Motography (Jan-Jun 1913)

146 MOTOGRAPHY Vol. IX, No. 5. his service. I ask you exhibitors, Are you prepared to pay this extra cost ? Do you feel that your business will stand for an increase of say anvwhere from 25 to SO per cent in cost of film service? Bear also in mind that the brunt of this will fall most heavily on the "little" exhibitor. 3. We now have a national censor board, composed of representative American citizens. They represent every branch of industry. Do you wish to nullify that board and their judgment by creating a minor board of censorship That is what you would do if you were to create a state censor board. 4. This proposed bill to create a censor board in the state of Ohio also provides for a national censor congress, which means that a similar censor board may be created in every state of the Union. What would be the result? Right here I want to say that I agree with Mr. Otto N. Raths, president of the Minnesota state branch of this league, who says that the formation of state censorship boards would result in conflict similar to that now resulting from state divorce laws. 5. To show you that the best legal minds of this country hold the view that a state censorship is in direct violation of existing laws, I refer you to President Taft's action on February 8, 1913, when he vetoed the proposed censorship bill coveting the District of Columbia. The president iield that it encroached upon existing laws. In this connection I wish to bring to your attention again the decision of another great legal mind, that of the Hon. William J. Gaynor, mayor of the city of New York, who wrote a letter to the board of aldermen of the city of New York, disapproving the proposed ordinance relative to censorship of motion picture theaters in that city. 6. This bill is being promulgated by the exhibitors of this state of their own volition, as there has been no action by any state or civic authority to prompt such a bill as a protective measure. May I ask the exhibitors, not only of Ohio, but all over the United States, to serious consider this matter of state censorship of films? Think not only of the present, think of what the future may bring forth in case this bill becomes a law in any or all of the states. It is a serious menace and now is the time to act. Therefore, I feel sure that if the exhibitors of Ohio will give this matter due consideration they will ask their representatives in the state legislature to vote against the bill. To sum it all up, this bill will mean a higher rental service to the exhibitor. An old film that is renting to the exhibitor today for one dollar will rent for two dollars after the passage of this bill. It practically means a double taxation on all exhibitors by the state of Ohio. By this I mean that exhibitors of this state are largely property owners and are paying taxes to the commonwealth of Ohio on real estate, chattels, bonds and whatsoever property they may own, the same as any other citizen, and in almost all the cities and towns of this state there is also the license fee which the exhibitor must pay on his business. Why, then, should the state of Ohio impose something in the exhibitors' line of business which will increase the cost of operation of their business? Our experience with a censor board here in Cleveland fo~ the past thirty days has proven the fact that a national censor board is sufficient. If every community, or every state in this country had its own peculiar code of morals, each differing from the other in some essential feature, then local censorship might have some reason for existence. But no such condition exists. The American race as a whole has one standard of morality— the highest possible. It is equally true — and here is the gist of the whole matter— that the United States has one motion picture program; no more. The pictures shown in Reno, Nevada; Red Wing, Minnesota; Shreveport, Louisiana, and New York, New York, are all the same. How ridiculous it would be to have forty-eight separate and distinct censor boards, all with the same standards, doing the same work upon the same material, differing only because of the inevitable human element that defies logic and upsets the most carefully laid plans ! A fine example of conservation of effort! PREVENTING PANICS. SINCE the recent unfortunate panic in the New York Hippodrome picture theater, a number of municipalities have busied themselves with proposed ordinances intended to protect similar audiences. In Detroit, Michigan, the local Exhibitors' League is advocating the com pulsory projection of a slide calculated to allay the possible fears of picture theater patrons and to instruct them in the proper course to follow in case of fire or panic. The slide is worded something like this : Our operating booth is fireproof. There is no danger at any time. If a fool cries "fire" sit still — don't run. People are hurt in the rush. All exits are plainly marked. All doors open outward. Some Detroit exhibitors, however, are protesting against the proposed warning, claiming that audiences would be unnecessarily alarmed by suggesting to them the possibility of a fire. Therefore they petition the city council not to consider such a law. Between these two opposing ideas there must be a middle path which will lead to beneficial results. If the audience is to be told anything, the screen is obviously the place to do the telling, because everybody will read it there. If it was printed on a program, posted on a bulletin board or engraved on the panels of the wall, not one in ten would ever see it. It is admitted that the danger in any public gathering place is not fire, but the fear of fire. Panic is a human phenomenon of very peculiar character. While real danger will cause panic, imaginary danger is just as fertile in its production ; for there is no reason in panic — it is a destroyer of reason. The individual human mind is submersed in the mob mind, which is the mind of the beast. The mob, enraged, tears its prey limb from limb. The mob, terrorized, tramples its weaker members to the ground. That is why, sometimes, respectable citizens lynch their captives without even adequate proof of guilt — citizens who, individually, would shrink sympathetically at a broken finger. And that, too, is why ' men who would risk their lives among flames and falling walls act like stampeded cattle in the grip of the mob mind. So the mere fact that theaters or operating booths are absolutely fireproof is not sufficient. First it is necessary to see that aisles and exits are ample for any possible emergency. The next step is protecting the people from themselves is to make it a part of their subconscious knowledge that nothing could possibly happen to them in the theater. The only way to impress this upon them is to tell them so ; but the choice of words for that purpose must be very judicious. Obviously, it will not do to tell them how to act in case of fire or panic ; for those elements must not exist. That they cannot exist is, indeed, the point to emphasize. The value of a fireproof theater, or operating booth, from the point of view of possible panic, lies mostly in advertising those qualities. So it seems desirable that a slide of some sort be shown, so worded as to carry the conviction of absolute safety and easy exit, without suggesting any possible necessity for the hurried use of the latter. Here are the points : Our operating booth is absolutely fireproof, assuring perfect safety at all times. When leaving the theater please do not crowd. There is plenty of room and the exits are ample and plainly marked. All doors open outward. That form, perhaps, is not quite so strong as the one proposed for Detroit, but it substitutes the word safety for danger and omits the reference to a fool crying fire and people being hurt in the rush. It seems to us that it is just as well not to suggest to the aforesaid fool that he might cry "fire" as an experiment. These are only hints, but with the salient points in mind a slide may be devised that will effectually banish all danger of panic.