We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
186 The Educational Screen ond and more important conclusion. Mr. Lewis further states, in the matter of the children's dislikes, that Whit- tier's "Barefoot Boy" lost out when shown with photos of the modern radio and airplanes. "Science" won handily, the children finding no "kick" whatso- ever in the pastoral idylls of Whittier but going mad about the radio demon- stration and displays of mechanical marvels. Swimming in the rustic brooks, stealing green apples, and sim- ilar rural diversions were not appre- ciated, but scientific appliances were studied by both boys and girls with interest." That latter conclusion stated with its sweeping confidence is not a safe assertion. It brings the writer some- what violently to the previously stated fact, that specialization is the greatest essential in the future production of films meant specifically for child con- sumption. Very naturally a city audi- ence would prefer radio views to bare- foot boy pranks. With the pages of every newspaper and magazine brist- ling with radio development, the child who has not the advantage in his home, thrills with the meagre contact of this animated shadowing of the marvel. The child who has an instrument in his home is going to watch with all the eagerness of the expert and critic. While a rural child might be just as eager to applaud the radio views for these same reasons, he would, how- ever, applaud as eagerly those "pas- toral idylls" of which his life is com- posed. It is the old tale of "all horses are quadrupeds but not all quadrupeds are horses." Probably all childre however remote from the centres j civilization, who have any access ■ periodicals, know the radio and woii welcome the films thereof, but to a sert that the rural child (and that wj the implication if all children we classed with those who yawned ovj Whittier) would dislike the familij pictures of his everyday pranks at pleasures is unscientific experiment tion. In closing this report, then, the: are several things to be said, for ar against the efforts of Balaban & Kat They are to be commended with e: travagance for their sincere endeav< in a pioneer laboratory field. The method was sound and their concli sions of vital interest and a pleasir degree of accuracy. Despite the hai dicaps, enumerated in the beginnini they taught observers that childre are much more alive to the real ma ters of life than the theatre manage or the picture producer has realizec that there must be a distinction b< tween the child film and the adult r< lease; that the film which fitted i with the natural instincts of pre-ado escent development received tr heartiest response. What they furth< proved but failed to point out in tt final report was that the education; film does not belong in the theati without the assistance of a teachei that specialization is the key to tti secrets of the future child-movi when the rural lad will be given til films of his environment, the city be (Concluded on page 198)