Photoplay (Jul-Dec 1922)

THE PUBLIC'S ANSWER WHAT'S THE MATTER The public diagnoses the illness in the motion picture theater box office — and prescribes remedies IN the June issue, Photoplay Magazine asked its public — which is the public of the screen — a question, "What's the Matter with the Pictures?" The response has been amazing. Never before have people had an opportunity to speak on the subject so near home. Congressmen and conductors answered. Society matrons and stenographers; mothers and fathers of families; school teachers and housewives — all wrote remarkable letters. Of all arts and industries, the public is concerned chiefly with the screen. It has always been nearest the public heart. It has been the pet of the people. A favorite child whose progress the public, most of all the American public, has watched proudly, with a personal, parental interest. The film belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and the little Smiths. It is not the amusement of a favored few. Unlike opera, or the highbrow drama, its appeal is unlimited. Since its inception, the photoplay has meant more to America than any amusement. Its public has been a public intensely concerned with its development — vitally interested in the comings and goings of its stars; tolerant, sympathetic as a rule; but also — exacting. It has a right to be. In the past year there has been a marked decrease* in attendance in the country's film theaters. Photoplay, realizing this, wanted to know why. So it asked the public point blank. In the June issue, $100 in prizes were offered for the best letters answering the question, "What's the Matter with the Pictures?" For the best letter, $50; for the second best, $20; and for the three next best, $10 apiece. The following letters, in the order given, are the best. The contributions were so excellent that the Editor decided to award three more prizes of $10 each. The one outstanding feature of this contest is the indisputable fact that the public is not losing interest in the pictures and that it will not lose interest unless the pictures themselves abuse the public confidence. The list of prize winners is given in the continuation of these letters in the back of the magazine. of true values, its imperfect vision, its naive gaucherie. Age knows that " homekeeping hearts are happiest, " but youth longs to stray afar into exotic atmospheres and to burn its fingers in the forbidden fires which burn on the altars of strange goddesses. When the pictures have matured enough to understand their mission they will know that they represent a distinct art, and time and training will produce writers who will give us stories preeminently suited for screen purposes. These stories will deal in life as it is, and present epics of every day appealing to every class of people, because the realities of life are felt with equal distinctness by the college professor and the hobo. "The Kid," "Tol'able David," and a few others show us what the screen of the future can accomplish and must if it intends to heal itself of its present sickness in the box office. $20 Prize: HAMILTON CRAIGIE Why the screen public is dissatisfied: Weak Stories Over-exploitation High Prices Scandal Personal Appearances Sensationalism Radio Competition Under-rating of Intelligence Unreality $50 Prize: DOLORAS THOMAS MEDIOCRITY, sentimentality, quantity production, exploitation: inane stories, a diagnosis of the picture troubles reveal all these, yet the root of the matter lies in one word — youth. The movies have not yet found their metier, they are suffering from adolescence and all its ills, its ignorance 38 THE gentlemen behind the Motion Picture Industry are killing the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, because of: 1. Continued high admission charges. 2. Over-exploitation of salacious and indelicate themes. 3. Continued foisting upon audiences of threadbare and ill-chosen plots, which would, in story form, be rejected by almost any magazine. But the basic reason, or, rather, reasons, for there are two, and they go hand in hand, may be found, first, in the consideration of the business end at the expense of the artistic; and second — and a fact not generally known or considered — the Motion Picture Industry has no editors! In a publishing house, the publisher usually has intelligence enough to delegate the selection of his material to an editor hired for that purpose. The movie magnates, save in a few instances, have ignored this. They are business men; but in nearly every motion picture organization the final decision, the ultimate choice rests, — not with the editor, who is really such only in the narrowest sense, but with the Manager, the President, the Business Man! This gentleman may be an excellent judge of Business with a capital B, but I challenge anybody to maintain that he ever was or could be — an editor. $10 Prize: MRS. CORA M. CURTIS THE public is to blame for much of the trash that is being foisted upon it. The producers know the wants of their paying public — the Masses, and play up to their demands. The Masses refuse to think, therefore they have not learned as yet to discriminate— the result is obvious. At first, their main object was to be amused ar.d for a time they were, frankly, now and then they arc Lored but have not broadened sufficiently to analyze the fault. They are up against a wall of their own making. Now the