Hollywood Topics (Oct 1926-Feb 1927)

HOLLYWOOD TOPICS 7 HOLLYWOOD TOPICS Published every Wednesday by Hollywood TOPICS Publishing Co., 1515 Cnhuenga Avenue, Hollywood, Calif., telephone GRanite 59U7. Subscription rates) $2.50 per year in Los Angeles County) $2.00 elsewhere; $3.50 Canadian; $4.00 foreign. Price per single copies, 5 cents. Hollywood TOPICS will be glad to consider manuscripts and art work but expressly disclaims any responsibility for their safety in transit. Acceptance within 15 days; payable upon publication. Copyright 1920, by Hollywood TOPICS Publishing Co. ****** I. W. IRVING, Publisher A Gen’l Manager. FRED W. FOX, Editor. GEO. TER WILL IGER. Associate Editor H. SHERIDAN BICKERS, Drama Editor. PAUL H. ALLEN, Associate Editor. BURL TUTTLE, Associate Editor. GEO. E. BRADLEY, Contributing Editor. BLANCHE HOLMES, Contributing Editor. JOSEF VON STERNBERG, Contributing Editor. ****** “THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR TRUTH” EDITORIALS The Truth About Central Casting Bureau By Burl Tuttle Many problems are bofore the individuals that guide the destiny of the Central Casting Bureau. Problems which are urgent and of vital importance to all the motion picture industry and, especially to the many extras and others that are trying to break down the morale of Dave Allen, a man of fifteen years experience in the casting of pictures and the handling of extra talent. Problems which will require the most careful consideration and intelligent discussion by the Producers and the Hays organization before they take final action, if they are to be worked out in a fashion that will be the ultimate good of all concerned. Altho statistics show that only one agreement in a hundred ever really goes right, one can never feel sure that any particular argument especially when malice and personal animosity enter, can ever be right or just. The old adage that “people who live in glass houses, should never throw stones,” aptly applies to the attacks that has been unsuccessfully waged on the Central Casting Bureau and Dave Allen, the head of the casting department of the organization. One of the most bitter fights waged against Allen and the bureau is that of Harry Burns, publisher and editor of the Hollywood Filmograph, who has rapped, slammed, lampooned and thrust time and again. The obvious sincerity of Harry’s writings and the seeming desire on his part to alleviate the troubles of the horde of extra players is a noteworthy and commendable feature. Yet, one wonders if, after all, Mr. Burns has not allowed personal animosity and a probable personal difference of opinion with Dave Allen to temper his attacks on the bureau conducted by the Association of Motion Picture Producers. If Harry Burns is right in his stand, then he deserves a full measure of praise. If he is wrong, he should take the time to attempt readjustments in the Central Bureau, not by everlasting whacks in his editorial columns but by a personal visit to determine whether or not reforms are being made in the Allen office. At the time the bureau began operation, Harry Burns was loud, long and fervid in his praise of the institution, if it can be termed as such. Suddenly .... practically from one week to the next .... he changed with chameleon rapidity and ever since has filled his paper with vitriolic attacks upon Allen and the bureau in general. The whole thing smacks more of a personal issue than a journalistic combat, for what reason or sundry reasons, we are at loss to venture. Every week, there crops up a new storm of discussion regarding the functioning of Central Casting Bureau and the alleged playing of favoritism by Allen and his assist ants, Marion Mel, Rose McQuord and Gus Dembling. Strange to say, I can not understand why the attacks are not directed on the officials of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, founders of the Central Casting Bureau, for if Allen’s behavior and the conducting of the business affairs of his office are what Burns claim they are then those sponsoring the bureau are as much to blame as Allen, himself. It’s a cinch that Allen is rendering valuable service or he would not hold his position very long. When one stops to think of the many thousands of men, women and children, the majority needing work so bad and in the most cases, capable of rendering the right kind of service and the great transient horde arriving daily, the majority of them intent on breaking into pictres, with no experience, one can then realize the big problem confronting the casting bureau and its officials. Assailed by reams of publicity, counter statements and innumerable charges from all sides, the writer decided to climb up on a little mountain and take a good look at the situation. If some of the “wies-crackers” would take a bird’s eye view of these problems at shorter intervals, they would benefit thereby. My opinion is borne of what (Continued on page 30) Daily 10 MONTHS’ PLACEMENTS January to October 1926, Inclusive Average Daily Placements: Men 477 Women 198 Children 20 Total Wages Men Total % Women Total % Boys Total % Girls Total % Total Total % Wages $ 3.00 2312 1.0 822 .4 32 — 30 — 3196 1.4 $ 9,586.00 5.00 22898 11.0 11320 5.3 1934 1.0 1539 .7 37691 18.0 188,455.00 7.50 61463 29.0 24964 12.0 1042 .5 776 .3 88245 41.8 661,837.50 10.00 46236 22.0 19282 9.1 267 — 205 — 65990 31.1 659,900.00 12.50 4218 2.0 1573 .7 54 — 74 — 5919 2.7 73,987.50 15.00 5959 3.0 1767 .8 51 — 24 ' 7801 3.8 117,015.00 Over 15.00 2090 1.0 510 .2 21 — 23 — 2644 1.2 96,708.15 145176 69.0 60238 28.5 3401 1.5 2671 1.0 211486 §1,807,491.15 Average Daily Placement Average Daily Wage Percent .5 10.4 36.6 36.5 4.0 6.5 5.5 100.0 695 :8.54