Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1912)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 23 Dante's Inferno (Helios) By W. Stephen Bush. This work is a base and clumsy imitation of the magicent product of the Milano Films Company. All the eat and striking features of the original Milano crea)n are omitted entirely. With two exceptions every : sne has been "borrowed" from the Milano Films Com. ny and invariably spoiled in the "borrowing." There is : I pretense of art; the thing is evidently a very hurried fort to give a very cheap edition of the marvelous iginal. The Moving Picture World cannot prevent . is imitation from seeking a market, but it would be '. dly lacking in artistic conscience and be derelict in its : ity to its readers if it failed to put upon this product e stamp of its most emphatic condemnation. From the first this inferiority is plain to even the untight eye. Nothing could be finer than the opening enes of the Milano production ; no effort has been tared to live up to the letter as well as the spirit of ante. Nothing could be cheaper than the opening enes in this Helios make. The title boldly promises us e sight of the wild beasts that bar the path of the poet ward the sunlit summit, but there is no performance on e screen. This petty swindle well characerizes the irit of the whole production. One cannot see without profound admiration for poet id film-maker the splendid and impressive way in which e descent of Beatrice from Heaven and her interview ith \'irgil are presented in the ]\Iilano film ; but there is )thing but pity for the poet and censure for the filmaker for the almost laughable manner of the imitation. he cheapest manufacturer in this country would recoil cm such an attempt. The early scenes in the Milano film, just as in the jem, lead up to the most impressive part, the City of Dis, e Inner or Deeper Hell. The imitation leaves out the ity of Dis entirely, not a trace in the Helios make of the urney through the Stygian lake, the tower on the shores ' Dis. the signals of lights from circle to circle, the comg of the rescuing angel, the opening of the gates, the )pearance of the Erinyes on the ramparts, the den of the rpents, "the college of the rhourning hypocrites," though the latter, too, is falsely promised on the screen, would far exceed the limits of this article to point out le other omissions. The sins of omission, however, are as nothing comired with the sins of commission in the Helios afifair. It shocking to the average spectator to see an actor laugh hen he is supposed to present a tragic part. It is a )ecies of disrespect to the public, which the latter is quick I resent. In the Helios make at some of the most tragic irts the supposed sufferers laugh heartily. Perhaps they iw something funny or thought what a joke on the ublic this film would be ; that may explain, but does not iccuse. The fate of Caiphas, the high priest, who conemned Jesus to death, is portrayed with sublime power 1 the Milano film and borders on the absurd and unin:lligible in the inferior production. I cannot stop at every :ene, but with one exception every scene is mangled ; the lea taken from the superior creation and the execution itrusted to cheap and incompetent hands. The Helios make, it is said, contained more scenes than re now left. It appears to have been reduced in size Iter it came to this country. How far this reducing proems has assisted in spoiling it still further it is impossible ) say. Before we are willing to believe that the "scisjring" has been necessary, we should like to have had )me evidence that it was done by competent hands. No ich evidence was submitted. Gross Injustice to Film Producers Article I. THE recent order of the Appellate Division of the first department in this State, restoring a juryj verdict of $12,500 in favor of Binns, plaintiff, against the Vitagraph Company of America, defendant; should be of deep interest to every person connected with* the manufacturing branch of the motion picture industry^ In view of the importance of this decision and as a basis for the ideas and suggestions outlined in this article, we subjoin a brief resume of the facts in the case above named as they appear from the judicial records. The plaintiff. Jack Binns, had won considerable fame through saving the steamer "Republic" by persevering at his post as an operator of the wireless telegraph. The Vitagraph Company shortly after Binn's display of heroism, released a film, called, if we remember rightly, "Saved by Wireless." The picture was based on the action of Binns and no attempt was made to conceal that fact. Prior to the enactment of a special statute, passed by the legislature of this State in 1909, Binns would have had nolegal grievance against the Vitagraph Company. In order to thoroughly understand the situation it is necessary to quote the law of 1909 verbatim. This law consists of two clauses, which read as follows; § I. A person, firm or corporation, that uses for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having tirst obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor, of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor, §2. Any person, whose name, portrait or picture is used within this State for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided, may maintain an equitable action in the Supreme Court of this State against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait or picture to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use, and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person's name, portrait or picture in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the last section, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages Under this law Binns instituted his action and the jury "in its discretion" awarded the exemplary damages of twelve thousand and five hundred dollars. Never was there a more senseless perversion of law and never was there a more flagrant injustice. In the first place the defendant cannot fairly be charged with having used the plahitiif's name and picture for "advertising purposes" or for the purposes of trade. In the second place it is utterly absurd to speak of a "right of privacy" in connection with an event of so eminently public a character as the service rendered to humanity by the plaintiff. The newspapers and magazines exhausted their vocabularies and their pictorial art in glorifying the deed of fjinns. For the time being Binns was a public character and every agency used to disseminate information had an absolute constitutional right to publish his name and his picture. The "law of privacy," as it is called, was passed to protect individuals against having their names and faces made trademarks for the sale of merchandise. In the case of a well-connected, refined young woman, whose picture was used by a firm of flour merchants to help the sale of their product, the Court of Appeals decided adversely to her claim for damages, commenting on a lack of positive law to enforce her rights of privacy. Similar offenses had been committed against the privacy of individuals by advertisers, whose enthusiasm outran by several miles their sense of decency and justice. To say that a moving picture representation of Binns was a greater invasion of. his privacy than the printing of his picture in the press