Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur - A United Artist PDF

Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur: A United Artist
Author(s): TINO BALIO

Source: Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 31, No. 1, CHAPLIN AND SOUND
(Winter 1979), pp. 11-21
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687460 .
Accessed: 17/02/2015 10:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the University Film Association.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:56:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur:

A United Artist
TINO BALIO
In researching thehistory ofUnited Artists, I had

the good fortune to interviewCharles Chaplin at
his home in Vevey, Switzerland. The interview
took place on 10 January 1971, through thegood
offices ofArnold Picker, executive vice-president
of United Artists and theman responsible for the
company's decision to donate its pre-1951 cor
porate records to theWisconsin Center for Film
and Theater Research.1 Although Chaplin was
eighty-one years old at the time,he was still as ac
tive as ever and I looked forward to discussing
with him the inside business secrets of the com
pany he helped found along with Mary Pickford,
Griffith. I
Fairbanks, and D.W.
Douglas
prepared a whole battery of questions, ranging
TINO
BALIO
is Professor
of Communication
Arts
and
Center for Film and Theater

of theWisconsin
This
at the University ofWisconsin-Madison.
Research
The Com
from his United Artists:
article is adapted
Director
pany Built by the Stars (Universityof Wisconsin,

1976).
1The corporate records of United Artists were donated

to theWisconsin
Center for Film and
by the company
the com
in 1969. They document
Theater Research
its
to 1951
from 1919
through
operations
pany's
various
sales,
foreign sales,
departments?domestic
advertising and publicity, accounting, and legal, among
of the board of
others. The
range is broad: minutes
con
executive
directors,
correspondence,
producers'
tracts, financial journals and ledgers, litigation files, ex
returns. The
and income-tax
change correspondence,
information per
collection does not contain production
it should be noted.
taining to United Artists pictures,
as shooting schedules, scripts, budgets,
Such materials
artists'
contracts,
pany's
independent
and
artwork
producers.
to the com
belonged
The collection describes
the lifeof a film in itsUA distributionphase only.

the vastness
Despite
in the materials:
of the acquisition,
there are gaps
collection contains little about the most glorious

years of the company during the twenties. It was dis
the sales
tressing to discover that the records describing
no
releases had been discarded,
for UA's
campaigns
1. The
doubt
long ago.
numerous,
2. Materials
from the thirties are more
although far less complete than those of later years. In
there is a positive correlation between
general, however,
of the com
and the magnitude
the volume of materials
one
time.
at
any
operations
pany's
JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,
fromhis motives for forming the alliance to the

causes of the near disintegration of the company
in the late forties.After lunchwith Chaplin and
members of his family, the two of us adjourned
to the study. There, seated across from one
another in frontof a crackling fireon thatdamp
and cold day, I posed my questions. Always
polite and attentive tomy earnest questioning,
3. Documents
written by
in all.
four or five dozen
the founders
number
only
is a paucity of correspondence
of the principal
in
is especially
officers. This
disappointing
and
of Joseph Schenck, who was president
chairman of the board from 1925 to 1935 and the man
of the com
most responsible for the rapid development
pany during that period.
4. There
pre-1940
the case
Nonetheless,
the company.
the corporate records trace the history of

collection contains all theminutes of
The
and stockholders'
of directors' meetings
the board
meetings. As records of the results of the meetings
motions
that were made and either passed or defeated?
an accurate chronicle
in developing
they are invaluable
do not,
of the company.
of the movements
They
nuances
of
record discussions,
arguments,
In addition, the
feelings, or friction among participants.
the firm of
until 1951,
files of UA's
legal counsel
and Raf tery, came to us intact. They
O'Brien, Driscoll,
are the heart of the collection and document virtually
every legal matter inwhich the company was involved.
however,
In addition to the corporate records, the United Art

ists Collection
the following materials:
contains
press
of United Art
books, still negatives, and photographs
50
Film Library (1913-1950):
ists releases; theWarner
silent features, 800 sound features, 1,500 short sub
jects, 300
cartoons,
scripts,
still negatives,
and press
books; theRKO FilmLibrary (1929-1954): 700 sound
200
Film Library (1931-1946):
features; theMonogram
the Ziv
sound features, still negatives, and pressbooks;
Television
2,000 episodes from 38
Library (1948-1962):
television series, shooting scripts, and still negatives;
still negatives,
and 200 Popeye
cartoons,
Eagle-Lion
Film Classics
still negatives, and starheads. Itmay seem
strange that there were no United Artists films in the
gift to go along with the corporate records, but the com
pany had none to give; UA's
pictures were owned by
the producers
tion period.
and reverted
Inquiries may
Film and Theater
Hall, University
53706.
to them after the distribu
Center
for
be sent to theWisconsin
6039 Vilas Communication
Research,
WI
of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison,
XXXI, 1 (Winter1979)
11

Chaplin responded more than once, "I was never

interestedmuch in thewhys and wherefores. I
left that to lawyers and managers/' After which,
he would feel obliged to remindme that in his
day, he was a starof thegreatestmagnitude. I as
sured him that I realized this.Soon, though, I got
the feeling thatChaplin would have preferred to
discuss his movies rather than his company.
The interview lasted two hours and concluded
with tea. Inwrapping up thediscussion, Chaplin
toldme "I never thought of United Artists as a
money-making
scheme.
...
It was
a way
of dis
tributingmy films."Although itwas hard forme

to accept such a seemingly simple answer to
describe his thirty-sixyear association with the
company, I later discovered in examining the
four-thousand cubic feet of business records in
theUnited Artists Collection, thatChaplin's as
sessment in 1971 was right on themark.
Forming the Company
The impetus for formingUnited Artists resulted

from rumors of a merger between Adolph
Zukor's
Famous Players-Lasky Corp.,
the
world's largest producer and distributor of mo
tion pictures, and FirstNational Exhibitors Cir
cuit, thepowerful theatergroup thatorganized to
fight Zukor by financing and distributing
productions of top stars. If themerger were to ac
tually happen, the star systemwith itspayments
of astronomical salaries, would be seriously un
dermined. Chaplin and his cohorts responded by
signing an initial agreement on 15 January 1919,
and issuing a declaration of independence to the
press:
through
our
own
organization.
This new organization, to embrace the very

best actors and producers in themotion pic
ture business, is headed by the following
well-known stars: Mary Pickford, Douglas
Fairbanks,William S. Hart, Charlie Chaplin
and D.W. Griffith productions, all of whom
have proved their ability tomake produc
tions of value both artistically and finan
cially.
We believe this is necessary to protect the

