# VI. Onésime et Son Collègue

## Competition (1910-1914)

In 1910, Jean Desmet faced competition from three other large distributors who had all become professionals and who, like himself, owned release cinemas in Amsterdam. Pathé had first claim on their own productions, and after 1910-12, when he was buying his programmes in Germany, Desmet was able to obtain only their newsreels, the Pathé-Journals, which were available on the open market. Nöggerath specialised in Italian epics such as *QUO VADIS?* and *THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII* but also offered a bit of everything. Gildemeijer became the main importer and distributor of German films and secured exclusive rights on all Asta Nielsen films. Around 1913, they were joined by Wilhelmina, who released German and Italian films. This had the effect of narrowing down the selection of films available to Desmet. Nonetheless, he was now part of the Dutch film distribution establishment. In 1911/12, he made his mark with Danish films and in 1913/14 he brought out long German feature films.

Even before the introduction of exclusive films, Desmet and the other Amsterdam distributors were monopolising the first-week runs of programmes. The first-week system set the pattern for the other less powerful cinema operators who wanted to acquire the films after them. By locating their de luxe theatres in smart shopping streets, and by virtue of their dual function as owners and distributors, Desmet and his associates made the other cinema owners dependent on their little group. They became the trendsetters of Dutch film culture. However, this situation made it difficult for Desmet to increase his profits by releasing his films in other de luxe Amsterdam cinemas, which was one reason why he took over the elegant Cinema De La Monnaie through his NV Middenstad company in 1914.

These cinema operators consolidated their position through the establishment of trade journals, in which they set out their stall as professionals, and drew a line between themselves and those who were merely dabbling in the business by holding sample viewings for potential clients and issuing demands for regulation. Despite this consolidation, owners and distributors competed ruthlessly among themselves. Calls for the regulation of cinemas were also being raised in other quarters, though here the motives were educational, moral, religious and legal.
## I. Gildemeijer versus Desmet. The Tug-of-War for Asta Nielsen

Up to 1912, Desmet had three powerful rivals in Dutch film distribution in Gildemeijer, Pathé and Nöggerath. Between 1911 and 1912, Johan Gildemeijer (Fig. 41) became a major importer and distributor of films, with a particular focus on German films, which he premiered at the 'Elite Bioscoop Union' (opened 4 March 1911).¹ Gildemeijer worked in tandem with Siegfried Levy who ran the Union theatre. Gildemeijer's distribution office was called Union, in line with the motion-picture theatre and the German parent company.² It seems that in 1911 Gildemeijer's own supplies of movies were not yet sufficient to keep the screens of the Union and those of his clients busy on a regular weekly basis, for between November 1911 and January 1912 he was ordering seven or eight titles a week from Desmet: enough for a whole programme. His discontinuation of these orders after January suggests that he had enough films of his own by then to offer a serious challenge to Desmet. Moreover, Desmet's rentals to Gildemeijer are evened out somewhat by Gildemeijer's rentals to him in November of 1911.³ Gildemeijer could offer weekly deliveries of between 1,200 and 1,500 metres of films. His films were also supplied with Dutch titles, something Desmet was still unable to offer in

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 41. Johan Gildemeijer</figcaption></figure>
1911. Gildemeijer had films from foreign production companies such as Lux, Gaumont, American Biograph, Vitagraph and Éclair, which had played for between one and four weeks. In the years 1911 and 1912, this meant that part of Gildemeijer's supply of films was 'fresher' than Desmet's, whose German imports had already played for at least three weeks in Germany.

Desmet himself rented the films of the companies just mentioned, so it is unlikely that he took many of them from Gildemeijer. A more significant matter was that Gildemeijer was at this same time offering all the latest Asta Nielsen movies, which had run for at least three weeks at other cinemas, such as the Union Bioscoop.⁴ Gildemeijer set himself up as the owner of the sole rights on the films of the new star. Following the release of her first two films *AFGRUNDEN* and *HEISSES BLUT* (Colour Plate 5), the Danish actress was still not the celebrity in the Netherlands that she was in other European countries. This is evident from Gildemeijer's words in *Koningin Kino* of 1914, in which he looks back to his first visit to *AFGRUNDEN*:

> I still remember vividly how one evening I was sitting through a cinema performance at the Grand Théâtre, feeling fairly disinterested until the beginning of 'Af-grunden'. My attention was seized instantly by this young woman's acting. [...] The look of desperation on her face when she recovers consciousness, but above all her departure from the scene of the catastrophe, was gripping, deeply tragic, a revelation. It was art. [...] This closing scene of 'Afgrunden', unsupported by the spoken word, with such restrained gestures, sometimes just a single glance of her huge, soulful eyes; the incomparable way Asta Nielsen does these things. It's a divine gift!⁵

Although Gildemeijer was clearly smitten instantly by Asta Nielsen, the Dutch press took a little longer to make up its mind. It was not until the autumn of 1911, when he released his own first Nielsen movie, the Danish production *DEN SORTE DRØM* (THE BLACK DREAM*, Fotorama 1911), that the *Algemeen Handelsblad* promptly published a substantial article on the acting in the movie that culminated in an eulogy of Asta Nielsen:

> We were taught something about this new territory – is it theatre, art, science, entertainment, reality? – by the dazzling debut of a star of cinematography. [...] The highly refined mimetic talents of this artist moved her into the realm of cinematic art, where her expressive acting and facial expressions were so deeply impressive, that this is clearly a medium in which she can develop her talents to the full and without constraint. For the creation of such moods in a photographic record, unsupported by a single spoken word, and removed from tangible reality in a world without colour surely calls for very special gifts.⁶
We may, of course, ask how much Gildemeijer himself contributed to the text of this seductive article. The press's concentration on the qualities of the star rather than those of the film was free publicity for the next films in his series. As noted earlier, the relationship between film description and film review was still fairly close in the early years of cinema, so that within this frame, Gildemeijer's 'discovery' of Nielsen may be seen as an extension of his own self-promoting activities.

Desmet did not succumb to Gildemeijer's offer of all the Asta Nielsen films.⁷ However, he did rent DEN SORTE DRØM from the German Union company via Gildemeijer in late November 1911, and he may well have been influenced to do so by the laudatory press reviews. Union, which was originally just a cinema chain, was the producer of Nielsen's German films. The initial producer was Deutsche Bioscop, but they were quickly replaced by Union's own production division, Produktions Aktiengesellschaft Union (PAGU). In setting up a new distribution company, Union also acquired the distribution rights for DEN SORTE DRØM.

