Evening star., 1932-01-03
Authors,
Pictures and
Producers
By Robert E. Sherwood.

w YHEN Theodore Dresser saw
n the film version OF his enor-
wv nous novel, AN American
Y Tragedy" he went to court
and attempted to get out
an Injunction against its release. When
Sinclair Lewis saw the film version OF
"Arrowsmith," he wrote note to its
producer Samuel Goldwyn, expressing
his wholehearted approval Of the work
that had been done by John Ford, the
director, and Sidney Howard, the
adapter.
MIR. Dreiser's protests attracted
great deal of attention, but Mr.. Lewis
expressions of praise we're greeted with
impolite indifference, which impeled
Mr.. Goldwyn to make complaint in
formal and suspiciously elegant state
ment to the press, as follows:
Theodore Dresser uttered violent
polemic against a screen transcription
of one of his novels and against the
screen in general. What he said was
widely heralded as substantiating the
cynical attitude toward pictures. But
when Sinclair Lewis, generally recog-
nized as more penetrating critic OF
the American scene, expressed satistac-
ton with the transcription OF one OF
his stories, 1t was accepted only with
minor comment as unimportant.
Mr.. Goldwyn then went on to deplore
the quantities of insults that are Law
ished' upon the cinema, and concluded
thus emphatically: 1T seems to me that
the time has come for some one to rise
in vehement defense of the industry
against carping, nagging and ridicule."
Shamefacedly, as one who has con-
tributed goodly share to this carp
},oc, Mr CnlIuyr1 has
ample grounds for complaint. But the
unhappy fact remains that the great
reading public likes raspberries better
than laurels. A savage attack, like Mr..
Dreiser's, is hot news.
BY the way, in the course of his
complimentary remarks on Arrow
smith," Mr. Lewis took occasion to de-
liver another poke at his old sparring
partner, Mr.. Dresser, by saying that
authors who become indignant at the
mutilation of their works on the screen
are suffering from the god complex"
Which is perfectly true. But, Mr..
LeWiS-aren't we all?
1t is my personal and somewhat pre-
Sumptive belief that Mr.. GoldWyn did
not mean all that he said about the
desperate need for defense Of the
cinema. Indeed in view of his choice
Of words Especially ''polemtc~, l
don't believe that he even said it,
Mr. Goldwyn knows lot better than
you or 1 do that the movie industry
deserves plenty Of carping, nagging and
ridicule and that its defenders have an
excessively hard time thinking up ways
to justify and apologize for its mani
fold mistakes.
Mr. Goldwyn himself, on the day fol-
lowing the statement above quoted. in
formed an interviewer that some Of his
fellow producers are doomed to diSas-
ter if they continue their present pol
Icy Of overproduction. He pointed to
the Hollywood studios which are try
Ing to manufacture so or more feature
pictures year, and then said:
There is no studio that is mentally
equipped to turn out more than 20 pic
lures year, perhaps not that many"
How will that word mentally" appeal
TO the officials of Paramount-Publix or
Metro -Goldwyn- Mayer, whose schedule
Tor 1882 compels them to complete at
least one picture every week? May
they not reasonably ask Mr.. Goldwyn
to mind his own business and quit nag
glng? 1 have no doubt that the movie
industry will cease to be ridiculous
and when that day comes, If 1t ever
does, the cinema will also cease to be
the fascinating, fertile topic of con-
VerSation that it is now.
AS for "Arrowsmith," I find myself
situated uncomfortably in the insignifi-
cant minority of those who do not fol-
low Mr.. Lewis all the way in his ap-
proval of the film.
1t is unquestionably an honest re-
production of a great American novel,
(Copyrieht 1927