The culture of the 1910s and early 1920s and, in particular, cinema underwent crucial changes that were initially perceived with apprehension and mistrust. The transition from the one-reel movies to the so-called feature films consisting of multiple reels was steady yet noticeable. Along with a new format, feature films brought certain social considerations regarding ethics as usually they were devoted to gangsters, crime, and imprisonment horrors. Although some feature films can be regarded as offensive and even vulgar, they inevitably become a part of the changing world, focusing on pleasure-seeking public and, accordingly, were to be considered accurately to meet the requirements of morality set by society.
The perspective development of feature films was one of the most debatable topics of this period. According to “The Backbone of the Business” article that was published in Motography, “the program of any successful entertainment is calculated to feel comfortably the gap between dinner time and bed time” (1). The above statement is quite utilitarian, yet it emphasizes the core value of both motographic films and long-motion pictures. It should also be stressed that only the thoughtful viewers tended to consider some other issues related to a film, be it any moral aspect or a message revealed by a director. Considering that feature films offered a new vision and modern sources, it was of great importance to thoroughly study the notion of these films as well as the attitudes of the audience towards them.
However, there were some other parties, arguing the immoral impact of feature films on the public. Focusing on the role of advertising and criticizing, Bush claimed that plenty of makers of such films expected media to collaborate and issue positive reviews to attract more visitors and readers (750). Instead, representing The Moving Picture World, the author disputed that the journal will review films solely on their merits. To describe the nature of feature films, Bush utilized such epithets as “ignorant, morbid, and depraved”, thus making a reader reconsider his or her perception and connecting the issue to the generally-accepted standards of ethics and morality (750).
With this in mind, it is possible to pinpoint that the journal also criticized European censorship that unequivocally promoted the production of such films, leading to licentiousness and overall degradation. Indeed, it is arguable that very few, if any, moral issues were associated with feature films at least to some extent. Primarily, the presentation of such types of films was aimed at pure sensation when a thrill was shown just for a thrill. At the same time, the article written by Bush could not be overestimated or referred to as a subjective one as it renders homage to such films as Dante’s Inferno (1911) or Homer’s Odyssey (1911), emphasizing their thought-provoking images and ideas (750). Thus, the discussed party strongly believed that the adverse impact of feature films predominated per se.
However, it seems appropriate to pinpoint that not all of the producers shot feature films with the aim of reward and commendation. In particular, Mr. and Mrs. Drew, the prominent figures of the production, decided to prove their capabilities not only by shooting one-reel movies but also by creating five-reel films (“Film Flickers: At the Strand Today” 7). As a result, these producers proved their abilities with great success, representing the dramatic pictures. Thus, the desire to receive public attention was also among the driving factors that led to the establishment and promotion of feature films.
The topic of advertising was also studied by other trusted periodicals that prevailed in quality over quantity. It is crucial to note that they could take hold of the plethora of opportunities by praising feature films and receiving great remuneration. However, along with Bush the point of view of which was revealed earlier in this paper, Sargent reckoned that there is no place for “over-long shows” to compete with traditional monographic ones (800). The author properly structured his article to make it more convincing and focused on cost, quality, projection, and other peculiarities of films.
For instance, Sargent admitted that there is a possibility to shoot longer films and spend more money, but no excellence can be guaranteed. Another example relates to the haste with which the majority of feature films were produced. Sargent stated that the “motion pictures are made to be shown at the rate of sixteen individual pictures each two seconds” (800). In case more pictures were shown, they created an atmosphere of rush and failed to contribute to the appreciation and intelligence. The perfect picture is what every director should strive for, thus ensuring trustful relationships with the spectators. At this point, feature films failed to correspond to the mentioned standards.
Taking a closer look at the phenomenon of feature films, some critics stated that they should exist unquestionably while attracting only certain populations. For example, Reel Life’s representative distinguished between classes that prefer different forms of films. In particular, it was unlikely that six-reelers would be interesting for tenement districts as one evening entertainment. Instead, it was stated that feature films could be explored more precisely through the lenses of Broadway cinema spectators who seemed to be more affected by them due to their propensity to the dramatic amusement.
In the context of history, Broadway visitors were fond of opera and drama that provided them with “food for consecutive thought” (“One-Reel and Six-Reel Audiences” 1). In effect, the movie observation required a response expressed in either positive or negative feedback as well as the subsequent discussion. In this regard, feature films were to be associated above all with the mentioned audience. Nevertheless, the capability of any class representatives to enjoy feature films was noted. This serves as evidence of avoidance of overgeneralizations that, in turn, makes the arguments that were discussed above more relevant and reliable.
Developing the idea of differentiation, Quinn reflected on various reasons that led to the development of feature-length films (35). Among others, one can note the focus on production, exhibition, distribution, and reception. Comprehensively seeing these films, the author offered a new way of their perception that turned out to be more complicated than those of film historians of the 1920s period. Furthermore, such elements as the role of stars and film industry structure were also to be considered in detail.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that feature films of the 1910s and early 1920s presented an ambiguous and debatable issue. One the one hand, some critics argued that they deprive the society’s morality and depress the very concept of a good film. On the other hand, these films were regarded as a new form of the movie that requires differentiation and precise study to be understood by the spectators.
Works Cited
Bush, Stephen W. “Advertising and Criticising.” The Moving Picture World, 11 Nov. 1912, p. 750.
“Film Flickers: At the Strand Today.” The Nashville Tennessean, 12 Jun. 1918, p, 7.
Michael Quinn. “Distribution, the Transient Audience, and the Transition to the Feature Film.” Cinema Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, 2001, pp. 35-56.
“One-Reel and Six-Reel Audiences.” Reel Life, 17 Jan. 1914, p 1.
Sargent, Epes Winthrop. “Advertising for Exhibitors.” The Moving Picture World, vol. 19, no. 7, 14 Feb. 1914, p. 800.
“The Backbone of the Business.” Motography, 20 Sept. 1913, p. 1.