Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1916-12-26
Uureality Preferred.

AT q EcCcuI uCCliuS VI nCh SSSSSAN
ed in the moving picture business, one
man made the statement that the oper-
ator of the machine which throws the
picture on the screen almost invariably
runs it about twenty per cent too fast.
There is nothing surprising in that state
meut, but there Is something surprising
in the reason which he gave why this
condition or habit should be corrected.
To some few minds 1t might seem
that the machine should be run at the
same speed as the machine with which
the pictures were taken for the reason
that the movements of the actors would
then appear at the same speed at which
they were made. Such a thought ap-
psrently did not occur to the speaker.
His reason was that if the machine is
run too fast there is a vibration 10 the
picture that is bad for the eyes. This, 1t
is unnecessary to say, is good reason,
but it is not the one that would seem to
be of first Importance.
The writer of this, though not fire.
quent patron of the movies, has fire.
quently complained of the unnatural
movements produced by the excessive
speed of the machine, which destroys
the Illusion; but he has never succeeded
in awakening a sympathetic response
from others. As rule, the person to
whom the complaint is made generally
looks somewhat puzzled, and says,
"Why, yes, don't know but 1t was
little-but wasn't that great charge up
the hill"
A picture called 1.-THE Birth of Ma
ton" was put on the screen in this part
of the country some time since. 1t is a
great spectacle, produced at large ex-
pense, and accompanied by the music of
an orchestra which makes it more i'm
pressive. But the films were run at a
ridiculous speed. Men, women and
horses gslloped across the screen in a
way such as never was seen on earth.
During the long evening there was not
over thirty minutes In all when the
scene was such that the movements
looked natural. Nevertheless, as far as
the writer knows, he was the only one In
the audience who was unpleassntly af.
fected by the unreality.
After all, do we really prefer what Is
unreal? The modern stage-not the
movie stage but the speaking stage
runs to burlesque rather than to an &C
curate reproduction. We are not salts
fed with a stage Irishman adorned with
actual red hair, bu. our joy is intense
and intensified when said hair Is Of a
violent csriss shade, such as never NOR
tai was cursed with since the days OF
Adam. The continuance behind the
scenes which initiates the clatter OF
hoofs and indicates that q horseman is
approaching at furious speed is always
worked much faster than any horse is
capable of pounding the road. The actor
who gets the loudest laughs is the one
who most overdoes his comedy role.
Even in the domain Of that sublime
thing called Art with big A, natural
ness is not approved. The normal eye
sees things distinctly, but the impress
sionist-who insists that he alone knows
Art-throws q misty veil over the scene,
and even removes the lens from the eye
of the camera, so that the so-cslled pho
tograph may have fuzzy look. Some
time since we heard lecturer on Art,
who was himself high priest Of the
cult, declare that Art did not mean the
reproduction of nature, and the one who
most nearly reproduced nature on can
vas made the most inartistic picture, II
II could be called a picture at all.
So perhaps it is the province Of art II
all its forms, even in the movies, not e
hold the mirror. up to nature, but tc
give as something different, even If ideal
ICED only to the extent of running tht
film twenty per cent too fast, so as tt
make the actors appear unreal.
lin the paragraph above reference !!
made strictly to Art with big A, which
at least has some excuse for being, and
not to that crime, or collection OF crimes
known as Modern Art. Since the para
graph was written, particular attention
has been called to some of the latter
through the receipt of certain color
printing samples, reproducing a number
of pictures from new publication fol
encouraging Modern Art in America. A
brief inspection of those bedlam-borr
monstrosities leads to the conclusion
that the "cruel and unusual punish.
ments" forbidden by the constitution Of
the United States are none too bad fol
those who encourage Modern Art.)