Mr. Frohman's Idea

This is another article on the future of the feature film that Moving Picture World carried in 1913. Here, the author explored an idea floated by Daniel Frohman. Frohman, a theater impressario, wanted to integrate feature film production into a theatrical distribution model. Theater had relied on the road shows of Broadway productions to help defray the costs; indeed, then as now, the Broadway production often served as a loss leader that helped create demand for plays in the rest of the country; the actual money would be made through road show productions and later licensing to stock theaters. By the 1910s, the viability of the model had begun to erode, since theaters specializing in live shows found it more difficult to fill their galleries with the moving picture theaters as competition (and many of the stock companies were simply forced out of business). Frohman's plan was to use the motion picture to reclaim some of that lost revenue. Frohman would in fact be integral to the founding of Famous Players (with Adolph Zukor), which would later develop into Paramount Pictures.

In an interview accorded Mr. Charles Darnton, dramatic editor of the Evening World, a few days ago, Mr. Daniel Frohman, one of the leading theatrical producers and managers of this country, and managing director of the Famous Players Film Company, which has produced "The Prisoner of Zenda," in motion pictures, interestingly outlines what he has in mind for the photoplay field of the future. Although Mr. Frohman's idea is termed "a new move in the 'movies' that will work revolution," it is not an original one, with possibly one exception. The work he intends carrying out will be the fulfillment of prophecies made by the watchful people a long time ago. It will be the adoption of a policy of leading photoplay producers—the Old Guard of the business, they may be more appropriately called. Mr. Frohman's main undertaking will be successful, be¬cause it is founded upon lines which is bound to be important factors in the elevation of the photoplays to a plane that will make them enduring and attract to the picture houses even a still greater patronage from the higher class of patrons than is now accorded them. In this respect it will place these picture houses on a par with the best in the theatrical business, and benefit the motion picture business generally. It is for this reason that Mr. Frohman's advent into the field has not been opposed by, or created uneasiness on the part of, the producers who have elevated the photoplays to their present standard. The attitude of the latter may be summarized thus: The term "film manufacturers" will soon become obsolete, replaced by the more dignified one of "producers," all being bent in achieving the same end sought by the new comer to the field. This classification may possibly be resented in some quarters as undesirable, but it will soon be adjusted to conditions. It may be claimed that some pictures do not give the producers the right to claim positions on a par with others. There is where the turning point will come and the "survival of the fittest" will be effectively demonstrated. It will be decided by the public. Those upon whom it places its stamp of approbation will become the photoplay producers and those who operate on the theory that people go to see motion pictures simply because they are such, and sacrifice those things which are essential to the kind of productions the people want in order to make as much money as possible in the shortest possible time, will become the pikers of the business.

* * *

As far back as eight years ago, the "Old Guard" predicted in the columns of the magazines devoted to the interests of the motion picture business that the people who were deriding the pictures as a short-lived elaboration of the stereopticon and slot machine devices would see them dedicated to posterity, and the time has come. In the interview referred to, Mr. Frohman uses the expressions, "I believe the industry is in its infancy," "How far it will go remains to be seen. It is like throwing a pebble in a pond-the ripples spread in every direction."

* * *

The interview, although reflecting views that are not entirely original, has attracted wide-spread attention. The one idea to which originality attaches, is the outlining of a plan by which successful plays converted to picture form shall take on a fourth life. The first will be in the two dollar houses of the New York theatrical field, the one-dollar life will be in the combination houses, and then they will take on the fifty-cent life in the stock company theaters, after which the plays, in picture form, will go into the picture houses. Whether or not it will become practicable remains to be seen. It sounds good, but many who have discussed it are inclined to the belief that the plays in picture form will force themselves to a better than fourth position. Some time ago the Moving Picture World pointed to the great advantage to which photoplays based upon leading productions could be adapted in drawing people to the theaters making the original productions and in one of his statements. Mr. Frohman indorses the views. He said. "I think we shall be a hopeful ally to the stage by drawing those who see the pictured play to the theater." This seems to be nearer the mark. If the photo¬play is to await the passage of the originals through the three grades of theaters that have been mentioned there is danger of the photoplay life losing its vigor for the time being, and the necessity presenting itself that the photoplay production be placed on the shelf until a revival becomes opportune. It is true that nothing can replace the magnetism of the living actor. From this point of view it is equally true that it would not be good policy to have original and photo-form productions simultaneously in the same city, but the magnetism of the photoplay will also suffer if it is held back until almost all theatergoers have had an opportunity to see the play itself. They patronize the photoplay houses as well as the theaters and expect as much from the former as the latter, so far as new attractions are concerned. What they see in the picture houses will undoubtedly entice them to go and see original productions, but it is doubtful that the reverse would be effective.

