The Moving picture world (November 1924-December 1924)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

460 MOVING PICTURE WORLD November 29, 1924 Bluebook School Answers 133-137 Gosh ! This lot of questions seems to have made about all the old timers nervous. They took to cover, but it did bring a number of answers from men who have not previously sent acceptable replies. Yet this list is a really very important one, from which I had hoped and expected to get some perhaps very informative replies from those who have worked so faithfully on about all the previous questions. It is probable the nature of the questions caused them to "dig themselves in" temporarily. The questions are, however, of HUGE importance. They were intended and designed to bring home to you the foolishness of making little or no persistent, consistent, prolonged effort to IMPRESS THE EXHIBITOR AND THEATRE MANAGER WITH THE FACT THAT REAL, EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE IS NECESSARY TO EFFICIENT WORK IN THE PROJECTION ROOM AND TO THE PROJECTION OF A REALLY HIGH GRADE PICTURE, and that YOU HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. It matters not how much knowledge and high grade skill may be required, or how much of it you may have, if the exhibitor and theatre manager be not impressed with the necessity for that knowledge, and with the fact that you have and are applying it, verv naturally it don't count for much of anything IN THE PAY ENVELOPE, or in securing for you the respect of those over you. Question No. 133— Do you make any real, persistent effort to impress upon your manager the fact that there are real problems involved in projection, and that you have an adequate understanding of them? This question is very long. See page 345, September 27 issue, for the rest of it. Of the familiar names, only those of Harry Dobson, Toronto, Ont., and A. F. Fell, Collingswood, N. J., show up with answers to this one. However, C. L. Dutton Mobile, Ala.; Thomas Sinclair, St. Louis, Mo.; W. D Woods, Los Angeles, Calif., and T. M. Robinson, Butte, Mont., all have creditable answers. Friend Woods' reply seems to be best, but first I shall print that of Dobson, which says a lot in a few words: This is a rather peculiar question to answer because there are Projection!^ and operators, exactly the same as there are managers and others who call themselves that bur who should prefix the "Manager ' with a "Mis." My personal opinion is that the average theatre manager, and even some mis-manJ££, a™ willing to listen to any argument th^ proa;ecUonistg cares to advance always provided he thinks the prJjecttoutst KNOWb \VH\T HE IS TALKING ABOUT. (Right the"e in the last half of that "entence Brother Dobson hit a g-r-e-a-t B-I-O nail a wallop on its head with a S-r-e-a-t B^l u spike maul—Ed.) I have never yet been fired from any position 1 have held and that covers nearly nineteen years; also 1 have never experienced any large amount ot trouble in getting any needed supplies. I make it a habit— some say it is a good one and some a bad one-of talking to the manager about the whole, show g.y.ng h.m mv opinion about things in general. wne" Tarn in need of new parts, or suppl.es of mv sort I go to him and show him why 1 need these Things, explaining, if necessary The improvement the desired parts or ^ supplies will make, or the damage the.r lack will work f£ instance: When Cinephor conTensers first came out I talked with my man ager about them. Then, being convinced they were what we needed and that their installation would show real results (If a man has not sufficient confidence in a thing himself to "take a chance" on it, by what right could he advise the manager to do it — not that I would recommend this stunt as any general practice? — Ed.) I bought a set myself, installed it and tried it out. I then showed the manager what an improvement it worked, whereupon he immediately instructed me to instal them on both projectors. (And next time such a thing comes up he will naturally have increased respect for your recommendation. — Ed.) I believe every man should make it a practice to explain to the boss just WHY things are needed, and show and prove to him that you do know what is best. Once get that latter idea driven home and you won't have so much trouble getting the recognition due the projectionist of real ability, BUT remember this: you can't come on the Job five minutes before the show is due to open, squirt some oil on the projector mechanisms in a general sort of way, SLAM a show through them just any old way, slam the reels into their cases, also any old way, toddle home, and expect the manager to regard you as a real, honest-to-grandma PROJECTIONIST! Read and PONDER that reply. Friend Woods says (And here is where you get a genuine surprise alrighty right) : I am not a projectionist, but one of the apparently not very well loved Manager class. I've been interested In your Bluebook school, because in my humble opinion it is exactly what the projectionist and the operator (Yes, I agree with you that there are both) needs, and needs rather badly. It struck me that this question is one upon which an expression from the manager's viewpoint might be both welcome and valuable, so here it is. I have been occupying managerial positions for fourteen years, both in large and small houses— one a very fine one indeed. Just now 1 am resting, due to a severe nervous breakdown. 