The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Page 296 The Educational Screen Inc., in the release of their 16nim non- theatrical rights. Monogram was first. However, persuasion was still difficult, and Kapit tried many ingenious approaches. One was a plan to tie in with RCA's new 16mm sound-on-film projector by serv- icinja it in the field and providing blocks of 16mm films to be shown upon it. RC.-X agreed, but in a short time stopped selling projectors for some internal patent reas- ons. It was 1936 before Kapit brought in the first really considerable prize, a con- tract with Van Buren for a large supply of short subjects. That magic was wrought by an arrangement to have the central e.xchange in each distributing area ap- prove the release of each item. The same sort of deal was then closed with RKO and with Universal, and the development naturally then became easier. In years that followed Kapit even undertook pro- duction, making a series of "vocationals" for school use. When Orton Hicks joined Gutlohn, about 1938, the ball was rolling very well indeed. .And, in a large sense, Walter Gutlohn was still with them. .Although Walter Gutlohn departed this life in 1936, to the sincere regret of those in the non-theatrical field who knew him, he continued the development of his work in a way which must remain a tribute to the force of his admirable character. Just before he died he went to a hos- pital for a physical checkup. Examining doctors told him he had six weeks to live. He returned home and proceeded to set his at?airs in order without causing un- due alarm to those around him. To his wife and to his manager, Harry Kapit, he carefully explained what he had in- tended to do with his business, his un- folding plans, aims, and intended policies. When the end came, lie met it with cliaracteristic fortitude; and. after his demise, Blanche Gutlohn and Harry Kapit carried on with anticipated success along the lines of Walter Gutlohn's well con- sidered advice. In a particularly informative inter- view, published in the Motion Picture Herald February 16, 1935, Harry Kapit made one comment on the alleged com- petition of theatrical and non-theatrical shows w'hicii struck me as being except- ionally penetrating. "The average pro- ducer fears the reaction of exhibitors to 16mm shows," said Mr. Kapit. "This is unfortunate because they do not know • tlie situation as it really is. We are not in competition with anyone. In most cases the pictures we handle are from two to three years old, and the people who see them do not go to non-theatri- cal exhibitions primarily to look at the product. Their interest centers chiefly around the circumstances and situation in which 16mm shows are held, usually in a church, for a benefit of some sort, in a school or auditorium to which the public is not admitted, but never in a situation which can be called competitive to an established theatre." In saying this Mr. Kapit, in my opinion, was placing his finger unerringly on the psychological difference which sets the non-theatrical entertainment show distinctly apart from the regular professional presentation. The more bellicose exhibitors who be- lived that the 16mm development would Frank Woods was a power in theat- ricals, but as champion of educa- tional films he averred as long ago as 1910 that entertainment is the theatre's rightful province. solve their non-theatrical troubles were yielding to a fallacy. From their un- compromising standpoint, the use of thea- trical pictures by the non-theatrical field was only a small aspect of the case. In their view, if there was competition, it lay not in the kind of show given in the neighborhood church, for instance, but in the circumstance that any sort of film exhibition—even of amateur subjects pro- duced by the sponsors with their own non-professional cameras—was holding spectators away from the theatrical box office. It was the simple fact of counter- attraction which mattered. Also, the 16mm exhibition was not limited to small gatherings, as was commonly supposed. Most of the hostile theatrical men paid too little attention to the corresponding improvements in 16mni projection equip- ment. In the spring of 1935 occurred what should have been to them a start- ling demonstration. It was at Constitu- tion Hall, in Washington, D. C.; and there, using a new 1,000-watt Bell & Howell 16-mm Projector, a lecturer for the National Geographic Society gave an allegedly satisfactory screening to an audience of 4,000 persons. Today in various parts of the world there are 16mm theatres in tlie full professional showmen's sense. Situations such as that obtaining in this controversy of theatrical and non- theatrical fields point conclusively to the wisdom of thinking of the non-thea- trical field in terms of its natural divisions. The trouble discussed in the preceding half-dozen pages is concerned almost exclusively with that part which has been denominated "the entertainment fringe." Other types of non-theatrical show are not seriously concerned in it, but, not being segregated as they might conveniently be, they suffer in the general condemnation. Peacemakers In an .\rticle on industry in the broad which Garret Garrett wrote for the Saturday Evening Post of July 17, 1937, be observed that during a dispute in any body of wage-earners there are almost invariably three marked divisions. Ap- proximately one-fifth is violently anti, another fifth is as strongly pro, and the remaining three-fifths goes with the tide. This grouping probably will apply equally well to those engaged in the two sorts of motion picture exhibition. Thus far both pros and antis have been blocked in their attempts at mastery; fortuna- tely, I believe, the tide which will carry the determining three-fifths is distinctly a compromise movement. In 1916, toward the close of the Patents v,ars, there was the first really wide- spread tiareup of exhibitor opposition to non-theatrical shows, and excellent ad- vice on the subject was uttered by some of the industry's ablest leaders. George K. Spoor, of Essanay, even urged ex- hibitors to encourage shows in schools and churches, insisting that it would improve their business—not hurt it— by educating the public to love pic- tures. In those days there was still a large body of the people which rarely attended films, and the intelligentsia had not yet discovered "the Art." Thoma.^ A. Edison addressed exhibitors in the same vein; and George Kleine, in booklets provided for his non-tlieatrical patrons, advised them how to obtain free shows through the professional theatres, ap- parently in quiet satisfaction that the ex- hibitors, despite occasional objectors among them, would in reality be only too glad of the opportunity to cooperate. In 1926, ten years later, Nelson Greene, writing in the .Innals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, pointed out for the hotheads that, "Were it not for the success of theatrical films, there could be no present possibility of educational films." All exhibitors were conscious of the necessity of keeping the good will of large bodies of the public, for, naturally these were also large bodies of their own patrons. Some thought they saw a solution by inviting outside groups to show all their pictures in the theatre as the proper place for all such exhibi- tions, sharing receipts on the basis of estimated extra special attendance, or on tickets sold expressly by the non-theatri- cal sponsor. This method is still occas- sionally to be found in practice. To turn the theatre over to the sponsor, free of charge, did not usually prove advisable. Too many other organizations then appeared and charged discrimina- tion if they were not also given the house. If the cause served by the pro- gram was a matter of prevailing com- munity sentiment, there probably would be no serious disruption of regular busi- ness ; but extreme cooperation with too highly specialized groups might easily work harm to the establishment by keep- ing regular patrons away. After all, the prime business of the theatre was then (and still is) entertainment. It is probably on this point that the