The Moving picture world (September 1921)

264 MOVING PICTURE WORLD September 17, 1921 Eastman Answers Cromelin's Charge, Quoting Statistics on Film Imports and Pointing to Scope of Business Editor, Moving Picture World: CERTAIN statements regarding raw motion picture film made in the letter of Mr. Paul Cromelin, president and general manager of the InterOcean Film Corporation, which was published in your issue of August 27, 1921, necessitate a reply. Figures were quoted from the official reports of the Department of Commerce regarding the importation of raw motion picture film into this country during the five years, 1914-1918, but no mention was made of the countries from which these imports came. These government records show that of the total imports of approximately 260,000,000 feet during these five years (as quoted in the above mentioned letter), 225,824,677 feet of this film were imported from France, or over 86 per cent. The accompanying table shows the imports of this film for the four full war years : If all this film had been placed upon the market, it would represent only a mall proportion of the total film used in this country. It is, however, well known in motion picture film circles that practically all of the French film was imported and used by the maker and that it was not placed on the market. During the four full war years, only 18,993 012 feet came from countries other than France, and the large proportion of this came during the first year of the war. These imports from countries other than France represent practically all of the raw motion picture film that can be considered as being placed upon the market in this country. From July 1, 1915, to June 30, 1917, the amount of this film was negligible. These figures all bear out my original statement that "from the fall of 1914 to the fall of 1918, or even later, practically all foreign made motion picture film was kept out of the American market. No possible tariff could equal the embargo of the war conditions." It is stated in the above mentioned letter that no raw stock was imported from Germany during the war or during 1920. IMPORTS OF MOTION PICTURE FILM, SENSITIZED, UNEXPOSED July 1, 1914— June 30, 1915. . July 1, 1915— June 30, 1916. . July 1, 1916— June 30, 1917. . July 1, 1917— June 30, 1918. . From France 45,138,307 58,217,224 52,223,715 45,077,632 ft. From All Other Countries 16,264,005 ft. 273,564 70,360 2.385,083 Total Imports 61,402,312 58,490,788 52,294,075 47,462,715 Total 4 years 200,656,878 ft. 18,993.012 ft. 219,649,890 ft. Buffalo Newspaper Comes Out Strongly in Opposition to Censorsh ip of Screen THE BUFFALO TIMES, one of the leading dailies of New York State, has come out against censorship. In an editorial, entitled "Don't Rock the Boat," this newspaper says : It is estimated that there are 18,000 movie theatres in the United States, that 20,000,000 persons are spectators in these playhouses every day, and that the paid admissions amounted to $4,000,000 every twentv-four hours. The common-sense conclusion to be drawn from that is that so vast an industry cannot be upset without serious consequences to the business structure in general. Yet there is a rather extensive contingent of boatrockers who are busying themselves rocking the moving picture boat. The film business is being harassed by official censors and self-appointed moralists. It is being hounded by would-be exemplars of good taste, and by some who fancy they know more about the silent drama than those who are making a life career of it do. "Don't rock the boat" is quite as applicable to the movie boat as to any other kind. It is more so than it is to many, if the catastrophic possibilities of a wreck are in proportion to the size of the ship and to the number of the passengers it carries. Realart 's Novel Insert Elicits Congratulation Realart has been the recipient of many favorable comments anent the attractive sixteen-page insert carrying the announcement for its 1921-22 season, which , recently appeared in the issue dated August 27 of Moving Picture World. The front and back pages were made up with a background of Realart trademarks, while that of the centre pages was composed of hundreds of bona fide comments from exhibitors of Realart pictures, reprinted verbatim from the "What the Picture Did for Me" department of the Exhibitors' Herald. It is true that no film was imported from Germany in 1920, but if the 1921 figures are investigated, it is found that Germany be^an sending film into this country in February, 17,585 feet being ^ent during that month. Since February, 1921, the German film has been imported into this country at a rapidly in rea ing rate, until in June, 1921 (the last month for which statistics are available), Germany imported into the United States 7.422,300 feet of raw motion picture film, which last mentioned figure was over 40 per cent, of the entire importations of such film for that month. We have never stated that Belgian and English film imported into this country was not coated upon American made celluloid base. We stated that all German and French film is made upon German or French made celluloid. The government records for 1921 show that not one foot of Engli h raw motion picture film has been imported into this country between January 1 and Julv 1 of this year, whereas in 1920, 6.350.300 feet were imnorted. The government records also show that in February, 1921, 7,156,680 feet of raw motion picture film was imported from Belgium and in June, 1921, only 641,850 feet. These figures would indicate that German made film, coated upon German made celluloid, is driving out of the market the British and Belgian film. It is well known in the trade that a motion pi ture film manufacturer can produce his celluloid base cheaper than he can buy it outside; other things being equal, the manufacturer who buys his celluloid base cannot succssfullv compete with the manufacturer who makes his own base. Reference to the earnings of the Kodak Company is the favorite resort of all competitors who wish to attack the company; the competitor manufacturing cameras uses it; the competitor manufacturing roll film uses it; the competitor manufacturing photographic paper uses it; and the competitor interested in raw motion picture film uses it. Each one assumes that the earnings are derived from the particular line in which he is interested. One might infer from the above mentioned letter of Mr. Cromelin's that the earnings of the Kodak Company were derived entirely from the sale of motion picture film. Such an inference is, of course, erroneous, as this company manufactures and markets a large number of products other than motion picture film, such as cameras, photographic paper, portrait film, dry plates, sundry photographic materials and supplies for the professional and commercial photographer, and Kodaks, Kodak film, photographic paper and supplies for the amateur photographer, of whom there are millions in this country. I trust that you will see fit to publish this letter so that complete information on the questions raised in the above mentioned letter will be given to all those interested. GEORGE EASTMAN