Educational film magazine; (January-December 1920)

Dy persons who do not undtTStaiul the danger that is present. Members are urged to give this liazard attention in their home cities and towns, and where.mulion pictures are to be displyed for any special purpose outside of regular motion picture theaters, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PICTURES TO BE SHOWN ARE ON SLOW- BURNING STOCK." The words in capital letters, were printed so by the Association and not by myself. The preceding was signed by Franklin H. Wentworth. Chairman of the Committee on Public Information, and tlie circular in question was dated September 1st, 1918. 1 have a copy before me and any one who so wishes can obtain one by writing to the National Fire Protection Association, 37 Milk St., Boston, Mass. In paragraph twelve attention is called to the fact that no fires ever cited were caused by boothless machines. I have cognizance of one such fire per week for the past >ear. 1 have several portable inacliines of various makes, which have been through such fires. I have several statements by users as to how the hres occurred, .^ny .■notion picture man catering to the non-thearical field does know i-l such fires, or he certainly cannot be engaged in the industry in any great extent. In paragraph thirteen the fact that the law has been broken during the war, or at other times, does not in any way affect the statemehi and the opinions held by those qualified to know that inflammable film is dangerous when not used under proper conditions. In paragraph fifteen -Mr. Jenkins contends that the narrow width fdm does not offer protection and cites the possibility of an unscru- pulous manufacturer manufacturing this width from inflammable stock. I do not claim that it would be impossible to manufacture any width film in inflammable form, but Mr. Jenkins is speaking of a future possibility, while we are dealing absolutely with the present condition. Certainly, some unscrupulous manufacturer could put out narrow width film on inflammable stock, but in doing so he would have but one object in view and that would be to destroy the only safeguard which is offered to the public. I tliink that any manufacturer attempting such a thing could and would be easily dealt with. However, should this be done, new laws and regulations could be formulated, shutting off the narrow width industry entirely, leaving us no choice whatsoever but to discontinue the use of motion pictures, except under the same conditions now existing in the theaters. Personally. 1 am perfectly willing to take my chances in the matter and suffer the consequences of the act of any one committing the crime suggested. Paragraph seventeen merits consideration. No one regrets more than mvself the necessity which compels the use of a second standard. There appears to be no choice, however. Inflammable film has no idace in a schoolroom filled with children. It has repeatedly demon- strated its hazardous qualities. 1 grant you that many prominent men agree, not only with Mr. Jenkins, but myself, that the use of differing width of film is awkward. Any time any one else can offer a better solution than that of the narrow width Safety Standard. I am willing to adopt it. So far. the arguments have been destructive rather than constructive and 1 cannot, myself, think of a better plan whereby motion pictures may be safely used under the conditions existing. The citation of opinions by several educators are certainly not conclusive because I cannot conceive that any of the men of such standing would commit themselves willfully on anything which would Dring danger into a schoolroom, of all places, unless they had only been half-informed, which is unquestionably the case. Mr. Jenkins goes on, after the quotation of Mr. Ellis, to state that all government film is on standard reels. This is an untruth, as much of the government material is already on Safety Standard and arrangements have just been made whereby a great deal of the balance is to be transferred in order to become available for portable projectors. In regard to the use of acetate cellulose for all film, would state that I hold the same opinion as Mr. Jenkins; that when the question was brought to the attention of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers I, myself, seconded this motion and was heartily in favor of it. It was at my request that Mr. Pierce wrote the form in which an appeal was made to the government that in the future all government material be put on acetate cellulose stock. It has repeatedly been stated tliat 1 have been fighting this move and that I am fishling the use of safety stock for standard film. On the contrary. I shall be glad to see it come into universal use and if there was only a method whereby present existing inflammable reels could be removed from circulation, there would be no need for the Safety Standard. Mr. Jenkins states that the Safety Standard was the only standard adopted by the Society which failed to obtain unanimous adoption. Tlie Safety Standard is the nnly standard adopted by the society as a new standard, for which reason comparison is not possible. He slates that the standard received a majority of one vote only. This is a falsehood, because there were only three dissenting votes offered at the time, while there were something like fifty men present. He speaks of a source of contention ever since. There have been but two members who have been opposed to the Safety .Standard - Mr. Jenkins and Mr. De Vry. What right