Motography (Apr-Jun 1916)

June 24, 1916. MOTOGRAPHY 1431 First Aid to Theater Men BY S. L. ROTHAPFEL A MOST valuable suggestion to theater managers was given by Dr. W. A. Evans in his "How to Keep Well"" column in a recent issue of the Chicago Tribune. Probably few managers have ever thought that the successful running of their theater entailed an understanding of medicine, but Dr. Evans has brought out most forcefully how valuable a little first-aid knowledge really is. A person fainting while in a motion picture theater is quite an ordinary occurrence, but because it is a situation which they have to meet quite often, how many busy managers have taken the time to try to gain information through reading or inquiry as to how ' a person can be best taken care of when they have swooned? The common impulse is perhaps naturally to think of your theater first rather than the unconscious person. You do not want any unpleasant scenes in your house. You do not want a panic started because the people know that something out of the ordinary has happened and are not sure just what it is. The audience of any theater is nervous — it seems to be always on edge ready to fly off at a tangent at the slightest cause — and the manager wants to avoid all exciting incidents. And in this he is justified to a certain extent, for a* panic started might result in great disaster. But in thinking of the theater first and ignorantly hurrying the afflicted person out so no one will know what has happened, no theater manager wants to feel that he has been the cause of risking a human life. Dr. Evans tells us a very simple method to avoid exciting the audience and at the same time give the most efficient help to the person who has fainted, and it would be well for every manager in the country thoroughly to understand this first-aid treatment and see that every employe also knows just what to do as well as what not to do. I am, therefore, giving you the article herewith in its entirety. The house was dark A young girl and her escort were leaving. They had reached the back of the auditorium and were making their way toward the door. The girl stopped and leaned against the wall. She murmured that she was about to faint, and then crumpled up and slid to the floor. A physician entered the theater in time to hear the young lady say that she was about to faint. He helped to ease her to the floor. He straightened out her body so that the vessels of her neck were not pinched. Presently the young lady's pulse began to beat at the wrist. About this time the escort wanted to get a cup of water. But what was the use? The young lady was beginning to become conscious. He then wanted to get a glass of whisky. But what good could that do? The color began to appear in the young lady's face. She opened her eyes and looked around in semi-consciousness. And at this time things began to happen. Someone had gotten word to the head usher He came running up. Without stopping to make any inquiries or observations, he grabbed the young lady in his arms and, throwing her head over his shoulder, he carried her out somewhere, presumably to the ladies' retiring room. The position in which the young lady was carried was against the man's right side with her head bent on her chest, hanging over his right shoulder. I judge that his theory was that he would get her out of the auditorium in order to prevent a gathering mob and perhaps a panic. As it was, not over six persons saw the fainting and were aware of what subsequently happened. And now let us see what harm might have resulted from the foolish act of the foolish man. When the heart fails to pump enough blood to the brain, fainting results. The only treatment needed for fainting is to permit the patient to lie flat in a comfortable position for a few minutes. If someone has some ammonia or smelling salts a whiff helps. When this man lifted the girl into an upright position and threw her head over his shoulder, he did just exactly the worst thing he could have done. She had a right to faint again. Had she fainted, his act would have been the cause. Suppose instead of a young girl in her late teens she had been a somewhat older woman with heart disease. The act of the usher could easily have killed her by causing her heart to stop beating. Suppose again, instead of a faint, the case had been one of apoplexy, the act of the usher would probably have caused death. In apoplexy blood is spurting into the brain from a broken artery. Manhandling the patient is likely to increase the outpour of blood. So far as the usher knew, the young lady might have been suffering from either of these conditions. He rushed up in the dark, said nothing to anybody, grabbed the girl, threw her over his shoulder, and went out with her. Perhaps theater owners might prevent damage suits by having their head ushers join an American Red Cross class in first aid. Here is a very frank letter from an exhibitor in San Francisco who is connected with the largest chain of theaters on the Pacific coast. He evidently thinks the reviews are all wrong from start to finish, but gives reasons for his convictions and backs them by his own idea of a remedy. I hope this manager has read what we said on this phase of the subject in Motography of June 3 and 10. I would like to voice my opinion in this all-around argument for and against the reviews as now written and say that we read the reviews, but do not depend upon them in choosing a program, for the reason that we have found the reviews to be unreliable, and the only way to properly select programs is to personally observe the subject itself. The reason that the reviews are unreliable is, according to our opinion, that the reviewers either do not know what is a good subject and what is a bad subject or else the reviewers are afraid to say that a subject is a poor one when they review it. The subjects in the reviews are either highly praised, moderately praised or simply commented upon and very, very seldom criticised in any serious manner or condemned. If you desire a conscientious review and are willing to print a conscientious review, regardless of whom it hits, we would suggest that you arrange with someone who is booking films for a theater, who has the ability to not only justly praise, criticise and condemn, but also the ability to express the reasons why in print, and engage that person or persons to write your reviews and write them under a nom de plume, because we do not think that you will be able to get a straightforward criticism from anyone connected with the business, who knows that he is apt to bring some manufacturer or film exchange down upon his head on account of an adverse criticism, and besides, for the sake of obtaining a fair review, it is advisable to keep the name of the person or persons reviewing from the producers or distributors of the subject, as it means money in the pocket of a distributor or producer to obtain a favorable criticism, and the reviewer and the manufacturer, producer or distributor must be kept apart in order to insure fair, reliable, conscientious criticisms. This seems to be our week for adverse criticisms. Here is another friend who does not like all we are doing and is kind enough to point out the facts to us. These animadversions are always most welcome, for they show in just what particular we are failing to hit the mark at which we are aiming. Criticisms which praise and do not find fault, while they may encourage, are not really helpful ; what we want to know is, where we fall short, and why.