Exhibitors Herald (1927)

18 EXHIBITORS HERALD September 24, 1927 EXHIBITORS HERALD Qhe independent ^Blm Srade ^ 'aper Martin J. Quigley, Publisher Editor Published Every Wednesday by Quigley Publishing Company Publication Office: 407 So. Dearborn St.( CHICAGO, U. S. A. Martin J. Quigley, President Edwin S. Clifford, Secretary George Clifford, Asst. Treasurer Member Audit Bureau of Circulations Copyright, 1927, by Quigley Publishing Company All editorial and business correspondence should be addressed to the Chicago office Other Publications: The Chicagoan and Polo, class journals; and the following motion picture trade publications published as supplements to Exhibitors Herald: Better Theatres, every fourth week, The Studio, every fourth week, and The Box Office Record & Equipment Index, semiannual. Vol. XXXI September 24, 1927 No. 2 “ Sadie Thompson ‘ THE production now being made under the title, “Sadie Thompson,” has already occasioned considerable controversy and confusion and it is practically certain that additional controversy and confusion will attend its publication some time in the near future. The incident of the production of the story which has been named, “Sadie Thompson,” affords a decidedly interesting situation. In addition to its aspect of interest, the incident, before it is finally closed, will establish important precedents of one kind or another. Everyone familiar with recent theatrical history knows that the stage play, “Rain,” was an outstanding success during a long run in New York City. Although its fortunes elsewhere fell somewhat short of New York records, the play nevertheless ranks as one of the greatest attractions of the present generation. Irrespective of its subject matter such an attraction would in the natural order come under the scrutiny of motion picture producers in their quest for box office material. But in the case of “Rain” the story hinges upon the characterization of a clergyman of a highly unfortunate type. It was immediately seen by all fair-minded persons that to do this story in pictures would directly lead to bringing down upon the industry the wrath of clergymen generally to the certain disadvantage and injury of the motion picture business. The Hays office in fulfillment of one very constructive phase of its activities advised formally against the making of “Rain" into a motion picture. It was then concluded almost generally that the story was a dead letter as far as the screen is concerned. The matter rested in that status for some time and then word came from California that Mr. Joseph M. Schenck was producing a Gloria Swanson picture under the title, “Sadie Thompson." Everyone familiar with “Rain” knows that the central figure in the story, portrayed with great success on the stage by Miss Jeanne Eagels, was a tawdry waif of fortune named Sadie Thompson who had come out of San Francisco to the tropical island which was the scene of the play. The impression has gained ground in various quarters that Miss Swanson is making the story “Rain,” under the title, “Sadie Thompson.” To do this would be in direct violation of the advice of the Hays office. But, it is understood, the play “Rain” is not being produced. Instead a new story written about the character of the leading figure in the banned stage play is being produced. This brings up what many are inclined to regard as a highly dangerous precedent. “Rain” was held to be objectionable to institutions and individuals with whom the industry has no quarrel and certainly wants none. To take the leading figure out of this play and weave it into a new story can hardly escape committing an offense that would be practically equal to the offense of making “Rain.” “Sadie Thompson” owes her existence to “Rain” and even though she is presented in the new story in some attitude of regeneration she is still the “Sadie Thompson” created by “Rain.” It is not surprising that the members of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America who agreed to refrain from producing “Rain” have been unable to see that there has not been a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of their agreement. As a result of this it is reported that all of the theatre interests represented in the association have decided not to book the “Sadie Thompson” picture when and if it is offered. One of the most necessary functions of the Hays office during the past two years has been in connection with efforts to keep from the screen items in the current theatre and literature which if produced would have plunged the industry into almost limitless difficulties. In urging that “Rain” be not produced the association presided over by Mr. Will H. Hays took a course which had the enthusiastic approval of all who were thinking seriously and sanely about the welfare of the business. But this vital and necessary function of the Hays office can be effectually undermined if it is going to be possible for producers to resort to such ends as the making of “Sadie Thompson.” Unless there is honest cooperation on the idea of keeping from the screen plays, characters and incidents which are labeled in the public eye as notorious and objectionable, then there is hardly any limit to what might be done. We might see, for instance, a picture called, “Elmer Gantry, Jr.,” “The Firebrand Cools,” or “The Captive Released.” If a play or a book is properly subject to being excluded as screen material, it then does not become possible to lift out a fragment of it which owes its existence in the public mind to the sensational nature of the original work and weave it into something acceptable. “Sadie Thompson’s” career on the screen will be watched with much interest. * * * Fight Pictures ^L'HE theatres need every good attraction obtainable, X regardless of the source. Because of an exceedingly stupid federal law now on the hooks thousands of theatres will he compelled to forego exhibition of the pictures of the coming boxing contest in Chicago. If the contest is a spectacular one these pictures would afford a great attraction. But because of this federal law, enacted at the time a lawless negro was holder of the heavyweight championship and when the public mind was considerably disturbed, pictures of the coming contest may not he legally transported from one state to another. The theatres in Illinois alone will be permitted to exhibit the attraction. There has been a considerable change in the public mind since the enactment of this law. At many places where prize-ring contests were then illegal they are now permitted under the law. These heavyweight championship bouts have become national institutions. They are sanctioned under the law and are patronized by all elements of society. No reasonable defense of the old law can now be made. The law should be repealed and if the right effort by responsible persons were put forth we see no reason why pictures of important future bouts could not be made available to all of the theatres of the country.