Unquestionably the Very Best Coffee ever 
sold by anybody, at any time, at any price. 
NONE BETTER AT ANY PRICE 
American Agriculturist, May 10 , 1924 
Better Movies for Farmers 
An A. A. Radio Talk Broadcast from WEAF 
By ALICE,B. EVANS 
AS the phrase “Passed 
lx by the National 
Board of Review** IS fa* Corresponding Sccrclary t Nations! Board 
miliar to all motion pic¬ 
ture goers and this talk has to do with a work 
with which the National Board is concerned, it 
might be well at the outset to explain what this 
National Board really is. It is a group of over 
200 unpaid but skilled citizen reviewers, with 
headquarters in New York, having no connec¬ 
tion with the motion picture industry and 
hence entirely impartial, to whom all producers 
of any standing voluntarily submit their prod¬ 
uct so that the Board may appraise it. It has 
been in operation continuously since 1909 and 
is the only organization which sees, weeks, and 
sometimes months in advance of release, 
practically all films intended for theatrical 
distribution. Appraisal is made by committees 
of these volunteer members, generally from six 
to ten being present, and there is provision also 
for appeal from one committee to another, 
thus ensuring as fair and balanced decisions as 
can be obtained: 
Now, merely passing a film does not mean 
approving it, but when a committee of the 
Board thinks very well of a film, it is placed on 
its selected list called 
“ Photoplay Guide to 
the Better Pictures.” 
These selections ob¬ 
viously cannot be 
made on a 100 or even 
90% basis of perfec¬ 
tion but are designed 
to afford both public 
and exhibitor a field 
of selection covering 
the films that are 
preeminently enter¬ 
taining, satisfactorily 
wholesome, and pref¬ 
erably, artistic and 
worthwhile in theme. 
Last year 506, or one- 
third of all the films 
shown to the Board 
including both long 
subjects and short, 
were selected. 
The helpfulness of “■**““■■ 
these lists is greatly 
enhanced by the method of classifying the 
films according to the audiences for which they 
are suitable, so as to indicate whether a film is 
one which is all right for the family including 
boys and girls, or whether its appeal is mostly 
for adults, or whether indeed it is suitable only 
for adults. This is far more comprehensive 
than any list simply directed at children, for it 
recognizes that the motion picture is meant for 
the general public. It is also based not on a 
review of just a few pictures, but of all enter¬ 
tainment films, and represents a group opinion. 
The Better Films Movement—what is that? 
Specifically it might be defined as the conscious 
direction of public patronage to the best films, 
which in turn encourages the conscientious 
selection of such films for exhibition. “Make 
the best films pay best,” “Boost the best, 
ignore the rest,” are slogans in use by com¬ 
munity better films committees which aptly 
express the underlying idea. But in order to 
boost the best, one must know in advance 
what that best is. This is important because 
every ticket bought at the box-office is a ballot 
for the photoplay shown, and if after you have 
seen a picture you realize you have voted 
wrong, there is no way to recall that vote. 
And that the public does vote wrong sometimes 
there are many instances to prove—instances 
where inferior films have done a smashing 
business and where, conversely, splendid films 
have fallen flat. Where’s the trouble and 
what’s the remedy? 
* * * 
To start with, production does definitely 
respond to demand—demand as expressed in 
dollars and cents at the box office. It is a fact 
that every producer knows how his pictures 
“go” in the theatres; that every exhibitor 
knows how his audiences patronize the films 
he shows and is guided in future bookings by 
their tastes so expressed. We must get at the 
trouble therefore by finding out what influences 
attendance—which is interpreted as demand. 
Is it advertising, is it the “atar,” is it the 
popular movie magazine, the newspaper 
reviews, the book source, or word of mouth 
reports? Well, it's all of these. 
But—and here we’re getting at the trouble— 
how many of them can you rely on? 
The newspaper reviews? Yes, when by 
competent critics such as a few big city dailies 
employ. But these are available only in the 
big cities. 
The movie magazines? They tell about the 
lives of the actors and cost of productions and 
a lot of things about the pictures before they 
are seen. And just a little—of varying worth 
of Review 
—about the pictures 
after they are seen. 
How about the 
“stars?” Well, some . 
times even the best are miscast and appear in 
poor productions. 
The book-source? That too may be mi s . 
leading. One author has testified that he 
could not recognize his own brain-child when 
he saw it as a film. And a book may be better 
than the movie made from it, or the movie 
better than the book. 
