The Moving picture world (December 1920)

850 MOVING PICTURE WORLD December 18, 1920 (Continued from page 848) and my thanks for serving exhibitors. Here is a man beyond doubt one of the brainiest and most clever men in this industry. He is honest to a fault and he knows the picture business from A to Z. The Cleveland convention agreed to pay his expenses as part of the independent movement and he hasn't had a cent except $500 which I advanced him. I say to the exhibitors of America, if there is a spark of decency or honesty in you, you will demand that Mr. Sulzberger's bill be paid at once. Exhibitors have not paid one cent toward the independent movement. I say that every exhibitor who was at Cleveland and Chicago is personally responsible, at least normally so, for this indebtedness. How are we ever going to get anywhere if we are not honest with each other? I propose that we immediately put Sydney Cohen out of the organization and then get money and put a big American at the head of the exhibitors of the country, just like organized baseball recently placed Judge Landis at the head of that business. He may not know baseball as well as my 12-year-old son, but he does know a great deal about a square deal to both sides. That is my point as to our national organization. The famous Rembusch letter which Cohen objects to, recently published in Moving Picture World, was written and sent in by a friend to whom I had related the sorry details of the so-called independent movement. I have this letter before me and I desire now to give it my public indorsement. For publishing this letter Mr. Cohen asks that the editor of the World be put in jail. Instead of trying to gag the press, why did he not answer the questions in that letter? The freedom of the press is our greatest safeguard that we should not only insist on but fight for. I don't care what any trade journal says about me if they will be fair enough to give space to answer. This industry is seething with politics, but I would rather remain a free lance, if I am put out. In answer to the statement that Indiana repudiated Rembusch, Frank Heller, of Anderson, called the meeting. I sent out the call letters from my office and paid for the postage. Is this disloyalty? I hoped Cohen would come to Indiana to face me, but instead he sent a special delivery letter to every exhibitor in Indiana containing a lot of innuendo, every word of which was untrue. I arrived at the meeting after it had started and remained to the end and my name was never mentioned on any question, except once when Mr. Berman called to me with the remark: "Famous Players did not receive the Committee of Seventeen; is that not so, Mr. Rembusch?" The following members of the executive committee were present: Messrs. Peters, Bullock, Burford and Steffes, who must verify what I say. I was expecting an attack from Cohen's strong-arm man, Berman, but was disappointed. Let me give a funny angle of the meeting. I own quite a number of theatres in Indiana, therefore I have also quite a few competitors. All of my competitors were at the meeting and did most of the talking. Mr. Bingham, whom Cohen would place on the executive committee in my place, is my first-run competitor in Indianapolis. This is all politics and all right, and perhaps there might be a few exhibitors in Indiana who would like to see me out of the motion picture business entirely. It is difficult to always keep the good will of competitors in this business. The national organization should aim to keep competitors friendly. Cohen succeeds best when he keeps exhibitors battling. I want to say another thing to exhibitors: that in my interviews with all of the greater producers last spring I had a delightful surprise. You have your ears filled continually with a lot of mudslinging about the big producers — that each one is a giant octopus ready to swallow you alive. Please learn your mistake. These men are as decent a lot of men as I ever met. They are so anxious to deal fairly with the exhibitor that it is pitiful that exhibitors will not allow it. They want to co-operate and they need the co-operation of the exhibitor and you need their co-operation, but the everlasting mudslinging that a few do prevent your all getting together. There never has been a question of any kind that could not be settled between decent and honest men by looking across the table and discussing it fairly. Furthermore, there is no question that ever can be settled by backbiting. This industry is now in a period of readjustment. Every industry is taking advantage of a co-operation between its members and branches except our industry. If we had a great American like Mr. Taft at our head, with whom producers could confer and know they were not going to be kidded, and exhibitors would know they were going to be dealt fairly with, this industry would take a new stability that we have never had before. The Cleveland convention gave the work of enforcing the independent movement. What producer would have any faith in a national exhibitors' organization and agree to go" out of the exhibiting business with the national exhibitors' organization right now in the film business? We certainly must be somewhat consistent if we are to succeed. I haven't told you half, but I am very anxious to stand before the exhibitors who were at Cleveland and Chicago and tell them more facts. I don't care whether you like it or not, or take me out and boil me in oil afterward; remember you will be learning the truth, while I went through the grief and experience. I doubt that telling all of these truths will change matters much, for it does seem that where a man takes an exhibitor, kicks him, steps on him and spits in his ear, the exhibitor will generally rise up and give him a kiss. I know producers have tried to deal with the exhibitor fairly and honestly and went broke, where another producer has come out and taken a piece out of the exhibitor every time he could, and he was the one who got the business. You have the spectacle of your national president going about in less than two weeks after his election screaming at anyone who may not concur with his views. He tries to tell trade papers what they may or may not say about him and then starts a journal of his own. He is at the head of an organization pledged to go out of the producing business and he leads the exhibitor into it with his screen advertising and expects producers not to own theatres. He tries to have Mary Pickford fire Hiram Abrams. Did you ever see such a mess? And he would ostracize me because I show his performances. This is my reward for making possible the greatest gathering ever held in Cleveland, with an issue ready to be accepted by an entire industry. Now a few politicians would lead me out, but all the shrieks of forty Cohens and his hounds mean nothing to me. It is as water on a duck's back. Mr. Exhibitor, just pay Mr. Sulzberger what is coming to him and the other bills of the Committee of Seventeen, and I am satisfied. Independent Motion Picture Exhibitors of America. FRANK J. REMBUSCH, National Chairman. Robertson-Cole Seeks Stories to Suit Stars Robertson-Cole has established, at its studios in Hollywood, a scenario department under the direction of J. Stewart Woodhouse, and has started a survey of available stories for its various stars and producers. It will not rely entirely upon published novels, and produced plays or upon original stories for its material. "Salvage," which was written by Daniel F. Whitcomb, and "The Western Gate," a story by M. C. Fletcher, have been purchased. They will be the basis for forthcoming Pauline Fredcrick productions, added to the series of which "A Slave of Vanity," from the Sir Arthur Wing Pinero play is the first. "Good Women," by C. Gardner Sullivan, is another story which has just been acquired. State Ownership Fails in Germany A special copyrighted cable dispatch to The New York Herald from Berlin, dated December 4, reads, in part, as follows: "Germany, the land of state enterprise, has learned not to experiment with government ownership of the 'movies'. The State of MecklenburgSchwerin has just finished a lesson which cost over 1,500,000 marks. It began by founding the company with state money under the management of the mechanical expert of the State Theatre. He engaged a second rate theatre director from Berlin on a five-year contract at 50,000 marks a year. When the first rehearsals were under way he went on a personal strike for the title of 'Regierungsrat,' or state councillor. "He also is accused of charging a 10 per cent, commission on all supplies purchased, and of making all employes smoke cigarettes he sold them at a 30 per cent, profit. A photographer was imported at 180,000 marks a year, and nearly every rehearsal was enlivened by a quarrel between him and his wife, who accused him of coquetting with the actresses. "The first film turned out by the state factory was greeted with laughter by the trade and could not be sold. So the company was placed under the supervision of the minister of education, a man who confessed he had only recently gone to a 'movie' for the first time in his life and had no idea of the industry whatsoever. "The Berlin director was discharged while making the second film, and promptly filed suit for the balance of his contract. Now the minister asks the state for 1,000,000 marks to save the enterprise from ruin. The legislature has ordered a complete investigation and prosecutions."