Hollywood Spectator (1938)

Page Six April 16, 1938 be betrayed. You see, the Spectator so long has been a part of me that I know it intimately. * * * JUST WHERE IT STARTED . . . IMMIE FIDLER came on the air and assured the universe that the two Warner squabbles, one with Bette Davis, the other with Dick Powell, were pleas¬ ant affairs with no hard feelings on either side — just a matter of two stars being agreeable to going off salary until suitable stories could be found for them. Hour-and-a-half later George McCall came on the afr and told the same universe the squabbles are bitter affairs and that the parties to them are all het up. If screen commentators do not wish to make themselves and Hollywood ridiculous, they should get together and cook up one version of each thing they air. * * * SCREEN AS A MORAL FORCE . . . ERBERT HOOVER , one of the clearest thinkers in the country, had this to say in the course of a speech he made in New York upon his return from a European tour: “While we should reject the whole idea of pledging our military or economic forces to any scheme for preserving peace by making war, we have both the obligation and the interest to organize and join in the collective moral forces to prevent war.’’ The most powerful “moral force’’ in the world is the motion picture. For months the Specta¬ tor has been trying to impress upon the film industry that it has “both the obligation and the interest” to lift its powerful voice on behalf of universal peace. But one objection is offered the suggestion: A picture of the sort might not meet with favor in some foreign country, thereby depriving the producer of the reve¬ nue such a country generally provides. The insinua¬ tion is that American picture makers are willing to serve the public good if there is any money in it for them. “The mission of the screen is to entertain,” is the cloak with which they cover their fear that there is no profit to be expected from a picture whose theme is peace. They would tell us there is not in Hollywood one writer who would make a plea for peace an entertaining part of an entertaining script, not one director who could make it into an entertaining pic¬ ture, no players who could give it box-office value. Demand for Peace Picture . . . HEN the Spectator in its columns urged Charlie Chaplin to make and appear in a peace picture, it did not anticipate the astonishing nationwide ap¬ proval that has been accorded the suggestion. Its own files and those of the Chaplin studio contain hun¬ dreds of telegrams, letters and post cards from all over the country urging Chaplin to perform the public service the world so sorely needs. Numerous organi¬ zations have made their pleas. All the individuals and organizations heard from constitute a force which would make such a picture a great financial success if it were not shown outside the Englishspeaking countries. But one answer has been given all those who have endorsed the suggestion, an insolent one made by Martin Quigley, the self-appointed mouthpiece of the industry and one to whom the in¬ dustry has not denied the right to speak for it. Quig¬ ley tells all these earnest people that if they want a picture of the sort they should, “Go get a camera” and make it themselves. If Mr. Hoover includes the motion picture industry among the forces which have “both the obligation and the interest to organize and join in the collective moral forces to prevent war,” he, too, probably will be told by Mr. Quigley to go get a camera. Such a command, being interpreted, means the picture industry feels it owes allegiance only to its bankers and none to either God or country. * * * OLD FAVORITES ON THE WALLS . . . ON THE walls of the Spectator office hang auto¬ graphed photographs of some screen players, not publicity stills signed by studio girls who make a speciality of copying signatures, but more artistic photographs autographed personally by those who sat for them and bearing friendly greetings to the Spectator’s Editor. The photographs always will re¬ main there to remind the Spectator of its youthful days. On the walls are those of Rudolph Valen¬ tino, Louis Wolheim, Jack Gilbert, Ernest Tor¬ rence, Marie Dressier, among those now playing their eternal roles: and among those still with us are Mary Pickford, Charles Chaplin, Colleen Moore, Janet Gay nor, Douglas Fairbanks, Constance Talmadge, Norma Talmadge, Jean Arthur, Zazu Pitts, Billie Dove, Mary Philbin, Ronald Colman, Jack Mulhall, Adolphe Menjou, Patsy Ruth Miller, Esther Ralston, Monte Blue, Jean Hersholt, Emile Jannings, June Collyer, Jetta Goudal, and William S. Hart. * * * CRITICS WILL HAVE THEIR FLING . . . HE Reporter has stolen a march on all the other film publications, including the Spectator, which is green with envy and on bad terms with itself for its failure to think of the thing before Wilkerson did. Each month Reporter is to poll all the picture re¬ viewers — three or four hundred of them — who com¬ pose the list of those accredited by the Hays organi¬ zation, and will publish the result of the poll. The critics will pick the best picture, best direction, acting, writing, musical score, photography, etc. The result of the voting will be of interest to the film world and Reporter deserves credit for inaugurating it. * * * WILL HAYS vs. SPECTATOR . . . ILL HAYS, in his last annual report to the board of directors of the producing organization, spoke with pride of “The maintenance of the highest pos¬ sible advertising standard to make certain that pic¬ tures are properly exploited.” In its last issue the Spectator took issue with Will and characterized producer advertising as “dishonest advertising; ex¬ hibitors and public alike know it to be dishonest.” In Variety (New York) of March 30, there is a twopage advertisement which in huge type yells to the