Motion Picture Daily (Oct-Dec 1960)

Friday, October 21, 1960 Motion Picture Daily people ! Sir Alexander King, Scottish exhibitor, will be guest of honor on Nov. 9 at a luncheon tendered him by the Cinematograph Exhibitors As1 sociation. The affair, to be held at the Trocadero in London, will honor Sir Alexander for his work over the years in bringing about the eventual abolition of the entertainment tax. I □ I Randolph T. McKelvey, vice-president of Young & Rubicam in charge of the Detroit office, has been named ^a senior vice-president, and will headquarter in New York. Named to succeed him as head of the Detroit operation is Joseph G. Standart, vicepresident and account supervisor there. □ Jack Erickson, for many years a member of the San Francisco staff of 20th Century-Fox, has joined Jem Film Distributors, Inc., as sole representative in the Ray area. □ Gil Meyer, sales representative at various times for NTA, Culhane Films and Lempert & Mayer, has joined Rill Sturm Studios here as vice-president for sales. Censor WalV Attacked in Supreme Court Cinema Lodge Sets luncheon Thursday , Winners of the Cadillac and the cruise being awarded by New York's Cinema Lodge of R'nai R'rith in its current annual fund-raising drive on behalf of the R'nai R'rith agencies, will be selected at a luncheon to be held at the Hotel Astor next Thursday, it was announced by Abe Dick'stein, president of the Lodge. 1 As the fund-raising drive nears its 'end, Dickstein issued an urgent appeal for last minute support to enable 1 the Lodge to reach its goal in the sale "of the $25 contribution share certificates. Among the R'nai R'rith agen1 cies which share in the proceeds of Cinema's annual fund-raising drive are the Anti-Defamation League, the Hillel Foundations and the R'nai ; R'rith Youth Organizations. Joseph R. Rosen of Universal Pictures has been chairman of this year's 1 drive with Leonard Rubin of Gillian and Rubin acting as co-chair ( Continued from page 1 ) an exhibition permit by the City of Chicago when Times Film proferred the required exhibition permit fee but refused to submit to prior screening and censorship. Bilgrey noted that there should not be any presumption as to the nature of a motion picture before it is shown publicly. He stated that movies should enjoy all of the rights granted to speech, saying that he does not think "the state has any right to know beforehand" what the content of a movie is any more than it would have the right to prior censorship of a newspaper or book. He told Justice Frankfurter that there are alternative and legally acceptable methods of controls over the presentation of material deemed inimical to the public welfare or morals. Concluding his argument before the court, Bilgrey stated that prior court decisions establish in "crystalclear form" that no prior censorship can apply to all forms of speech, and that motion pictures have "all the attributes of speech." The case for the city of Chicago U1H.U. Dickstein announced that the Hotel Astor luncheon at which the winners will be selected, will be open to evervone who has participated in the campaign in addition to Cinema Lodge members. 6 for Edward Small Producer Phil Hazelton and director Alex Singer have been signed by Edward Small to produce six motion pictures for his organization. All will be released by United Artists. Small will serve as executive producer on each of the films, which will be produced by Hazelton and directed by Singer. was presented by two of its attorneys, Robert J. Collins and Sidney F. Debrin. Collins began by observing that Bilgrey, in the course of his argument, had offered to show the film privately to Chicago representatives. In this case, he wondered, why would he not show it to the censors if it were not obscene? Justice Frankfurter commented that this might be "an act of generosity," but that the intrusion of any element of coercion in the showing would be resisted. Collins noted that the Chicago ordinance bans not only obscene films, but those that might incite to riot, insurrection, and the like. He said, in response to questions from Justice Douglas, that he would not attempt to subject a newspaper to prior censorship, but asserted that there is a "vast difference between movies and newspapers." Radio, newspapers, and tv, he stated, are heard, read, or seen in the privacy of the home. When movies are exhibited, they are shown to "many people in a darkened theatre See 100 Films Added lor '61 ( Continued tional distribution companies expected again in 1961, the addition of a minimum of 100 features from new sources, plus miscellaneous independent product and imported films, the worst of the product pinch mav be over next year, some of the exhibitor leaders believe. They are confident, at least, that the downward trend of total available product begun some years ago will not only be arrested but reversed in 1961, and with it they expect a corresponding drop in theatre closings. ACE Vital Factor The exhibitor leaders' estimates of increased product next year bank heavily on the completion