Handbook of projection for theatre managers and motion picture projectionists ([1922])

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

MANAGERS AND PROJECTIONISTS 215 actresses are paid huge sums on the presumption that they can enact a given scene in the most artistic way. Is it not then just plain common sense that the best possible effect will be had if the action of these artists be portrayed on the screen faithfully, exactly as they were in the original? The theatre manager often excuses over-speeding of projection with the statement that he wants to "put pep" into his show. God in heaven! Imagine the manager of a "store room" theatre in Kalamazoo, Missouri, undertaking to "put pep" into Clara Kimball Young or Mary Pickford, or improving on the portrayal of a scene by Earle Williams or William Hart. Could anything be more ridiculous? Put in another way, when the theatre manager makes a statement of that kind he simply says in effect, "I know more about how that scene ought to be acted than does the artist who acted it and the director who planned it." PROJECTION HAMPERED.— In all but a comparatively small number of theatres, projection is more or less hampered in various ways. First, there is the iron-bound, unelastic "schedule," from which the projectionist is not permitted to vary. The manager very naturally desires to start his show at a given time, and have it end at a given time. This is, of course, very necessary, but while the average j£ T a ^ PE©THE TIME PER,R-EEV.Ii«PPROXIMRTE. S 0 M«Cv BE. VRRIED BY PROJECTIONIST. BUT TME / .^ ME PER. SHOW, MOST BE KEPT WlTHm BSTel! OHEDULE LIMITS, «% Shown \-^ Tf.© If »I_IOE«> «R.m USED THE. TIME. X--— » mCCuOEO IN TME C.HOW). TIME PER i.^ WITH FEATURE, MAKIN<V TIME ft&SCHEOOin PMJ WHCNRUNNINC, Gfe SHOv*J!> BtO,IN WITH'THE SHOW 3H«v40Mm El*«iA5Mm 8Mns.2.7Min >ii (2MiN 2 HR.& IH«-50Mm ,HR.-AtMm. •HK-a4MM 1 isno-140 730-IIOO 1200-345 3.45-5.50 t 30-8 15 13-1100 112 -139 339-606 s.oe-a^9 S-3^-1100 151 100-300 3.OO-3.OO SOO-7OO 7.OO-3.00 1.56-3.40 5.30 -7EO 9IO-MOO 3.35-^:16 4-. IS -557 557-736 738-9.IS 3.I9-II.OO E.oo-1 3S 36-310 310-444444-618 SES-USO 3)SHOWS 59SHOWS C5)SHOWS 5£SHOWS K>5HOWS &9SHOW5 7)5HO*VS (7) — — »5.7 )4.5 135 (5) 16.5 . 15 (3.7 >27 U-8 ® 163 14-7 >3.3 12.2 111 10-5 85 146 13.2 \Z II 10. 1 94 0 15 133 12 10.9 10 8.2 as 52; 13.7 12.2. II 10 9. E as — © ia.7 113 10.) 9 a 8.5 — @ 15.7 u.a 10.5 3A 8.5 — m I4.G n 97 && — to liT to 9.1 62. 7 3£ 123 9.7 &6 TIME PER. REE.L IN MINUTES L.MUIS IBI E.I04-&T.NXC Figure 64A.