The Moving picture world (November 1922-December 1922)

842 MOVING PICTURE WORLD December 30. 1922 Looking Backward— and Forward By ROBERT VIGNOLA Director of Vignola Productions LOOKING back over the year just ended, I cannot help but feel prideful that I am a part of this tremendous influence known as the motion picture screen. Notwithstanding that we have been maligned by the yellow journals, dragged through the mire of vilification by certain ladies and gentlemen of constricted mentalities, and otherwise slammed, sloughed, and sledged, we have managed to keep our heads high, our hearts keen and progress. The large number of unusually fine pictures that the year 1922 has given to the world give ample attestation of the inevitability of the screen and of its destiny. It has proven that it is too big to be kept down, too deeply intrenched in the hearts of the public to be destroyed or even halted in its advancement, only so long as we give our best. The future of the motion picture ' business depends upon every man and woman who is a part of it, however small that part may be. Nothing can stop it as long as we continue to do our utmost to raise its standards, and we need have no fear of outside influences as long as we have our faith. When one considers the adversities we have had to overcome and the exceptional pictures that have been produced in the past year one cannot help but feel proud of the industry as a whole. The achievements of the past year having been so stupendous, the question naturally resolves itself : "How must farther can we MODIFICATION of the regulations surrounding the administration of the five per cent, film rental tax were sought on December 15 by Siegfred Hartman, representing the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, who appeared before a board composed of six assistant solicitors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to protest against the manner in which this tax was assessed frotn the time of its inception to its repeal on January 1, last. Double Taxation Mr, Hartman told the board that the methods followed by the bureau were, in efTect, double taxation, in that frequently the same film paid two or more rental taxes. He declared that it was not the intention of Congress to permit double taxation when the revenue laws were passed, nor, in ordinary instances, is it the policy of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to permit double taxation. In substantiation of this contention he pointed out that the bureau itself, in the case of many other commodities, has made decisions which would prevent double taxation. Under the regulations of the bureau the presumption -t any transaction be tween a or-' i a distributor for films is pri>" PSr exhibition, and that, T ^1° -ansactions are subject . w.th h.s .family s^an pointed out, howad gone straight and go?" This is difficult to answer. No one can foresee with any degree of accuracy what the future will bring in the way of screen development. But at the same time one would be narrow-visioned indeed to say that we have reached anything like perfection or that there isn't room, and much room at that, for improvement. If the growth of the past year is any basis of prognostication, the year 1923 should see some forward strides in the screen. Just what they will be is hard to say, but the standards will be raised, that's certain, and fine though the pictures of 1922 have been, I hope the pictures of 1923 will be even finer. This is an industry where progress means life. We cannot stand stjll and point to the past. We must keep moving forward, ever forward, if we are to achieve our destiny. Another thing which I hope the new year will bring is a basis of understanding between the producer, the distributor, and the exhibitor. It seems to me that the whole trouble is due to the fact that tiic other fellow's problems are not understood or appreciated. Lack of under standing or interest has built up a wall of suspicion and mistrust which is keeping these three elements of the industiy from getting together. This year I hope this wall will be dissipated and that this triumvirate will patch up all existing differences for the good of the entire industry. With the ills within the industry cured and with all the elements that compose it standing together shoulder to shoulder there is no reason why the coming year shouldn't see the antagonistic influences from without put to rout. Then and then only will the screen come into its own. ever, that in many instances this is not really the case. A producer may turn out a picture, he said, and sell it to some other company for distribution; that company in turn may make leases to other persons, and those other persons may be the ones who really place thelRilms in the theatres for exhibition. Under the regulations of the bureau the sale between the producer and the first distributor is taxed, and then subsequent contracts made by that distributor are also taxed. This same applies to the State rights method of distribution. It was urged that the regulations of the bureau should be so changed as to relieve from taxation the contracts made between a producer and a distributor where the distributor is not, in fact, the distributor who places the films in theatres for exhibition. The Board of Solicitors has taken the case under advisement and will make their decision known to Mr. Hartman and his principals within a few days. Kane Makes Appointments .Arthur S. Kane, president of Associated Exhibitors, made known this week the following recent appointments as sales representatives, reinforcing the staffs already at these branches: Milwaukee. Paul Lawler : Kansas City, J. C. McClure; Cleveland, R. E. Bishop; St. Louis, W. M. Light; Philadelphia. R. A. Burdge; Double "I", Harry H. I.asker : Minneapolis, A. E. Bernstein and Howard Carey ; Buffalo, R. B. Matson ; Milwaukee. H. A. Terry; Dallas. C. Berk. To Show Relativity Film Many Men of Science Will Attend Screening by Riesenfeld The news that Hugo Riesenfeld will give the premiere theatre presentation of the Einstein Theory of Relativity early next month at the Rivoli and Rialto is creating daily a great interest in scientific and educational circles. Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, has taken such an interest in the picture that it asked the chairman of its executive committee, William H. Baldwin, to secure il for presentation in that city. Mr. Baldwin, whose office is in New York, visited Nashville recently in the course of his activities, and found a great interest in the Einstein film manifested in the university, other educational institutions as well as among civic organizations, and was commissioned to secure the film. Many local institutions of learning and many of the most noted scientists and engineers of the East have expressed a great interest in Mr. Riesenfeld's venture, and have accepted his invitation to attend the special showing before its public premiere. The six associates of Prof. Einstein who were responsible for the production of the film are: Prof. S. F. Nicolai, Prof. H. W. Kornblum, Prof. C. Bueck, Prof. C. Santa, Prof. Rudolf Lammel and Dr. Herman Beck. Dr. Korblum lectured with the film at three performances in Berlin, there being no reading text in the production, the picture being used as a sort of gigantic, animated blackboard. Misleading Reissue Charged Federal Trade Commission Complains Against Signet Films The retitling of an old film and its distribution without adequate indication of the fact that it is not a new picture is made the basis of a complaint which has just beer issued by the Federal Trade Commission against Signet Films, Inc., of New York, The complaint alleges that some time in 1915, the Intermotion Film Corporation produced a photoplay entitled "The Decoy,' which was released through the Mutua! Film Exchange for a number of months and was widely distributed by that exchangt under that title. In 1920, the negative filff of this photoplay was purchased for the respondent by one Ness Nagem, at that timt secretary and treasurer of Signet Films, anc on or about November 1, 1920, it is chargec that _^Signet Films began the distribution ol positive prints of the photoplay to exhibitors throughout the several states under th< title of "The Faithless Sex" without dis closing to the exhibitors that the film was s reproduction and reissue of the old photoplay, "The Decoy." It is alleged that th( advertising which accompanied the film \\ a; worded and designed in a manner calcul,\tec to mislead the theatre-going public into thi belief that the photoplay was a new oi different photoplay. This, it is charged if the , complaint, was to the prejudice of th< public and of the respondent's competiiorf and constituted unfair methods of coni'irti tion under the Federal Trade Commi — ior act. The respondent has been given 30 dav^ it which to file with the Commission an an^wei in writing to the charges in the complaint Made Business Head Tn line with the redoubled efforts of Pvra mid Pictures, Inc., to excel in the field of in dependent producing. A, N. Smallwood an nonnces the appointment of William C ("Rilly") Hurst to the office of business man a.s;er of his organization. Modification of Five Per Cent. Tax Asked by M. P. P. D. A.