Why Didnt UA Stand Up to the Vets?

George has often said that, while it was damned patriotic for the Catholic War Veterans to try and block CC's films from being exhibited, United Artists should have stood up to them. Well, in 1951 UA was losing about $100,000 a *week* and the receiver was at the door. They were in no position to stand up to anyone. Richard Carnahan

Richard, I'm going to establish the 'David Totheroh Absurdism Award' for the most distorted version of my viewpoint.

(a) I never wrote that the Catholic War Veterans were 'patriotic' for attempting to block Chaplin's films from being shown. I said they were expressing their views in an American tradition of boycott and protest and they had a right to do so, as long they stayed within the law. If they were pushing one of your favorite causes, against a perceived 'right wing' film-maker, I wonder what your opinion would be?

For the record, I don't think the boycott was justified but then I am not a WWII Veteran.

(b) I know very well the perilous condition of UA, but I believe other theatre chains, and independent theatres, also capitulated to the boycott. The film wasn't shown exclusively in UA-owned theatres.

I believe that Arthur Krim and Robert Benjamin took control of UA at about the time of the release of LIMELIGHT, so I am not sure things were as bad in 1952 as in 1951.

And I'll have to award *you* the George Shelps Obfuscation Award for general mudding of the waters. You compared the boycott to the Boston Tea Party. That sounds pretty 'patriotic' to me. As for right-wing filmmakers, some of my favorite movies were directed by right-wing extremists (Ford, Hawks, Capra, McCarey, etc.) Why would a World War II vet have any *legitimate* objection to CC's films being shown? Things were bad for *all* theater chains in the early fifties, and anti-Communism was at fever pitch. What other choice did theater-owners have? Richard Carnahan