ARE THEY POISON?

Radio Record, 8 July 1938, Page 15

ARE THEY POISON?

Revolt Against The Hollywood Star System

by

GORDON

MIRAMS

F HEN Hollywood developed its star system, it developed one of the greatest schemes to make the public pay and pay that the world has ever known. ‘To-day there are signs that Hollywood is in danger of killing the goose that laid its largest golden ege-killing it by the usual Hollywooden fault of over-indulgence, of not knowing where to draw the line. A few weeks ago, the independent theatre-owners of Manhattan issued a statement (you may have seen it in your daily paper) to the effect that some of the most-boosted stars of the screen were "box-office poison." By so doing they exploded a bombshell, which appears to have shaken the film industry more than it cared to admit at first. . Not that Manhattan’s independent theatre-owners in themselves cut much ice. They are merely a minor group within a vast organisation. But when their bombshell set eff similar explosious higher up, then the Manhattan revolt enn be taken as a sign of widespread ferment over the star system in particular aud the motion picture business in : general.

Special Targets PUL special targets for the , Manhattan bomb-throwers were Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Mae West, Joan Crawford,’

Kay Francis, Katharine Hepburn, Hdward- Arnold, and Fred Astaire. "WAKE UP," they cried to the producers of Hollywood. "VPractically all of the major studios are burdened with stars-whose publie appeal is negligible -- receiving tremendous salaries. .. .. We are tired of 1losing money on them. ... Garbo, for instance, does not help theatreowners’ in, the U.S.A. . . . Kay Francis, still re--ceiving many. thousands a week,

is now making B grade pictures. ... . Dietrich, too, is poison at the box office."’ . re This is a local protest, of course. What is poison to Manhattan may be good, nourishing meat in New Zealand or elsewhere. For instance, the average British audience would probably not agree with the attack on Fred Astaire. Doom Of Hollywood ABOUT the same time as the Manhattan fellows were lighting their fuse, Producer Sam Goldwyn bad returned from a trip to Europe wringing his hands ‘and prophesying the doom of Hollywood. The world, he said, was going on strike against motion pictures-people who: used to stay away for fear of seeing one bad picture now stayed away for fear of seeing two. "It used to be that one film of a double-feature would be poor," moaned Sam. "Now you’ve got to expect both of them wili be terrible... . The American picture industry better do something, and do it svon."

One mustn’t forget that Sam Goldwyn | (quite apart from the publicity’ such a statement would gain him) may have a_ special -axe to grind. His motto is ‘"Quality, not Quantity’; he makes only ~ so called "big" = pictures; and he is a no--table example of t he successful producer who does’ -not bother "much about the star system. His usual practice is to’save mouey by ereating his own stars, instead of signing up costly established ‘names." In England today, British and American pictures (Contd on p. 34.)

Are They Poison?

FILM STARS ATTACKED (Continued from page 15). are having to yield territory before an invasion of French product. I am told that there is hardly an English town of any size where you don’t come across these French films, and in spite of the language difficulty, in spite of the lack of well-known star. personalities, they draw large audiences. Why? Mainly, of course, because France at the moment is producing some of the best films in the world; but dissatisfaction with Hollywood and Histree may have something to do with it, too. Outside evidence of discontent is not lacking. The other day a potent eardinal advised the women of his faith to "stay away from the movies" until such time as the movies readjusted them- -_ gelves to true values. This was echoed in a powerful American paper’s suggestion that, instead of expecting the motion pictures to get in focus with the world, it might be simpler just to change the world round to fit the pictures! Mae West, herself charged with being one of the most-virulent doses of "box-office poison," agrees that there’s something rotten in the State of Holly-wood-but not that it’s Mae West, "Yes," says Mae, "the box-office business in the entire industry has dropped off 30 per cent., but the independent theatre-owners call me the mortgage-lifter. . . . When business is bad they just re-run one of my pictures. . . . The only film to make real money lately has been ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and that would have made twice as much if they’d had me play Snow White!" But that’s right about "Snow White" being the biggest money-maker for some time in America-and there’s not a single human being in it, let alone stars! Other allegedly "poisonous" stars seem equally unperturbed, if slightly less flippant than Mae West. Joan Crawford counters the attack by pointing out that she has just signed a new five-year contract with M.-G.-M, at a figure reporied to be 1,500,000 dollars. "Box-office poison?’ asks Joan. "They say I’m a has-been," scoffs Katharine Hepburn, and points out that she has terminated the RKO Radio contract that has netted her 75,000 to ° 100,000 dollarg a picture, and has been eonsidering: five better offers. "Tf TI wasn’t laughing so hard I might ery. . , °" FIGURES like that speak for themselves, but they do not answer the eontention that the star system has become a Frankenstein monster that could seriously harm its creator. It is not the individual stars themselves who are at fault, but the system-built up by Hollywood through the years at enormous cost-which over-emphasises their real importance. Alexander Korda is one producer who sees the danger and has courage to face up to it. Back in London from a trip to America, he announced recently: "Only a few stars-you could count them on the fingers of -one hand-justify the

