Moving Picture World (Sep-Oct 1927)

A S predicted there were plenty of fireworks at the meeting of the M.P.T.O. of Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and Southern New Jersey held in the Elks Club, Philadelphia, last Wednesday. AS widely broadcast, Pete Harrison, the headliner, was there in force and he lived up to the expectations of even the most radical of his hosts by conjuring up the names of practically all the leading producers and lambasting them in effigy with an enthusiastic fervor that was distinctively * ‘peteharrisonesque. ” ^ ' |§§jl Plenty of Fireworks at Philadelphia With Pete Harrison as Headliner His Covert Attacks on M. P. T. O. A. Which He Helped to Build Up Cause Many to Lose Their Faith in Exhibitors * Most Outspoken Champion Need for United Front by Showmen Never Greater Than Right Now Publicity “Fakes” Destroy Good Will TWO recent “cold fakes,” labeled as “news,” calls attention to the fact that there is still a lot of housecleaning to be done in this industry in a branch of it that at one end contains some of its highest and most ethically minded and intelligent men and at the other, some of the most unscrupulous fakers who can be found in any profession. And Injure All in the Industry w AD Pete confined himself to the facts he presented (facts being always subject to verification), even H though at times his statements may have seemed tinged with prejudice, few exhibitors, at any rate, would have found fault with his utterances, for Pete’s honesty of purpose has never been successfully questioned, even if his bias bas often been most evident and his judgment not always of the best. • D UT Pete’s shift of front during recent months on the ^ theatre owners’ national organization has never been quite clear to many and his obvious efforts to embarrass President Woodhull in his endeavors to build up the membership of the M. P. T. O. A. are causing many of his friends to wonder what is behind it all. • THERE is little doubt that Pete Harrison’s concern for the individual theatre owner is deep and sincere, for upon this interest depends in large measure his own future and the circulation of his little newspaper, which is no longer read for its reports on the new pictures. AS to the wasteful, inane and stupid publicity which is sent out by companies and individuals alike in this business, with which every film editor is familiar, there is no need to comment here, except to say that various newspaper editorial associations are planning drastic steps to eliminate it and show it up in its true value. N T* HIS being so, many of his exhibitor friends are beginning to lose faith in his judgment and good will, when they see him striving to tear down the organization which only a comparatively short time ago he was so active in trying to build up. • tUST now, when the necessity of a united front among ^ all theatre owners never was so important or urgent, with their forces properly co-ordinated and adequately represented at the coming trade conference on October 10 in Washington, D. C., why one who has so long been regarded as their most faithful champion should seek to create discord in their ranks and engage in setting faction against faction, apparently to the end that all may be demoralized, is a cross-word puzzle that no one has yet been able to satisfactorily solve. W ■HAT Pete’s curious course will accomplish, if successful, other than to reduce exhibitor influence to its lowest possible ratio, only future events will disclose; yet it is surely not the course of an unselfish partisan, who has the real interest of the theatre men at heart, but seemingly that of one instead, who has some special axe of his own to grind. it EFERENCE is made, to the false and particularly vicious publicity, recently sent out as “news” from the coast in the case of Ralph Ince, which the United Press executives have complained to Will Hays about, numerous similar complaints having been filed. • l N this case, “some one” in Fullerton, Calif., sent out a story about an “attempt to murder” Ince, which, while an investigation proved that he had no knowledge or responsibility in the “frame-up,” nevertheless, has resulted in known director. creating much embarrassment for that well O one, who knows Pete, no matter how antagonistic they may be to him and his activities, will find it easy to show that he has anything but the best interests of the exhibitor at heart, even if at times his zeal has often taken him far beyond the bounds of reason and good taste. np HE other case was the utterly untrue and obviously ' maliciously inspired story printed in a recent issue of the Film Mercury, which alleged that Louis B. Mayer, of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, was secretly backing M. H. Hoffman and Tiffany Productions financially. • TP HE FILM MERCURY, which prides itself on the accur1 acy of its published information, doubtless accepted the story in good faith, with its circumstantial account of the “shake-up” which had taken place in Mr. Hoffman’s organization and it is equally probable that most of its readers believed it to be true. • \/ ET in no respect was it based upon a single iota of fact, being solely the invention of some irresponsible press agent, whose motive was clearly dishonest in its intent to deceive and mislead, while its purpose was plainly to injure or embarrass those mentioned in it. • TP HE damage which “publicity” such as this does to the 1 whole industry cannot be measured and it is the duty of every decent individual to expose the disreputable characters responsible for it, wherever possible, to the end that they may be eliminated from further activity. • Tp HEY are the ones who are giving the motion picture business a “black eye,” wherever their pernicious inventions find their way into print and by just so much do they make it difficult for the legitimate and ethical member of their profession to maintain his own selfrespect.