exhibitor and the industry itself, thus en
abling the exhibitor to book only pictures
that he wishes to play and not force upon
him (when he is booking films to please his
entertainment.2
machine-made
Hollywood was too cynical to take the revolt

seriously. "Film magnates and a number of lesser
stellarites in celluloid," said Variety, saw Adolph
Zukor behind thewhole affair in just another at
First National.3 Others
tempt to weaken
prophesied that the all-star combination would
soon be riven by jealousies and never get off the
ground. And then there came Richard Rowland's
famous wisecrack, "So the lunatics have taken
of
charge
the asylum."
A more
accurate
assess
ment, however, comes fromArthur Mayer, who

remarks, "The founders of United Artists dis
played the same brand of lunacy as Rockefeller,
Morgan,
and
du
Pont."4
Who first suggested the organization of artists

that became UA is a matter of dispute. Miss
Pickford, though, made the following explana
tion when the declaration of independence was
released: "We are on the defensive, and many
people have asked us why we didn't do this thing
long ago. The answer to that is that we were
never forced to do ituntil now. But now, with the
possibility of themerger of distributors looming
before us, a combination that threatens to
dominate the theatres of the United States, it
becomes
tion
A new combination of motion picture stars

and producers was formed yesterday, and
we, the undersigned, in furtherance of the
artistic welfare of themoving picture in
dustry, believing we can better serve the
great and growing industry of picture
productions, have decided tounite our work
intoone association, and at the finish of ex
isting contracts, which are now rapidly
drawing to a close, to release our combined
productions
audience) other program films which he

does not desire, believing that as servants of
the people we can thus best serve the peo
ple.We also think that this step ispositively
and absolutely necessary to protect thegreat
motion picture public from threatening
combinations and trusts thatwould force
them mediocre productions and
upon
necessary
to our own
for us
to organize
as a protec
interests."5
Although their fearswere laterborne out by the

Federal Trade Commission
investigation of
Famous Players-Lasky for alleged infringement
of antitrust laws, the founding of United Artists
would probably have been inevitable.6 A dis
tribution company to fullymarket and exploit
theirpictures was but thenext step for these art
ists in achieving autonomy. Take the case of
Chaplin. Starting off as a contract player inMack
Sennett's Keystone comedies in 1913 at a salary
of $150 a week, he became the top drawing-card
in the business in a mere two years. From
Keystone he went toEssanay at a salary of $1,250
a week and then in 1916 toMutual where he
commanded the princely sum of $10,000 a week.
In 1918, he signed with First National, which
2MovingPictureWorld 39 (1 February1919): 619.
^Variety, 31 January 1919, p. 58.

4Arthur Mayer,
"The Origins
of United
Films inReview 10 (1959): 390.
Artists,"
39 (1 February 1919):
5Moving Picture World
*ln re Famous
11 F.T.C.
Players-Lasky
Corp.,
(1927).
12

619.
187
gave him a $1 million contract; the company

would put up as production financing $125,000
for each of eight pictures and split the profits.
Although the FirstNational contractwould make
Chaplin a millionaire, he chose this deal rather
than remain with Mutual at a comparable salary
because he was provided theopportunity forgo
ing independent. As a spokesman for First
National said:
There are no conditions in that contract
which permit us to interferein the leastwith
him as a producer. He is an independent
manufacturer, owning and operating his
own producing company and the studios in
which itworks. He can take any length of
time he feels is essential to quality in his
releases.He is free to choose his own stories.
He is not harassed by telegrams and long
distance telephone calls, urging haste in the
completion of a picture tomake a certain
release date. He is entirely independent of
any
one
or
any
concern
other
of
any
character.His contractwith us provides for

distribution of his output and that, toMr.
Chaplin, is First National's only function
and part in his activities.7
Pickford, Fairbanks, and Griffith also started out
as
employees
under
contract.
With
star
status
came the right to form independent production

units, which meant more artistic control and a
share of theproducer's profits. By becoming their
own employers, they could receive all theprofits
from theirpictures. To be sure, theywould have
to provide theirown production financing, but a
distribution company managed by a topflight
salesman would certainlyminimize risks.
W.S. Hart, although in on the early planning
stages of United Artists, decided that discretion
was the better part of valor, and remained with
Famous Players-Lasky rather than take the risks
of going independent. Zukor helped him to reach
this decision by offering him $200,000 per pic
ture to stay put. The others,meanwhile, had con
ferredwith theman they hoped would preside
over the new distribution organization, William
Gibbs McAdoo. He had been head of the Federal
Railroad Board during thewar, Secretary of the
before
Treasury
that,
and was
son-in-law
of
President Wilson.
Pickford, Fairbanks, and
Chaplin had come to know McAdoo well during
the Third Liberty Loan drive when the three
toured the country selling millions of dollars
worth of bonds to support the war effort.
McAdoo declined the invitation to become UA's
president, but suggested that ifOscar Price, his
former
assistant
on
the
railroad
board,
were
named instead, he would gladly serve as counsel

for the company. This satisfied everyone;
7
Variety,
1 November
1918,
p. 42.
McAdoo, in thewords of an editorial inMoving

Picture World, would bring to the company
"prestige second to thatof no other businessman
in the country."8
United Artists was a cooperative venture in every

respect.
To
the company's
finance
operations
opening exchanges, hiring salesmen, and the

like?each of the founders agreed to purchase
$100,000 of preferred stock. In return for equal
units of common stock, each agreed to deliver a
specified number of pictures to the company.
Griffithwas required to direct his, and theothers
were to play the leading roles in theirs.McAdoo
was issued a unit of stock in consideration of his
becoming general counsel.
The common stock had cumulative voting power,
enabling each of the stockholders to elect his own
representative to the board of directors. Thus,
control of themanagement and policies of the
company actually rested with the stockholders
and not the directors. To prevent the company
from slipping out of thehands of theowners, the
company was given prior right to repurchase the
common stock in the event that a stockholder
wanted to sell his interest in UA to an outside
party. To ensure complete equality among the
parties, the stockholders were prevented from
forming partnerships with each other. And to
further stimulate the cooperative spirit of the
venture and as a gesture of mutual trust, the
owners decided to adopt an unwritten law stating
thatno proposal, policy, or decision could be ef
fected without
unanimous
consent.
key feature of the distribution contracts

stipulated that each picture was to be sold and
promoted individually. Block booking was out.
In no way could one United Artists release be
used
Merit
to influence
alone
would
the sale of another UA

a picture's
determine
picture.
success
or failure.The distribution feewas set at 20 per

cent of the gross in theUnited States and 30 per
cent elsewhere. If in the future the company gave
one
owner
better
terms,
a "most
favored
nation"
clause guaranteed similar adjustments in the

other contracts. These feeswere well below what
Famous Players-Lasky and First National had
been charging because United Artists was con
ceived of as a service organization rather than an
investment thatwould return dividends. Earn
ingswould accrue to theowners as a result of the
company's securing the best possible rentals for
their pictures. With this in mind, the owners
reserved the right to approve through their
representatives in the home office all contracts
with exhibitors.
During the early years of UA's existence, its
owners delivered some of the finest pictures of
6Moving
39
Picture World
13

