Motion Picture Herald (Jul-Sep 1931)

44 Better Theatres Section September 26, 1931 F. H. RICHARDSON'S COMMENT AND ANSWERS TO INQUIRIES FILM MAINTENANCE: PUBLIX'S METHODS I HAVE had the question asked from time to time by various people, "What is the average life of motion picture film?" The questioners referred to film life as governed by mechanical factors. This is no easy question to answer. Recently in conversation with Mr. Trevor Faulkner, who has been in charge of Paramount Publix film exchange operations for a long while, and who has built up a system in those exchanges which is not excelled anywhere else, it occurred to me that here was the man who might give us a lot of very valuable, authoritative information on damage to film, and things related thereto. Mr. Faulkner consented to discuss this important subject for our department, and to the end of this article, the following words are his — acknowledged here with deep gratitude. • THERE HAVE been numerous articles written on this subject, this one being the fourth or fifth that I have done in the past few years. In complying with the request of my good friend Mr. F. H. Richardson, that I do another one, I agreed — with the reservation that I would refrain from repeating the elementaries of the work, as they are so familiar to all. We all know that dirt and oil, bad splicing, improper condition of projection equipment, careless exchange maintenance, warped and buckled film and scratched surfaces are the things that mar proper screen presentations of a product that has an enormous cost in its making, and is tying up the exhibition time of expensively operated theatres. It is therefore essential that a condition that can be kept to a minimum, be watched with care and attention by all concerned, so that it can in no way be responsible for negative box office results. We are all so well informed on the various causes of the above list of damages that can occur to film, that it only remains for us to have proper follow-ups in our inspection and projection rooms, film depots, etc., so that we are constantly informed as to the class of work that is going on in each of these departments, and can anticipate and correct troubles before any damage results. To be able to build up a routine of operation that will bring about these desired results, it is most necessary that the directors of this set-up be intelligently familiar with exchange film maintenance, theatre projection and its equipment, laboratory work, exchange booking routines and maintenance of exchange equipment used to inspect and repair film. The knowledge of these operations can best be attained by actual experience with them, to the end that one be so equipped that the solution of the various problems ceases to be guess work. The company with whom I have been engaged in the above work for years, never has been satisfied vnth any film condition below the best that could be obtained and maintained. They have made it possible, through their willingness to grant time and to spend money, to analyze every film maintenance problem, find its solution and make corrections, and have always been persistent in demanding a satisfactory film condition. This thoroughness on their part has made it possible to have a set-up which has given them absolute first-hand control of these conditions. To outline, as briefly as I may, a complete set-up that includes a full follow-up on every phase of this problem, I will classify the essential links in the order in which they occur. The studios, laboratories, exchange maintenance, theatre use, film depot operations, and final disposition of film constitute a circle over which there must be some clearing house control, so that a close follow-up is constantly possible, in order that the observations necessary to adjust and correct intelligently when occasions arise, may be made. The studio must light a picture and record sound to a degree of perfection that if screen results are not satisfactory in these respects, it cannot be rightfully placed to the studios discredit. The laboratory must print and develop, always on a rush schedule, a product of a very delicate construction. Because of the fact that there are so many features of this work that require a 100% correct operation, a laboratory head can never be en tirely sure of his product until final inspection of the finished article is made. There must be no inclination to be satisfied with the finished product unless it measures up to the correct standard. Supervision of exchange maintenance of film must be stern and unrelenting, accepting no compromise that permits film conditions to be below a fixed standard mark. In exchange maintenance of film lies the most important link of the entire structure. It is here the most important of follow-ups must be maintained, both as to the positive correctness of the film card record of the condition of the print, and the theatre that is responsible for any changes in this condition. There have been many codes used for registering print conditions on the film record card. The one I have found the most effective is to grade film conditions as follows: No. 1 means "Film good in every respect." No. 2 means "Film is in good condition, except for a slight check in the corners of the perforations, or that it is scratched." No. 3 means "Film is in unserviceable condition from any cause." The above code would mean that all film between practically new and unserviceable film would be classified as in a "2" condition. Therefore, this particular number should be broken up in three steps : "good two," "fair two," and "poor two." A universal understanding of this method of a code used for recording film conditions in exchanges makes it so standardized that film in a "good 2" condition in one exchange would be in the same classification in any other exchange, thus making it possible for every inspector to grade conditions alike, as we have a standard idea of the meaning of the words "good," "fair" and "poor." There was a time when it was necessary to have men in the field in pioneering film maintenance work, but our company has been successful in building up a satisfactory exchange personnel, and has given it equipment and routines of operation, and maintains such a close follow-up on the work of each exchange and each individual inspector, that home office repre