The renting of DEN SORTE DRØM remained an isolated episode. Desmet was more interested in buying Asta Nielsen films than renting them from others. This is evident from his renting and purchase of these films before November 1911. We have already mentioned Desmet's periodic re-renting of AFGRUNDEN. On the other hand, he actually bought the Nielsen movie HEISSES BLUT and rented it regularly and profitably. Desmet was able to buy and rent this film in 1911 because, regardless of Gildemeijer's claims, Asta Nielsen's first German films were available on the free market. What seems most likely is that Gildemeijer only acquired sole rights on Nielsen films when Nielsen and her director Urban Gad signed an exclusive contract with PAGU director Paul Davidson. Nielsen and Gad committed themselves to producing an annual minimum of eight films for PAGU in the years 1912, 1913 and 1914, in return for a third of the profits. The films were distributed worldwide by Internationale Vertriebsgesellschaft, a company created by the three parties to the deal.⁸ As Union's representative for the Netherlands, Gildemeijer had little problem in acquiring the sole rights for Asta Nielsen pictures.⁹

In the light of Gildemeijer's claim, it seems odd that Desmet was still able to purchase Nielsen films after the summer of 1911. When Desmet's assistant Heinrich Voltmann visited Berlin in December 1911 to view and buy films from German and foreign companies, one of his tasks was to acquire Asta Nielsen films.¹⁰ In Berlin Voltmann failed to obtain three films that had already been bought by Gildemeijer, but he did manage to acquire a copy of DER FREMDE VOGEL from what his letters call 'the film factory', meaning Deutsche Bioscop. Desmet had initially been offered a guarantee that he would be able to obtain all the titles that Union also wished to buy; indeed,
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 42. *Die Verräterin* (Deutsche Bioscop 1911) – the French marchioness dresses up in vain for the German officer</figcaption></figure>

he could even receive them fourteen days ahead of their German release. So how solid was Gildemeijer's claim? Voltmann joked that Desmet ought to hire these films on to the Amsterdam Union cinema under false titles, so they would be in for a bit of shock when their own copies turned up. Desmet was not amused.

The preparation of Desmet's copy of DER FREMDE VOGEL was taking so long that Voltmann suggested he take the Asta Nielsen picture DIE VERRÄTERIN (THE TRAITRESS*, Deutsche Bioscop 1911) as a replacement (Fig. 42). But Desmet wanted what he had asked for, and told Voltmann that if necessary he would bring in a lawyer. To crown matters, it seems that something had gone wrong with the prints of DIE VERRÄTERIN and, in the event, Voltmann did actually come back with DER FREMDE VOGEL. In a full-page advertisement of his entire stock in De Komeet of December 1911, Desmet announced that 'Der Fremde Vogel from the Asta Nielsen series no. 1, the first copy in the Netherlands, may be viewed by anyone interested from Saturday 30 December 1911 to Friday 5 January 1912 at the Apollo Theater, Spuistraat, The Hague.'¹¹
Deutsche Bioscop also offered Desmet older Nielsen movies.¹² NACHTFALTER (MOTHS*) and HEISSES BLUT, both made in 1911, were sent to him on approval in May 1913, but he returned them a month later as he already owned copies. In the absence of other evidence, we must rely on Desmet's own statements concerning NACHTFALTER, Asta Nielsen's first German film. In May 1913, he tried to obtain AFGRUNDEN from Deutsche Bioscop, but it was available only via the United States on payment of 1,000 marks.

When Desmet had the audacity to re-release DER FREMDE VOGEL under the title *The Death of Asta Nielsen*, Gildemeijer had the film seized for infringement of his sole rights on Nielsen movies during a performance at Desmet's Cinema Palace.¹³ Desmet then tried to get hold of a new copy from Deutsche Bioscop, but they had officially sold the film to the Union company in Germany, so it was no longer available to him. He then at least bought a copy of DIE VERRÄTERIN from Deutsche Bioscop, the film he had turned down two years previously. Unlike the other Asta Nielsen films that Desmet purchased, the copy of DIE VERRÄTERIN is still in the Desmet Collection.¹⁴ It is unclear to what extent Deutsche Bioscop was still authorised in 1913 to sell Nielsen movies such as DIE VERRÄTERIN, HEISSES BLUT and NACHTFALTER, all of which dated from 1911. The affair of the seizure of DER FREMDE VOGEL quickly fizzyed out, for Gildemeijer published a statement in *De Kinematograaf* of 25 July 1913 to the effect that Cinema Palace had not violated the rights of his NV Union company.¹⁵ Desmet seems to have retrieved his copy from Gildemeijer, for in March 1914 he sold *The Death of Asta Nielsen* to N.J. Bakker.¹⁶

Union failed to buy up the Danish Nielsen movie BALLETDANSERINDEN because the producers, Nordisk, were sticking stubbornly to the free market and refused to become involved in Union's exclusive system.¹⁷ Desmet probably acquired it directly from Nordisk, and it was screened in January 1913 at the Cinema Parisien in Rotterdam. Like DER FREMDE VOGEL, Desmet's print of BALLETDANSERINDEN probably ended up in the Dutch East Indies, for Desmet sold it to the film dealer, Neumann, in the same year that he bought it.¹⁸

## 2. Desmet versus Pathé. Competitor and Client

During the first two years of his career in distribution, Desmet competed against the Dutch branch of Pathé with Pathé's own films. Taking his films from Westdeutsche Film Börse and Deutsche Film Gesellschaft, Desmet managed to release scores of Pathé pictures in the Netherlands between 1910 and 1912, none of which had come directly from France. Westdeutsche Film Börse, for example, sent him the tinted version of L'ÉPOUVANTE (THE FRIGHT,
1911), an exciting thriller featuring the actress Mistinguett, who is waylaid in her home by a trespasser who has hidden under her bed. The film deploys modern film techniques such as over-the-shoulder shots and tracking shots.¹⁹ The Dutch Pathé office tolerated this competition probably because of its own stronger position. Their own offerings were not only fresher but cheaper too, so that cinema owners like P.H.J. Sips in Breda explicitly requested Desmet not to put Pathé films into their programmes.²⁰ Pathé could also guarantee that their films would arrive on time, which was not always the case with Desmet's deliveries. Cinemas such as the Rembrandt Bioscope on Joden-breestraat in Amsterdam (not to be confused with the Rembrandt Theater) showed programmes consisting exclusively of Pathé movies supplied by the Amsterdam branch. The advertising material was generally abundant and in good condition. Pathé had films in every genre and often included colour films in their deliveries. The upshot of this competition was that Desmet found himself with a growing surplus of Pathé movies. He immediately sold a batch to his contact Jokisch in Budapest, but when he sent a second consignment, the crate of films was returned, and there were no further sales.²¹ In 1914, he again sold a series of Pathé productions in the batch of films sent to Hélant in Djocja, but he was ultimately left with a pile of Pathé films, which remain in the Desmet Collection to this day.

