The Opening of the Music Hall

This item, which appeared at the end of April 1913, reports on the first couple of weeks of operation at the Music Hall in Cincinnati. An earlier notice on the Music Hall is available here.

The Music Hall, Cincinnati, seating 3,600 people, was opened with exclusive picture programs, March 29, by the Empire Exhibition Co., of New York. Licensed feature films are chiefly used. The house was opened with the "Prisoner of Zenda." A fourteen-piece, selected orchestra is used to accompany the pictures, and high class vocal and instrumental numbers are introduced during the intervals. John Bunny, the well known Vitagraph comedian delivered his special monologue during the first week, and Francis X. Bushman gave lectures the second week. Both these gentlemen scored big hits. Miss Florence Turner, another big Vitagraph favorite, has been booked for the week of Monday, April 14, to appear in a comedy skit, of her own composing. The admission to the Music Hall is 25 cents for evenings and Sunday matinees. For other matinees the charge is 10 cents. A. N. Smallwood and J. T. Hennegan are the managers.

Source: James McQuade, “Chicago Letter,” Moving Picture World 26 April 1913, 366.

Another short notice appeared the next week, this one covering Florence Turner's visit.

Miss Turner Entertained At Cincinnati
On the occasion of Miss Florence Turner's recent visit to Cincinnati, Ohio, where she went to appear at the Music Hall picture show, the Exhibitors' League of that city entertained her and Mr. Lawrence Trimble, her manager, at the Sinton Hotel, where an elaborate dinner was served. Miss Turner also received several beautiful floral tributes at the close of her engagement at the Music Hall; one large bouquet of American Beauty roses from the league, and one from A. C. Dingelstedt, president of the local.

Source: “Miss Turner Entertained At Cincinnati,” Moving Picture World 3 May 1913, 471.

Music and Features

At the end of March 1913, James McQuade, contributing editor of Moving Picture World in the Chicago office, printed a letter from the manager of a film exchange in St. Louis that argued many exhibitors were not treating their features in a suitable fashion. In particular, the letter argues that features should be handled more like theatrical productions, with careful selection and rehearsal of appropriate music for the dramas. The letter is interesting not only for its advocacy of better music for features but also with its account of what constituted normal musical practice for live theater: "nearly every theater devoted to the spoken drama has an adequate orchestra for the enhancement of the play." For the author adding music, then, was akin to treating the feature film in line with the expectations of a theatrical presentation.

The following article, contributed by Mr. Cotter, manager of the Universal Film Exchange of St. Louis, is timely and shows a careful study of present conditions in the film industry, especially in the Independent field:

“In the history of the film business, there has never been a time when the public demand for high-class subjects was so imperious and persistent as the present. Several years ago, one feature a week was welcomed by the exhibitor. Times have changed. With the fierce competition of the various manufacturing companies, there has come into the field a persistent demand for features. This demand has become so insistent, that it behooves manufacturers, who are striving for the betterment of the business, to take cognizance of this condition, and produce pictures which are up to the standard created by the advanced artistry and perfection of detail, which distinguish the productions of the best producers.

“That good features pay, has been demonstrated time and again; still the mass of exhibitors seem oblivious of the tremendous possibilities presented when a great feature is shown. In this respect the value of appropriate music cannot be too strongly emphasized. For instance, nearly every theater devoted to the spoken drama has an adequate orchestra for the enhancement of the play. Why cannot exhibitors see the advantage of having correct and appropriate music, rehearsed with the same care and attention that is bestowed upon the melodic accompaniment of the spoken drama? The value of appropriate music can scarcely be estimated in, for instance, such photoplays as “Dante’s Inferno” or “Satan,” or in great plays like “As in a Looking Glass,” with Marion Leonard, which, by the way, broke all records for a feature in this city last week. Of course the exhibitor will say that this will entail more expense. But will not increased patronage more than offset this condition? In other words: make the feature picture a FEATURE in every sense. It is time for exhibitors to realize that the feature in the world of entertainment, has attained a rank of rivaling in importance the great productions of the dramatic world, and they should endeavor to enhance their offerings with the same care as to detail and musical accompaniment that is bestowed upon their more ancient rival. As to the manufacturers, the sooner they realize that the day of the wild and woolly, and the insipid has passed, and that real, vital subjects are the demand of the hour, the sooner the film will cease to be an adjunct to cheap vaudeville, and will be regarded as sufficient in itself and command the patronage it deserves.

