Screenland (Oct 1923-Mar 1924)

Says Frederick James Smith against the so-called art, a thousand voices are raised in wrath. Time will wea the edge off Mr. Lane's indignation. As far as we're concerned, the screen can go right on eating with its knife. young players. In other words, we need a new order of things in the world of celluloidia. Why Hasnt the Screen a McGraw? | PEAKING of books, reminds us that no one has yet written a story of their career in the movies to compare in honesty and completeness with John J. McGraw's My Thirty Years in Baseball. Here is an absorbing and honest tale, studded with inside stories of boners and dumb-bell slips, along with the flashes of baseball diamond brilliance that go to make the national game. No one connected with the screen has written with such frankness and freshness. The only celluloid author to come anywhere near admitting a boner is Sam Goldwyn — when he relates of the signing of Mary Garden. The First Film Biography ¥ Following the death of President Warren G. Harding, a compilation of all motion pictures ever taken of the late executive was made. This has been rounded into a "film biography"— the first of its kind ever made — and it is to be loaned to churches and social organizations for special exhibition. This presents a new angle upon the function of the motion picture and again raises the question: why isn't there a national museum for our valuable films, many of them of rare historical interest? Aren't we going to save them? Imagine the present day value of a motion picture glimpse of Washington at Valley Forge or Lincoln giving the Gettysburg Address. Something ought to be done about it. The Movie /\ S this issue of Screen Panic LAND goes t0 press' A )\ movieland is in the throes of a general shutdown. The Famous Players-Lasky Corporation has announced a complete termination of activities for the present and other big organizations are intimating that they will follow. And they put the panic up to over-production and the high salaries of players. Somehow we can't resist a smile at this. Both these causes, if they are the actual ones, are the result of the stupidity and cupidity of the magnates themselves. With their usual followthe-leader attitude, the producers decide that costume pictures are the thing and they all begin producing them at the same time. Thus an "over production" of the romantic film develops. Rather than train and develop young players, the producers take the easiest course and seek well known actors for their casts. One manager bids against another manager — and the actor's salary climbs upward. The shut-down may bring a remedy. Naturally, it will force down the salaries of the minor players. A campaign of starvation will always do that against an unorganized body. But it will not get at the root of the problem. The evil goes higher. We need producers who think for themselves. We need producers who do not let second rate directors spend fortunes in making a picture. We need producers who will develop Theater Managers and their Scissors Ac depic CURIOUS custom has developed in our motion picture theaters, particularly those of the larger cities. Here the exhibitors offer elaborate programmes ranging from symphonic music to ballets. Frequently the feature picture does not fit easily into this program, particularly as to running length. Sometimes the exhibitor has ideas of his own as to what he likes and does not like in the feature. In either case he doesn't hesitate to cut the film to suit himself. We look upon this latitude accorded the house manager as a downright menace to better screenplays. What right has the exhibitor to butcher a finished product upon which one or more experts are staking their name and reputation? We hope that stars and companies with power will make a definite stand on this question and take the menacing scissors away from the exhibitor. The Reading of Subtitles Aloud I ^HE reading aloud of motion picture captions has become a crime — at least in Philadelphia. There a male spectator was arrested the other day for reading the titles of a feature picture in a loud voice taken before a magistrate and fined $13.50. We don't know just how the magistrate arrived at this exact fine. Perhaps it was a Griffith picture. Now, if some one will begin arresting the people who lunge to their feet and begin climbing out of the theater in the midst of the big scene, we'll be satisfied. Screen Rights to [ UST what rights have the Sporting Events II news reel? since Prize fisht QJ/ promoters began to speculate with the motion picture rights to their sporting events, the animated screen newspaper has been pushed further and further away from its old freedom to picture things of national interest. The recent Zev-Papyrus race was a case in point. The promoters sold the exclusive rights to photograph this race to Pathe for a sum ranging around $50,000. Three other firms decided to catch what they could of the event anyway. Cameras, fitted with telephoto lenses, were placed in houses overlooking the track, camera nests were built in handy trees and airplanes were secured to film the event from the sky. Disguised photographers smuggled cameras into the race grounds. Of course, the purchasers of the exclusive rights realized this — and did everything in their power to prevent the pictures from being made. Guards combed the crowds for cameras. Huge mirrors were erected to dazzle the lenses of rival cameras and smoke screens were sent up to mask the event from sky photography. However, everyone seems to have managed to secure at least something of the race. The point we raise is beyond the zeal and ingenuity of the purchasers and non-purchasers. Is a public spectacle to be closed to all cameras save those of a person buying the rights? What if the promoters sold the exclusive newspaper rights to one periodical? Just how far is this to go? We're interested — because we believe the screen newspapers has its logical place in our theaters and such a newspaper can only exist if it has at least the measure of freedom accorded its older brother, the printed sheet. 17