|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Integrity of the IA
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
![](/ubbmembers/137h.jpg)
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 09-14-2000 09:26 PM
This is from an email conversation I had with a friend recently, regarding some interesting bits of info I dug up in old IA articles. Dig this:In the early days of motion picture exhibition, two men were usually employed in the booth per shift: one man for each machine. This was something that had been in place since the beginning. The union projectionists continually fought battles with theatre owners, who were always trying to get this cut back to just one man. The projectionist's argument was one that could not be taken lightly: public safety. Since nitrate film was highly combustible, they argued that it was absolutely necessary to always have a man standing by the operating machine. The idea being that, in the event of a film break, a man would be right there to quickly kill the machine and prevent a fire. Whenever an operator's machine was at rest, he was free to tend to general booth duties. The projectionists pulled no punches in accusing theatre owners of greedily putting profits above the safety and well-being of its patrons. "The public's safety should be the first and only consideration", the projectionists said, "therefore, there MUST be two men per booth to satisfy this requirement." The operators maintained that they allowed no compromises when it came to the public's safety. None. "Safety must be insured at all costs." Who could argue with that? In 1950, safety film came into widespread use and the fire threat was eliminated. So, with the public completely safe, the union would have no further opposition to one-man booths, right? After all, as was repeatedly stated for the record, they had only been concerned with the public's safety. In 1952, the IATSE expressed their concern for the public by introducing a resolution opposing the use of safety film. ------------------ Better Projection Pays!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
![](/ubbmembers/137h.jpg)
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 09-15-2000 09:18 PM
It's true. The whole story was culled from official IA reports in the trades, from circa 1945 to 1952.I don't know what happened beyond that. ------------------ Better Projection Pays!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|