Reel Life (Sep 1913 - Mar 1914)

©C1,B294609 AWEERLY MAGAZINE OF KINETIC DRAMA AND LITERATURE PUBLISHED BY MUTUAL riLM CORPORATION, NEW YORK Hew y^vk^ Jy^cmiibwi' 13, 1933 CLARENCE HERBERT NEW, Editor WM. H. PECKHAM, Business Manager MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION, Publishers, 71 West 23rd Street Five Cents the Copy Circulation This Week 25,000 $2.50 by the Year A One of our very good friends in the moving-picture industry recently expressed his belief that, inside of two years, every moving-picture exhibition in the United States and Canada would be a free entertainment — that the public would be admitted throughout each day and evening without the payment of any admission fee whatsoever. He stated that an almost unlimited number of big manufacturing and importing houses stood ready and waiting to pay from fifteen thousand to half a million dollars, annually, for the privilege of advertising their wares on the screens — and that it could be so well done — mixed in with the class of pictureplays we now have that it would pay both film manufacturers and exhibitors much better than the present lease system. In regard to the big advertisers, he spoke the truth. Such propositions are being made every day to the film manufacturers, and there is no question whatever that a larger income from the film could be made in that way — provided that public patronage of the moving-picture theatre remained and grew in the same proportion that to-day's conditions indicate. But this is just where the whole scheme exhibits a fatal weakness. The public patronage would not continue after theatre audiences found they were being exploited to increase the sales of big corporations. It is a fact which has been demonstrated over and over again — from century to century — that no human being appreciates or values that which he obtains for nothing. Even our Hebrew fellow-citizens who go further in that direction than any of the rest of us, balk at a certain point in the getting something for nothing. It doesn't look right. It's not human nature. There's a trick in it somewhere. Of course there is. And in this particular instance when an audience fairly understands that they are permitted to see two or three motion-plays of an evening at the price of sitting through a reel-advertisement of somebody's Don't wanta Biscuit — another reel devoted entirely to the excellence of Steinz's Food Products — and several other reels of Pataganian Cleanser — Gold Corkscrew Beer — and Lord Beaconsfteld cigars — it will be a very short time before it will be almost impossible to get a decent audience in any theatre at all. To-day, the poor man — of the masses — is coming nearer to obtaining the clean and decent amusement which is his just due, at a price he can well afford, than at any time in the world's history. The big advertisers are growling over the fact that he is obtaining altogether too much — that it is senseless waste to give him all that he is now getting without utilizing the unparalelled opportunity to coax his other pennies away through "big advertising." So far, the manufacturers have withstood the pressure upon them— the large majority — to make and put out advertising films. They have stood firm because — with the experience they've already had with the public — it looks like suicidal policy to attempt such a thing. Because, in several instances where it has been tried, the patrons of the theatres have protested against it by staying away. But the claim is being incessantly reiterated that motion-plays can be written in such ^^fe a way that the advertising will be scattered all through them so delicately no one will notice it. And this implies two antagonistic propositions. If the advertising in any motionpicture play is to have any pulling value, as advertising, it must be sufficiently evident to attract the spectator's attention to the article advertised. Otherwise it has practically no advertising value. And — if the spectator's attention becomes distracted even in a slight degree by the advertising element in any motionplay, he loses practically all of its attraction as a dramatic amusement. So that the whole proposition gets right down to this: Will theatre audiences go — night after night, day after day, as they are now doing — to see moving-picture advertisements? It's a pretty safe gamble that they will not — after they've once discovered how they are being fooled, and that won't take very long. For example. Paterfamilias comes home after a hard day's work — feels like relaxation. Wife and kiddies suggest the Movies. All right — what's playing, around the corner? Well — there's a prison-play — a rough-house comedy — a cowboy-Indian play — and the advertising reels. What! .... Only three plays, and a lot of advertising stuff? Punk! Let's go to the Hippodrome, or a good vaudeville show — or up to Terrace Garden, and dance the Tango — or around to Jones's, for a game of pinochle. Or— take another phase of the subject: Wlhat's showing at the Clinton, or the Princess, to-night? Well — there's a play with Mabel Normand _and "Falty" in it — and another, with Jack Richardson and Winnie Greenwood. Oh, yes — and a split-reel, with the Thanhouser Twins and Muriel Ostriche. Hm-m-m — that sounds pretty good — ^but, no — it isn't like what they used to be Last time I saw Mabel Normand, she was advertising the P. D. Q. Corset^ and "Fatty" was demonstrating a Weight Reducer. Jack Richardson was playing Boss in a Cigarette Factory — showing the whole process of making Cairo Gold-Tip Cigarettes. Thanhouser Twins have been advertising Brick Dust—z.nA. Muriel has been demonstrating how to apply Bavarian Violet Cream every night before retiring. What's the use! Let's go over to the Knickerbocker and see a. real play— with real acting. Two-fifty a seat? . . . Well, it's worth it.' There's the whole story. Is the entertainment worth iV— worth the admission price? Worth the trouble of going around the corner and getting a free seat. What is the size of the average Free Entertainment audience?