The Moving picture world (May 1922)

422 MOVING PICTURE WORLD May 27, 1922 PROJECTION 2^) F.H.RICHARDSON In New England ]\Iav First to Fourth I was in Boston, Home of THE BEAN and Hub of The Universe, attending the annual spring meeting of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. In the little spare time at my disposal I visited a few of the Boston (if you are a native you call it Baws tun) photoplay theatres and met a few of "the boys." I also called upon John H. Plunkett, Chief of Inspection. Department of Public Safety, than whom I know of no more courteous gentleman. I have faith to believe that he will at least condone, if not quite forgive the very sharp criticism I feel obliged to make concerning certain matters hereafter spoken of. I would greatly regret ofTending Mr. Plunkett, because I hold him to be an entirely honest public official, whose only fault is that the law forces him to undertake the handling of things with which in the very nature of things he cannot have that first hand knowledge and familiarity necessary to the exercise of correct judgment. But \vhether I offend or not, the situation is such that I shall speak very plainly, because unnecessary hardship is imposed upon every projectionist in the state and, in addition, the value of what thousands upon thousands of the citizens of the state daily buy is automatically lowered by conditions of which I will describe. I had intended to interview Colonel Foote, Commissioner of Public Safety, but after a long cliat with Mr. Plunkett I called that end of it off, for the reason that if I was -unable to seriously impress Mr. Plunkett, who has at least some knowledge of projection practice — though not actual practical experience therein — what hope could I have of impressing Colonel Foote, who presumably knows nothing at all about it and its problems. What The Trouble Is .\ik1 now I grab the hammer. Massachusetts law and rule makers have done and are doing some very non-understandable things. They have passed laws and made rules which are, in my opinion, as senseless as they are useless. I hey have gone to an utterly unnecessary and entirely foolish extreme in one direction in the endeavor to reduce the fire hazard, and in so doing have set up another and far more dangerous condition ; also in the attempt to conserve public safety (fire hazard) they have gone to an extreme in one direction and have made the entire effort largely abortive by neglect in another direction. I talked with Mr. Plunkett at some length with regard to these matters, but apparently without making any serious impression. I attribue this to the fact that men are, from the lowest to the highest grade, largely creatures of habit, and the official "habit" in Massachusetts is to regard the projection room problem as one purely of fire hazard, and that the hazard is to be controlled by one process and one only. The Situation Here is the situation: First and foremost, Massachusetts law is full of rather absurd errors as regards nomenclature. The law sets up the word "Booth," recognizing its inadequacy and absurdity by giving a precise definition of the word as used in that state. May I respectfully refer Colonel Foote and Mr. Plunkett to that good old book "Webster" for a definition of Booth? But. for their information, let me say that, regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the term, the psychology of its use is to sug Notice to All PRESSURE on our columns is such that published replies to questions cannot be guaranteed under two or three weeks. If quick action is desired remit four cents, stamps, and we will send carbon copy of department reply as soon as written. For special replies by mail on matter which, for any reason, cannot be replied to through our department remit one dollar. THE LENS CHART Are YoH Working by "Guess" or Do You Employ Up-to-Date Methods? You demand that your employer keep his equipment in good order and up to date. He owes it both to himself and to you to do so, but you owe it to him to keep abreast with the times in knowledge and in your methods. The lens chart (two in one, 11x17 inches, on heavy paper for framing) is in successful use by hundreds of progressive projectionists. "Don't guess." Do your work RIGHT. Price, fifty cents, stamps. Address Moving Picture World, either .")1G Fifth Avenue, New York City, or 28 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 111. geit to the exhibitor a small, cramped "cubby hole," instead of a decent, spacious projection room. The use of the term Booth is therefore not only unfortunate, but distinctly BAD. It has an injurious effect upon every man, woman and child who patronize motion picture theatres in Massachusetts, because it makes for lowered standard of screen results. Of course you may dispute this. You may also dispute the fact that you feel pain when you have a broken leg, but the pain is there just the same and the disputation makes no difference at all. Projection room is the term, gentlemen. It suggests to the mind of the exhibitor and architect an honest-to-God room, which means hence better value for the money your people are paying in at box offices. Another Matter The, too, you dub the projectionist an "Operator," for which you have some legitimate excuse, because there was a time when the term properly applied, and the giving of the man who reproduces photoplays for the amusement and instruction of your citizens a new and distinctive title is a comparatively recent action. But, gentlemen, Massachusetts is looked upon as a leader among states. She therefore should not only keep up with the procession, but should be in its front rank. The man who projects motion pictures professionally is now termed a motion picture PROJECTIONIST. The only possible legitimate ground you can liave for failure to already have adopted the title is that you dislike to make changes, but that is a rather poor excuse. It is just a while back that Massachusetts gravely declared perfectly harmless and innocent people to be witches, and took their very lives for it. You do not do that now. You changed, which is pretty good evidence that even Massachusetts thinks changes are sometimes good. Well, make one now. Declaring that the man who reproduces photoplays is merely the operator of a mechanism — a machine, is bad, and it works out badly. It operates to cheapen and lower projection, hence to lower the grade of screen results, which is exactly what your people purchase when they buy a motion picture theatre ticket. And that photoplays are not reproduced as they should be I saw ample evidence while in ^lassachusetts. And now another matter. Massachusetts law places projection rooms, projection and everything allied therewith under the Department of Safety, and the department, in turn, places projection rooms and projectionists directly under the supervision of "Inspectors," whom I am informed have arbitrary power and issue orders which the projectionist must obey, no matter how unreasonable, under pain of serious trouble. I quote from page II of that part of the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety Laws, Rules and Regulations, having to do with motion picture projection rooms. " 'Inspector,' A building inspector of the Department of Public Safety." Umph! PROJECTION PLACED AT THE ABSOLUTE MERCY OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR! Can you beat that? The reproduction of a photoplay costing perhaps a million dollars at the mercy of a man who, no matter how excellent a building inspector he may be, probably knows nothing about practical projection. Following this lead it is to be presumed that Massachusetts places the inspection of steam boilers in the hands of a good carpenter or brick layer, though perhaps an electrician is given full authority over them. There would be exactly as much sense in that as there is in placing a building inspector in full authority over projection rooms. And let me tell you that these building inspectors have not acted with even ordinary good judgment and comon sense in the matter of making things safe, either from the fire hazard standpoint or in the matter of eye strain, which latter is by far the more serious matter of the two, as matters stand today. Let Us Vieiv the Situation And now let us examine into matters. In your projection room (dubbed "booths" by the department of public safety, and for the most part really just that, at least insofar as concerns the matter of size) the law demands, and your building inspectors have enforced a 6x12 inch observation port, which is not even called by its proper name. This harmful and purely foolish law declares that the port must be twelve inches high by six inches wide, though it was told me that the building inspectors had, as a great concession, conceded that it might be twelve inches wide by six inches high. Oh joy! Just who first conceived so monstrous and utterly absurd a law the good Lord only knows. What I am interested in is why men of good sound sense like Mr. Plunkett (I also am told that Colonel Foote is a very capable man) allow it to be retained, though I think it is very largely the fault of Massachusetts projectionists themselves. When I protested Mr. Plunkett replied to the effect that surely there could be nothing wrong with the observation port dimensions because the "Operators" had uttered no protest, although they had had many other matters up with him, to which argument it was. of course, difficult to reply. Just why Boston and Massachusetts projectionists submit to so hampering a restriction as being compelled to squint through a sort of enlarged knot hole, without making the slight