(15 February
1919):
899.
their careers. The premiere UA release was

Douglas Fairbanks's His Majesty, theAmerican,
which was released on 1 September 1919. Fair
banks went on to produce such spectacular hits
as The Mark
of Zorro (1920), The Three
Musketeers (1921), Robin Hood (1923), and The
Thief of Bagdad (1924). Miss Pickford's best
remembered pictures were Pollyanna (1920), Lit
tle Lord Fauntleroy (1921), Tess of the Storm
Country (1922), and Rosita (1923). Griffith
delivered Broken Blossoms (1919), Way Down
East (1921), and Orphans of the Storm (1922),
among others. Chaplin came throughwith the in
fluential A Woman of Paris (1923) and his
acknowledged masterpiece, The Gold Rush
(1925).
Joseph Schenck's Reorganization

Despite this record of excellence, which earned
for the company the reputation as theTiffany of
the industry,UA by 1924 was in a precarious
position. The battle for the theaterswas in full
and more
force. More
of
the country's
most
im
portant houses were falling into the hands of a

few giant concerns. These companies gave
preference to their own product with the result
thatUA found it increasingly difficult to secure
suitable exhibition outlets for its pictures. UA,
moreover, faced a product crisis. It did not have
the resources to finance motion pictures and
could not lure other stars to go the route of in
dependent production. An early demise for the
imminent
seemed
company
until
Joseph
M.
Schenck was brought in as a partner in 1924 to

replace McAdoo and Price who had long since
departed the company. Schenck was named
chairman of the board, and given authority to
reorganize the company. Schenck brought with
him under contract his wife, Norma Talmadge;
his
Constance
sister-in-law,
Buster
brother-in-law,
Keaton.
Talmadge;
and
his
To solve the problem of acquiring the necessary

pictures to sustain UA's operations, Schenck
proposed that the company provide production
financing to outside stars and producers. Chaplin
vehemently opposed the idea. Since he financed
his pictures on his own, he felt that producers
coming into the corporation should do likewise.
It took four days to convince him that ifUA did
not provide financing, itmight not get enough
product
to survive.
At
the same
time, his partners
realized the potential danger of accepting outside

capital?that control of the company could slip
into other hands. As a result, a safeguard was
placed in Schenck's contract, stating that if
financingwere to be provided toUA producers,
itwould have to be done through a separate cor
poration in which Schenck's interestwould be
larger
than
any
non-UA
party's.
Schenck ultimately formedArt Cinema Corpora

tion to finance and produce pictures forUA dis
tribution.This company was owned by Schenck
and his associates and was not a UA subsidiary.
Art Cinema took over the Hollywood studio
belonging to Pickford and Fairbanks, who were
now husband and wife, named it theUnited Ar
tistsStudio, and went intoproduction, delivering
toUA over fiftypictures. Among themwere The
Son of theShiek (1926), starringRudolph Valen
tino; The Beloved Rogue (1927), starring John
Barrymore; Evangeline (1929), starringDolores
Del Rio; and DuBarry, Woman
of Passion
(1930), starringNorma Talmadge. In addition,
three Buster
Schenck personally produced
Keaton masterpieces, The General (1927), Col
lege (1927), and Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928). To
furtherease the product crisis, Schenck brought
in as UA partners Gloria Swanson in 1925 and
Samuel Goldwyn in 1927.
Adding producers to the lineup was one way to
reach the break-even point; another was to
streamline the operations of the company. UA's
worldwide distribution systemwould always be
costly tomaintain because thenumber of pictures
in release would be relatively small. If Schenck
could cut the overhead, or better still,discover an
alternativemethod of distribution, the company
would begin to reap handsome profits.
Schenck lighted on such a solution after confer
ring with his brother Nick, who was then vice
president and second in command at Loew's. The
brothers realized that their companies had com
plementary problems. United Artists had the
that
prestige
Loew's
the
subsidiary,
Metro
Gold wyn-Mayer, needed to bolster its image in

had the efficient dis
the marketplace; MGM
tribution system.Why not combine, they said:
everyone's
The
doing
Schencks
it.
proposed
forming
a new
corpora
tion having the name United Artists?Metro

Go Idwyn-Mayer, Inc., with the sole function of
product. The
distributing the UA and MGM
Schencks were not contemplatingmerger per se;
United Artists would retain its corporate identity
by releasing itsproduct separately. The proposal
to transfer their assets
called forUA and MGM
to the new corporation in exchange for equal
shares of voting stock.
When thedeal was presented toUnited Artists in
November, 1925, Chaplin was the only one who
would not agree to it.Pickford and Fairbanks had
certain
reservations
at first, but
Joe Schenck
per
suaded them to trusthis judgment. Chaplin ob

jected to the duration of the contract,which tied
UA to the new corporation for fifteen years.
Should it incur losses, he would be held liable, he
feared.Also, Chaplin had littlerespect forMGM,
which he referred to in his interview as "three
weak
sisters."
14

Chaplin remained adamant and thedeal had tobe

called off. According toVariety, Chaplin did not
want
to be
a "trust."
with
associated
The
so
called merger, it reported Chaplin as saying,

