Senator MCFARLAND. In your opinion, it would be such a statement, if it were placed in evidence, as would injure Norma Shearer? Mr. DIETZ. I would say it would not be desirable for her publicity. Senator MCFARLAND. I certainly will not offer it, then, because I think it is an irrelevant point anyway; but I wanted to get from you your opinion as to that. Mr. DIETZ. The reason I made that distinction was that I wanted to clarify the fact that it had nothing to do with Mr. Fidler's statement about the admission prices. Mr. Crull's overzealousness had nothing to do with Mr. Fidler's statement about admission prices. That was my point. Senator MCFARLAND. There is another point I wanted to bring out. You said that certain persons had made protests to the radio people. Let me see if I understand that properly. Were those certain persons stars? Mr. DIETZ. No. They would probably be Howard Strickland, some person located in Los Angeles who saw, very likely, Mr. Don Gilman, whom we all know, and discussed this matter. Mr. Gilman's office is always open to more or less discussions of that kind. Senator MCFARLAND. That is all. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You stated categorically that Mr. Crull's action-I think I have it verbatim-had nothing to do with advanced admission prices? Mr. DIETZ. Yes. Senator CLARK of Idaho. How do you know that? Mr. DIETZ. Let me see. How would I know that? Because at the time there was a flurry of letters about Fidler's column that had to do with his attack on Norma Shearer. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Yes; but you said Mr. Crull's action had nothing to do with admission prices, and actually you do not know whether his action had or not? Mr. DIETZ. Let us qualify it that much. I believe it did not have anything to do with it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. All right. Senator TOBEY. You testified about a conversation you had over the telephone with Mr. Stahlman concerning the Fidler testimony. What was your purpose in calling him? Mr. DIETZ. My purpose in calling Stahlman was to be sure that Mr. Stahlman knew that he did not receive a letter from me. Mr. Stahlman might have been under a misapprehension of having received a letter from me, and I did not wish to make a statement that might appear, through any misunderstanding, to be subject to any contradiction whatsoever. Senator TOBEY. Of course, you came on the stand and testified under oath and you told the truth?" Mr. DIETZ. Yes, sir. Senator TOBEY. And when Mr. Stahlman comes he will tell the truth? Mr. DIETZ. I suppose Mr. Stahlman thought he received a letter from me. Mr. Stahlman is an honorable man, and he might legitimately think that he had received a letter from me. Senator TOBEY. Why would he think so if he had not? Mr. DIETZ. I don't know but he would think so if he had not. Senator TOBEY. Who was the man that he conversed with about it? Mr. DIETZ. Evidently Mr. Crull. Senator TOBEY. You do not have confidence enough in Stahlman's memory of this important matter to feel that he would know whether or not he received a letter? Mr. DIETZ. I had very definite confidence in him. Senator TOBEY. But you wanted to set him right, so that when he should come before us he would know the facts? Mr. DIETZ. I wanted to get clear about whether it was an advertising representative or who it was that had seen me. There were a couple of points there. Senator TOBEY. Did he clarify it in your mind? Mr. DIETZ. He said it was an advertising representative from New York. Senator TOBEY. Did he mention his name? Mr. DIETZ. I think the name was the Barnhardt Co. or the Barnard Co.-some name that I think is not important to this point. Senator TOBEY. That is all. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Senator Brooks, have you any questions? Senator BROOKS. No. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Thank you, Mr. Dietz. (The witness withdrew from the committee table.) Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will recall Mr. Schenck to the stand. ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS M. SCHENCK Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Schenck, generally what are your duties as head of Loew's, Inc.? Mr. SCHENCK. My duties, sir, are, in general, to know everything that is going on. Senator CLARK of Idaho. And you act upon anything that comes before you in your capacity as president? Mr. SCHENCK. That is correct. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Mr. Louis Mayer is head of your production department and has been so for a great many years? Mr. SCHENCK. That is right, sir. Senator CLARK of Idaho. How close contact do you keep with your studio; that is, with Mr. Mayer and his studio organization? Mr. SCHENCK. I visit the studio anywhere from three to five times a year and spend between 5 and 10 days at a time. