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.
September, 1923 Editorial tl»
stalwart infant could have survived such handling by such hands. The motion picture has survived, has grown enormously in headlong-, haphazard fashion. Naturally it is an ungainly child, fearfully ignorant, and, shall we say, with a rather muddy complexion. But it is big and strong, final proof of inherent vigor and vitality that could not be killed even by the most lawless treatment ever accorded an infant in the history of industries.
The whole world wants movies — which is exactly why the child has lived and grown in spite of everything. The whole world will have its movies, every part of the world, and it will have the kind of movies that it likes. If the movies have won so far merely indiflference, contempt, scorn, or violent antagonism from the intelligent millions of the country, they have only themselves to thank. Certainly it is no fault of the motion picture itself. It is already generally recognized, and sooner or later will be universally recognized, as the supreme invention of man since Printing. It has lived through its babyhood, and will see a greater and better youth, because it is stronger than the men who are supposed to be its "masters." They may have their way with it for a time, as the LilHputians had with Gulliver, but then it will rise in might and show the pygmies how little they really are.
When our motion pictures are made by men equal to the men who make our printed books, the Motion Picture will take its rank beside Printing — where it belongs.
A Single Illustration. Movie Publicity vs. Facts
A TISSUE of absurd exaggerations — or of plain misrepresentations and falsehoods — is poor foundation material for a permanent and solid superstructure of public approval. It takes no great inteUigence to grasp this elemental truth, yet the minds that shape the publicity of the movies seem still unconscious of it. Witness the following.
Moviedom has kept up for years its patter about ''giving the public what
it wants" "pictures must please the public in order to pay" — ''pictures
must pay or we cannot make them" — "we would rather make good pictures, but they will not pay because the public does not want them" — etc., etc., ad nauseam. Now compare the facts with the patter.
The National Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teacher Associations, through its Better Film Committee, puts out each month its list of approved films as they appear in the theatres. This Hst probably represents the most severely critical selection by a recognized national body of authority to be found anywhere. For this Committee applies rigidly the standard of what is suitable for children under twelve and for those of High School age. This is a more stringent code than is proposed or practiced by any board of Censorship.
From Hollywood (August 19th) comes the following report on current productions. We are glad to quote it entire for it makes so perfectly clear moviedom's allegiance to the single standard (dollars and cents) :
"The critic who counts the cash — the man in the box-office who