The Bioscope (Jul-Sep 1931)

23rd YEAR. SUBSCRIPTION : Home 10 '6 per annum. Abroad 30/ per annum. “ Independence and Progress” (FOUNDED BY JOHN CABOURN) Faraday House, 8-10, Charing Cross Road, London, W.C. 2. Telephone : Temple Bar 7921, 7922. Telegrams i: ‘Gainsaid, W estrand London.” No. 1298. Vol. LXXXVIII. AUGUST 19th, 1931 PRICE 6d. In Brief T)LANS are laid by Paramount for * production in England during the coming season of a number of films based on the works of famous authors. Page 17 EXCLUSIVE details of the new A. B .C . super now in course of erection in York Road, Wandsworth, are published. Page ix QUESTION of London releases will be discussed at a joint meeting of representatives of the C.E.A. and K.RS., called for to-morrow (Thursday). Page 17 \\1 ILLIAM Thiele, young German pro' ' ducer of “ Le Chemin du Paradis,” is to make three British films at the Gainsborough studios. Page 16 hARS. Leila Stewart, for the past five years publicity chief of Warner Bros., is to resign her position in November. Page 16 P1 XTENSIVE reorganisation of the publicity and exploitation departments of the Gaumont BritishP .C .T . group are announced. Page 16 J JOLLY WOOD is worried by the political situation in Canada, says a “ Bioscope ” special correspondent. Page 17 A TROPHY for competition among the sales forces of Western Electric has been presented to the company by E. S. Gregg, who is about to return to the United States. Page 18 \\TOLVERHAMPTON justices have “ ’ approved plans for a cinema to seat 2,000 persons on the site of the Agricultural Hall, Wolverhampton, for Gaumont British. Page 17 RAH AM Cutts makes his return as a director with Reginald Fogwell Productions , for whom he will produce a series of George Robey films. Page 20 A N issue of the 1 ,000 ,000 5/ ordinary shares at present unissued in B.I.P. was announced by John Maxwell, chairman, at the annual meeting last week. Page 28 Beware “Sponsored” Journalism “ The most important factor to-day, so far as the American industry is concerned, is the attitude of the foreign Press towards our pictures. It is adversely critical to an astounding degree. The British papers are more fair, but the Continental papers are openly and unrestrainedly hostile to American pictures.” Irving Tlialberg, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer executive, speaking through the Hollywood Herald. With a quarter of a century of history on its files we feel that The Bioscope can discharge the pleasant duty of accepting, on behalf of the British film trade Press, its share in this generous tribute. And since, as the old saw reminds us, “ There is reason for all things,” we feel equally at home with the'' task of proving the case. If the British Trade Press has been fairer than the Continental Press, the fact is undoubtedly traceable directly to the greater measure of independence which it has enjoyed. The word “ independence ” comes with facile flow from the editorial pen of a trade paper which has always known complete freedom — freedom, that is, from the artificial restraint, the biased goad, which go with the serving of isolated interests as distinct from service in the cause of an industry of many and varied interests. Mr. Thalberg rates the fairness of the Press as an important factor in the present-day affairs of this industry. He means — and the whole industry will agree with him — that the standard of fairness which has in the past exalted the British Press must, for the well-being of the motion picture industry, as apart from that of any sectional interests which that industry may embrace, be rigorously preserved. And with that word preserve, and all it implies, vital principles are stirred. In Britain, less than in any other country, has the Press come under the control of industrial and commercial monopolists. Therein lies the simple explanation of its relative impartiality. The word relative may, in these days, be stressed without danger of distortion. The impartiality and independence of the British Film Trade Press can be preserved onl} if the policies of its various units are dictated by men with free hands. And this happy state can prevail only for as long as the finances of that same Press are controlled by men whose hope of a fair and reasonable profit on their investment depends upon their determination never to permit its utilisation in the service of individual interests. It is the cause of clean British journalism that Mr. Thalberg argues, and it is for the film industry to take its choice. It will continue to recognise only an untrammelled Press or la}^ itself wide open to the consequences of supporting 11 sponsored ” journalism.