Motion Picture (December 1931)

$20.00 Letter Stop Glorifying The Gangster LOS ANGELES, CAL.—If gang pictures inspire little boys—and big ones—to sprout wings in their eagerness to become heroes like the clever detective and the big brave police¬ man who catch and punish the wicked, why, despite the avalanche of gang pictures with their corrective (?) influence, does crime con¬ tinue rampant? “The Other Side of the Question,” in the October “Letters to the Editor,” is based upon the assumption that the desire to emu¬ late virtue is predominant in the human breast. If this were true, the problem of keeping humanity in the straight and narrow path would have been, all these past ages, a comparatively easy task. But history, alas! tells a different story. There is something predatory in man which is instinctively drawn to theglamourouscrook. The little boy finds himself secretly admiring the cunning mind that is able to contrive so many fascinating schemes for evil. Even those of us whose characters are fixed, often find ourselves enjoying the lure of these sin¬ ister influences. Though I am but a timorous female who wouldn’t so much as kill a fly, I dote on gang pictures, but I don’t approve of them as they have been portrayed to date. The offender is too often made so admirable, in spots, that his hold upon our sympathies is not counteracted by his criminal deeds. The evil that he does not only fails to “live after him, ” but frequently we gulp a tear in his behalf and long to punch a perfectly worthy judge in the jaw. This is all WRONG. _ Until the gangster screen character is en¬ tirely robbed of his glamour he should be kept out of pictures and away from impres¬ sionable minds. Anita Mackland. $10.00 Letter Crime Pictures Are A Menace CINCINNATI, OHIO—In your October issue you published a letter in which the fol¬ lowing statement aroused my interest: “Gangster pictures are poisoning the minds of the younger generation. Rot!” By way of argument, I am taking the opposite of his point of view and am submitting my opinions on this subject. Crime pictures have an effect upon the youth of today in that they show the life of a gangster as one of fascination and excitement. This is stressed entirely too much in the plot of every crime picture. The younger generation craves ex¬ citement. Therefore, is it not natural that their ideas and views of life tend to draw toward this sensational side of it, found only in the life of such a person as a gangster? Of course, the gangster comes Out “at the wrong end of the horn,” as the saying is, but is the youth of today impressed by that? No, not by the way it is enacted upon the screen or stage, as it is very often overdone. In order to teach a lesson it is more neces¬ sary to explain, point out, and exhibit the right than the wrong. The educated public is very much bored with the gangster type of picture, as well as the sex type, and is much more impressed by a good clean picture with a good plot well acted, as those played by such actors and actresses as Janet Gaynor, Ramon Novarro, Ronald Colman, Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford and others. Only by producing the right kind of pic¬ tures can the youth of today benefit. I am a young person and I know. Elizabeth McClure. $5.00 Letter Praises For Mickey, Minnie And Felix NEW BERN, N. C.—While prison riots, gangster murders, sexy situations and college yarns get all the glory, notoriety and what¬ nots, I, for one, am completely infatuated with those nifty talkie cartoons. Even back in the silent days, they were good, but now that mechanical genius has made it possible for Minnie Mouse to burst into a spasmodic eruption of not-so-grand opera, or mutilate a xylophone sufficiently, this kind of film leaves little to be desired. Excellent in sound, photography, timing and originality, such cartoons are receiving far more favorable comment than one would imagine offhand. Being human, I am not immune to the devastating glances of a Dietrich, or the wist- fulness of a Gaynor, but I reserve ample room in my bosom for Mickey, Minnie, Felix and the rest of the pen-and-ink celebrities that caper madly across the screen of our village opry house. J. Gaskill McDaniel. •a « ». We Satisfy WASHINGTON, D. C.—To the Motion Picture Magazine comes my tribute. We follow our favorite stars across the silver screen in thrilling quests of love, romance, and adventure, but it is through the well- balanced contents of this magazine that our K <*} Prizes For Best Letters Each month Motion Picture awards cash prizes of Twenty Dollars, Ten Dollars, and Five Dollars for the three best letters published on this page. If more than one letter is considered of equal merit, the full amount of the prize will go to each writer. So, if you’ve been entertaining any ideas about the movies and the stars, confine yourself to about 150 words or less, and let us know what’s on your mind. No letters will be returned. Sign your full name and address. We will use initials if requested. Address: Laurence Reid, Editor, Motion Picture, 1501 Broadway, New York City. screen heroes and heroines come to us stripped of the glamour and artificiality of their screen r 61 es, to stand before us, men and women as human and as lovable as those in the more commonplace walks of life. Its readers recognize the superior quality of its articles devoted to the screen, players and directors. There are no exaggerated scandals, nor unfair reviews of productions running through its pages. Each issue satis¬ fies and serves the movie fan, and aids in the glorifying of the motion picture as a means of edifying entertainment for clear- thinking people. As the screen ever moves on toward per¬ fection, Motion Picture will stand for the true interpretation of its progress. Marie Swain. It’s'Up To Us PORT JEFFERSON, N. Y.—“The Pub¬ lic demands ...” and so forth; and the Public gets what it demands. Where there is no demand there is no sale. No sane dealer stocks up with high shoes, slate pencils and red flannels while his customers (the Public) are demanding low shoes, fountain pens and silk underwear. So, in everything, the Producer watches the demand. You and I are the Public, and do the demanding. Let’s patronize the type of movie we like, then we’ll get that kind. Helen T. Smith. •3 « »• Very Little Fault To Find CHICAGO, ILL.—My praise for the movie industry overbalances my criticism of it. Why won’t movie patrons realize that the producers are giving us advantages that would not otherwise be within our reach? We travel to far-off lands. We see and hear the world’s great person¬ ages via newsreel. We hear renowned opera stars via short subjects. Our everyday cinema fare is replete with superb acting by truly great artists in both comedy and drama. Could we afford to see them all in stage productions? My criticism is infinitesimal in comparison with my commendation. Why must we have a deluge of certain types of pictures? Ex¬ amples: the gangster; the drawing-room; the free-love dramas? We realize that the success of one producer breeds innumerable imi¬ tations. Why not antithesis? Variety? C’est tout. Irene Mueller. Salaries Of The Stars BEVERLY HILLS, CAL.—Barbara Stanwyck’s scrap with Columbia culmi¬ nates a studio player series of battles for more dough. Clark Gable, James Cagney, Lew Ayres and Nancy Carroll have been some who figured in these contractual squabbles recently. This is the result of the “star” ex¬ ploitation system, and a tough break for everyone. Every time a player hits, he wants an increase. And why? Same personality? Same pan? Why should the movies break all laws of economics—why should the fan even¬ tually have to pay with $1.50 tops, etc? ((Continued on page 102) J. E. E. 6