Harrison's Reports (1933)

44 HARRISON’S REPORTS March 18, 1933 not, in my opinion, prove so infallible when the interests of the public were concerned. He passed on pictures which millions of American citizens considered demoralizing. Your hope to convince me that, because of the alterations in the book material, the picture will be accepted by the decent part of the American public cannot hide the fact that you have selected this book, not because of the possibilities the material offers, but because of the sordid notoriety the book has attained as a result of the implication of degenerate practices in it. There isn’t a single situation that can be pictured. Don’t you feel that you owe some consideration to those of exhibitors who have bought your product this season if not to the entire industry? You sold them a maximum of sixty-five pictures. There is nothing in the contract to indicate what sort of pictures you will deliver to them. They placed their trust in your judgment. Many of these exhibitors will not be able, and would not want, to show this picture. Don’t you think that such a condition is unjust? You force them to do something that is against their own conscience and moral upbringing. You say that Mr. Raft has refused to appear in this story, not because he objected to the material, but because he wanted more money. Since I am not familiar with this controversy, I am not in a postion to express any further opinion. I congratulated Mr. Raft for his refusal to appear in it because I read an account of his praiseworthy act in the trade papers, which account your company has not denied in the press to this day. But even if your assertion were true, that is not the point at issue. The important point is that you are going to make a picture out of a book that no decent parent would want his children to read. There was a time, Mr. Zukor, when you would, not only not accept such material, but discharge any one who would dare suggest it to you. Isn’t there any of that old spirit left in you? Don’t you realize the harm that you will do to this nation, not to mention the industry, by putting this book into a picture? I doubt whether my appeal to you will induce you to change your mind about producing this book. The fact that you have changed the title, from “The Story of Temple Drake” to “The Shame of Temple Drake” is the best proof of it. Additional proof is offered by the fact that your company has acquired two of the dirtiest plays that have ever appeared on Broadway — “The Great Magoo” and “Design For Living.” Let me, however, warn you and the other producers who arc similarly inclined, that the American people will not tolerate this condition of affairs much longer. Very sincerely yours, P. S. Harrison. * * * I tried to communicate with Mr. Raft for the purpose of finding out whether he has refused to appear in this picture only because he wanted more money and, having been unsuccessful, I wrote to a fellow-writer on the Coast, well informed in such matters, and have received the following reply : “Paramount suspended George Raft because he refused to play in the picture that is to be founded on ‘Sanctuary.’ The part assigned him calls for him to go into a room where there is a young girl of about nineteen and a halfwitted boy, to shoot the boy in cold blood, and then rape the girl. This is what is written in the script, which Mr. Zukor says has been passed by the representative of Mr. Hays. “After reading the script, Mr. Raft refused to act in it and so he was suspended. “You know, Pete, that ‘Sanctuary’ should never have been produced; but these distorted minds here can’t see the harm that it will do. “You are right in having complimented Raft for refusing to take a part in such a degrading material. The New York Journal has complimented him. And so have many trade papers. “But what makes me wonder is Where is Hays?” Mr. Hays just now is occupied in helping the bankrupt producers reduce the salaries of scrub women and janitors so that the banks may receive the interest due on their bonds. BLUNDERING PRODUCERS Last week two meetings were held in the offices of Nicholas Schenck, of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Loew’s, Inc., for the purpose of making decisions for cutting fifty per cent of the salary of every one connected with the companies that are members of the Hays organization. Every one present was in favor of a fifty per cent cut in all branches, except Harold Franklin. Mr. Franklin pointed out to them the fact that the men connected with the theatre departments are the least paid; that their salaries have already been reduced to a dangerous point, and that another cut will bring their wages so low that they will not be able to make a living, with the result that their morale will be destroyed. He told them that destruction of the morale in the theatres will not work for the benefit of the industry, because, he said, pictures must be, after all, sold in the theatres ; it is the theatre box office that enables the industry to carry on. But his fight went to naught, for every one was against him and he had to acquiesce. Mr. Franklin was right. The average salary of the theatre managers is sixty dollars. Bringing this average down to thirty dollars cannot help destroying the morale of these men. What this paper wants to know, however, is whether those who are receiving bonuses in addition to salaries will forego their bonuses this year or not. Nick Schenck, for example, received more than $260,000 in 1931, and Bernstein, the treasurer, more than $160,000. There are others. Now, if they are not going to give up their bonuses, then reduction in salaries will prove beneficial to them, for the bigger the cut the greater the profits ; and the greater the profits the higher the bonuses. WATCH THE HAYS FORCES CROW Dr. Mark A. May, of the Institute of Human Relations of Yale University, was one of the professors who made a research as to the effect the moving pictures exert on children. This research was carried on under the auspices of Motion Picture Research Council, consisting of professors from many universities, and of the Payne Fund. The fellow-scientists of Dr. May refused to accept his findings on account of the fact that the methods he used in his work are not, in their opinion, of the best technique. The volumes are being printed and are soon to be put in circulation. They contain also Dr. May’s views, because the secretary of the Research Council did not want to be accused of being biased. Watch the Hays organization crow when these volumes appear ! IF YOU HAVE BOUGHT THE EDUCATIONAL SHORTS IN ORDER TO GET THE FEATURES! An exhibitor has written me as follows : “When we signed the contract for World Wide features we were compelled to take half of the shorts in order to secure the features. Now that Educational-World Wide has been taken over by Fox and the full number of features will not be delivered, we are at a loss to know whether we shall be obliged to run the number of shorts we had contracted for in the event that they are all released.” Legally a contract holder must carry out his contracts regardless of the diminished number of features World Wide will deliver ; but morally he must be given a reduction of shorts in proportion to the number of fewer features that will be delivered. According to the survey made in last week’s Harrison’s Reports, World Wide has delivered four instead of eleven and KBS Tiffany thirteen. If you have contracted for the combined product of the two companies, then the reduction of shorts you are morally entitled to is approximately onethird ; but if you contracted only World Wide features, then the reduction you are entitled to should be more than one-half of the total number of shorts j-ou contracted for. But you should still demand a 33% reduction in your film rentals on account of the demoralization of business. DEMAND A 33% REDUCTION ON ALL CONTRACTS For any producer to think that you can pay the film rentals specified on your contracts when these contracts were made at a time when no one could have foreseen the present conditions should be sent to a sanatorium to recuperate. Pictures are supposed to be valued at such a price that will enable a theatre owner to pay his bills, even though he may get along without a profit for a while. The present conditions are .such that, if a theatre owmer were to pay the prices stipulated in his contract, it would bankrupt him. You should demand a reduction of at least 33 per cent. Even with a reduction of this size many of you will find it difficult to carry on, for business in February was half of what it was in January and a decided 'improvement cannot be hoped for before fall. This paper again suggests to you to form your plans now to .shut down during June, July, and .August.