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.
The Observer
113
As a matter of fact, no reliable concern is producing such pictures at present, and most probably never will. The film industry has suffered greatly from the bad way in which it has been painted by people who have not bothered to investigate properly. This end should be left to the public that demands certain kinds of film and the manufacturers who make them.
The censorship problem has given the motion-picture industry considerable trouble, and it will probably give considerably more for a while, but we believe in time conditions will be adjusted, and, with a normal state of affairs at hand, the censor menace will become a thing of decidedly minor importance.
THE controversy between Charles Chaplin, comedian, and George K. Spoor, president of the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, has occupied the limelight for quite a spell, and probably will do so again in the near future, when the various lawsuits, et cetera, that the pair have filed against each other are called to trial. The trouble came when Essanay added two reels to ''Charlie Chaplin's Burlesque on Carmen" after the comedian had cut the film to two reels, which he considered proper length. Essanay, seeing larger profits if the film was released through V. I. S. E. as a four-reeler, added two more reels, much of which consisted of retake scenes. When the film was released, Chaplin immediately brought suit against Essanay, claiming that they had a contract with him which provided he should make nothing but two-reelers. Inasmuch as Chaplin had delivered to Essanay, and Essanay had released, a one-reeler during the summer, this so-called contract claim disappeared at once. Then Mr. Spoor proceeded to sue Mr. Chaplin for alleged breach of contract, saying he had loafed while in the employ of the Essanay Company, and had failed to produce as many pictures during the year as he had agreed to.
The entire affair may have been a neatly arranged press-agent stunt, but we doubt it, and granting that it was really founded on solid facts, it is decidedly regrettable that it occurred. Both men are far too prominent to be squabbling over such a matter, although we agree with Mr. Chaplin that Essanay should have put out his "Carmen" as a two-reeler if a good picture was the sole aim. His mistake, however, occurred when he stirred trouble after the film had been released as a four-reeler, for it was quite obvious that nothing could be done. The fewer affairs of this kind that happen in filmdom, the better it is for the good of the industry.
WE often wonder if the motion-picture-theatergoing public has no thought of the rules of etiquette. More than once we have witnessed acts in theaters by persons, whom we knew to be far above the average social standing, which fell little short of rowdyism. It is anything but pleasant to arrive at a neighborhood theater and be told that the next show will begin in five or ten minutes, that you will have to join the throng standing outside until then. But if every one keeps his temper and does all in his power to make the action one of gayety, the time will soon pass.
After getting inside the theater, there is a little thing we have often noticed 8
Chaplin vs.
Spoor
Politeness Pays
'