Vets Fight Showings of CC Pix

From VARIETY December 13, 1950: Entire national organization of Catholic War Veterans is being prodded into the fight against television and theatre showings of Charles Chaplin's films. Move to enlist the full group's support is being made by Joseph Fehrenback, head of CWV unit in New Jersey, who already has influenced the cancellation of a Chaplin series of ancient shorts on N.Y. teevee station WPIX. He also claims to have caused discontinuance of CITY LIGHTS runs in two N.J. theatres and the cancellation of the film in two other spots. Fehrenback...told VARIETY he plans to bring the matter before Donald McQuade, CWV national commander, with the aim of bringing the national body behind a full-scale Chaplin boycott. Implication is that this could lead to picketing of theatres showing any of the comedian's pix, including MONSIEUR VERDOUX, which never was generally released, and LIGHTS, which is going over successfully in the few theatres playing it on re-issue. Four spots which dropped LIGHTS because of the protests are said to be the Rialto and Mayfair, Newark; Temple, Union City, and the Park, Cliffside. Fahrenback's charge is that Chaplin 'appears guilty' of Communist leanings and that the comic never did anything in the way of officially denying these apparent sympathies. If his fight is carried through, obviously it would threaten plans to reissue numerous other comedies starring Chaplin, following the LIGHTS distribution pattern. Fehrenback, in making the charge against Chaplin, cited the California Un-American activities report of 1949 wherein the pantomime artist was listed with others as having 'followed or appeased some of the Communist party line program over a period of time.'

Well, the inability of the ban to be successful shows just how durable the Chaplin films are. Thank goodness for that.

~ Crooner

'Inability of the ban to be successful'? There were virtually no Chaplin films shown in U.S. theaters for twenty years. There *was* a successful New York festival of CC's films in 1963-64, but that's about it. LIMELIGHT (1952) didn't make its Los Angeles debut until 1972. Richard Carnahan

You're right, Richard. I forgot that temporarily the ban was successful. However, I was speaking about the end

  First, the Chaplin Festival at the Plaza was a *major* event, and the Today Show devoted an entire show to Chaplin's Autobiography, which I audiotaped, with appearances by Sydney, Claire Bloom, and Jackie Coogan.

And I happen to know that Chaplin himself was effectively withholding his films from US re-release in the late 50s and early 60s by demanding huge rental fees. How do I know this? Because I lobbied a local repertory house to show his films, and the owner told me that he wanted to show them but that Chaplin's terms were out of sight.

After the Plaza series, Chaplin reverted to making it difficult for theatres to show his films. Another local repertory house dealt with this by screening a 16mm print of 'The Great Dictator' to invited patrons without any advertising.

At *one* theater in the whole country. You think that somehow counterbalances a nationwide boycott? And how much do you think Simon and Schuster had to push for all that as publicity for My Autobiography?

Of course, the fact is that the IRS had claimed a hugely exorbitant tax liability (many times what was finally agreed upon), and given the way the U.S. government had treated him, Chaplin had every reason to believe all assets would be confiscated, very possibly including the prints themselves.

(By the way, this all happened during a Republican administration.)

So if someone's asking price for their work is higher than *you* think appropriate, outright theft is a justified response?

It was a very high profile event that drew Chaplin fans like myself from all over the country. (Did you go?) If the films were not screened elsewhere, it is probably because Chaplin's terms were too stiff.

I don't know. You tell me. But it's rare that the Today Show devotes an entire show to one show business personality.

Oh, come off it. Then why didn't they seize the Plaza prints? You simply refuse to face the fact that Chaplin himself

If that theater was charging admissions and not giving Chaplin his fair share, they were ripping him off.

Does anyone actually know what those rental fees were? Maybe they were just steep for smaller theaters. Or maybe his fee just seemed steep to a theater that was happy to screen his film on the sly without paying him a cent for it?

This reminds me of the passage in Ivor Montague's book 'With Eisenstein in Hollywood.' It tells of how Chaplin's films weren't being screened in the Soviet Union because the Soviets weren't willing to pay what Chaplin considered a reasonable fee. Kind of ironic for someone supposedly in bed with the Soviets.

Come off what? Your time frame included 'the late 50s'. Chaplin *was* 'withholding his films from US re-release', not just effectively, but actually, and for exactly the reason I stated.