"would have been but a club forMetro-Goldwyn
to force exhibitors into line, using the 'block
booking' as a means to foist its film 'junk' on the
exhibitingmarket."9
Schenck's public explanation said "Nothing
could have been further from the facts, but
realizing our inability to dispel this impression,
we have decided that our independence and in
tegritybefore the exhibitor is paramount to any
economy we might effect in the face of adverse, if
criticism.
mistaken,
Both
companies
are
in com
plete accord with this decision."10 Schenck later

said that "the deal could have been made without
the consent of Chaplin, but when Charlie came
over tome and toldme he would be very unhap
py if the deal was made, I felt that we, as
partners, had no right tomake Charlie unhappy
and therefore called the deal off with the ap
proval ofMary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks
as neither one of the threeof us wanted tomake
our
partner
unhappy."11
Once again, Chaplin had sorely tried thepatience

of his partners. Fairbanks, forone, was livid and
called Chaplin a "kicker," to which Charlie
replied thatDoug was nothing but a "jumper."
Looking back tenyears later,Schenck said that if
United Artists had amalgamated with MGM,
it
would have earned a minimum of $5 million a
year. (The company during its entire pre-1951
never
history
in one
earned
million in profits.)
year more
than $1.6
To survive the battle for the theaters,UA had no

choice but to go into the exhibition business as
well.
shut
The
out
was
company
from first-run
never
houses,
in danger
of being
which
generated
the bulk of the business; UA's quality pictures

were always in demand. But a power shift had
in
been
the negotiations
occurring
a theater
terms. As
circuit
acquired
more
first-run
houses,
its bargaining
over
rental
more
and
position
improved. It could ask for and get scaled-down
terms.
UA's requirementwould be met nicely by a small

in the larger
chain of first-run houses
metropolitan areas. But once again Chaplin stood
in theway of expansion. He did not roadshow his
pictures or rely upon first runs to reach his
audiences; therefore,he saw little reason for in
vesting in a scheme thatwould benefit the other
owners
primarily.
1925, p. 27.
9Variety, 2 December
66 (12 December
Picture World
"Moving
529.
11
to the Trustees
Letter from Joseph Schenck
20 May
1935.
Dissolution
of Art Cinema,
So without Chaplin, but presumably with his

blessings, Schenck, Pickford, Fairbanks, and
Goldwyn formedUnited Artists Theatre Circuit,
Inc., in June, 1926. This was a publicly held com
pany, also separate fromUnited Artists, whose
was
purpose
chain
of
in the
or
first-run
acquire
theaters.
Schenck's success in reorganizingUnited Artists

was trifling compared to what he envisioned.
Given the forces within the industry towards
amalgamation, it was only natural for him to
propose combining the distribution company,
theatre circuit,Art Cinema, and theUA produc
tionunits intoone vertically-integratedorganiza
tion. More
surprisingly, however, was his
proposal, in January, 1929, to merge with the
Warner Bros, distribution arm as well. The new
company would be called United Artists Con
solidated.
Warner
and UA Consolidated would retain

separate identities in the merger. However, to
economize on distribution costs, theirsales forces
would operate out of common exchanges. The
UA stockholders would be asked to sign new
contracts obligating each of them to deliver two
pictures a year for an initialperiod of five years.
In so doing theywould become employees of the
company. Joe Schenck at the helm, according to
the revamped production policy, would control
costs
and
oversee
budgets.
Under
this
arrange
ment, the producers would be paid modest

salaries, but, Schenck promised, they would
stand tomake millions on increased profits and
dividends.
Warner Bros, was in themidst of solidifying its

position in the industry.By taking the lead in the
conversion
to
sound
and
as
result
of
the
phenomenal success of The Jazz Singer,Warner

went on a spending spree, the likes of which had
never
been
seen
even
in the movie
business.
It
began in September, 1928, with the purchase of

the Stanley chain of 300 theaters and a one-third
interest in First National. Now itwas looking
over theUnited Artists group.
United Artists did not become a part of the
Warner empire, nor did it subscribe to Schenck's
plan to consolidate the UA group. The extant
corporate
1925):
to construct
theaters in the major metropolitan areas. This

move forced the important theater chains to
recognize UA as a forceful competitor with the
result that these companies accommodated UA's
pictures. The United Artists Theatre Circuit is
still in existence today operating a nationwide
records
are
silent
on
these matters,
but
if reports inVariety are accurate, itwas Chaplin

again who obstructed the deal. His immediate
response was that if themerger withWarner took
place, he would withdraw from the company and
15

distribute
on his own.12
his pictures
His
producing
Chaplin's
two
UA
pictures
record?three
But
year.
pictures
in
given
seven
years?this was as farfetched as the idea that he

in
could market his pictures worldwide
dependently. Schenck intimated that themerger
just might go through without Chaplin. Soon,
however,
and
Pickford
Fairbanks
began
to waver
when itbecame obvious thatas a resultof theun

derwriting for the consolidation, control might
pass to the banking interests, leaving them
without a voice in the company they helped
create. Schenck, thereupon, had to call off the
negotiations. United Artists would remainwhat it
was founded to be, what Chaplin doggedly in
sisted on itsbeing, a distribution company for in
dependent
Schenck's
producers.
reorganization
its
made
impact
in
1928. UA began theyear with a $1 million deficit

and ended it with a $1.6 million surplus. Its
worldwide gross thatyear came to $20.5 million,
$10 million more than the 1925 figures, when
Schenck joined the company. Net profit for 1929
came to $1.3 million. By 1932, UA had retiredall
of itspreferred stock and accumulated a surplus
of $2.5 million.
Despite the unsettling effects of theDepression,
the motion picture industry by 1932 had
stabilized. It had undergone a series of upheavals
brought about by the battle for the theaters, the
and the sound

The
revolution.
merger movement,
next sixteen years would
be an era of oligopoly.
a niche
Schenck's
in
had created
reorganization
which United Artists could function effectively.
UA During
the 1930s
12
Variety,
Korda
17 April
1929,
partner
in
the
a British
gained
inter
Special mention should be made ofWalt Disney,

who from 1932 to 1936 released his phenomenal
ly successful Mickey Mouse cartoons and Silly
Symphonies through the company. Flowers and
Trees, The Three Little Pigs, The Tortoise and the
Hare, Three Orphan Kittens, and The Country
Cousin won for him an Academy Award each
he was
year
at UA.
Sam Goldwyn became themainstay of the com

