Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1922)

February 25, 1922 1225 ’ Miumiuiiiiuiaiiiuiiuiiiiiuimiiiiiniiiiuiiiiiiiuiiuiiiiiiiuuiiiiiiiuuiuiiiiuuuiiiuiiiuiiiiimiiiiiniiiun The Reader Has His Say I -11 WraoniMnmnnimiiain[mmiiimiiJivi!iiii;iMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iii>iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiii^ g ■ai i rad Some Pointed Remarks ity, Mr. Wm. A. Johnson, Editor, pic M. P. News, New York. :os j Dear Sir : I read your editorial in last "4 week’s News; also the “ 14J2 Per Cent’’ wi article in this week’s News. 0! You say GRANTED that rentals are ail right. They are not right. That is the ilii whole trouble. I played “ The Mark of on Zorro ” Saturday, Jan. 1st, 1921, Saturtil day and a holiday — the Christmas crowds eu home from school — to a gross of two hunr?i dred and thirty-five dollars ($235.00), tii! which was the largest business we have iri ever done; paid $105.00 for film and war till tax ; expressage and lobby paper were inj $6.75 extra ; newspaper and mailing list i'a were $26.25 ; daily overhead $27.00. This ini gave me $70.00 profit on the two best days m in the year, during the very best times 3i southern Indiana has ever had. iii! NOW THEY ASK ME $1,200.00 for in “Way Down East” and “The Three t Musketeers,” and all the others are just hi as high. in You speak of 14^2 per cent and exploitation. Most of us have evploitated productions that have had forced runs on Broadway, highly commendatory articles qjf in the trade papers, thousands of dollars worth of praise by the producer or distributor, only to fall down on the second Jnight, while we the exhibitors were afraid to face our patrons. 14/4 per cent ! I doubt that there is a j-theatre in southern Indiana that has made ,[ 143/2 any year since the picture thing was gobbled by the Dollar Mark Clan. This is a four thousand town. I have a modern theatre. Twelve years ago I played Henry Savage’s “Merry Widow” with the New York cast; guaranteed him $800.00; made a little money at $1.00Ji. 50-2.00 prices. Now they want that much for a show in a can. You mention twelve productions. I can’t buy any of them at a price that will enable me to make a DOLLAR. I have tried. 143/2 per cent ! How many, or rather, what per cent of exhibitors are taking the California to the Coast trip? How many are commuting to Europe? None, except those that are fortunate enough to be working for the producers. The producers are cutting expenses. We paid THEIR war tax ; now why don’t they cut rentals? Also, why don’t you, whose very living depends upon the exhibitor, first and last, take our side once in a while? We only want you to be fair. Yours truly, Boonville, Ind. Frank Forrest. On “ Dogs and Dummies ” My dear Mr. Johnson: — Having just read your editorial entitled “ Dogs and Dummies ” appearing in the current issue of your trade paper, hasten to compliment you on same. We believe, beyond the question of a doubt-, that you have hit the nail on the head, and the facts as presented by you should ultimately help in placing the screen on the high standard it deserves. To accomplish this, however, it will be necessary for not only the producer but the exhibitor to absorb thoroughly just what you have said because, while there is no doubt both producers and exhibitors have in many instances placed the dollar mark ahead of every other consideration, it is only through the exhibitor that the producer can reach the public and have~ in mind many cases, when selling pictures of the type you describe, that have met with a frank statement from exhibitors that they were primarily interested only in box office returns. It only being natural that human nature follows along the lines of the least insistence, and there is less worry as to box office returns when an exhibitor is playing a ready made box office attraction than there is when exhibiting a picture described by you which might contain the finest elements possible to combine in a picture, but which would require showmanship and exploitation to get the public interested in same. We, therefore, are interested in hearing what the exhibitor has to say concerning your editorial and trust there will be some way in which you can secure an intelligent discussion on the subject. With kindest personal regards, we are Yours for success, W. A. Busch, Resident Manager. Goldwyn Distributing Corporation, 714 nth Street, Washington, D. C. Hollywood Scandal Hurts Illinois Motion Picture, Theatre Owners. Gentlemen : I have never written the trade papers or the M. P. T. O. and I hardly know where to begin. It seems to me some radical change must have come over the motion picture industry. Of course, we have scandals in our every-day lives, but as we are not prominent or before the public, we seldom get into print. In one way we might say a motion picture actor or actress have the right to do as they like off the screen the same as other individuals. That is the right of a free people, — but don’t they owe their popularity to the public? Aren’t they getting as much and more than other individuals in other walks of life? Can’t they afford to lead the straight and narrow? I for one am getting tired of making excuses for those who I am satisfied in my own mind should conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen. If it would only hurt those persons who are connected with these scandals, it wouldn’t hurt so much. But it is a direct knock at the industry in every way. I am engaged in the billiard business, and at first some people were opposed to it. I have conducted it as a gentleman’s business and a gentleman’s pastime, and the majority of the people are with me tooth and nail. I cannot uphold anything that is against the law of God or man. I have never read an article in any trade paper of 11 the scandals that have occurred at Hollywood and elsewhere. They alb seem to think— keep it quiet— hush it up. Why don’t they come out in the open and say, if they don’t carry themselves decent off as well as on the screen, they’ll have to look for some other line? The Motion Picture News did take a rap at some of our outragiously high priced stars and were immediately censored by the Moving Picture World. I certainly appreciate the stand the News took the first issue after Fatty’s famous party. They didn’t make it half strong enough. I am only a farmer by birth. Perhaps I should have stayed in that business. All the same I have been in this game since 1913 — have seen the industry grow. Spent at least five years in it without making 5 per cent, on my investment. I never even finished the eighth grade in school, am one of a family of eight children, and had to get out and work on the farm at the age of 14. But at that I think I am voicing the sentiment of the people in this community. (Mr. Rush states a number of motionpicture artists who have been in the limelight in the past and on whose pictures he declares he has lost money since their production into the columns of the newspapers.) As far as that goes, no man in a town of 450 or even 1,500 (we come in the 1,500 class) can pay $25.00 to $30.00 for any picture and come out on top. Now what I’d like to see is some of the good clean actors and actresses (and we have scores of them) work in harmony with the M. P. T. O. for a good, clean, wholesome amusement. Maybe a man shouldn’t say it, but there are times when a man has got to be ashamed of his business. Take right now, for instance. I come up to my place in the morning; almost the first person who comes in says: “Well, a new scandal at Hollywood or elsewhere ! ” I’ll say, “ Yes, but don’t we have such things in every walk of life?” The other fellow says, “ Yes, but I saw him or her, as the case may be, in one of the finest pictures and I am surprised that a person can appear in a clean picture and then lead such a life.” I suppose everything will come right, but it must not wait too long or many of us little fellows will be forced to close up shop. I am satisfied the M. P. T. O. will do all in their power to remedy these matters, and I am heartily with you in anything you may undertake. Very truly yours, (Signed) J. R. Rush, Pastime Theatre, Pearl City, 111.