Paper Films.
British ingenuity and invention has produced a further revolution in film production, reducing cost and minimizing fire risks. The inventor of this innovation in paper photoplay is Mr. Martin Harper, of London, who also has the credit to his name of producing the “Extralite” flickerless shutter. The commercial samples have been described as “everything the inventor claims for them.”
These paper films will not blacken or singe, which claim has been proved by subjecting them to the excessive heat generated by the projector, and they are absolutely non-inflammable. There is also an additional value to these films, when shown on the screen: they produce wonderful pictures, soft in tone, with more body than the celluloid films. These films will withstand wear and tear, the “jumping” of the film caused by vibration due to a well-worn film will be eliminated.
Other advantages derived from the appearance of the paper film are that the cost of production is claimed to be only one-tenth of the celluloid film. Lighting cost of projection is reduced by one-third, and the price of the projector, which is simple in construction in comparison with the complicated lens system, costs considerably less.
The outcome is obvious, and there is every possibility of the film and the projector being introduced into the home for amusement and entertainment during family gatherings at a Christmas treat, etc. Some people have actually had films prepared of the gambols of their own children, which in later years will be shown to them as “what they used to be in childhood.” This idea will undoubtedly grow now that the paper film has appeared and proved its durability.
Paper films will affect a whole number of concerns. Cinema-operating rooms need not be asbestos-lined to conform with fire-insurance policies; cost of construction will be easier and cheaper, and insurance rates will be lower. The operator also will be relieved of that ceaseless vigilance so necessary with a celluloid film.
The existing bye-laws now governing film exhibitions under the Cinematograph Act will be questioned. This Act only covers celluloid films; these printed paper slips are neither films nor celluloid.
All this reduced cost of purchase and maintenance will commend itself to private enterprises and manufacturers generally. Greater possibilities are foreshadowed in being able to demonstrate the efficiency of their finished articles.
The general use of the cinema in the schools has been “tabooed” in some quarters on account of the fire possibilities. This difficulty has now been overcome, so that one may see in the near future this voiceless teacher working and instructing the scholars.
Much more could have been said dealing with technicalities—such as the construction of the camera, editing, acting, trick photography and supposed realities; spirit photographs, cartoons becoming animated with life, and moving sculpture—but these must be left to the imaginative mind of the critic.
VII
CONCLUSION
Upon reflection, the effect produced by the cinematograph upon our lives and thoughts, nay, upon the nation as a whole, must be considerable—morally, physically, spiritually, mentally and psychologically, for this form of amusement absorbs part of the daily thoughts of a considerable percentage of the British public. The reaction upon the mind becomes apparent from the quality of the subject-matter shown. There are certain members of the community who stand apart from this form of occupation of their leisure moments. This lack of moral courage, of the possibility of becoming tainted with the lower tone of some of the pictures, is to be deplored. Let social workers and educationists view the films and judge for themselves; and decry those films which, in their opinion, are unfit for mental consumption.
The greatest service can be rendered to humanity if the cinematograph be used in the right direction. There is a crying need for more educational films. This progression is retarded because production, at the present time, is centralized. This centralization, as we all well know, takes place in America, but before long there will be a breakaway, and British producers will think for themselves and not be influenced by Americanism.
The population of England and America is widely different. The American population is self-supporting, providing vast fields for opportunities, and these opportunities are considerably helped by prevailing climatic conditions. In England, production is periodical, governed by climatic conditions; in America, in California, the weather conditions are ideal and consistent. The two governing factors are at hand—financial support, and the weather.
British productions have soared above the fourth-raters, and the standard has undoubtedly risen during the last few years. The recent cry of one British Colony to the producers in this country was—“Send us more British films.”
As stated before, and voiced by the powerful press, a more discriminating censorship is required. If these duties were carried out more rigidly by an authorised person capable of giving an unbiassed judgment, not only on questionable films, but from the standpoint of national character, such discretion would exercise the necessary restraining guidance.
The Government subsidizes the dye industry, and why should not the educational side of the film industry receive the same consideration? This would produce “standardized educational films,” and might lead to good results.
The cinema question is uppermost in the mind of the public, and every phase is looked to with interest, every new invention eagerly investigated, and every suggestion for the raising of the masses, both morally and mentally, is given a whole-hearted support. It is hoped that although there may be passages in this volume with which readers will not “see eye to eye,” these pages will have been read with interest; and will help educationists to realize more fully the great power that the film may become in the education of the people.
THE LONDON AND NORWICH PRESS, LIMITED, LONDON AND NORWICH, ENGLAND