International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1936)

^4 e Vol. 11, No. 2 EDITORIAL PAGE AUGUST 1936 Fire Extinguishers vs. Manpower A Canadian province is considering revising its theatre regulations, now calling for two "journeyman" projectionists on duty at all times in theatre projection rooms, to permit the employment of one "journeyman" and one "apprentice" — ■ provided there be installed on each projector an "automatic" fire extinguisher. Several pertinent questions stem from this proposal, the answers to which we shall essay. Just what is an "apprentice" projectionist? If the term denotes one who is inferior in ability and experience to a "journeyman" projectionist, then the former has no place in a theatre projection room. Remember that an "apprentice" can be used only when an "automatic extinguisher" is installed, which provision in itself bares the essential nonsense of the proposal. Can the extinguisher aid in any way in maintaining a good picture on the screen? Just what is an "automatic fire extinguisher"? We have seen many devices designed to extinguish projector film fires, but we have never seen one that supported the claims made for it. We don't believe that any such device exists. When does an "automatic" extinguisher function? Answer: after a fire has occurred! Does it prevent an image of a blaze from being projected on the screen? Answer: no. None of these ballyhooed projection adjuncts prevent fires; they merely help to extinguish a fire. But there must be a fire before they function — that's the important point. Once a film catches fire in the mechanism, it's anybody's guess as to how far it will go. When a fire occurs the projectionist instinctively acts first to shut off the light from the screen, after which he considers means for controlling the blaze. No "automatic" fire extinguisher is so considerate. Projector film-fire extinguishers are either electrical, mechanical or chemical, and all of them are delicately adjusted and require care. Their installation involves extra equipment— gears or rollers, or both; added wiring, accurate placement, metal brackets, actuating arc, etc. So, proceeding on the theory that a projection room, installation, excluding an extinguisher, is a mass of delicately-adjusted equipment requiring constant maintenance when not working and continual attention when operating, the Canadian authorities now propose to add more delicately-adjusted equipment requiring additional care and more man-hours of work — with decreased (less efficient and experienced) manpower! Extra equipment is the best reason for more, not less, manpower. When cogitating on fire extinguishers, the Canadian authorities might pause to consider this question: What is the cause of an overwhelming majority of projector film fires? The answer should come immediately: Defective equipment which is either worn or out of adjustment through inadequate or improper attention. No fire extinguisher, no matter what claims are made for it, can overcome this deficiency. Ample manpower is the only solution to this problem. Yet our Canadian friends propose adding more equipment requiring additional man-hours work in the way of maintenance and at the same time spreading the available man-hours available by actually reducing manpower! We confess to be baffled by the logic of this proposal. Another angle of the proposed regulations interests us, and that the inclusion therein of the word "approved." Approved by whom? What mental Goliath, in terms of projection knowledge, is so well-versed in the process as to qualify for this important task? A device may work well on text and be a total loss under actual operating conditions. I. P. states flatly that there is no "approved" projector fire extinguisher — and this is the "expert" opinion of all ranking projection men. Now, if the Canadian authorities can dig up an "approved" extinguisher, they will be dealing in some sort of magic. Lest we forget, also: The use of "approved" device for "protective" work in 999 of 1,000 cases is compulsory. The political odor emanating from such setups is too pronounced to require comment herein. One more angle. Just what relation does a fire extinguisher bear to good projection, to projectionists? Since when have the duties of a fireman become the most important element in a projectionist's work? The fire hazard inherent in projection work is only one very small item on the list of projection room routine. Theatre patrons don't consciously buy protection from fire at the box-office; they buy what they hope is entertainment. Pictures are entertaining, and the theatre management has fulfilled its admission contract, only when pictures are effectively merchandised through good projection— not fair, but good projection. Good projection requires ample manpower. The Canadian authorities might give some thought to the unquestionable right of the paying patron — the same party whose tax money pays for the salaries and upkeep of regulatory bodies — to receive full value for his theatre admission money in the form of entertainment — entertainment which, in the picture business, is possible only through good projection. Midsummer Musings on Various Topics Random thoughts that thrust out of a sultry August day: Question — Does the signing by RCA of a contract to service 300 Fox theatres for the next five years mean that this group of theatres is lost to independent service organizations — or even projectionist service organizations — for this period? Answer — That's exactly what it means. No means has been found by I. P. for forcing projectionists to do this work. I. P. has done its job in this direction. Significant indeed is the Erpi statement announcing its servicing of competitive equipments, more than half the release being given over to an explanation that this activity would in no way intrude upon the projectionist's domain. Quite different frcm the 1935 statements anent all-inclusive theatre servicing from the roof to the cellar You're welcome. Lamp manufacturers are now supplying different reflectors for 7 and 8-mm. Suprex operation. . . . Don't mention it. A survey of five Eastern states reveals that projectionist wages average 239c under the 1929 level. The NY. State Assoc, of Projectionists is the only such group, so far as we know, that really functions, developments being a major interest. Incidentally, the forthcoming SMPE Convention at Rochester, N. Y.. Oct. 12-15. is an opportunity seldom afforded projectionists in the upper tier of N. Y. State and Ohio. Western New England, and Canada to hear about and see first-flight technical developments. Eastman and Bausch & Lomb, among others, may be counted on to put on a good show. [23]