Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1922)

February 1 8 , 1922 1105 Hays to Establish Morale in Film Industry E. H, Kaufman Tells Purpose of Postmaster’s Appointment in Reply to Los Angeles Papers The following article was prompted by the ference of certain Los Angeles papers to the pointment of Postmaster Will Hays as “Film ing.” Mr. Kaufmann, who is president of the fer-Ocean Film Accessories Corporation and ho was the delegate of the Los Angeles hamber of Commerce to the Foreign Trade {invention and in this capacity represented the li m industry, declares that the term of Film ing” is entirely misleading as to the object of r. Hays’s appointment and the purpose of the tw national organization. The establishing of i sound morale among the various branches of \e industry and the subsequent recognition of e motion-picture as a representative industry 7 local, state, and federal authorities are the ; ajor purposes of Mr. Hays’s entrance into the tld, declares Mr. Kaufmann. By E . H. Kaufmann The above term is inclined to mislead le public and also the trade as to the ob;ct of the appointment and purpose of the rational Organization. The present trust Dmbinations in the film trade are the cause f existing factions, the result of which lack of co-operation, and this has presented the fourth largest industry in the Inited States from getting the proper ^cognition from local, State and Federal luthorities as a representative industry. The idea proposed in the above menoned article published under date of Jan. 8th to fight local State censorships by apbinting Mr. Hays as a censor for the enire industry is not alone a bad move in 'rying to correct one evil with another, ut is also an admission by the trade of eeding censorship instead of standing on heir constitutional rights for the screen, he same as the press, viz : No censorship, 'his can be helped and accomplished only >y co-operation of all interests with Mr. lays in establishing a Morale by the indiidual standing of the members of the National Association representing all ■ranches of the industry and so commanding national recognition of the highest ype. Censorship cannot be accomplished by dr. Hays, as a court of last resort, dictatng to the independent producer of an mdesirable film to scrap same, and by the tssociated producers refunding to the prolucer in question one-fourth of the cost of lis production, as proposed. It can only >e done successfully, as it was done recently in the Hamon case; when by concerted action of the producers and theatre >wners and exchanges the producer of the ilm in question was told that the film Ivould not be allowed to be exhibited in iny of their theatres; and this ruling as carried out by them worked successfully o prevent the public showing of this film. The producers who invest their money in making productions in the face of stated objections by the industry are not entitled o even the consideration of a refund of one-fourth of the cost of production, but must take their full loss. If Mr. Hays can reorganize the industry to the point that there are no Controlling Interests ruling, and establish a confidence from the bankers and capitalists as to the Morals of the members of the industry, showing that they have regard for their obligations when due and that they carefully guard their investments against unnecessary extravagance or loss caused by the artistic temperaments of directors and stars, which extravagances still exist today in the organizations of the largest producers in the industry, Mr. Hays will have accomplished what is needed most for national and international recognition of the American screen. It is wrong to state that there is nothing we want in the way of national legislation. The American screen is a national product that touches on American life and industries in all its phases, and we cannot look at it from a selfish viewpoint, taking into consideration that by allowing a duty to be levied against foreign films we are not only encouraging foreign powers to retaliate against us with a high tariff shutting out our product in those countries, but we also shut out the best medium at our disposal to promote and encourage foreign trade. The screen is the best salesman, speaking all languages and educating foreign countries as to American ideals and products, and we hamper all industries in the efforts toward foreign trade by not taking an international viewpoint of such a broad and serious question. Recent investigations by the Senate Finance Committee in reference to the question of duty on foreign films have disclosed the fact that the present depression and inactivity of the American producer was not caused by the eight films that have been imported from Europe and shown in this country, but it was caused by the shutting down of over 50 per cent of the theatres in the United States on account of the lack of support by the people who were not able to pay the high prices of admissions, which were caused by the high price of films demanded by the exchanges and consequently caused through the wave of depression and the unemployment situation in the East and Middle West of this country. I might mention right here that ten years ago a law was enacted giving the American public a right to censor every foreign film coming into this country, the same right that has been exercised during the past ten years by every other country, making it possible for the people, as a nation to state what they want to see and what not. This law, however, was never put into force for the reason that there was no appropriation made when the law was passed for the carrying out of same. Admission Tax Returns for 1921 Show Slump While Rental Tax Shows Marked Increase THE Government figures on admission and rental taxes for the year 1921 are now available. The comparative table submitted) below gives the figures by months for 1920 and 1921: Admission Tax 1921 1920 January $7,120,905.18 $6,707,768.87 February 7,802,776.65 6,166,685.79 March 7,863,785.52 7,085,123.74 April 7,415,568.82 7,033,006.97 May 7,152,375.71 6,623,188.64 June 7,362,487.61 8,338,017.18 July 5,822,972.80 6,463,422.49 August 5,926,818.88 6,879,323.58 September 6,066,936.09 7,369,476.73 October 6,413,426.11 7,932,042.40 November 6,995,338.48 7,982,248.61 December 6,689,702.00 8,363,708.00 Totals $82,633,093.85 $86,944,013.00 Rental Tax 1921 1920 January $593,137.22 $412,97911 February 470,909.21 295,923.07 March 614,286.92 565,854.47 April 419,177.55 296,800.40 May 442,016.31 389,295.04 June 621,153.50 564,282.29 July 503,431.51 359,077.85 August 538,292.42 654,464.55 September 315,151.16 465,446.03 October 388,616.56 533,472.17 November 567,055.39 383,542.52 December 429,504.00 451,375.11 Totals $5,902,731.75 $5,372,512.61