Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1922)

February i 8 , i p 2 2 1101 George utassey, one of the most prominent publishers in the country ind an executive of much experience and ability, has entered :he film business. He’s exceptional in another way, too. He doesn’t like publicity, asked us urgently to say nothing; so we have compromised on the basis of giving him mere mention, and letting the full news be announced when the press representative gets his way with him. % There’s a lot of true talk in a letter from E. H. Kaufman m this issue. Head it. Mr. Kaufman represented this industry and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce at the Foreign Trade Convention. Turn to page 1105. * * * IT doesn’t seem at all likely that the American Express Company will ever take over the distribution of films. Moreover the agitation of the subject will probably settle forever the whole question of centralized film distribution, one which has been discussed largely — and loosely, for some time. Enough figures have been produced — in the consideration of the Express Company proposition — to show pretty well that the saving effected would not be a factor with the big companies who will naturally vie with one another in just this sort of competitive service to their customers— as the Film Daily points out. The high cost of distribution is not due to duplication in the mechanical handling of film — with all the clerical work involved. There are not too many exchanges, in each centre, because the handling, billing and shipment of film require them. There are too many exchanges because there is too much production and consequently too much expensive selling effort. That’s where the money goes — not for roofs and clerical labor, which could be consolidated at some but only a comparatively small saving. But the consolidation of selling effort isn’t going to happen quickly or early either — not so long as exchanges are producer ownpd and the other fellow’s picture gets step-child treatment, nor so long as the prices of pictures remains a matter of barter. PEOPLE AND PICTURES Jock Hutchison instructing Constance Talmadge, a First National star, in the art of holding a club # # # and Little Black Hens! Steve Farrar says one or the other these days. And he shoots Red Roosters you are either along a poem. Which are youf On page 1107. * HERE S a thought for the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. Can negative be preserved for future generations; and, is it being preserved? We talk a great deal about the wonder of motion photography — that it will show the important events and personages of today for centuries after we are gone. Is that true? How long can negative be preserved so that prints can be made from it? Negative dries out rapidly. We are told that Eucalyptus oil will preserve it. But for how long; and what is the recipe? How many negatives eight years old are in shape to print from today? How many Biographs and Keystones — these will show screen people now famous — are available today? What about our war pictures, and the news libraries? How long will they last. ^ ^ The luncheon last week of the Associated Motion Picture Advertisers ivas devoted to a discussion of trade papers. There were about 150 present; also 4 trade paper editors. At the end of two hours of discussion the vote was 150 to 4. (Reported by the Ghost of Charles Dana). * * # At the Green Room Club Revel on the evening of Feb. 5, Dr. Royal S. Copeland, Commissioner of Public Health, was introduced as “a real friend of the theatre, the man who kept the amusement houses open during the ’flu epidemic of 1918.” Responding, Dr. Copeland advanced a reason for his championship at that time — a good and sufficient reason — namely that two-thirds of the city’s population lived in unsanitary and unhealthful dwellings, whereas the theatres, clean and well ventilated, helped the situation by giving these people a chance to get away from their surroundings. * * * A common sense argument from a man who has filled his important job in an efficient, common sense manner. # * * A NEWSPAPER man who is also advertising manager of a local theatre — and evidently a man of hard-boiled experience in both jobs, takes a resounding whack at press-books in this issue. See page 1104. And Joe Lee takes another — after a trip across country. Press-books cost a heap of money. May be a million — altogether. That’s all right if they exploit. But do they? Looks like a rigid investigation might be in order — in these days of strict economy. * * * The National Board of Review claims its watchword is “ Selection not Censorship.” It does seem that Mr. and Mrs. Public generally is able intelligently to select its entertainment — and censor that which needs censoring by non-attendance. * * # ONCE on a time, an enterprising rep show advertising man, now a motion picture director, consumated what he considered a great stroke of billing when he succeeded in getting a three sheet block poster on “ Paid in Full ” in the window of a small town bank that had failed a few weeks before. The result was a small sized riot among a colony of foreigners whose savings had been deposited in the defunct institution. The incident is recalled by some alleged exploitation on ‘ ‘ Rent Free ” at Butte, Mont. Recently an ad appeared in the local papers reading: “ Notice — With the opening of the mines, Rent Free.”