Desmet's rivalry with Pathé was no obstacle to doing business with them. In fact, he was already striking deals with them in the Netherlands in March 1910.²² Up to July 1911, he had bought film equipment from the branch in Rotterdam, but he rarely took films. From September 1911, he was doing business with the Pathé branch in Amsterdam, where the Theater Pathé had opened on Kalverstraat on 15 July of that year. The former Hotel-Café-Restaurant De France (where films had already been shown from time to time) had been converted by the architect Evert Breman into an elegant four-hundred-seat cinema. Breman, who had previously been responsible for the splendid Rembrandt Theater on Rembrandt Square, would also provide the design for Desmet's Cinema Palace a year later. Unlike in other cinemas, there was no explicateur at the Theater Pathé, but the films were accompanied by a small orchestra led by N. Snoeck. Only Pathé movies were shown at this theatre, and new Pathé productions were screened there first. One of the biggest attractions was the cinema newsreel, which was called the Pathé-Journal, locally re-baptised the 'Pathé-Courant'. The local press dwelt on the fascination of these films and their attraction for the modern urban *flâneur*, who could now just stroll into a cinema and imbibe the world news.

A new branch devoted exclusively to Pathé's film business had opened above the cinema, by the side exit.²³ The gramophone department and the
film department, which had been housed together hitherto, were formally separated from this time onwards. Under the management of L. Infroit, the film office moved to Keizersgracht, where Infroit assumed the title of 'sole representative of the Cinematograph Pathé Frères'. Desmet continued to buy equipment from Pathé: projectors, resistors, carbons, and projectors for lantern-slide advertisements. The equipment was intended for his own cinemas, his regular customers and anyone else who wished to buy from him. He received a 5% commission from Pathé for anything he sold.

In March 1912, Desmet bought a complete Pathé Kok system from Infroit. This was Pathé's new home cinema equipment, which used non-inflammable film in an unusual 28 mm format. Desmet was one of the first in the Netherlands to buy this type of equipment. But it is unclear whether he actually acquired all this paraphernalia for himself. Two months later, he sold the whole kit to Ernemann, Pathé's biggest rival in the equipment business in the Netherlands. Ernemann launched a home cinematograph of their own, the Ernemann Family Bioscope, at the same time as Pathé. However, theirs took ordinary, inflammable 35-mm film. It was a way of giving old films a new lease of life, and Ernemann made a point of asking Desmet to sell them his old stock. This he did, albeit on a somewhat limited scale. Even so, it is highly probable that Pathé movies were projected in sitting rooms via the technology of Pathé's biggest competitor.

Apart from equipment, the bulk of Desmet's business with Pathé was in newsreels (Fig. 43). In October 1911, Desmet rented newsreels from Infroit for a month. He was allowed to keep them for two weeks. They were on no account to be shown in Rotterdam, where Pathé had an exclusive contract with Goeman at the Tivoli Gardens. Business seems to have gone quiet for a while after this, for according to the Desmet archive, no newsreels were either bought or rented between November 1911 and March 1912.

From March 1912, Desmet took to buying rather than renting copies of Pathé's Pathé-Journal from Infroit.²⁴ The newsreels probably did not figure in Pathé's distribution policy and were either sold or rented as separate items. They were also sent direct from Infroit's depot, whereas fiction films came in from France. It was useful for Infroit to have the newsreels ready to hand, since this allowed locally filmed pictures to be inserted into them. Pathé released two newsreels a week called 'A' and 'B'. Their length and contents were roughly the same. The company presumably produced two a week because of the twice-weekly change of programme, which was already a well-established practice in countries like Germany, though not very common in the Netherlands. From May 1912, Desmet was buying both the 'A' and the 'B' numbers of the Pathé-Journal, and continued to take it in one
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 43. *Pathé Journal 172a* (1912) – Lapize wins the Paris Brussels cycling race</figcaption></figure>

form or the other up to July 1914. However, there were one or two arguments with Infroit's successor, Louis Justet, since he did not always take both numbers.²⁵ On 14 October 1913, Justet reduced the price of the newsreels on condition that Desmet again ordered both numbers every week.²⁶ Six months later on 20 April, Desmet wrote to Justet informing him that he definitely no longer wanted the 'B' number, one newsreel a week being quite enough in his view.²⁷ Notwithstanding this, he sporadically bought a couple of 'Bs' up to 2 May 1914. In any event, he continued to buy the 'A' number up to 2 July 1914.

Thus, from the beginning of 1912 through to mid-1914, Desmet acquired somewhere between 150 and 200 cinema newsreels from Pathé.²⁸ Unfortunately, very few copies of these remain, so the newsreel appears somewhat undervalued as a genre in the Desmet Collection. Desmet presumably did not think it necessary to keep them for long, as they dated so much faster than fiction films. During the war, they were recycled as film leaders.

Desmet occasionally bought or rented features and documentaries from Pathé.²⁹ These were a little more expensive than newsreels. Between 17 October and 21 November 1912, Desmet obtained seven of Pathé's special actualities on the Balkan Wars from the Amsterdam Pathé office. A few months earlier, in July 1912, Infroit had announced that he had set up a film labora-
tory, making it possible for people to commission their own local film
footage. On the evidence of both the trade papers and the Desmet Archive,
Desmet made no use of this facility. On the other hand, he did buy a number
of ready-made actualities, set mainly in Amsterdam, such as AVIATEUR
CHANTELOUP À AMSTERDAM (AVIATOR CHANTELOUP IN AMSTERDAM*, 1913)
and VISITE DES SOUVERAINS DANOIS À AMSTERDAM (VISIT OF THE DANISH
ROYAL COUPLE TO AMSTERDAM*, 1914). Nothing remains of these local actual-
ities.³⁰ What does remain are the films CARNAVAL DE NICE (CARNIVAL OF
NICE*, 1913) and INCENDIE À HOBKEN (BLAZE AT HOBKEN*, 1913), the latter
now an item in a Pathé-Journal.