pany by producing over 35 pictures in this
(1930),
period. Among them were Whoopee
Street Scene (1931), Arrowsmith (1932), Nana
(1934), These Three (1936), Dodsworth (1936),
and Wuthering Heights (1939). Pickford and
Fairbanks, in the meantime, retired from the
screen, although they still held stock in the com
pany. Gloria Swanson and Griffith sold out their
interests in 1932 and 1933, respectively.
Chaplin
produced only intermittently, but
delivered two smash hits, City Lights (1931) and
Modern Times (1936). Chaplin's popularity sur
vived the sensational Lita Grey divorce trial, the
and the new production styles
Depression,
brought about by the talkies.His appeal was mis
judged even by UA's sales force,which hesitated
to accept City Lights. Chaplin conceded that it
could not be released completely as a silent and
spent threemonths and $40,000 to add a musical
But
accompaniment.
not
he would
compromise
on terms.To his demand thatUA charge 50 per

cent of the gross in all first-run theaters,UA
protested thatnone of the circuitswould buy the
for
an
such
unprecedented
price.
Provoked by the company's attitude, Chaplin

decided to handle the New York engagement
himself. He rented theGeorge M. Cohan theater
a
on
four-wall
basis
ran
and
an
expensive
publicity campaign. UA's publicity for the pic

ture had been pretty stale, he recalled. "They
were running tiny ads which referred tome as
'our old friend.'Never mind telling them about
'our old friend,' I said. You're not selling chewing
gum. Talk about the picture. We've got to let
them
we're
know
in town."13
City Lights set records at the Cohan.

twelve
weeks
daily. The
average
of
Chaplin's
advertising,
with
as many
as
nine
It ran for
showings
total gross exceeded $500,000, or an

more
than
$40,000
per
week.
net after all charges, including the

came
to over
$300,000.
Theater
cir
company.
13Interview
p. 4.
who
producer
national renown in 1933 by producing The

Private Lives ofHenry VIII forUA. In 1936, UA
Walter Wanger. His
formed a production unit for
hits during thisperiod includeAlgiers (1938) and
Stagecoach (1939).
picture
During the 1930s, UA sustained its reputation by

adding several new producers to its roster.The
Caddo Corporation, headed by Howard Hughes,
released Hell's Angels (1930), The Front Page
(1931), and Scarface (1932). Reliance Pictures,
the Edward Small-Harry Goetz combination,
delivered / Cover the Waterfront (1933), The
Count ofMonte Cristo (1932), and The Last of
theMohicans
(1935). Darryl Zanuck teamed up
with Joe Schenck to form Twentieth Century
Productions in 1933 and produced 18 money
makers in two years, among them The House of
Rothschild (1934),Moulin Rouge (1932), and Les
Miserables (1935). UA signed up David O. Selz
nick in 1935, and he delivered A Star Is Born
(1937) and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
(1938) , among others. That same year, UA made
Alexander
was
Korda
partners
argued that the contemplated arrangementwould

net him between $10 million and $15 million
within five years. Chaplin replied that he could
earn over $20 million working for himself by
Switzerland,
with
10 January
Charles
1971.
16

Chaplin,
Vevey,
cuits were
eager
to play
the picture
after
the spec
tacular opening run, and United Artists had no

difficulty getting topmoney for rentals.
City Lights andModern Times were magnificent
personal achievements for Chaplin, both ar
tistically and financially. (The first grossed $2
million and the second $1.4 million.) Itmust be
noted, however, that Chaplin's contribution to
UA's cofferswas modest. United Artists as well
as Chaplin's public would have been happier if
he had delivered pictures at a faster rate than one
every
four
to five years.
Despite the impressiveness of UA's output, the

company was torn by dissension. Pickford and
Fairbanks had become inactive as producers and
Chaplin nearly so, yet the founders would not
recognize the contributions of the active partners,
most particularly Schenck and Goldwyn, by
vesting in them operating control of the com
pany. Because of this, Schenck resigned from
United Artists in 1935 and merged his Twentieth
Century production unit with Fox. And
Goldwyn, after unsuccessful takeover attempts,
departed to RKO in 1940.
Coming Apart at the Seams
During the war years, UA's fortunes declined

steadily. Korda's pictures had failed to generate
enthusiasm among U.S. exhibitorswith the result
thathe suspended production operations in 1942
and sold out his partnership in the company in
1944 for $950,000. UA opened itsdoors tomany
independent producers, some of them far below
the company's previous standards. It failed to at
tract the best of the field primarily because it
would not provide production financing on a
regular basis. The company still expected its
producers
to secure
financing
on
their own.
The
few pictures that perpetuated theUA reputation

in this period were Korda's Jungle Book (1942),
Noel Coward's InWhich We Serve (1943), Hunt
Stromberg's Lady of Burlesque (1943), Sol Les
ser's Stage Door Canteen (1943), JamesCagney's
JohnnyCame Lately (1943), Lester Cowan's The
Story of G.I. Joe (1945), and most particularly
Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1941).
Chaplin spoke on the screen for the first time in
thispicture and in two voices?as the littlebarber,
inmeek monosyllables, and as the dictator, "in
fake Teutonic gutterals and double talk, in
perfect mimicry of Hitler's mannerisms, poses,
gestures, and choleric rantings."14Chaplin began
the picture early in January, 1939. Halfway
through production, Britain declared war, and
work on the filmwas halted. As Chaplin said in
his autobiography, "I began receiving alarming
messages fromUnited Artists. They had been ad
vised by theHays Office that I would run into

. . . But
trouble.
censorship
I was
to
determined
go ahead, forHitler must be laughed at/'15He

went on to remark thathad he known of the ac
tual horrors
of the German
concentration
he could not have made
camps,
the picture.
After pouring over $2 million of his own money

into the project, and shooting a half million feet
of film,he released The Great Dictator on 15 Oc
tober 1940. Reflecting Chaplin's confidence in
this picture, UA booked it to open in twoNew
York theaters, theAstor and theCapitol. Critics
and first-nightersat theopening found toomuch
grim reality in the picture and objected to the last
speech as out of place and propagandistic. But
the public as a whole loved The Great Dictator. It
had a 15-week run inNew York and grossed
nearly $5 million worldwide. This was Chaplin's
greatest success, earning him not only acclaim
but also a $1.5 million profit.
The man on whom the company pinned itshopes
in this period was David O. Selznick. He was
made a partner in 1941 to fill the production
vacuum created by the loss of Goldwyn. So that
Selznick could expand his production schedule,
United Artists took the unprecedented action of
advancing him $300,000 to acquire properties.
Selznick, however, did not deliver until 1944.
The firstpicture on his new contractwas Since
You Went Away. In 1945, he produced /'//Be
Seeing You and Spellbound. All threewere hits,
but he did not live up to expectations.
Selznick's dilatory behavior had so infuriated
Chaplin thathe instigated a lawsuit against Selz
nick in 1943 fornot living up to the termsof his
contract.With the $300,000 advance fromUA,
Selznick had purchased themotion picture rights
to The Keys of theKingdom, Claudia and Jane
Eyre, and sold them toTwentieth Century-Fox at
a big profit. Although UA's counsel claimed
Selznick had the right to expend themoney any
way he chose, Chaplin served the complaint,
nevertheless. But beyond this, the action was left
in abeyance, the strategy apparently being to
into production. Instead,
frighten Selznick
Chaplin succeeded merely in alienating Selznick.
A deeply disturbed Mary Pickford tried to con
vince Chaplin to drop the case by pointing out
the consequences of his behavior, both past and
present:
In three months United Artists will be

