Picture Play Magazine (Jul - Dec 1929)

Wkat the Fans Tkink New Light On Photo Question. HAVING read complaints of fans concerning the photo question, I should like to side with the stars for a moment, and try to show certain irritated fans that there are two sides to this "Who gets the quarters ?" situation. It is unfortunate that certain fans should have placed such an unpleasant slant on the situation as S. Haigon, of Rhode Island. I must confess that it is very disillusioning not to receive a photo from a player one admires, and when the usual quarter fails to hring response one can hardly blame a fan for becoming angry. Yet aren't we a little too hard on the players themselves? Isn't it quite possible that they never receive our quarters? Isn't it quite probable that the money remitted for photos goes into the pockets of the companies to whom our favorites are under contract? Isn't it feasible that a very popular screen star cannot, under any circumstances, read all his, or her, fan mail ? Isn't it credible that a player of the type, say, of Nils Asther, coming as he does from a foreign land, is not really interested in fan mail? Of course the fans think this is rank ingratitude : 'Ah, yes, how could the dear fellow ever forget his beloved public !" But does not "his beloved public" forget him when he begins to lose his box-office appeal ? It does — and how ! Isn't it logical that the missing quarters get lost once in a while? And, on the other hand, isn't it from the disappointed fan that we invariably hear? I know one fan who has sent quarter after quarter to screen players, and has never once been disappointed in not receiving a photo. But do \vc read her letter and the letters of the many others whose relations with screen people have been equally happy ? Only sometimes ! Of the letters which we fans write to Hollywood, perhaps one fourth ever reach the players themselves. Have wc a right to blame the stars, therefore, for faults of which they are not guilty? But, you say, if the players don't receive letters, why don't they make arrangements whereby their mail will be given sufficient care? The answer to this is found in several reasons. For one, there are players who don't give a tinker's dam what the fans think of them. Isn't the box office a truer barometer of an actor's financial worth than the letters from so-called admirers, who are merely collecting photographs ? For another reason, there are players who are simply neglectful, even as you and I are neglectful, and forget to answer the letter that came last week instead of giving it our immediate attention. But, of course, in a star neglect is a sin. In fact, almost anything which isn't an absolute virtue is. For a third reason, despite the fact that certain players have made arrangements for the care of their mail, that mail is not given the right attention. Have you ever hired a man to do a certain bit of work, only to find it untouched the moment your back was turned ? Well, fans, use your heads and parallel the two cases. For still another reason, there are players who have been bitterly disillusioned by the ofttimes insincere adulation of the fans. Players who have come back and who know what it is to be forgotten for months at a time, with not a fan letter in the mail box. Can you blame them for failing to be thrilled to the skies over the raving of Polly Pickens, of Pepper Corners, Iowa? And then there are the stars who have been tricked into a hundred compromising situations by "phoney" letters, stars who have become thoroughly disgusted by the strange behavior of their so-called fan friends. Do you censure them for lack of interest in their mail? Come on, fans, wake up! Don't be so unfair to the poor players. They have their side of the story, and it's quite as logical and credible as yours. There seem to be people who take a morbid delight in trying to destroy the illusions which the fans have built up and which give so much genuine happiness to those who dream of the romance that only the screen can give. It appears to be the thing for Hollywood fans to do their best to debunk stars when they write to the magazines. The recent letter of Kit Leyland is a superb example of this sort of rubbish. We don't say that Mr. Leyland isn't absolutely correct in the information which he so kindly offers, but we should like to know his motives in attempting to shatter the dreams which many fans have no doubt cherished. For, no matter how sophisticated we may think ourselves to be, there is much of the dreamer in each of us. Mr. Leyland looks down upon the stars so successfully that we suggest he fake a fling on the screen himself. In closing, I should like to say a word in favor of Picture Play's editor and reviewer, Norbert Lusk. I have seen his name mentioned only once or twice in this department, but he deserves commendation for his sound judgment and delightful side-remarks. And, Continued on page 10