Motion Picture Herald (Sep-Oct 1941)

September 27, 1941 MOTION PICTURE HERALD 17 VERBAL CLASHES SPARK HEARINGS Fidler, Flynn and Alice's Gown in the big Inquiry (.Continued from opposite page) posed to any such tactics, and disapproved attempting them. He said the Times controversy was not accurately depicted by the columnist. Mr. Schenck told the Senator he had no firsthand knowledge of the matter, which he had been told had been cleared up, and that Howard Dietz, who had handled it, was present for questioning if the committee wanted to bring out the facts. He said he definitely did not approve of attempts to control the press and that he disapproved of any employee doing so, but refused to admit that the Times controversy involved censorship. The final ninety minutes of M'r. Schenck's testimony brought short tempers to the surface. Senator Clark showing that he was smarting under the prodding of Senator McFarland for screening of the pictures under discussion. Senator Tobey fumed when he was unable to pin the witness down with lengthy questions replete with three-syllable words. After some fifteen minutes of sparring between Senator and the witness, the former snapped : "When you took the stand it was suggested your lawyer should sit by you and tell you what and what not to say. "That was superfluous advice," he told Mr. Schenck. "You don't need any lawyer to tell you what to say : you can give any lawyer cards and spades and beat him any day." Agree Upon Screenings At an executive session during the Wednesday noon recess Senator Clark agreed with Senator McFarland that the pictures should be viewed. He announced that a number of them would be screened next week. Wednesday afternoon however Chairman Clark declined an invitation to the subcommittee from Louis de Rochemont, producer of the March of Time to view the latest release "Norway in Revolt" at Washington on Thursday and to hear testimony from members of the Royal Norwegian Airforce who took part in reenactments for the film. Senator McFarland, replying independently, however, agreed to see the picture, with other Senators, at the Carlton Hotel. Calling Howard Dietz, director of MGM advertising and publicity, Senator Tobey examined him on the Los Angeles Times case, as urged by Mr. Schenck. Mr. Dietz denied categorically all the Fidler charges that MGM had attempted to influence newspapers to drop his gossip column, and assailed the commentator's veracity. He told Senator Tobey he was opposed to any kind of censorship of the press and added "Many of us are opposed to this investigation because it is an attempt to restrict the freedom of the screen." Referring to alleged "pressure" on the Nashville Banner Mr. Dietz said the incident originated in criticism by an overzealous local theatre manager who had no authority to bind the company to any action. Senator Downey Aids Defense Senator Sheridan Downey, California Democrat, reopened the hearings Tuesday morning when he appeared before the subcommittee, at his own request, to read a ten page statement examining the conduct and purposes of the hearings. He was the first witness granted the right to testify in behalf of the industry. He appeared through a customary senatorial courtesy which permits members to give evidence before committees and subcommittees. Senator Downey warned the subcommittee JIMMIE FIDLER, radio commentator and gossip columnist, who appeared before the Senate subcommittee in Washington last week, entered the news picture again on Monday, when Senator Ernest W. McFarland read a telegram from Harry Brand, publicity director of Twentieth Century-Fox in Hollywood. In his wire, Mr. Brand charged that Mr. Fidler had influenced actress Alice Fay to buy a gown from a dress shop "in which he (Fidler) was allegedly interested. The first time she wore the dress it fell apart, causing her much embarrassment and humiliation." Later, the wire continued, Miss Faye went East for a personal appearance tour and Mr. Fidler "falsely attacked her in the newspapers which carried his column." Mr. Brand said it was true, as the commentator had testified at the hearings, that Fox had paid Mr. Fidler $3,000 to make a "trailer" for the company. "But," Mr. Brand charged, "his interpretation that the payment was an attempt to 'buy his soul' is his own deliberate attempt to distort the facts as he so consistently does in reporting the Hollywood scene. Perhaps Fidler considers himself overpaid, in which event we would be glad to accept a refund." Senator McFarland's comment on the telegram was : "This shows how far afield we can get in this kind of hearing. Pretty soon we'll find ourselves investigating the gown industry." During Wednesday's testimony, however, the "gown" incident cropped up anew. Senator McFarland read into the record a telegram he received from