“My dear Kleiner:—
Oct. 14, 1917

Like you, I have not so far seen a Goldwyn motion picture; & form my judgment from newspaper accounts alone. In time, I believe the best pictures will attain a level entitling them to serious artistic consideration & criticism; though I scarcely think that they can bear comparison with the spoken drama.

Drama, in order to mount the heights, seems to me to require the full expression of the characters, including voice. In recalling dramatic climaxes, I find that at least in my case the most effective impression comes through the ears.

Rhetoric is a wonderful thing, & a passage of Shakespeare's verse well uttered can move an audience as no pantomime possibly could. Hamlet without his lines would be a mere shadow. A voiceless Richard IIl would be a clown. In comedy the lack of dialogue, is irreparable.

How scintillating succession of epigrams which only conversation can convey! I saw the Kalem version? several years ago, & doubt if Mr. Garrick would have thought it worth writing a prologue for, as he so kindly did for Mr. Sheridan in 1777, when the piece first came upon the town.

But the fact that the motion picture possesses certain limitations, should not cause it to be lightly estimated. It is certainly capable of vast development, and can be made to convey artistic expression of the very first quality. Its ease of distribution is likely to make it a potent instrument in the diffusion of culture & good taste.

To me a good motion picture is vastly more acceptable than a poor or poorly acted drama, & I am a regular patron of the Strand Theatre, whose management have placed me on their mailing list for advance notices of films.

Chaplin has been greatly hampered in the past by the execrable taste of his directors. Not one in ten of the old "Keystone" comedies could be witnessed without disgust; & after the comedian graduated from them, their traditions could not help but cling slightly to him. Time will enable him to assert his individuality more completely above the commonplace conventions of cinematographic buffoonery.

Fairbanks, as you say, doubtless has much less of actual genius. I am fond of watching his pictures because there is a certain wholesomeness present, which the Chaplin type sometimes lacks. The atmosphere of squalor too often clouds the merit of the Chaplin plays.

After a time, the fastidious eye tires of looking at rags & dut; & turns gratefully to the breezy, captivating antics of the more human if less artistic Fairbanks. It is an old maxim in fiction & the drama, that a hero should be such that every man in the audience can imagine himself in that character.

Fairbanks might well represent any virile young American, but what spectator could fancy himself a Chaplin? Both have their place, & the loss of either would subtract sadly from the gaiety of nations. Fairbanks, content to please in his own way, doubtless recognises the superior endowments of the clever little [REDACTED] without enjoying that inimitable personality in the least!”