1 hope to resume work within a month. Answering the first part of question No. 133, I will say that in all my experience I have never yet had any machine operator make any sort of effort to impress me with 1he idea that there is ANY problem connected with projection except how much money they can get and how little work is necessary in order to get it. Now mind you that is NOT said nastily at all, but merely as a plain statement of fact. 1 have never even had a projectionist try to impress me with the fact that real problems calling for accurate knowledge exist in projection. On the other hand I have had both operators and projectionists sneer when I have suggested that they read your department and get a handbook, though not all of them do that by any means, and 1 think the number who" respect you and the work you are doing is rapidly increasing. I can honestly say that in most cases when 1 have sought the advice of the "operator' ,.n screen surfaces, and even upon projection room equipment, he has INVARIABLY impressed me with the idea that he knew next to nothing at all about the theoretical side of such matters, and even the projectionist has not measured up very well with a few shining examples, in sucli tests. As a manager, you will readily understand that I am not given to wasting time discussing things with an employee unless I feel that the employee understands them himself On the other hand, on two occasions I have had real projectionists— men of real ability who took a real interest in their work and tried hard to give real service— and I have found that these men INSISIEU in interviewing me with relation to such things as they deemed of importance to their work. . I found that, when I was convinced that they reallv did understand their business and take a REAL interest in trying to deliver the goods, I thereafter did seek their advice with relation to all projection matters and their views had lots of weight with me 1 onlv turned Sown their recommenda tions when there was some very valid reason for It, and I made it a point to explain to them just what that reason was. In closing, Mr. Richardson, I want to apologize for thus intruding, and to assure you that, in my opinion, you are absolutely correct in your views that the projectionist CAN get adequate recognition from theatre managers, as a whole, if they go about It in the right way. and that the right way is to put some energy, both mental and physical, into their work, making adequate effort to impress the manager with the fact that there are real problems in projection which have an immediate connection with the box office receipts, and that THEY UNDERSTAND AND ARE ABLE TO DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH THOSE PROBLEMS. There, gentlemen I There is the viewpoint of the Manager, or of one manager, anyhow. Read it over and see where you can pick ANY holes in its argument. Friend Woods need offer no apology. Such letters are very welcome indeed to me, and I am sure they will be welcomed by all readers of this department. Question No. 134 — Do you think projection and the projecticnist can ever be elevated to * real plane of importance without a consistent, prolonged effort, such as is hinted at in Question No. 133? All the above, except Woods, replied to this one creditably, also J. K. Albertson, Providence, R. I. Sinclair says: Just so long as the men make no effort to compel respect to and for their profession by convincing the exhibitor and theatre manager that it IS in the nature of a profession by reason of real skill and concrete knowledge requirements, AND that THEY, as a body, HAVE that knowledge and skill, how can We expect advancement to a high plane, or to any remuneration beyond what a labor organization is able to FORCE from the exhibitor? The exhibitor as a class, like every one else in this world, respects real skill and ability. Like every one else, while he admits that mere labor (pick and shovel) Is very "honorable " still he seriously objects to paying very much for it, nor does he do much raving over its standing in the affairs of men. . In other words, in order to reach a really high plane we, as a whole, must convince the motion picture industry, as a whole, that we are worthy of it, and the best way is to convince the exhibitor and manager by exactly the process outlined in your question No. 133. Once they are convinced, the rest just naturally follows. Which same is quite some answer. Question No. 135— Do you see any incongruity in a thirty-to-fifty-dollar-a-week man placed in charge of the reproduction of the work of a many thousand-dollar-a-week "star" on the screen, when just how great a value his or her work will have with audiences depends to a large extent upon the knowledge and skill the projectionist is able to, and does apply to his work? All named as replying to Question 133 and 134, except Woods and Fell made very good replies to this one. I have concluded to publish the reply of brother Dutton, who says : There certainly is incongruity in such a situation, and plenty of it. The thing may be best discussed. It seems to me, by dealing with the facts as' they exist today. The Idea has. through many years of error, become fixed in the exhibitors' and managers' minds that what it needed in the theatre projection room is merely an ordinary "mechanic" capable of adjusting and acting as attendant to the machines. It was only after Richardson appeared upon the scene that anything beyond that was deemed to be either necessary or desirable. The manager, who himself, usually is merely a business man of << OIllilllllMl <>■■ IM1RC ■!«-»