Canadian Moving Picture Digest (May 1925-May 1926)

TORONTO, ONTARIO. PTD Page Three “THE NAKED TRUTH”—Continued From Page Two. It is only of very recent date that an attempt was made to have United Artists, comprised of Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Pola Negri, Rudolph Valentino, link themselves up with the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer producing company. Joseph Schenck who manages Norma and Constance Talmadge also Buster Keaton, is managing director of United Artists. Nicholas Schenck is his brother and heads the Loew-MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Interests for Marcus Loew. The Theatre Owners Chamber of Commerce of New York, in conjunction with the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America and the Cinematograph Society of Great Britain and Ireland, succeeded, in conjunction with many letters of protest to United Artists from theatre owners all over the world in preventing the proposed merger from going through. ‘this was in the nature of a real motion picture “menace,” and here may I pause to give praise to Charles Chaplin, who stood out against the merger and voted for Independence. I note that you missed Chaplin's “Woman of Paris” in your presentation of artistic and intelligent pictures. We, in the Industry, look upon Charles as a very great artist a man of vision who will yet do for this Industry what is expected of him. The M. P. T. O. A. was formed for protective purposes. It is representative of Independent Theatre Owners and 1s largely responsible for the existence of the Independent Theatre Owner and Producer ot to-day. It is the formidable weapon against the “Menace,” and now let us examine the “Menace” of motion pictures as we see it. Is not this Trust Menace the only tangible one the people may have cause to fear in relationship to Motion Pictures? The Screens of the World are in danger of being controlled by a group of men who are ambitious for money and yet more money only. Famous recently became affiliated with the U. F. A., (the largest sharcholders The Deutsche Bank of Berlin). This company is the. most important motion picture company in Germany through its theatre interests and its producing activities. Germany has produced most of the artistic pictures you have mentioned as outstanding. The influence of Famous upon German productions will not do it much good if we are to judge by the pictures Famous has been producing during the last few years under the Paramount Trademark. Their effect upon artists is unwholesome also. Look at Pola Negri’s americanization from an artistic standard, she was formerly a Paramount star before her United Artists’ affiliation. From England comes a cry against the American invasion of the British Empire in connection with a monopolization of its screens. Reprisals await but legislative action, still Famous continues to not only “menace” the standing of the American Industry within the U. S., but its standing in foreign countries. If you want an inspiration for a “real menace” read the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation report; and you will understand why our Industry appears to be a “Mess.” Gold — gold — gold — and yet more gold. Millions — billions — lure these monopolists on to establish a World Film Absolute Monarchy system. Independent effort is persecuted, and sidetracked. Independents bullied and absorbed. Schools have been opened for the training of dancers, players, managers, directors, all that comprises the Art and Industrial phases of Motion Pictures by Famous Players. Artists to be ground out, pictures as sembled in a certain time as Ford assembles his cars. Take the Paramount programme. Eliminate its German-made importations and what have you? And these are the people who muzzle our press. These are the people who feel their intelligence to such an extent that they believe they can make the pictures for the world and exhibit them to the world also. These are the people who have made a “mess” of this Industry and who are its greatest “menace” from an economic and artistic standpoint. Follow motion picture history and you will discover that the pictures which gave Motion pictures such a standing as it has, have been made by Independents. For example, David Griffth’s “Birth of a Nation,” “Intulerance,” “Orphans of the Storm,” “Miracle Man,” John Ince’s “Civilization,” William Fox “Daughter of the Gods,” “The Connecticut Yankee,” “The Queen of Sheba,” “The Iron Horse.’ Douglas Fairbanks, “Thief of Bagdad,” “Robin Hood,” “The Three Musketeers.” Charles Chaplin’s “Woman of Paris,” *The Kid.” Mary Pickford’s “Tess,” “Pollyanna.” Norma Talmadge “Smilin’ Through.” Universal’s “Merry-Go-Round” “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” “Abraham Lincoln.” Charles Ray’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish.” First National’s “Sea Hawk.” Metro’s “Scaramouche.” Richard Barthelmess ‘“Tol’ble David” another First National release. Vitagraph’s “Four Seasons” and “Captain Blood.” I could enumerate many more of equal artistry, all produced under Independent inspiration. You mention in your argument against us that theatres could be graded. They are at present, graded into first, second, third, etc. runs and zoned. Theatre owners attempt to select the pictures