Moving Picture World (Dec 1917)

1944 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD December 29, 1917 projection Is a physical imposlbility IS NOT HONEST WITH THE THEATER PATRON. Third: But by no means least, the projectionist (operator) la employed to project the films and interpert the dramatic action contained therein. He is not paid to inspect and repair films, and to attempt to compel him so to do, without offering adequate financial remuneration Is— well, my dear sir, I leave it to you to decide whether or no it is right, fair, just, decent or honest. But remember this: Unless the operator can and docs place upon the screen high class projection — unless he can and does correctly interpert upon the screen the work of your high priced artists, then the work of those artists on that screen will not be equal to their original performance and your corporation must and will inevitably suffer. Of what use to expend many thousands of dollars in the production of a splendid screen drama and then, by reason of films in bad mechanical condition, film racing or other faults which mar their screen interpretation, either ruin or largely detract from the value of the finished result on the theater screen Answer me that, if you can. The possible claim that your films cannot be kept in good mechanical condition by reason of tax, duty and other high expense in Canada absorbing the profit is met by the fact that films of other producers are kept in good mechanical condition. I was just recently in Canada, and while your company is not the only offender. It is unquestionably the very worst ; also some exchanges keep their film in excellent shape, proof that it can be done. In closing let me add the thought that when in a given field it becomes necessary to allow the films to go unmended in order to make a profit, it is high time to abandon that field. In response to this letter the following was received : Dear Mr. Richardson : Your letter of November 3 has received my consideration, together with the attached letter from the complaining exhibitor. First of all, let me say that I, of course, agree with you most heartily on the three points you mention to the effect that bad condition of film is unfair, unnecessary and a hardship on the exhibitor. I have already taken steps to remedy immediately the conditions causing the complaint from the Maritime Provinces, and intend to give my personal attention to the effort to secure better service for the exhibitor in this line throughout the United States, for I realize fully as seriosuly as you do the tremendous handicap to the entire industry caused by the Improper care of film. I wonder, however, if you have given a moment's thought to the fact that as producers and exchanges, we do not project the film, and that, therefore, practically all of the damage which puts the film in improper condition is caused by the operator. In saying this, I am not attempting to establish ourselves in a position where we disclaim the responsibility of keeping film in good condition, but merely point out that if it were not for inefficient handling or poor apparatus in the theater it would never be necessary for the exchange to do more than give the film on Its reurn a superficial going-over. This company has for the past three years made numerous attempts to secure co-operation from the exhibitors through its various branch offices on the subject of taking care of film. I realize that from your angle, receiving the complaints of various operators, the condition must look unjustified and serious, but If you could study it from our viewpoint, perhaps you would bear with us more patiently. I have frequently had instances ■brought to my attention by our managers in which absolutely new and unused prints have been returned to us after only two, three or four days' showing absolutely ruined, and hardly a day goes by but that something like this happens where serious and unnecessary damage is done to a good print because of carelessness and negligence on the part of the operator. Naturally, therefore, to shoulder the entire burden ourselves, we would have to scrap such injured prints and at once replace them with new ones, and I can assure you that these things happen with such frequency that if we should attempt to do this, it would probably mean the use of four to six prints on every subject for each one we are using at present, which would, of course, be prohibitively costly and unprofitable to the exhibitor as well as ourselves. The best we can do is to put such prints, where it Is possible, in good condition and use them until we feel warranted in issuing a new print on that particular subject. The subject of poor condition of film has been one which has been a source of expense and agitation for years. Yet we are placed entirely on the defensive. Probably the operator who has ruined one of our subjects beyond repair would utter loud protest if the next subject he received from us were In anything but absolutely perfect condition. We maintain In every office a sufficient staff of as competent people as is possible to socure. We have installed an Inspection system whereby it is always possible for us to trace just which theater causes any damage to a film, and yet we are without any come-back, since I have yet to find an exhibitor or an operator who would admit that he had damaged an inch of positive. Yet surely someone damages it, for it hardly seems that sprocket holes can be torn, film can be scratched and otherwise mutilated while being inspected in our exchanges. The problem resolves itself into a situation where we are always wrong, and must make the best of circumstances utterly beyond our control save for that repairing and replacing which is feasible and judicious to do. We maintain In our home office in Newark several projecting rooms with competent operators and perfect equipment, and I have personally seen with my own eyes sample prints of subjects which are being revised, or re-edited, projected through our machines literally