The Film Spectator (Mar-Dec 1928)

Page Eight bers. I never heard of a union of portrait painters or of sculptors, or of virtuosos, or of novelists — did you? It looks a good deal as though a publicity trust were being formed, as though a "freeze-out" were in progress. It looks a good deal as though the fan magazines would eventually be controlled by the Wampas and Wasps, and this means a deluge of publicity about the Wampas "Baby Stars" and a dearth of recognition for the old stars. It means that this organization can make or break a star or player — or for that matter make or break almost anyone in the industry who depends upon public acclaim for their success. This is giving the Wampas and the Wasps far too much power — and they are apt to do a lot of damage to the industry unless their wings are promptly clipped. They may grow arrogant, and there is far too much arrogance in the industry now — too much arrogance and assurance and too little real ability. I went to see Mr. Barrett Kiesling, who is chairman (or something very important) of the Wampas "Credentials Committee". I asked him about the new ruling. It seems that one must either be a staff writer or under contract to a magazine, or paper, in order to obtain stories or interviews. If you are not under contract (or a staff writer) you must get an order from the editor of the magazine or paper for that special interview or story — then this assignment has to be O. K.'d by Mr. Kiesling ■ — then, and then only, will the studio doors be opened to you. This means that the free lance will have an almost impossible road to travel before arriving even in the outer provinces of success. For almost every editor buys an article or interview from a free lance after it is written because the manner in which it is written or treated is usually what sells it — not the subject matter. * * • Real news stories are naturally the first right of the staff vsrriters — but a unique style of writing, a different treatment accorded an old subject often sells the free lance's story. For example — last year a free lance was told by the editor of a fan magazine that only the contract writers would do interviews. He was told to submit only symposiums or feature articles. Following this the editor bought every interview the free lance sent him. He virrote these Interviews so well that they were accepted in spite of protests from the staff and contract writers who resented furiously his "crawling in under the fence". He is still writing and selling interviews, for which he had a peculiar flair — and has yet to do a symposium or a feature. But with the new Wampas ruling the best writer can no longer win out. It is all in the hands of the staff or contract writers and the Wampas who stand behind them. And yet the editors of the different fan magazines are asking for and anxious for contributions from the free lances. But what chance has a free lance of obtaining an interview under the new arrangement? I asked Mr. Kiesling (very meekly) if this condition did not savor of a publicity trust. He told me it was an arrangement "for the protection of legitimate writers". It seems odd to me that "legitimate writers" should need protecting — I should think the standard and excellence of their work would be their pro THE FILM SPECTATOR July 21, 1928 tection against upstarts who imagined that they could write. I asked Mr. Kiesling if this new ruling was not a little hard on the free lance. He shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if it was not true that the free lance had to write far better than any staff writer on a magazine in order to have his story accepted — and he said "Yes!" Inasmuch as all the free lance writers who have been appearing regularly in different fan magazines for the last few years in spite of the protests of the staff writers and because they must have written rings around these same staff writers — the new ruling seems very unfair. Inasmuch as there are Wampas and Wasp members in every studio publicity department it will be next to impossible, from now on, for the free lance to get a story, or any "stills" or photographs, to illustrate it. What possible chance has a bright idea, if it is the idea of a free lance, or an illegitimate writer, in this case ? Let us take a look at the array of fan magazines and the motion picture sections of the newspapers and see what is offered in the way of interesting reading. Very little— just the usual hooey about this sweet young thing and that. Most of the magazines give much space to "society gossip" in screenland. And inasmuch as "society" in cinemaland is very new, rather absurd, and constantly changing as the contracts change, we, or the fans, can not take it seriously. Yet we read over and over again about the "nice buffet luncheon" that this star or that served, about who went to who's bridge party, or how happy so and so is with her husband, or what a sweet girl such and such an ingenue is. And who cares? Nobody! They read it because it is embellished with pictures of the players and scenes from the screen plays. • • » The producers complain because a star is losing his following; he blames the star — he never thinks of blaming the writer of articles for the fan magazines. Recently the editor of one of these magazines told me that his whole staff of writers were making a try at writing an article on the new talking picture. And all attempts so far had been colorless and dull reading. It was, he told me, too big an assignment to hand over to a free lance or to entrust to an "illegitimate writer" — so doubtless he will publish a dull and colorless story. And yet talking pictures should offer one of the biggest and most colorful subjects as well as a romance of achievement to almost any writer. No wonder the legitimate writers need protecting! We read again and again that Marion Davies appeared at such and such a first night "looking blonde and radiant" and "wearing an ermine coat." Every fan knows that Miss Davies is blonde and radiant — and ermine coats are worn by every star. Why comment upon the obvious ? The public have grown to love Miss Davies because of her rollicking humor, her mimicries — she is an excellent comedienne. Added to this she is a real personage in Hollywood — she has a brittle, splintered-glass personality that will make itself felt in spite of the bonbon, yellow curls and pink marshmallow coating which they continually smother her in. The fans love her in spite of this gooey coating, in spite of her poor screen plays. Marion has brains, she has something to say, is she allowed to say it? She is