The motion picture projectionist (Nov 1930-Oct 1931)

20 Motion Picture Projectionist January, 1 93 1 As The Editor Sees It NC The Wide Film Situation INETEEN thirty-one lies but a few days ahead of us and still the situation with respect to wide film remains unchanged: its introduction on even a limited scale is still a promise, the same old promise that was held forth in 1928, '29, and '30. The great interest which attaches to this question of wide film is evidence by the fact that the bulk of our correspondence these days is concerned with this topic. "When?" is the pressing question. One hears much talk of the "technical difficulties" attendant upon the introduction of wide film, but we are inclined to the belief that such talk is done mostly by the uninformed or by those who, knowing better, are not adverse to thickening the smoke screen. Who can say with assurance that the technical "problems" offered in connection with wide film are any more difficult of solution than were those associated with sound pictures? An industry with a record of accomplishment in the latter enterprise to its credit cannot be considered as "stumped" by wide film. The answer lies elsewhere. Let us consider briefly the mileposts already passed in the progress of wide film. Grandeur has made its bow; Spoor-Berggren has been exhibited; Publix has demonstrated its process; M-G-M has ballyhooed "Realife"; Warner Bros. Co. is busy with a complete producing and reproducing apparatus — and several others have made important contributions to the art. In none of these systems were there any inherent technical defects which would prevent its introduction on a wide scale. In short, the answers to all requirements for wide film are at hand. What, then, is the real answer? Recent developments have proven the accuracy of a previous estimate of this situation: the answer is "money." A recent survey indicated that sixty per cent of all the theatres in America could not install wide film without extensive and expensive structural alteration. This item in itself would be sufficient to impose a serious check on wide film development. This expense would be in addition to the costs of making the change from present equipments to wide film equipments. Some there are who advocate the use of attachments, which move would permit the use of existing equipment. Attachments do not appeal to us as a satisfactory solution to this problem ; but even if we were proven wrong on this point, the cost of such attachments would be more than the average theatre could stand — just now. The industry still owes too large a sound picture bill, and the assumption by it of an additional bill for some forty millions of dollars (a fair estimate of the cost of wide film), will hardly improve its financial condition. Wide film is ready today; but who will pay the costs? Technicians haggle and sputter about "standards," but a standard would be forthcoming immediately following a nod of approval on costs from the front office. We come now to another consideration. How many are there who want wide film? We don't, for one. We are opposed to any dimension over 50 mm., and in fact would prefer to see a standard of about 45 mm. agreed upon. Outside of Hollywood, how many 52-foot bathrooms are there ? And will a pulsing love scene be enhanced to any considerable degree by the addition in the set of a few extra tons of furniture to fill in, or, in an exterior, by the inclusion in the scene of miles of rolling countryside. But these are trifles. More important is the fact that the public has demonstrated by its complacent reception of recent wide film presentations that here certainly is not the great box-office tonic that was originally sold to the motion picture industry. New York, Chicago, and Hollywood proved that. More than two millions of dollars have already been expended for wide film equipment— cameras, projectors, lenses, screens, and other special apparatus. We know of the existence of twenty wide film projectors ready to run today, if needed. The supply is ready. Who will create the demand ? OC One-Man Sound Projection Shifts UT in Chicago, that town of big winds (natural and otherwise), an exhibitors' association has uncovered for the benefit of their embattled brothers throughout the country that old familiar exhibit of how labor unions can put an entire industry on the skids. One portion of this exhibit is devoted to the findings of a recent survey (conducted by the exhibitors, of course), which tend to show that many theatres are in the red each week by approximately the amount that goes to make up the salary of the second projectionist in the house. Logic, then, dictates the answer: a cure may be effected by dispensing with Mr. Projectionist No. 2. Simple. No mention is made of the fact that the prices for bad pictures which couldn't draw a handful into a theatre at ten cents each are exorbitant ; no survey was made to ascertain if modern methods of showmanship are employed; no relief from high rentals is asked ; no suggestions for perking up the theatre from the standpoint of its physical appearance or program fare is made. Why? Because, in simple language, "they knew what they wanted" — beforehand. It has been demonstrated time and again that no theatre may offer an acceptable sound picture show with only one projectionist. By dispensing with a second projectionist these exhibitors will soon learn that they will have no show to sell, for the quality of their reproduction will suffer. This is no propaganda in favor of the Local Unions; they should know their business by this time. But any Local Union which countenances a one-man sound picture crew proposition is hurting not only itself but the industry at large.