Moving Picture World (Oct 1917)

358 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD October 20, 1917 Constructive Competition ■■■■»»** **«* ***«>« ^rrteon BY way of dispelling some of our illusions, let us go back to the time when timid critics pointed out how seriously moving pictures would hurt vaudeville. Solemn steps were actually taken to boycott performers in one branch of entertainment who aided and abetted the other in any manner whatsoever, yet, after all this fuss, vaudeville theaters have multiplied, their form of entertainment has made greater strides than ever, and the standard of performance has been steadily raised to a quality not dreamed of in those days of nervous timidity and false prophecy. The competition of moving pictures did no harm whatever to live theatrical men. To the contrary, it acted as a stimulus — it became the reverse of destructive. Variety managers of the progressive type simply saw that people were dissatisfied with the old order of things and realized that those same people had a right to demand what suited them in any form of amusement they patronized. An institution both logical and natural thus sprang into existence, the neighborhood theater, which cut down the expense of advertising and acted, in its turn, as constructive competition for exhibitors of moving pictures. Both improved their programs. All this is not to say that false business methods no longer prevail, for they do. The over-commercialized legitimate stage drove many of the best actors into vaudeville, though there were discards in the overflow, just as when they swarmed to moving pictures, but greed in the legitimate sickened the public with stories which were obviously manufactured, stale stuff, adapted from foreign dramas and comedies, not vital enough at home to rouse live interest, or new material shaped to outworn tradition, in both cases lacking the essential element of popular success. Vaudeville is bound to suffer a reversal of form — it is already doing so in many cases. Managers accumulate round waistcoats, judge by past performance and fill their programs with has-beens, fearful of anything new because it might involve the risk of experiment. Then, if attendance falls off, they conclude that people are tired of the variety entertainment, and moving pictures are again blamed. The whole truth of the matter is that both motion picture exhibitors and motion picture producers are better gamblers — they go outside of routine and take a chance. The new art, in spite of all the ridicule heaped upon it, especially in its best examples, has exercised a sort of constructive stimulus to the older ones — it is like a creative critic — it often shows the right way, its judgments of society, its pictured strivings of the human soul, much nearer and dearer to the people than older mediums. It is far more inclined to discard old dictums, set formulae and those rigid rules which have long been deemed indispensable for the drama. We shall do even better than we have done when we rise to a wide scope of vision as to our opportunities and the possibilities of pictured stories. Take for instance the limitation of our present view that the most intense scenes are those in which a tragedy of death is involved. This idea is as venerable as the oldest art of expression in the world, but it is false to the modern ideal. The greatest tragedies of today are those . of Hying. The great issue of earthly existence as we now see it is not how we are to die, but how we are to live, in some cases how we can earn enough to live on. In an effort to show what we are and how we live, the stage has had several spasms of "crook drama," amusingly stupid attempts to unfold the dual side of human nature. We may not sympathize with crookedness itself, but we are sick to death of the flawless hero and the colorless ingenue. We are all very good and correct on the surface, but — hush ! — this is a dark secret — many of us would break the law if we could get away with it. From the "crook drama," most effective in comedy, the stage is emerging into a glimmering that people like to see both sides of themselves in the characterizations of stage and screen fiction. We are really concerned about ourselves, conscious that we are faulty, willing to improve, and we like to see some of that same spirit shown by the gentlemen who deal out the drama. We become disgusted with the squabbles of syndicates, the depredations of one organization upon another, the outrageous bidding for flashy comets — they can hardly be called stars — all this is destructive competition. It leaves the field strewn with the wrecks of small fortunes ; it bores the public ; it forces upon exhibitors poor releases when they must have good ones in order to survive, and it shatters itself in the end. Luckily for the theater, it has had men of penetration, who could see beneath our rapid growth of population, a growth of enlightenment, the real cause of our prosperity. We have shown widespread and common intelligence in our utilization of natural resources. Our national character has kept pace with our development as a people. Our mass level is higher than that of any European nation. Because men of vision have seen this, American drama is emerging from commercialism into true artistry. Why not apply the same common sense to screen products? The stage has its advantages, but we have our own, and not the least of them, from a business point of view, is the fact that our distributive systems are administered in a series of local offices, each more or less independent in its own field. Each of these is near the heart of the trade it supplies, and it serves a purpose in determining demand. But we must look beyond the past and present demand into products beyond that test if we are out for better things. The place of what was is always bound to be taken by what is to be. A careful study of the drift of public opinion and taste now becomes necessary. Instead of alienating and perverting good taste, we must respond to the best of it with telling force, fostering all that is fine in it, stimulating it, just as we have done by our best examples, and draw our inspiration from natural springs instead of dipping it up from stagnant pools. In this way, and in no other, we can compete honorably and successfully with each other, one concern can openly rival another in what is natural to the motionpicture art, socially constructive and brilliantly entertaining, at the same time we can constructively compete with the stage. Whatever is merely imitative, thus reversing our native success; whatever is slavishly servile to older arts and outworn tradition ; whatever settles downward, carrying with it the bank balances of small producers ; whatever is socially disintegrating and not of our way of thinking, should not be visited upon the people, and it will be repudiated by them in the end. It is already a drain upon popular patience and upon exhibitor's profits. Our most urgent need is for men who know the audience and how it can be served to deserve the support of business.