Motion Picture Herald (Mar-Apr 1939)

March 4 , 1939 MOTION PICTURE HERALD 17 ould Find His Audience Divided'' EDWARD M. FAY, Fay's Theatre, Providence, R. I. Martin Quigley's able and forceful reply to Walter Wanger's plea for opening the screen to political propaganda is a fearless document, refreshingly sincere with obvious truth. It affirms again Mr. Quigley's life-long concept of the proper and competent function of the free screen and clarifies with a certain finality the fact that the screen is for entertainment and education only. Mr. Quigley says — "No propaganda, no politics. ..." "Keep it free from restrictions." "Preserve its freedom. . . ." "Don't plunge it into the forum of political debate. ..." These are real, straight-from-theshoulder, tried and true "Quigleyisms," much more worth while clinging to than all the "Wangerisms." V J. K. BURGESS, Iris Theatre, Velva, No. Dak. I think Mr. Wanger is pretty much right. People are tired of these so-called sophisticated entertainment. A good picture taken from a good book, with a real story, with some true to life characteristics about it, is the one that clicks nowadays. I think Wanger's right in trying to put something into pictures other than, as your editor says, "entertainment." Pictures that have something behind them (some basis of fact) are the pictures for me. V WALTER VINCENT, Wilmer & Vincent Corp., 1776 Broadway, New York, N. Y. I have read Martin Quigley's open letter to Mr. Walter Wanger and I so thoroughly agree with him that I cannot be too out-spoken in my approval of what he has said. Not only do I believe that the screen is no vehicle for propaganda, and neither do I believe that there is any publication, newspaper or magazine, that should be the vehicle for propaganda. In fact, I am opposed to propaganda of all kinds. V PETER PANAGOS, Sipe Theatre, Kokomo, Ind. Under no conditions should the entertainment screen be used for propaganda. The best security for our industry as well as our country is to mind our own business. The only "ism" that the screen should be concerned with is "Americanism',' and we should shout it loud and long. We all know how powerful the motion picture screen can be, in formulating public opinion, therefore anything that we do to embed this one "ism" in the public's mind will be the most sensible move the industry ever made. With the vividness the screen can present its subject matter, there is no question that it would be the most powerful weapon anyone with dictatorial aspirations could control. Of one thing we can be certain— if "Americanism" ever did collapse, this great industry of ours would be the first to crumble. Just as we carried the sloga-n "Motion Pictures Are Your Best Entertainment" in the recent Movie Quiz Contest, so we should carry some similar slogan at this time pertaining to "Americanism" as the only "ism" of security. If producer and exhibitor got behind such a drive with all they had, we would nip at the bud all the other "isms" that are trying to become rooted in our country. It is my belief that there is no possible way of giving the public an objective picture of the different "isms." Our uncensored press in this country plays up the sensational, so that our people regard the dictators as egotistical monsters, who don't consider others. Of course, this is not true. On the other hand, their censored press regards us as selfish, money hungry, ignorant people with no regard for the rest of the world. Therefore, in any problem where an understanding is so far apart, the industry is leading with its chin if it allows itself to become involved. I again say that the screen should be used for entertainment only. At any time that we deviate from this course and get mixed up in any political propaganda we can rest assured that we will get in a helluva mess. I regard Mr. Quigley's letter as a masterpiece in rhetoric and more revelations of this sort will make the producing end of the industry think twice before making any radical moves. V JIM HANEY, Milan Theatre Deluxe, Milan, Ind. I have read your article very carefully regarding propaganda on the theatre screen and I am in favor of everything you say. There is no place for it in the theatre where people go for amusement. If we were at war with another nation then it might be a different matter. I am a World War veteran, lived in New York with all races of people as friendly neighbors, spent thirty years of my life playing vaudeville all over the world, so I feel as though I am a fair judge of human nature. Surely the producers want to get business for their pictures, so I think the picture screen should be free of all propaganda at all times. V R. M. BEATTY, Crescent Theatre, Red Deer, Alta., Canada. We are quite in accord with Mr. Quigley's article and for our part think that propaganda on the screen for political or any other selfish motive should be nipped in the bud, therefore we do not hesitate in commending the article. In the future Wanger productions will be watched carefuly for the slightest trace of propaganda (isms), and for our part will not get playing time. We feel we live in a democratic country and until something has proven better to take its place we are satisfied with it and I do not think that any of the (isms) have come even near approaching the point. V MRS. ANN STONE, Star Theatre, Unity, Sask., Canada. I have been following with interest the pros and cons for "Films for Democracy." I read with interest Mr. Quigley's reply to Walter Wanger. I disagree with the stand the Motion Picture Herald has taken and also Mr. Quigley's reply to Walter Wanger does not satisfy me. I disagree with Mr. Quigley's stand that motion pictures are for entertainment only. Films I think have always to a certain extent been measures of propaganda of one type or another. For instance the type of film that shows the evils of gangsterism, for example "Racket Busters," "Angels with Dirty Faces," Edward G. Robinson films, etc. You might say these are constructive examples of propaganda. But for a more glaring example of film propaganda you have 9 out of 10 British films, which are constantly extolling the virtues of British imperialism. From a very enlightening article in Esquire (Spring issue) the author went so far as to say that unless pictures produced in Britain were not definitely imperialistic propaganda the films would not be produced. I understand that is the reason Paul Robeson is making his pictures independently. That is why I contend there is plenty of room for democracy in films. Why not extol the virtues of democracy? Why not sink the idea into the millions of theatregoers that we have a system to be prOud of, contrasted with the fascist countries? I see on page 17 of Jan. 28th issue of the Herald of the further squeeze fascist countries are putting on Hollywood films. Surely under conditions like these there should be some counter attack, or are you people going to wait until the squeeze is put on in our own country ? I also wish to state how much I disagree with Mr. Quigley's viewpoint regarding Walter Wanger's "Blockade." May I say I think it was a grand attempt to bring to the screen the horrors of the Spanish war. I don't think it went quite far enough. My hat's off to Walter Wanger for making the attempt. I would like to see more attempts of the same sort. As far as being a successful picture, perhaps as far as B.O. it wasn't a success, but most of the better films are not B.O. hits. E. E. WEBBER, JR., Kansas-Missouri Theatre Association, 128 W. 18th St., Kansas City, Mo. I heartily concur in what Mr. Quigley has said in reply to Mr. Wanger. The newspapers, radio, motion pictures, and the debate platform and church are all mediums for the expression of the beliefs by the American people. However, the motion picture differs from the others in that the audience has no opportunity for rebuttal or argumentation, therefore, it is my opinion that the motion picture can only rest upon a purely entertainment basis. In political beliefs of the present day we can find many interesting stories, experiences, trends, etc., which are of vital concern to all people ; but the people concerned should have a voice in expressing the pros and cons of these facts. The motion picture exhibitor is the responsible publisher of entertainment alone ; if he should endeavor to educate, to control or to influence his patrons by the screen, he would immediately find his audience divided into groups. The exhibitor is in business to entertain the masses only, and must continue to do so if his business remains a profitable one. I do believe the motion picture is the greatest educational medium yet devised : it can be used in schools, colleges, forums, lectures, etc., to excellent advantage. The arts, sciences, can be taught, but politics and government should remain a function of the newspaper. I do not believe that the picture "Blockade" failed because of the political issue involved — the reaction of the patrons in our theatre was disinterested. The voice of the American people can more easily be heard in the legislatures of the various states.