The Film Mercury (1926-27)

Page Two THE FILM MERCURY, FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1926 Hollywood, Calif. Knockers and Honest Men Whenever anyone attempts to say or write, anything critical about the motion picture industry, he is at once branded as a “knocker.” Why? Because down deep in their hearts those individuals who are always labeling critics as knockers realize their own weaknesses and fear exposure. Their cry of “knocker” is merely emitted in the interests of self-protection and self-preservation. There, is no reason why the film industry should not be openly criticised wherever there is the need for it, and those who have the good of the silent drama at heart and are not in the business for purely selfish motives welcome outspoken comment, and criticism, whether it be constructive or destructive. Anyone who is "willing to look the facts squarely in the face must admit that there are many things within the motion picture industry that stand in need of correction — not, however, the things that the reformers, bluenoses and fanatics are constantly shouting about, nor the things to which the industry itself appears to give the greatest concern. One of the first bubbles to be broken, for instance, is the much-exploited hokum about the great wizards, geniuses, square-shooters and honest men who are at present dominating our film affairs. Every individual in the picture game who uses his head for something besides a hat rack knows full well that there are unfair and underhanded tactics going on in all branches of the industry every day in the year, while the outward pretense is made that everything is fair and aboveboard. The funniest part of it all is that the ones who have the foremost positions and the best reputations in the movie game aire usually those who least merit them. In fact, it almost seems as tho underhandedness, crooked politics and an expert knowledge of the double-cross are among the chief qualifications for success and high rank in the film industry. Is this merely some more idle knocking? Let’s see. Upon reflecting back over some of the high spots in film events during the past few months, what do we find? Such choice little tit-bits as: 1. A production official, working for one of the independent companies, forseeing that his days with the firm are numbered, promotes a deal with a highly touted “honest” rival magnate to lure away the independent company’s biggest star. The whole thing is manipulated in a skulking, underhanded manner. The industry finally hears about it. Does it censure the crooked production manager and the hypocritical “honest” mogul? Instead, it rates the whole proposition as a clever business move. The production head who double-crossed his employers will no doubt find an even better job for himself. There is a heavy demand for double-crossers, apparently. 2. A general manager of one of the most prominent producing and distributing outfits, not content with a salary of $1500 or more a week and stock bonuses, brazenly manipulates the affairs of the company to suit his own interests, enters into several different propositions whereby he gets a cut from producers and stars for giving them a release through his organization, to the detriment of the stockholders; and for a little diversion and profit on the side, he plots with two other big movie moguls to eventually take the company away from the stockholders and original founders altogether. Yet this general manager is met at the train at both ends of the continent by scores of film personages, including those against whom he is plotting. 3. Another big film potentate, touted far and wide as a “square-shooter” — known for his “honesty” by everyone who knows nothing about him except what his press agents have written — tries to manipulate the stars of his organization into the hands of a combine composed of the very men from whom these stars have been trying to maintain their independence for several years. When the deal is halted just in the nick of time, he later had the effrontery to lament the fact that his machinations failed. Will the film industry take the title “square-shooter” away from him, after this episode? F B. O. PURCHASES PETER KYNE STORY F. B. 0. has purchased the screen rights to Peter B. Kyne’s story, “Breed of the Sea.” The story appeared originally in the Saturday Evening Post under the title of “Blue B.lood and Pirates.” Not so you can notice it. (If you cannot figure who the subject of this paragraph is, just insert the name of the magnate who is generally referred to as “the most honest producer in the business.”) 4. Two film moguls, not satisfied with the fact that they already dominate the screen and practically have the industry in their clutches, upon hearing that one of their independent rivals has negotiated a foreign deal that may help to keep the company’s head above water, rush envoys across the Atlantic with the announcement that they are bent on a certain mission, when in reality their purpose is to double-cross the independent magnate and hog the foreign market for themselves. At some future date, however, monuments will no doubt be erected to these two crafty gentlemen as motion picture “immortals.” But why go on? Space is too limited to record in a single issue all of the fine deeds of business ethics practiced by the great wizards, square-shooters and honest men in our noble industry. miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffniitMiiinnj. | Tamar Lane | fiiiimiiiinimmiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiT (Continued from Page 1) These directors like to stick out their chests and point to such players as their “discoveries.” As a matter of fact, they had nothing to do with actually discovering the players. The man who is able to pick winners does not merely stumble across one occasionally — he does it with at least a certain degree of regularity. D. W. Griffith, Cecil B. DeMille, Mack Sennett and the late Thomas H. Ince might be cited as leading examples. But even if the Lasky directors were able to unearth finds, of what definite value would that be to the company, if we are to judge by past experiences? WHY WASTE TIME? That is where the most amusing part of Mr. Schulberg’s announcement comes in. For Mr. Schulberg already has in his own organization two or three of the most promising young players in the industry and he is doing absolutely nothing with them. It is, therefore, only just so much bunk and nonsense for Mr. Schulberg to instruct his directors to dig up a few more finds to lay idle around the Vine street studio, when if they are left alone someone may later discover them who will make at least some use of their talents. There's a “REASON WHY “FIRST NATIONAL" has moved its “COLLEEN MOORE" and “ANNA Q. NILSSON and LEWIS STONE" Companies To Our Studios! ASK JOHN McCORMICK or “MIKE” LEVEE FINE ARTS STUDIOS 4500 Sunset Blvd. OLympia 2131 Los Angeles, Calif.