does Mr. Jenkins or Mr. De Vry have to enter a discussion on the subject of what the educators should have in the way of film? Neither Mr. Jenkins nor Mr. De Vry has added a single reel of film to the library so sadiv lacking, in order to accomplish the hope that we all hold for the educational motion picture. They have each added one projector to the many clamoring for recognition. \\ e have plenty of pro- jectors, but the unanimous verdict is that we lack suitable film. subjecis. I am triing to add to the world's stock in this field. On the face of it am I not entitled and at liberty to put my film material on the only width and standard that 1 know safely can be sold to public schools and other institutions? Mb » By WILLARD B. COOK President, Pattiescope Compsny of .America. Xew Yoric (A tetter to the Editor) The writer acknowledges with appreciation your courtesy in for- warding proofs of articles written by Mr. C. Francis Jenkins of the Graphoscope Company and Mr. A. E. Gundelach of the De Vry Corporation, in criticism of your recent editorial on the subject of "Safety First" and of Mr. Dana Pierce's masterly article on the same subject from the Underwriters" standpoint. Also for your courtesy in extending to tlie writer the privilege of making a reply thereto for publication in connection with the criticisms. A discriminating reader will have no difiiculty in forming his owa opinion of much of the matter contained in these attacks. Therefore, the writer will limit himself to an effort to answer some of the assertions and refute some of the arguments, which, to one not thoroughly conversant with both sides of the question might create an erroneous and misleading impression. Much is said in these articles about "new uses, new conditions- and consequent necessity for the repeal of laws and removal of restriction" upon an article which is just as hazardous today as it ever was. No real logical reason is deduced on which to base sucb repeal or removal. The assertion that the Post Office department does not consider motion picture films an extra hazard is completely refuted by their refusal to receive film shipments unless packed in a rigidly specified manner and conspicuouslv bearing the vellow label plainly inscribed "CVUTION. KEEP FIRE AND LIGHTS AWAY." Statements that rrelluloid film is not hazardous, or highly inflammable, seem hardly to require any answer. .Mso the fact that insurance has been legally collected only by a court action, when motion picture film was stored in the house despite the terms of the policy, is neither a recommen- dation of the practice nor an inducement toward its continuance. The average owner of a house destroyed by fire does not want to go to law in order to collect his insurance. In order that the reader may better understand the inference of Mr. Jenkins that "the sole object of the enclosing booth is to conceal the operator." it should be explained that Mr. Jenkins has long .idvocated the use of a plate glass enclosing booth, in which the operator and machines could be observed by the audience rather than the present method of an asbestos or other form of fireproot booth. Mr. Jenkins has a perfect right to his opinion of the desira- uilily of such a change in existing regulation, but should not attempt to misconstrue the primary object of an enclosing booth in order to establish his contention. .\s to the assertion that "there have never been any non-booth picture projection fires," we would respectfully refer to the able and eloquent speech made by Mr. Washington Devereaux of the Phila- delphia Fire Prevention Bureau at the April. 1919. convention of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers held in Philadelphia, at which meeting Mr. Jenkins was present and heard Mr. Devereaux mention a number of fires which had occurred in Philailelphia alone, accom- panied by serious injury to spectators, from the use of unapproved portable projectors. Mr. Jenkins should recall this incident, as he followed Mr. Devereaux on the floor at that time with a speech attacking the action of the society in having adopted the Safety Standard for use in portable projectors. The assertion that Safety Standard film tends rather to danger than ioward safety is indeed a remarkable one. It is based solely upon the suggestion that utterly unscrupluous persons would counterfeit the official Safety Standard with a supply of ordinary celluloid film of similar appearance and perforations. It seems to have been entirely overlooked that every reel of approved Safety Standard film bears tlie underwriters' inspection label and that it would be impossible to secure this approval and label on the counterfeit article. Should we abandon the use of modern coin and paper money because it might be successfully counterfeited by unscrupulous people? At least one of the authorities quoted against the use of Safety Standard film was evidently misinformed. Mr. Edison's statement indicatcil clearly that he thought an effort was contemplated to abolish the present professional standard and compel the universal adoption of Safety Standard, than which no greater fallacy can be imagined. Proceeding next to Mr. Gundelach's article, our attention is first arrested by the sweeping assertion that "all the statements'made by those interested in the safety standard side of the controversy are absolutely without foundation, purely speculative, and the main issues far from facts." With such an assertion as a major premise, the rest of the article closely harmonizes. 16