The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

Page 338 The Educational Screen MOTION PICTURES- NOT FOR THEATRES By ARTHUR EDWIN KROWS Installment 51.—The story of group eiiorts to improve non-theatrical conditions contin- ues, with special attention ior Will H. Hays. IN answer to the familiar arguments that it is only a matter of custom—that audiences will accept them as soon as they find them to be regular practice. that there were advertising curtains in the old stage theatres, and that the pub- lic accepts advertising in its magazines, newspapers and public conveyances—is the irrefutable fact that, in magazines and so on, one is not compelled to look at such bids for attention. In the film theatre he cannot avoid it without the absurd condition of shutting his eyes. And, because this is so, the spectator conceives that, when he comes to the theatre and buys his share of a specified period of entertainment, the purveyor of that entertainment has no right to upset the tacitly understood exchange of values by trying to exploit him with sales pro- motion. The theatregoer has come to accept certain screen advertising of forthcom- ing attractions, although he occasionally protests the over-supply. He is patient with the reel of self-praise which extols the theatre cooling systems in summer— although he groans a little when he sees it too often. So it is evident that he will "stand for" a certain amount of screen advertising. But this recalls what G. E. Lessing once said about a pas- sable stage play: "The public will put up with it; this is well, and yet it is not well. One has no especial longing for the board at which one always has to put up with something." But here is the weak human factor again—the average motion picture exhibitor is always will- ing to try the patience of his patrons, especially if by so doing he can add to his immediate money profits. Therefore he has worked the screen advertising, for which he is paid, in among his regular "trailer" announce- ments of pictures to come.. He has con- cluded that the audience will swallow the sales talk so long as he does not com- pletely exhaust the spectator's patience. It is, in his opinion, just a matter of time, time, which must not be too protracted. The "plug" must not be overdone. The advertising specialists, being of the same opinion, have made their subjects of trailer brevity, the better to be "slipped in." So technique develops, and some of the balanced programs are not especially annoying. But artists in that line are as rare as they are in any other, and the usual effort is markedly offensive while it lasts. The bad taste is offset only by the honest theatrical entertainment pic- ture which follows—and sometimes it continues to the unfair detriment of that. These facts are all well known and painfully realized by most of the leaders of the motion picture industry. The 1910 order of the Patents Company that adver- tising subjects should not be shown with regular programs was regarded commonly as merely a "General Flimco" policy maneuver; but it was in reality an expression of sound merchandising wisdom. Showmen aplenty, even in the Independent ranks then, protested re- ceiving advertising films from the ex- changes with their regular releases. Af- ter all, the conscientious exhibitor ex- pects to remain permanently in business, and he must consider his public relations —especially as they have bearing on his direct profits—not just for one or two performances but over the full year. In the years after 1910 the use of ad- vertising films in the theatres increased again until, about 1916, there appeared in the press numerous reminders of the basic truths. In June, 1916, Robert H. Cochrane, of Universal, who cer- tainly knew something about the ex- tent and character of the practice, re- ported to the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry in New York, as chairman of a "trailer com- mittee," that at a recent Chicago con- vention the proposition to show adver- tising trailers had been rejected. Never- theless, those present voted to keep the committee in power with the idea of carrying out the plan at some future time. The plan actually was put into practice within four years, notably by J. Don Alexander. There was a sharp halt in 1931, in circumstances involving talking pictures, and then the practice pyramided again to unprecedented proportions, using trail- ers standardized respectively at forty and sixty seconds of screen time. For dis- tribution of the longer advertising sub- jects there was no close organization of interested companies such as that which handled these trailers. Was the prece- dent set by the Woman's Screen Guild the answer for these larger ones, or did the example set by the General Electric Company in 1927, when it opened the temporarily closed Center Theatre in New York and presented a brilliant ad- vertising show free of charge, point the way? The General Electric Company stated that it had under advisement sim- ilar projects in many other "dark" theatres of the country. Who could state a positive answer to this ad film problem? Who but Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America? That was the thought of Fred Wehren- berg, president of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America in St. Louis, the same who had made some earlier pro- tests against non-theatricals. In December 193S, he objected to the incursions of ad- vertising in the regular amusement feat- ures, and, indeed Hollywood was known to be infested with agents who were forever slipping well-known advertised articles into the furnishings of studio sets. Hays replied that the matter would be investigated by the M.P.P.D.A., but pointed out, at the same time, that, in simulating the daily life of the nation, it was not always possible to hide the characteristic forms of standard products, of automobiles, for instance. The subject was taken up at the Hays office meeting, in March, 1936, and again at an ad- journed session the following month. At this time the practice was definitely opposed. But in the matter of the ad- vertising trailers, apparently no action was taken or even contemplated. The Hays Committee If one were writing in a general magazine and spoke of the "Will Hays Committee," the editor would doubtless insist upon making the reference read, "the M.P.P.D.A." But it is as a com- mittee that the non-theatrical field has al- ways known the organization best. The M.P.P.D.A. had not been more than a few months in existence when Hays appointed a large body of public-spirited citizens of recognized importance, who variously represented the outside groups which believed that they should have a voice in the preparation, distribution and exhibition of motion pictures, as a "Public Relations Committee." It was from this that the non-theatrical folk came to call the M.P.P.D.A. by the name which is better known to them than the official designation. The avowed purpose of the Committee was to assist the M.P.P.D.A. in development of the industry as a whole for mutual benefit and public satisfaction. In reality the theoretical editor would be thoroughly justified in his wish for precise identification, because no end of ill feeling has been stirred by confusion of the two aspects. Among non-thea- trical groups, where the Committee is the recognizable factor, it has proved dif- ficult to understand that the organiza- tion headed by Mr. Hays does not exist to serve exclusively benevolent, altruis- tic ends outside of the film industry, but that the prime function is to promote the welfare of the M.P.P.D.A., just as the moving cause of the Federation of Churches of Christ in America is to pro- mote the aims of its member institu- tions. Much confusion has arisen also because Hays has been referred to fre- quently as the "czar of the motion pic- ture industry," for there has developed a corresponding impression that he has only to say the word and the film world will do his bidding. The truth is that he is an elective officer, and his "commands" are mere recommendations voluntarily accepted by the companies which are