Reel and Slide (Jan-Sep 1919)

REEL and SLIDE 23 SCIENCE NDUSTRY SOCIOLOGY CLASS ROOM CINEMATOGRAPHY I Botany (Picture released through Beseler Educational Film Co., New York) How Plants Are Born, Live and Die No. 3012 Appro. Length 900 ft. This picture of plant life was taken in such a way that the development which takes place in nature appears here, in scientifically correct reproduction, accelerated 800 times. Under the influence of the moisture and heat the grain swells, and its envelope bursts in the bosom of the earth. The germ develops; the roots reach out to get the nourishment in the soil which the stalk pierces. Its principal roots divide into secondary roots. At the extremity of the stalk appear, little by little, the leaves which are the "lungs" of the plant. In this way develop the grains of wheat which supply us with our daily bread. Wheat stalks coming out of the soil. Here we see carnation buds bursting into blossom. This phenomena, which takes but a minute on the screen, occupies, in reality, about two weeks' time. The various stages of the transformation are shown. The swelling of the bud and the upward forcing movement just preliminary to its bursting into blossom. The whole story of the life of the Begonia is shown here in a few seconds. Notice how it alternately wakes and sleeps. The ever-popular garden flower — the Geranium. The hawthorn bush, which is the mother of the rose family, presents the passer-by with bouquets of 15 to 20 flowers. Great activity is shown daily in the hawthorn blooms which lift their faces to greet the sun and sink in slumber with the night. Here the labor of the day is shown in 6 seconds. Of the same family as the hawthorn, the apple tree, produces a delicate, fragrant pink blossom, the glory of the springtime orchard. The queen of the garden is the rose, the Creator's floral masterpiece. Completely developed, the plant will produce a flower from which more grains will come into being — a new source of life. The autumn comes and nature falls asleep. The leaves and petals become yellow and the flower droops and dies. A study of autumn leaves. By B. A. Aughinbaugh (Principal, Mingo Rural School District, Mingo, Ohio) IT has been my experience that three questions, at least, confront the schoolman (and possibly the minister, too) in making use of the movies. First, why do people seem to be so allured by the motion pictures, to the possible detriment of the platform and pulpit? Second, is this allurement detrimental to the coming generation? That is, do people enjoy the so-called "objectionable" pictures to the exclusion of the "better" sort? Third, what alterations, if any, are necessary to make the movies fit for the school and church ? I would like to tell what I have found out about these matters after more than two years' experience in conducting a public picture show in our school. A few weeks ago a gentleman with very puritanical ideas asked me why it was that the "movies" were taking such a hold on people. I inferred from the way in which his questions were put that he thought the race was degenerating. No doubt every reader of this article who has attempted to use motion pictures in schools or churches has met with some such insinuating question sooner or later. If he has not, he will. How can such questions be answered, for they must be answered or the minister or teacher who is questioned will have to meet many embarrassments at best, if not go down in defeat? Fortunately I had been studying this matter before the "doubting Thomas" approached me. I had been asking individuals among my patrons just why they liked the moving picture shows we were presenting weekly in our auditorium, and just why they liked motion pictures in general. I do not say I found the complete secret of the movies, but I did discover enough valuable facts to use as a defense against the doubters. Memory and the Lecture The gentleman who approached me began by commenting on the fact that at a recent lecture he had attended the house was not one-third full, and the young people were especially conspicuous for their absence. He also noted that the same was true in the regular church services, in the farmers' institutes, etc. On the other hand he observed that we always had a crowd, no matter what were the weather conditions and in spite of the fact that said crowd paid good money at the door. He deplored such conditions and predicted that if they continued we would go to the bowwows. I listened patiently to this harangue and then asked him a few questions. I began by inquiring what the lecture had been about that seemed to have so little attractive powers. After quite a little hesitancy he replied that he thought the subject was, "My Life and Yours." I then asked him what were the topics of the last three sermons he had heard. He could not give one. I asked for a few thoughts from either the sermons or the lecture. He recalled a couple of jokes from the lecture but no coherent ideas from any of the sermons. Now mind you this gentleman was a conscientious churchman and faithfully attended all services and, I think, kept awake. He really listened to the lectures and no doubt enjoyed them. He had been doing this for forty or fifty odd years. In other words, he was no exception, but the rule. He was broad enough to attend our shows at the school house, but I imagine he would have made it warm for any minister who attempted such an innovation in the church. He laughed as heartily as anyone at Fatty Arbuckle or Charlie Chaplin, but said he preferred Burton Holmes and such pictures as Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Crisis. Visualizing "Ben Hur" After making my inquiries about his ability to recall information gleaned at the lectures and sermons, I turned to the movies. I selected at random three or four shows, some of which had been shown over a year ago. I mentioned the titles and then asked him for certain incidents in the pictures. His recollection of the pictures was one thousand per cent better than it had been on either lectures or sermons. He was good enough to confess it. Now was my turn to ask a question as to relative values, and our first point was established, namely, that our eyes are far better servants than our ears. And in this rapidly moving day we can only put up with efficient servants. But I was not through, although he was beginning to get the drift of my argument. I had established at least a partial case against both platform and pulpit, namely, they were not (in spite of their good intentions and educational or ethical topics) giving people something that could be carried away, or tucked away on the shelves of the brain. Ear gained knowledge was very elusive. I then turned to the question of books. My subject of experiment was a great reader. He was what we might call a "well read man," at least along certain lines. I asked if he had read Ben Hur. He had, and could relate most of the story. He had me there, and I was glad he had, for I was perfectly willing to be caught, as this was one link in the chain of argument to be established. Yes, he had read Ben Hur and "knew it like a book." I asked him how he enjoyed the race scene. Fine. Could he describe it? He did. I asked him if he had a mental picture of that scene. He said he had. Were the people in that picture dressed as they are now? No, they wore long flowing garments. How did he know? He saw them in the illustrations in the book. Did Lew Wallace make those pictures? Of course not. Did Lew Wallace describe those garments ? Not exactly. Then whose ideas was he carrying around in his head? Whose are you carrying around? Now speak right out in public — select any story from the Bible or literature in general and whose ideas of that story are you carrying around in your head? What of Platform and Book? Might I ask that you turn to your mental picture of that great race scene in Ben Hur, and see if it does not very nearly coincide with the illustration on the front page, or perhaps with some other chariot race picture. Lew Wallace gave you the story — someone else gave you your mental picture, and, by the way, is it, or is it not, this mental picture that is holding the story vividly in mind ? Try the experiment with other scenes and other books. Try recalling a scene of which you are sure you have seen no illustration ; does it compare with anything you have seen ? Which scenes come most promptly to mind, those of which you have seen illustrations or those you have not? Of those belonging to the latter class how many might be classed as scenes compariig with things you have actually seen? Does this establish the fact, or does it not, that all our mental pictures are the products of our eyes and not our ears ? Well, to get back to my questioner. I at length turned to him and abruptly asked him whether he would rather see the Pyramids or hear about them. See them, of course. I think he caught the point. It is that desire to travel and to see sights with our own eyes that is the real lure of the movies. It doesn't make the least {Continued on page 24")