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.
Vaudeville in Moving Picture Theaters
By ROBERT GRAU
Three years ago, the present writer issued a protest against a perpetuation of the policy, then generally in vogue, of presenting vaudeville acts in theaters where the public was originally created and the patronage sustained solely thru the millions of new amusement seekers to whom the Moving Pictures came as a revelation.
It was not vaudeville, nor any part of that phase of the general amusement scheme, which changed the theatrical map. It was the Moving Pictures, almost despised by the vaudeville managers of a decade ago, and often used by them as a * ' chaser. ' '
Half of New York's playhouses, at some time or other, unable to attract profitable patronage along the olden lines, were made paying visitations thru the medium of the Motion Picture. It is true that the class of theaters known as "Pop" vaudeville houses have prospered amazingly, but eventually we will discover that this condition has come about at the expense of what is known as the "Big Tune" vaudeville theaters — or, in fact, the theaters where the scale of prices for seats is four times as large as at the "Pop" houses.
But — and I cant make the "B" big enough — there is due to come a day of reckoning wherein it will be quickly apparent that it is the persistent improvement in the output of the film manufacturers that has sustained the "Pop" vaudeville houses; and, in many cases, the public protest has been so vehement that all vaudeville acts were withdrawn in scores of theaters all over the country, with an after result wholly constructive.
Marcus Loew understands this condition thoroly; so does William Fox; that is why these two successful showmen are erecting palatial theaters, to be devoted exclusively to the silent drama. Mr. Loew has been impressed
with the outcome of the policy at the Herald Square, Circle, and Royal theaters, where photoplays alone serve to sustain establishments with Annual rentals ranging from $20,000 to $50,000.
I have observed, too, that in the theaters where Motion Pictures, alone, have replaced the combination policy, the size of the audiences has increased, while the expenses have greatly decreased. Moreover, there are many, like myself, who will refuse to suffer thru two intolerable vaudeville acts to see one good photoplay, and this has resulted in the creation of a vast public that will not enter a theater where vaudeville and pictures represent the offering/ In threeyears this public has g^own, until today there ar.e at least two hundred photoplay houses where the policy has been shifted in the manner here advised.
As the caliber of the output on the screen continues to improve, so will the number of these exclusive theaters multiply. In many of these, the price of admission has increased from ten cents to fifteen, and in some to twenty-five cents.
In the next five years, we should witness the advent of a new era for the theater of science. This, in my humble opinion, may come the quicker if managers or exhibitors (why not call them managers?) will help typify the temples of the silent drama by eliminating the player in the flesh from their stages. If they will extend this co-operation to the manufacturers, there is no limit as to the heights Moving Pictures will reach in this new era. Many magazine writers are vigorously demanding the typification of the photoplay house. Let this protest go on. Perhaps, when the new Kinemacolor Theater is ready for the public to enter, we may realize just what it means to typify the theater of science.
124