salaries they receive. In future I am going to concentrate on good actors and good writers and not bother about the stars." The Manhattan bombshell ig just a damp squib compared with a statement like that from a producer of Korda's calibre. For Korda has had experience both of making pictures without big stars and with them; and he has learnt that the first of a good picture is a good story. It was Korda who produced "The Private Life of Henry VIII." That pic ture, ag everyone knows, made history and a fortune. It proved that a good costume film could be as popular as any other kind; it put the British film industry on the map, and Wordag at the keypoint of it; it made a screen star of Charles Laughton and put Merle Oberon, Robert Donat, Binnie Barnes and Wendy Barrie on the road to sucCeSS. Yet "Henry VIII" was produced for £59,000 (less than the cost of the average B grade show which is lucky to make any money at all). Some of its scenés cost only £10. Its cast consisted of players who then were practically unknown. Laughton was the only one who received anything like a large saiary; many of the others took part in it solely for the joy of the adventure. A freak success? Not by any means. In "Henry Vili" Korda showed the world that a fine picture could be made for very little money if it had a good seripé and if brains, artistry and enthusiasm were behind it. In subsequent years Korda has been inclined to forget that lesson; but now he seems to be returning to first principles when he announces that in future he is going to begin at the right end, and put emphasis on the story first, and then on competent acting-and not indulge in the costly process of trying to remodel stories to fit starring personalities. HIS is not the first time the star system has come under fire. On several occasions in the past, produc: ers have been worried by the threat to their pocket-books, from rising star salaries. I read somewhere the other day how Vitagraph once decided to blaze the way and make a picture without star names. Iti was ane nounced solely ag a J. Stuart Black-ton-Albert E. Smith production. A Japanese exhibitor advertised it as a comedy introducing "those two great American movie stars, Blackton and Smith!" True or not, that story is illustrative of the public’s hunger for "names." So rapacious is it now that it is curious to note that in the old days the screen was deliberately impersonal, mainly because the heads of the industry feared that boosting might cause players to become swollen-headed and (Continued on Page 40.)

Are They Poison? FILM STARS ATTACKED (Continued from page 35). demand higher salaries. The early film-makers sent forth their product to the public with no more indication than that it was an HEssanay picture, a Biograph, an Edison, or a Vitagraph. Mary Pickford, who made her first film in 1909, worked first for Biograph; but all the time she was with that company she was never known as_ anything but "The Biograph Girl," oF "Little Mary, the Movie Girl with the Curls." To-day the film industry has gone to the other extreme. Within limits, the star system is a ‘ very desirable and useful thing, which only a crank would want to see completely abandoned. The trouble is, however, that the star system seems to be getting out of control. Stars havea searcity value which forces up their price to the producers. A studio’s production budget is not inexhaustible. It can spend only a certain amount in each year, spread over a certain number of pictures. If it has to pay an enormous competitive price to secure the services of "boxoffice" names, it is obvious that there will be less to spend on other .equally important departments-on stories, for instance, or on direction-and, most serious, on those lesser pictures which make up the bulk of the average studio’s programme. There is too wide a gap now between the few "big" pictures ,which are often over-produced, and the many smaller films which, in turn, are too often under-produced "quickies" because the studio hasn’t enough money or stars to go round. There are, of course, very many other films that are neither "big" mor "quickies," that have strength of story, soundness of plot and acting-but untii Hollywood stops throwing star-dust’ in the public’s eyes, those pictures are not going to get the attention they deserve. Until then, men like Sam Goldwyn will have some reason to wring their hands and moan about the impending doom of Hollywood.