Moving Picture World (Jan-Jun 1909)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 671 This is the crux of the whole matter. What have the New York exhibitors, inside or outside the Association, done to get just laws, a system of licensing which will ma-ke persecution and graft IMPOSSIBLE? This situation is squarely up to the New York exhibitors, and now is a good time to make the situation clear. What is needed? Moving picture shows are licensed as "common shows." The common show license was created by a city ordinance twenty years ago and was meant to license traveling shows, merry-go-rounds, etc., which were here to-day, there tomorrow, and the only way to license them was to give the License Bureau arbitrary power in the matter. Then Coney Island was established, and the city authorities saw their chance. They decided to license Coney Island shows as "common shows," which left them at the mercy of the politicians. Then moving picture shows came along, and they, too, were put under the common show license. As common shows they have what amounts to no rights at all. Look at this difference: A saloon is licensed. When it conforms to certain written requirements, made to safeguard the .public, a saloon is entitled to its license. If the license authorities try "hold up" methods, refuse the license or demand graft the saloon goes to the courts and gets its licence by due process of law. If the licensing authorities want to revoke the license of a saloon or even of a theater (not a moving picture show), they must have cause — that is, the}' must prove before a court of law that the theater or saloon has broken some written law or regulation. The gist of the matter is, that the law recognizes a saloon or theater license as PROPERTY which cannot be taken away save for cause, and the cause must be adjudicated by the courts. Now for the common show — the moving picture — license: First. What requirements must the applicant for a license fulfill in order to be entitled to his license? He tries to find this out, but he cannot. There are no laws on the subject and no regulations that have ever been published. If the applicant for a license has a bright mind, and does some detective work, he is able to learn what most of the requirements are, and he builds his place accordingly. Then he is likely to find that the requirements have been changed over night and all his expenses have gone for nothing. But even if the requirements have not been changed he may be "held up" by the License Bureau, and has virtually no redress in law. Now he gets his license. Can he keep it? To-day a fire inspector comes along. "Do this, do that," he says. It is done. To-morrow comes along another inspector. "Why did you do this or that?" "The inspector told me to," replies the exhibitor. "Oh, g'wan," says the new inspector, "I'll register a complaint." He does this, and the license is revoked. Or perhaps he doesn't, and the license isn't revoked —for reasons. In other words, whereas a theater or saloon license is property, a common show (moving picture) license is not property, but only a privilege. Yet on the basis of his common show license the exhibitor has invested thousands of dollars and assumed obligations of thousands more. Now which is more important: to spend thousands of dollars fighting a losing fight in the courts to defeat the operation of such laws as these, or to go to work in an orderly manner and get the right laws? This is what the exhibitors in New York have not done. And unless they "get busy" in the near future there may not be enough exhibitors left to do anything. Do they think that the situation above described is an accident? Not by a long shot, Brother Exhibitors. Do they think the city authorities are going to change the situation of their own free will? Are the city authorities yearning to give the moving picture shows the legal status and protection which is their right? Oh no, Brother Exhibitors. The Mayor and the city departments much prefer the present arrangements, and you don't need to be told why. And the theaters, and everybody else who is bent on putting the moving picture shows out of business, think the present arrangements are ideal. Seriously, since the New York exhibitors have done nothing to remedy this condition, it must be that they expect someone else to remedy it for them. It is high time for them to recognize that they themselves must get busy, or nobody else will. Now, in about ten final words: The moving picture shows in New York City play to about two million people a week, and a third of these are voters. There is a gigantic political force in this, if only the New York exhibitors will use it. The municipal campaign is just beginning. Unless this license question is made a definite issue, and the candidates of both sides are pledged during the campaign, nothing will be done after the campaign. NOW OR NEVER the exhibitors must put their hand to the plow. What is the Association of Exhibitors going to do? Notable Film of the WeeK. "The Actor's Mother." Late one night in the Seven Dials, London, which is the Bowery of that city, I saw a poor old woman standing helplessly against a lamppost. A well-dressed man stopped and offered the woman money. The sound of her voice evidently struck the man as familiar, as he started to question her. Her reply removed his doubts. I was the accidental witness of the last act of a real drama of real life. The poor old woman was the well-dres3ed man's mother. They had not met for years. I saw enough to enable me to fill in the previous acts for myself. I passed on my way with the reflection, that occurs to most of us at times, that truth is stranger than fiction, and that the incidents of real life are far more dramatic than those shown on the stage. This reminiscence occurred to me as I sat the other day and followed the story of "The Actor's Mother," a Gaumont film released within the past week. The last act of this play is almost the exact counterpart of the incident in real life which I witnessed. Indeed, we have long had this incident in mind for the purpose of turning it to dramatic effect. The relationship of a mother and son does not often attract the pen of the dramatist. When it does, as in the present case, it tells a story that appeals to all hearts. For, of course, the love of a mother for her children is one of those things that passeth all understanding. It can never be analyzed, defined, explained or subjected to diagrammatic treatment like any other emotion. In our opinion, therefore, it is the story of 'The Actor's Mother" which makes it the notable film of the week, for it is a simple story, clear, dramatic, logical and natural, that makes .a universal appeal. Consider for a moment: The stage-struck French peasant quits his old mother with all the money she possesses to make a name before the footlights. After he has gone, she is turned out of her home, because she has not the wherewithal to pay the rent. Then in a series of very naturally depicted scenes we are shown how the old woman drifts into beggary. We admire the reticence of the dramatist in not insisting too much upon this gruesome side of the story. We also admire the prettiness of the French scenic backgrounds against which the pathetic figure of the poor old lady is shown. Meanwhile the son has succeeded in his profession and has become a star actor. Quite by accident, the old lady runs across the theater outside which the playbill advertising her son is shown. She endeavors to gain access to the theater in order to see him, but is unsuccessful. Then she traces him to his home, where he has the society of gaily-dressed ladies, and she is still unsuccessful in meeting him. Finally she falls down exhausted in a public place, as the result of a push from her own prosperous looking son. Stooping down to raise her, he recognizes his own photograph which she holds. Discovery, reconciliation and forgiveness, of course, follow. There is nothing particularly new in this story, nothing particularly morbid, gruesome or heartrending. It is all simple, natural and unforced. If it conveys any lesson, it is simply that of the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother"; but it also serves another purpose in that it interests an audience, every individual of which is either a son or a daughter, and therefore had a mother. Whenever a dramatist appeals to the elemental emotions of humanity he is always successful in that appeal, provided he does it naturally, and that is what the Gaumont Company does in this picture. From a photographic aspect the film is excellent, although we may be pardoned for pointing out that there might be more contrast in it. Gaumont pictures are inclined towards low tones and flatness. This sort of thing makes for artistic praise, perhaps, but the public likes accentuation between the lights and shadows, while it does not like excessive contrast. A happy mean is the thing to aim at. We are all the more pleased to single this film out for special mention because we have had occasion over and over again to adversely criticise the Gaumont films for their somewhat sad endings. Sad endings cannot, of course, be wholly eliminated, but we think they might be fewer. Life itself is made up of sunshine and shadows in about equal proportions, and film makers might keep this fact in mind when sending out their goods. ANOTHER KEITH & PROCTOR HOUSE FOR PICTURES. Keith & Proctor's 125th Street Theater, that has for years been the home of refined vaudeville, has been converted into a moving picture show, thus leaving only one of the K. & P. New York houses, the Fifth Avenue, showing vaudeville. The 125th Street Theater has been equipped with two of Power's latest model Cameragraphs.