Harrison's Reports (1939)

Enter** sw« »««orid-cl»»3 matter January 4, 1921, at the post o3I«e at New York, Htm Y»rk, under the act of Marsh 3, 18T9. Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Poblishe*! Weekly by United States *15.C9 R™m 1 ftl 9 Harrison's Reports, Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 1S.C0 KOOm Pubiuiher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 . ,, . . _, . _ , . _ Great Britain 15 75 A Motlon Picture Reviewing Service Australia, New' Zealand," Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 _ . 3c;„ „ f„r,w *ta Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4612 <5»o a i^opy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXI SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1939 No. 41 DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM Two Hollywood papers, the Hollyzvood Reporter and the Hollywood Spectator, have taken George Schaefer, president of RKO, to task for having given Orson Welles $750,000 and unrestricted authority to produce a picture — Conrad's "Out of Darkness." Welford Beaton says in his Hollywood Spectator: "Orson Welles has never produced a motion picture — "He has never directed a motion picture — "He has never acted in a motion picture — "He has been given a contract and a large sum of money to spend in producing, directing, writing, and acting a motion picture. ..." He then turns his criticism into a personal abuse. W. R. Wilkerson, in his Hollyzvood Spectator, criticizes Mr. Schaefer for having given Welles $750,000 and a "questionable" story to make a picture with, and attacks severely Schaefer's announcement that all salaries beginning with $90 a week and up will be curtailed on a graduated scale, with the largest salaries receiving the greatest cuts. The criticism of Messrs. Wilkerson and Beaton are merely matters of personal opinion ; they are not founded on facts. Had either of them read the Conrad book and stated in which respect the book will fail to make a good motion picture, his criticism would have been constructive ; in the manner their criticisms have been presented, they are destructive, for they may have the effect of discouraging, not only Mr. Schaefer, but also Mr. Welles. Mr. Schaefer certainly must feel that Mr. Welles possesses certain qualifications to deserve the support he has given him in starting him off as a producer of motion pictures ; undoubtedly he feels that, when a producer puts on a fantastic production and makes a large portion of the American public take it for real — when a man puts on a production that makes people feel that the Martians visited the earth and began waring on its inhabitants, he must have something under his hat. And he proceeded to find out. If he finds out that Mr. Welles is a great producer of pictures, as he has been of radio and stage productions, then he will feel satisfied that he has accomplished something. Why should these two trade paper editors have singled out Mr. Schaefer when what he did is no worse than what others are doing in Hollywood every day — producers giving incompetent relatives unheard of amounts of money to produce pictures with ? At least George Schaefer picked out a person who has brains, and whose ability has been proved. The criticisms of these two trade paper editors are premature and ill-taken ; and they lead one to believe that they were inspired, even if they were not. Had they waited until Mr. Welles produced the picture and it "flopped," their criticisms would be justified; and if they were impatient to speak their piece, they could at least have read the book and told us its shortcomings, if they have the ability to point out shortcomings in a story chosen for film production. Harrison's Reports does not say that Mr. Welles is going to produce a masterpiece ; nor does it wish to discourage new talent : it will simply wait to see what Mr. Welles will do before saying whether George Schaefer was wise in doing with Mr. Welles what he has done, or unwise. In the meantime, the writer will obtain a copy of the book and will comment on it in these columns. WHERE THE TROUBLE LIES! The following interesting letter was received from a friend who has just visited Hollywood: "Dear Pete : "They have all gone 'nuts' out here. Last Saturday 1,600 subpoenas were served on studio heads and others by the government's representatives and this week the Grand Jury is hearing them all. What with the war, labor troubles, etc., they are firing all the help that contributed to making pictures. No relatives have been fired or. cut. No big salaries have been cut. "Only 'B' pictures will be produced. We are in for a flock of 'Quickies.' 'They may furnish the couple of big ones they started, but POSITIVELY they will not make any more big ones. The exhibitors who have already bought their product are in for a 'shellacking.' " The question of relatives in the production end of the business is, of course, a bane on the industry, but one should be a great optimist to expect the studio leaders to discharge their relatives ; it is not in human nature that they should do so. What hurts more than the employment of such relatives is the salaries paid them ; they are so high that the studio forces become demoralized : when competent persons see incompetent relatives receive three and four, and even more, times the amount of money they receive, they naturally feel aggrieved. As a matter of fact, this injustice is the subject of continual conversation among the forces of the different studios. The only remedy, as said repeatedly in these columns, is the outlawing of block-booking and of blind-selling: When pictures are sold on merit and not on the knowledge that they will bring in a profit, no matter how poor they are, because the poor pic(Continued on Inst pane)