International projectionist (Jan-Dec 1937)

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.

SECTIONAL vs. NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORT AS AN AID TO CRAFT REFLECTIONS UPON A COMMUNICATION FROM W. G. WOODS, SEC, L. U. 162, SAN FRANCISCO IN THE last (Dec.) issue of I. P. there appear some good and timely articles on film fires, methods of prevention and the projectionists' role under such circumstances— which remarks might well be extended by the addition of comment relating to film fires and projectionists' safety. Our record of film fires during the past two years is two dead and twelve badly injured; while our sister city, Oakland (L. U. 169), has a record of two dead and several injured. Mark Twain once said: "In case of shipwreck, never get excited, proceed quietly to shore." This product of pure reasoning has been interpreted by the hard-boiled "operator," who has had experiences of his own, to: "In case of fire, don't get excited. Get out!" This is a most excellent paraphrase — except that it has a catch to it. During a recent projection room fire in this city two of our men just did not get out quickly enough, and found themselves trapped by a wall of fire between them and the usual one projection room door. Retreating to a small generator room, having no exit, they were slowly suffocating from the fumes when the fire department rescue squad reached them and escorted them to safety. Incident Prompts Second Exit Regulation A week later when these men got up out of their cozy oxygen tents at the hospital, they found that they had not suffered in vain: for now comes Mr. Ralph Wiley, Chief of the Dept. of Electricity of San Francisco, who has promulgated the rule that in future all projection rooms must have a second exit, as well as the usual door, this second exit to be positioned preferably at the opposite side of the room, or in the rear wall, or as a last resort (where necessitated by structural peculiarities) through the roof. There appears to be no definite ruling on this matter by the National Board of Fire Underwriters, or by (in our case) the State Employees' Compensation Board — although there is a profusion of laws relating to the safety of the audience and to the "vital necessity" for protecting property and the interests of insurance companies. By this time it is no secret that accident insurance rates for projectionists match those applicable to aviators — which brings me back again to the beginning. Why not a concerted effort to make projection work safe for projectionists by appeals to all agencies regulating projection rooms, as well as to compensation boards, where they exist? Construction work on the Bay bridge here claimed twenty-three lives, prompting the State Compensation Board to order a net rigged under the great Golden Gate bridge structure. Result: the formation of a HalfWay Club, similar to the aviators' Caterpillar Club, comprised of the eleven men who fell from the bridge structure and lived to tell it. Meanwhile, and this is the point of this little essay, Mr. Wiley's rules designed to protect the projectionist in the event of room fires will receive the backing of this local union— even to the point of NO SAFETY— NO PROJECTIONIST! W. G. Woods, Secretary, L. U. 162, San Francisco. Calif. By JAMES J. FINN FOR the information of Mr. Woods and all others concerned, a secondary means of exit from projection rooms is now part of the Underwriters' code, is a feature of the S. M. P. E. standard room layouts, and is insisted upon by most progressive states and municipalities, and in Canada. These new regulations apply not only to a secondary means of exit but also to approved plumbing and ventilation within the room. Evidence of the effectiveness of these regulations is supplied by M. D. O'Brien of the Loew's Theatres Projection Dept. Desiring to enlarge an existing room by some four feet in length, Mr. O'Brien was surprised to learn that he must go all the way and provide a second exit therefrom, install plumbing and improve the ventilation. Moreover, if the second exit should be to the roof, the new [23] regulations demand that means be provided for descent from the roof to the ground, or for passage to an adjoining building. Many rooms of recent construction display this latter feature. Unfortunately, these new regulations apply only to new construction or alteration; existing old-type rooms are not affected thereby. Had Mr. O'Brien decided not to enlarge this particular room, no changes whatever would have been required. It is apparent that in this respect the San Francisco ruling cited by Mr. Woods is unusually inclusive, that is, with respect to the great difficulty certain to be encountered by many old theatres in providing • another exit. However, I. P. can only applaud this ruling, despite its inclusiveness. Real Significance Hidden Mr. Woods' letter is vastly more significant than he possibly thought when he penned it, transcending in importance the question of a secondary room exit. He suggests, for example, that a "concerted" effort be made to direct the attention of regulatory bodies, and that of the S.M.P.E., to the necessity for such rulings. Concerted action by whom? By the national organization of projectionists? Certainly not, because the organization has never made any move toward, nor displayed the slightest interest in, the setting up of such a legislative group. True, units of the organization participate in various sectional legislative bodies, but these groups are loosely organized to cope with problems of the moment and invariably operate spasmodically and without any definite unity of action or purpose. Why, these so-called legislative bodies come to I. P. for helpful data which should be available to them instantly from organization headquarters merely for the asking. Granted that this collecting and collating of data is a proper function of I. P., (and I. P. recognizes its responsibility to render such service) the fact remains that this publication has not been in existence long enough to gather records covering a sufficient time period as to be impressive or in any way exert any influence over any intelligent regulatory body. I. P. has serviced more than 60 local or statewide groups within the past half