Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

January 22, 1927 Toning up the Baby MOVING PICTURE WORLD 249 Two Persistent Has-Beens 'Jjj'J ACK in the old days when film was film — and very little else — two prime factors dominated the business. One of these was footage and the other the “run.” Thirty years later film no longer is “just film,” but runs through all grades from filler, through feature to super-feature, super-super-feature and road show, and the pre-release in one key city may be three or six months old in another. And still the demi-gods are footage and runs. Until we can dump these relics in the ash can of the past, they are going to remain an antiquated clog on the feet of film progress. When film was no more than pictured action, a flat price per foot was the fair sales standard. Today it is archaic to regard length as the visible sign of excellence. Too often length is gained at the cost of entertainment value, and the picture that would be a gem in five thousand feet is padded with an additional two reels to make it a feature and really ceases to be a feature when spun out to conventional feature length. It is very true that film is no longer sold at a flat price per foot. We have passed the extreme crudity of the yardstick, but any film salesman will tell you that it is impossible to get a feature price for a five-reel picture, no matter what its excellence. And a really meritorious production must go to at least seven reels to sell for more than “program” price, even though in five reels it may be far more of a feature than it is in seven. We are still fettered by the yardstick from the studio to the box office. The producer thinks of his product in terms of footage. The exhibitor virtually sells so many reels of entertainment. If he has a seven-reel feature, he may cut out his two-reel comedy. It he has a “program” five he adds that much comedy. In season and out his show must run about a pre-determined footage — and the au dience pays the penalty by having to watch a draggy show. Why should it not be possible to sell a program upon its merit rather than on the length of its main attraction? If a good fivereel feature will draw actually more money than the same thing in seven reels, why not pay a seven-reel price instead of demanding a full seven-reel length with two thousand feet of boresome action? It may require a little educational campaign, but if all will work together, the public can be educated. It will take far less argument than was required to advance admission from five to ten cents. And we would have more perfect pictures and fewer overstuffed inflictions. In the same way, why not let the smalltown manager get a picture about the same time as the cities — not day and date, but within a reasonably short time — instead of making him wait a year or two for age to bring the product within his means? It would mean just as much money to the producer — and more to the exhibitor. What do you think?