Harrison's Reports (1933)

56 HARRISON’S REPORTS April 8, 1933 dustry until Winfield Sheehan took charge of production in 1926. In his early years of production, the name of “Fox Film Corporation’’ was synonymous with everything that was vile and low, because of the sex pictures William Fox had made. In fact, up to the time Jimmy Grainger joined this company, the name “Fox” was looked upon with contempt. The quality of his pictures was of the same quality as Fox’s picture reputation. The year Grainger joined Fox, large announcements and plentiful publicity led us all to believe that everything would be changed. What happened? The first pictures the Fox Film Corporation delivered under the Grainger regime were of the “Siberia,” “The Johnstown Flood,” “Yellow Fingers,” “A Trip to Chinatown,” “Palace of Pleasures,” “Sandy,” type — cheap and ordinary. And the name of Fox did not improve much. It was not until Sheehan went to the Coast and brought back such pictures as “What Price Glory?,” “Seventh Heaven,” and “The Cock-Eyed World,” that the name “Fox” meant anything. It is, in fact, my opinion that, but for the pictures Sheehan produced Fox would never have dreamed of reaching the position he had reached, for after all product is what makes success in this business and Fox was incapable of producing it, as his long production career unmistakably proves. I am not defending Winfield Sheehan ; I am simply stating facts. And I ought to know them, for I have been in the business from the very inception of every one of the companies, and have had an opportunity to observe them. There are many statements in the book that I could disprove. Unfortunately, I cannot do so without dragging the discussion for several issues. For instance, I could prove that he did not go into talking pictures by any brilliant stroke of genius of his own ; he was forced into it, for when he came East he had found talking pictures, made not by his relatives, but by others. But I cannot help calling your attention to the fact that he has left some very important chapters from his life out. For instance, he did not say anything about his welching on that $250,000 gambling debt of his, which he contracted at Palm Beach with Bradley. ( I have been informed that years later he was shamed into settling it.) Nor has he mentioned anything about his exacting from D. W. Griffith $100,000 for the foreign rights of “The Tw'O Orphans,” which had cost him only $15,000. Griffith overlooked making a deal for these rights when he started “Orphans of the Storm” (“The Two Orphans”), and he had to send to Europe a special representative. Through an oversight, the Griffith New York office failed to pay the $15,000, agreed upon in France, to the New York agent of the rights to the book and the agent, peeved, sold the rights to Fo.x. All the pleadings that his demand for $100,000 was excessive were of no avail. And Griffith had to pay it. And there are still other chapters. Fox complains against Sheehan and the Clarke bank group bitterly. In my opinion, instead of complaining against them, he should order statues carved and placed in his bedroom so that he might look at them every morning and thank them for the favors they have done for him, for if it were not for Winfield Sheehan he would not have been able to get for his company today eighteen cents let alone eighteen million dollars ; and if it were not for the Clarke banking group he would perhaps have been figuring out now how to get some cheese from the grocer by aid of a cat. AN AMPLIFICATION In my open letter to U. S. Senator Pat Harrison, I stated that the firm of William Donovan is attorneys for the Paramount receivers. This firm is attorneys only for the plaintiff to the receivership. The attorneys for the Paramount receivers is the firm of Root Clark & Buckner, of which Elihu Root is the head. Elihu Root, a Republican, is, as you well know, the former Secretary of State ; Emory R. Buckner, a Republican, is the former U. S. District Attorney, under the Republican administration. R(X)t Clark, too, is a Republican. A POSTER PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRODUCER-DISTRIBUTORS The treatment the exhibitors have received for several years and are still receiving in the matter of posters and advertising accessories rankles in their hearts ; the prices they are forced to pay are so high that there is not a single exhibitor but accuses the producers of profiteering. I was talking to a prominent distributor on the subject sometime ago and was told by him that what the exhibitors feel and say about tliis matter represents one side of the question. “The truth of the matter is,” he told me, “that our poster and accessory departments are losing money.” I tried to gather some information about the costs of tlie different items and what the distributors charge the exhibitors for them so as to be able to determine if possible where the real trouble lies. Here are my findings: Article Selling Price I -sheet 15c 3-sheets 45c 6-sheets 90c Window Cards IOC ii"xi4" Photos (8 in set) 75c Stills IOC each Cost Profit S'M 954c i6)4c 28J4c 33c 57c 2c or 3c 7c or 8c 32c or 40c 43c or 35c 2c or 4c 6c or 8c (Note: Transportation charges have not been figured in the cost because of the fact that they vary in accordance with the distance of the e.xchange from the shipping point.) With so much profit for each article the assertion of my friend that these departments are losing money is somewhat astounding. Assuming that this distributor is accurate in his assertion, then there is only one explanation : the poster and advertising accessory departments are conducted inefficiently. Since advertising material, used intelligently in liberal quantities, increases the intake of the pictures at the box office, it follows that, the more the exhibitors use, the better not only for the exhibitors but also for the owners and the distributors of the pictures. With the prices now charged by the producers, it is unreasonable to expect the exhibitors to use more paper ; and since the producers say that, were they to lower their prices, their losses would become greater, some way should be found that will make it possible for the exhibitor to use more paper without increasing the losses of the producers, — even eliminating them. There are, in my opinion, two ways by which this can be accomplished : the one is by turning their departments over to the independent poster companies under a strict but fair agreement; the other, by offering to accept from the exhibitor a definite quantity of advertising material as a standing order at cost, with a high rate for all additional matter ordered after such matter has been printed. These suggestions are offered to the trade as a basis. Discussions may be held on them with a view to adopting some plan ultimately. The present selling plan, even if we were to disregard the complaints of the exhibitors that it is unjust and unfair, is not productive of the best box office results either for the exhibitor or for the producer and to continue it would be unpardonable. HORROR FOR THE BABIES AND THE LITTLE TOTS Mr. Clifford L. Niles, president of Allied Theatre Owners of Iowa and Nebraska, has written me as follows: “Two of the finest shorts on the market today are Walt Disney’s Mickey Mouse and the Silly Symphonies. “We note of late that they all seem to have a Devil or Ogre in them who are shown trying to imprison or beat up Mickey Mouse. Not satisfied with that, they have horrible closeups of these Monsters. “These Mickey s please the grown ups, but they appeal especially to children. Even little tots from five to seven years old squeal when Mickey appears on the screen ; it tickles them so. But these horror scenes just scare them to death. The other night a mother brought out a little girl about five years old so scared that she was trembling all over. The title of the Mickey cartoon was ‘The Mad Doctor.’ “Certainly there is enough brains in the industry to realize that it is necessary to eliminate horror from these pictures. Why not make them along the lines of ‘Santa’s Workshop' ? This was a masterpiece. The kiddies certainly enjoyed that.” Unfoitunately, Mr. Niles, there isn't “enough brains” in this industry to realize that the business is being killed. Not long ago I saw a Disney cartoon — I have forgotten its title now — dealing with gangsterism. The gangster thought has invaded even the cartoon field ! At other times I happened to see cartoons in which the udders of cows were stretched and made to assume different forms. The producers of these cartoons certainly know that cartoons appeal chiefly to children. Don't they realize that horror scenes such as ^Ir. Niles describes are frighte.iing children, and that the mothers, when they see their little tots in convulsions from fright as a result of such scenes, will refrain from taking them to a picture theatre again?