Movie Makers (Jan-Dec 1953)

272 Chicago defeats effort to license all projectionists During a period of thirty five days this past summer, amateur movie makers in the City of Chicago — and all other elements interested in the free and unlicensed screening of substandard motion pictures — came perilously close to losing that freedom. For there was civic legislation proposed during that time which, if it had passed, would have required the employment of a licensed motion picture operator to run any projector — 8mm. or 16mm. — anywhere in the City of Chicago save in the home. This legislation was embodied in a Proposed Revised Electrical Code which was prepared by Chicago's Electrical Commission for presentation before the City Council, the community's top legislative body. Key paragraphs in this proposed Code were Sections 155-8 and 155-25. They read as follows: 155-8. (Motion Picture Projecting Machine Operators-License Required) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a professional, non-professional or miniature non-professional motion picture projecting machine or device for any public or private gathering without first having obtained a license as a motion picture projecting machine operator; provided that Sections 155-8 to 155-25 shall not apply to the operation of any motion picture projecting machine or device of a miniature non-professional type for use in a dwelling, when the film used is not larger than sixteen millimeters in width, which film is regularly supplied only as slow-burning (cellulose acetate or equivalent) film, and when less than fifteen (15) amperes of current is (sic) used. 155-25. (Motion Picture Projecting Machines Using Fifteen (15) Amperes of Current or More) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a professional, non-professional or miniature nonprofessional motion picture projecting machine or device or any type of projection equipment using 15 amperes of current or more for any public or private gathering without first having obtained a license as a motion picture projecting machine operator; provided, that Sections 155-8 to 155-25 shall not apply to the operation of any motion picture projecting machine or device of a miniature non-professional type for use in a dwelling, when the film used is not larger than sixteen millimeters in width, which film is regularly supplied only as slowburning (cellulose acetate or equivalent) film, and when less than fifteen (15) amperes of current is used. Appended to these legislative proposals were a series of definitions bearing on their interpretation. Germane among them were the following: 88-540.4 (b) : Non-Professional Motion Picture Projector: A motion picture projector intended for use with slow-burning (cellulose acetate or equivalent) film only. A non-professional motion picture projector shall not be used in public except for not-for-profit exhibitions. 88-540.4(c) : Miniature Non-Professional Motion Picture Projector: A non-professional motion picture projector whose construction provides for the use of films of a width less than one and threeeighths (1%) inches which film is regularly supplied only as slow-burning (cellulose acetate or equivalent) film. Had it passed, the effects of this proposed legislation on the free hobby of amateur movies, as well as on the free use of substandard motion pictures for religious, educational, scientific and allied purposes, are too shocking and too obvious to need detailing here. That this discriminatory and wholly unnecessary legislation did not pass may be credited to the vigorous protests of all interested parties — including Chicago's hundreds of organized amateur movie makers — once these cointerested parties were alerted! However, passage of this "sleeper" ordinance seems to have come dangerously close to success. As far as the Amateur Cinema League can determine, from its several sources of information, the chronology of events was as follows: July 23: "Apparently the first effort to sneak this Code through was on July 23, at which time James Fitzwater, director of visual education for the Chicago Public Schools, opposed it, along with representatives from Bell & Howell and others." This report, which came to ACL August 15, well after the battle was joined, was from Peter S. Bezek, ACL, of the Chicago Cinema Club, ACL. He went on to add: "Jim called me that night (July 23) and told me what the provisions were in the Code, since a copy of it was not obtainable at that time. While officials stated that it did not apply to amateur or 16mm. showings, the wording was so tricky, I am told, that it would be subject to various interpretations at the whim of interested parties. Later, a copy of the Code was obtained and we passed on the information to all clubs holding membership in the Associated Amateur Cinema Clubs (of Chicago) and to as many others as we knew of." July 25: Apparently the incident on which Mr. Bezek thus reports was caught up by two Chicago newspapers and brought to the attention of the general public in their editions of July 25. For Mr. Bezek goes on: "The Daily News on Saturday, July 25, quoted Jim Fitzwater as saying that the provisions of the Code would increase public school operational costs by nearly a million dollars." Reporting later on the events of that same day, Arthur H. Elliott, ACL, the League's Chicago-area director and a OCTOBER 1953 past president of the city's Metro Movie Club, ACL, stated: "Although I was out of town at the time, it now seems that on July 25 the Chicago Tribune had published a story of the attempt to push this 'sleeper bill' through the City Council. You can well imagine the uproar there would have been if some alert reporter had not been on the job." July 27: It was on this date, only three working days after the abortive attempt at legislation on July 23, that ACL headquarters was first alerted to the dangerous situation in Chicago. The warning came to us from Frederick G. Beach, FACL, former technical consultant for the League and for some years now supervisor of motion pictures for the New York Central Railroad, with headquarters in New York City. As a member of the Industrial Audio-Visual Association, comprised of some seventy of America's top industries using motion pictures, he had been alerted by the Association's Chicago representative — and immediately passed the word on to ACL. The League's first move (on that same date of July 27) was to wire a warning to our Chicago director, Mr. Elliott. He returned to that city on July 29 and at once went into action. August 3: In the meantime, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry issued a warning to its members under date of August 3. In it they stated in part: "It has been called to our attention that, among other things, this proposed Electrical Code would change the requirements for licensing operators of motion picture projection machines . . . This matter is under consideration before the City Council and may come up for a hearing on Thursday, August 6." August 6: This City Council hearing, which was open to all interested parties, developed into the decisive turning point in the now-aroused battle against the Proposed Revised Electrical Code. In attendance for ACL and the organized amateur movie makers of Chicago was League director Elliott. Also volubly on hand were representatives of the National Audio-Visual Association, the aforementioned Industrial Audio-Visual Association, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, the Illinois Education Association, the Chicago Board of Education, the Bell & Howell Company, the Chicago Tribune, as well as Parent-Teacher, church and other groups of allied interests. Of this gathering, ACL director Elliott reported by wire to League headquarters: "Bill to license projectionists committed to Building Committee at yesterday's Council meeting. Will advise you of final action." Commenting on the same open hear