Motion Picture Herald (Apr-Jun 1931)

72 Better Theatres Section May 9, 1931 ing, in some detail, that the projectionist of today really must know quite a lot. Mr. Howe says he does not know who is responsible for the campaign to abandon the term "'operator" and substitute "projectionist," which would indicate that the gentleman is not at all well acquainted with projection matters of the past. Anyhow, he does me the honor to approve of the change. He says the "change has value because the job is no longer a mere mechanical job." Might I ask by what process of reasoning Mr. Howe accumulates the idea that it ever was? Seems to me it became very largely optical and considerably electrical the very first day a motion picture was projected. CRITICISM VERSUS BACKPATTING REC/ENTLY in an article by my good friend, P^, A. McGuire, chief advertising man for the International Projector Corporation, he used up most of one full page talking for "Progress Through Understanding," which is all right and doubtless may help some. McGuire has for a long while been engaged in a laudible effort to tame me down. He does not belive in giving voice to merited criticism. His view is that we can more quickly obtain improvement and the remedying of abuses by using soft, kind, soothing words. Harsh criticism is to him taboo, no matter how grevious the fault may be. If I go into a projection room and find the projectionist sitting comfortably, with his feet cocked up on a table or shelf, reading the evening paper, as I am sorry to say I still occasionally do, while a motor runs the show, with perhaps one or two cans on the floor under each projector to catch what flyng oil the films are unable to absorb (also a situation still occasionally found), I should not criticise the sinner! Instead I should talk to him kindly, directing his attention to the fact that perhaps he really should, occasionally (between paragraphs) glance at the screen, and that possibly a wee bit less oil might be made to suffice, though of course eventually all such abuses will be eliminated by Progress Through Understand ing, as Brother ]\lcGuire would put it. Brother McGuire and I are good friends. We have been for many years. I admire McGuire as a hard working, honest, most excellent advertising man, and one who has very often used his advertising space for the betterment of projection. I would land on any one who slandered him to me with both feet, believe you me! However, I most emphatically do not agree with him in any degree in the matter of substituting soft soap for well earned criticism. Taking the article in question, for example. It is well written. It says a lot of nice things. It reads nicely. It pats every one on the back. It steps absolutely on not one of any one's pet corns. However, when the average man has finished with it he will smile a beautiful smile, indulge in a moment of satisfied self-contemplation, and then promptly forget the whole dad-blamed thing. That is not, in my 'umble opinion, the sort of thing that makes for improvement. I may not always write so pleasingly. When I enter a projection room and find things satisfactory I say so, and in no uncertain words. And because the projectionist very well knows that had that praise not been deserved it would not have been given, he is hugely pleased. He will read the article many times. He may even cut it out and read it to his friends. He will actually do better work because of it, for he knows it is honest and that he has earned it. That is why he places high value upon it. On the other hand, when a bad condition is found I criticise it sharply. The one criticised may and probably will be as mad as a wet hen, but just the same he well knows the criticism was merited. He won't cut that article out and show it to his friends. However, he will remember it, and the reaction will, at least to some extent, make for Improvement in his work. Moreover the reading of the criticism will, bejond any question of a doubt, work out beneficially to others. Progress Through Understanding may be all right, so far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. The most important item of understanding with relation to projection is to undertsand the fact that excellence is not allied with laziness or slipshod methods. It comes only through hard work and lots of it, plus close application to study. McGuire evolved the slogan, "Better Projection Pays." That particular thing was very good indeed. It helped a lot. I'm for it and always have been. His later one, "Progress Through Understanding," I don't think such a lot of. It is too darned altruistic. We will get considerably further, I believe, by looking facts squarely in the face. A KIND OF SIDE WHEEL STEAMER A LETTER from Lester Borst of the Rivoli theatre, Two Rivers, Wis., says, "may I say that I am becoming a bit peeved at the way some producers are handling the Standard Release Print system. Last week I received a print of 'The Lottery Bride,' a so-called Standard Release Print production. It was really about as standard as a side wheel steamer would be to a screw propeller ship. "Each reel had a 15-foot leader against the 12-foot standard. As for cues, why there were none — that is to say, no stand IN A LETTER, Lester Borst, projectionist at the Rivoli theatre, Two Rivers, Wis., sa3's: "Dear Dad Richardson : Producers insist on releasing some of their productions in extremely short reels. Can you tell me why? From the viewpoint of the projectionist this practice is a very serious annoyance. It is, in fact, absolutely ridiculous! For example, last Sunday we ran ard cues. However, each reel end for 20 feet back was messed up with punch marks, stickers and china pencil smears. Could name several other producers who are far from the standard they are presumed to carry. Thus far only Columbia product has been up to the standard in every way. Is this standard a joke? If not, then why in the name of holy things don't the producers get down to brass tacks." Brother Borst has not described the departures from standard, except for the additional three feet of leader, well enough M-G-M's 'Passion Flower.' The production is an excellent one, but it was mounted on short reels. The first three reels were all right, but, starting with reel No. 4, the length dropped off to an average of about 400 feet. I, for one, can see no justifiable reason for that sort of thing. "I could name many other features we have had in which the same stunt was pulled. Why not bring this subject up at for me to tell just what, if anything, is wrong with the procedure of the producers. I have had other complaints, but to date no one has carefully set forth the exact nature of the faults. Of course, the punch marks are no fault of the producer. Also, he probably put the cues there and some dumbbell alleged projectionist cut them off. Won't some of you who complain that producers are not playing the Standard Release Print game properly be good enoiigh to advise, in minute detail, what way they default? REELS the next S. M. P. E. meeting? I am sure \-ou would have plenty of support from all projectionists. "By the way, why aren't Fox, Warner Brothers and First National using the new standard release print in their productions? If their studios think their cue sheet method is better, they should visit some theatre where a standard release is being used and compare it with their own." A COMPLAINT ABOUT SHORT