Motography (Apr-Dec 1911)

30 MOTOGRAPHY Vol. V, No. 4. Graham Avenue, Brooklyn. — All seats filled. Eighty-six standing in rear completely blocking aisles and front doors. A dangerous place in case of fire or panic. Third Avenue, Manhattan. — All seats filled and seventeen standing in the rear; thirty-two children apparently unaccompanied by any guardian occupied the front rows. Pitkin Avenue, Brooklyn. — All seats filled, and every available bit of standing room, including the1 aisles, crowded. In most cases, five, six and seven persons were occupying three seats between them, some sitting in laps of others. Children under sixteen were freely admitted unaccompanied. No attempt was made to maintain order. Quarrels were frequent. An alarm of fire would have resulted in many fatalities. A detailed inspection impossible on account of crowd. West 125th Street, Manhattan. — All seats filled ; 46 persons standing in rear, 28 standing in easterly aisle and 22 in the westerly aisle. A fire or panic in this place would have resulted disastrously. Pitkin Avenue, Brooklyn. — Seats full and about 250 standing in the rear and in the aisles. A critical inspection of this place was impossible. The crowd was surging back and forth, pushing and shoving for vantage points of view. Quarrels were frequent. The air was fetid and stifling. Children under sixteen years were admitted unaccompanied. This place is without one single redeeming feature. While it is true that the facts above noted are serious and demand the immediate attention of the police and fire authorities, it should not be forgotten that the conditions of moving picture shows in New York have greatly improved within the last two years. In accordance with an order of the chief of the Bureau of Licenses, effective November 20, 1910, approximately all picture shows in the city are now lighted during the performance. The frequent allegations of vice and immorality made possible by the absolute darkness in which the films were formerly presented would today, therefore, be largely unfounded. In this and in other respects the intelligent efforts of the chief of the Bureau of Licenses have secured a steady improvement in moving picture show management, in spite of inadequate laws and the halfhearted assistance of other departments. Our study of moving picture shows convinces us that their abuses are largely ascribed to three causes : (1) The lack of definite laws and ordinances and uniform regulations in regard to the moving picture business. (2) The lack of centrifugal control by the municipal authorities. (3) The presence in the building code of a section which virtually restricts the moving picture business to small "store front" shows. The first two points have been dwelt upon at length in the early part of this report. Our laws have not kept pace with the development of the picture shows, and the city departments have grappled with a new situation with no definite understanding of their duties, and no intelligent co-operation. It would appear, therefore, that new ordinances are urgently needed to establish the status of the moving picture show in this community. Such ordinances, we believe, should exactly define a motion picture show and the steps necessary to obtain a license, so that uniform regulation may be secured. It would further seem advisable to centralize the supervision of such places of amusement in one department, as for instance, a department of licenses, or a distinct bureau of the department of licenses, thus eliminating the scattering method of control which now obtains. This department or bureau, while free to secure the expert services of other departments, as, for example, the fire and building departments, would nevertheless be primarily responsible for the condition of moving picture shows. A change of this kind could, of course, be brought about only by a revision of the charter. Other than the outline above given, we do not attempt in this report to suggest any definite legislation. We are informed that a resolution is now before the Board of Aldermen requesting the mayor to appoint a committee to co-operate with the board in drafting the necessary ordinances for the control of motion picture shows. We believe that such a committee, representing both the moving picture interests and the various organizations that have studied the problem, should be appointed. In addition to its work of cooperating with the Board of Aldermen, this committee could be empowered to present suggestions for charter revision along the line of a centralized control of all places of amusement. In case such a committee is appointed, we would desire to submit for its consideration, and the consideration of the Board of Aldermen, the advisability of amending section 109 of the building code. The effect of this section, as was explained in the early part of the report, is to restrict the moving picture industry to small shows seating less than three hundred. Inadequate sanitation, overcrowding, and general cheap character of the performance are logical consequences. A proprietor must comply with the rigid requirements of section 109 in regard to the construction of a regular theater, or must be content with the returns of a small show. If it were possible under the building code for the proprietor to exhibit his pictures in a hall seating perhaps six hundred persons, it is very probable, as has been the case in other cities, that the cheaper and less desirable shows would be eliminated through competition. The objection to such a change is based upon the idea that moving picture shows seating over three hundred people should be constructed with the same regard for public safety as obtains in the case of regular theaters. It must not be forgotten, however, that the average picture show has no. stage, maintains no scenery, and is rarely constructed with balconies. While no one would contend that it should not be forced to adopt all reasonable precautions against fire and panic, at the same time there would seem to be a clear distinction between a theater and a moving picture show of equal capacity. In the city of Boston, public places of amusement are divided into first and second class construction, the first class approximating section 109 of our building code in regard to theaters, and the second class, with less rigid requirements, confined to halls seating from 400 to 800. In this latter class are found most of Boston's moving picture shows. We venture to suggest this matter at this time because from our examination we are convinced that most of the abuses in New York's motion picture industry are directly ascribable to the small, cramped