Since the tax issue was settled at the very end of 1958 (Dec. 30) I think that explains very clearly why they didn't 'seize the Plaza prints.' 'You simply refuse to face the fact that Chaplin' made a very wise business decision in the face of the persecutive governmental policies of a Republican administration. This wouldn't be a case of selectively refusing to apply your 'Citizen Chaplin' profile. would it, George?

It is difficult for me to own an original Ansel Adams print, too. Why do you have to attempt to impugn the motives of someone who places a value on his work which you may not agree with?

My, my, George. Personal attacks and name calling over such a minor issue as this. Such a defensive reaction makes me wonder if you were the exhibitor or source of the print.

Was an admission charged? How were the invitations presented, through *public* announcement at prior screenings of other films? Were schedule notices, including the screening date of TGD, publicly available at the venue? If so, this constitutes not only a violation the agreement under which the print was supplied, but also theft, unless, of course, a specific license was granted for educational or festival use, which would completely undercut your original argument.

Who says? Contrary to your portrayal of me, I am capable of understanding that multiple factors can influence specific actions. The unwarranted rulings of the IRS were part of it. That's a fact. Your contention 'that Chaplin himself was effectively withholding his films from US re-release in the late 50s and early 60s by demanding huge rental fees' was just plain wrong during part of that time. I merely stated that fact and cited why.

The only sense in which it is even remotely accurate to say Chaplin made it difficult was in the context of a time (which ran well into the late 60s) in which his work was artificially devalued in the U.S. by politically motivated threats against it. Exhibitors throughout the rest of the world were meeting Chaplin's prices and doing OK financially as a result.

As to the time after 1958 in the U.S., why, George, do you feel Chaplin should have been compelled to offer his work without being sufficiently compensated for the risks of shipping, damage or theft inherent in the transaction? Do you get to determine the level of that risk and its appropriate compensation or does Chaplin?

Besides, in the early 60s Chaplin had just released The Chaplin Revue. Why would he want to compete with himself by making his other work cheaply available simultaneously?

Well, the specific time *I* inquired about the prospects of showing the films was in the early Sixties, and I was told by the exhibitor that Chaplin's rental terms were out of line for re-issues.

I won't defend persecution via the IRS by *any* Administration.

Huh? My 'Citizen Chaplin' profile, brilliant and accurate though it is, is not the issue here. I am simply saying that one reason Chaplin's films did not get major playdates was his own high rental terms.

I don't impugn his motives. You're the anti-capitalist, not me. I simply say that his stiff terms precluded the appearance of his films at revival theatres.

any advertising.

Not minor. The exhibitor in this case was one of the guiding lights of classic film exhibition in the area and you are

Out of line for *whose* re-issues? No offense to any of the many talented actors and filmmakers working prior to 'the early Sixties', but who of them would be comparable to Chaplin?

And how does that fit into the profile of an acquisitive mogul? Denying himself income doesn't seem to fit your 'profile' very well, now does it, George?

(Judging from the rationale that you use in this thread, I'm beginning to wonder about your adherence to the tenets of that economic theory, unless theft can be seen as the ultimate acceptance of capitalistic values.)

You certainly imply more than that, and say so, below.

The evidence came from you. He ripped off Chaplin, guiding light or not.

Sort of like a private club that feels it doesn't have to follow civil rights laws, huh, George?

No, it was that *Chaplin* had prevented widespread screenings by charging exorbitant rental fees, as if someone other than Chaplin has the right to determine the fee.

'Effectively nontheatrical' perhaps but technically and legally a violation nonetheless. The membership fee makes this a theft of intellectual property rights.

And if, as you say, the motive was 'In order to give the *public* a chance to see a Chaplin classic, this particular exhibitor' was not only depriving Chaplin his fair share of the revenue, but was diminishing the value of the property by denying the owner the opportunity to show his work in the best light possible, by using a lesser quality 16mm print instead of 35mm supplied by the owner, usurping the right to make that decision for himself.

Better for whom, the owner of the film who would have had to subsidize the screenings? Whose call is that?

If they were all 'dying to see Chaplin's films' why didn't they pony up and cover the rental cost instead of assuming they were justified in ripping off the artist instead? I'd have thought that's what 'capitalism' would indicate as an appropriate response.