old?a
of
years
quarter
its formation,
Twentieth
twenty-five
tury. Since
tury, Warners
a cen
Cen
tomention
and M.G.M.,
only
a few,have come intobeing and reached un

14Theodore
Schuman,
1951),
Charlie
p. 263.
Schuster,
1964),
Huff,
Chaplin
(New
York:
15Charles
Chaplin,My Autobiography (New York:
Simon
&
p. 392.
17

believable heights of profit and power. Even

decrepit Universal has had a re-birth and is
a
now
modern,
thriving,
M.G.M.'s
organization.
motion
picture
are
assets
today
quoted at $167,000,000. And that company

was formed by Louis B. Mayer on the
strength of his contractwith Anita Stewart
and
he was
because
able
to secure
the ser
vices of a then unknown young boy work

ing at Universal by the name of Thalberg.
Compare this to the United Artists7 con
tractswith four of thegreatest names the in
dustry has ever known. I am listing the last
year's profits, after taxes, of the above three
as
companies
follows:
Twentieth Century
$10,609,784
M.G.M.
8,555,000
down,
Charlie.
were
pictures
to
be
released
throughUnited Artists at 30% and United

Artists at 25%, the profits to be split fifty
fifty. I don't know what thatwould have
meant in the intervening years but I do
know that combined grosses of last year
alone would exceed $75,000,000 which
would have given [UA] ... a profit of
another deal
$15,000,000. There was
whereby you and Douglas were each to
receive $8,000,000 apiece for your stock
and I $7,000,000. There was the United
Artists Theatre [Circuit] stock which Joe
wanted to amalgamate with United Artists
Corporation.
Douglas
signed
You
turned
that down
also.
and I put up $100,000 apiece and

ten years'
contract
for our
tures. You did neither.
pic
Although you were not financially or con

tractually interested in the theatre, you
deprived theUnited Artists Corporation of
this tremendous asset. You will recall after
that circuit was built into a profitable
business itwas then turned over to the
West Coast Theatres to be used as a stick
against
United
Artists
producers.
. . .
It is said thatyou claim I have deserted you
in David
Selznick's
camp.
. . .
members.
I am perfectly willing to go on record in

saying David was wrong morally and
ethically in not producing and delivering
pictures to us, but I believe legally under
his contract he had the right as well as the
right to part with the assets he sold to
Century.
it not
strike you
that
Charlie,
congruous,
as being
you
are
in
suing
David for not having produced a picture

and I
for three years and yet Douglas
waited six years for the firstChaplin pic
ture?And twenty-odd years ago your pic
ture was
certainly
than David's
so,
as important,
if not more
to
is to the organization
day. Undoubtedly you, too, had reason for

not seeing fit to deliver themuch needed
product and Iwould think this factwould
give you a more tolerant attitude toward
David. True, you did not have $300,000 of
the company's money, but, on the other
hand, you were morally obligated toGrif
fith,Douglas and me to lend every possible
in
assistance
Joe Schenck had a proposition whereby all
M.G.M.'s
holder
stock
Does
the fact that never before in

Despite
motion pictures known such
have
history
prosperity,United limps along with barely
enough to meet its heavy obligations.
Why? Because therehas been nothing but
dissension for the past fifteenyears among
the owners of the company which dissen
sion spreads through themanagement and
down to the salesmen in the field.Dissen
sion which has paralyzed the activities of
the company. And now your lawsuit
against David is not the least of these cost
ly and public wrangles. I can name some of
the specific deals which you, personally,
turned
now
Twentieth
12,132,606
Warners
am
and
Nothing could be more untrue or unfair. I

am neither in his camp nor in yours, but
am first and foremost for the company's
best interests and for protectingmy rights
as a fourth owner of this potentially
attitude
powerful organization, which
should redound to the benefit of all the
precarious
I
am
starting
organization.
that
confident
without
the
interference
the
. . .
new
and
and
David,
you
and
of attorneys
those persons motivated by selfish in

terests, could get together and settle this
lawsuit. The three of us could then for
mulate some plan whereby the partners
as
a unit
thus
for our
future
policy.
vote
forming
. . .
a sound
basis
Surely you can take no pride in the truck

that we
are now
forced
to lend our name
to
and permit to pass throughUnited Artists'

channels. For myself, I am deeply embar
rassed for there is neither profit nor pride
in theUnited Artists of today.
You are the last person in themotion pic
ture industrywho should ever question my
good faith and loyalty to you. But if after
such
of
close
twenty-five years
partnership, you still don't know me,
Charlie, it is useless forme to set forth the
innumerable times I have stood loyally by
you and have closed my eyes to themany
hurts, rebuffs and humiliations I have en
dured
at your
16Letter from Mary

1943.
hand.16
Pickford
October
18

to Charles
Chaplin,
18
Itwas not in the original bylaws. There
Pickford waited nearly two weeks for

Chaplin's response, but none came. Thoroughly
out of patience now, she informed the board of
her intention to bring suit against United Artists.
She had to do this to safeguard her holdings in
the company, the holdings which she paid so
dearly for, she said, "not alone in timeand effort,
but in agony ofmind." Her goal was to have the
unanimous vote provision in thebylaws declared
invalid because they threatened to destroy her 25
Miss
interest
percent
was
It has always existed.

