Exhibitor's Trade Review (Nov 1924 - Feb 1925)

January 10, 1925 Page 11 fact, he was obliged to, in order to preserve the point of the tale. So he took a company of players and went to Copernick, Germany, to film it. Whereupon those movie men of malice who because its author was EngHsh, had hinted British propaganda. As a matter of fact the story deals with a family of Poles, driven into alien Germany, by tht fortunes of war. While their lot is similar to that of many Germans, it is the harder for them to hear because neither they nor their nation had any part in bringing the conditions which oppress them about. However, one must not expect fine distinctions from movie men as a whole. The picture, called "Isn't Life Wonderful?" because that was the title its author had given his story, was duly finished. We admit Mr. Griffith made a grievous error in his title. It is very bad form in the movies to have your picture called by the same title as the tale from which it is taken. It really isn't done in the best movie circles. He should have called it "Women and Potatoes," or "Passionate Spuds." A movie title without the word "woman" or the word "oassion" or "oassionate" has no box-office appeal. (See any motion picture trade paper.) IN due course of time the critics of the fourteen N^w York daily papers saw the picture. Some of them were women: some were men. All of them went back to their offices and wrote. Their sacred dutv was to tell the people what they as indirectly paid servants of the people thought "of the oicture. They told the people in no unmistakable terms that they thought it was the greatest oicture they had ever seen. Several of them used a phrase to the effect th^t here at last was r'o storv — but life itself on the screen. Th^y praised its comedy, th^y praised its pathos, they oraised its beauty, t_he->' praised its acting. In fact they praiserl everythine about it. And mark you, the'r nra'sp was unanimon<;. For perhaps th" first time fourteen different critics agreed The public served bi' the New York newspapers apparently believed them, f'^r it patronized th^^ theatre where the picture was <;hown in such generous numbers that standing room was at a premium. Writers from the trade papers saw thp picture. Their praise was as lavish a'" that of the daily papers. Yet each ^^-f them appended a warninp^ that "Isn't Life Wonderful?" might not be a good boxoffice attraction. This warning w-as addressed to the movie men — was it, rierViaps. incfiire'^ bv the movie man thernselves •■ns'^''-pd hv thpir co^tMuied crv fo^ pictures bpsr^np t'^e lab'^ls "Women" a"d "Passion": insn'Vpd hv the-r hHipf that the people are zonids and half-wits? Ther'^ is nothins^ myst'c, nothina: highbrow about "I=n't Life Wonderful?" It is a storv so simple that any child could understand it. Its author will tell you that he never employs words of _ more than two syllahlf^s: that he thinks in the sam» terms. Children who saw the nicture nn Rroadwav laup-hed spontaneouslv durmff its moments of comedv; wept copiousIv of their own accord durinp^ its moments of pathos. If hundreds of children of '"ight ar>d ten years found entertainment in the picture, are the movie patrons of the rural hinterlands so absolutely brainless that thev won't be ablp to tjet its comedv. and "f°pl its pathos? The court will absolve the movip men themselves from an^' ab'5p"rp of risible emotion ^durine anvthin? but a pip-throwinfT contest. TustarH comedv has been th^ir fare so lono that anvthinsf more subtle would probably result in acutp indigestion. And ■ so, too. an appreciation of pathos over human loves, woes, destinies, is far beyond their ken. The only moments of pathos they have experienced is when some other movie man outdid them at their own game. Their ideas of love are reflected on the screen. It is a look which a man casts at a painted doll in a cafe in one of their "big sets." THE trade paper critics sounded their box-office warning, we suppose, principally on behalf of the small towns. Which makes the slander all the greater. For if there is any place where such homely things as love and potatoes are understood as ingredients of life, it is in our small towns. The court wonders how a many small town exhibitor would dare the consequences of explaining that he would not show ' Isn't Life Wonderful ?" because he feared his audience would not understand it? Or that it pleased Broadway, and fourteen New York critics, but wouldn't please them? He had rather offend the Ku Klux Klan. And it would probably be safer. Yet behind the backs of his patrons this is exactly what the small town exhibitor is saying, if, as usual, he