Moving Picture Age (Jan-Dec 1922)

OUR RECENT TRIP TO NEW YORK included a visit with Mr. Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America. The conference, while brief, was somewhat indicative of the probable trend of events when further steps are taken to correlate one phase of motion-picture work with the efforts of educators and others in visual instuction. Our discussion of problems was brief. Mr. Hays confined himself closely to the thought presented in his speech before the National Education Association at Boston, reading directly from a printed copy of it several times. This procedure was acceptable enough, for Mr. Hays has not studied the non-theatrical field over such a long period that he is prepared to discuss it extemporaneously. But the sections quoted by the motion-picture executive, skillfully as they were drawn, reflect very clearly a certain lack of comprehension of the non-theatrical field, a lack that will only be remedied when Mr. Hays' staff includes an adviser or executive who has conducted non-theatrical exhibitions and who has the genuine nontheatrical point of view. For example, Mr. Hays emphasized these paragraphs : Further, it may be true that in some places there is friction between theatre owners and the schools and churches, caused by competition developed by the schools and churches and believed unfair by the exhibitors. The fact is, the exhibitors of the country approve and favor educational films for classroom work. They have not looked with favor on the semi-educational films that would be shown in church or school without charge therefor, and have objected to the non-theatrical use of the theatrical or amusement film. This is natural. The theatre owner pays national and state tax on his theatre, a license fee, an extra insurance premium, and other special levies _ in order to run his business and provide for the essential amusement, and it was obviously unfair to him to create a competition to draw the same audience with or without charge into places which have no such burdens. In developing fully the value of educational pictures which are semi-instructional and semi-entertaining, the fundamental rights of the exhibitor and his value and importance in the situation must always be considered. This does not include pedagogic films, of course, or religious films which are solely for the use of churches. The exhibitors have very definitely made plain their position on this matter in the resolution passed at the national convention of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, in Washington, in which they said that they have no objection to strictly educational and informative films in schools or religious films in churches, but do resent the unfair practice of using theatrical films of solely amusement character in non-theatrical institutions in a way which injures the theatre owner in his effort to provide entertainment for the public. According to the first paragraph, the exhibitors are glad to see strictly educational films used in the classroom, but want semieducational and amusement pictures shown exclusively in the theatre. The natural conclusion, then, would be that they wish the educational film to be confined to the classroom as strictly as the entertainment material is kept within the theatre. But what are the actual facts? Consider "Nanook of the North," a most remarkable production portraying life in the Arctic regions. This very wonderful film has not a pretense of a plot, and its subject-matter immediately classifies it as a strictly educational production. But the human-interest and scenic value of this picture is great, and therefore "Nanook of the North" will be exhibited in every large theatre in the country before the educational field, in which it properly belongs, has an opportunity to rent it. In other words, a fence is to be erected between the educational field and the entertainment field, but to the exhibitor is to be extended the privilege of reaching over the barrier and appropriating whatever looks good to him. Does Mr. Hays think that such a basis of action will meet the approval of intelligent educators? The second quoted paragraph needs little comment. Of course we understand that the exhibitor pays various taxes, and that he is endeavoring to protect the value of his investment. It is that very fact that sharpens the question of the analytically minded citizen who inquires, "What business has an institution for public service, such as a school or church, to give first consideration to the financial interests of an individual or class when the mental or moral welfare of the public is involved?" A theatre owner is entitled to all sympathy and co-operation in striving to make his enterprise successful if the service he renders the community is good ; but the minute any one individual or group thinks that the community functions, or can be forced to function, with the sole aim of swelling the income tax of that individual or group, then indeed has the machinery of sane community progress been braked and its gears shifted into reverse! The third paragraph states that "the fundamental rights of the exhibitor and his value and importance in the situation must always be considered" in developing educational pictures. Does that mean that no educational film will be produced that has a spark of human interest or dramatic value? What about the filming of literature and history? Does Mr. Hays actually believe that "A Tale of Two Cities," "A Son of Democracy," and similar invaluable historical and literary subjects should be made inaccessible to the school because the exhibitor is afraid the children will become interested in them and will therefore not be present at his theatre that night to see "The Loves of Pharaoh" or "Foolish Wives"? We hope we have misconstrued the meaning of Mr. Hays' words at this point ; certainly he cannot believe that the exhibitor can hope to dictate the specifications of educational films, for he impresses one as being a thinker. We readily grant that the members of Mr. Hays' organization are at liberty to produce only educational films that do not harm the interests of the exhibitors ; but if these producers do not satisfy the educator's demand for such literary, historical, and other educational material as is mentioned above, other producers will supply the deficiency, and the result will not be changed. And what about religious films? The fourth paragraph reads in part : "This does not include pedagogic films, of course, or religious films which are solely for the use of churches." Does this mean that only literal interpretations of Biblical stories shall 5 be considered as "religious films which are intended solely for churches"? This interpretation being the most logical, and the assumption being valid that no theatres would consider screening this admittedly church material, what are the facts? Simply and significantly this : The Bible pictures produced by Sacred Films, of California, started their run at the Capitol Theatre, New York City, late in 1921 ; and at the annual convention of the Motion Picture Owners of America — the very session at which this body drew up its resolution protesting the use of amusement films in schools and churches! — the pictures screened at the delegates' official banquet included "Gethsemane," one of a series of films photographed in the Holy Land by the Geographic Film Company. On what grounds can the exhibitor protest the use of tenth-run dramatic films in the religious field when he is glad to secure for first run these strictly religious subjects? We would like to bring to Mr. Hays' attention certain facts the consideration of which will be distinctly helpful in solving the nontheatrical problem that he faces. First, the educational field will never agree that it is not entitled to use such semi-educational motion pictures as its curricula seem to require. If the screen version of "Black Beauty" does not properly belong on the classroom or auditorium screen, then the original publishers of the book were remiss in not keeping this book out of all libraries, so that each child might be forced to purchase the volume at the corner bookstore. Again, let us repeat the thought that this problem needs even more than the sympathetic hearing and the capacity for constructive work for which Mr. Hays is noted : it demands the efforts of one who has run a projector for non-theatrical audiences; who has rented films for classrooms or church showings ; who knows that an educational film may range in subject-matter from maps and statistics to dramatic material, and that some of the strongest film sermons ever screened by progressive pastors have contained neither Scripture story nor oriental accoutrements. We want to see Mr. Hays' efforts accorded the heartiest and fullest cooperation by workers in the non-theatrical field; but only the assistance of one who knows the ground through experience will enable the executive to find the most direct and permanent route to his goal. Within the next one or two years we are to trace the development of an interesting situation. Our personal angle regarding Mr. Hays and the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America — the association that pays his salary — is that his employers took unto themselves several inches more than they had bargained for. Here are the possibilities : Mr. Hays will go through with his program ; meaning that both theatrical and non-theatrical conditions will be reasonably adjusted, and that confidence in the film world will be re-established. Or, Mr. Hays' association will not consent to his program when it pinches in certain places; meaning that Mr. Hays will cease to function actively and the public will be convinced that the film world is not attempting to keep faith. However things go, there is but one constructive step for every non-theatrical worker to take now : place your faith and confidence in the person that merits it ; and that is most certainly Mr. Will H. Hays.