The Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1914)

In the December number we offered a prize of $10 in gold for the best answer to this question, in 200 words or less. The contest is still open, and will remain open for another month. Many and diverse have been the answers received thus far, and some will, doubtless, prove exceedingly helpful to the persons engaged in various branches of the industry, while others contain nothing new and nothing that everybody does not know. Mr. Harold Cram, of Burlington, Vt., says that the improvement most needed is ' ' flickerless films and stereoscopic pictures, ' ' and a great many will agree with him, but where is the man who can tell how this is to be done ? Many readers declare that "attention to details" in the pictures is most important, and they cite numerous instances where slight mistakes have detracted from the interest taken in the picture. Quite a number object to "multiple-reel" subjects, among others Miss Ehoda Myers, of Charleroi, Pa., who says : "The people get tired of watching three-reel features, and they like a change." Mrs. W. C. Baynes, of South Boston, Va., is strong for the "elimination of so much hugging and kissing in the films," and not a few others agree with her. M. T. Gibson, of Brooklyn, holds a lance for "appropriate music for each photoplay," and he gives ludicrous instances of inappropriate music he has heard. Mr. George F. Gauding, a prominent exhibitor of Pittsburgh, speaks from a wide experience, and he maintains that the socalled "split-reel comedies" should be improved, either by having the second subject on the reel played by a different cast, or by making it a "scenic, educational or historic." Mr. Edward J. Browning objects most to "the way pictures are cut toward the end — the way they are shortened," and adds that just as we are getting interested, the picture ends. He will, doubtless, agree with that large number of critics who think that it is a mistake to assume that every reel must be precisely 1,000 feet in length, and who think that the film should end where the story ends, whether it make a 650-foot reel or a 1,050-foot reel — quality, not quantity. Frederick Piano, of Fishkill, N. Y., makes the following interesting comments: In my opinion, the most needed and desirable improvement in the Motion Picture industry would be in the scope of the camera — a camera capable of throwing upon the screen a picture of twice the present proportions. I see no reason why the present width of film could not be increased to two inches, a type of camera constructed that would accommodate such a film, and a lens powerful enough properly to reflect the picture. With such a machine the beautiful productions that are now simply "attempted" would become possible; the characters, instead of being grouped within a nine-foot limit, could be spread out naturally and with some degree of artistic or dramatic arrangement. Characters moving about minus their legs or tops of heads, the necessity of constantly panoraming after them in order to keep them "in the picture," would be a thing of the past, and the artistic as well as a perfect development of the Motion Picture will have been reached. Guy Haythorn, of Wichita, Kan., has something quite new to suggest : I suggest that there is needed a "National Board of Educators," something on the order of the National Board of Censorship. This board should pass on all films dealing in any way with historical or scientific subjects, and guarantee that such films are accurate as to the presentation of the subjects dealt with. If the scene is laid in Queen Elizabeth's time, for instance, the board should certify that the costumes, all buildings and architecture, etc., are historically accurate, and that they give a correct idea of the manners and customs of that age. I have lately seen picture plays purporting to show scenes in the life of the cavemen, which certainly give a false idea of the 93