The daily Nome industrial worker., 1917-03-19
SOME SALARY.

Charlie Chaplin has signed new contract with film company and his salary is now one million dollars wear. Surely that is some re, muneration. and although We may have some doubts about the mans acting being worth it intrinsleally, there can be no doubt in the minds of the managers that they will make money upon his films.
 The people will pay to see Chap lin. and that is why he is getting. the money. No one will pretend for an instant that as an actor Chaplin is so far more excellent than his compeers that he is de serving of the great pay which he IS receiving. In fact that has nothing 10 do with it. His acting is wanted and because 1t is wanted il is mark etable at high price
 The standard of remuneration ill art is not different from the stand ard of remuneration in other lines. Ii is not what is useful and needed, but what is wanted that will be ob' tain Q ready sale. It is not what will result in a mental or physical improvement, but what will appeal to the popular fancy and supply the demand that will bring the big money.
 We see this in music and song writing in identically the same way, Many masterpieces remained known only to the few. but they have re mained none the less always wei come 10 music lovers. Such songs as After the Bali however were productive of immense fortunes. over two million copies of the song referred to have been sold. It is now forgotten.
 A periodical medley Of flash and glitter and no substance called Tit Bits in London made its owner Neevues millionaire. Lord North ,ljffe so much in the public reports now and then, became rich through the most mediocre publication called Answers. They struck the public fancy and the public paid for it.
 No one, even without afectation. will pretend that ChapHn's acting has anything in it but a modernist adaptation of the harlequin or the clown. But because he cXcites a laugh. one can cheerfully pay to see his hlms
 The huge pay ot Chaplin Is sett- ing will by some be thought ineqult- able. But is it more inequitable than the huge revenues that ccme into the Rockefeller treasury by req son of their holdings? We tro" not. Even the most devoted to pro- prietary rights will hard.H claim that the Rockefeller process of clopon clipping IS any more entitled to high remunera- tion than the process of appearing before a camera and going through certain antics which are ultimately intended to make a nation smile.
 It is q fact that when comparisons of this kind are instituted the only truth that is positively evidenced is that it is the toiler, the wealth producer. the maker of utilities who is underpaid and who is not equii- ably rewarded for his toll.
 It would be a mistake to under rate the work done by clever artists in any realm. Their work is of in- calculable benefit to the world be- cause of the fact no less that their work is not to be measured quanu- tatively. But the pleasures that t0l- low the contem plation of clever works of art, in music. painting, H. terature or the drama is vcIy yenuine one no doubt, and ore which is too much denied the wort CTS
 And the real reason why certain actors whose only faculty is the power to raise a iaugn atter some coarse fashion become popular is be- cause the toilworn masses have H. terally no time to cultivate anything higher. Hence the simplest pie lures, the plainest musical concep- tions, the most ordinary melodies, the coarsest and most infantile movie conceptions obtain much po- pularity that may seem extraordi- nary.