In 1912, Desmet bought two coloured copies of the Pathé production LA
VIE ET LA PASSION DE N.S. JÉSUS CHRIST (Colour Plate 4).³¹ Since a new version
of this film did not appear until 1913, we can be fairly certain that he bought
two copies of the 1907 version. As noted previously, Desmet had already
bought one copy in Germany at the end of 1910, which he released success-
fully in the Netherlands in 1911. It seems likely that his old copy was worn
out, and that he thought he could continue to do good business with the film.
Cheese-paring attitudes and the film distribution system itself could also
have been factors. The rights on Pathé movies made in 1907 had probably ex-
pired, leaving the films freely available for purchase. Films of their age must
have cost considerably less than new films. Desmet's copies came in very
handy a year later, when NV Leliefilm brought out the American biblical film
FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS (Kalem 1913). This highly prestigious pro-
duction, filmed in Palestine and based on biblical illustrations by the British
artist James Tissot, received a special performance at the Theater Carré in-
stead of a normal cinema and, according to the *Algemeen Handelsblad*, attract-
ed thousands of customers during its two-week run there.³² Biblical movies
seemed to do very well in Catholic Amsterdam. The film's distributors filed
charges against Desmet for showing his Pathé version at the same time at the
Cinema Royal in Rotterdam under the identical title *From the Manger to the
Cross*. Desmet defended himself against these accusations in *De Maasbode*.³³
His argument was that there was no copyright on book titles and therefore
none on film titles either. Furthermore, he had owned his copy for a long
time, and finally: his version was in colour. Desmet omitted to mention that
his film was not exactly new and had been shot not in Palestine but in a
French studio. At the end of November, Pathé put an end to Desmet's stretch-
ing of the truth by issuing a new version of the PASSION PLAY, accompanied
by the statement 'not to be confused with the earlier Passion Play'.³⁴
When Desmet’s importation of Pathé movies from Germany ceased, he be-
came dependent on the Pathé branch in Amsterdam, but in view of the compe-
tition from this office, he was not inclined to buy Pathé feature films abroad.
Moreover, apart from its newsreels, Pathé was now selling hardly any films in
the Netherlands. Except for its newsreels and equipment, Desmet did not
therefore really need Pathé. He created a niche for himself by importing and
distributing precisely the sort of films that Pathé could *not* offer. This explains
why, despite his high prices and other obstacles, cinema owners were happy
to do business with Desmet. Desmet had gone into distribution at a moment
when the entire sphere of international distribution was entering a period of
differentiation. Gaumont, the Italian films, and later the long Danish and Ger-
man feature films were clear alternatives to Pathé. Precisely these films would
bring about sweeping changes in the format of film programmes. Pathé con-
tinued to dominate the short film scene in 1910, but now had to share its posi-
tion with companies such as Gaumont, Éclair and Vitagraph. This state of af-
fairs can be reconstructed from the Desmet Collection’s holdings of the films
Desmet was offering at this time. We can say in general that up to the end of
1912, half or more of a normal film programme would consist of short films.
Apart from the three-reelers lasting about three-quarters of an hour, which
were the usual type of long films between 1911 and 1914, the film programme
was still always, and once and for all, filled with a motley selection of short
one-reelers. Desmet’s imports at this time consisted mostly of one-reelers.

3. Nöggerath, Desmet and the Italian Costume Epics

Along with Pathé, Anton Nöggerath (Fig. 44) was one of Desmet’s biggest ri-
vals in the distribution world, although this did not prevent him from doing
business with him. In the autumn of 1913, he rented L’ENFANT DE PARIS from
Nöggerath for screening at the Cinema Royal in Rotterdam, where it played
for a full two weeks. He rented it again in June 1914.35 L’ENFANT DE PARIS is a
mixture of crime and melodrama. With its skilful editing and taut narrative
structure, it is an exciting film, despite its extreme length (eight reels). It also
contains fine location shots of Nice as well as back-lit scenes.36 L’ENFANT DE
PARIS is a story about a young girl from a wealthy family who is kidnapped
by a villain and hidden at a cobbler’s house. The cobbler’s young apprentice
falls in love with the girl. When the villain escapes with her during a police
raid, the boy follows them to Nice where he manages to free the girl. Her
grateful father becomes his benefactor. Desmet seems to have been somewhat
besotted by this film, for he later bought Nöggerath’s copy during the First
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 44. Anton Nöggerath Jr.</figcaption></figure>

World War.³⁷ None of this implies an easy relationship between Desmet and his rival, as is evident from their competition for Italian costume spectacles.

Although Desmet released *LA CADUTA DI TROIA* in 1911, the distribution of the big Italian historical films was largely in Nöggerath's hands.³⁸ The trend towards film spectaculars received an enormous boost from the Cines production of *QUO VADIS?* in 1913. *QUO VADIS?* (Fig. 45) cleverly combined individual scenes and large crowd scenes into a complex narrative structure which did justice to the popular novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz on which it was based. Another striking feature of the movie was director Enrico Guazzoni's impressive use of space and depth in the decor. Familiar subjects from history, literature and painting, such as the burning of Rome, the persecution of Christians and gladiatorial combats in the Roman arenas were represented very convincingly.³⁹ The film was a worldwide box-office hit and increased the standing of Italian cinema and the film medium in general. In Paris, it was distributed by Aubert and shown at the Hippodrome Gaumont Palace: the biggest cinema in the world at the time. In London, *QUO VADIS?* attracted thousands of people each evening to the Royal Albert Hall, which had been converted into a cinema for the occasion. Even the British royal family went to see it. In New York, it was shown at the Astor Theater, making it the first
movie ever to be shown at a leading Broadway theatre. The admission prices were pushed sky-high in many cities (at the Astor people were paying three times the amount normally paid in the luxury cinemas), but this hardly stemmed the tide.⁴⁰

Desmet wanted *QUO VADIS?* and conveyed this to Louis Aubert, who held the rights for the Netherlands. However, the competition was stiff. At 16,000 francs, Nöggerath's bid for the film was the highest, and it was premiered before the press on 4 April 1913 at his Bioscope Theater. The next day it opened to the public, a month after its release in Italy. 'The film industry is making extraordinary advances!' wrote the *Nieuws van de Dag*.⁴¹ Nöggerath had put in an orchestra and an organ to provide the right kind of musical accompaniment. The film played to full houses for three weeks at the Bioscope Theater and returned there in August 1913 and February 1914 for runs of two weeks and one week, respectively.⁴²

