Motography (Jan-Jun 1918)

DON R. EGBERT, Managing Editor NEW YORK OFFICE: 1022 LONGACRE BUILDING. Forty-second Street and Broadway Telephone Bryant 7030 CHMLES W BRENNAN. Advertising Manager LOS ANGELES OFFICE: 6035 HOLLYWOOD BLVD., MABEL CONDON, Western Representative NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS Changes of advertising copy Bhould reach the office of publication not less than fifteen days In advance of date of issue. Regular date of lssi"» every Saturday ,VT77, THE MOTION PICTURE TRADE JOURNAL PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY ELECTRICITY MAGAZINE CORPORATION E. R. MOCK, President and Treasurer PAUL H. WOODRUFF, Editor in Chief, E. M. C. Publications MONADNOCK BUILDING CHICAGO, ILL. Branch Telephone Exchange: Harrison 3014 Entered at Chicago Post Office as Second Class Mail Matter. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE Per Year $3.00 Canada Foreign Single copy Per year $4.00 Per year 5.00 .15 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS Remittances— Remittances should be made by checK, New York draft or money order in favor of Motography. Foreign subscriptions may be remitted direct by International Postal Money Order. Change of Address— The old address should be given as well as the new, and notice should be received two weeks in advance of the desired change. This publication is free and independent of all business or house connections or control. No manufacturer or supply dealer, or their stockholders or representatives, have any financial interest in Motography or any voice in its management or policy. Volume XIX CHICAGO, APRIL 20, 1918 Number 16 Enter — an Innovation in Reviewing IN the first days of motion picture trade journalism, about the only stories worth publishing were reviews and descriptions of films about to be released. They constituted real news, of value to all the exhibitors, and so became the chief stock in trade of the film publishers. As the length standards of films increased, and the intervals between releases decreased, the trade paper "Review Department" took on greater and greater responsibility and size. One paper, a general dramatic weekly, made quite a reputation with a few pages of reviews and little if anything else of a film nature. With the increasing complexity of picture production, however, the reviews gained ponderance and lost effectiveness. When a "feature" (as they called them even then) was only nine hundred feet long and cast but five or six players, the average result was plainly either good, bad or indifferent, and could readily be so classified. The reviewer had to consider little beyond his general impression. But the aspirations of ambitious and capable producers soon carried the pictures into the highest reaches of art. More significant still from the reviewer's viewpoint, the magnificent productions that presently became the order of the day were intricately interwoven fabrics of all the arts combined. They demanded literary excellence in the story; dramatic skill in the interpretation and direction; histrionic perfection in the studio; photographic ability behind the camera; chemical knowledge in the darkroom; mechanical knack in cutting and assembling; an aptitude for physics in the projection; and an almost intuitive, acquired mastery over the long list of details peculiar to this particular art and none other. It becomes obvious at once that so complex a product must make distinctly different impressions upon different people. While some few films might gain universal and unanimous approval, and a few others as complete disapproval, the vast majority of productions were open battle grounds for differences of opinion. When three reviewers studied a picture together, it was not at all unlikely that the first would pronounce it excellent, the second classify it as indifferent and mediocre, and the third unqualifiedly call it bad. All three would be wholly sincere, and each would have logical arguments to prove his contention. Not infrequently, therefore, it has happened that exhibitors have found nothing but disappointment in productions which, from the reviewer's standpoint, were almost beyond criticism. And conversely, experienced reviewers have sometimes criticised and perhaps condemned pictures which were later received with enthusiasm and acclaim by uncritical audiences. In short, the trade paper review, as it is customarily presented, is a one-man opinion. Its difficulties are greater than those involved in the conscientious recording of most one-man