Harrison's Reports (1933)

188 HARRISON’S REPORTS November 25, 1933 reject but could not demand all pictures not “generally released” during the life of the contract. The mixed contract committee which framed the italicized provision recognized the injustice of the prevailing practice and sought to remedy it. The theory was that an exhibitor could, under the pressure of business, overlook sending a notice that he wanted the unproduced pictures ; it also made it possible for the producer to delay the production of choice story material toward the end of the season, put off the completion of the pictures and then fortify himself behind the failure of the exhibitor to exercise his contractual rights. When the representatives of the producer-distributors, during the Atlantic City negotiations, agreed to the modified provision in the Five-Five-Five contract, they admitted indirectly that such was the case and agreed to abide by the modified provision which protected the exhibitor from unfair tactics on the part of the distributor. Universal’s taking advantage, then, of a situation that has been admitted to be unfair is not only morally wrong but inexcusable, particularly because the exhibitors, as said in last week’s article, had all their attention centered on the code and overlooked sending their notice demanding the “not generally released” pictures, among which is also “Counselor at Law.” Up to this time Mr. Carl Laemmle has valued the good will of the exhibitor. Is he now going to allow the love and esteem the exhibitors have for him to be thrown away by a general manager who could not be fair if he tried to? I know that this man once caused his company a loss of at least three million dollars by his refusal to adjust a fiftydollar claim, arising out of a decision reported to have been made by a drunken arbitration board. If Mr. Laemmle should refuse to deliver “The Invisible Man” and “Counselor at Law” to the holders of 1932-33 contracts, then he will let the exhibitors make one of two surmises ; either he purposely delayed production of the two pictures so as to take advantage of a technical violation of the contract terms, or that he approves of whatever policies his general sales manager may put into force, no matter how unmoral and contrary to the former Universal policies these may be. SENTIMENTS WORTH HEEDING The Octoberr 6 issue of the New York American printed the following letter from a person signed “An American Husband”; it is worth noting by the producers of motion pictures : “Miss Ruth Chatlerton has decided not to play the part of a harlot on the screen. This is a very radical decision at a time when the screen offers the patient public little else than a variety of harlot’s parts — but a very commendable decision. “Miss Chatterton should receive thanks and congratulations from that section of the public which is not primarily interested in harlots. “The decision may keep Miss Chatterton off the screen for a while, but in the end it must prove not only of moral but of financial advantage. “The public is going to get tired of harlots some time. Even the producers may some time have resourcefulness enough to think of some other kind of a part for men than a gangster, and some other kind of a part for women than a harlot. “But even if the play-going public is by this time thoroughly debauched and fails us, and even if the producer, after doing his best to lift himself to a higher level, cannot think of anything more spiritual than a harlot, we still have the great silent masses. The one-time moral masses of America, to fall back on. “There will surely soon be a revolution against the degeneracy, the immorality, the indecency of the stage. “There will surely some day be established an effective Federal censorship of activities which invade every household and exercise a determining influence of the character of the whole people, but particularly of the young. “Are we going to allow our young people to be educated to admire gangsters and harlots? “Are we going to teach them that there is very little of interest in life except evil? “Why have churches — why have schooLs — and then let the screen, the greatest educator of all, undo the work of the churches and of the schools, and teach crime and licentiousness as the only worthwhile subjects of knowledge and interest? . . . “Can we not have an NRA for the screen and the stage to compel these great influences to do their duty by society? “Maintaining the morality of a nation is a proper governmental function. “There never was a degenerate nation morally which did not become a degenerate nation in every other physical and spiritual aspect. “There never was a nation which failed in moral fibre which did not soon fail in the fibre of patriotic manhood, in the ability to maintain and defend its national ideals, and eventually independence. “A degenerate nation is always absorbed by some more vigorous and wholesome nation. “It is nature’s unvarying rule of the survival of the fittest politically. “But our nation is not a degenerate nation, and our greatest obligation to ourselves and to the world is to see that it does not become so. “This obligation should not be left to chance or to the scattered effort of well meaning individuals. “It is a duty of government. “Let government do its duty. “Let it enable ourselves and our families to see something else on the screen except harlots in the morning, strumpets at noon, and courtesans at night. “When an American husband takes his family to the theatre, he ought to be certain that he is not taking them to a house of ill fame.” COMMENT FROM EUROPE ON DIRTY ADVERTISING In the English trade papers there appeared recently an advertisement of “I’m No Angel.” It consisted of a picture of Mae West, at the lower part of which there was the following wording : “Come up and see me sometime — I’m No Angel.” A friend of mine, who was in London recently, has written me the following from Paris: “In your issue of October 14 you have a paragraph headed : ‘Paramount Going Dirty.’ I herewith enclose a fine specimen of their latest in London. “The moment I saw this picture and read the words, I was shocked, if one can be shocked in the film business ! There is no doubt about the double-meaning. “The trade papers in which this advertisement appeared are sold by subscription ; but they may be obtained also by the public, and are indeed more or less displayed in two or three popular bookstalls in the West End, London, particularly in 'theatre land,’ and actually in Shaftesbury Avenue. Although I cannot vouch for its accuracy, I hear from London that this advertisement has been sought after by proprietors of bars (and of worse places) to hang up for the amusement of clients. “What do you think of it?” “LITTLE WOMEN” BREAKING ALL RECORDS “Little Women,” the RKO picture with Katherine Hepburn, is breaking all records at the Music Hall, in Radio City, where it started its engagement Thursday, last week. On Saturday afternoon, there was a line that extended from Sixth Avenue to Fifth Avenue, three or four deep. The crowd was, in fact, so thick that employees of the theatre begged many of them to leave on the ground that it would be impossible to accommodate them before several hours were over. But none would budge. Remember that the Music Hall has 6,200 seats. The success of this picture is a great gratification to me, for it proves right the battle for clean and wholesome pictures that I have been waging ever since I founded Harrison’s Reports. The success of the few sex pictures were pointed out to by the producers to sustain their policy. “Little Women.” demolishes the arguments that nothing but pictures of the type of “She Done Him Wrong” and “I’m No Angel” can prove successful at the box office. I venture to say that, in the history of the business, no sex picture of other than the roadshow class has made a success that will equal the success “Little Women” will make, even though there is not a single salacious suggestion in it. “Little Women” will, I believe, do more to cleanse the screen than anything that has been done by any person or group of persons, censorship, legal and gratuitous, included : it will prove to the producers that pictures that are free from sex situations or “smutty” talk can bring to the theatres more people than the dirtiest picture that has ever been produced. It is about time that the producers got onto themselves : they have had two examples now : “Little Women” and “Three Little Pigs.”