Exhibitors Herald (Apr-Jun 1921)

MARTIN J. QUIGLEY Pukliener & Editor * ISSUE OF * June 11th, 1921 Foreign Films By MARTIN J. QUIGLEY Simply for the purpose of emphasizing our position, it may be pointed out that nearly ten months ago in editorial comment we forecasted precisely the situation the American industry is now facing with respect to foreign films. In our discussion we plainly set forth the issues which inevitably tended toward the nation-wide agitation which has recently become a fact. At that time we urged a policy which subsequent events have unqualifiedly proven to be correct, yet the response from those who assumed to be charged with the welfare of the industry took the form of a vain attempt to apply the gag rule ih order that, for reasons close to their bank accounts, the industry generally might be kept in ignorance of the true significance of the situation then developing. One of the prominent actors in this gag rule effort was an exporter, noted for many words and few deeds, who sought to accomplish his purpose by availing himself of the machinery of the National Association in order that his private enterprises might not suffer regardless of the sacrifice to the American industry. His methods throughout the incident were characterized by tactics of locked-door diplomacy without any consideration being given to the right of public hearing and debate for the obvious reason that to him it all amounted not to a matter of right but merely a matter of expediency. Another vigorous ally in the cause of clouding the issue and holding the American industry back from the day it would understand and adopt a reasonable policy with reference to foreign films was a leading British trade journal which set up a shrill yell of retaliation over a feigned grievance concerning an imaginary boycott. Again referring to subsequent develop ments, attention might here be directed to the appearance of the Stoli Film corporation in the American market and the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of its distributing organization. * * * It is unfortunate that a definite policy was not evolved when the question was first proposed to the trade, which was at a time when it was susceptible to easy solution. Since then many extraneous issues have been dragged in and considerable agitation, which stands in the way of clear thinking, has been stirred up. Recently in Los Angeles, for instance, there appeared a carefully manufactured protest which had a deal more to do with unionizing players than with the subject of foreign films. Yet this will tend to create an erroneous opinion in the' trade and may lead to similar ill-advised expressions which will only add to the confusion and will in no way serve the best interests of anyone associated with motion pictures, regardless of whether he be player, producer, distributor, exhibitor or in any other way identified with the industry. Let this fact be kept in mind: The artistic considerations of this industry make it imperative that there shall never be any bar raised against a motion picture, of genuine merit whether it originate in Germany or in Shantung. Artistically, this industry would stand in peril of eventual suffocation from insular ideas if the best product of the production geniuses of the outside world was barred. In the ready acceptance of such product there is no commercial peril or even the trace of it. Accepting as a possibility the largest volume of such product that reason will permit, there still remain no logical grounds for toler( Continued on page 42)