Moving Picture World (May - Jun 1918)

May 11, 1918 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 849 . 0 Si >y^.>.>.y, Projection Department Conducted by F. H. RICHARDSON 'k' K> -> -> k • -.<■><• r<. >^. ^ -;. t<-. ^. *> *;* ».<•■.. > .;* .; § ■ -' .,-, Vw^ ..^>> ■ ■.. .,, y, .,., ■>, Manufacturer*' Notice. [T IS an established rule of this department that no apparatus or other goods will be endorsed or recommended editorially until the excellence of such articles has been demonstrated to its editor. Important Notice. Owing to the mass of matter awaiting publication, It Is Impossible to reply through the department In less than two to three weeks. In order to give prompt service, those sending four cents, stamps (less than actual cost), will receive carbon copy of the department reply, by mall, without delay. Special replies by mall on matters which cannot be replied to In the department, one dollar. Both the first and second sets of questions are now ready and printed in neat booklet form, the second half being seventy-six In number. Hither booklet may be had by remitting 25 cents, money or stamps, to the editor, or both for 40 cents. Cannot use Canadian stamps. Every live, progressive operator should get a copy of these questions. You may be surprised at the number you cannot answer without a lot of study. From Mr. Rothapfel. Samuel L. Rothapfel, managing director Rialto and Rivoli theaters, New York City, writes the following letter concerning my account of the trip to Pennsylvania, published in a recent issue of the paper: Dear Mr. Richardson : I have read your account of the Pennsylvania trip with interest and with pride. Such a tribute coming from you is, to say the least, a tribute indeed, and I am surely grateful and appreciative of your broadness and manliness in the matter. With regard to your misunderstanding of me and my work in the past, I believe your error was partly due to statements attributed to me, which really emanated elsewhere. My work is my life. I try hard to do the right thing, as I 6ee it. It is my earnest desire to be a friend to the exhibitor, but some of them do not understand or interpret my attitude correctly. It may be that if they would pause and for a moment consider things as they are they would form a more correct judgment. What has any exhibitor ever given me? What have I to gain from the exhibitor? And if the exhibitor can do nothing for me, what other possible motive can or could I have in seeking to aid him, other than pure good will and the desire to benefit, as best I may, the industry to which we all owe so very much? I have but one hope and one ambition, and that is to make the motion picture an object of respect and admiration — to make the motion picture a form of entertainment which will reach the highest pinnacle of possible attainment and finally take its place among the other arts. My constant endeavor is to get a maximum of efficiency in high class entertainment from the material supplied by our producers. So strenuous is my work that if the pace I have set is maintained I will never live to enjoy an old age. Should I be spared, however, to see the exhibitor, the producer and the exchange men linked together as a unit, presenting a solid front of endeavor for the betterment and idealization of the industry ; if I live to see the motion picture in that unassailable position in which I would like to see it, then I will be perfectly content to withdraw and -will feel that my effort has not been in vain. Believe me, Mr. Richardson, your words of commendation were an inspiration. I trust the future will bring an even beter understanding of the work I am trying to do, and that that work will continue to merit your approval. With every best wish I am, very sincerely yours, S. L. ROTHAPFEL, Managing Director. I believe there is nothing to add, except to say that Mr. Rothapfel Is not exaggerating when he says he works hard. It is an absolute fact that he personally supervises the staging of his programmes often working all night in the endeavor to get everything exactly right. He selects much of the music himself, plans the effects and most of the conceptions which have made the Rialto and Rivoli famous, packing them to capacity several times a day, and attends to many other details. He is gifted with a fine sense of the spectacular and things spectacular (that term may be applied in many ways mind you) always "make a hit" in the show business. His theater lighting is beautifully spectacular, the music is spectacular (and beautiful) and his staging of the silent drama is charming. Sensible Exchange Manager. Recently I received several complaints from projectionists with regard to condition of films sent out from a certain branch exchange of one of the big producing corporations. One projectionist finally sent in what seemed to bo an example of inspection carelessness beyond all forbearance. I at once referred the matter to the home office of the corporation and shortly thereafter received a letter from the branch exchange reading, in part, as follows : * * • "The Welsh Singer," featuring Florence Turner, was shipped to the theater without inspection, due to the fact that the film scheduled for the exhibitor at this theater was not returned by the theater using it previously, and we were forced to go down to the express office and get "The Welsh Singer," it being the only one available. • • • The patches absolutely were not made by any inspector in this exchange ; also they could not have been made by any one who knows anything at all about film. They were made by an operator, and we might say that if we took time to criticise the manhandling of films by operators in many theaters we would very soon have an endless line of complaints to register against them. ♦ « « We appreciate the spirit in which your letter is written and assure you we have a most excellent inspection department. * * * We feel just as you do about matters of this kind, and assure you of our co-operation along these lines, for the interest of our customers and of the business in general. This exchange manager may have been, and I still think he was, a little careless in some of the instances brought to my attention ; also he should have put a slip in the shipment of reels stating that thefilms have not been inspected and why they had not been inspected. The projectionist who received them, and who was certainly not to blame for the manhandling they had had from a previous projectionist, would have understood and would have felt very much better about it. But anyhow, instead of biting holes in the corner of his desk because of my criticism, this exchange manager wrote a sensible, calmly worded letter, frankly admitting the wrong and explaining it. Whatever his occasional errors may be, this man talks like a real manager and I do not expect to have any more complaints concerning his office. I thoroughly agree with him as to the butchery of films by projectionists, but what do you expect? You, Mr. Exchange Manager, turn over to a theater a programme of films worth from $200 to $800 every day, without knowing one single thing about the conditions under which they will be used, nor do you check up damage in any even half-way efiBcient manner. You expect a cheap inspector to "inspect" and report upon an $800 programme of films which were as likely as not run by a cheap projectionist, on a projector in utterly wretched shape as to repair and in a more or less out-of-adjustment condition, and as likely as not run at race horse speed. You expect this cheap inspector to "inspect" this $800 programme at race horse speed, with net result that the report you get as to damage done is not worth one single little tinker's dam, except as to damage so very bad that more or less film is utterly ruined. But ten feet of cracked sprocket holes, due to speeding and excessive tension or to excessive take-up tension, will only be found by the sheerest accident. When you take on a theater as customer do you take any steps to ascertain the competency of the projectionist in that theater? Do you take any steps to ascertain the condition of the projectors in that theater? Do you find out whether or not the projectionist really attends to his projection, or projects a picture while doing other chores? Do you seek to ascertain whether or no the operator projects at normal speed, having his tension set FOR normal speed, or whether your films are shot through like a comet gone mad, with three times the gate tension there should be, all of which must, does and will raise the mischief with your films. Dear me, no! Of course you don't. You just ask "how much will you pay," settle that point and • « • kick about the butchery which inevitably follows. This complaint came from a large film center. If the exchanges of that center exercised ordinary common sense, plus good business judgment, and combined to put out enough competent inspectors (competency to be considered before cheapness — heresy, I know, but essential) to cover every theater served by that city once every fifteen days, the exchanges of that city to each one deposit a substantial cash forfeit obligating them to refuse service to any theater in which conditions are condemned by an inspector prevailed until such time as conditions were remedied, allowing the theater ten days to comply, with right of appeal to a committee of exchange managers representing the whole, manhandling of films would STOP. Of course the foregoing is a rough plan, but in some form it is practical. A lot of expense and bother? Sure it is! But look at the monetary value of the goods involved. If properly carried out it would PAY. Suppose there are sixexchanges in the city, each serving only ten theaters, the average