Harrison's Reports (1932)

20 HARRISON’S REPORTS THE PARAMOUNT HOPES ON “THE MAN I KILLED” “For the first time in months,” says the January IS issue of Publi.v Opinion, the house organ of the theatre department of Paramount-Publix, “the concerted effort of the entire Paramount Publix organization will be thrown behind a picture which has convinced executives both in the east and west of its fine picture qualities and its excellent box-office potentialities. “The picture is, ‘The Man I Killed.’ “As far as Publix is concerned, ‘The Man I Killed’ must be sold with everything that can be put into it : The campaign put on by every theatre must be the best in the history of that theatre and must reflect the greatest effort on the part of the men in charge. “So vitally important is this, that Mr. Katz has declared that either he or Mr. Dembow will visit about 10 cities and towns chosen at random and check into the campaigns being used. . . . “ ‘The Man I Killed’ is one of the finest productions on this year’s release schedule. . . Much more is said about the picture and a great deal more urging is done for the selling of it than I have reproduced, but it is enough to show how the Paramount executives feel about a picture for which they must have spent one million dollars, and what efforts they are exerting to sell it to the public. The following was said in the review of this picture in “The Harrison Forecaster,” page 126, under “Comment”: “It is gloomy stuff, for the theme will make the leading figure a brooding, serious lad. . . . Obviously, the young man is an unusual soldier to regard himself as a murderer after killing a man in warfare. . . . “It is doubtful if people will become interested in the central figure of this play, and it is just as doubtful if they will get aroused over the lad’s atonement, — his living with the parents of the boy he killed. It is the kind of story that might be liked in Europe, where people can take their entertainment in heavy forms, but it isn’t stuff for America, a fact almost proved by the way stage producers have laid off it.” Under “The Editor’s Opinion,” the following was said : “ ‘The Man I Killed’ is the kind of story I would like to recommend, but it can’t be done. One has a sneaky feeling that, instead of being box office, such a story is actually anti-box office, and that if young Phillips Holmes keeps on appearing as a young man given to peculiar mental twists^ his picture career will be short. He is not, incidentally, to be figured as any kind of drawing card, and from the nature of the story it is hard to see how any other star could be injected into the plot. . . . Depressing for old people and the children will find it so much Greek.” This Forecaster review, which w'as written from reading the play itself, months before the picture was started, represents the facts about the picture one hundred per cent accurately. I am thoroughly convinced that, despite the enthusiasm of the Paramount executives, it will not make any kind of box office success, by reason of the fact that it is too depressing, not to mention the fact that the action is too slow. Why should the Paramount production heads have wasted the services of one of the best directors in the world and a million dollars of cold cash on story material that was hopeless to begin with? If a person who has not had any experience whatever at producing pictures could tell them that the material would not make a good picture, you would expect that the Paramount production executives, with years of experiences back of them, should have no difficulty at all in realizing that it is not good picture material, thus not only saving the million they have spent, not only sparing the services of so fine a director as Mr. Lubitsch, but also using the efforts of their sales forces on some pictures that would have brought results. Paramount could have the Forecaster advice for nothing if they wanted it. But the Hollywood fellows want no outside advice ; they know it all. That is why Paramount is now demoralized. SUBSTITUTIONS “MICHAEL AND MARY,” Universal (4020) : According to the contract, No. A4020 was to be “Bullet Proof,” and that “Bullet Proof” was to have been founded on a story by William R. Burnett, and since “Michael and Mary” has been founded on the play by A. A. Milne, it is a story substitution and you are not obligated to accept it. January 30, 1932 A CRITICISM FROM MR. COURTLAND SMITH My old friend Courtland Smith, President of Pathe News, offers a friendly criticism against the views I expressed in the editorial, “STOP GIVING FREE PUBLICITY TO THE TELEGRAPH CAMPANTES,” printed in last week’s issue. “I am sorry to disagree with your article, . . .” Mr, Smith says, “against publicizing the telegraph companies. In my opinion the use in a motion picture of the expression ‘Western Union,’ or the use of the Western Unon telegraphic blank, is not advertising or even publicity for that company. It is merely authenticating the incident. The quickest and most effective way to impress a scene on any one is to use familiar names of places. . . . “If you will follow Brisbane’s ‘Today* column you will see he invariably uses as many names and places and things in everyday use as possible. In that way he quickly gets the understanding and interest of his readers. “I think nothing could be more stilted in motion pictures than to have a telegraph company boy come up and hand the handsome hero a blank on which was written ‘Moviegraph Communications. . . .’ ” I have great respect for the opinions of Mr. Smith on account not only of his accomplishments in the motion picture industry but also of his personal qualifications. But I disagree with him as to his disagreement with my suggestion that the producers should stop giving free publicity to the telegraph companies. It is my belief that, since moving pictures deal with a fictitious world, all things in them should be fictitious. Just let the producers use a star actor’s name as the name of the character he represents and you will realize immediately how badly the illusion is destroyed. A partial destruction of the illusion is effected even when they so use only the star’s first name. The argument Mr. Smith adduces to prove his contention right by pointing out to the practice of Mr. Brisbane is not pertinent for the reason that Mr. Brisbane deals with facts of life as they exist whereas pictures deal with the facts of life as they might be. We have so been used to seeing Western Union or a Postal on the telegram headings in pictures so long that it is natural for a fictitious heading to make us conscious of it, but if such heading were used for as long a period of time as the Western Union or the Postal heading has been used we shall lose all consciousness of it. Perhaps “Moviegraph Communciations Company” would make us too conscious of its fictitiousness; “Standard Telegraph Company” might be better ; it is possible that most picturegoers will think that a new telegraph company has been formed and they will not feel that as if an effort is made by the moving picture concerns to avoid giving the existing telegraph companies free advertising. There is one more remark that I should like to make in criticism of my friend Courtland Smith’s criticism : What makes a picture appealing or laugh provoking or inspiring is not the employment in the scenes of the things that are used by people in real life in their social intercourse, but a plot in which the characters do things that interest or move the spectator, or make him laugh. Unless the plot is peopled w’ith such characters, no amount of atmospheric realism can save a picture from the junk pile. “EMMA”— “THE BIG PARADE”— “BEN HUR” Many exhibitors have written and told me that the MGM salesmen are trying to force the exhibitors to book “The Big Parade” and “Ben Hur” in order to get “Emma.” One of them has even sent me the letter the Los Angeles branch manager of this company has written him in which the manager makes an effort to sell him these two re-issues. In order to get the facts, I called up on the telephone Mr. Felix Feist, general manager on sales and distribution of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and asked him for a statement as to the accuracy of this information. Mr. Feist told me that, while it is natural for their film salesmen to trv to sell “The Big Parade” and “Ben Hur.” they have issued no instructions to refuse a sale of “Emma” in case the exhibitor does not want to buy the two re-issues at the same time. Those of you who are dealing with Metro-GoldwynMayer will be pleased, I am sure, with this information ; it would be unthinkable for a big company like this one to force an exhibitor to book old pictures, seen almost by everybody, and out of date now because of the advent of sound since “The Big Parade” and “Ben Hur” were made, in order to get a modern picture.