Exhibitors Herald World (Oct-Dec 1930)

Editorial BY MARTIN J. QUICLEY. The Critics' Diagnoses THE commercial significance of decent moral standards in motion picture entertainment remains a matter of doubt in the minds of some thoughtful and conscientious students of the situation. They see before them numerous examples of off-color entertainment which is profitable in a dollar and cents measure. They see, also, very fine productions which are affirmatively moral which go out before a cold and disinterested public, resulting in substantial financial losses to the producer. Experience in the amusement business supports the position that the decent subject often fails to make money and that the borderline picture often brings in a gratifying profit. Of course, few if any deny that in the long run wholesome entertainment is the best policy but the isolated cases of the success of the other kind of entertainment are an element which severely complicates the thought and action of many people in the entertainment business. To these people we wish to commend for their consideration a symposium of dramatic critics' opinions which were recently collected and published by The Chicagoan. The question lightly asked by The Chicagoan was: "'Who killed the drama and why?" Answers to this question were asked and received from all of the leading dramatic critics of Chicago. The information and opinions supplied offer grounds for a great deal of sober thought and reflection on the part of all people in the amusement business wherever their interest may lie. Very briefly summarizing the opinions expressed wp find the following: Ashton Stevens (Chicago Herald and Examiner) — "Smut and Summer." Charles Collins (Chicago Tribune) — "The prevalence of 'smut' on the stage is ... a symptom of an art temporarily decadent." Fritz Blocki (Chicago Evening American) — " . . . constant bedroom and cesspool psychology." Lloyd Lewis (Chicago Daily News) — -"Producers, playwrights and public are for the time being exhausted by their ten-year orgy of Belasconian realism of scenery, sex realism of action." It is very interesting to note that out of eight dramatic critics interviewed four ascribed the present poor estate of the stage theatre to the prevalence of smut as the main cause or, at least, introduced .this cause as one of the chief contributing factors. These men are not and do not consider themselves custodians of the public's morals. Their profession is to criticize the drama for the information and edification of their readers. Critics are interested in dramatic results and whether these results are attained through the maintenance of high morals standards in entertainment or otherwise is not their primary consideration. They possess, of course, a personal viewpoint as to what sort of standards are permissible in a theatre but in the ordinary course of newspaper reporting they are expected to keep these viewpoints in check. In the picture business we are quite familiar with the fact that various influences have had a play in bringing about the present poor estate of the stage theatre. But, it seems to us, when several leading critics on important newspapers emphasize the prevalence of smut as a chief cause there is presented an argument which should have the attentive ear of the motion picture exhibitor and the motion picture producer. AAA READERS of this page will find herein repeated an . argument which has frequently found mention in previous issues. In fact, the subject has for several years been a favorite argument with us. We go back over familiar ground for the simple reason that as yet nothing adequate has been done about the matter and we are heartened in the task because of the continuing conviction that something ought to be done. . . . We refer to the establishment in the principal cities across the country of medium-size theatres which will be committed to the policy of presenting out-of-the-ordinary motion pictures — subjects which never can expect to attract patronage of the volume which makes profitable engagements in the great theatres operating on a grind from early morning to late at night. We do not urge that productions be especially made for these houses of the type to which we refer. The producer must proceed on the general policy of making every picture one that commands widespread attention. But we know that the producer is bound to miss this mark occasionally in either of two ways. Either the picture will turn out to be just a poor entertainment or else it may be a very fine entertainment — yet one of limited appeal. This limited appeal may be due to the subject being just too "fine." It may be based on an adult theme which is not proper subject matter for general consumption. It may be a highly intelligent and sophisticated subject which will not suit the "movie" audiences. These good pictures which are not "movie" audience attractions must be given an outlet — both so that financial loss may be avoided and also so that these very meritorious subjects may be supported and continued. Also, they should be made available in an appropriate environment in answer to a large and growing public demand. Exhibitors HERALD-WORLD MARTIN J. QUICLEY, Publisher and Editor Incorporate Published every Fr Clifford, Assistant 1 •pondence should be addressed to the Chicago office. Better Theatres, devoted to the construction, equipment and operation of theatres, is published every fonrtt week as section two of Exhibitors Herald-World, and the Film Buyer, a quick reference picture chart, is published every fourth week as Section Two of Exhibitors HeraldWorld. Other Publications: The Motioh Picture Almanac, Pictures and Personalities, published annually; The Chicagoaw.