International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

^ e Vol. 1, No. 2 EDITORIAL PAGE NOVEMBER 1931 The problem of film mutilation i his Matter has been with us since the intro of Film duction of the motion picture. Mutilation Some of the best executive and technical brains of the industry have studied the problem in detail in an attempt to provide solution, but to no avail. Repeated failure reflects no discredit upon the gentlemen who have bent their talents to this task, for the matter is one that requires a detailed knowledge of all branches of motion picture endeavor— production, distribution, equipment and film manufacturing, and reproduction — which is asking a bit too much of any one mortal. This job requires collective effort by specialists in every branch of the art, and the lack of such effort heretofore is a plausible reason for the many failures recorded. The motion picture industry is not unlike any other great industry in that it suffers as a result of that artful little game which is popularly known as "passing the buck." Mention film mutilation in any gathering of technicians and immediately "the buck" is started on its journey. Film manufacturers pass to equipment manufacturers; from here a pass is made to the exchanges, who, in turn, pass to the projectionist, who has no alternative but to defend himself by "passing the buck" right back. The participants are very adept at this game, but their efforts contribute nothing to a solution of the problem of film mutilation. Now along comes the Projection Practice Committee of the S.M.P.E., under the chairmanship of Harry Rubin, with an announcement of a program for investigating this whole matter of film mutilation and, if possible, providing the answer. This intent of Chairman Rubin is commendable, and we wish him every success in his efforts. We wish we could prophesy with certainty a tremendous success for this program, but our experience in such matters prevents us from doing so. Let us assume that the Projection Practice Committee pierces the very core of this problem and as a result thereof promulgates certain recommendations anent future practice. Such a report would be read before the Society, printed in the Journal and then, if past experience be any guide, be promptly forgotten by everyone except those men who had worked hard and long to prepare the recommendations. This will never do. One does not have to look far for the reason why this should be so. The reason lies in the fact that not one important executive in the motion picture industry has a clear perception of technical activity within the industry. Most of these executives think they have discharged their obligations to the technical forces when they have written a complimentary letter to be read at a technical society's banquet, or when they are quoted in some trade paper to the effect that they think "the technicians have done splendid work for this great industry of ours and we wish them every success" — or some such palaver. These same executives know their business in every other respect, though: actor's salaries, wages, equipment costs, distribution costs, box office reports, and the like. But what they don't know about the technical phase of the business would fill several libraries of good size. These men forget that the technicians make money for them by improving quality and reducing the cost of getting that quality, just as surely as does the star who wears well at the box office. But try to convince them of that. The Standard Release Print saved the producers $100,000 within six months after its introduction. Yet, when this writer interviewed one of the ranking executives in the business on the subject and at the same time attempted to secure a small donation for the Projection Advisory Council (which organization aided greatly the introduction of the S.R.P.), he found that this "ranking executive" had never heard of the S.R.P. (P. S. Also, he didn't get the money.) Such is this business. We have strayed far from the subject of film mutilation, but the foregoing serves very well to indicate just what the technicians are up against in formulating a definite program. Film mutilation, and any similar problem, requires more than anything else an active interest by and the support of the excutives of this business. With such support assured, many existing technical problems would be comparatively easy of solution. As for the specific matter of film mutilation, the answer lies not in committee reports, trade paper comment, fire insurance statistics or/and complaints from the technical field workers. Assuming the existence of an active interest on the part of the industry's executives, the matter should be put squarely up to a board to be composed of representatives of, say, the following: (1) producers (2) exhibitors (3) exchange operations supervisors (4j projector manufacturers (5) projection supervisors (6) technical societies (7) fire underwriters, and (8) film manufacturers. There may be one or more omissions to the foregoing list. With such a board applying itself diligently to the problem, the answer should be forthcoming quickly. And once established, the board's recommendations should be enforced. Such a board would put a stop to all this silly "buck passing" and would place the responsibility squarely where it belongs. A. P. S. Looks to the Future We note with considerable pleasure that arrangements have been made for reorganization of the American Projection Society. Direction of the Society, long vested in the Eastern faction, has now passed to a West Coast group which has demonstrated its capacity for leadership. An up-and-doing educational and fraternal organization is an absolute necessity to the projectionist craft, and we look to the American Projection Society to provide such a service. [21].