International projectionist (Oct 1931-Sept 1933)

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.

AN OPEN LETTER TO JAMES J. FINN From Thad C. Barrows PRESIDENT, PROJECTIOIV ADVISORY COUNCIL; PRESIDENT, BOSTON LOCAL UNION 182 DEAR JIM: I'll start by repeating that old bromide to the effect that I am not given to the habit of "writing to the papers," and this statement should absolve me from any "bouquets" which might come my way as a result of my deficiencies as an author. However, I certainly feel that your article "Wanted: A National Society of Projectionists" which appeared in International Projectionist for February is so unusual (from the standpoint of what you had to say and in reflection of the personal courage on your part in saying it) , that we who hold positions of some responsibility within the craft should meet such honesty of purpose head-on and not attempt to duck the issue, or issues, involved. I'll begin by stating my opinion that this particular article is easily the best thing you have ever done, is a job which should have been done long ago, and is one of the finest things that has ever appeared in a projection paper. 1 am unable to agree with those who hold this article to be inflammatory in any destructive sense ; but I . am quite willing to agree with the view that it is inflammatory in the sense that it puts Mr. Projectioninst "on the spot" and seeks to prod him into action. Complimentary "Taffy 1 for one am. tired of being told what great fellows we projectionists are and what marvelous work we turn out and how dreadfully important we are in the motion picture scheme of things. I for one am tired^of all this taffy that is handed out to us by those who assert their friendship for us and who demonstrate this friendship (?) by feeding us cakes sugar sweet which are calculated to make, us .drowsy and lull us into a sense of false security. .Taffy we can buy at any candy _store. I for one would like the truth about ourselves from now on. And it does seem to me that we as a craft are just as important as we can make ourselves. I shouldn't like to convey the impression that this letr ter is in any way a "boost" for you, for it isn't. While I agree with you in a broad sense, there are a couple of points of your thesis that do not meet with my. approval. These couple points are rather small in comparison with the fact that your article really started something which I hope will bring results, and so can be glossed over. It's about time we fellows sat back and took stock of ourselves. What are we, what have we, and where are we going? These are the questions we should ask ourselves. Furthermore, we should give considerable time to thinking over just what is it that makes us different from any Tom, Dick, or Harry who walks the streets today with a license in his pocket and an acquisitive gleam in his eyes (for our jobs). It's all very well to say that we shall fight these fellows through organization, but my idea is that we must fight with organization plus — plus that "certain something" which you mentioned and which you subse quently boiled down to "morale," "better training," and "better work." I've heard the cry for education before, but you pulled something new (on us), when you sneaked in that socialization idea. I say that once embarked on a really worth while socialization program, the educational feature would take care of itself. There can be no honest difference of opinion on your remark that we have but one thing to sell and that that one thing is superior work. This statement wins hands down. Our Position in the Industry I disagree with you on the point that projectionists do not realize their important place in the industry. I think that they do, and further, that there has been a growing realization of their importance among projectionists, particularly within the past four or five years. The trouble here is that projectionists are not exploited by themselves or by others — consequently there is very little said or written about them outside of their own periodicals. I have carefully checked up the comment about projectionists which appeared in other than projection publications over a period of six months, and I can state positively that more than 95 per cent of this comment had to do with wage scales. Nothing about our accomplishments, nothing about our fine fellows who risked their lives in tight places during theatre fires, nothing about our charity work, nothing about the outstanding personalities in our craft — what they are doing, what they are saying, and what they are thinking. Such is the place occupied by our craft in the minds of others in the industry. It's futile to ask that projectionists themselves look after their interests in this direction (and here we come to your remarks about non-cooperation within the craft), as they really haven't time for such activity. An organization such as you outlined in your article would come in nicely here. The tendency to "let George do it" is not confined to the projection craft. The phrase is popular with all crafts, all organizations, all industries. Just because of this, however, is no reason why we who have been asked to fill posts of some responsibility within the craft should not put our shoulders to the wheel and play the role of "George" for a while. It may be said, as you did, that projectionists are selfish and are "notoriously indifferent to any attempt to render them a service." True. But probably this is a result of having given their money for several things and then not received anything in return. Publicity — Plus You have often told me that publicity in itself is not the key to this problem of getting and holding adequate representation for the projectionist within the industry. With this view I agree. Publicity plus a record of accomplishment of practical things is what will bring results. I have been a member of the International Alliance for [21]