Harrison's Reports (1948)

Entered a* aeoond-olass matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 „ v L on 1M V Publisher Canada 16.50 nevr 1 orK *v> 1N* 1 • p. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, . India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 ng Editorial PoUcy: n0 Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXX SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1948 No. 14 SOAP-BOX ORATORY Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, has rejected a resolution passed by the Pacific Coast Conference of Independent Theatre Owners protesting against the appearance of motion picture stars in political propaganda films, including newsreels. In a letter to Robert H. Poole, executive secretary of the PCCITO, Johnston stated that a Government such as ours is threatened "whenever any one person is deprived, directly or indirectly, of his right to exercise his political sovereignty to the fullest extent," and he added that "motion picture stars belong to the public but in a broader sense this relation' ship in no way sterilises their rights and duties as American citizens." "If it is within my power to prevent it," concluded John' ston, "this industry will not set a dangerous national example by limiting, curtailing or denying any of the sovereign rights of any one connected with it. Any such attempt would justly be condemned by the American people as interference with the rights of citizenship. It would be paltry, shoddy Americanism." From Mr. Johnston's grandiose defense of an actor's right to exercise his political sovereignty, one would think that there was a dire plot afoot to take away that right. A copy of the PCCITO resolution is not at hand at the time of this writing, but according to information that has reached this writer there is nothing in the resolution that even remotely implies that the industry should take steps to sterilize an actor's rights and duties as an American citizen. It is quite obvious that an actor's right to think and act in accordance with his political beliefs is inviolable, unless, of course, he advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or by other illegal means, and no one, whether producer, distributor, or exhibitor, can compel an actor to moderate his political activities if he does not choose to do so of his own accord. Consequently Mr. Johnston, by literally jumping up on a soap-box with a flag in one hand in a spirited defense of an actor's rights, and by handing his statement to the wire services for publication in the nation's newspapers, turned the spotlight on what is essentially an industry problem and, if anything, created unfavorable publicity for the industry as a whole. It is to be noted, however, that Mr. Johnston himself emerges as a champion of the individual's civil rights. The question involved in the PCCITO resolution is not one of the industry "limiting, curtailing, or denying any of the sovereign rights" of any one connected with it, but of the individual, in this case the star, recognizing that he has a moral responsibility to those who gave him the status of a star, namely, the producer, distributor, and exhibitor. No one can quarrel with a star's desire to belong to a particular political party and to work for the election of that party's candidates, if he does so in a quiet, unobtrusive manner. But when that star comes out into the open and uses his popularity to electioneer for this, that, or the other political party, he violates the faith and confidence of those who had helped him to attain his popularity, in which they have a definite stake. It takes more than a player's personal magnetism to make him a favorite with the public. If it were not for the combined painstaking publicity efforts of the producer-distributors and the exhibitors, few if any of the stars would be where they are. Their popularity is the result of the expenditure of millions of dollars for publicity purposes, as well as of the many more millions of dollars that have been invested in the pictures in which they appear. The people who have invested their time and money to publicize the stars, produce the pictures, and exhibit them, look to the public's patronage to recoup their investments. For a star, then, to use for partisan political work the popularity he has gained through the efforts of others, is tantamount to the greatest disservice he can do to the motion picture industry as a whole, for in doing partisan political work he cannot help offending millions of movie patrons whose sentiments lie with other political parties. By this time Mr. Johnston should know that our business depends heavily on star value. Its importance is evidenced by the fact that it has saved many a bad picture from being a total financial flop, as well as by the fact that, today, a top star demands and receives fantastically high payments for his or her services in a picture. It follows, therefore, that with a star's acceptance of such fantastic salaries goes the moral responsibility of doing nothing that might injure his popularity for which payments had been made. Unlike most successful people who reach the top through their individual efforts, the success of a star is owed mainly to the efforts contributed by others. When the average successful person takes a controversial stand on political issues, he risks injury to no one but himself. But such is not the case with a star, whose continued success depends on his remaining a favorite with the public as a whole; when he antagonizes a good part of that public, he does harm, not only to himself, but also to the producers who have invested heavily in the pictures in which he appears, as well as to the exhibitors who, on the basis of his popularity, paid stiff rentals for the privilege of showing these pictures. If a star willingly makes his living by virtue of the limelight in which he is kept by others, he should willingly accept the responsibility of doing nothing that might serve to injure his popularity so that those who keep him in the limelight will not suffer. All in all, the issue boils down to the fact that, in a moral sense, a star's popularity cannot be considered his exclusive property, for the industry as a whole has a definite equity in it. And just as well as he is not asked by any segment of the industry to use that popularity to further the ambitions of a particular political group, he should refrain from using it to espouse his own political beliefs. In the opinion of Harrison's Reports, the PCCITO's resolution to keep actors out of films produced for political propaganda purposes is not unreasonable. It is, as a matter of fact, justified. And Mr. Johnston's soap-box oratory notwithstanding, no actor, by keeping out of such films and by generally recognizing his moral responsibility to the industry, will be deprived of his rights and duties as an American citizen.