Movie Makers (Jan-Dec 1953)

278 OCTOBER 1953 THE SQUEEZE THAT FAILED ELSEWHERE in this issue you will find a news account — prepared rather fully, for reasons which we will discuss presently — of the latest in a long line of efforts to infringe upon the freedom of personal movie making. We refer, in case you missed it, to the Chicago licensing story on page 272. For the sake of sound journalism, we have tried as far as possible to remain objective in our report of this shocking example of pressure-group politics. We have no such intention in this editorial comment on it. For the bare-faced rapacity of this politico-labor squeeze play went far beyond the boundaries of objectivity. It was a cleverly planned maneuver and, in its early moments, it came perilously close to success. No one, you can hear the union projectionists reasoning, would think to look for movie licensing legislation in the city's Electrical Code. So-o-o, let's ask our pals on the Electrical Commission (also stout unionists, you may be sure!) to slip our joker in there. And so there, in this Proposed Revised Electrical Code, they apparently slipped it. In his final report of this disgraceful affair, League director Arthur H. Elliott, of Chicago, has stated: "The official explanation by the chairman of the Electrical Commission is that the licensing provisions in their Proposed Revised Code were identical with those in the old Electrical Code. They were simply retained in the new code because no one had objected to them previously." Even from our fairly remote vantage point, this claim impresses us as malarkey. For one thing, the very name of the legislation itself — Proposed Revised Code — casts doubt on this disclaimer. For a second, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, in its bulletin of August 3, warned its members that "It has been called to our attention that this Proposed Electrical Code would change the requirements for licensing operators of motion picture projectors." Since this very bulletin was accompanied by a copy of the proposed licensing legislation, we, at least, assume that the Association checked these provisions for changes against the existing statutes. Well, it does not now matter too much, in any case. This vicious attempt to corral for Chicago's professional operators all motion picture projection save that in the home has been beaten back, and the squeeze play has failed. But far more important than that, in the course of the battle the over-greedy operators have actually lost ground — rather than gained it. They lost ground because, in the course of drafting amendments to their rapacious code, a few clearthinking minds adroitly and relentlessly outmaneuvered them. For it is not enough, in these battles, simply to turn back the opposition on such primitive and outrageous provisions as the "in dwelling" aspect of the proposed Chicago code. The real victory lies in redrafting all such existing legislation so that it is in line with modern cine techniques and thus provides the substandard film user a positive, rather than simply a negative, protection. This the enacted amendments to the Chicago code have done brilliantly and conclusively. It is because of this that we have reproduced and analyzed them in full. When the squeeze play is put on in your community— and it may be at any time — you will do well to recall these Chicago canons. THE AMATEUR CINEMA LEAGUE, Inc. Founded in 1926 by Hiram Percy Maxim DIRECTORS Joseph J. Harley, President Frank E. Gunnell, Vicepresident Walter Bergmann, Treasurer Arthur H. Elliott Fred Evans Harry Groedel James W. Moore, Managing Director John V. Hansen Harrison F. Houghton Roy C. Wilcox AMATEUR CINEMA LEAGUE. The Amateur Cinema League, Inc., sole owner and publisher of MOVIE MAKERS, is an international organization of filmers. The League offers its members help in planning and making movies. It aids movie clubs and maintains for them a film exchange. It has various special services and publications for members. Your membership is invited. Eight dollars a year. INC.. 420 LEXINGTON AVE.. NEW YORK 17. N. Y.. U. S. A. J.H.'s Training Devices Department, demonstrated this projection system for me a few weeks ago and I was frankly amazed at its effectiveness. Although the films I saw were taken in black and white and had no sound track (they were experimental and not designed for public showing), I was definitely "in the picture" as the camp chair I was sitting on rode up Detroit's Woodward Avenue, taxied out of an aircraft hangar, and finally was attacked by enemy planes. I sat just inside the great bubble of screen, which encompassed me in a full half circle horizontally; in the vertical plane the picture dipped about 30 degrees below the horizon and ascended to 90 degrees overhead. The effect was that of a more enveloping, if junior-sized, Cinerama, with the addition of an enormous expanse of sky extending overhead to the zenith. So long as I remained near the center of the spherical segment, there was no evidence of distortion. I do not believe, nor is it Jam Handy's intention, that this hemispherical lens is destined to be the motion picture industry's messiah. But it is an important technological step in the right direction. My own guess is that the wide-screen system of the future will incorporate a similar lens in conjunction with a film at least 70 millimeters wide. In the meantime, as Columbia's Jerry Wald put it: "In a year it will be a tie score in the gimmick game. Then it will be the same old question — Who has the story?" Hollywood will do well to bear in mind that projecting a stinker on even a triangular screen will not improve its aroma — either to the audience or to the stockholders.