Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World (Apr-Jun 1930)

118 Better Theatres Section cause of knowledge gained from the ‘Bluebook,’ I have been able to help brother projectionists out in different ways. “Very likely you do not visit as many small theatres as I do. The conditions in nearly every one of them are just plain terrible. Rewinder elements out of line and rewinding at very high speed, whole reels of film laying on the floor entirely unprotected, surplus cement smeared over the film at each side of splices, lower loop touching oil, while the speeding of projection ofttimes is just plain fierce. And many of the men doing these things have pay and good conditions which I envy. “May I ask your advice as to how best to make the attempt to join the union. I shall order the sound volume of the ‘Bluebook’ very soon.” As to joining the union, you are within the jurisdiction of the one nearest to you in point of miles, regardless of state lines. This probably is Fargo, N. D. Write E. J. McCannel, secretary, Local Union No. 510, P. 0. Box 574, Fargo, N. D. Just advise him as to where you work and how long you have worked there. Ask if the local will accept you, provided you can pass its examination. Also ask what the admission fee and dues are. The local can admit or reject you, and if the latter, it may not (though it should) advise you as to its reasons, which might be that the men think that if you were admitted you would immediately go to the city and demand employment, or it might be that if admitted, you would expect the local to obtain for you union wages and conditions in your small town, which, of course, it probably could not do and would not attempt to do. As to the small town conditions above set forth, I know they are to be found, for I have seen them. But it must not be imagined that they obtain in all small town or small city theatres. In some small town theatres I have found the conditions to be remarkably excellent, everything considered. In fact, in some small town theatres I have been astonished at the excellence of the screen results after having examined the equipment and viewed the junk given the projectionist to work with. However, it is true that in many of them the conditions are exactly as set forth by Friend Layton, and it is a shame that I must admit it. But the truth must out. I thank Layton most cordially for his words of commendation of and for the work being done through this department and through the “Bluebook.” I would suggest that he get Volume 3 at once and study it. Sound will come his way in the course of time and he should be prepared for it. THE PROJECTION ADVISORY COUNCIL RECENTLY your editor had a long confab with his good friend, P. A. McGuire, who is one of the very active workers in the Projection Advisory Council. We proceeded to take out the gizzard of that organization and examine it; also, we discussed its other vital organs, one by one — and found them good. There seems to be an idea that I am, for some unknown reason, opposed to the Council, or at least that I am not very friendly toward it. Just where that idea sprang from I’m sure I don’t know, but right here and now permit me to say, with all the emphasis of which I am capable, that there is not one single shred of truth in it. I am friendly, and whole heartedly so, toward everything that gives reasonable promise of working for the good of projection and the projectionist. And I don’t mean maybe, either. The Projection Advisory Council is a good organization. Possibly I may not believe it will do everything its sponsors think it will, but even so there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it will do good, hence I am “for” it. I am only opposed to such things as those which I believe will, for one reason or another, either do no good, or worse, do harm. I am sure the Council will not only do no harm but will do a lot of good. It is not jumping into the field with one idea; namely, to make money. In fact, it expects to do nothing of the sort. Any money received above the normal amount for running expenses of the organization, will be put right back into the work of the organization. Moreover, all the men at its head are men who know their business in projection. They are not mere outsiders butting in to “make a wad.” They don’t make a single red cent from the Council or from its operations. The Council therefore is unselfish. It is non-financial and seeks one thing only, and that is to advance projection to a higher level, both as concerns the beauty of the screen image and sound and efficiency in operation. The Council does not and cannot possibly interfere with my own work in any way, shape or manner. That will be carried forward as of old. My writings in the weekly issues of Better Theatres and Herald-World, elsewhere, provide nothing more nor less than clearing houses for projection information, instruction and knowledge. My departments act as places where projectionists, from the highest to the lowest, may meet on equal terms and discuss various things in connection with projection. These departments are read by many, many thousands of projectionists and theatre managers in this and other countries. These departments and their editor most cordially welcome anything which is honestly meant to push projection forward and upward to the plane it ought to occupy, so if any one should tell you Richardson is opposed to the Projec April 12, 1930 COMMUNICATIONS to the editor of this department should be addressed as follows: F. H. Richardson 1148 Boynton Avenue New York City tion Advisory Council, or that he is anything but friendly toward it, you have my full authority to tell him he is making the truth into a badly scrambled omelette. Of course, I cannot devote a whole lot of space to the activities of the Council, because what space I have is always sadly overcrowded as it is. However, within reason we will give it space whenever it does anything of sufficient importance to justify crowding something else out. And there we are ! PROTECTING FILM EMULSION | HAVE been approached by a company in New York City which owns a new process for the toughening and protection of film emulsion which, it is claimed, goes far toward making film scratch proof. This company wished to give me a demonstration, but the offer was declined. Instead, it was proposed that the company place in my charge several samples of treated film, the same to be held a reasonable time to determine what, if any, effect the process might have on rendering the film brittle or setting up other possible objectionable features as time passes. Processes for coating or toughening film emulsion to make it to a large extent scratch proof, are not at all new. They were presented many years ago, but always, in due time, they either rendered the film stiff or brittle, or set up some other fault even worse than the objectionable scratching, therefore one by one they were tried and discarded. The company finally acceded and has sent me several samples of film. After a time, say, two months, I will be very glad to report as to whether there is any visible effect set up by the process. Scratching, of course, has always been highly objectionable. It has done great damage both to film and to screen images. It is now far more so than ever, for the reason that scratches on the sound track, as you all very well know, cause noises which are far from pleasant. It therefore is hoped that, as the manufacturer claims, this process will have no objectionable kick-back, and may therefore in due time be adopted, to the great joy of everyone concerned, including the daily millions of theatre patrons who will receive better entertainment and not know the reason why.