A KINEMA MAGNATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21390, 18 July 1931, Page 4

A KINEMA MAGNATE

PORTRAIT BY MR DRINKWATER “ The Life and Adventures of Carl Laemmle." By John DrlnUwater. Illustrated. Loudon: William Hcincmann (10s 6d net). When, in 1909, Carl Laemmle (pronounced Lemly) placed his first kiuema film, “ Hiawatha,” before the public, he announced it in the following terms:— Length 988 feet. Taken at the Falls of Minnehaha in the Land of the Dacotahs. And you can bet it is claesy or I wouldn’t make it my first release. The title explains the nature of the picture. It is taken from Longfellow’s masterpiece of poetry, and it is a gem of photography and acting. Following this I will release some more pictorial corkers and some screamingly funny stuff. . . . This was the whole tone of the motion picture business in its early days (and, some may say, still is), and it sets the tone for the volume, “ The Life and Adventures of Carl Laemmle,” which Mr John Drinkwater has compiled—the word is used advisedly—from great quantities of source material gathered by the biographical subject and his henchmen. Carl Laemmle was born in Lauphcira, in Germany, some 65 years ago, and emigrated to the United States at an early age. His first positions were as clerk, book keeper, and so on in Chicago. Later he went to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and became the hustling manager of a clothing shop. Aged 39 years of age, he was no more than a fairly successful business man. As a result of a disagreement with his general manager he resigned his position and returned to Chicago. There he was quick to perceive the promise of the new kinematograph invention, and invested in a “ nickleodeon,” as the primitive theatres were called. He had two theatres when a motion picture combine, Motion Picture Patents Company, was formed for the purpose of controlling all films and renting them to exhibitors. The trust, as • Mr Drinkwater insistently calls it, dictated its own terms, and Laemmle revolted against the dictatorship. For years he fought the combine with every vestige of his financial strength and his

personal energy. He started his own film producing company in order to compete with the films supplied by the trust, and in the trade periodicals kept up a loud-mouthed tirade of abuse and exposure of the methods of his dangerous enemy... At one period the trust had. 17 lawyers working against him, and in less than three years he had to fight 289 lawsuits that were taken mainly, Mr Drinkwater asserts, to cripple him financially. He says:

Laemmle in his fight with the Trust cut what to patrician eyes may seem queer capers; there was nothing studied or marmoreal in his bearing. The circumstances of his crusade were less those of a romantic tournament than of a street brawl. It was a roughhouse, with bludgeons about, and coarse, thrusting speech. It may be a painful scene to fastidious nerves, but it is one in which Shakespeare would have delighted. Laemmle adopted and, indeed, often improvised a technique suited to the occasion. ... He never lost his head, but he fought with a wildcat fury. And when it was all over, and he had redeemed a dozen forlorn' situations, he came out of it a generous, clean-hearted, unspoilt gentleman. The fight with the trust forms the piece de resistance of this book. Eventually its activities were ended by Government intervention, and Laemmle emerged as the hero. He now went exclusively into the “ production end ” of tbe film business, and Universal City, outside Hollywood, is a tribute to his success. Mr Drinkwater concludes with an outline of recent developments in Universal’s policy, and relates the story of Laemmle’s many post-war benefactions in his fatherland. . Mr Drinkwater has, anticipated that some people might wonder about his latest work; “When it was announced that I was writing the life of Carl Laemmle, he remarks in a lengthy digression in chapter XII, “ a number of anxious critics asked, Why? ... "Whsn t that a very ’odd thing for the biographer of Lincoln, Lee, Byron, and the rest to do. He defends himself—at any rate it looks like a defence —with some gusto and a few rather unnecessary personal slaps at his critics, but they will probably, on reading the book, continue to ask “Why?” Mr Drinkwater perhaps suggests a very adequate reason in pointout that when Mr Hugh Walpole wanted his portrait painted he commissioned Augustus John. Mr Walpole’s portrait was done in oils by a noted artist. Mr Laemmle’s has been done in ink by a noted biographer and poet, J. M.