The competition was lying in wait, however. On the very day of Nöggerath's premiere, the Union Bioscoop advertised *Keizer Nero en de Brand van Rome* (*Emperor Nero and the Fire of Rome*), a drastically abridged version of *QUO VADIS?*⁴³ A version with the same title was shown at Desmet's Amsterdam

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 45. Brochure for *Quo Vadis?* (Cines 1913)</figcaption></figure>
Cinema Palace on 7 April. The entire film was reduced to a 'short' that was basically a compilation of the highlights. This decimated one-reel movie circu- culated for a while alongside Nöggerath's official version. Thus, we find the *Rotterdamsche Courant* of 14 May 1913 advertising a performance of these scenes from QUO VADIS? at Desmet's Rotterdam Cinema Parisien from 14 May under the title DE BRAND VAN ROME EN GRUWELDADEN EN DOOD VAN KEIZER NERO (THE FIRE OF ROME AND THE ATROCITIES AND DEATH OF EMPEROR NERO).⁴⁴ Desmet doubtless did all this to avoid losing his audience to a rival cinema. Nöggerath blew his top when he heard about this reduced version. He owned the only complete version of the movie, and as far as he was con- cerned that was how it should have stayed. Film-goers should not allow themselves to be duped by other versions. Nardus Wolf, the editor of *De Kunst* and a fervent disciple of Nöggerath's movies, was another who was in- censed. He insinuated that the fragments being screened were taken from a film that had been made a year earlier:⁴⁵

> The Union acted honestly and openly by showing the film under its proper title – which is the title by which it is known internationally (Fire of Rome). But another cinema theatre has acted unfairly by advertising this same film on the burning of Rome as ‘scenes from “Quo Vadis?”’, which is both unfair and inaccurate. For it is, after all, well known in the world of film theatre that Mr. Nöggerath has had to find an enormous sum of money for the sole exhibition rights on the real ‘Quo Vadis?’, which is currently playing at the Bioscope Theater – a sum respected by the entire world of cinema, and for which honest dealers are happy to grant the enterprising director both his financial success and the right to his monopoly on the film. Only in a country like ours, where there is no law against unfair competition, are such things possible; in Germany, this sort of practice would be punished severely.⁴⁶

Desmet again used a selection *à la QUO VADIS?* during the screening of THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII at the Cinema Palace in Bussum. The 1908 Ambrosio version of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's novel was followed by two new versions in 1913. On 4 September 1913, Nöggerath premiered THE LAST DAYS OF POM- PEII in the later Ambrosio version (GLI ULTIMI GIORNI DI POMPEI, Ambrosio 1913) at his Bioscope Theater, while his competitor Gildemeijer brought out the Pasquali version at his Union Bioscoop on the very same day (GLI ULTIMI GIORNI DI POMPEI, Pasquali 1913). Gildemeijer and Nöggerath fought like mad for their audiences, each claiming that he alone possessed the genuine version, that he was in first and that the other was guilty of plagiarism. Nög- gerath declared that his version was not to be confused with 'inferior imita- tions', meaning Gildemeijer's version. Gildemeijer declared, for his part, that
if his competitor was coming up with films of the same name, they must be
films bought up from the 1911-12 season: old material in other words.⁴⁷
When Wolf entered the fray for Nöggerath, charging Gildemeijer with unfair
competition, Gildemeijer hit back by revealing that, in defiance of all agree-
ments, Nöggerath had bought the film in Brussels on a frolic of his own.
Dutch film distributors were just about to sign an agreement obliging them to
consult together over the purchase of big films, when Nöggerath suddenly
had to go off 'on holiday' and delay his signature.⁴⁸ It is unclear whether
Desmet took over the Ambrosio or the Pasquali version of the film, but he
showed it anyway at his Cinema Palace in Bussum in October 1913.⁴⁹ Again,
as with QUO VADIS?, he showed only highlights such as the eruption of Vesu-
vius, at a total length of about 400 metres. The argument for stripping the
film down was that people did not wish to sit watching just one film drama
for the whole evening, and needed something to laugh at a little during the
show. In line with this, therefore, the fragments of THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII
were combined with two comedies and three farces plus a drama in three
parts (LA BOUQUETIÈRE DE MONTMARTRE/THE FLOWER SELLER OF MONT-
MARTRE*, Éclair 1913).⁵⁰

Nöggerath followed up his series of epics after QUO VADIS? and THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII with MARCANTONIO E CLEOPATRA (Cines 1913), which was advertised in November 1913 both as CLEOPATRA and DE SCHRIK VAN DE NIJL (THE TERROR OF THE NILE) and touted as a movie from the 'Quo Vadis series'.⁵¹

During 1914, Desmet was packing in the audiences with the historical epic
IN HOC SIGNO VINCES, which he had acquired through the Brussels agent M.E.
Guillaume. After a good deal of haggling over payment and delivery condi-
tions, Desmet paid the bill on 15 November 1913. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ran
for an exceptional two weeks at the Cinema Royal from 13 to 26 February
1914, but was not shown simultaneously at the Amsterdam Cinema Palace.
Set against the backdrop of the decaying Roman Empire, the film combines
the family histories of the late Roman emperors with the famously spectacu-
lar moments of the life of Emperor Constantine, such as the crossing of the
Alps, the defeat of Maxentius and the decree of Milan. Due to the popularity
of Italian historical films, but above all to the impact of its Christian message,
particularly in the Catholic south of the country, the film continued to be in
demand until well into the 1920s. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES was rented on thirty-
three occasions up to 1923, nineteen of them before April 1916. It was thus not
an enormous initial success, but certainly profitable in the long run. As in the
case of RICHARD WAGNER, the eventual audience figures fell short of those ex-
pected.⁵² Desmet ordered another copy intended for the Dutch East Indies; he
had second thoughts but was then forced to hold on to it.⁵³
The Italian historical movies were not to everyone's taste. With his public-
ity for the allegedly Dutch (but in fact British) production *De Brand in de Jonge
Jan* (A CASE OF ARSON, Brittanic Film Producing Syndicate 1913), Desmet's
rival Silvius was really bucking the trend for the Italian films: 'Stop boring
the audience with all these Roman horrors. Stop paying such enormous
rental prices. Show this genuine Dutch story, written by one of the best of our
Dutch authors [Herman Heijermans] and acted by the celebrated Dutch actor
Henri de Vries.'⁵⁴ For the time being, however, the Dutch cinema owners –
Desmet included – blandly ignored his advice.⁵⁵

