Motion Picture Herald (Dec 1932 - Mar 1933)

Page scan 0001041 from Motion Picture Herald

Record Details:

Title:
Motion Picture Herald
Date:
Dec 1932 - Mar 1933
Publisher:
[New York, N.Y. : Quigley Pub. Co.]
Volume:
Motion Picture Herald (Dec 1932-Mar 1933)
Leaf #:
0001041
Language:
English
Subjects:
motion pictures, Motion pictures -- Periodicals
Collection:
Hollywood Studio System
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
Library of Congress, MBRS, Moving Image Section
Sponsor:
Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Founded in 1915 by a Chicago printing company as a regional trade paper for Midwest exhibitors. In 1916, editor Martin Quigley bought out the owners, and over the next 15 years, he grew EXHIBITORS HERALD into one of the most important national, weekly trade papers in the film business. Quigley acquired MOTOGRAPHY in 1917 and MOVING PICTURE WORLD in 1927. In 1930, he acquired MOTION PICTURE NEWS and the new 'consolidated' publication became MOTION PICTURE HERALD. From the pulpit of his editorial page, Quigley preached the need to improve the motion picture industry and improve the quality of the films. He skillfully served as a mediator in disputes -- between distributors and exhibitors, between the film industry and the Catholic Church (Quigley was one of the architects of the Production Code). Quigley claimed that EXHIBITORS HERALD represented the 'independent exhibitor' and sections like 'What the Picture Did for Me?' certainly provided a forum for theater owners. But plenty of exhibitors viewed Quigley as a servant to the studios and large theater chains. In response, publications such as SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN, HARRISON'S REPORTS, and BOX OFFICE were either formed or grew significantly in the years following Quigley's brief moment of consolidation in 1930. -- Eric Hoyt, 2014
Date Added:
May 30, 2024
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.