“Another thing: the manufacturers who are now releasing films of one-reel subjects to the various exchanges throughout the country, are doubtless equipped and furnished with the material to produce really high-class subjects, such as are in urgent demand. Why not a feature each day in their daily program, thus saving the exhibitor an inordinate amount of trouble, and anxiety, in securing his daily feature program from two or more exchanges? The insistent demand for the BEST subjects shows the healthy trend of public taste; but a high standard can only be maintained by the intelligent co-operation of both manufacturers and exhibitors.”

Source: Ja[me]s S. McQuade, “Chicago Letter,” Moving Picture World 29 March 1913, 1322.

Moving Picture Theaters and Vaudeville

Almost from the moment that the nickeldeon appeared, vaudeville was placed in opposition to proper film exhibition. Though the early nickelodeons were modeled on vaudeville and the venues were often known as "electric vaudeville theaters," attempts to mix live vaudeville acts with films frequently came under attack in the trade press. The following article, excerpted from James McQuade's "Chicago Letter" column in Moving Picture World, appeared in 1913 and is fully within the genre. Note, however, McQuade's insistence that vaudeville and motion pictures do not mix because they come from fundamentally different classes of entertainment. This is a rather bold claim by McQuade, as in 1913 the best motion picture houses would in most cities still have been ranked below the best vaudeville houses, and regular coverage of the motion picture houses by the local press was just beginning.

It is also worth nothing that McQuade carves out an exception for live music—both instrumental and vocal—on the moving picture theater program. This is no doubt in large part due to the example and success of Samuel Rothapfel ("Roxy"), whose ideas McQuade frequently reports on in his columns.

What is the destiny of the moving picture is a question that frequently forces itself upon us. Looking back over its brief past, we have seen it housed amid squalid surroundings and looked upon merely as a novelty that enabled one to pass away five or ten minutes of leisure time. Gradually it forced its way until it was considered worthy to form part of a program that was chiefly devoted to cheap vaudeville. Soon it outgrew this humble and degraded use and was deemed important and strong enough to stand alone as entertainment. It holds that position now; but there are some people engaged in the field of public entertainment today who are not treating the moving picture fairly. These people are impressed that they must continue to dabble in what they call “high class” vaudeville, and with several acts of this they associate several reels of pictures. They assume that their patrons want pictures as well as vaudeville, and vaudeville as well as pictures. They dislike to take chances in running a really high-class vaudeville on its merits or high-class picture programs on their merits. It is cheaper to compromise, and they give their patrons programs that offer neither standard high-class vaudeville nor standard high-class picture entertainment.

I have always held that really high-class vaudeville can and will continue to stand by itself and that really high-class moving picture programs can stand by themselves. Vaudeville and pictures do not assimilate. Vaudeville at best is low art; moving pictures at their best are high art—in some respects even superior to famous paintings, which are classed among the fine arts. Moving pictures assimilate with high-class singing acts, for here we have arts of the same standard and class associated. Music, whether instrumental or vocal, harmonizes with moving pictures. Both make an appeal to the imagination. The motif of a great moving picture can be suggested at the very beginning of its presentation, by appropriate music; and throughout the presentation, scenes and incidents can be artistically enhanced by musical accompaniment, because eye and ear are both made subservient to our delight and pleasure.

The destiny of the moving picture, as we all know, is still higher than the mere furnishing of entertainment. It has already been shown that its greater value lies in instruction. Its educational domain has scarcely, as yet, been entered upon, and we can only guess at the marvelous results that will be accomplished in this respect. Its high mission makes one zealous for its present good name, and all true friends dislike to see it affiliated with unworthy associates.

When one reads of the building of beautiful new theaters, with large seating capacities, and learns that the programs are to consist of “high-class” vaudeville, so called, and moving pictures, and that such theaters are pronounced by their owners “picture theaters,” there is mingled feeling of sadness and resentment. What we need at the present time are more managers of the Saxe Brothers and Sievers type, and of the same type that is so prevalent in the far West. And we need, too, presentors [sic] of moving pictures of the Rothapfel type. The time is close at hand when greater intelligence must be supplied for the conduct of picture theaters, both for their business management and for the presentation of pictures. The exhibiting department of the moving picture industry has not kept pace with the manufacturing and distributing departments.

Source: Ja[me]s S. McQuade, “Chicago Letter,” Moving Picture World 15 March 1913, 1088.