4. New Competitors

In 1913, Desmet was part of the established order of Dutch film distribution,
alongside Pathé, Gildemeijer and Nöggerath. Following the adventure of his
own film production in 1911/12, Nöggerath had devoted himself to bringing
out the big Italian epics, prestigious productions like THE MIRACLE and the
Gaumont film L'ENFANT DE PARIS. THE MIRACLE was the screen version of one
of Max Reinhardt's 'mega-productions' for the theatre, 'Das Mirakel', which
had been staged with great success in London and Vienna in 1911/12. Un-
usually, the film was premiered at Nöggerath's Flora Theater in The Hague,
where it played for three weeks. Only after this was it shown at the Bioscope
Theater in Amsterdam, where it rapidly vanished from sight: although wide-
ly acclaimed by the press as a 'work of art' it was considered too intellectual
by movie-goers.⁵⁶ On the other hand, with their spectacle and sensational
effects, QUO VADIS?, THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII and L'ENFANT DE PARIS were
great successes with the public, in Amsterdam as elsewhere, and were
screened for three successive weeks in the Bioscope Theater, which was rare
at a time when films were regularly replaced after a week. When it came to
revivals, QUO VADIS? topped the list.

In the April numbers of *De Kinematograaf* in 1913, Gildemeijer had styled
himself as the owner of the rights for Nordisk films, but this contract lasted
probably only a couple of months.⁵⁷ On 13 August 1913, Desmet wrote to
Karl Süring, the German representative of Nordisk, telling him that he had
heard that Gildemeijer's contract with Nordisk had expired, and asking if
Nordisk films were now available first-hand.⁵⁸ However, in October 1913
Nöggerath announced in an advertisement that he held the sole rights on
Nordisk's 'author films'. It is not possible to assess the strength of all these
claims, but they could explain why Desmet did not purchase many Nordisk
films in 1913, in contrast to previous years.
Gildemeijer had specialised in German films, particularly the Asta Nielsen movies made by Union/PAGU, but he sometimes distributed Danish and Italian movies as well, including Nordisk and Pasquali productions. Pathé, of course, showed Pathé films, along with movies made by its production units abroad, such as Belge Cinéma Film.⁵⁹ Pathé caused a stir with films of such literary classics as Victor Hugo's *Les Misérables* (LES MISERABLES, SCAGL 1912) and Emile Zola's *Germinal* (THE TOLL OF LABOUR, SCAGL 1913). Desmet offered a bit of everything, but where long films were concerned, he excelled in Danish thrillers (DET HEMMELIGHEDSFULDE X), German dramas (RICHARD WAGNER, SCHULDIG) and comedies (DIE WELT OHNE MÄNNER).⁶⁰ Other than these, he had a sheerly endless supply of short films. His competitor for the films of Ambrosio, Cines, Gaumont and Vitagraph was Nöggerath, and he pitted himself against Union for films from German companies such as Vitascope and Deutsche Bioscop.

Desmet, Nöggerath, Gildemeijer and Pathé had been joined by newly arriving distributors in 1912/13. Foremost among these was the Wilhelmina company, which began trading in 1913. The managing director was Frits Boerck-

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 46. The famous singer tactfully rejects a suitor in *Ma l'amor mio non muore* (Gloria 1913)</figcaption></figure>
hardt, a former employee of Nöggerath's. He was later succeeded by D. van den Berg. Boerckhardt was one of Desmet's former customers, to whom he had rented films between August and October 1911. In the years to follow, Boerckhardt and his successor were to challenge Desmet with their distribution company, sometimes offering the same film titles. All this got rather out of hand in 1912, when Desmet temporarily acquired sole rights on Ambrosio movies and Wilhelmina put out a copy of the Ambrosio movie *LA NAVE DEI LEONI*.

Wilhelmina rented countless short films of all nationalities, including several of the films Desmet had on his books. As already stated, short films were not protected individually unless a distributor had bought the sole rights on all films by a particular production company. According to their advertisements, Wilhelmina had a monopoly on the Gloria and Kosmograph companies. In the autumn of 1913, for instance, Wilhelmina advertised *MA L'AMOR MIO NON MUORE* (*LOVE EVERLASTING*, Gloria 1913, Fig. 46), the first film starring Lyda Borelli, which it immediately announced as a film from the 'Lyda Borelli series'.⁶¹ *De Kunst* was full of praise for the Italian actress's performance:

> She embodies all the qualities required of a first-class film actress. She is a young woman with a slender, well-shaped figure and a wonderfully beautiful face. She wears her precious costumes elegantly and tastefully, and her movements are supple and elegant. Her fine manners, urbane conduct, indeed her whole personality, betray the woman of breeding – in her performances, at least, we recognise immediately the cultivated actress. And in those instances where high technical demands are made of a film actress, when she has to dance just as elegantly and gracefully as she must ride a horse spiritedly and like a true sportswoman, or when she must be just as poised on water, on a train or on dangerous mountain pathways – we can see that Lyda Borelli is equal to all the demands made of her and capable of dealing with all kinds of roles.⁶²

The film promptly played for two weeks at the Cinema De La Monnaie.

Inspired by Union's Asta Nielsen series, rival distributors also brought out similar series of films focusing on a single film star. Two months before Wilhelmina introduced Borelli as a film star, they had already begun to promote another star. The Messter star, Henny Porten, was launched on the back of a series of films released by Messter's branch, Autor-Film. The series contained movies that Desmet did not have: EVA (EVE*, 1913), KOMTESSE URSEL (COUNTESS URSEL*, 1913), ZWEIFEL (DOUBT*, 1913), NON PLUS ULTRA (1913) and DER FEIND IM LAND (ENEMY IN OUR MIDST*, 1913). The latter were the first films to be sold by Messter as exclusives. In 1911/12, Desmet had shown several Messter films with Porten in the lead role and would bring out his own
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 47. Cinema De Munt, Amsterdam, De Filmwereld 1919</figcaption></figure>

'series' of Henny Porten movies in 1914/15. But the promotion of 'la Porten' as a star in the Dutch press was the initiative of Wilhelmina. Desmet's other rival, Nöggerath, took up Wilhelmina's challenge shortly afterwards with a series of films starring the Scandinavian actress Betty Nansen. Stars were becoming more and more important in the world of cinema.

