Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep 1911)

52 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD value of well selected programs, of good projection, the right kind of advertising, etc. Many of these undesirables have dropped oul of the business and their places are being taken by live, intelligent men of larger means, who are erecting a better type of picture theater. The exhibiting department is, therefore, progressing rapidly and it will require all the managerial and business talents, as well as foresight, of exhibitors to meet new problems in exhibition, as they are presented, without trespassing on the domain of the exchange. What is needed is a proper understanding between the exhibitor and the exchange, not a merging of the two departments. That "proper understanding" exists in other lines of business, as between merchant and customer. The customer's trade is sought after and the best efforts of the merchant are put forth to retain it, once it has been secured. The Open Market— Pros and Cons. By W. Stephen Bush. 11J OWEVER we may differ as to the advantages or ■*■ ■*■ disadvantages of an open market, there can be no doubt that its effects would be immediate and revolutionary in character. An open market would in an instant transfer the power, now lodged in the grasp of the manufacturer, into the hands of the exhibitor. The relations of licensor and licensee would at once be changed into the positions of buyer and seller. The industry would be dominated by the exhibitor. He would dictate the policy of the manufacturers. The responsibility for the well being and progress of the moving picture art would devolve entirely on the exhibitor. Is the exhibitor at this time capable of assuming these heavy responsibilities? Is it certain that he will discharge his new functions to the best advantage of the moving picture? It cannot be expected that the exhibitor is infallible. The question is not whether the exhibitor is perfect, but whether control of the industry by the exhibitor is to be preferred to the present domination of the manufacturers. Let us say at the outset that the present control of the situation by the film makers is in more respects than one an unsatisfactory condition. The experience of mankind in all ages has shown beyond the peradventure of a doubt that it is unsafe to put arbitrary and absolute power in the hands of any man or set of men. Human nature is so constituted that an abuse of such power is as near a moral certainty as anything can be in this life. Possession of absolute power brings with it as inevitable concomitants pride and arrogance. The greatest men in history have had their usefulness changed into destructiveness through abuse of dictatorial power, and though no one will claim the presence of any great men in the circles we allude to, it must be remembered that the rule applies even more forcibly to little men. The compulsory purchase of film laughs at the law of demand and supply and sets at defiance the axiom of the survival of the fittest. The rule now is : "Whatever is made, is fit." The exhibitor's feeble protest is drowned in the thunderous command : "Thou shalt buy." As a rule, he buys. The remedy offered by another set of film makers is too often found illusory. The worst feature of the present situation remains to be stated. It is overproduction. The exhibitor is constantly confronted with announcements of new releases. "Owing to an irresistible public demand, the Supreme Film Company will hereafter release an additional reel every week." Whether the "irresistible public demand" is the unsupported opinion of the film maker or an actual fact, makes no difference whatever. Overproduction is the deadly foe of quality, the only thing that can count in an industry so much akin to art. How many manufacturers have the right to say to-day : "We make more and better pictures" ? As a rule, more pictures mean poorer pictures. Time is the most essential factor in the production of quality. It is a fact that the companies which have in the past made and are still making the best pictures are very slow about increasing the quantity of their output. Great experience and skill, a fine plant, competent actors, gifted producers, are of course necessary to a good picture, but even more necessary than all these is a sufficiency of time. Right at this moment several makers of film are falling into a hopeless rut. Ideas and plots vary hardly an inch from one reel to another. Some are going back to subjects and methods and mannerisms that might have been excusable five years ago, but to-day cannot be regarded other than evidences of moving picture atavism. In some measure the forced and artificial conditions of the market are responsible for all of this deplorable situation. Would the open market be a sovereign remedy for all these unhealthy conditions ? Would overproduction cease and quality come into its own? Can the laws of supply and demand and of the survival of the fittest be trusted" to work out the salvation of the moving picture industry ? These are questions to which only the inconsiderate or careless have ready answers. There was an open market just after the birth of the industry, but it was strangled too soon to let us know what the developments would have been. The open market would be largely an experiment. As things stand to-day the responsibility for conditions can be squarely put upon the film makers. While theoretically they are to-day accountable to no one, practically they are very much accountable to public opinion. Even the most hardened self-conceit cannot very long resist the demands and protests of the public. The years have brought with them a code of moving picture ethics from which film makers now depart but on very rare occasions. To some extent, at least, the demand for clean pictures has been heeded. If the power over the picture were transferred to the exhibitor, division of responsibility, with its attendant train of evils, would be likely to follow. Even a very small number of exhibitors could cause a revival of objectionable pictures and thereby immeasurably damage the industry as a whole, for, as we of the moving picture know only too well, the public are slow to give credit, but quick to deal out blame. No bad picture was ever shown that did not throw its waves of influence into every corner of the industry. It may be urged that we are pleading for Utopian conditions and that bad pictures can never be wholly done away with. Very true, but bad pictures can be kept down by intelligent and conscientious effort, while a withdrawing of the check would make them grow like vermin. As a rule, every abuse carries its own remedy. If the makers, who now control the great bulk of the market, deteriorate they cannot endure long. Skill, intelligence and capital cannot be monopolized forever. The industry to-day is attracting the greatest artistic talents. With the growing field and the wider and better popularity, capital will turn to the moving picture, and nothing more is needed than a union of capital and talent. In the meantime many people are wondering why the manufacturers, whose products in an open market would outsell all others, do not become leaders in a movement for emancipation and an open market. Echo answers. Why?