of financing and organization of the American Congress of Exhibitors' production company in the very near future. The estimates count on more new releases from this the promised ACE production company than from any other single, new source now in view. ACE officials have not specified any minimum number of releases planned for the first year of operation, nor have they actually disclosed a time schedule for the first of such releases. Nevertheless, repeated references have been made by ACE to a "substantial" supply of product from the new company and most exhibitors interpret this to mean anything from 12 to 24 features annually. Alpha Active Pathe-Alpha, which is moving rapidly toward production with a Theatre Owners of America committee advising on story selection, costs, etc., and TOA itself committed to cooperate in obtaining guaranteed playing time for the films produced, has announced an from page 1) initial minimum of 14 releases. This could be augmented by six or eight more if story properties and casts become available, it has been indicated. Three from Mulvey Group Beaver-Champion Attractions, the company headed by James A. Mulvey, Nat Taylor, David Griesdorf and Meyer Hutner, has announced an initial trio of releases and will actively search out itself or finance additional pictures. The possibility of annual program of 10 features is indicated. Everett N. Crosby Productions will deliver a minimum of six, Bing's brother and business manager announced recently. If Loew's Theatres is given the goahead on production by the Federal court after a hearing on its application in the near future, there is a possibility of some additional product from that source during 1961, observers believe, although Loew's officials have made no commitments whatever. Newcomers Will Help In addition, established and newcomer producers, such as MillarTurman, who announced three for '61, have announced a total of more than 20 projects for 1961 in recent months. Film imports are expected to remain at a substantial level in 1961, and there will be the usual number of rereleases to count upon. In the latter connection, Motion Picture Investors, the exhibitor-backed open-end company, hopes to have eight to 10 combinations from each national company during the year. Its first two, Allied Artists' "Friendly Persuasion" and "The Oklahoman," are scheduled for saturation dating in the Great Plains area in February. for several hours at a time." Collins added, "if it were not pornographic they would not have brought the case." Collins made it clear that "we're talking about an obscene movie and not one that is harmless." He also asserted that if the film in question, "Don Juan," is a "PoIlyanna"-type movie then Bilgrey "has committed a fraud upon this court." At no point in Bilgrey's remarks was there any statement of the nature of the film. A major point in his argument was that prior censorship should be banned regardless. Questioned by Justices Justices Harlan, Whittaker, and Frankfurter sought information as to the nature of the Chicago licensing procedure. Frankfurter suggested that issuance of a permit without prior censorship might result in the city sponsoring "a vicious film." Collins noted that "the punishment of the exhibitor doesn't solve the problem," of which a part is the fact that a movie might incite to riot or other illicit activity. Collins noted that the Chicago ordinance is legal under Illinois law. Whittaker obtained from Collins an admission, however, that such exhibition would be open to prosecution under other law. In a rebuttal argument made for Times Film by Abner J. Mikva, it was pointed out that exhibition of a film without a city permit puts the exhibitor in violation of valid sections of the ordinance. He conceded that some form of non-discretionary licensing probably was within the constitution. Harlan Comments Justice Harlan commented that his "real point was that it should not be necessary to test the constitutionality of a statute through criminal proceedings." Mikva observed that without the "major premise of presumed obscenity, there is no basis for upholding the interference" with free exhibition. He added that Chicago must make this presumption to bring itself into court with the color of argument on its side. Justice Whittaker stated that if the court were to go along with the position taken by Times Film, "then any motion picture exhibitor could show any motion picture he wants without fear"— even if it is obscene. As Mikva's time for argument expired, he told Justice Whittaer that there are ample other punishments and deterrents to public exhibition of films inimical to public welfare. No Quick Decision Expected The court now is free to deliberate on the case for as long as it likes. It would be unusual for it to hand down an opinion in less than a mondi. Indeed, if it goes to the question of the validity of prior censorship, then it may be many, many months before its decision is made public. If the court decides to avoid or to skirt the censorship issue, it can do so, of course.