Moving Picture World (Jan-Feb 1927)

January 22, 1927 MOVING PICTURE WORLD 309 Bluebook School Answer 550 Note: — This “School” is designed to arouse interest in the study of those many problems which constantly arise in motion picture projection, AND to cause men to really study the Bluebook and assimilate the vast amount of knowledge contained within its covers. Question No. 550 — Does the theatre manager who, either purposely or by reason of neglect, fails to insist upon high-grade work in the projection room of his theatre, and to encourage it in every possible way, or who gives no practical encouragement at all, really discourage men and tend to make them careless in (their work, giving just enough in the way of excellence in service to enable them to, perhaps with the aid of an organziation, hold their job? Does not such a manager actually, in effect, invite inefficiency and mediocre work on the part of his projectionist? Much to my surprise there were more than a dozen answers to this question by theatre managers, mostly in small towns, but two from small cities. The answers by projectionists and machine operators I have not counted. I have even been unable to read them all. The answers by projectionists and machine operators, or all of them I could find time to read, declare that managers who fail to encourage automatically, by that fact tend to discourage, and that they are therefore entitled to small sympathy, no matter how punk the service they get, with which I myself heartily agree. Answers by theatre managers present some queer arguments, though most of them agree that no encouragement tends to produce slackness in the work. Two managers made the point-blank statement that in their opinion the men would get all they could for the least possible service under any condition, which I think indcates that they have either not tried out real encouragement or have been unfortunate in their selection of men. After careful consideration I have concluded to publish the following answer from the theatre manager in a small Ohio city. It is published with only such change as is necessary to make it read well. No change whatsoever has been made in the meaning, which is very clear all the way through. Dear Mr. Richardson: I was a projec tionist, then called an operator, for five years before I finally took charge of a small theatre as manager. That was six years ago and since that time I have managed three houses, one of them a 1,200-seat house in a city of some size. I may say, without boasting, that I have succeeded very well as a manager. I took my present position because my wife’s folks live here. It is a small town, but has a large farmer patronage and I like it immensely. X have followed your projection department every week for a little more than ten years. I have your Bluebook on my desk, supply my projectionist with another copy, and insist that he understand the projector lens system at least as well as I do, and that he evidence at least a fair degree of interest in his work. I once discharged five men before I got one who did that last. What I have said is by way of introduction. Now to the question, which may be approached from either one of several angles, as for instance the viewpoint of the manager who, perhaps not altogether without cause, holds to the idea that any encouragement he may give his projectionist will result merely in his becoming "chesty,” even to the point of acquiring an idea that the manager can’t get along without him. I shall, however, try to deal with the question broadly, talking to my colleagues (managers), rather than to projectionists. Broadly there are two classes of men, namely: those who will appreciate and respond to encouragement, and those who will not. Fortunately the first class predominates very largely in projection rooms, or I so believe, but it is idle to say there are no examples of the latter to be found. I have myself encountered them. As soon as I recognized one of that class I promptly fired him, because I hold that sort does not belong in a theatre projection room at all. I shall therefore start by assuming that unless the man has sufficient intelligence to appreciate and respond in the right way to encouragement, he will not be retained in employment, and that assumption clears the atmosphere in a way which enables us to deal with the question intelligently. First, the theatre manager who does not insist upon high-grade projection and encourage its production in every possible way resembles the projectionist who will not respond to encouragement, in that he HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HOLDING DOWN A POSITION AS MANAGER. He is not fit to manage a theatre, and if he works for an exhibitor the exhibitor will be well advised to give him his “walking papers” immediately. I do not think it is necessary to dilate much upon, what I have just said, because surely its truth is obvious. As the editor has told us many, many times through the past years, high-grade projection is a fundamental necessity to the best success of any theatre from the box office viewpoint, and the theatre manager who cannot understand that simple fact I would regard as hopeless from the managerial viewpoint. The