Harrison's Reports (1933)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post ofBce at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 16.00 Australia, New Zealand, India 17.50 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1, 1919 PEnnsylvania 6-6379 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XV SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1933 No. 11 THE CASE OF "SANCTUARY^^ Recently the Paramount Pictures Corporation acquired the William Faulkner novel “Sanctuary’’ for production. If you have read the book, you will know what it is. If you have not read it, let me say to you that, as far as I am concerned, I have never read a book so vile and low. It deals with degenerate characters, who resort to sexual perversion. There is not a single situation with even one high thought in it. The author himself admits in a prologue that he wrote this book with the sole object of making money. When I read in the trade papers recently that George Raft was suspended by Paramount for refusing to take a part in “The Shame of Temple Drake,’’ which is the new title of “Sanctuary,” I decided to write to Mr. Zukor in an effort to dissuade him from making this picture. In doing so I felt that I was serving the interests, not only of Paramount, but of the entire industry. The following correspondence has been exchanged between this office and Mr. Zukor : February i8, 1933. Mr. Adolph Zukor, Paramount-Publix Corp., New York City. Dear Mr. Zukor : I have read in a Hollywood paper a news item to the effect that Mr. George Raft refuses to play in “The Story of Temple Drake” which is the new title of William Faulkner’s “Sanctuary.” VV’hen I spoke to your Mr. Schaefer some time ago I was given the impression that the production of this book has been abandoned. My reading of this news item implying that you are going to produce it, therefore, was a great surprise. I don’t know whether you have read the book or not. If you have not you should read it. You will then realize how filthy and vile is its material for a moving picture. No one questions the value of the book as a literary piece of work, but as picture material it is altogether unsuitable. You cannot picture sexual perversion and degeneracy. If you allow the making of this book into a picture I believe you will do the greatest harm to the motion picture industry that has ever been done in its entire history. Perhaps you will say that the plot of the book will be changed entirely so that nothing will be left of the original. Even if you were to do that the stench will remain. I hope that you will take measures to stop the production of the book for the good, not only of Paramount, but of the entire motion picture industry. Incidentally I believe that Mr. Raft has shown unusually good judgment and deserves the thanks of every sanethinking element not only in the motion picture industry but in the entire United States. Very sincerely yours, P. S. Harrison. Copy sent to : Richard Watts, Jr., Motion Picture Editor HeraldT ribune. Dr. Fred Eastman, Chicago Theological Seminary. Will H. Hays. Harry B. Rutledge, ex-Secretary, National Editorial Association. The Churchman. The Presbyterian Magazine. Arthur D. Hecox, Publisher of the Albany Evening News and Knickerbocker Press and President of the New York State Publishers Association. L. B. Palmer, Managing Director American Newspaper Publishers Association. Christian Science Monitor. Abram F. Myers, Counsel of Allied States Association. Charles L. O’Reilly, President Theatre Owners Chamber of Commerce. George Raft. Dr. Worth Tippy, Federated Couneil of Churehes. * * * PARAMOUNT PICTURES DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION Times Square, New York February 23, 1933. Mr. P. S. Harrison, Harrison’s Reports, 1440 Broadway, New York City. Dear Mr. Harrison : Your letter of the i8th instant relative to THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE, addressed to Mr. Zukor, has been referred to me. I regret that you should have been prompted to send copies of it to others without first having communicated with us and making inquiries as to the facts. I am hopeful that you will share my regret in this regard when you see THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE on the screen and that you will make suitable amends in due course for what I prefer to assume has been an impulsive act on your part. Dr. James Wingate, formerly Chairman of the New York Censorship Board, approved the script which will be adhered to in the making of this picture. “Sexual perversion and degeneraey” are utterly and entirely absent from our script. It was, of course, never contemplated that they would ever be a part of the picture. The script is so free of objectionable features that, in the strict comprehensive sense, it is not SANCTUARY. The finished picture and the public’s reception of it will be the answer to the matter. I trust that all of us will view it without bias. Incidentally, Mr. Raft did not object to playing in this picture. He refused to play in this or any other picture unless he received a larger salary than that provided by his contract. Copies of this letter are being sent to the identical recipients of the copies of your letter. Very sincerely yours, Russell Holman. * * * March 9, 1933. Mr. Adolph Zukor, Paramount-Publix Corporation, New York City. Dear Mr. Zukor : I wish to acknowledge receipt of your reply to my letter of February 18, signed by your Mr. Russell Holman. You lay great stress on the fact that I sent copies of that letter to others without first communicating with you to get all the facts. Since the only facts needed by me were whether you were or were not going to produce that book, and since my information was accurate, no communication with you was necessary before sending copies of that letter to others. And I have not committed any breach of ethics either, for this matter is of great public interest and I feel that persons who have a great influence with the public ought to be familiar with such matters. You say: “Dr. James Wingate, formerly Chairman of the New York Censorship Board, approved the script which will be adhered to in the making of this picture.” Why should Dr. Wingate’s approval of the script make it suitable for the American public? As far as I know Dr. Wingate does not possess purgatorial powers and his judgment, while Chairman of the New York State Commission, did