PICKFORD:
C: It has always existed and we functioned.
P: And how we functioned.
is a question of opinion, personal
opinion. You are doing verywell. So am
I.
C: That
P: Thank you.
C: I thinkwe have done very well in the
past. I think your credit shows so.
P: My credit is nothing to theUnited Art
ists. Ifmy creditwas run like thatof the
United Artists I would be penniless to
day, and that is justwhy I am going to
get relief from the courts. Ifwe can't sit
down and discuss our business like any
othermodern organization, then it is too
bad.
C:
I don't
a modern
tended it.
P:
this was
think
corporation.
ever
intended
We
never
to be
in
It is not, if itwas.
I do not agree. I think that we

ought to go into it?not at this time?but
at a laterdate, and I can prove it to you
conclusively that figures do not lie, that
our company does not do as well as
ning.
P: And I would
what I said.
like to go on record as to
C: We had it for the purpose of exploiting

our own pictures without block booking
from
P: And
other
sources.
there is no reason why it cannot
proceed.
I think that you and Douglas and

myself did verywell under the organiza
tionunder those conditions and we never
had any trouble at all about themajority
C: And
vote.
P:
Itwas something we gave each other. It
was
never
in
others.17
Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin were irrecon

cilable after this encounter. "In the future," she
informedUA's president, "any business dealings
Imay be forced to have with him will be done as
though with a total stranger."18
Chaplin reactived the suit against Selznick in
1946. Precipitating the action was Selznick's act
of turningover toRKO on a profit-sharing basis
producers, directors, players and completed
scripts forNotorious, The Spiral Staircase and
four other films.After Selznick filed a counter
an
suit,
the
bylaws
and
Mr.
Goldwyn had itput in, as you will recall.

out-of-court
settlement
was
reached
whereby the company repurchased his stock for

$2 million.
Immediately following the Selznick lawsuits was
theMonsieur Verdoux debacle. More than six
years had passed since Chaplin had delivered a
picture to the company and his new work was
eagerly anticipated. But the critical reception
from thedaily press after theopening on 11 April
1947, was hostile: "It has little entertainment
weight,
sense.
or sheer non
either as somber
symbolism
... It is also
an affront to the
of
something
intelligence" (Howard Barnes in the Herald

Tribune); "The film is staged like an early talkie
with
C: Itwas an ideal proposition in the begin
it cost us dearly.
P: Then
The next meeting of the stockholders inOctober,

1943, was a spirited one indeed inwhich the fol
lowing exchange between Chaplin and Pickford
took place:
MISS
and
C: I don't think ithas cost verymuch, and I

don't know about you, but frankly, I
think I have done very well by this
organization under its present set up. I
can say I believe I had gotten themax
imumout ofmy pictures and I thinkyou
have, and I think?
in the company.
CHAPLIN: The evil of the unanimous vote

has only come up recently.
an amendment
immobile
fairly
camera,
self-conscious
dialogue, acting that looks like the late twenties

...
an
old-fashioned
production,
almost
quaint
in some of itsmoments" (Eileen Creelman inThe

Sun);
"It
is
slow?tediously
slow?in
stretches and
thus monotonous"
Crowther in theNew York Times).
many
(Bosley
Chaplin consented to a press interview the fol

lowing day to drum up support for themovie. He
confidently expected to answer questions on why
he abandoned his famous tramp to play the role
of a cynical middle-class bank clerk who hap
pened also to be a modern Bluebeard. The UA
17Transcript of the meeting of the UA Stockholders,

1943.
28 October
18Letter fromMary Pickford to Edward C. Raftery, 9
1943.
November
19

publicity departmentwarned him to expect ques

tions on his sex life and his politics as well.
Chaplin's popularity had sunk to its all-time low,
as
a result
of
the sensational
lawsuits
involving
Joan Barry, theMann Act, and the paternity of

her child, and rising resentment over Chaplin's
so-called
stand
pro-Communist
the war.
during
The conference took place in the Grand Ball

room of the Gotham Hotel. Radio producer
George Wallach reported that "the Ballroom was
filled literally to the rafters. Every seat on the
floor was taken. People were standing in the
doorways and on the seats encircling thebalcony.
They represented every major newspaper and
and
magazine,
any and
there were
also
all minor
from
journalists
to squeeze
able
papers
in."19
After his introduction by a UA spokesman,

Chaplin told his audience to "proceed with the
was
He
butchery."
if he was
asked
a Communist,
he was asked why he had not become an

American citizen, and he was accused of being
unpatriotic. Much was made of the fact that
Chaplin advocated a second front against the
Nazis early in thewar. The press conferencewas
an excruciating ordeal for the filmmaker,who in
tended in his characterization of Verdoux "to
create a pity for all humanity under certain
drastic
circumstances?in
times
stress."20
of
After thepicture had run for a short time inNew

York, Chaplin decided to withhold it from
national release until October, to enable his new
publicity man, Russell Birdwell, to revamp the
promotion
Birdwell's
campaign.
plan
was
to
capitalize on the controversy surrounding both

Chaplin and Monsieur Verdoux by adopting the
slogan
"Chaplin
you?"
received another dose of notoriety that
Chaplin
summer
when
he
that he was
House
can
changes;
learned
Communist
the newspapers
being called to testify before the

on
Committee
which was
from
Un-American
Activities,
beginning a probe into the alleged

infiltration
in
of the motion-picture
dustry. In response, Chaplin sent the following

chairman, J. Parnell
telegram to HUAC's
Thomas:
From your publicity I noted that I am to be

by
"quizzed"
the House
Un-American
Ac
tivities Committee
in Washington
in
September. I understood I am to be your
"guest"
at
the
expense
of
the
taxpayers.
Forgive me for thispremature acceptance of

your headlined newspaper invitation. You
have been quoted as saying you wish to ask
me if I am a Communist. You sojourned for
ten days in Hollywood not long ago and
"Charlie Chaplin's Monsieur
Ver
19George Wallach,
5 (Winter
doux
Press Conference,"
Film Comment
34.
1969):
20Ibid., p. 36.
could have asked me the question ai that

time, effecting something of an economy.
Or you could telephoneme now?collect. In
order that you be completely up-to-date on
my thinking I suggest that you view
carefully my latest production "Monsieur
Verdoux." It is against war and the futile
slaughter of our youth. I trustyou will find
its humane message distasteful.While you
are preparing your engraved subpoena Iwill
give you a hint on where I stand. I am not a
a peace-monger.
I am
Communist.
Learning thatHUAC planned to take up the case

of movie
Eisler, on 25
composer Hanns
as a prelude
September,
to its full-scale
investiga
tion of Hollywood, Chaplin instructed United