* * *

But whatever may be the outcome, so long as the regular photoplay producers maintain the required standard they will continue in the running. There is a big field for feature productions and it is constantly growing, and there is also similar inducements for the short-story film. Features consist of two or more reels. The length is required to properly bring out all the striking points of the play or story. They are in a class by themselves. Short photoplays also control a domain. They are made from stories of merit that cannot be extended beyond one reel. In many instances they hold the same interest as many of the feature subjects and they will continue to hold their places on the programs. They also retain their popularity on account of the variety of tastes of audiences. In some places feature reels are the more popular. The appetite for them is strong and growing in this country. In Europe and many other foreign countries there is a great demand for them, but in nearly all quarters the audiences yearn for variety—short stories of an effective, sentimental character, and comedy. Educational subjects are also desired and in this case it has been found that one reel is the most desired, because there is danger of monotony.

* * *

So it can be seen that the field continues open for all styles of merit—long and short. The advent of the big producers is not of a threatening nature to those already on the ground. In fact, there is only one thing that warrants uneasiness; that is the multiplicity of producers. There is danger of the market becoming stagnated and, the most to be feared, the effect of inferior productions.

* * *

And now the vaudeville profession is asking why it should not figure in the motion picture possibilities. The answer is plain. With the talking feature eliminated from the pictures, vaudeville acts without voices are devoid of interest. They have been tried time and time again. Occasionally some novelty act has made good, but none of them has stood repetition. Years ago, when the pictures were known as "chasers" in the vaudeville theaters, short films were introduced, showing strong men, acrobatic and dancing acts, and the work of magicians were demonstrated. The pictures themselves were a novelty at that time, and, consequently, helped the acts along, but soon the people learned that trick photography was an important factor in the making of the pictures, and from that time on, no matter how good the acts were. they could not become interested. They declared the performer was not the original and what was shown them was simply the creation of trick photography on the part of the film maker. This impression resulted in the gradual and absolute disappearance of such films. At one time a famous manufacturer in France did an enormous business in this country with films, based upon magical acts. People wondered how this and that was done. They were astonished by some of the productions and amused to the extreme by others, but as the explanation gradually gained circulation their admiration and amusement turned to—well, I guess it was offended dignity. They seemed to feel that part of the price of admission had been repaid by trickery and nothing but travel and story pictures could hold them. There are some very clever vaudeville acts on the bills to-day, but none that any well-equipped studio cannot reproduce with equal effect, although doing so with practically the camera alone, the figures being mere tools. A few years ago Harry Lauder posed for a film showing his act, but it fell flat. His entrance, walks and exits created a laugh. but to get a film of fair size repetitions were required and the subject became monotonous.

* * *

It is announced that a Baltimore inventor has perfected a new motion picture-taking device that will combine with the pictures an apparent perfect reproduction of voices of the performers. It is said to be especially adaptable to singing acts. If he has the right thing vaudeville performers may take courage. If a correct, synchronizing reproduction of the voice is there, a big field will be found for the films. Then another discontented element will arise in protest. It will mark the gradual fading away of the illustrated song singer. In many respects it will be a blessing. A great many picture homes have suffered in reputation and other respects through placing the song part of their programs in the hands of those having more talent in the mashing line than for singing.

Source: “Observations By Our Man About Town,” MPW 19 April 1913, 287.
Image Source: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division