Harrison's Reports (1931)

12 HARRISON’S REPORTS Here is one of the reasons why the Western Electric Noiseless recording cannot be as noiseless as the RCA Photophone noiseless recording: Western Electric records by the variable density method; RCA Photophone, by the variable width. In the variable density method, the light ray that goes through the sound track and strikes the photocell is varied in accordance with the density of the emulsion. In the variable method, the ray is varied in accordance with the width of the transparent sound track. In the variable density recording system, any defects in the sound track, due to bad development, poor raw stock, static or to any other causes, are transferred in the reproduced sound. On the other hand, such defects cannot affect the sound reproduced from a variable width sound track, for the reason that the part through which the light passes is all-transparent, and no light passes through the dark part of the sound track, which is pitch-black. In reference to the “minor changes” Mr. Nelson asks about, let me say that, in accordance with my information, the only changes ERPI engineers make is to clean the contacts to prevent humming. A film, recorded by either the Western Electric or the RCA Photophone noiseless process, may be run through any machine, without even the slightest alterations. Mr. Nelson asks me to tell him whether, if I were to decide on a sound equipment, I would install an RCA Photophone or a Western Electric. My investigations of the two instruments have convinced me that the sound given by the Western Electric instrument, which uses horn reproducers, is at least thirty per cent inferior to the sound of the RCA Photophone, which uses dynamic cone speakers. Consequently, as long as Western Electric, or any other instrument, for that matter, continues using horn loud speakers, I would not give it any consideration whatever. ONE WAY ZONING AND PROTECTION There are going to be fireworks in Philadelphia at the meeting of the exhibitor organization on January 22, if we are to judge by an article that has appeared in the January 1 issue of The Exhibitor. After the exhibitors of that zone were induced to accept the Hays zoning plan, subordinating protection in all contracts to such a plan, the exhibitors are now finding out that the exchanges are guided by the old protection provisions of the contract, and reject "zoning,” or accept zoning and reject protection ; they adopt the method that best suits them. In cases where the exhibitors failed to protect themselves with a “protection” provision because of their belief that zoning would be put into effect with a spirit of impartiality, they are finding themselves out of luck, for the exchanges fail to send them availability notices fourteen days after release in the zone in accordance with the provisions of the zoning system. Thus they have lost their protection. One of the bitter accusations is that the exchanges are favoring Warner Bros. This paper calls your attention to this abuse so that those of you who have not yet agreed on a zoning system may look out ; the exchanges will not play fair. Harrison’s Reports is watching the results of that meeting. It will have much to say unless the exchanges give their word that they will play fair. THE SCREEN AS A BILLBOARD Paramount-Publix, Warner Bros., and Fox have gone into the screen advertising business. The first two concerns have already tied up with Chesterfield Cigarettes ; I have seen a short at the Winter Garden, a Warner house, and two or three shorts at Paramount theatres. There is no doubt that considerable revenue comes into the coffers of these companies by running advertising reels in their theatres. But will the venture prove profitable in the end? To give the correct answer to this question, we must consider the public. How is the public going to take it? Suppose you were to read an article in a newspaper. You become intensely interested and read it with avidity. When you reach the bottom lines, however, you notice that the article was written for the purpose of bringing to your attention a certain patent medicine, or any other article. You resent it; and if you are aggressive enough you will write a letter to the editor of the paper protesting against his permitting his paper to be used for such a purpose. That is exactly how the public feels when they see, for instance, a comedy and at the end of the reel they read: January 17, 1931 “Presented through the courtesy of Chesterfield Cigarettes.” They resent it, even though they may not say anything to the manager. They pay their money to see a show. And advertising is not show. Of course, neither Paramount, nor Warners, nor Fox will force you to run their advertising subjects, but the theatres that are harmed are not only those that are showing such reels; every theatre suffers, for the average picture-goer thinks that what is done by one theatre is done by all others. Running advertising reels is an admission on the part of the producer-exhibitors that their theatres are in the red, and that they have found the revenue from such advertisments a life-saver. It is the result of their short-sighted policy; they have loaded themselves with hundreds of theatres, even in the neighborhoods and in very small towns, when any person with horse sense could have told them that they can not run them profitably ; they have found this out by sad experience. After loading themselves with these theatres, they have invested most of their energies to the running of them. The result has been that production has been neglected and its quality has suffered. Running advertising reels is not the sensible way to take theatres out of the red ; it is by making better productions. Let them get rid of the small town theatres and use their energies to making better pictures. If they do not, they will have to shut down these theatres, anyway. The quality of the pictures has not been as bad at any time in the history of picture production. CHEAP AND DIRTY The Albany Evening News, of Albany, New York, printed the following editorial in its issue of January 7, under the heading “CHEAP AND DIRTY”: “We have not seen the play ‘Abraham Lincoln’ which is coming to a local theatre later this week but we saw the stage version by John Drinkwater and there are good reports of the screen play. Indeed it is considered so highly that the Junior Film Guild is urging parents and school children and churches to attend the play. “We should think that a play based on the life of Abraham Lincoln would be of the highest order. He was a great man, a hero of all the world, revered by every American and held up as a shining example for all youth. “But the cloyed mind of an advertising writer insults the good taste, the intelligence and the clean manhood and womanhood of America by an advertisment that is conspicuously, flagrantly dirty and cheap. “Says the advertisment in black letters over the picture of a charming girl. “ ‘She Taught Lincoln How to Love — And Like It.’ “We do not wonder that recently Bishop G. Ashton Oldham inveighed against this pornographic advertising. Here is another example of the lowest kind of advertising. Here parents are urged to send their children to see the life of Lincoln, which is hinted by an advertising writer, who thinks he knows the public, as something that will appeal to the light and frivolous — yes, to the dirty-minded. “This advertising man does not know the public mind but the public understands bis. He has insulted the public. “His method is that which producers and actors ought to proscribe.” The advertisement was put in by the Ritz Theatre, a Warner house. And now what is Hays going to do about it? DUDE’S COLISEUM Tillamook, Oregon Dear Mr. Harrison: It is justly that you are called the friend of the “little” man. I have hesitated writing you because I know that so many others have taken and are taking advantage of your good nature and are flooding your office with letters of a personal nature. But you are my last resort. I have consulted several attorneys here and in Portland but so far I have not found one who knows anything about a film contract. . . . I suppose you are saying to yourself: “I cannot work miracles.” Sometimes we small-town exhibitors almost feel that you can. You are the only one we can look to who we are sure is our friend. You are not unlike the good priest in bis parish. And I am not the only one who feels that way. I was at an exhibitor meeting last week and it was the general opinion amongst them. . . . Very sincerely yours, C. M. Smith.