the angry mob." Apparently there were no casualties. C. E. Cook, business manager of the Kansas-Missouri M. P. T. 0., in a statement issued after the incident denied implication of his organization in the matter of the handbills but placed himself on record as being in favor of the school saying "any exhibitor has a right to hire whom he pleases and pay according to the quality of the work done, just the same as an employer in any line of business pays an employee according to his ability." And so it rests. However, there's much to be said on both sides. Minusa Screen Plant Severely Damaged by Fire Fire of undetermined origin on Friday night, October 16, damaged the plant of Minnsa-Cine Screen Company, 26G5 Morgan St., St. Louis, Mo., approximately $20,000. The company manufactures high class motion picture screens. The blaze had gained considerable . headway before it was discovered by a passing policeman. The fire department had to fight more than an hour before the fire was under control. The loss was fully covered by insurance. Officials of the company stated that it would prepare to care for all business promptly and that in a very short time normal conditions will be restored in the plant. James Cardina Building Two Theatres in Buffalo James Cardina, who operates the new Varsity on Bailey avenue and the Kensington on Grider street, Buffalo, has just acquired another site on Bailey avenue, between Kensington and Delavan avenues, on which in the spring he will begin the construction of a 2,500 seat house which will have a frontage of 140 feet. Mr. Cardina, in association with his brother, Thomas, is also building a new theatre in Williamsville, N. Y., near Buffalo, which will be ready in a few weeks. This house is really an eidargement of the old Glen theatre which Mr. Cardina has operated for years, but a new front is being built and the horse seating capacity augmented to 750. Some day property next door to the theatre mav be obtained at which time the house will be boosted to a 1,200 seat house.