Artists to open Monsieur Verdoux inWash
ington the following day. The Capitol theater
was booked for the run, but itsmanagement at
the last moment decided to "postpone"
the
UA's
engagement.
interpretation
of
the
action
was that "official Washington has been led to

believe that a big, bad wolf is running around
loose on the screen and that it should be caged
before
some
is done."21
damage
The
picture
opened on schedule, nonetheless. UA managed to

book five theaters in an attempt to blanket the
city. To Thomas and the other members of the
sent
the following
Committee,
Chaplin
invitation:
telegraphed
"I
am opening
my
attendance
records
com
edy, 'Monsieur Verdoux' on September 26th in

fiveWashington, D.C. theaters and itwould in
deed be a pleasure to have you as my guest on
opening day. Respectfully?Charles Chaplin."22
Birdwell's
ballyhoo
broke
at
the opening and elicited an avalanche of booking

requests
from across
a
expected
the country. UA
release
500-theater
confidently
after
the
run.
Washington
The HUAC hearings began on 20 October 1947,

and lasted for two weeks. Chaplin was sub
poenaed
to testify,
but
his
appearance
was
post
poned three times.Then he received a courteous

letter stating that his testimonywould not be
needed and that he could consider the matter
closed.
But
American
audiences
apparently
John E. Rankin,
agreed with HUAC-member
who that summer in Congress had called for
Chaplin's deportation. Chaplin's character was
"detrimental to themoral fabric of America"; by
deporting him, said Rankin, "he can be kept off
theAmerican screen and his loathsome pictures
can be kept from the eyes of American youth."23
There followed a hate campaign of frightening
proportions led primarily by the Catholic War
21UA News
Release,
22UA News
Release,
"Quoted
in Huff,
18 September
19 September
p. 285.
20

1947.
1947.
Veterans and the American Legion. These and

other pressure groups succeeded in instituting
boycotts against the picture. First the Indepen
dent Theater Owners Organization inColumbus,
Ohio, representing325 theaters,called on theater
owners "to give serious thought to thematter of
withholding screen time" fromMonsieur Ver
doux.24
Then
and
Loew's
certain
of
the
Paramount affiliates refused to supply play dates.

Monsieur Verdoux had played only 2,075 dates
and had grossed a mere $325,000 when Chaplin
ordered itwithdrawn fromdistribution two years
later.Even though the picture grossed more than
$1.5 million abroad, Chaplin felt that the UA
sales forcewas responsible for its poor domestic
showing, with the result that he lost confidence
in his company.
The End and theBeginning
In 1948, the banks declared a holiday on the

financing of UA's producers. The outlay of $2
million for the repurchase of Selznick's stock,
coming three years after the repurchase of
Korda's stock fornearly $1 million, had depleted
reserves.
the company's
Thereafter,
UA
faced
an
insoluble product crisis. By the end of 1949, it

suffered a $200,000 deficit and was losing
$65,000 a week.
Pickford and Chaplin out of desperation turned
over themanagement of UA to former Indiana
Governor Paul V. McNutt and associates in July,
1950. McNutt had acquired a $5.4 million option
to buy UA in two years and operate the company
in themeantime. But after the deficit dipped to
$871,000 at the end of 1950,McNutt looked fora
graceful way out. Ready to rescue him in 1951
were Arthur B. Krim and Robert S. Benjamin,
partners in the law firmof Phillips, Nizer, Ben
jamin and Krim, specializing in the movie
business.
After
examining
the company's
books,
theymade an unprecedented proposition: If un

der theirmanagement United Artists made a
profit in any one of threeyears, theywould ac
quire the right to purchase 50 percent of theout
standing stock and operate the business until
1961.
The offerwas accepted and Krim and Benjamin

made cinema history by transforming a mori
bund company into one of themost successful in
the industry.They met the conditions of theoffer
by showing a profit for 1951.
Intermittentlyover the next several years, there

were separate discussions with Chaplin and
Pickford about selling their stock in the com
but
pany,
seemed
agreement
unattainable.
Unex
vacation.
Subse
pectedly, in February, 1955, Krim received a

telephone call fromChaplin asking for $1.1 mil
lion in cash within fivedays forhis 25 percent of
the company. Krim closed thedeal. Chaplin was
now living permanently inVevey, Switzerland,
where he had taken refuge in 1953 from the in
cessant political harassment in this country. In
1952, Attorney General JamesMcGranery had
declared the intent of theU.S. government to
for "being a
bring action against Chaplin
member of theCommunist Party."25McGranery
had made the announcement while Chaplin was
sea
at
beginning
European
quently, theAmerican Legion picketed his latest

UA release, Limelight, and forced itswithdrawal
from the Fox theaterson theWest Coast and the
Loew's inNew York. Chaplin chose not to return
to answer the charges. He handed inhis re-entry
permit inApril, 1953.
Mary Pickford also sold out her interest in 1956;
her asking price was $3 million. Krim, Benjamin,
and theirpartners now owned the company out
right.United Artists became a publicly held com
pany in 1957, and in 1967 itbecame a subsidiary
of Transamerica
Corporation.
So, the moribund United Artists that Charlie

Chaplin andMary Pickford relinquished in 1951
revived to become the pacesetter of the industry.
This happened because the new managers had a
singleness of purpose in running the company,
earned the confidence and support of the banks,
and
offered
stars,
directors,
and
The comparison between the old and the new

company is not meant to be invidious. The
achievements of Charlie Chaplin and Mary
were unique.
company
in every sense of
Pickford's
were
pioneers
UA's
the
founders
term. Their
enormous popularity as stars had stimulated the

growth of an infant industryand helped establish
film
as
an
art
strong-willed,
form
of consequence.
temperamental,
They
idiosyncratic,
24Quoted
in Terry
Hickey,
"Accusations
Against
were
but
eminently gifted artistswho possessed the for

titude to buck a system thatwas beginning to
pride itselfmore on efficiency and standardiza
tion than on individuality and craftsmanship.
The formation of United Artists was not only an
economic move on theirpart but also an idealistic
one.
Charles Chaplin for Political and Moral Offenses,"

FilmComment 5 (Winter1969): 53.
producers
chance to be masters of their own talent

circumstances all too often lacking in theold UA.
**New York
Times,
20 September
21

1952,
p. 1.

Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur - A United Artist PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur - A United Artist PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Charles Chaplin, Entrepreneur: A United Artist

Author(s): TINO BALIO

This content downloaded from 195.221.71.48 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:56:22 AM