Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1912)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD Wake Up! This is 1912! By Louis Reeves Harrison. 21 ■IW THEN a pastoral is being thrown on the screen it \/ may be reaHsm for Bridget and the grocery boy to hear the drummer ring cowbells a la New ' ar's Eve, or a small bunch of unwashed shockheads ■ y be thrilled by the imitated clatter of hoofs when a [ Dster Square actor in sombrero and spinach trousers : ises a Carlisle Indian in war-paint over the Jersey 1 adows, but a lot of people are as weary of the prim.1 e orchestra that shakes a sand box for rippling streams I i biffs a base drum in the solar plexus whenever a : ledian falls over a pin, as they are of the reckless e lenditure of film stock made on plays only suited to 0 mitive minds. Are we a lot of weaklings? The noble r iman, who used to sell land that he never bought or 3 i for, drink up the proceeds and then murder the D chaser in cold blood, is becoming immortalized, while :l pioneer who cleared the way for us to enjoy a coun1 worth while is accorded the appreciation usually given < hose who lay down their lives for their fellowmen — t he moving pictures. Ve are not a nation of cattle herders, and our civilizai I is not that of the stage-coach holdup. Except in • ated communities and emigrant dumping-grounds our ' pie are progressive, mentally active, music-loving and :k to appreciate whatever is beautiful in the arts. We t pass other nations in quality of photography as in our I' iodicals, in the manufacture of pianos, in the attend1 e at colleges, in whatever directly contributes to gen1 enlightenment, hence my prophetic spirit may not e been soaring in the clouds when it foretold "some;■ ig new" as a logical development of the present photo r. here have been some interesting offshoots from the 1 n line in the way of news films recording events of ■I time, and some presentations of historical, scientific r ' educational value, but the playwright, in following 1 main road, has to deal with human life and its prob • 5. He must focus his attention upon present existence t its future possibilities. He may peer into the veil ■ ar as his imagination can be projected, but there is f 5 use of his trying to make over old clothes to suit 1 em fashions. If he expects to entertain an American ic it is up to him to forget as quickly as possible old I ries and prejudices. The drama must keep pace with I lual enlightenment even if it does not stimulate curi; ? as to what is coming, instead of lagging back and I ng over dead issues in a vain effort to find a few 1 ers of thought. rt in any form is merely a means of expressing what 1 are or hope to be. We can raise our eyes to the lal without apprehension about leaving this sphere re our feet are so solidly planted. The drama, ther of the stage or of the screen, can aspire to the est ideals when deep human interest is kept well in 1, when it sounds a note that awakens throbbing rese in those who are hoping, struggling, succeeding ailing in our midst. There are themes of infinite ;ty at hand. The social battle for justice to those do the world's work, the adjustment of compensato labor, the right of common people to liberty and pursuit of happiness, the betterment of humanity ugh the prevention of crime rather than through its ction, the prevention of disease rather than its cure, revention of infant mortality, and the prevention of jishness wherever theatrical trusts will permit, the conflict between material tendency and spiritual clarification, all these furnish subjects of widespread interest which the dramatist may handle with or without gloves as the case may require. Instead of poking around among the dead ashes of the past, the playwright had much better blow live coals into glowing flame that shall warm our hearts and brighten our way. His central idea must be modern, irrespective of the development. Whatever the setting — it may be ancient quite as well as modern— the thought to be stimulated must be in accord with the spirit of the times. A distinct mark of progress is coming in the recognition of playwrights who have established a quality of performance, and this may be followed by an encouraging advance in compensation for their work. When that happens we will begin to see genuine plays on the screen, photodramas that will draw millions into the little theaters who would not be seen in them to-day.' If a thoiisand-foot reel play costs a thousand dollars to produce in the positive, or a three-thousand-foot-reel play three thousand in the positive, it looks like a waste of time and material not to buy original plays worth ten per cent, of that amount for the best of business reasons. Every poor play is a fraud on the public and creates one or more enemies to moving pictures in general, whereas every fine play honorably conceived and paid for brings in new friends and attaches the old ones. It is a paltry economy and a false one to put out a feeble imitation of what was done in bygone years, even if it happened to suit our ancestors, and it is folly to imagine that people have not advanced since that time or do not recognize the imposition. There is nothing the matter with the American audience, and anyone who belittles it simply publishes his own incapacity. Those who are ready and willing to make a generous outlay for the sake of fine starting point — a photodrama well worth the time, taste, attention and outlay necessary to turn out a production of merit — must form it in accordance with their own best conceptions of what is fitting, instead of listening to the advice of individuals of narrow viewpoint, and will eventually realize, as do the publishers, that all is not genius that scribbles. Seasoned publishers know that one novel by an experienced writer is worth dozens by amateurs as a business proposition. The successful author, like the competent dramatist, is generously recompensed and widely advertised, whereas the photoplaywright is accorded scant recognition and paid less in proportion to quality than any other element contributing to the success of the business. The plain truth, however unsavory it may be, is that the weak spot in production is the lack of photodramas really worth seeing. Any falling off in patronage at the theaters is largely due to the fact that the average of production is below the average intelligence of the audience. I note with pleasure marked improvements in photography— mechanical details are in process of continual development — greater taste is being shown in the settings and costumes, the various companies of actors are gaining rather than losing in strength, and the direction of plays is better than it has ever been. Weak spots are the lack of suitable music at a large number of exhibitions, lack of managerial common sense in allowing musicians to interrupt rather than accompany the screen presentations, the exchange arrangement that seems to aim at hurting rather than helping the exhibitor, and lack of selective system in the distribution of releases ; but these are minor