Mr. Fidler, who denied that the gown fell apart on the first wearing and said that Miss Faye didn't pay for it for 40 days. Meanwhile, the newspapers on Monday carried a story that Mr. Fidler and Errol Flynn, Hollywood actor, had engaged in a battle Sunday night at the Mocamba Cafe in Hollywood. According to the reports, Mr. Flynn ap that the inquiry involved constitutional guarantees of free speech and threatened a censorship. The truthful record of Nazism, he asserted, is a greater force on public opinion than any medium of expression. Allegations of film monopoly, and testimony as to the race or religion of industry leaders he characterized as beyond the scope of the committee and not related to the basic issue of the democratic right to expression. The California Democrat succeeded at the outset of his testimony in establishing himself as a somewhat better qualified witness than his two senatorial predecessors on the stand, Gerald P. Nye and Bennett Champ Clark, or the committee members. Citing admissions that the committee members and previous witnesses had not seen many of the pictures named as propaganda Senator Downey listed many of the pictures which he had seen himself and described several. "Your inquiry bears not only upon the affairs of one business, but upon a principle vital to our democracy — the principle of free speech," Senator Downey told the subcommittee in explanation of his appearance. "For our Bill of Rights is a common heritage, and its jealous preservation is an obligation which rests upon us all. "I believe that this same democratic guarantee covers such forms of expression as the moving pictures.. I believe that the producers of these pictures share the same privilege with editors, soap-box orators, radio commentators, clergy proached Mr. Fidler who was seated at a table with Mrs. Fidler and Samuel S. Zagon, attorney. Mrs. Fidler, incidentally, operates the dress shop to which Mr. Brand referred in his telegram. The actor is reported to have hurled at Mr. Fidler, "You are no good. You ought to be run out of Hollywood. You told the Senate one lie too many." Whereupon Mrs. Fidler screamed "You leave my husband alone," and picked up a fork from the table. It landed on the Flynn ear, causing blood to spurt. "I'd hit you hard, Fidler, but I understand that a slap is a worse insult than a hit," and with that Mr. Flynn slaped the Fidler face to the accompanying yells of Lupe Velez, one of the interested by-standers. Miss Velez mounted a chair, brandished a ketchup bottle, and shouted, "Geeve eet to heem." Nobody was certain who she was cheering for. The cafe orchestra saved the night and prevented further altercation by striking up "The Star Spangled Banner." Later, while posing for photographers, Mr. Flynn told the press, "The only thing that bothered me was the fact that Mrs. Fidler picked the wrong fork when she went to work on me. It was a faux-pas. She used her entree fork." The San Francisco Chronicle announced on Monday that the Fidler syndicated column would be dropped from that newspaper. In an editorial headed, "The Chronicle Edited Fidler's Gossip," Paul Smith, editor, declared that his paper always "edited" the Fidler column "severely" and denied there was ever any pressure to do so from film producers or exhibitors. "Now that Mr. Fidler has brought the matter to a head by contributing so much innuendo to the inquisition of the Clark committee," the editorial read, "we have decided to edit him right out of the Chronicle." men, yes, even Senators — the privilege of airing their own views in their own way on problems of public concern. No Senator can control the kind of publicity that the movies may produce, nor can movie moguls find a national sounding board on the floor of the United States Senate. "But while I believe that the motion picture producers possess the privilege of free speech like the rest of us, I am convinced that they have availed themselves of it with moderation — somewhat astonishing it seems to me, if we compare it with the tide of publicity now flooding out in every newspaper, on every air-wave, at every street-corner, and in the Congress of the United States. Specifically, I feel that a combing of films distributed in recent years has failed signally to reveal any such insidious propaganda for war as has been, I think, too lightly alleged. "Movies React to Public" Films cited by the committee, Senator Downey continued, were evoked by the antipathy of the public to Nazism, did not create that antipathy. "The movies reacted to their public, not the public to its movies, he asserted. The probe pursues an illusion when it attacks the screen because motion pictures reflect the conflict in the world, he continued. Trying to prevent its reflection will not put out the blaze of war abroad he warned. (Continued on following page)