bases his judgment on these trade papers. That f'he reporters for the trade journals did their work honestly, fearlessly and The Public Wants— What does the public want? Especially in the way of entertainment. The question is vital to vcur life as a showman. The ultimate test of your success as an exhibitor lies in your ability to please the public with your attractions. Read what Frederick Roche has to say about this important que^jtion, and let us know whether or not you agree with him — and why. By discussion of the matter much good may be accomplished for the benefit of the industry in general. faHhfully, is best shown by the fact that the manager of a large chain of movie palaces declined to show the picture. He has tried to keep himself in the public eye by raising a cry "of better pictures. Yet when Griffith makes a picture which fourteen newspaper critics unanimously declare is the best ever, when Griffith deliberately tosses the old technique he himself originated into the ash can, and going back to first principles translates wonderful acting to the screen with beautiful simplicity, when Griffith turns out a piece of work, which critics declare will revolutionize the material, the methods, and the aims of the screen, this man declines to show it in his big chain of theatres. Why? Because, says he, it is not entertainment I 'T'HIS, indeed, is assault and battery. But it is assault and battery on fourteen men and women emploved bv the people of New York City through the newspapers, to tell the people what is what and why in motion pictures. It cannot be tried in this court. It is for the critics, their judgment sorely bleeding, to seek their own redress. Or possibly -for the newspapers which employ them to seek new critics. For if they, who see every picture unfolded in New York don't know entertainment when they see it, how can they advise the public what and what not to see? Not entertainment! Why? Because it is a simple story of human people? Because it is life itself? Because its actors have been warmly commended? Because its comedian has been likened to Charlie Chaplin? Because big audiences on Broadway laughed with it, wept with it, felt with it? Not entertainment! Are the plays of the season which make people laugh, cry, feel, which show life as it is, bringing its highlights into poetic relief, not entertainment? What is entertainment? The dictionary tells us that it is that which entertains. And what in life doesn't entertain — outside of some of the movies? And what is better entertainment than the little comedies and tragedies which come so close to everyone of us that we feel our breasts stirring with the tears, and our muscles of risibility trembling at the joys of such people as ourselves? Does entertainment mean only a series of custard pies, thrown in rapid succession? Or a million dollar cabaret scene? Or the lengthy embrace of a demi-mondaine and a lounge lizard? Not entertainment! Y^HO but the people have the right to ^ say what they consider entertainment? And how will they have the chance to consider at all, if the movie men insist and persist on considering for them? Does the public prefer the judgment of fourteen public servants, or that of the movie men? Not entertainment! No box-office appeal! If those are the alibis, and they are the only alibis presented in the court on behalf of the defendants, there can be but one verdict — guilty of the following charges: 1 — Slandering the mentality of the people of America. 2 — Slandering and verbally assaulting fourteen New York critics. 3 — Gross ignorance, wilful malfeasance in office. 4 — Attempting to throttle the advance of the motion picture at the expense of the American public. — Unconsciou'slv making D. W. Griffith, counsel of the people in this case, the most courageous figure in the American entertainment world. And the sentence for these gra^-e offenses is from ten to twenty years in the same haze of erroneous judgment which von have groped for years, with financial failure at the end, and abandonment by the people. Onlv the defendants, the long suffering, hopeful, natient public can appeal this sentence. You must appeal to them for clemency, and the court would sup-gest that the best way of doing so. would be to convince them of vour intention to follow the right path in the future bv beplnnrnf? to srive them what they are entitled to now. Kings and priests, soothsayer"; and saeres, n^riters. musicians, and men of the stae". havp found that eventually the public will enforce its fleniands for what it wants. Thev have all cornplied with the demands of the public. Now is your time to do the same.