Moving Picture World (Jan-Mar 1918)

638 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD February 2, 1918 Exhibitors Demand the Truth By Louis Reeves Harrison THE policy of jollying exhibitors in one column and lying to them in another may fool some of them part of the time, but not all of them some of the time, nor some of them all the time, and there is no sound reason why it should be attempted. There are weakling trade papers which constitute themselves adjuncts of the publicity department of any producer, or any group of producers, who will make it worth while by methods either open or underhanded, but all this is destructive to the best interests of the whole business. Leading producers of today have bright and interesting mediums of their own, giving the exhibitor exhaustive information in very attractive form. It is perilous for trade papers to supplement that work to an extent that undue praise spells favoritism. Favoritism benefits no one in the long run. It may win a few pages of advertisements today and lose many more tomorrow among those not favored. While it may not always be intentionally crooked, simply an unsound policy, there is really nothing on the level about booming this or that concern, or this or that individual, unless generally recognized high merit has brought them into undeniable prominence. Is is a bore to the reader unless delightfully written, and if it becomes essential to fill the paper it should be relieved of any appearance of using reading columns for advertising purposes, or of a private handout. The founder of the Moving Picture World had a clear vision far extended into the future when he established his policy of sturdy independence, justice to all, a fair field with no favor. He realized that the entire business depends upon the dimes and quarters received by the exhibitor, and that the exhibitor had to get those dimes and quarters through the quality of what he was exhibiting, that his livelihood, his success, his prosperity was closely identified with the right sort of production. The idea that exhibitors don't know is not in accord with the facts. Time and again they have cancelled contracts for much-boomed pictures, though it must be admitted that they are often stung from lack of adequate warning from those very papers who pretend to guard the exhibitor's interests 'first, foremost and all the time. The paper which deceives him strikes straight at his pocket and against the popularity of moving pictures as well, against the large interest of this new art itself. I do not think any intelligent exhibitor expects a paper to be infallible in its judgments, especially when those judgments are obviously intelligent, uninspired by private interest and wholly sincere. That mistakes can be made has put a little piece of rubber on the end of most lead pencils. The main idea is to aim straight at the truth, hit the target as often as possible and make an occasional bullseye. This is the only sane business policy, the loss of subscriber's confidence meaning a decay of value as an advertising medium. Let it be understood, however, that all this is not so easy as it may appear. Just as there has been a rapid improvement in public taste there has been a tremendous increase in the cost of production. The cost of putting out a fine play in beautiful style with every role adequately typed is almost immediately doubled when a highpriced star is added. Producers reason that they are doing their best for all concerned when they expend a large sum of money on a picture, and they are right to a certain extent, but audiences do not count the cost of a story if it interests them — why should we? Let us repeat that in the form of a direct question, "If audiences do not count the cost of a story, why should we ?" It can be illustrated that they do not, and audience opinion is so puzzling at times that it takes keen observation to understand why an expensive picture fails and a cheap one succeeds. Take two notable instances based on a lack of religious fervor in front, though not a lack of religious faith — there is a great difference between the two. A feature costing not one-fifth as much as the average modern production of the same size ran to crowded houses for a year or more, and is going yet, which was so poorly handled that people laughed at its tawdry weaknesses, but the story had an element which powerfully appealed to human sympathy and sense of right, the refusal of a bigoted clergyman to baptize a perfectly innocent little baby whose parents were not joined in wedlock. The definite aim of the story drove straight for the mark, showing up the hypocrisy of denying an innocent child in order to punish the parents; for God made the baby. Another feature showed an impossible result from a woman's prayer. It seemed to fall flat on the average audience for no other reason. The story, apart from that one detail, was intensely interesting; the direction was without flaw ; the star was lovely, sympathetic and effective; the settings were beautiful and must have cost a small fortune. I am sure all intelligent people in front enjoyed the artistry of this presentation, but defective logic stifled their entire approval. It will be seen from these instances that one must look deep into a play, especially into its meaning before formulating an opinion of its future success. Audiences did not count the cost of either story — ■ what did count was the truth involved in both cases. "It requires," said an eminent scientist, "the combined labors of many thinkers for a full century to reach a truth which it may take only a few minutes to master under the right sort of circumstances." Those right sort of circumstances may easily be the presentation of truth in our moving pictures. It seems to go with the average audience as a rule. In one of the cases cited the injustice of visiting the sins of parents on the children had enough force of its own to give a young star exceptional opportunity and carry the play to success. We are broad enough today to believe that the pure little human flower born into the world should be kept pure and good, not go through life burdened with the stigma of illegitimacy. In the other case we discredited an improbable answer to a prayer. It is contrary to experience, so much so that most of us have quit asking heaven for things, though we may hope for them and hustle for them the best we can. The daily struggle for people in front is one of effect, courage and faith. Those people in front want to know the truth quite as well as the exhibitor. Beyond keeping faith with the exhibitor and his public, is the necessity of bending all our efforts toward making moving pictures an attractive and dependable medium for what should be told of ourselves and the world we live in. Crooks spring up like weeds in the path of our progress toward greater happiness, but they die like weeds and are forgotten. It is for every honest paper and every honest exhibitor to see that moving pictures go far ahead of literature, straight to the hearts and minds of our millions of people.