The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Page 246 The Educational Screen iiig the interest and good will of Rotary, Kiwanis, Exchange, Lions and Women's Clubs, the American Legion, school authorities and Parent-Teacher Associa- tions. He believed that the situation might be improved by holding back the release of theatrical ^ films to non-thea- trical groups for a long period. "We must use discretion in attacking these non-theatricals," he said, "but we must be relentless on the cheaters, including religious institutions who attack us aij an industry, yet attempt to rent and run our films for profit to themselves." And, in September of the same year, in a more outspoken statement concerning the alleged threat of non-theatricals to the business of film exhibition, he proposed a boycott of equipment manufacturers who supply reproducers for non-thea- trical "competitors." As Kuykendall's organization lost a point of gain through the collapse of the N.R.A., it is a form of compensation that the champion to be named on the other side was unhorsed by the defeat of a Government bill which would have made possible a realization of her own high hopes. She was Mrs. A. Raymond Klock, motion picture chairman of the District of Columbia Congress of Par- ents and Teachers, Washington, D. C. The time was the spring of 1935, and in the House of Representatives Samuel B. Pettengill, of Indiana, had intro- duced a measure designed to end sup- posedly wicked motion picture trade practices known as block booking and blind selling. Among its provisions was the removal of restrictions upon types of rental. Terry Ramsaye, editor of the Motion Picture Herald, wished to learn the reasons for the ardent support of the bill by the National Congress of Parents aiid Teachers, and telegraphed his question to Mrs. Klock. Her prompt reply was that its passage "would be an opening for a broader program which would put churches, schools and civic organizations on a basis with motion picture theatres, giving them equal op- portunity to rent and exhibit the better class of photoplay." She added, among other irritations to the theatre managers generally, that, "much splendid welfare work can be financed in every com- munity from the proceeds of motion picture exhibitions in church, school and civic auditoriums." Early in 1936 General Motors Cor- poration sent forth a "caravan" educa- tional exhibit on automobile trucks to supplement its general sales promotion campaign. Together with lectures and numerous interesting mechanical gad- gets it had some motion pictures. Many theatrical exhibitors along the intended route set up an outcry based on the alle- gation that it would cut into their box- oflfice receipts. Astonished by the un- expected protests, Paul Willard Garrett, director of public relations for General Motors at the headquarters office in New York, asked various film industry leaders to see the show for themselves and to determine its non-competitive character. Terry Ramsaye was one of those who responded. The following week he pre- sented his opinion as an editorial in the Motion Picture Herald. He scouted the idea of a menace, and asked the thous- ands of exhibitors served by his ad- mirable paper, if they wished to raise the point of competition by outside in- dustries, what about the competition they were encouraging themselves when they gave so much publicity on their own screens to baseball, for instance? With In Terry Ramsaye's comprehensive motion picture experience he seems never to have found the slightest justification for either theatri- cal or non-theatrical intolerance. particular relevance to the present page, he continued: The day lias long since passed when the motion picture theatre can reasonably expect to have exclusive use of the medium of the films. The theatre is con- cerned with the films as a medium of entertainment, and it can demand that its function of entertainment shall be proper- ly protected. But the motion picture is just a medium of expression, a way of saying things, and if others with some- thing to say desire to use it nothin-g can prevent extension of its use. The theatre can no more expect a monopoly of the use of camera and projector than the newspaper might in an earlier day have demanded a monoply on the linotype and the rotary press. The Narrow View The advent of a really satisfactory 16mm film gave rise to the impression among exhibitors that theatrical and non- theatrical fields might be kept divided and under control on a gauge basis. The thought was that, if non-theatrical centers were to have only 16mm pro- jection equipment, they could not use the theatrical subjects until the theatri- cal exchanges were ready to permit their reduction to narrow width film. This view of the case, spreading among pro- fessional exhibitors, caused a consider- able abatement of their fighting spirit. Here was the solution, they seemed to feel, and it was necessary only to wait for its natural developments. But, in their sense of new security, and possibily to hurry the anticipated cure-all, there was an immediate move- ment to increase the reduction of used theatrical subjects to 16mni film. Keep non-theatrical centers fed and they would not complain of being hungry. Sympto- matic of what was going on was the rise of a concern called International 16mm Pictures, Inc., formed during the summer of 1931, with New York offices in the Film Center Building, 630 Ninth Avenue, Rudolph Mayer was president. The announced aim was to open a chain of 16mm exchanges over the nation for the distribution of narrow width reels on a plan of sharing profits with 16mm producers. By October three exchanges had been made definite—respectively in New York, Boston and Philadelphia. Associated with Mayer in the develop- ment were the Sparks-Withington Com- pany, of Jackson, Michigan: the Spra.eue Specialities Company, of North Adams, Massachusetts; and the International Projector Company, of New York, all manufacturers of 16mm projection de- vices. The year of the general blossoming of the 16mm idea, as a compromise solution of the exhibitor-non-theatrical-competitor probletn, was notably 1935. There came into existence about then even a "16mm Board of Trade." A. D. Storey, a former member of the Universal Pictures pub- licity department, was its executive secre- tary. In fact, there were many interest- ing 16mm enterprises, and they filled the horizon so completely that commen- tators generally forgot about the Old Master in the narrow-width film situa- tion, Willard B. Cook. However, for his part, he just went on in his accustoiried serenity and "sawed wood" while new- comers became excited over the vision that he had seen so long before, and from which he himself had done so much to tear the veil. About June, 1936, the year in which nineteen nations represented at Buda- pest approved the 16mm recommenda- tions of the American Standards As- sociation, Julius Singer, who had been an exchangeman with Carl Laemmle for some thirty years and had himself supervised the establishment of various important independent exchanges during the early Patents wars, moved out of the Universal Exchange headquarters in New York to found a 16mm business of his own. He called it the Social Motion Picture Corporation of New York City. Despite Singer's background of ex- perience and current enthusiasm, he met with disappointment. He hung on for a while and then went definitely out of all motion picture business in October, 1942, when he dropped dead in a midtown theatre—quite consistently watching a movie. A pathetic note was his personal ad in the Motion Picture Daily, Febru- ary 15, 1939, reciting his misadventures in the 16mni field and asking for a job. (To be conf/nued)