The Moving Picture Weekly (1920-1921)

The Moving Picture Weekly A MAGAZINE FOR MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS Published Weekly by the MOVING PICTURE WEEKLY PUB. CO. 1600 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY Paul Gulick, Editor. {Copyriyht, 1921, Universal Film Mfg. Co. All Right Reserved.) Vol. 13 MARCH 5, 1921 No. 3 Two Important Letters Supplementing the telegram on the first page oj this issue and somewhat in explanation of it the two letters below will be read with interest Mr. Carl Laemmle, c/o Paul Gulick, 1600 Broadway, New York City. My dear Mr. Laemmle: — It is with much surprise and regret that I noticed the enclosed advertising in your weekly under date of Febniary 19th. I always felt as an exhibitor that you were one producer who believed in the exhibitors. At a convention held here at the Southern Hotel yesterday by the Exhibitors of Maryland this circular in your weekly was denounced. As Vice-President of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Maryland, I, for one, feel deeply grieved that the producer should attempt to coiTupt the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America. I feel quite satisfied in my own mind and I believe evei-y exhibitor in the State believes that this is not from the pen of you personally and were you aware of the contents of this personally you would never have sanctioned it going into your weekly. There is only one way that we can hope to attain the recognition from the country that our industry is entitled to and that is by working together. Adverse legislation of all kinds and anything that may affect the industry will never be overcome if the producer and distributor fight against the Motion Picture Theatre Owners. There is no reason in my mind why a representative body from each of the organizations could not work together as business men and try to destroy anything that might bi"-<the industry. There is no doubt in the world but we need each other and with the screen of the exhibitor and the loyalty of the manufacturer, producer and distiibutor working in one common cause that the enemy will always be defeated. I sincerely trust that we may have the pleasure of reading in your weekly where you believe in the exhibitors and exhibitors' organizations, in so long as they work for the best interest of the industry. Yours sincerely, (Signed) THOS. D. GOLDBERG, Vice-Pres. M. P. T. O. of Maryland. February 19th, 1921. Mr. Thomas D. Goldberg, Vice-President M. P. T. O. of Maryland, The W^albrook Amusement Company, Walbrook, Baltimore, Md. My dear Mr. Goldberg: — Vnur letter to Mr. Laemmle, in my care, is being sent to him today, but inasmuch as it concerns me somewhat, I think it is only just to you that I make reply on my own behalf, as well as on that of Mr. Laemmle. If you will permit me, I was a great deal more surprised that any serious body of exhibitors should take offense at Mr. Laemmle's inviting them to join an association of which he is a member than you were at the advertisement in the "Moving Picture Weekly." I cannot conceive how anything detrimental to the Motion Picture Owners could possibly have been read into that invitation, and I assure you personally*, because I was present at the meeting, that such intention was furtherest from the thought of every man in the room when the project of inviting all of the exhibitors in the United States to join the National Association was proposed. It was freely discussed and unanimously carried, and evei-y moving picture producer and some who were not in the Association at all, agreed to make this appeal to the exhibitors whom he knew best, as one very definite way in which we could concenti-ate the industry's fight against censorship. As I say, I do not know who could possibly have attached any sinister or ulterior motive to such an appeal at such a time. Whoever it was was not only mistaken but is going very far afield in an attempt to keep the exhibitors and the producers of the countiT from getting together on concerted action against censorship. I have read your letter very carefully and I quite agree with you that the only way to attain recognition for the industry is by working together. The exhibitor needs the producer and the producer certainly needs the exhibitor. It was that thought which was solely the inspiration for the appeal which was printed in the "Moving Picture Weekly" under Mr. Laemmle's name. The constant accusations flying back and forth and the lack of any united policy on censorship is far more dangerous to the industry than the attacks in legislatures and by paid reformers. If we can overcome the dissension in our own ranks and present a united front, our battle will be three-quarters won. You are perfectly right, also, in the belief which you have always held that Mr. Laemmle is one producer who believes in the exhibitor. I have known Mr. Laemmle for ( Continued on page 35 )