Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

Sees "Experiments" Made a Sacrifice (Continued from page 23) much the children of the exhibitor as they are of the producer or distributor,” he went on. “The exhibitor knows that the old argument that was used years ago that bad pictures were made just because they could be sold in blocks is so ridiculous as not to be worth arguing and lately they do not even bring it up.” “For anyone to stand up here and argue that any producer in this group does not put the best ingredients possible into his merchandise is to make a statement not only not founded on fact but made simply for the purpose of poisonous prejudices . . . When these producers are forced to make only sure-shot commercial pictures this business is going backward, not forward. When the time comes that we cannot experiment, when we cannot attempt a new thing, even though it may not be for the moment successful commercially, that moment, we are going to go back. If these public bodies think that this bill is going to encourage putting the type of pictures on the screen they are clamoring for, they are very much mistaken. Rap at Consultants “It seems strange indeed that a bill as important as this, holding within it the economic fate of one of our largest industries— an act which attempts to change the entire sales pattern that has been used for 35 years, a sales pattern used in every country of the world except England— that such a bill should be drawn and brought out in any committee without the advice, help, consideration or facts of anyone in the industry save a small minority of buyers, a group who combined could not possibly represent ten per cent of the American revenue of any of the major companies. Not a producer was heard, not a distributor was consulted. “I wish now to refer briefly to the trade practice conferences recently concluded, which have attempted to deal, and I believe successfully, with those sore spots in the industry existing between the theatre exhibitor and distributor, except the question of theatre divorcement. Theatre divorcement is not an issue that can be negotiated with any independent exhibitor unit. It is a matter between ourselves. Mind you, I do not claim that the conclusions reached at these conferences will be accepted by all, but I do believe that the majority of independent exhibitors of this country would rather have the result of these trade conferences as a remedy than the bill which is offered here. “We say there is as much public opinion in favor of block booking as there is against it, but we say that even if the opinion against block booking were overwhelming and that, as a trade practice, it should be legislated against, we still maintain that this bill is not good legislation from any standpoint except for that of the minority who have sponsored it and we further believe before legislation of this or any other type is adopted a thorough and complete study should be made by some agency that will bring in the facts from all Neely to Yamins And Back Again Washington — "Are y°u opposed to block booking and blind selling on the part of the independents as well as on the part of the Big Eight?", Senator Neely asked Nathan Yamins of Allied at the hearings. "Absolutely," said Yamins. “Then neither the independents nor the trust afford you the protection you think you are entitled to have and both are equally guilty in that respect," Senator White commented. "Exactly," he was told. parts of the industry and not just from one.” In his statement, Charles C. Pettijohn, general counsel of the Hays organization, made the point that, when the patron steps up to the boxoffice, he, too, buys blindly, often actually knowing less about the picture he is going to see than did the exhibitor when he bought it. Referring to the fact that Mae West was many times more popular than the also currently produced “Disraeli” and “Abraham Lincoln,” Pettijohn was questioned by members of the committee as to why West pictures are not now being made. He explained that the public taste has changed and that better pictures are now demanded, predicting that a new Lincoln film which is planned will be much easier to sell than was the first one. “Much of the credit for the improvement of public taste is due to the civic organizations,” he said, in explaining that the industry attempts to keep pace with changing interests of the theatregoers, “but the improvement in films also is due to the production code to the general compliance with which the Legion of Decency has contributed a great deal.” Points to Legion’s Approval As evidence of the improvement in pictures, Pettijohn cited the Legion’s action last year in condemning six pictures. Three of the pictures blacklisted were foreign. None of the three domestic pictures was produced by a regular company. All six, he added, were sold singly, as provided for under the Neely bill. “It is not a question of morals,” he commented. It is purely a question of boxoffice and that is why Mae West went over big and “Disraeli” did not. Passage of the bill, it is feared by the Screen Actors Guild, would reduce production and employment, the subcommittee was told by Robert Montgomery, ex-president and now a member of its board and executive committee. There are some 282,000 employes in the industry, representing 276 crafts, he said. So far as the actors go, there are approximately 8,500 and these people, with the exception of the few under contract to the studios, have an earning power which he said is extremely limited and depends entirely upon the volume of production. “The methods of production and distribution which are attacked by this bill, while admittedly not perfect, are the result of 30 years’ experience and effort,” 'Chaotic Condition' The Concomitant he said. “The sponsors of this bill ask Congress to destroy the entire business structure of one of the largest industries of the United States without offering any alternative plan except one which has failed every time it has been tried. “The officers and directors of the Screen Actors Guild feel that they would be neglecting their duty to the people they represent if they did not point out to this committee that the enactment of the Neely bill would bring about a chaotic condition in the motion picture business from which, in their opinion, there could be no recovery within a period of 12 months or 12 years.” Prompt rejection of an offer by Pettijohn of a trade practice agreement under which exhibitors would be given the right of selection marked the second day of the hearings. Allied Wants “Identification” The proposal was made after Henry R. Atkinson had resumed his attack on the industry and had declared that there would be no freedom of selection for the community until the exhibitor had the right to designate the films he did not want and the films he wanted. Despite an earlier admonition by the chairman that there should be no interruption of witnesses, Pettijohn rose to his feet and declared that if the proponents of the legislation were fighting for the right of selection, the hearings could be cut short. “If these people will put on the table the names of the exhibitors they represent and say which theatres in the country want to buy their pictures and arrange for their bookings, I think we can get through a trade practice agreement right now,” he said. “If the exhibitors will call in a responsible group and allow them to indicate the kind of pictures they do not want played in their community we will agree to withdraw those pictures from any film offer and if they indicate the pictures they want we will go on record that they will be offered at fair prices.” However, Pettijohn admitted in response to a question by Senator Neely, the distributors could not see their way clear to offering pictures for sale singly. Allied will not accept the proposal unless blind selling is eliminated, it was indicated by Abram F. Myers, general counsel. The organization has repeatedly proposed the identification of pictures, which has been refused, he said, adding that “exhibitor witnesses will testify that they no longer have the kind of information which they used to have.” Atkinson also rejected the proposal, saying that he viewed any attempt to settle the matter by voluntary negotiations “with considerable suspicion” in view of the repeatedly broken promises which the distributors have made in the past. “It is well known that it is only when we come to Washington and appear be( Continued on page 25) 24 BOXOFFICE :: April 8, 1939