Screenland (Oct 1923-Mar 1924)

for FREEDOM sentative, Courtland Smith, entered the fight. Although Mr. Hays was then in England, Mr. Smith sent letters to' the various production heads, outlining the action of the W.A.M.P.A.S. and asking that the magnates take a definite stand against Screenland. This action was taken without a single effort to ascertain any details from the magazine's own offices. But this time^ ScREENLAND obtained information of secret messages between the W.A.M.P. A.S. and the A.M. P. A., setting forth certain specific reasons for the ban. These can be enumerated as follows: A statement published in the October number, to the effect that Mary Pickford was credited with causing Douglas Fairbanks to change leading ladies. Statements were later issued in Los Angeles in connection with this, it being declared that a libel suit was about to be started against Screenland. However, up to the moment this page went to press, no official legal action has been taken. A statement that Alice Terry's ankles weren't all they might be from a pulchritudinous point of view. An item, from which the W.A.M.P.A.S. drew the inference that Claire Windsor wore a wig in public. Critical comments regarding recent Norma Talmadge pictures. The article, "Wages of Realism," published in the November number. This last, however, could not have influenced the action, having been published after the W.A.M.P.A.S. action was taken. Attempt to Muzzle Screenland QThe attempt to censor Screenland puts the motion picture World's fight against picture Producers> Association censorship in a strange and curious and that any action of that light. 0 The Los Angeles Herald contribted one of the numerous recent newspaper stories published regarding Screenland's fight for freedom of the press: EDITOR REPLIES TO I branch would be backed up by the whole body "to the limit." To Back Wampas Right or Wrong 'ourtland Smith, his aide, added further that this action would be backed up "right or wrong." To this Mr. Hays nodded assent, adding that any action by the national body would be complete, cutting Screenland off from any entrance to studios, news or pictures. The conference ended with the intimation that Mr. Hays would look into the matter but that he would not attempt to influence any action, although he would see that the ban became general if he felt such action were proper. Effort to Stop Talmadge Cover Myron Zobel, Magazine Pub lisher, In Statement as Result 9f Suit Threat 'bviously, no sane person could take such absurd charges seriously. There was just one thing to infer — that certain factions of the motion picture business intended to muzzle Screenland if it could be done. This, then, was a strange attitude for a business which has been fighting censorship all along. Here it was firmly aligned against censorship on one hand, while, behind its back, it was trying to strangle freedom of expression within its ranks. So Screenland decided to take the whole matter to Will Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers' Association, who had then returned from Europe. Mr. Hays, Courtland Smith, Myron Zobel, publisher of Screenland, and Mr. Smith, its editor, were present at the conference. After presenting the case, Mr. Zobel specifically asked Mr. Hays what action his office would take in the matter. He asked for an investigation and stated further that, if the ban was made general with the backing of the Hays organization, the magazine would still maintain its attitude of independence. To this, Mr. Hays replied that the W. A. M. P.A.S. was part of the organization of the national Motion Myron Zobel, publlBher of "Screenland.'* a magazine devoted to molion pictures, today Issued a signed statement answering the announcement that Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Evelyn Brent will sue the magazine for alleged LibeL Mr. Zobel's statement said: "In Its three years of publication my magazine has been a staunch supporter of all that Is best In motion picture production and in the lives of Its people. ""'It Is the intention of this magazine to fight with redoubled vigor KS'battle for freedom of the screen. It Is the belief of the supporters and editors of this magazine that the hope of a free screen lies first 'and foremost in a free screen press. 'UPLIFT* FILMS "It is the Intention of this magazine to mould its editorial policy towards the one sole object of the Improvement of screen conditions and a higher quality of screen products. In this struggle Individual vanities and personal pride must frequently suffer. "The motion picture Is no longer a commercialized Industry. It has become a public Institution and a public trust and as such Is subject to public scrutiny and public comment. My magazine declines to become the vehicle for paid propaganda." Ocreenland has heard nothing further from Mr. Hays. Here and there has been felt the effect of the battle. Attempts have been made to intimidate its writers. Learning that Screenland was about to publish a cover portrait of Norma Talmadge, his wife, Joseph Schenck informed the magazine, through his attorneys, that its publication must be stopped or action would be taken. Screenland published the cover on its December number. Mr. Schenck then, being a guiding force of the Associated First National Pictures, doubtless influenced the withdrawal of the advertising of that organization in retaliation. This, at' least, is the customary method used in intimidating publications in the screen field. To this Screenland replied by barring all motion picture advertising from its pages. In future this magazine will publish no advertising of any film concern unless it first is permitted to see the wares to be advertised — and feels that it can honestly approve them. The time has passed when any screen magazine can honestly accept advertising of a picture or pictures which it knows to be bad. If you see any screen advertising in Screenland in the future, you will be able to depend upon its integrity. On top of the threat of legal action in regard to its Talmadge cover, came the widely published story that Mr. Fairbanks intended to sue Screenland for libel. Now Screenland has never intended to hurt Mr. Fairbanks or Miss Pickford in any way. It has full appreciation of the part they have played in the screenplay's progress. It regrets the many false intimations of libel, because it feels that these two stars were innocently dragged into a magazine's fight for freedom of expression. And, when Screenland throws its whole existence into the scales in its fight for (Continued on page 04) 31