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You spend approximately, then, an average of 49 or 50 days a year in the studio? Mr. SCHENCK. Yes; without going into the particulars of it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. We will say 6 weeks or 2 months out of every year? Mr. SCHENCK. That is about right; 5 or 6 weeks. Senator CLARK of Idaho. And when you are there do you keep in close contact with production? Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; not quite that. I am usually between the numerous problems, mostly contract problems, financial troubles— meaning by that, the budgets, and so forth, and numerous things that are troublesome to them. That is the main reason for my being there. That goes through the entire company. That is where I fit in-on trouble. Senator CLARK of Idaho. When a quality picture or an expensive picture is about to be produced, do you know the stars who are going to appear in it Mr. SCHENCK. It all depends. Some I do and some I do not. It depends. Every so often Mr. Mayer will call me on the phone and report certain things and say, "You know we are starting a picture." Or he will call me for advice-"We are starting to make a picture. It looks like the budget is a little high. Do you think we can get our money out of it?" I will ask whatever questions I have to ask, and then advise them either for it or against it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. To do that, of course, you have to have a pretty general idea of what the story is, who the stars are, and the general make-up of the picture? Mr. SCHENCK. Correct, sir. First, I will ask them, "Are you making the picture from a book?" They will say yes or no. If it is a book, I know whether it is a good seller or not. If it is a play, I know the value of the play. I know they will try to make it as good as possible. So the next question is purely, "Who have you got in it?" That is the question I usually ask, if they ask my advice about it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Do they ask your advise about pictures that cost in excess of, say, a quarter of a million dollars? Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; I would say safely that it does not happen five times a year that they will ask me what they should do. Like, for instance, they started The Yearling. I happened to be there and we thought it was going to be a very cheap picture. We bought it for a small amount of money-that is, the book. They started to work on it, and it developed that it was going to be a big picture and they were very worried about it, and so forth, and then they took it up with me. I also made a mistake by saying, "Let it go ahead," because so far we have got a lot of money in it. If I knew what I do now I would not have advised it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Do you read the screen plays of your higher cost productions? Mr. SCHENCK. I do not. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Do you have a synopsis that is sent to you? Mr. SCHENCK. Very seldom; only when I ask for it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. There is one picture particularly which has been mentioned by several witnesses who have heretofore testified, which they have alleged was a war propaganda picture. I might say that the term "war propaganda picture" has been variously interpreted. Did you read the testimony of Mr. John Flynn? Mr. SCHENCK. I did not read any testimony in this investigation. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Some have characterized a war propaganda picture as a picture the effect of which is to incite hate for the people of another nation. They have also defined the words "propaganda picture" as one which contains in it certain incidents which might incite hate or incite the desire of those who saw it, or some of those who saw it, to go to war. It is a rather flexible term, and I realize that it can be subject to various interpretations by various people. But you have got to use some kind of a term, so I am going to use it and you can disagree with it. Mr. SCHENCK. Let us put it on record that I disagree every time with the term "propaganda picture.' Senator CLARK of Idaho. That is understood. We can have a stipulation that you have a standing objection to my use of that term. Mr. SCHENCK. Thank you. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Among those pictures which M-G-M is charged with having produced is a picture called the Mortal Storm. Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir. Senator CLARK of Idaho. May I ask you, Mr. Schenck, whether you knew in advance the general outline of what the Mortal Storm was going to be? Mr. SCHENCK. So far as that is concerned, I did not; not in advance. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Did you know who the stars were going to be? Mr. SCHENCK. At the time I did not; only while in production I happened to be there and I saw them filming the picture, and then, of course, I knew who the stars were. That does not apply to Escape. I want to make that very clear. Senator CLARK of Idaho. We are discussing the Mortal Storm now. Mr. SCHENCK. Yes. