Visual Education (Jan-Dec 1921)

'Why" Change Motion Picture Standards 11 stroyed and large sums of money lost, cannot be compared with introducing and exhibiting a few reels of film in a school room. The film may be debarred from the school entirely and commercial film exchange fires will result just the same. During the five years that I have been associated with the distribution of film I have yet to be informed of the school or other nontheatrical institution or organization which had a film fire hazard resulting from projecting pictures. During my period in charge of visual education in the U. S. Bureau of Education, eight reels of film were destroyed by fire — from which no danger resulted — in circulating eight million feet for a period of two years. Pour reels were destroyed while in projection machines and four on an auto truck equipped with motion picture apparatus. Films are carried by the Government through the mails. The Interstate Commerce Commission in its rulings does not consider films dangerous when properly handled and when carried in proper containers. The film remains in the same container when brought into the school room as when it was passing through the mails. The projecting of standard film in fire proof standard machines is sometimes questioned, not on account of dangers of fire, but panic effects resulting from the sight of smoke or a flare of flame. Non-inflammable film may cause practically the same effect. Such incidents may occur occasionally when fire shutters fail to operate, but pass by unnoticed in the former case as well as in the latter. The danger is real only in imagination of those who will misrepresent such conditions, and not in actual experience. CONSISTENT LAWS GOVERNING THE USE OE FILMS Present laws are inconsistent with present developments. They were made in the early days of the film when the educational value was unknown and were therefore drawn up to apply to theatrical use and the primitive ways in which it was handled and projected. The laws governing the use of the film should be modified in accordance with the manner in which it is now handled and the apparatus introduced to meet the requirements of safety. As to the question of making laws in connection with the use of noninflammable film, there is no advantage in deciding upon the narrow width film. It is just as possible to print narrow width film on inflammable stock as it is to print standard film intended for non-theatrical use on inflammable stock. A law prohibiting schools from using and companies from renting inflammable film for educational purposes would be just as forceful as a law prohibiting the making of narrow width film on inflammable stock. The argument that inflammable film is now mostly in standard size is certainly in favor of narrow width, but, in case the law was violated in either of the above mentioned regulations, the standard film would still be preferable, for the standard machine has protection and guards against fire while the cinema safety machine has no fire protection whatsoever. Inasmuch as there is no way to distinguish between inflammable and non-inflammable film by mere observation, a law requiring film manufacturers to mark standard film "non-inflammable for educational use," the same as for cinema safety would enable educational institutions and organizations to distinguish between edu