March 25, 1933 MOTION PICTURE HERALD 47 TECHN€L€GICAL The BLUEBOOK School By F. H. RICHARDSON BLUEBOOK SCHOOL QUESTION NO. 165.— (A) Give us your views as to just what it is up to the theatre projectionist to do in the matter of film inspection. (B) In what condition is the projectionist justified in expecting to receive film from the exchange? Is the theatre actually paying to have it delivered in that condition? (C) Just what is or may be the various effects of receiving film in bad mechanical condition? (D) What do you do when film is received in poor mechanical condition? Again I say, no ghost stories! What do you actually do about it, other than put a few dents or near-dents in the third commandment? Answer to Question JSo. 158 Bluebook School Question No. 158 was: (A) Name as many as you can of the various ways in which unnecessary damage is inflicted upon film. (B) What is meant by "pulling down." What damage does it cause? (C) Name the various things that tend to inflict damage upon film sprocket holes. (D) Tell us what faults you have found in the packing of films received which tended to damage the films. (£) Tell us, in detail, just how you pick your reels for shipment. The ones answeinng acceptably are Lester Borst, S. Evans and C. Rau, G. E. Doe, J. Wentworth, T. VanVaulkenburg, Dale Danielson, P. W. Edwards, W. Ostrum, B. Doe, K. Dowling, H. Edwards, A. E. Wyatt and R. E. Baiss, R. K. Wayland, M. McGuire, I. E. Rayner, D. L. Markham, J. L. Richards and T. B. Cudmore, B. Diglah and O. Garling, S. Kay, B. E. Danning, W. D. Lalley, P. L. Davis and T. Buckstone, T. Potter and H. Steele, W. D. Adamson and L. Simmons, P. Lambert and S. G. Goss, B. M. May, H. Anderson, H. B. Coates, B. R. Compton and T. Gaitsley, M. Donahue, A. Bailey, D. Golding, B. Eilers and D. Holler, R. Dinmat and P. L. Algy, C. D. Dodson, J. M. McKinzie, W. A. Andres, D. L. Bentley and E. O. Olliver, L. M. and R. Wright, G. C. Hendrie and B. T. Sampson, H. M. Evans, A. Lomberg and D. Johnson, D. N. Peters, J. S. Bischoff and L. S. Marksley, H. D. Schofield, N. Gault, D. L. Mclntire, L. Peterson and D. Donahue, H. B. Jenkins, D. L. Solomon and P. Hadley, G. M. Johnson, D. R. Donolson, F. D. Samuels, B. L. Bucklev and L. T. Chotes, J. S. Henderson, W. S. Andrus, B. T. Daniels, H. D. Davis and H. D. Cylor, K. L. Knight and L. V. Smolley. A. Lomberg, D. U. Tomms and P. L. Mangan, L. G. Thompson and D. Lilley, F. D. Prindley, J. L. Mojor and D. B. Bates, A. Altman and D. T. Holmes, M. H. Sanders and T. L. Shelton, T. R. MacAllen and D. E. Ellis, M. R. Wining and L. N. Daniels, L. Torr and P. L. Davis, L. Peterson. M. L. Tomlinson, T. G. Sawyer, D. L. Stanhope, G. M. Marksley, F. B. Gamble. B. R. Thompson and D. U. Shelton, M. S. O'Brien, L. U. Jumel, G. Deckson and L. Cranio, J. Ahrenson and G. Lombard and G. G. Breston. A goodly list, considering the nature of the questions and the many items involved in some of the various sections. I have found no really complete answer to Section A. I have therefore concluded to myself write an answer composed of items taken from various answers. You may compare and see what each of you overlooked: 1. Poorly constructed reels. 2. Reels that have been abused either in the exchange, in shipment or in the projection room. 3. Rewinder elements out of line. 4. Too rapid rewinding. 5. Permitting end of film to flap around when rewinding is completed. 6. Pulling down in rewinding or after it is completed. 7. Unnecessarily dusty air in projection room. 8. Permitting film to come into contact with floor or unclean table top. 9. Lack of proper inspection and repair in exchange. 10. Improper packing for shipment, either at exchange or in theatre. 11. Reels too wide, permitting uneven winding of film with the result that protruding film edges may be smashed by rough handling in shipment. 12. Poorly made splices. 13. Wrongly adjusted sprocket idlers. 14. Undercut or badly worn sprocket teeth. 15. Reels having a too-small hub diameter. 16. Poor film cement, resulting in weak splices with possible serious damage to film. 17. Oil reaching film, no matter from what source. 18. Too much tension at projector aperture. 19. Excessive take-up tension. 20. Change-over signal marks scratched, punched or otherwise. 21. Improperly scraping when making splices. 22. Scratching by deposits on tension shoes or other parts of film track. 23. Worn valve rollers. 24. Guide rollers out of line or binding too much. 25. Cam shaft out of line. 26. Improper tension in upper magazine. 27. Improper storage of film. 28. Too fast framing when using some types of equipment. 29. Improper cleaning of film. 30. Tension shoes roughened by improper cleaning off of deposits, thus inducing further deposits and added damage to film. (B) Several excellent replies to this one. G. E. Doe says, "Pulling down is the act of holding a reel of film stationary and pulling the outer end of the film thereon so as to cause the various layers of loosely wound fihn to slip upon each other and thus tighten the roll. Since in the process the film layers must slip upon each other under more or less pressure, scratches will result, especially if (as is always the case) particles of gritty dust are between them. Such scratches fill with dirt and become opaque, whereupon they show up on the screen in the form of what we call rain." (C) J. Wentworth says, "Excessive tension applied to upper reel or too little tension applied to same. Excessive tension at aperture. Hooked upper or lower or other sprocket teeth. Undercut or badly worn intermittent sprocket teeth. Excessive tension at sound gate. Excessive take-up tension. Deposits on tension shoes. Tooheavy aperture tension is the king bee of them all. "(D) Very different troubles seem to be met with in various parts of this country and Canada, as follows : Film overlapping edges of reel ; result, film crumpled. Holding bands off, permitting film to unwrap during transportation, with result that it is crushed and crumpled between edges of reels and container. Film tightly but unevenly wound, with layers sticking out at sides of roll. Happens especially with old, bent reels or with reels which are too wide. Weight of other reels causes serious damage to the protruding layers. Poor packing, particularly with one-reel cans. If wide reels are forced into tight cans the film is pinched, with disastrous results to its edges, particularly if loosely wound. Film jammed into badly bent film cans." (E) Dowling says, "I wind films for shipment on the 1,000-foot exchange reels and place bands securely fastened around each reel of film. If any fault exist in any reel I attach notation of same. If films are oi circuit rewind, placing OK slip on first reel band, or describing any faults, naming reel they will be found in." Wayland says concerning sections, 'T pack my reels for shipment in the following manner: 1. All broken leads are properly patched on. 2. All patches are properly made. 3. The proper band is on the proper reel. 4. They are not rewound but are shipped backwards. 5. If shipping to another theatre, enclose note relating to condition of print, changeover cues, etc."