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.
EDITORIAL
The hue and cry about mediocre films is being taken variously. Naturally, there is em¬ phatic denial on the part of producers that their organizations are not putting forth the best efforts to make pictures of consistently good quality. And the admonition is made by exhibitors, big and little, whose theatres have suffered a loss in business that poor pictures are to blame.
“Mediocre films are driving people away from the box-office,” one theatre chain direct¬ or declares. But does the fault rest entirely with pictures? Is the producer alone to blame for lack of patronage at theatres? Let’s look facts squarely in the face for a moment.
No one in the industry will deny that any one producer cannot make 52 outstanding pic¬ tures during one year. There is bound to be a certain amount of “mediocrity” in any picture program. And for that matter business can¬ not remain at the same level week after week at theatre box-offices anywhere. There is bound to be fluctuation. Picture production is no different. Many times a production scheduled in the making to be a special turns out to be only an average release, and another, scheduled to be just a program picture, turns out to be a special.
To accuse the producer of deliberately trying to force poor pictures upon an unsus¬ pecting public is ridiculous. He has too much at stake to gamble so carelessly with his fu¬ ture. True, 1926 did not see many really big pictures, but this is 1927 — why worry about the past? While lack of sufficient announce¬ ment on the part of producers, of their prod¬ uct for this season has given cause to the be¬
lief that they lack confidence in their own pro¬ grams, nevertheless the little information that has been gleaned for the most part indi¬ cates a good crop of better-than-average pro¬ ductions. So much for that.
On the other hand, the failure of many pictures to draw at the box-office is many times due to the theatre owner himself. There has been too much “dog” — too much overdres¬ sing and overstressing of the “presentation” and too little advertising of the picture for its own full value. It isn’t poor pictures that’s driving the public away from theatres — it’s poor policy, presentations and hokum that the public is tiring of.
We have before stressed the danger of subordinating the picture program with a lot of extravagant slush that costs three and four time as much as an entire good picture pro¬ gram and which wearies theatre patrons to such an extent that they have no patience with the feature picture when finally it is thrown upon the screen. The public wants good pic¬ tures at moderate prices — if it wants vaude¬ ville and jazz orchestras it can see them at the vaudeville theatres.
Right now is a good time for those, really interested in seeing mediocre pictures elimi¬ nated to as great an extent as possible, to get down to earth — reverse the order of things — give picture patrons complete picture pro¬ grams — feature pictures and advertise them — yes, advertise them for what they are worth, with a vengeance and a confidence that will let the public know they can see motion pictures — good motion pictures at motion pic¬ ture theatres!