Hollywood Spectator (1938)

Hollywood Spectator Page Three element of Congress that block booking is fair to exhibitors, as well as the most economical and suit¬ able method of distributing Hollywood output, it appears only a question of time before the majors will find the system outlawed by Congressional de¬ cree. History of such campaigns is that it usually takes several years to make a running start but once a bill has gone through one branch of the national parliament eventual enactment is a foregone conclu¬ sion.” The difficulty which Variety suggests is that the film industry will find it hard to persuade Con¬ gress that the present selling practice is fair to exhi¬ bitors; and if an effort be made to prove it is the ‘‘most economical and suitable method of distribut¬ ing Hollywood output,” the industry will find itself in danger of being laughed out of court. Before the opponents of the bill toy lightly with the word “economy” they should prepare themselves to estab¬ lish the justice of the enormous executive salaries and the millions of dollars distributed annually in the form of bonuses which swell the incomes of those al¬ ready receiving the salaries. Senators and Congress¬ men probably will take little interest in the technicali¬ ties of the film industry’s distribution methods. The size of the salaries and bonuses alone will be suffi¬ cient to persuade them that something is wrong somewhere, and they will support the bill in the hope that, whatever it is about, it probably will have a beneficial effect in making film financial affairs less fanciful. Business's Main Asset . . . ATISFIED customers constitute the main asset of any business. I am by no means an authority on the industrial history of the United States and may be wrong in my belief that it contains no record of any other concerted move on Congress by customers of a specific industry to seek relief from what they consider unfair selling practices. For ten years on the film horizon there has been the smoke of discontent, and there must be some reason for the fire's con¬ tinued burning. Recently I wrote of the case of the owner of a film theatre in Needles who wished to secure Deanna Durbin’s Mad About Music and was told by Universal that the only way he could get it would be to buy twenty-six other pictures with it. I can see no fundamental difference between that and a haberdasher’s refusal to sell a customer a suit of pajamas unless he purchases also twenty-six pairs of socks. There must be something wrong with any selling practice which makes it necessary for a cus¬ tomer to buy a lot of articles he does not want to get one he wants. Another point which must im¬ press the bystander is the fact that the anti-block movement has been carried on persistently for a de¬ cade. It would seem that it must have some merit to give it so long a life. Independent exhibitors, who are waging the war, are a common sense lot; if their cause had no merit, they would know it by now and would accept the present selling methods as the film industry’s legitimate manner of conducting its busi¬ ness. But to top all the other arguments is the fact I already have mentioned — the industry has a lot of dissatisfied customers. And during the decade the methods have been attacked, the film barons have made no movement of their own volition to reduce the cause of the dissatisfaction. If that is a demon¬ stration of good business judgment, then I must be wrong about Hitler and all other topics upon which I have definite convictions. * * * ( EDITH DOES OWN SINGING . . . MONG the young screen players whose careers should prove interesting to follow is that of Edith Fellowes, a clever young miss whose most recent pic¬ ture was Little Miss Roughneck, in which she plays the name part, and which ends with a grand opera excerpt which Edith sings in a manner that made all the Hollywood people who saw it take it for granted that some gifted grand opera singer had done the singing and that what they heard was not Edith's voice. But it was, and it appears to me that it will not be long until this talented young person becomes a big star in big musical screen productions. Already she has demonstrated that she is an actress of ability, and all she needs to assure her gaining vast popular¬ ity is intelligent handling by the producers in whose pictures she appears. * * * GUARDIANS OF OUR WELFARE . . . ILL HAYS refuses to give his benediction to commercial films. “The sole mission of the screen is to entertain,” shouts the Quigley publica¬ tions. Straight advertising on the screen is unthink¬ able and propaganda is abhorrent. Let us suppose the management of the Ambassador Hotel wished to draw the Cocoanut Grove to the attention of the entire country, to advertise it, to spread Grove propa¬ ganda far and wide; and suppose it paid Paramount to make a picture showing the Grove and bearing its name. And suppose Paramount filled the order by making the picture, Cocoanut Grove. Would you re¬ fuse to laugh at the comedy in it because it was a com¬ mercial picture? Would you see no merit in the music because the picture was made for purposes of propaganda? As a matter of fact, would you care two hoots who paid the cost of production or why the picture was made, as long as it entertained you? And how do you know the Ambassador did not pay for it? You don’t know — or care. But Mr. Hays cares. The Quigley publications care. You may trust them to guard you against the evil commercial pic¬ tures would do you. It is all right for you to see Cocoanut Grove because Paramount made it, but if precisely the same picture had been made by the Am¬ bassador, something awful would happen to you if you saw it. Let us give thanks for Mr. Hays and Mr. Quigley. Propaganda Not Recognized . . . fYUIGLEY’S contention that the screen’s mission is to entertain is a sound one. The Spectators con¬ tention is that useful propaganda has a place on the screen if it be presented in an entertaining manner, a contention the mere mention of which infuriates the