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Did you discuss with Mr. Mayer while you were out, and the picture was in the course of production, the plot and the general make-up of the story? Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; I did not, on Mortal Storm. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Did you approve Mortal Storm as a picture? Mr. SCHENCK. I only loved it after I saw it, after I saw the picture finished. I always see pictures after they are finished. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You did not see the screen play prior to the screening? Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir; with the exception of while they were shooting a few scenes, which would not have given me any real information. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You did not discuss the plot, then, with Mr. Mayer while the picture was being produced? Mr. SCHENCK. I did not, sir. Senator CLARK of Idaho. You have seen Mortal Storm, of course? Mr. SCHENCK. Yes. Senator CLARK of Idaho. What is your opinion of Mortal Storm? Mr. SCHENCK. I think it is a great picture. [Applause.] Senator CLARK of Idaho. I think that is probably the consensus of opinion. I think it was adjudged probably one of the leading pictures of the year. Is not that true? Mr. SCHENCK. It is a very good picture. I wouldn't say it was one of the best, but it is a very good picture, and I liked it very, very much. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Do you consider that the effect of that picture would be to incite hatred on the part of those who saw it for, let us say, the German people? Mr. SCHENCK. I certainly do not. I will say this, that it gives a little additional information so that people know what is going on on the other side-Hitler and his army and Hitlerism, all through. But it only touches on some of the things that are happening there as we know it from newspapers and from people coming back, and so on. [Applause.] Senator CLARK of Idaho. I do not mind applause. I guess we will have to put up with it, but I do not think it is necessary after every question and answer. We are pressed a little for time, and I think the committee will appreciate some reasonable restraint in that respect. Do you think that it portrays accurately the various brutalities that are shown in the picture? Mr. SCHENCK. You are asking my personal opinion? Senator CLARK of Idaho. Surely. Mr. SCHENCK. My personal opinion is, as I said, purely my thoughts and information from newspapers and from what you generally get over the radio, and so forth-it is nowhere near as bad as actually happens. The story is purely of a family. The father happens to be a lovely old gentleman, a professor, and he happens to be a Jew. There is a division in the family, and that is really the background of the story, and it is a very lovely one, and it shows what happens to the different characters. Senator CLARK of Idaho. What is your opinion of Louella Parsons as a dramatic critic of moving pictures? Mr. SCHENCK. I would rather not express an opinion on somebody like that. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Is she a well-known dramatic critic? Mr. SCHENCK. Yes; she is well known, because she regularly reports on pictures. Senator CLARK of Idaho. And her dramatic columns have quite wide circulation, have they? Mr. SCHENCK. There is no doubt about that. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Incidentally, she thought that picture was a very excellent picture, did she not? Mr. SCHENCK. I don't remember just what she said at that time. I really don't have the time to look at all press notices. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Let me quote from Louella Parsons under date of June 18, 1940, one sentence: The Mortal Storm rates as one of the best pictures of the current year. Would you care to express your opinion of Louella Parsons now? Mr. SCHENCK. I would not accept it as such. Senator CLARK of Idaho. Despite the fact that she approves your picture as one of the best pictures of the year? Let me read two paragraphs from her review of it: The Mortal Storm leaves you limp as a rag and so emotionally upset that you feel as if you could go out and fight a one-man battle with Herr Hitler. She says that the book had the same affect and that the picture varies very little from the original text. I quote further: Of all the Nazi movies this is definitely the most potent, because of the absence of all hysterics. There is unspeakable brutality, and heartaches so real that it must affect every one who sees the picture. Whether a story that is so intense in its denouement is what the public will choose as entertainment, I do not know. Would you agree generally with that criticism? Mr. SCHENCK. You have not seen the picture yet, which you ought to. Senator CLARK of Idaho. We are going to, next week. Mr. SCHENCK. I would advise it. Senator CLARK of Idaho. I would like you to answer my question, and then we will talk about seeing the picture. |