sooner he quits or is fired, the better for the theatre and, in a way, for the motion picture industry. And now to the main question. In the matter of pay I have always agreed with the editor that regarding the union scale, which now governs in all or nearly all large cities, and in very many smaller ones too, as a flat price to pay all men, regardless of ability, is both wrong and harmful, in that it acts to stifle one of the chief incentives to “get ahead.” True this is, I believe, partly offset by a grading of theatres in large cities, so that the men in the larger houses receive higher wages, but this is not sufficient, because it merely recognizes the ability of the larger theatre to pay more money, whereas it must be conceded that the grade of projection, both in its excellence as to screen image and its efficiency, must or should be equal in all theatres, en_ tirely regardless of their size. Please understand that I do not mean this in any sense as a criticism of the union, but merely as a statement of this particular thing as it appeals to me, and as I think it will appeal that way to all fair-minded men who “know the game.” I believe the grading of pay for large and small theatres may be quite all right, BUT that in addition theatre managers should themselves regard the union scale for the various classes (size) of houses as being merely a minimum to pay the poorest men. I believe a reasonable recognition of real merit in the pay envelope of projectionists is one of the best investments any theatre manager can possibly make of a like sum of money. Two years ago I took charge of a theatre seating a fraction more than 1,200, in a city of fair size over in Indiana. I found two projectionists, both receiving the union scale and apparently satisfied. One of them I soon discovered took considerable interest in his business. He subscribed to Moving Picture World, for its projection department. He had the Bluebook, a set of other books called Hawking Electrical Guides and a Griffith Lens Chart. He would "bother” me with somewhat voluminous reports on the condition of the films we received and make suggestions on various things, whether I seemed to like it or not. He was, I very soon concluded, a live wire, and a man to encourage. The other man just did his work. He did it very well, yes, but he could not have done it well but for the other man who knew his business, who came to my office very soon after I took charge and explained that the lenses of the projectors were not right, but that the manager I displaced had refused to get others. He showed me why they were not right, using a Griffith lens chart to do it. Then he took me up into the projection room and proved his case to me by demonstration. I asked the other man about it and got a reply to the effect that the lenses were all right and that the other fellow was a nut. The lenses required for efficient work were immediately ordered and the results justified the man by giving a visibly better picture with less electric power. One month after I came I went to the projection room with the weekly pay envelopes. I handed the envelopes over with the remark to the pusher: “You’ll find an extra five dollars in your envelope. You will get it every week hereafter, so long as you continue to study, improve and try to advance in your work.” The other man was very obviously angry. There was a meeting of the union that week and I was told he took the matter up with the union, but was advised that so long as I paid him the scale he had no grounds for complaint. A short while afterward I saw a new Bluebook in the projection room, and found the two men arguing and discussing a projection problem — a thing that had never, so far as I know, been done in that room before that time. Before I left that theatre I was paying them both five dollars more than the scale, and GETTING THREE TIME'S' THE VALUE OF THE MONEY BACK IN CAREFUL, CONSCIENTIOUS, HIGH-GRADE SERVICE. That is my answ’er to the question insofar as has to do with monetary encouragement. A flat scale of pay offers absolutely no encouragement to men to strive to excel. As to the other methods available for encouragement, they cost nothing and operate differently with different men. There are men who literally will go further and do more for a few words of praise than they will for anything else upon, in or under the earth. To them appreciation is the very wine of life. They will not work well for any man who does not evidence appreciation, no matter what the pay in money may be, and usually these men are really the very best ‘type of men, too. I shall not deal with this phase of the matter at length, but will say that the wise theatre manager will not be too hasty or severe with an occasional fault, only penalizing when faults appear with apparently unnecessary frequency. But what is equally important, NEVER FAIL TO LET THE MEN KNOW THAT YOU WATCH THEIR WORK, AND THAT YOU APPRECIATE ITS EXCELLENCE, IF IT IS EXCELLENT. NEVER PERMIT A WEEK TO PASS WITHOUT MAKING AT LEAST -SOME COMMENT ON THE PROJECTION, and see to it that it is not merely some blah blah remark, but say something that will cause the men to know you have your eye on them and are watching their working.