Motography (Apr-Dec 1911)

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE NICKELODEON Vol. VI. Chicago, November, 1911. No. 5. PROGRAM LIMITS. X>T EMBERS of the Motion Picture Exhibitors' League ■*-VA of America have declared in favor of restricting a five-cent program to two reels and a song. This amounts to a show of forty-five minutes or less, which is certainly ample for a nickel. Early in 1909 The Nickelodeon, the predecessor of Motography, advocated earnestly a program of only one reel and one song, for five cents. We still believe that amount of entertainment is all that ought to be expected for that insignificant coin. The only reason why the one-reel show will not go now is that the game has been "killed" by too many foolish exhibitors, who proceeded to add to their programs until they went broke. The motive for their generosity was to beat some competitor; and frequently they succeeded in beating themselves first. In the meantime, of course, the public has been educated to expect three or four reels of film, a couple of songs and a vaudeville turn or two, all for a nickel. The only way to beat that game is to raise the price to ten cents. But if it must be five cents, the tworeel-and-a-song proposition is right. A good many who are "on the outside looking in" will read this and immediately jump at the conclusion that opportunity calls again, and that with the abbreviated program riches are in sight. Should they act on this belief and rush in they are apt to find some difficulties that never occurred to them. In the first place, the people, as before noted, have been taught to look for a great deal for their nickel. Any reduction in quantity means inevitably an increase in quality or a reduction in attendance — take your choice. Inasmuch as any reduction in attendance is apt to be greater in proportion than the saving in film rental, the increase in quality is the only way out. It does not necessarily follow that the man who is now showing three reels, and wants to come down to two reels, must pay as much for the two as he did for the three. There, is a happy middle course where each of the two reels will be better than any of the former three, yet aggregate a lower total rental. And it might be well (for a word to the wise is sufficient) to make one of the two a split reel. It is strange but true that the average picture theater goer — not the "fan," but the ordinary atendant — cannot distinguish between a split reel and two full reels, especially if a slide or two are run in between the two halves of the reel. Only the other day a picture patron who goes to the neighborhood show at least three times a week told the writer he was going to change his allegiance to another show a short distance away because he "got more for his money." As a matter of fact, the first show runs two reels and a song, and so does the second show ; but the second makes it a point to use one split reel, and so can announce "three pictures." Not nearly so many split reels are made as there used to be. The modern tendency is for two-reel and one-reel shows rather than for one-reel and split-reel shows. And the tendency is excellent if the exhibitor will only live up to it by raising his price to ten cents. Split reels are not vitally necessary to the ten-cent show ; but they are necessary to the five-cent show. Dramas made in this country are almost entirely full reel subjects. The foreign makers still turn out some dramatic split reels. But our own makers are still turning out some excellent comedies, two to the reel, and no better program can be imagined for five cents than one full reel of drama, one song and one split reel of a comedy and a scenic. FLAT PRICES FOR FILMS. C O MANY feet of film for so much a foot — that is *^ the present commercial arrangement for the disposal of motion pictures. The number of feet may vary within certain ethical limits ; the price per foot may not vary at all. A reel of film whose production cost up into the thousands, with elaborate settings, special costumes and armies of extra people in the cast, sells for the same sum as a reel the same size showing, for instance, a current event, whose only cost is raw stock, camera man's time and perhaps a railroad ticket. What is even more interesting is the fact that the exchanges may order no more copies of the first example than they do of the second. But that is another subject. At present we are concerned only with the price per foot. Thomas Clegg, whose article on this subject appears on another page, wrote of course, of conditions in England, and moreover he wrote several months ago ; for Mr. Clegg died last June. But this posthumous discussion is so appropriate to the present moment, and withal so concise and so true of conditions here, that we offer no apology for its publication. The motion picture business is so different from any other business that it is difficult to draw parallels and comparisons that would have much weight in argument. But we need not go outside the amusement field to find that prices vary as they should, according to the value of the attraction. Vaudeville teams run all the way from seventy-five dollars a week, or even less, up to several hundred. Musical talent varies the same way. Why should films, alone of all things, have a flat price with no deviation for quality or cost? The reason is merely that "the system" was not originally worked out that way. The first films made for public exhibition all cost approximately the same. When, in competition, one manufacturer spent more than his brothers in producing a picture, his object in doing so was not to get a larger price, but to sell more prints and build a better reputation. And as the regular release date became a feature, with the exchange's "standing order," it became more and more difficult to make a special price for special productions. Today it is hard to see how such an arrangement could