which have an appeal for their particular patronage, but the block-booking system, the system which forces a theatre owner to buy thirty or forty pictures in order to secure the two or three he desires makes selective buying impossible and the patrons have to accept what has been forced upon the theatre owner. The new system of selecting material for the screen resembles the policy adopted by manufacturers. The story selected has its cost of production (approximately) attached and dividends or percentage on investment considered first. If the percentage is not high enough, the production expenditure is cut; and if this still shows an insufficient profit, the story is discarded. How much will the picture make, is the first consideration by the Monopolists of our Industry. This phase of producing 1s not to be found in such a menacing condition among the Independents who present an idea over which they are enthused; and on which they are willing to risk their capital, their friends and friend’s friends. That pictures presented in many motion picture theatres are not continuing to please the patrons of these theatres; and are not what the public desires is evidenced by the fact that many of these theatres have presentations which involve large orchestras, visiting conductors, elaborate prologues, prima donnas, vaudeville and practically a demonstration of all the arts represented as public amusement or entertainment. But here let us pause to state that this is “an ill wind which blows much good.” The patrons of Motion Picture theatres are introduced to good music and song, a miniature presentation of the other arts, which has a cultural as well as educational reaction upon this same public. Into our theatres wander through accident, or by intent, foreigners who are the ‘dumb citizens” of our country. Our immigrants Google ‘are not recruited from the cultural class es, they do not understand our language, nor have they, through a lack of education and environment, had an opportunity to cultivate a sense for the finer enterpretations, or expressions of life. The screen teaches them, perhaps crude-. ly, the virtue in being righteous, the failure attached to vice, it gives them. a. glimpse of better surroundings than that to which they have been accustomed, it fires their ambition to have homes like these, perhaps these are not the homes of gentle people, but fairy tales are exaggerated and in the attainment of things we find. what constitutes the real values and realities. And then you have an-. other class, menta:iiy lazy who having advantages are conscious of only one thing, where they can find a new thrill, or learn the Charleston. These find in Motion Pictures a lesson also, they see their kind upon the screen; and the end of the road is not a rainbow trail for such as these. Perhaps in no other way could they be brought to see the truth. The popularity of Motion Pictures became accentuated with the decline of “meller-drama.” You remember the “tentwenty-thirty” days with “Nellie, the Beautiful Cloak-Model,” or “Bertha the Sewing-Machine Girl,” “Chinatown Charley” our idea of hero and heroine. Nothing in Motion Pictures has been as dreadful and appalling for crudity as these. We replaced them and are educating their audiences in a taste for better things. Would you give caviar to a man who enjoys corn-beef and cabbage? Quite a number of decent people thought “Lilliom” an obscene play and the last act, “crazy.” As for “Emperor Jones,” they damned Eugene O’Neil for making them waste an evening over a “crazy negro,” and this from Freudian exponents. It is also true that some of the finer class of pictures, such as “The Last Laugh,” “The Golem,” Woman of Paris,” have not registered from a box office angle as they should, but the fault lies in their radical departure from the common garden variety of production. They are such a distinct artistic shock that the public have not acquired their taste, that is the public of a particular zone or section, perhaps where these pictures fail are just the theatres where these pictures should not be presented. Even among intellectuals I have heard doubt and sarcasm in connection with “Jurgen” by James Branch Cabell, ridicule in connection with Marcel Proust’s “Swann’s Way.” Anatole France tolerated, Havelock Ellis received with indifference. What would you? Many of us find our brain taxed reading Michael Arlen’s “Green Hat.” Unfortunately when a production is received magnanimously by the press, and “goes over big” in our picture vernacular, oiher theatre owners, having a totally different patronage are inclined, or persuaded by a_ voluble salesman to present this picture at their theatres with disastrous consequences. The forerunner pictures, those made with a view of less profits and more artistry will have a need for presentation in small theatres especially designed for this purpose. The Theatre Guild started modestly and was a medium for mirthful sarcasm from the “Know-alls,” but it has developed into a good financial proposition through the presentation of the unusual in the Drama. And now I plead for us such as we are. You single us out as the “Dumb Dora” or the “Dumb, flashy sister of the Muses.” Perhaps we are the noveau riche of the arts. But we are the youngest of the children of Mnemosyne and who ac }