Exhibitor's Trade Review (Sep-Nov 1921)

1430 EXHIBITORS TRADE REVIEW Volume 10. Number 21 The Miller Interview T TEL A. » E REVIEW A.. B. S WETLAND , President; L. W. BOYNTON, Vice-President and General Manager; JAMES M. DAVIS, Treasurer; MONTE W. SOHN, Editor; OSCAR COOPER. Managing Editor; HOWARD McLELLAN, Technical Editor; J. T. McCOY, Director of Advertising ; a. M. VANDIVERT, Advertising Manager. Home Office, Knickerbocker Bldg., FortySecond St. and Broadway, New York Telephone: Bryant GltiO Chicago Office 910 South Michigan Blvd. Telephone: Harrison 3251 Los Angeles Representative : Frank J. Baum 607 Union League Building. Telephone: 62042 London Representative : George F. Salas, 172 Wardour Street, London, W. I., England. Member Audit Bureau of Circulations. Subscription rates, postage paid, per year : United States, $2.00 ; Canada, $3.00 ; Foreign. $6.00 ; single copies, 25 cents. Remit by check, money order, currency or U. S. postage stamps EXHIBITORS TRADE REVIEW, Inc., also publishes, monthly, INTERNATIONAL CINEMA TRADE REVIEW, in six languages, in the interest of assisting the motion picture industry of the United States in successfully exploiting and merchandising its products throughout ali foreign countries where a potential market exists. "HOLLOWING are the organizations " which have officially and voluntarily endorsed Exhibitors Trade Review for its constructive editorial policy in advancing the interests of the independent exhibitors. Motion Picture Theatre doners of New Jersey, March 2. Sydney S. Cohen, President, on behalf of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, on the floor of the Pennsylvania convention at Harrisburg, March 8. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Pennsylvania, March 9. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Northern California, March 9. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of West Virginia, March 15. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Kentucky, March 16. United Theatrical Protective League, Minneapolis, March 27. Kansas State Exhibitors' Association, in convention at Wichita, March 28. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of New York State, in convention at Rochester, April 1. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, State of Illinois, in convention at Chicago, April 11. Bronx Motion Picture Theatre Owners' Association, New York, April 22. Wisconsin Exhibitors' Association, in convention at Milwaukee, May 11. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Western Pennsylvania, May 24. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of New Hampshire, May 26. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of North Carolina, in convention at Wrightsville Beach, June 25. Sydney S. Cohen, President, in his annual report to Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, at Minneapolis, June 27. James J. Walker, National Counsel, in address to Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, Minneapolis, June 28. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, in National Convention at Minneapolis, June 29. Resolution of indorsement adopted by unanimous vote. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of New Jersey, in convention at Atlantic City, July 6 and 7. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Nebraska, July 10. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Connecticut, July 27. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Eastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey and Delaware, Aug. 24. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Missouri and Kansas State Exhibitors' Association, Sept. 13. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Nebraska and Iowa, Sept. 21. IF there could be any doubt of the need for strong producer organization, the interview we printed with Governor Miller in last week's issue ought to dissolve it. The Governor stated the excuse for censorship. You remember what it was — that Messrs. Cravath and Brady had come to him as the spokesmen of the industry and admitted the need for some kind of "regulation." Furthermore, the Fourteen Points — or Thirteen — or whatever they are now — aggravated the excuse, and opened the way to convict the industry on a plea of guilty for which there was no justification and which ought never to have been made. In the past, Exhibitors Trade Review has devoted a large amount of space to proving the inefficiency of the Brady regime and the utter folly of permitting Mr. Brady to be the leader of the producer organization. We have no desire to reopen that question at length now. It is a tiresome subject to us and to a great many other people in the industry, but our point is proved again by the remarks of the Governor, and that was our main reason for printing the interview. You cannot oppose censorship and favor it, in some other guise, at the same time. That is child's play and it ought to be left to children. Men should have nothing to do with it. This publication has been accused, at various times, of being a destructive medium. That is an easy accusation to make, but let us remind those who make it that before you can build a house you have to blast — in order to get to solid rock. We have attacked some of the outstanding evils in this business, not because we like attacks for their own sake, but because it was vitally necessary to come out boldly against these evils so that constructive work could follow. That is exactly our attitude in the matter of the Miller interview. We have no patience with an alleged leadership which would fritter away the inalienable rights of the screen by silly attempts at compromise with the screen's enemies. And we knew of no way in which better to make clear what the Brady leadership had got the industry into in this State than to go to an enemy of screen freedom, like Governor Miller, and ask him why he had sponsored censorship. But, remember, the time will come when the producer body will have real leadership and real organization. We believe that firmly. When it comes we shall be the first to hail it; and we shall remind the industry then as now that it was necessary to blast before the house could be put upon an enduring foundation.