Again, can you rely on the advertising* 
But rarely. The producer, or distributor, or 
exhibitor, naturally and legitimately wants all 
his films to make money and so over-advertises 
the poor ones. He also spends much more ad¬ 
vertising the big expensive productions than in 
advertising the less pretentious ones even though 
the latter may be much better art and enter¬ 
tainment. The advertising, moreover, mar- 
give an entirely misleading conception of the 
character of a picture. Even its name may do 
this. The tendency is to describe any picture 
as being a kind that the producer and exhibitor 
think the majority of movie fans like, and that 
may be quite different from what the film 
really is. Conse- 
BETTER MOVIES 
TJ*EW of us have stopped to realize the mighty 
_ influence in our modem life of the motion 
picture. This influence can be for good, or for evil. 
The people themselves can determine which by the 
kind of pictures that are exhibited. Everybody 
has heard of the National Board of Review, which 
has probably had more influence than anything 
else in bringing about better motion pictures. 
In this issue, Miss Alice B. Evans, the corre¬ 
sponding secretary of the National Board, tells in a 
radio address of the National Board, how it works, 
and especially how people in rural communities 
can work with the Board in its better film move¬ 
ment. Read her address on this page, which was 
broadcast from WEAF on the AMERICAN AGRI¬ 
CULTURIST farm radio program on April 30th 
at 6:50 P. M. standard time. 
Why not bring this subject up in your Grange 
or other local farm meeting and appoint a com¬ 
mittee to work with the National Board to learn 
what the good pictures are, and then to cooperate 
with the local exhibitor to see that those pictures 
are the kind that come to your community? 
quently lots of people 
are disappointed at 
not seeing what they 
were led to expect, 
and lots more (often¬ 
times yourself among 
them) miss seeing 
some picture they 
would have liked to 
see. 
Lastly, can you 
rely on word of mouth 
reports? Well, even 
if reliable, they are 
not to be had on all 
films, nor are they 
always forthcoming 
in time to direct you 
to the film while it is 
still being shown. 
The whole thing 
is summed up in a 
recent editorial in 
the Motion Picture 
News, which also points the solution. After 
comparing the cases of two pictures, one of 
which, bearing the name of a sensational 
book, had enjoyed phenomenal success, while 
the other, though a kind that every one would 
enjoy and approve of. had played to poor busi¬ 
ness, it says: 
“This brings us to the Better Films Move¬ 
ment so ably sponsored by the National 
Board of Review, and which we regard as one 
of the most sane, practical and beneficial 
movements in behalf of this industry. These 
(better films) committees (which it promotes) 
are, after all, advertisers of good pictures. 
That, it seems to us, summarizes their work; 
and it is the most important work to be done 
today for the good and the progress of the 
picture. They get back of the picture which 
the public ought to know about and don t 
know about because it may not have a great 
star or a book on everyone’s tongue or some 
other great and already made advertising asset; 
and they tell people about the pictures when 
the exhibitors’ posters or other lame advertising 
effort tells very little to a very few.” 
* * * 
To illustrate the value of the National Board 
to the small community in particular, one 
man who runs the only picture show in his 
town (the center of a rural district) recently 
wrote the National Board in these word 
“In assisting the small-tow-n exhibitor to 
choose his pictures carefully you are rendering, 
in my opinion, an even greater service to the 
rural community, where they- have but one 
or two show-s per week, than to the city ex¬ 
hibitor who is compelled to show a greater 
number of pictures w-ith less opportunity for ( 
selection. I have found (1) your very careful 
selection and rating of productions as listed 
in your yearly catalog called Selected Pictures 
most valuable in making my bookings. I 
have referred to it constantly. (2) Your 
selection of features and single reels for use in 
connection with educational, religious and 
holiday entertainments have been a splendid 
guide in making up certain programs. The 
selections have apparently been made w-ith the 
utmost care and consideration for the benefit 
of exhibitor and public alike.” 
Now let me leave just this thought with you. 
Do you w-ant to know of the good pictures for 
the family, for boys and girls or for adults, for 
church or school or neighborhood theater? 
If you do, get in touch w-ith the National 
Board of Review at 70 Fifth Ave., N. Y. C. 
You and the National Board can work together 
for better films. 
W HEN WRITING TO ADVERTISERS BE SURE TO SAY 
YOU “SAW IT IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST” 
1, 3 and 5 lb. Cartons—It is Never Sold in Bulk 
438 
Men who 
values quicker 
preciate quality. 
They realize that 
fresh TUXEDO 
is the greatest 
tobacco value 
ever offered. 
THE 
MERCHANT 
Double 
Package 
Double 
Sealed 
l 