Where Desmet used the Cinema Palace as his first-release theatre, Pathé used the Theater Pathé, Nöggerath his Bioscope Theater and Gildemeijer the Union Bioscoop. Premieres of Wilhelmina films were held at the Cinema De La Monnaie. However, this came to an end in May 1914, when the directors of the adjoining Cinema Palace (Desmet, Hamburger and De Hoop) took over the De La Monnaie and reopened it as the Cinema De Munt (Fig. 47). Its films were henceforth partly determined by Desmet's current stocks and partly by films from other distributors, possibly Wilhelmina. The advertisements for the Cinema Palace and the Cinema De Munt frequently appeared together in the press as a single ad, and they often exchanged programmes with each other half way through the week. Wilhelmina films were shown at other Desmet cinemas from time to time: the Amsterdam Cinema Palace, for instance, or the Cinema Royal in Rotterdam.

Wilhelmina released LES TROIS MOUSQUETAIRES (THE THREE MUSKETEERS, Film d'Art 1913) in the autumn of 1913, the premiere taking place around 30 October at the Cinema De La Monnaie, where it played for three weeks.⁶³ De La Monnaie thereby became the second Amsterdam cinema to achieve this record. Pathé had apparently turned over the distribution of the movie to
Wilhelmina, for on 7 November Pathé's representative Louis Justet reacted strongly to Desmet's demand to be told why *he* had not got the film:

> I telephoned you on several occasions, but neither you nor anyone else at your end were available to take the call and give me an answer, and I have the impression that your people neglected to tell you of my telephone enquiry. I would also like you to note that when I write to you I never receive a reply, thus I had no other way of getting in touch with you. I have now been at our Amsterdam office for a year but I have as yet never actually had the pleasure of meeting you there, so I do not see that it is up to me to go to any further trouble to keep either you or anyone else informed.⁶⁴

Justet's roasting of Desmet did not prevent him from selling him his usual Pathé-Journals.

Desmet still managed to rent LES TROIS MOUSQUETAIRES.⁶⁵ When the film was shown at the Rotterdam Cinema Royal at the beginning of January, three figures dressed as musketeers rode through the city on horseback. The orchestra was beefed up for the occasion with four extra musicians.⁶⁶ According to *De Kinematograaf*, the film was about 4,000 metres long and had cost f20,000.⁶⁷ Besides the length of films, the high prices paid for them were apparently regarded in trade circles as cultural capital available for exploitation in publicity. Due to the extreme length of the film, just two performances a day were given at fixed times.

It is possible that besides Desmet, Wilhelmina also acquired prints from Nöggerath, for at the end of November Wilhelmina was advertising CLEOPATRA and JEANNE D'ARC (GIOVANNA D'ARCO/JOAN OF ARC, Savoia 1913), both of which had been advertised earlier by Nöggerath. In the pages of *De Kinematograaf*, Wilhelmina accused other distributors of disinformational advertising, which drew an angry response from Nöggerath in a subsequent issue.⁶⁸ The correspondence in the Desmet Archive suggests that they were probably distributing different films. Desmet actually rented Wilhelmina's print of CLEOPATRA, which was shown in December 1913 at his Cinema Royal in Rotterdam. This was a print of a mere 700 metres, which originally came from Pathé. It was probably the American CLEOPATRA (Helen Gardner Picture Players 1912) that had appeared on the market in the autumn of 1912.⁶⁹

Another new player to appear on the scene in 1913 was J. Godefroa with his Algemeen Internationaal Filmbureau, alias The World's International Film Office, Amsterdam. In the autumn of 1913, Godefroa had managed to acquire sole rights for the films of M.P. Sales Agency.⁷⁰ Henceforth, Desmet had to
order M.P. Sales films from Godefroa, which included the purchase of SATANASSO in December 1913. Direct purchases from M.P. Sales fell back sharply. Desmet was also critical of the selection of M.P. films offered through Godefroa. On the sales lists, he wrote in the margins next to the titles: 'just about', 'much too long', 'nothing' or 'lalala'. Only one was awarded a 'not bad'. The archive does not tell us whether Desmet made these judgments after viewing the films (from copies received on approval), from trade descriptions, or on the basis of the titles alone. Perhaps he had the same problem with these films as he had had earlier with Delbrügger, namely that he did not like having his films pre-selected for him and assumed that he was likely to be faced with second-choice, or even hand-me-down, films.

In January 1913, Godefroa had established the trade paper *De Kine-matograaf*. It seemed at first that his purpose was simply to publicise his own films in advertisements and background articles, but after just one month, competitors such as Desmet, Union and Pathé began to advertise in the paper. Along with *De Bioscoop-Courant*, which had begun in September 1912, *De Kinematograaf* was the second Dutch trade journal for movies, and together they were to set the tone of the Dutch film press between 1912 and the end of the First World War.⁷¹

The supply of films from another American film source was cut back for Desmet with the arrival in the market place of another Dutch representative. The Transatlantic Co. was the European representative of the American Universal Company. In 1912, several small American companies with whom Desmet had done business, including Rex, IMP, Nestor and Crystal, were merged with Universal. Transatlantic was based in London, but also had an office in Paris named Anderson & Ziegler.⁷² The latter held the rights for Transatlantic in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. The manager of the London and Paris sections was John D. Tippett. Desmet initially ordered consignments of film from Transatlantic, but these orders shrank perceptibly when the firm acquired an agency in Amsterdam. This was probably in 1913, and the agent was Carl Bolle. Bolle was also the Dutch agent for the films of the Swedish Aktiebolaget Sveafilms company, the Danish Kinografen company and the American Essanay company. He probably acquired the Essanay and Kinografen movies from Germany at 1 mark per metre, excluding a charge of 10 pfennigs per metre for colouring. The Swedish films came from Belgium or France at 1.25 francs a metre and another 10 centimes for colour. This was the fixed price that the Brussels branches of Gaumont and other Belgian distributors also charged Desmet.⁷³
5. The Ranks Close. The Trade Journals and Control of the Cinemas

In the course of 1913, criticisms of the unrestrained cinema fever were voiced, and Desmet was one of those affected. *De Kinematograaf* of 21 February carried an article entitled 'Cinema Mania', which deplored recent developments in the business. Anyone who pleased could set up a cinema without further ado, and without necessarily having any grasp of the business (Fig. 48). Cinema owners came from extraordinarily diverse professional backgrounds, and not every butcher, baker, brewer or photographer was suited to the cinema business. A month later there was another report in the same paper:

And still the stream continues. The small investors have now also caught the fever and are putting their last penny into any old long, narrow room. They dream up an impressive name, put a lady in a box office, get a doorman and there's your new cinema. Clearly, not all these enterprises are going to keep their audiences.⁷⁴

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 48. *Picture Palace Piecans* (Vaudefilms 1914) – vagrants take over a nickelodeon, ignoring the safety regulations</figcaption></figure>
This call for professionalism had much to do with the kind of people who were complaining. The group around *De Kinematograaf* and *De Bioscoop-Courant* regarded themselves as the legitimate cinema owners, and they wanted to protect themselves by preventing the market from expanding further.

