Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1912)

142 MUSINGS OF "THE PHOTOPLAY PHILOSOPHER" All critics of Motion Pictures should remember that the industry consists of several parts or divisions, each under different ownership and control. The film manufacturers do nothing but make the pictures. The various film companies sell these pictures to various operators and exhibitors. Before these films are handed to the film exchanges, they are carefully censored by the National Board of Censors, which is composed of prominent men and women. The theaters have no connection with the manufacturers. There are between ten and fifteen thousand theaters in the United States where Motion Pictures are shown. New ones are springing up every day, and old ones are closing down. Much of the public criticism pertains to the picture-houses and not to the films themselves. The National Board of Censors seems to be an eminently able, careful and competent body, and therefore, with very few exceptions, the films that are shown can be depended upon to be unobjectionable in every way. The only thing that remains to be censored is the Picture Theaters, and these are under the supervision of the city authorities. Most of the harm that has come from Motion Pictures seems to have grown out of the practice of maintaining dance halls, saloons and other meeting plages in conjunction with the Motion Pictures, which usually adjoin the halls, and, if any reform is now necessary, it should be in the direction of regulating this dangerous combination. But to condemn Motion Pictures themselves because a few unscrupulous exhibitors abuse them is folly. There is a large class of persons who are so full of virtue and righteousness that they devote their time to condemning rather than to amending. Instead of pointing out the bad spots and correcting them, they cover over the good ones and destroy all. Which is very much like the man who, in order to cure a corn, decided to amputate his leg. The preachers of Lima, Ohio, have formed a "pastors' the Motion Picture theaters of that city closed on Sunday. I wonder if they would still object should the theaters agree to show only religious films on Sunday ! If they did, it would tend to show that the element of competition was largely instrumental in forming their prejudices. There is such a thing as the science of physiognomy, but the trouble is in learning it. Levater's ponderous volume is a poor guide, and no author has yet been able to analyze the human expression and to tell accurately what the various features mean. And yet, what is love at first sight but a proof of the silent language of the countenance? As Julia Ward Howe once said, "The language of the face is not taught by the schools; it is intuitive^ and to the observant is always legible. ' ' Children are usually excellent physiognomists, yet science has not been able to formulate a text-book. All of us think we can read character, yet not one of us can lay down a single reliable rule. Perhaps Addison was the one man who summed it all up in one neat paragraph, thus : ' ' Every passion gives a particular cast to the countenance, and is apt to discover itself in some feature or other. I have seen an eye curse for half an hour together, and an eyebrow call a man a scoundrel. ' ' We welcome the error that persuades us that we are happy ; we shun the truth that proves that we are not. We believe quickest that which we wish ; we reject quickest that which gives us pain.