Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

N. Y. INDEPENDENTS DISAPPOINTED IN PACT; "NOT WHAT WE EXPECTED," THEIR REACTION Further "Idea Exchange" Is Indicated Before The "Final Word" Majors Will Proceed With Pact Despite Rejection by Allied New York — “This is not trade reform,” is the privately expressed opinion of independent circuit leaders and operators who have seen the official trade practice code. That “it may point the way” seems to he generally conceded, but there is evidence of profound disappointment in the new pact. However, there is substantial indication that a further “exchange of ideas” between “bona fide” independent exhibitor organizations and major distributor representatives will be sought before the “last word is said.” Reaction to the newest proposals varies between criticism of the distributors’ negotiating committee in that the draft “is not what we expected after Chicago” to a stinging rebuke to majors’ lawyers “for throwing in a veil of graciousness to soften the blow of the government suit.” In lieu of formal ratification or rejection from Allied and the seven independent organizations who are expected to give the draft further study before making known their decisions, all reaction is informal and privately held. The MPTOA has accepted it and later hopes for more. Far outweighing opinions that hold the pact to be a “starting point” which might lead to a fuller understanding of “the real problems,” is the sentiment that the lawyers have again prevented the “real issues” from getting proper consideration. “Too Many Conditions” “There are altogether too many ifs, ands, buts and conditions in most of the clauses,” is one viewpoint. We all know that sales managers, branch managers and district managers have to keep up their records — or else. Let us not be naive enough to think that, regardless of the intent of the cancellation clause, pictures are going to cost us any less. Then again, who is to sit in judgment when there is evidence that switching of pictures from lower brackets to higher brackets is going on?”, continues the view. And more: “If the distributors mean that there should not be any further score charges, why don’t they come right out and say: ‘Score charges are hereby eliminated,’ without putting a condition on it?” Still another criticism revolves about the non-forcing of shorts clause. In one particular quarter, this clause is held to be meaningless. “Everyone knows that just so long as shorts have not been contracted for the price of your features is going to be just that much higher. As soon as a deal for shorts becomes a condition of your feature contract, you immediately notice the average price for the features has been (Continued from page 4) been made in the revised plan with the addition of clause nine, particularly the paragraph relating to disputes concerning exhibitors who do not sign the voluntary arbitration agreement. Individual theatre operators will not receive copies of the draft until distributors reduced,” is the position taken by an independent operator. The revised arbitration setup was attacked by a number of exhibitors as constituting what the distributors “think it should be like instead of incorporating the method for relief sought by exhibitors.” Here is one approach: “The distributors should have told the three leading exhibitor groups to submit their ideas on arbitration and, when these were defined, they should have been accepted by the distributors as the best way to handle it. After all, the distributors should be interested in its equal representation. Aroitration is something that comes into the open; it is not a star-chamber proceeding. If an exhibitor has a just cause for complaint it should be arbitrated and a fair verdict offered. But how can this be realized if the distributors impose all sorts of conditions about limiting the powers of arbitrators.” Allied Rejects Pact ; MPTOA Accepts It (Continued from page 4) negotiating committee made plain to the representatives of distributors. Moreover, the representatives of the distributors made it plain to Allied’s representatives that Allied was free, notwithstanding the negotiations, to pursue a larger measure of relief by legislation and litigation. “The trade practice proposals submitted by distributors not only are incomplete, but they do not pretend to abolish compulsory block booking and blind selling and do not touch the subject of theatre divorcement. The proposals do not provide relief commensurate with that asked by the government in its suit. Under the above mentioned resolutions of the Allied board, Allied can follow no other course than to support and seek passage of the Neely bill to prohibit block booking and blind selling of motion pictures. The executive committee, therefore, has voted unanimously to appear before the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate, and before the House Committee if hearings are held, in support of the Neely bill.” are informed whether or not the seven independent exhibitor-organizations adopt it, according to William F. Rodgers, chairman of the sub-committee. Neither will distributors do anything about including the provisions of the draft in selling agreements until it is officially learned that the majority of exhibitors, as represented by the seven unaffiliated units, will go for the proposals. Because of the individual producer setup at UA, Murray Silverstone, general manager, explains the company’s stand on trade practices as being one where “we never were and could not be part of the agreement. This was clearly understood by all from the very inception of the negotiations. “However,” he adds, “we would emphasize that many of the points covered in the proposed pact actually have been in operation since the inception of the company 20 years ago and today are still a part of the producers’ sales policy.” That Allied would continue to strive for legislation and litigation to achieve its aim in overcoming the alleged abuses in the industry likewise was exclusively reported by Boxoffice, March 18, alter cjmidential memorandums had been distributed to Allied’s committee advising members to gather “evidence” for possible use in a series of anti-trust suits. Allied’s action followed closely on the heels of the repeal of the North Dakota theatre divorcement bill. Allied then indicated its renewed support of the Neely-Edmiston Bill which seeks to eliminate block booking and blind selling. This is confirmed in a statement issued by Abram F. Myers three days after Rodgers sent out the third revision of the trade draft. Epitomizing the attitude of distributors, one spokesman said, upon issuance of the latest draft, “The revised document contains 80 per cent of what the exhibitor bodies asked for. That is the limit we can give now.” Because of the complexities involved in arbitration procedure and harking back to NRA days when local boards were set up for handling complaints, distributors feel this phase of the draft requires more study in the final analysis. Meetings will be held with experts on arbitration before a final plan is worked out. However, the powers vested in boards at this time deal primarily with adjudication of disputes concerning various contract and draft clauses, but in no instance can boards designate damages. Limitations apparently are to determine whether there is a breach of faith or contract and upon these issues the board will decide. BOXOFFICE :: April 8, 1939 5