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

The Future of the Single Reel

This article by W. Stephen Bush is not concerned with music or sound at all. But it is an illuminating account of the situation with respect to transition from single reel to multireel (feature) production in 1913. At least in part because the distribution system for features differed somewhat from that of the single reels (following a complicated system of state's rights rather than a general release to the film exchanges), features were often shown in venues other than motion picture houses, including legitimate theaters, which had higher prices and more elaborate traditions of accompanying dramatic presentations. Even when motion picture houses chose to put on features, they tended to treat the feature as something special and augment the number of musicians or include a lecturer. As some of the ads that have been posted suggest, the production companies encouraged more elaborate accompaniment by commissioning scores for special features, a practice that had been tried on and off for a number of years. (Click on the Vitagraph ad on the right to see that the company had begun providing music for all its special features in March 1913.)

The Future of the Single Reelby W. Stephen Bush
Less than three years ago the single reel held absolute sway. Old moving picture men will easily recall the wonder expressed in film exchanges, when the Pathe "Dreyfus Case" was released. This splendid feature ran but a couple of hundred feet over one reel and the short end had an old-fashioned "comedy" for a running mate. Exhibitors were puzzled as to how it should be put on, but most of them guessed right and waited awhile before they let the tear-stained climax of the tragedy be followed by the farce. Nobody then thought much about features and the possibilities of the multiple reel. "The Fall of Troy" was among the early features consisting of more than one reel.

Then along toward 1911 multiple releases became more frequent, but they were still looked upon as exceptions, and there were few indeed who then anticipated the coming rise and development of the multiple feature reel. Multiple releases were given to the exhibitor in installments, the continuity of the subject to the contrary notwithstanding. In that shape they were anything but welcome to the exhibitor, who had to hear frequent complaints from his audience because subjects of multiple reels were split up and often released at intervals of a week and more. When producers at last began to heed the demands of the public and the repeated urgings or this paper and decided to release multiple reels on one and the same day there were many vaudeville houses which sandwiched acts of vaudeville into reels treating the same subject. We mention all this just to show what a novelty the feature reel was in those days and how long it took for producer and exhibitor to properly adjust themselves to the new conditions.

On June 17, 1911, The Moving Picture World said in its editorial columns : "The present upward trend of the moving picture could not be shown more strikingly than by grouping together the titles of the following films released recently or about to be released : 'The Fall of Troy,' 'A Tale of Two Cities,' 'Enoch Arden,' 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic,' 'The Maccabees' and 'Faust.'" We prophesied the further rapid development of the feature films in the same article in these words "It is * * * characteristic of the present higher ideals that of the subjects above mentioned one consists of three reels and two consist of two reels each. The two and three reel subject is indeed a necessary product of the higher ideal. It is bound to come, and in two or three years it will be the rule rather than the exception in all dramas."

Events have literally verified this prediction. I believe that on the whole the quality of the feature reels has been above that of the single reel, though the feature reel has lately gone to inferior sources for its material and inspiration. The fond hope that the feature and the higher ideals would become synonymous has not been entirely fulfilled. European productions especially have too often departed from the higher ideals in the selection of subjects for multiple reels.

With the feature still holding the center of the stage and with every prospect of continuing to hold it for many years to come the question will occur to every exhibitor: What is to be the future of the single reel? The studios and equipments of every producer who issues regular releases every week is especially adapted for the making of single reels. The great fortunes in the manufacturing branch have in the last five years been made through the production of single reels. To the men who supply the staple of the exhibitor's program the feature is, as a rule, a thing most difficult of achievement. They look at the film situation from an angle wholly different from that of the feature men. It is well nigh impossible to put out a weekly supply and at the same time astonish the film world with wonderful features. There are some producers, not too many of them, who have foreseen the coming triumph of the feature and who have prepared special facilities for the production of features, entirely separate and distinct from their equipment for single reels. Such producers are the exceptions rather than the rule. The great majority of manufacturers will for a long time to come be dependent for their financial success and their artistic reputation on single reels.

It seems plain that the diminished demand for single reels will suffer still greater diminution unless the average of quality in the single reel takes a quick and decided turn for the better. In the regular single reel issues of certain producers there is about as much variety and interest as in the links of a chain of sausages. When one remembers to what heights of artistic achievements the industry rose in the days of the exclusive reign of the single reel, it is strange that there has been so much retrogression.

It would be easy to recall instances of splendid single reels. Take for example the old Shakespearean series of the Vitagraph Company, which no multiple Shakespearean reel since made has ever been able to approach in dramatic power and condensation ; take the famous old Biographs such as "Pippa Passes," "The Greaser's
Gauntlet" and scores of others, which were the delight of the public and the exhibitor. The old companies still release an occasional fine single reel, but on the whole even their single reel issues have shown meager quality, while of the newer companies scarcely one can lay claim to even a fair average of quality in the single reels. Originality of invention and dramatic power are sadly lacking.

We hope the day will never come when the single reel can be considered as little more than a "filler." There is to say the least as much chance for a display of directorial skill in the making of the single reel as there ever was. No matter how many features may be produced hereafter and how good such features may prove to be, the single reel will continue to be the backbone of the motion picture show. That show will in the end be judged by its single reels. If these are given over entirely to the exploitation of cheap comedy and cheap melodrama it will be a sorry day for the exhibitor and the public.

The coming of features consisting of eight reels and even twelve reels will undoubtedly have a tendency to decrease the demand for the single reel. Such features will establish new standards in kinematography. If the difference in quality between these very big productions and the every day single reel release is too pronounced it is not at all improbable that the single reel will lose in popular favor and will be relegated to the very cheapest of motion picture theaters. There is but one way to prevent this. The single reel must conform to higher standards. Its place in the kinematographic procession must not be too far in the rear of the modern feature of many reels.

Source: W. Stephen Bush, “The Future of the Single Reel,” Moving Picture World 19 April 1913, 256.

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.