Educational film magazine; (January-December 1920)

A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF STANDARD AND SAFETY STANDARD FILMS Intense Interest Aroused by Editorial and Articles on "Safety First" in the March 1920 Issue of Kdi catio.nal Film MacazIiNK — Advo- cates o( Each Standard Holly Defend Their Own and Assail the Opposing Faction— Some Constnutive Ideas Brought Out—Discus- sion Ends with This Number I"-f DITORS' \OTE — The editorial and articles on "Saiety First'' ivhicli appeared in the March 1920 issue o{ Educa- L^ Tio.NAL Film Magazine have excited general interest and aroused much discussion. This uas natural inasmuch i V as the controversy between the advocates of standard theater [dm and safety standard film has been growing in intensity with the growth of the narrow film interests. Heretofore the safety standard principle has been , belittled and discouraged by the other faction; but now that several new projector manufacturers and film producers and distributors are entering this promising field, the former ridicule and passive opposition have been converted into act-ive competition on both sides. The editors feel that nothing is to be gained by a long-draivn-oul controversy on this subject; hence the discus- sion will close tvith this issue. The pages of the magazine are always open to suggestions tvhich are constructively help- • ful to the non-theatrical motion picture field, but the magazine will not lend itself editorially to the exploitation of any private or commercial interest. The articles having brought out most of the facts and ideas, the publishers will close ; the discussion with the following symposium of opposing views. JTe shall, however, continue to publish occasional articles 1 of a constructive character on certain phases of this subject. By C. Francis Jenkins PresideDt, Craphogcopi* Companv, Washioglon. D. G. The subject of Mr. Pierce's article, in the March issue of Educa- ruiNAL Film Magazine, was well presented but wouUl have been more convincing if evidence had been cited to substantiate the allega- tions made. 1 liold to an opposite view from Mr. Pierce, and your editorial endiusing it, and believe the facts are in favor of my con- tention. In any event, discussion is advantageous for it should bring out the whole truth. The motion picture is only just beginning actively its most useful form, i. e.. an instrument for teaching, and it is altogether too valu- able a medium to be hampered by antique restrictions wliich were never made for tlie new use and new conditions. Authorities are not a unit on the degree of danger involved in the use and storage of nitrate of cellulose film. The Bureau of Stan- dards, in bulletin 75. cautions the general public against panicy contemplation of motion picture film, explaining that it is the same substance "as the toilet articles on your dresser" and "less dangerous than kerosene." The Post Office Department strictly refuses to accept dangerous sul)stances for transportation in mail cars, but apparently does not ciinsider motion picture film an extra hazard, for it handles about five hundred tons of it daily, and without mishap. Every photo supply shop carries quantities of this same celluloid film, made for use in hand cameras, and no raise in insurance rates «as ever made because of it. Nitrate of cellulose motion picture film is not "liigldy inflammable," in the same sense that widely-used gasoline is, for example. It is ;not volatile, which is greatly in its favor. It will ignite easily and iburn very rapidly when lying in a loose pile just as pine shavings will. Film is, however, diiferently constituted chemically, and not to easily extinguished by smothering, because it has sufficient oxygen trithin itself to support slow combustion. Burning film is more readily extinguished by chilling, as with large volumes of water, or ith chemicals, tetrachloride, for example. Motion picture film in 9 usual tightly rolled form cannot readily be ignited with a match; le match almost invariably burns itself out before the film will >iaze. Tightly rolled film is rather difficult to fire; therefore, all film should be handled in this form and kept so, in metal cans or similar containers. Motion picture film is more or less new to the majority and its peculiar composition and characteristics should be better known in Order that the hazard may be minimized. For hazard there is as there is with anything else, even walking across the street. But IS to preventing or seriously hampering its wide use as a means of imparting all kinds of information—well, it simply can't be done, the picture is too widely useful. Another point may be wisely introduced here. I think— the ques- rtion of the invalidation of insurance policies by the use of picture Snachines. The courts have repeatedly held, until it is now estab- lished law, that the presence of an extra hazardous substance in u burning building does not invalidate insurance thereon, unless it "a« the cause of the fire. The recent burning of a boy's school in Baltimore is a case in point. The building caught fire from a tinner s i orih on the roof. The insurance was paid though a bootldess I ruction-picture machine had been in use in the school for two or ' hree years. \nw as to the desirability of a booth, let me say that in no other I mman employment involving hazard is it contended that conceal- ( ng the operator tends to added safety, makes him more careful. "More light on the subject" is always a good slogan. We illuminate dangerous places so that we may minimize the danger. We keep tab on the railroad engineer by a system of block signals. Why, we don't trust a paid watchman, for we put a clock to watching the watchman. But when it comes to the picture projection risk, 've require the operator to work cijncealcd on the assumption that he will be mure careful and more diligent in keeping the film off the floor and in its metal container and that he will n<it smoke if he works unseen, even though he may be a cigarette fiend. Tlie concealing booth is an anomaly, a reversal of time-honored safety piactice. May 1 cite the report of the National Fire Protection Association, in the January. 1918 bulletin, that "mure than fifty per cent of the known commun causes of film fires is smoking in the booth"; and .n discussing the question of a booth says that certainly such a device "which serves only to conceal the operator is an unmixed evil." From the best data available there are in use already about two and a quarter times as many picture projectors outside as inside of booths, and yet the only fires the proponents of a booth have ever cited were booth fires, perhaps because there have never been any non-booth picture projection fires. It is well known that during the war, motion pictures were used in cantonments, training camps, schools, public buildings, aboard tiansports. etc.. and without booths by official written permission of the War Department, provided only that incandescent lamp machines were employed, and the judgment of the department was justified by the subsequent record. Even the George Washington had four such machines aboard when she carried the President to and from France. Nor do I admit that narrow-width, odd perforation, or other freak film, tends toward safety, but rather to danger, for if ever there aie enough of these machines in size to make it profitable, film for use thereon will be made in "inflammable" stock rather than "non- r.am " for the same reason lliat governs elsewhere in business, i. e.. it is cheaper. \ very serious condition would then arise, for lulled to less caution by a false sense of security by the machine manu- .acturer's statement that only "safety" film can possibly be used ..11 his machine, the user is less cautious than he would otherwise be if he knew that only one kind of film existed and that he should 'Exercise caution accordingly. No greater harm could come to the educator than the introduction of two standards of picture film. In this many pmniinent men agree. t^ere's what a few of them have said: "The use of differing width (of film)) seems to me little less than » calamity. Experience has developed a standard and variation from it 'csults only in confusion. Insistent demand everywhere for safe film will force the use of proper stock and will obviate the inconvenience now iiue to local protective demands."—Frederick Starr. I'niversity of Chicaco, "The present size of film is standard the world over. It would be folly to change it and I do not think it within the power of any man to do it."—Thos. A. Edison. "I can see no real excuse and no necessity for the narrow width, off- standard film The adoption of narrow width film for one pnrpofe and a standard width for another, seems to me to be as sensible as was the reasoning of the notorious individual who cut a hole in his door for the cat and a second one for the kitten." —Chas. Roach, X'isual Instn. Service,_ Iowa State College. "The introduction of two sizes of film for ediicationaj work is exceed- ingly undesirable and is decidedly unfair and embarrassing to educational institutions. The double standard is seriously curtailing the use of motion pictures in schools." —Don Carlos Ellis. Motion Picture Activities. Dept. of Agriculture. There are millions of feet of film on standard stock. Travelers, 'lobe trotters, lecturers, all find their work greatly facilitated by tie single standard of cameras and projectors the world over. .Vll 1 niled States Bureau of Education film (free to educators) is on 13 .1