Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

TRADE PACT DISSOLVES NEED FOR NEELY BILL, KENT, AS SPOKESMAN FOR MAJORS, MAINTAINS Expresses Belief Majority Independents Prefer Pact as Remedy By EARLE A. DYER Washington — The distributors’ trade practice proposals, in the opinion of Sidney R. Kent, make the passage of the Neely bill “both unnecessary and undesirable in the eyes of the greater part of this industry, whether independent exhibitors or affiliated exhibitors,” the 20th Century-Fox president told the Senate Interstate Commerce Subcommittee during hearings on the measure. Admitting the concessions offered in the pact will probably not be accepted “by all,” Kent voiced the belief “that the majority of independent exhibitors of this country would rather have the result of these trade practice conferences as a remedy than the bill which is offered here.” Kent ventured that “if a majority of the independent exhibitors of the country were given a chance to vote on this bill they would reject it.” He arrived at this conclusion, Kent said, because that part of the independent exhibitors who are supporting it, including “the constantly talked of independents who have been put out of business by block booking and blind selling,” represent “a decidedly small proportion of the investments which should be considered in any general industry bill.” Says All Should Be Heard With the observation the committee “does not wish to pass a bill from the viewpoint of the independent end of this industry alone, if it is opposed by the majority of the independent units within the industry,” Kent said: “It seems to me important that the doubt should be taken out of this situation by at least giving the independent units of the country the same opportunity to be heard before this bill is drawn and written as was given one independent unit that was behind its authorship.” Kent thought it “unfair” that year after year men get up and claim, “not under oath,” that block booking and blind buying is putting them out of business, “yet they are here year after year not only with the same theatres but, in some instances, with more theatres.” Representing himself as spokesman for the eight majors, with a personal experience in the industry of 23 years, Kent observed proponents’ testimony would lead the committee to believe that, unless an exhibitor would buy or could buy all of the product the majors produce as a condition of buying, that he could not do business with them. “Nothing could be further from the FIGHTS NEELY BILL truth,” he declared. “The same form of testimony has been given for years at these hearings, but always in the form of general statements unsupported by facts or documents. I hope that this committee will not think that we are so foolish, we, who have the responsibility of these companies, as to toss away millions of dollars of business just because we want to sell 50 pictures and the customer only wants to buy 35 or 40. We have thousands of accounts who buy less than our entire output and many who buy only a few pictures.” He denied block booking, is a “new method by which 100 per cent of the contracts were forced down the throats of these exhibitors. The truth is that we sell as many pictures as we can to the exhibitors and he buys as few as he can get away with under local operating conditions, competition being the deciding factor. It is a matter of mutual negotiation.” Kent poised the question: “Since when has the right to buy as you want and what you want, become more sacred under our Constitution than the right to choose your own customer and decide whether you will keep your product or just not let a man pick what he wants at his own price?” He had his own answer. “I say that the right to protect that investment”— referring to million dollar programs “built entirely on the gamble that it will be good enough at the boxoffice for us to get our money back with a profit, a program built without one dollar guarantee from these gentlemen or any others — and sell that merchandise in our own way is as sacred as any man’s right to buy it his way, as Public Consultation Plans As a "Practicality" Are Questioned long as we are in free and open competition.” Kent spent considerable time on the interest in the bill engendered by public bodies, whose interests “can only be justified from the angle of better product and a voice in community selection of motion pictures.” He reflected that for years exhibitors have chosen to blame on block booking the cause for complaints by the public, “whether the picture they were complaining of was bought in a block or not.” Kent declared the bill will not solve this. “Where does the public consultation come in?” he asked. He challenged any exhibitor to seriously think or state that he expects to screen every one of the pictures brought before public bodies ahead of the time the pictures are purchased or booked. “Is there any exhibitor here who will get up and testify that he intends to consult the public bodies by reading to them all the synopses that we are supposed to attach to these contracts before he closes his deal?” Kent went on. Kent “wondered” what the answer is to the thousands of bookings taken in this country to which the public have objected, that were not sold by major distributors, and did not reach the screen by way of block booking. Cites Films Without Seal “I wonder to what extent these gentlemen consulted these public bodies when pictures like ‘Ecstasy,’ ‘Maedchen in Uniform,’ ‘Valley of the Nudes,’ ‘GoonaGoona’ and ‘Birth of a Baby’ were shown on the screen in this country — pictures that were refused distribution by every major distributor and refused a seal by the production code administration.” And this in view of public groups’ testimony two years ago “that there was a moral issue involved and that this was their predominant interest,” Kent added. Offering his opinion that he did not believe “any honest exhibitor will get up here and testify that he intends seriously to consult with public bodies before he buys his product except in a very general way,” Kent said: “The exhibitor will buy his pictures either singly or collectively, whichever way he thinks will make him the most money irrespective of how he buys them under this bill or not, if they do not turn out profitably for him at the boxoffice it is a bad type of buying so far as he is concerned, whether he consulted public bodies or not.” “Block booking and blind buying are as (Continued on page 24) BOXOFFICE :: April 8, 1939 E 23