The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-03-26
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
INF 20 RIM A TON
Blu RE AU
FREDERIC I HAsKIN. Director.
Washington. d. C
RECONSTRUCTING THE MOVIES
w The Charge of Waste.
Washington. d. C

| film, money and time, and produces
an incredibly small amount of really
artistic and worthwhile entertainment,
/ is the substance of the charges that
| nave been made against it in connec-
| ton with the founding of the new Nc
Adoo Corporation, which has an
/ nounced it's intention of reforming the
/ business
; If the motion picture industry is
really wasting its opportunities and its
resources, then every American who
/ goes to the movies/is an injured per-
| son. The movies are national in
stitution and public utility. Millions
rely upon them almost wholly for re-
| creation. And for better or for worse,
| they are Il powerful educational force.
The taste and the viewpoint of the
| American public are very largely form
ed by the movies. 1t is YOU. the indl-
Vidual movie fan, who is bored by bad
pictures and whose money isl wasted
| by bad management. You have just
| as much right to demand good movie
| system as you do to demand a good
railroad system. For these reasons it
lseems worthwhile to inquire carefully
into this charge that the motion pic
i ture industry is inefficient
| In a previous article it was pointed
out that the movies get a large part
! of their ideas secondhand, and that,
while developing some original writers
for the screen. they do not seem to
ward unknown writing talent which
is trying to break into the field.
! The fact that much film is wasted
in making pictures which no one cares
to see was also mentioned. The big
producers and distributors answer this
charge by saying that it is always a
speculation to try to please the public
taste. and that they are no more waste
full than the stage or the publishing
| business.
ures may be cited There are said to
be $4,000 motion picture theateTs in
the United States. In reality about
| 1850 of these are regular theaters,
and the rest are village school houses
| churches, town halls and other places
where movies are shown regularly or
| occasionally.
Now, so far as the elimin; ton of
| waste is concerned, the ideal condition
| would be to produce just enough pic
| lures to supply the needs of all these
houses every week. The whole energy
and talent of the business could then
be concentrated upon the task of MAX
ing those pictures as good rs possible.
/ That, of course. would be an ideal
to be apprOXimated rather than at
I tanned. For one thing, it would mean
the elimination of competition, and I'M
less making motion pictures is to be-
come a government function. as so
| Gently, some competition is necessary
ii prevent the business from becoming
| a monopoly. Again, as in other lines
| of human endeavor. there are bound to
be some failures in making movies, and
a larger production would be necessary
to allow for failure.
| Granting that failure and competi
| ton must result in some waste, let us
see how much Waste, failure and COM
petition are actually causing.
-l,r ct
made a careful study of the motion
picture industry d preliminary to
\ investment in a new movie venture,
the latest figures available show a pro-
| duction of no less than 1927 motion
| pictures of five reels or more in year.
That means nearly 80 pictures a week.
1t means that the movie fan pays for
the production of five times as many
films as he could see If he went to the
movies every night in the week. And
according to this investigator. it means
the production of several times as
many pictures as the theaters could
actually show. if all of the films were
good enough to go the rounds.
The fact that there are so MANY
motion picture agencies in the field
and such an immense waste in the
production and distribution of the
product is not due to the failure of
brainy men to see the possibilities
of combination and monopoly in this
business. Every big organization
! that has entered the field has done
so with the purpose of producing the
number of films actually needed by
the theaters, and of crowding out all
| other producers. But always the at
tempt to combine and form a monop-
oily has been beaten by the independ
ence of the theater owners, who re-
fused to be monOpoliZed.
The first great organization to be
formed was the old General Film.
which combined Vitasraph. Biograph.
EIssanay, Edison. kalem and all the
other names that we used to see so
much a few years ago. For a while
General Film had a good thing of it.
. The theater owners and the public
had to take whatever it chose to give.
1t was by way of becoming a trust.
| But-the theater owners were not sat
isfied with the somewhat arbitrary
ways of the General Film people. and
they revolted. with Carl Laemmle. the
president of Universal. at their head.
| Laemmle was unable at first to make
. film in this country because General
Film controlled all the patents. but
| he imported both film and cameras.
| invoked the Sherman law against his
f. powerful rival and so rose in few
years from being a small merchant in
Oshkosh to the state of a millionaire
and ma Gnate.
The next revolutionist to enter the
field was Adolph Zplsor. a deserter
from the fur business. he injected a
. large amount of new life into the bust
/ ness by creating the multi-reel film.
which could present a whole stage
play. and by bringing great stars of
the sta ge. such as Madame Bernhardt.
into the movies.
Now General Film is mostly mem
' DRY (although there is a rumor that
II is bout to he resurrected) and
, another organization occupies almost
, the dominating position General Film
! once held. And again is heard the
wall of the dissa tisfied theater owner.
who says that the big distributor is
trying to squeeze him to death. And
again a brave champion rides to his
| rescue-this~ time the United Artists
Corporation with the famous profile
] of William Gibbs McAdoo stamped on
= h.ar