Exhibitors Herald (Jul-Sep 1922)

"Collier's" Calumny By MARTIN J. QUIGLEY fcfc/^OLLIER'S," one of America's most ^ widely known magazines, has permitted itself to be tempted by the sordid lure of an attack upon motion pictures. In its Sept. 16th issue it registers its fall from grace before its readers with an article entitled 'Why I Am Ashamed of the Movies." The article is signed by "A Producer of Moving Pictures." The publication of this article, which is announced as the first of a series, is regrettable for general reasons, but concretely it is a matter of small importance. It is of very limited significance because the screaming sensationalism of it. coupled with an absence of any specific charges or criticisms and the fact that it grievously misses fire in so many important respects, will prevent it from gaining any serious notice from thoughtful men and women. Yet it is regrettable because its silly charges, bound up in meaningless generalities, and its sanctimonious posture of having found out some evil that is crying to heaven for relief, will tend to further incite and inflame the minds of a lot of people who are already creating a noise and clamor that can in no possible way ever accomplish anything constructive but. on the other hand, can and does stand in the way of the correction of many recognized faults and errors. IX THE first place. "Collier s," for the purpose of getting the attention of the credulous, attributes the authorship of its article to A Producer of Moving Pictures." This, possibly, would be a pardonable misrepresentation in another matter; in this, however, it must be recognized simply as a plain lie — to deceive its readers and to give color to a statement which has not enough merit to it to stand on its own legs. The article was concocted by a person who not only knows nothing of the industry technically but who is so unfamiliar with motion pictures and the theatre generally as to think that "Ten Nights in a Barroom" is a lurid drama of a kind that may be linked up with such a thing as might be expected from another title the "Collier's" writer uses — "Her Double Life." The "Collier's" effort is a piece of counterfeit muck-raking. It is made up and presented in a maimer to convey the impression to the reader that it is undertaking a terrific indictment of motion pictures on moral grounds and finally muddles through to a conclusion that picture> are 'vulgar, cheap and stupid"' and. hence, they are a menace to the nation. \\7 E HE LIE YE the industry is quite aware of * * its many imperfections and we know that an heroic effort is being made day in and day out to further advance the already marvelous standards that have been accomplished within but a few years. We know that the greatest writing brains throughout the civilized world are being drafted to the screen. We know that every other type of brains that can possibly add to the improvement of motion pictures is being called upon. Therefore, the blat of gutter journalism need not be disquieting on this point. Aside from misleading of credulous and badly informed persons, who will damn the publication which has imposed upon them when they have finally seen the light, the "Collier's'* article is not without several humorous features. There is, for instance, an illustration of a foreign-looking theatre front which, if it ever existed in America, would be classified in the nickelodeon era. Along the sidewalk in front of this theatre is a row of baby carriages. The caption with the illustration asks the question. "What is the screen doing to the babies who came in these carriages '." Apparently. "Collier's" asks the reader to conclude that the babies who came in those carriages are sufficiently precocious to assimilate a number of economic, sociological and political fallacies and stupidities from the pictures they view from the cradle of their mothers' laps! It will be interesting to persons in the trade to note that the author of this article, who claims to be a producer of pictures, speaks of a picture being "produced" when he means exhibited — a rather startling jumble of terms for a person who claims to be a producer. Such stuff as this "Collier's" article seems to be the price of the industry's prominence and popularity. It affords no grounds for consternation but it does suggest the increasing advisability of the industry keeping constantly on the offensive before the public with the true story of its business and its product.