dozens and dozens of times, yet such prints show a minimum of wear and tear, and after being projected perhaps thirty or forty times, show less damage than a film run for only three days by some supposedly first-class theaters. Mr. Richardson, this question costs organizations like ours thousands of dollars a year unnecessarily, and as you say,. it costs many theaters dissatisfaction with their service, and many patrons dissatisfaction with the picture the theater projects for them. Do not think we are ignoring it, as you may depend we realize it is to our best interests to extend every possible means to improve the situation. But we must have the co-operation and help of the operators, for as I said before, film is not damaged materially save when it la improperly projected and improperly rewound. We can always trace where the damage is done, yet we have been forced to consider it a necessary evil to repair the damage to the best of our ability and still receive blame unprotestingly. I want to thank you for the co-operative spirit in which your letter was written. Please consider us always as willing, indeed anxious, to do more than "our bit." I can assure you the matter is receiving my personal attention. Very truly yours, GENERAL MANAGER. If the General Manager had followed the work of this department as he might well do, since it is the one big agency which for eight years has striven to improve the knowledge of the operator and the presentation of the photoplay on the screen, he would have known that we have long since recognized the conditions he has named, and that we have for eight long years been beating it into the head of operators and theater managers that in outraging the films they simply eventually outrage themselves more than any one else. The evil complained of is a many-headed one, therefore a hard one to kill since one "head" accuses the other and thus responsibility Is shifted. The manager is all too often penurious and stingy in the matter of repair parts. The manager in a large number of cases demands that the films be enormously overspeeded ; the manager when employing an operator looks first at the price and next at the Item of ability — often not at the latter at all if the first be low enough ; the manager demands of the operator that he not only project the pictures but that he do many other things as well, and these various Items collectively and individually make for inefficiency In the operating room and damage to the films. The operator Is all too often an operator in name only, having little or no real knowledge of his work ; the operator is in all too many cases not only lacking In knowledge but in addition to that is careless, proceeding on a sort of I-should-worry basis, which is outrageous in view of the valuable property entrusted to his care, almost criminal. Machine manufacturers send out new projectors with the tension set so tight that heavy damage is done to every foot of film and operators do not know enough about their business to reset the tension or else are too Infernally shiftless and careless to do it. And so it goes. We fight these evils continuously for years, only to have the General Manager of a large producing corporation "wonder if we have ever given them a moment's thought." Heaven's, man, I have been one of the most cursed men in the entire industry because I have done that very thing and have insisted on the remedying of the very things you speak of. I have demanded higher grade talent in the operating room. I have demanded better working conditions to the end that the men could have a chance to do their work right. I have demanded of the operator that he take every possible care of the films entrusted to his care and have raked him fore and aft times without number for his failure in that respect. I have demanded of the manager that he employ higher class ability in the operating room, that he supply necessary repair parts to keep the projectors in first class condition, that he stop overspeeding, in itself a prolific source of damage to films. And for making these demands I have been abused by exhibitors as a trouble maker who might better mind his own business and let them run theirs — into the ground. But this editor, nevertheless, intends to continue the war on conditions which make for film damage. Only last summer he made a tremendously hard lf),000 n ' trip, lecturing to exhibitors and operators, and more than one-hai: of his address had directly to do with damage to film. The Moving Picture World stood the entire expense for this by the way. The conditions General Manager complains of are still bad enough in all conscience, but God only knows what they would have been but for the work of this department during the past eight years, aided by our handbooks on projection. I think no one who knows and who Is unbiased, will dispute the fact that those two agencies have accomplished much, but there Is, unfortunately still much to do. We are glad to have awakened the corporation in question to the Importance of this matter and trust it will not rest until every possible means has been employed to Induce its exchange managers to keep their films in first class mechanical condition. There can at least be no excuse for loose patches, broken sprocket holes and other purely mechanical faults. Old Scheme Resurrected. Ralph Martin, Los Angeles, has dug up a scheme for condenser correction which was suggested and to some extent investigated by the editor some six or seven years ago. At that time he submitted it to the Scientific Department of the Bausch & Lomb Company and was by them informed that it was not practical. They gave reasons for this finding, but I have forgotten what they were and my files do not reach back that far. Brother Martin says : Something of this kind was suggested by the President of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers in one of his recent reports to that body. For this reason my plan may be of interest to that body as well as to yourself and your readers.