Moving Picture World (Jul-Sep 1911)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD S75 THE chief topic bearing upon moving pictures the past week hinged upon the propriety of featuring Beulah Binford in them. The powers that be in Greater New York declared that she would not be allowed upon the stage, nor upon the screen. The cities of Philadelphia and Detroit had already made a similar ruling. Mayor Gaynor struck a decisive blow by instructing the Chief of the Bureau of Licenses to suspend or revoke the license of any picture house that would show the pictures. * * * However sincere the promoters of the scheme may have been in their declaration that the proposed pictures were "intended to carry a moral lesson," they succeeded in impressing a wretchedly small minority of the people at large that the pictures would have any bearing at all in that direction. Even if Mayor Gaynor had not interfered, in my opinion, the pictures would not have been shown. Without the slightest doubt the Board of Censorship would have bitterly condemned them and the police would have interfered. * ♦ ♦ Time and expense is saved by the Mayor's intervention. Nothing is more effective than a threat to revoke licenses. Ever since that Christmas Eve when the then Mayor of Greater New York made a wholesale revocation of licenses of picture houses the owners of the places have had a dread of the exercise of such powers. Although the action at that time was grossly unjust and the exhibitors won the fight, the worry, work and cost left a lasting impression that it is better to be on the inside looking out than on the outside looking in. The action of the niunicipal authorities in the Binford case is criticized in a few quarters on the ground that pictures that have not been shown, nor even manufactured, cannot be condemned. This is a technical argument that falls with its own weight. The mandate of the authorities is that "any moving picture films or stereopticon views relating to tITe Beattie murder case, depicting any scene in connection therewith, or featuring any persons implicated therein, or who are depending for advertising on their connection with this gruesome tragedy, are condemned for the reason that they are unfit to be shown in places of public amusement." The case is well defined, the theme of the proposed pictures is as well known to the public as their actual production could make it. * * * It is not sound argument to contend that the action in the Binford matter is unfair discrimination because two of the principals in a recent shooting affair were allowed to appear in one of the largest vaudeville houses of the city. The public itself was not on the alert at that time. If it had been, "the two shooting stars" would not have appeared on the stage as such, nor would there be an effort to get the Binford girl either upon the stage or the. picture screen. * * * All who have shouldered some part of the stupendous task in raising motion pictures to the position they now hold in the estimation of the public must endorse the prohibition of the proposed Binford pictures. Had they been but passively sanctioned and tolerant productions followed, producers and exhibitors would have suffered a loss that cannot be estimated, through public opinion. * * * Touching upon themes for moving pictures brings to mind complaints made by many writers of scenarios. I have always contended that no reputable manufacturer of pictures would use a subject without awarding recompense to the author, but recently complaints have been so severe I decided to investigate some of them. The statements from the manufacturers' standpoint indicate that my original contention holds good, but unfortunately, disgust or indisposition to require explanations on the part of some writers create misunderstandings regarding the true methods of those in whose hands scenarios are placed. * * * At one sti* ' following case was cited: A writer, ac quainted *ne manager of a distant city theater, left with him a scenario with a request that it be sent to a studio presenting certain pictures that were popular at the house. The writer thought the scenario would receive more prompt attention if sent in by the manager of a theater. The latter left the paper on his desk for two weeks or more. He had forgotten about the matter, but promised to forward it when reminded by the writer. More neglect followed and eventually the manager was transferred to a house in another city. During the several months that elapsed the studio the writer had in mind produced a picture that embodied many of the principal points covered by the scenario in question. Of course the author made demand for compensation. The case proved one of coincidence. The scenario upon which the picture was based was received from a third party, who did not know the writer first mentioned, and it was shown by the theater manager having custody of it that the manuscript left with him had never left his possession; he had never read or shown it to anyone, nor had he discussed the paper after receiving it. * * * Coincidences are frequent in the picture business. They sometimes create unpleasant feelings on the part of producers against authors. I distinctly remember an incident in that line in the metropolis. Two concerns advertised a film bearing identically the same title. Of course, each denounced the author of the respective manuscripts, claiming he had "played both ways." To be more clear, it was charged that the author had sold the same story to both companies. An examination of the subjects exonerated him. Although the main titles were alike, the themes were entirely different and the authors were strangers to each other. * * * But this complaint hit me hard. A writer stated that his scenario had been retained for some time. He finally received it with a letter stating the story had been rejected. He noticed that on the back of the manuscript was written with lead pencil, "A good story. Make copy." That certainly looked like a bad case. The writer admitted he had never seen the story produced in picture form, but he had not seen all the pictures produced by the studio in question. * * * Getting a line on the studio against whom the indictment was made, I asked the manager to plead. This was what he said: "The case looks like a strong one, but it "is really not as strong as it looks. In the first place, none of the established companies will endanger its reputation lor the value of a scenario and I am satisfied that not one oJ them has intentionally deprived a writer of a manuscript, or the value he should receive for it. The writer you refer to should, in justice to the studio, as well as himself, have inquired as to whether a copy of his manuscript was withheld, or whether the story, or any part of it, has been produced. The writing may have been made on the back of it by one reader and the subject may have been rejected by another, whereupon the manuscript may have been returned without erasing the writing made by the first reader. Perhaps the favorable note was made by mistake upon the wrong manuscript; and it is not unlikely that the manuscript was returned in mistake." * * * "Have you known of an employee submitting as his own a scenario that had been sent in by another party?" was asked. "Only in one instance, in my experience. When a writer submits with his scenario his name and address he has the whip in his own hands. A few cents in postage will bring back a reply one way or the other. The one great fault with most authors is that they too frequently take credit for originality they are not entitled to. A man may have returned to him a good story that, in the main, has already been covered by some other writer, although we may not have produced it at the time the first papeu is rejected. In some cases we buy two or three stories, or even four, and combine the best points of all in one picture; but where this is not practicable and there is still a similarity, we give the best scenario the preference."