Moving Picture Age (Jan-Dec 1922)

had that film been screened in the condition it came to me. Am ready to sign an exclusive contract for a long series of programs with some concern whose films I can depend upon as being morally right and safe. We can see three valid reasons — and from the exchange man's point of view, at that — why every film purchased or leased for nontheatrical circulation should be rigidly examined and cut before being rented. In the first place, confidence is instilled in the customer when he knows from experience that every film an exchange sends him is free from obviously improper scenes, and he is ready for a permanent position on the records of that exchange. Again, the exchange man is literally adding to the physical life of every film when he makes it unnecessary for each user to cut the films he rents, for the film-cutting technique of many a non-theatrical exhibitor is none too satisfactory. The third reason is that the exchange by not putting its films in immediately usable condition has added to the work of the exhibitor, and he is in no frame of mind to recommend this exchange when a fellow-exhibitor inquires, "Where can I get reliable films for my showings?" Non-theatrical departments of theatrical exchanges are also thoughtless of the dollarsand-cents value of carefully edited nontheatrical material. After seeing a film some weeks ago we said to the department head, "That would be a first-class production for our field with a little editing." "Well," he replied, "you know I simply tell the exhibitors they are at liberty to cut the parts they don't want in the picture." But at the question, "Why don't you cut the bad material yourself and save your exhibitors trouble and possible embarrassment?" the manager's eyes widened. "Say! that's a good idea!" he finally exclaimed; "I'm going to take that, up with the home office!" A word to the wise — We are ready to take a definite part in this work of film-editing if we can thus be of assistance to any distributor. We will screen at Moving Picture Age projection rooms any film the distributor wishes examined for objectionable material, make suggestions, and give the production our personal approval concerning cleanness as soon as the cuts suggested are made. We will also be glad to render such advisory service to any subscriber who wishes our opinion on certain pictures, and will render a personal opinion in writing, provided the subscriber will see that the films are forwarded to us. We will welcome any other suggestions of plans by which Moving Picture Age can do more to eliminate material that does not belong in non-theatrical productions, for the removal of this obstacle will be of real service in stimulating the general use of films in schools, churches, and other non-theatrical institutions. READERS WILL RECALL that at , least four sections of the United States have experienced a movement of the theatrical exhibitors to suppress either partially or entirely the showing of films in non-theatrical institutions. The March number of Moving Picture Age contained an article by Robert J. Teall, Madera, California, in which he described the abrupt abbreviation of his film service thanks to the manager of the local theatre. This situation took a turn for the better soon after the discussion was printed, and no recent report has been received. A similar ogre has raised its head from time to time in Wisconsin, and the last inquiry brought forth the statement that the state exhibitors' association had threatened to pass a resolution making for the boycott of exchanges who rent to non-theatrical exhibitors. Several hundred Wisconsin citizens have formulated and forwarded to Mr. Will H. Hays a protest based on this restraint of trade. In Cincinnati a struggle is now on between the exhibitors' association and those who resent dictation to religious and educational institutions by men interested only in personal profit (see Mr. Clapp's discussion on another page of this issue). And then there is the KansasMissouri controversy; the Kansas exhibitors' association has already passed a ruling for the boycotting of exchanges that serve the non-theatrical man, and Missouri theatrical exhibitors are reported to be on the verge of taking a similar step (note news item entitled "The Citizens' Motion Picture League" for the latest action in the KansasMissouri district). The latter two instances are the most serious at present As mentioned elsewhere on this page, the National Academy of Visual Instruction, realizing the seriousness of this monopolistic attitude on the part of certain theatrical exhibitors, took definite action during its recent deliberations toward a solution of the problem. A resolution was passed instructing the Academy officers to communicate with the home office of every exchange whose local branch had signed the agreement to cease serving non-theatrical exhibitors in Kansas. (We wish the instruction had included the sending of a letter of commendation to United Artists, the only exchange whose representative refused to sign the agreement thrust before him by the exhibitors!) These letters put the situation clearly before the exchanges, and requested an expression of opinion as to where each respective exchange stood on the matter. Academy members in general are not convinced, nor are we personally, that the average theatrical exchange is ready to ignore the needs of the very backbone of the nation — the school and the church — at the behest of the theatrical exhibitor, particularly when the mentally more balanced of them stop to reflect that the very existence of both exchange and exhibitor depends upon the patronage and good will of the very class the shortsighted theatrical exhibitor would flaunt. We were present at the meeting in Kansas City at which the Citizens' Motion-Picture League was formed. The significance of this organization cannot be overestimated : The Citizens' Motion-Picture League is the first of a series of local groups through which the element of citizenry looking to the broadest interests of its community may find expression in speech and — yes; here hangs the sword for him who disregards community welfare — decisive action ! The old story has been, "Let the public decide !" ; and then the aborter of public confidence has smiled and 5 gone on, knowing full well that unfocused public opinion held no perils for him or his business. The Citizens' Motion Picture League will focus attention and opinion, and we will learn quickly whether or not any one class in an American community shall dictate the policy and conduct of schools and churches, and grant itself an absolute monopoly. The action of the Kansas-Missouri group in organizing for public action on its difficulties, and in planning affiliation, probably through associate membership, with the National Academy of Visual Instruction for such national activities as shall result in terminating this restraint of trade with nontheatrical institutions, has set, we believe, an example that should be and undoubtedly will be quickly followed by the Cincinnati nontheatrical exhibitors and their advocates. A non-theatrical organization has already been born in Cincinnati, but it will probably need to be augmented by the many citizens who, although not users of films themselves, believe that the school and the church are the underpinning of civilization and should never be handicapped, much less by seekers of private gain. Citizens affected by a similar situation in California, Wisconsin, and other states will do well to watch the Kansas-Missouri solution and consider plans for duplicating it. Such local groups are essential for applying the particular pressure required under particular circumstances; and affiliation with the National Academy of Visual Instruction will afford the nation-wide influence and concentrated activity necessary to effect national programs of improvement. Just a word of warning: While thoroughly in accord with this movement for the protection of educational and religious institutions, we are distinctly not in sympathy with the school or church that so conducts its visual-instruction efforts as essentially to compete with the film theatre. Religious productions and classroom films obviously have no relation to the theatrical audience, and no restriction on the extent of their weekly use is reasonable. But the recreational film presents a different problem. Church film entertainments, and recreational programs projected in the schools, will understandably occasion protest from the local theatrical exhibitor if they are conducted several times each week. Church suppers, while warranted as a means of occasionally raising funds, are not served three or four times per week, and a howl would arise from certain restaurants and hotels if the church attempted it. Nontheatrical institutions will run upon the rocks if they attempt to conduct so many recreational showings each weeek as to make the projector a source of substantial income, for each such institution is merely leaving its own prescribed field and entering the field of business, with the accompanying tax charges, rivalries, etc. In such a case the theatrical exhibitor has grounds for protest against this untaxed competition. Think over this phase of the matter carefully. Our very fervor for the success of the non-theatrical cause leads us to voice this warning, for a movement so thoroughly right as this should run no risk of being impeded in its progress because its advocates had erred in judgment on one small point.