Motion Picture News (Jul-Aug 1916)

August 12, 1916 ACCESSORY NEWS SECTION 963 Special Preparations are a Step in the Wrong Direction They Are Not a Guarantee of Safety But Merely a Makeshift and Undesirable Method of Attempting Protection in Use of Non-inflammable Film — Would Only Complicate the Present Problems of Projection and Discourage Use of Pictures Where Non-inflammable Film Is Necessary IT is decidedly heartening to read " The Photo-Play " by Hugo Munsterburg. With people of mixed motives advocating censorship and men with a genius for meddling trying to impose all sorts of fool conditions and restraints upon the industry, it does one good to find a man of intelligence and vision dealing constructively with the problems having to do with the motion picture. This is not an introduction to an argument agaainst censorship. The making of surpassingly good pictures — as a mechanical process — depends upon cleanliness in the laboratory. The making of wholesome pictures — as a problem in morals or in artistic accomplishment— depends upon the ideals of the author and producer. Cleanliness is as necessary here as in the laboratory. That these ideals are not always as high as could be desired is freely conceded. But it is to be doubted whether they will be raised by the destructive activities of politically appointed censors who are chosen without reference to their fitness to serve as custodians of the public morals. W'ith thequestion of censorship receiving so much attention, it is to be feared that other questions of importance to the industry will be overlooked. The question of film perforation is a case in point. The motion picture industry has been handicapped from the first by the absence of a definite universal standard of film perforation. For the past year or two there has been noted a growing tendency toward standardization as a means of greater efficiency. No Objection to Fire Regulation It is said that these special or " freak " perforations were originally insisted upon by the Underwriters' Laboratories as a means of identifying non-inflammable film. The Underwriters' Laboratories have given considerable attention to the risk involved in operating projecting machines using ordinary film, without the protection offered by a fireproof projection room or booth, as in churches, halls, school buildings and the like. And they have said that only non-inflammable film should be used under such conditions. No one will have the temerity to object to that regulation. The public should by all means be protected against the avarice or ignorance — whatever it may be — that leads to the showing of motion pictures under conditions that are fraught with danger to those who view them, but it is not necessary to cripple the motion picture industry in order to provide such protection. That is precisely what will be done by the plan suggested by the Underwriters' Laboratories — namely, the adoption of special perforations. The favorite procedure seems to be to require city councils to compel the adoption of special perforations. Not only does this plan offer the possibility of as many special perforations as there are separate municipalities, but it — now and then — incidentally exposes the looseness of thought on this subject. A few weeks ago a city council committee met to hear arguments for and against an ordinance to compel the adoption of a special gauge of perforation. Among those present, to "stick to familiar phrases, were exhibitors, builders of projecting machines, makers of motion picture machinery, representatives of film manufacturers and plain citizens. The motion picture nowadays touches the lives of most of us in one way or another, and so it may be said that all of these men were directly interested in the subject — some of them vitally. But few of them offered any objection to a special perforation. The patentee of a special gauge of film perforation which it was hoped the city would adopt offered to sell the right to use film perforated to that gauge, and certain projector builders were ready and anxious to buy this right at the rate of $1.00 per sprocket. A.t the same time they felt sure that the film manufacturers would gladly pay 50 cents per reel of one thousand feet for the right to use this particular gauge of film perforation. But one voice was raised in opposition to this plan. A representative of a commercial motion picture producing company urged that full protection to the public could be afforded by an ordinance providing : 1. That only non-inflammable or slow-burning film should be used in projecting machines not enclosed in a fireproof booth. 2. That all films released for use in projectors so used should bear a distinctive mark showing approval by the Underwriters' Laboratories, and in addition to that mark, should show at intervals throughout their length a perforation of special design (not in the film m.argin) to be adopted by the city as its mark of approval. 3. That a severe penalty be imposed for the use of other than non-inflammable film or of film not bearing the distinctive marks suggested. The plan thus outlined was the only oasis of sense in a desert of piffle, but for some reason (perchance because it was the only o. of s. in a d. of p.) it received scant consideration. Instead, much time was devoted to the discussion of special widths of film and special standards of perforation. There are many reasons why an ordinace providing for a special width of film or a special standard of perforation would impose a hardship on all concerned — the producer, the exchange man, the projector builder, the exhibitor and the public. Lack of space forbids a discussion of these reasons. But they are legitimate reasons, and may properly be urged as conclusive, provided always that it can be shown that the maximum of safety to the public may be secured without the adoption of a special width of film or a special perforation. As a matter of fact, the adoption of a special width of film or a special perforation would not afford a positive guaranty that only non-inflammable film would be used in the projectors not protected by fireproof booths. An ordinance providing for the use of film of special width or carrying a special perforation would depend for its strength upon the penalty provided for its infraction. That is to say, after subjecting every one from producer to public to the disadvantages growing out of the use of special widths of film or special perforations, the city would be unable to offer any assurance of safety which would not follow the use of non-inflammable film with the special markings herein suggested. The combustible qualities of the film constitute the danger element in the showing of motion pictures. This element may be removed by the adoption of slow-burning or non-inflammable film. The continued use of this film may be assured quite as positively by means of such rules and penalties as have been suggested as by the employment of special widths of film or special perforations. The plan offered affords a solution of the problem without prejudice to the safety of the public. And it avoids the confusion, disadvantage and loss which would follow the attempt of any committee to alter existing standards governing the width of the film or the perforation of it. If changes are to be made in film widths or in the standards of perforation they should unquestionably come through a process of evolution, rather than by legislative enactment. In order to perforate film with the precision and accurac necessary to perfect motion picture projection, the machines used must be of superior design and dependable construction. So, too, if the pictures are to reach the screen in such a way as to please the eye, the projecting machine must be constructed with especial reference to the gauge (or the measurements governing the perforation) of the film used. It follows that the introduction of one or more special perforations will greatly complicate the problem of projector construction; make difficult, if not impossible, the perfect projection of pictures by the portable machines, and discourage the use of motion pictures where the use of non-inflammable film is made necessary. The working out of the mechanical details involved in perforator and projector construction is a task for the Society of Motion Picture Engineers — not for the layman. And any attempt by the layman to change existing standards is bound to complicate a difficult problem, about which they know absolutely nothing.