The authorities too were trying to curb the wild proliferation of cinemas and to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. One way of doing this was through the imposition of fire safety regulations. Rotterdam had made special statutory provision for fire regulations in 1912, which applied to Desmet's Parisien along with other cinemas. The new Amsterdam fire regulations came into force on 1 May 1913. They applied primarily to projectionists and projection boxes. Henceforth, only qualified projectionists were allowed to work in cinemas, and there had to be two of them in every projection box.⁷⁵ Exactly as in England after the Cinematograph Act of 1909, the new fire regulations led to the closure of cinemas, although the effects were not as drastic as in other countries. The Amsterdam Olympia Bioscoop belonging to J. Jerozolimsky, a client of Desmet's, shut down two weeks before the law came into effect, but reopened afterwards. The Amsterdam Fire Brigade must have already been keeping an eye on this cinema, as a fire had broken out in the projection box in February 1912.⁷⁶ Other cities followed the example of Rotterdam and Amsterdam by introducing their own fire regulations.

At the same time, according to *De Kinematograaf*, cinema remained popular due to low prices, the absence of intervals in continuous performances, the opulence of the better cinemas, the variety of the programmes, new stars such as Max Linder, John Bunny and Asta Nielsen, and sophisticated comedies. Finally, the trade paper praised cinema for its undemanding nature and its mildly relaxing effects. Since films left only fleeting impressions, there was no danger of them putting the wrong kind of ideas into people's heads.⁷⁷

Other people felt rather differently about the matter. The morality lobby viewed the rise of permanent cinemas with dismay. In nineteenth-century Amsterdam and in Rotterdam in 1908, it had taken a great deal of effort to get the drunken, indecent and anarchic fairs abolished, and now it was all threatening to return via the back door of cinema. The principal sources of protest in 1912 were educational institutions, the churches and the police. The popularity of cinema with children, particularly those from 'lower' social backgrounds, was a thorn in the side of many. It seemed that cinema was set to be a 'repository of graphic instruction in housebreaking, arson, murder, rape and blackmail, offered as a welcome distraction from the "boring" classes at school'.⁷⁸ Cinema owners were portrayed as 'people of very inferior quality, fortune seekers perhaps, or social failures; in short, a breed of folk who entice ordinary decent people into their cinemas with the glib fairground patter of their advertising and posters, causing them to abandon their sense of respon-
sibility, along with everything taught them by their upbringing'.⁷⁹ The sensationalistic film dramas, be they French crime thrillers such as ZIGOMAR or Danish 'white-slave' films, were denounced as meretricious: as films that just turned the heads of the young. The cinemas that showed these films were labelled as 'cinemas of arousal'. The analysis of publicity materials, surveys and opinion polls conducted in 1912 and 1913 led to the creation of municipal watch committees, which previewed films and decided the age groups to which they were allowed to be shown. The Cinema Committee of Rotterdam was established in 1913. Its members consisted of educators, heads of police and the press of repute. In 1912, the 'Committee Against the Perils of Cinema' was established in Amsterdam, with theatre critic Simon B. Stokvis at its head. However, in contrast to his fellow censors, Stokvis had an eccentric tendency of accepting or rejecting films on aesthetic rather than moral grounds. He aired his views regularly in the press. Desmet and his fellow cinema owners repeatedly off-loaded their dissatisfaction with Stokvis in the trade press: 'Does stockfish have to be pounded and then soaked, or is it soaked then pounded? Stockfish has to be beaten well for a quarter of an hour or so, and then soaked in water for at least half an hour.'⁸⁰ But Stokvis only became the official city film censor after the First World War. In this respect, Amsterdam was a privileged exception within the film censorship system that was being put in place in the first part of the second decade.⁸¹

The Dutch press also did its bit for the moral lobby, albeit on a more modest level. The *Nieuws van de Dag* wrote on the premiere of Desmet's RICHARD WAGNER:

> Film performances are often criticised – and certainly not unjustly – when they offend against decency, and above all when they contain material that is suggestive and damaging to young people. But full marks must be given where they are due, as is the case with the show currently running at the 'Cinema Palace' on Kalverstraat. [...] The extremely absorbing stages of a rich life, presented in extremely high quality images, are illustrated at the 'Cinema Palace' by very beautiful music performed by an enlarged orchestra under the baton of the distinguished Boris Lensky.⁸²

> It is noticeable that the main players in the Dutch film world – Desmet, Nögerath, Pathé and Gildemeijer – reserved their position throughout this entire discussion because they were wearing two hats. On the one hand, as cinema exhibitors they wanted to protect their market and defend the reputation of motion pictures and cinemas. On the other hand, they benefited as distributors if cinemas were allowed to increase and multiply, since they were all potential clients.⁸³
Conclusion

On the eve of the First World War, Jean Desmet was still one of the most im-
portant distributors in the Netherlands, holding his place in an industry that
had expanded enormously in just a few years. His clientele was extensive,
though its membership changed frequently. Desmet had built himself a na-
tionwide reputation with his long Danish and German dramas and crime
thrillers and his comprehensive selection of genres and nationalities. Like
the rest of his colleagues, he sold films for which he no longer had a use to
the Dutch East Indies, which was the dumping ground of the Dutch film
trade of the times. There they embarked on a second life. Desmet owned two
of the smartest motion-picture theatres in Amsterdam, one equally luxurious
cinema in Rotterdam, and a number of smaller cinemas in Amsterdam, Rot-
terdam and Bussum. He had excellent contacts with a well-oiled network of
international film distribution, whose main intersections were Berlin and
Brussels. For the moment, he was sailing before the wind. However, a storm
was brewing in the East.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>