Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1959)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

N. Y. Committee 'Not Seeking Censorship/ but Strong Codes Both sides presented their cases quite passionately— the civic element deploring "salacious" films and film ads, the movie executives standing firmly on the self-regulating Advertising Code — then the threat of new pre-censorship legislation pervading the public hearings of the N. Y. State Joint Legislative Committee on Offensive and Obscene Material all but evaporated. The bad taste of public disapproval, however, lingered. Most of it had been supplied by a parade of witnesses who decried what they called the increase of sex, degradation, cruelty and horror in films and their advertising. In the face of that display of disapproval, James A. Fitzpatrick, counsel for the committee and its former chairman, announced that the committee was "not seeking censorship" but "more effective self-regulation" by the industry. To Gordon S. White, Ad Code administrator, and the four movie executives, who had testified in the face of some harassing questions about their business, the committee's stand was a most satisfying one. White, in his defense of the industry, made the following points: (1) "Our Codes have set much higher standards" for American films than recent court decisions which "seem to be setting obscenity as the limit of acceptability." (2) "We hate obscenity as much as you do. Let those laws (against obscenity) be enforced." (3) ". . . in a free society censorship is never a good answer or a good remedy — for it misplaces responsibility. And, what we need is more, not less, responsibility — in industry and in the public — with prosecution wherever necessary of those guilty of gross violation." Charles Einfeld, 20th Century-Fox vice president; Silas F. Seadler, Loew's, Inc., ad manager; Paul N. Lazarus, Jr., Columbia v. -p., and Jerry Pickman, Paramount ad head represented the industry at the hearings. Each testified to the effectiveness of both the Production and Advertising Codes of the MPAA, although the committee had made it known that its main concern was with movie ads. Einfeld invited suggestions from the committee. "We strive to make our advertising informative and, at the same time, not offend any segment of the public," he said. Seadler admitted to a relaxation in certain areas of the MPAA Codes, but pointed out that they were the result of a general relaxation by the public in more areas than the movies. Lazarus cautioned of the possibility that an overemphasized picture of the industry as harmful would emerge from the hearings, with the achievements of movies for the most part overlooked. He added that the horror cycle is running its course and that Columbia "has already instructed its studio to avoid in the future the making of crime films and to eliminate undue violence in any of our future productions." The long line of witnesses criticizing "censurable" material in movies ami their ads included a psychiatrist, two priests, an exhibitor, a mayor and the representative of a women's club. Louis Pesce, director of the N. Y. State Motion Picture Division (which licenses film exhibition), also attacked what he termed "ob Page 10 Film BULLETIN January 5, 1959 THEY MADE THE NEWS EINFELD jectionable" film content. Referring to two harmful advertising categories — "open exploitation of misrepresentation" and the "true representation of themes objectionable for young people" — Pesce advocated legislation to extend control over ad placement and to increase the exhibitor's responsibility for ad material he creates. Considering the clamor for reform, the committee's attitude appeared a friendly one. ACE Gets Secretary, Two Votes of Confidence As it prepared to plunge into the enormous program it has blueprinted for itself, the American Congress of Exhibitors acquired an administrative secretary and received two warm votes of confidence from the board of the Metropolitan Motion Picture Theatres Association, and the membership of Allied Theatre Owners of New Jersey. The new secretary is Merlin Lewis, former executive secretary and treasurer of Theatre Equipment and Supply Manufacturers Association. The "sincere and heartfelt congratulations . . . for the magnificent accomplishments which were achieved within an incredibly short period" came from MMPTA board chairman Solumon M. Strausberg in a letter to S. H. Fabian, chairman of ACE. "It is difficult to express in words," read the letter, "the tremendous impetus that this new organization has given to the vital cause of exhibition and industry unity." Films Big Behind Xurtain' The U. S. Government reports that Iron Curtain citizens in Hungary and Rumania are "battering down theatre doors" to see American films, according to the Motion Picture Export Association of America. | Mo I.-. NEWS on Page 14] Group Buys 235,000 Shares Of Loew's, Praises Vogel A group headed by Chicago businessman Nathan Cummings, an avowed friend of Loew's management, purchased "in excess" of 235,000 shares in the company, at $22 a share, for over $5 million, making him a major stockholder and signaling the possible collapse of an impending proxy fight. It was reported that the selling group was composed of the three major dissidents — Louis A. Green, whose brokerage firm, Stryker & Brown, sold almost half of its 150, 000 shares, Joseph Tomlinson and Jerome A. Newman — and two New York investment banking firms — Lehman Brothers and Lazard Freres & Co. Tomlinson was said to have sold 60,000 shares. The sellers, however, it was reported, still retained substantial holdings in the company. Cummings, board chairman of Consolidated Foods Corp., Chicago, said this buying group, which includes Maxwell Cummings and Canadian film executive Paul Nathanson, is a "friend of management, and we will work closely with Joseph R. Vogel, president of Loew's." Bringing "business people" into the firm was reported to be the main factor involved in the sale. It is hoped that the buyers will be able to improve the company's earnings position. Cummings, who was asked to become a Loew's director at the Jan. 6 meeting, said his group saw "enormous potentials in the future of Loew's. My philosophy is to operate a business successfully and not to liquidate it . . ." he added. In previous action involving Loew's, the purchase of 80,000 shares of the company's stock by General Industrial Enterprises came under attack by a group of GIE stockholders in Federal District Court. Plaintiffs seeking to have the firm liquidated petitioned the court to allow them to amend their complaint to include the Loew's stock purchase. This development was believed to have undercut the efforts of director Ira Guilden, a supporter of Vogel, to purchase all or part of the holdings of Green and Tomlinson. Semenenko Won't Sell Warner Stock, Pleased with 'Progress' Serge Semenenko's office denied that he would sell his 161,000 shares of Warner Bros, stock to the company. Reports to that effect "can be discounted completely," spokesmen for the Boston banker declared, saying he "never has contemplated, nor has he had any intention of selling any of his shares to the company." It was pointed out that any adjustment of his holdings could be within only the original group which purchased the shares at the time of the change in management in July, 1956. Semenenko was represented as being "pleased with the progress of the firm as evidenced by its first quarter ending Nov. 30; its strong cash position; the very noteworthy performance of its affiliate in England (Associated British Pictures Corp.), and good estimated earnings for the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 1959."