The Waterbury Democrat., 1946-09-24
JIMMIE FIDLER M HoHy1Dood
Distributed Sy MeNausAt syndicate. Ina

pers recently have printed some startling statistics about the prev alence of divorce throughout the United States the ratio of di- vorce to new marriages, in many districts being as high as 87 per cent. And I, having frequently contended that Hollywoods example has had much to do with breaking down the sanctity of wedlock promptly took a ribbing when the fact-finders discovered that divorce is more common in several other sections of the country than it is right here in Los Angeles.
 I'll stick by my guns. I still think that Hollywood-both by example and by the pictures it makes-is one of the chief contributors to the divorce epidemic.
 When a movie star ruShes into court to divorce her spouse, her action is publicized, not only local ly, but coast to coast. The film fan in Bangor, Maine, knows just as many details about her marital rift as does the average Hollywood ite. More, perhaps, since the fan magazines which always go over board to justify her action have a bigger circulation and a more trusting audience in the East than they do in Hollywood.
 Secondly, there have been many far too many-pictures made in which divorce is represented as a normal, matter-of course affair. It would be inaccurate to say that 1t is condoned in such pictures, for to condone anything you must first dis approve of it. And divorce, in most Hollywood films, carries no impli- cation of disapproval.
 If the institution of marriage is to survive in the United States, it's going to need some good press agentry. Every Hollywood producer should lean over backward to pre- sent it as a sacred, inviolate union.
 In movie trade paper the other day there was printed a story about the terrible hardship that is being worked on the exhibitor by the new, Government decreed method of booking pictures. Whereas the the ater-oWner used to be able to spend a couple of weeks every year book ing programs, sight-unseen, for the next 52 weeks, and then turn his house over to hired manager while he pursued his own pleasures, the poor guy now has to book his pie lures one by one at the sacrifice of his leisure. feel awfully sorry for the exhibitor who is forced to stay on his arduouS job instead of play ing golf with the boys, but being a theater-goer, can discern in the dark picture at least one bright note It may be that by staying on his job, and booking films on the basis of their individual merit you and ] may, at long last, get the kind of entertainment we've paid for but seldom had.
 I hear that David O. Selznick following the example of dozen other film moguls, has been in New York, offering Greta Garbo plenty if only she will come out of retire ment and sign contract to work ir several of his pictures. Why do they bother? For five years before she left the screen, Garbo was dead is sue with the fans and a headache to MGM. I'll wager that pr. Gallup, if he were to conduct a survey, would report that 99 out of a hun dred theater er-owners don't give a tinker's damn whether she returns or not. Of all the stars in screen his tory she seems to have appreciated least what Hollywood did for her, or what she owed in gratitude to John and Jane Public. Let her re- tire, say I, and stay retired-just as far away as her eremitical complex dictates. Why dig up a Garbo, when there are hundreds of eager new corners who deserve chance.
 Under the reported terms of Bar bara Stanwyck's new deal with Hal Wallis, she will have the right to okay or reject every line of dialogue and every scene in her pictures, be- fore, during and after shooting In short she becomes the Miss Big who has the final say on everything con- cerning her screen vehicles. Un- doubtedly deal like that must be fattering to stars pride, but I'm wondering if, while soothing her ego, she hasn't put her entire future "on the spot" Henceforth, she's the one who will get-and deserve-the blame, should any of her pictures be inferior. There's no one to whom she, can pass the buck.