The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

144 The Educational Screen tory ascribes first honors to Latham on the grounds that he achieved the first public showing of motion pictures—on April 21st, 1895—and on the next day the New York Sun printed some statements by Edison on the matter that were the first guns in a bitter legal battle that was to last for 13 years. Latham and his sons also produced the first film to run on Broadway, the Griffo-Barnett prize- fight, a four-minute feature that had its premiere on May 20th, 1895. Unfortunately, this second installment of the "first history of motion pictures" does not live up to the promise of the first. There is much relatively unimpor- tant material given and many significant details omitted in the chronicle which a serious reader would like to find. Mr. Ramsaye seems less concerned with get- ting "history" into his pages than with getting the "romance" into the history. News Notes A VISUAL education program to be presented at Boston in connection with the July meeting of the N. E. A., is being prepared by L. N. Hines, presi- dent of the State Normal School, Terre Haute, Ind., who is chairman of the visual education section of the National Educa- tion Association. The N. E. A. Committee on Visual Edu- cation for the present year is composed of the following members: Ira B. Bush, Superintendent of City Schools, Erie, Pa., Chairman. Elizabeth Breckinridge, Louisville Nor- mal School, Louisville, Ky. Maybell G. Bush, Supervisor of City Grades, Madison, Wis. Ernest L. Crandall, Director of Lectures, Board of Education, New York City. Charlotte Kohn, 1426 State St., La Crosse, Wis. Herbert S. Weet, Superintendent of Ci Schools, Rochester, N. Y. Howard O. Welty, Principal of Fruitv* School, Oakland, Calif. Ida Lee Woody, Principal of Hamiltaj School, St. Louis, Mo. EVIDENCE is beginning to appeal that Will Hays has bigger intentioJ regarding his job than many of hi sceptical critics have inclined to believe He seems to have a sane notion that thi movies need something more than defea of censorship, for instance. When he can celed the projected release of Fatfr Arbuckle films—incidentally a colossal ex ample of poor judgment on the part of th powers that be in motion pictures—Mi Hays certainly stepped on important an sensitive toes in the movie world. On swallow, to be sure, does not make a drinl but still, this one act tends to encourag suspicion that Will Hays realizes there 4 something fundamentally wrong with th movies—something far more vital tha questions of censorship or distribution c rates or theatre rentals. This rebuke to tt arrogance of the picture men in trying 1 release Fatty films on the heels of tri notorious trial looks very much like a fir! step toward the drastic house-cleaning i much needed in the fifth—or forty-fifth- industry of the world. In this connection it may be appropria to quote a few appreciative words abo^ Will Hays, written by Meredith Nicholsc in a recent motion picture magazine: "Hays has aways puzzled the prophe and baffled the mind-readers. It has be» said that he was going into the picture bm ness to use the screen for political prof ganda. Or that he was to become mere a high-priced lobbyist to assist motion pi ture interests in defeating censorship legi lation. Or that money was the compelllJ motive, etc. This, of course, is all shfc (Concluded on page 148)