American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1924)

Tiutnty-tvf AMERICAN CINEM ATOGRAPHER July, 1924 "schedule" time; by not supplying enough film footage to fill up the time schedule at proper projection speed, or by direct orders to the projectionist to run at excess speed. Very often this is carried to an extent which causes the action to appear ridiculous and farcical. On the other hand the projectionist may sadly mar the effectiveness of many scenes by permitting the projector to pound along at set, unvarying speed, throughout a production in which the taking speed of scenes varies widely. This is, in fact, a very common source of injury to the artistic effect of productions, the projectionist excusing it by pointing to the time schedule, which may or may not be a valid excuse, because often it would be impossible for a projectionist to gain on one scene what might be lost on another. Camera speed is presumed to be standard — one and the same thing all the time. Cameramen vehemently declare it to be so, or at least that the possible variations are very slight. On the other hand projectionists, to whom the task of reproducing the scenes before the public is intrusted, are a unit in declaring this to be untrue. Many of our best projectionists are emphatic in saying that taking speed varies all the way between sixty (60) and eighty-five (85) feet per minute. Personally I am of the opinion that this is correct, with the notation that but very little "shooting" is done at so low a speed as that first named. The opinion of competent projectionists is that seventy-five (75) feet per minute is the speed most used by cameramen, though there is much variation as between seventy and eighty. Whether it is possible to adopt and compel cameramen to use some unvarying taking speed I do not know, but certainly if it could be done, without injury in other directions, it would operate to enormously improve that which the public sees upon the screen, because we could then demand that the projector be operated at standard taking speed, and would have a cogent argument behind that demand. When the producer, who has expended huge sums of money and tremendous effort in perfecting a production, finally looks at it in the finished state in his screening room, I wonder if he realizes that but relatively very few theatre audiences will ever see it exactly as he has seen it ? He is filled with pride as he looks upon some fine bit of acting — a death bed scene, for instance. He declares it to be a marvel of artistry, and that it will "bring tears to their eyes," which would be quite true did the audiences see it as he has seen it. But the finely acted scene will bring no tears to the eyes of the vast majority of audiences. To some it may actually bring lapghter, because by the speed-em-up process, brought about for any one of the reasons before named, the actors who portrayed the scene so artistically before the camera will be transformed into swif-moving travesties on the original. Instead of the daughter giving her dying mother a fond embrace and a loving kiss, she is made literally to grab the mother, yank her head up, dab their lips together and scuttle away as though it were a deuced nuisance and she was glad it was over with. The whole effect the director has striven so hard to attain is entirely altered and utterly ruined. I have asked before, and I again ask, does the producer really take the slightest interest in the way his productions are placed before the public? It would seem not. Certainly he well knows that they are literally robbed of all artistic beauty in thousands of theatres every day, for no other reason that failure to project them at camera speed, and thus duplicate the original action. For some reason, which the ordinary mind cannot comprehend, the producer does not seem to be in any way interested in this manhandling of his product, or if he is he does not make even the smallest protest. In all the great mass of printed and written advertising matter sent out by producers, I have never seen one word of comment on the importance of projecting the picture at taking speed. In all the many articles in various trade and other papers, which emanated from the offices of producers, I have yet to find one single word of protest against the ruinous process of overspeeding or a word of caution as to the importance of synchronization of taking and projection speed. In all the thousands of articles sent out by producers for publication in newspapers and magazines, for general consumption by the public, I have yet to see a single word tending to educate the public to demand 100 percent value for its money by insisting on proper projection speed. There is never a word heard in any of the many speeches made by producers and their representatives upon the importance of so projecting the picture that it will duplicate the original scene in action. The Projection Department I have had the honor of conducting in one of the trade papers for twelve years past has, during all that time, literally battled against the OUTRAGE of over-speeding. During all that time it has not had even the slightest aid or encouragement from from any producer of motion pictures in this matter, except that Wm. V. D. Kelley did once say to me: "The work you are doing in fighting over-speeding is good." That is absolutely all the apparent interest producers have taken in my attempt to supress this great evil. Trade papers are not secret affairs. The producers all know of them, and are not at all slow to utilize their columns to the full extent of their ability for setting forth the excellence of their product, but when it comes to utilizing those same columns to tell the exhibitor how much finer those same products would appear to the public if they were projected at proper speed, they are very conspicuous by their silence. Frankly I am unable to understand this. If the producer does not care how his product appears before its buyer — the public, then why in the name of Heaven does he employ high grade talent all through the process of its making, and guard every step in the making with utmost care. One would suppose that when such great pains are taken to rehearse scenes sometimes a dozen times, until they appear exactly as the director desires them to appear, both the director and the producer would strongly object to anything in the way of an almost universal practice which tends to change the action and lower the quality of what has been so carefully worked out, down to its smallest detail. One would even suppose that the various "stars," and actors of other grade, would strongly object to being made to appear before the public as animated jumping jacks, by having their actions speeded up to, in extreme cases, pretty nearly double what it really was. But in all my