Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

lh% Curtailment As Consequence (Continued from page 55) cannot be sold for six months after the trade showing. “That may be very fine for England,” he commented, “but I do not think it would be very fine for the exhibitors of America. There are not three companies in this business that could stand the increased cost of following the English law.” Rodgers denied Yamins’ assertion that the bill would not tend to curtail production. M-G-M, he said, would have to cut down at least 25 per cent, which would mean a curtailment of employment and abandonment of experiments in better pictures. Declaring that there is nothing in the Neely bill to insure the showing of better or more moral pictures, George J. Schaefer, president of RKO, drew from Chairman Smith and Senator White statements that they were interested only in that phase of the legislation. Is Morality Marketable? The department of justice and the federal trade commission can take care of monopoly and trade practices in the industry, Senator White declared, and the only thing in which he is interested is in the moral phases. “I take it that this whole business is predicated upon profit,” Chairman Smith interpolated. “They cannot go on making pictures that do not sell. That is fundamental, and what, in your opinion, Senator White, would be the moral uplift if you left it to the exhibitor to select the pictures and he selected the wholly moral ones and nobody came to see them?” “You cannot legislate quality into product,” Schaefer told the subcommittee. Nor, he added, can motion pictures be placed in the same category as public utilities and railroads in the development of legislation. “We do not suggest our industry is privileged and not subject to reasonable and wise regulation, but it should not be compared with public utilities or railroads,” he declared. Sees Partisan Attitude “You are dealing with a manufacturer and attempting to put restrictions on that manufacturer, but leaving the exhibitor, who is actually the dealer, unshackled. “Certainly some poor pictures are made, but there are more good pictures made than poor ones. “This bill is not the answer to Miss Lyford’s prayer. The only answer to that hope is better authors, better stories, better plays and better producers, and, we ask, where are they? We buy the best we can get.” The very pictures which Miss Lyford and other witnesses condemned, Schaefer pointed out, were passed by the Massachusetts department of public safety for Sunday showing. All of the companies are seeking constantly to improve their pictures, he told the senators. RKO has acquired the rights to “Abe Lincoln of Illinois” and “The American Way” at a cost of $500,000 and may spend up to $3,000,000 in their pro duction, and plans also to produce “Ivanhoe” at the cost of another million. Expressing the belief that every worthwhile classic has been filmed, Schaefer said if such is not the case the civic groups need only to present a list of those they would like to have picturized and the companies undoubtedly would undertake them. Taking up the charges made by independent exhibitors, Schaefer answered the allegation that “Snow White” could not be bought singly, asserting that it could and was booked without blocks. His statement was picked up by Senator Neely who asserted he had received complaints from two West Virginia exhibitors of their inability to get the picture. “I say to you frankly that in a competitive situation where a man says ‘I will buy your 41 pictures and also “Snow SAG Takes an Ominous View Washington — Reaffirming Robert Montgomery’s statements before the interstate commerce subcommittee, Kenneth Thomson, executive secretary of the Screen Actors’ Guild, asserted his organization believes that, should the Neely bill become law, the industry would be thrown into chaos from which it would not recover for years. He went on to say, “The Guild feels that the enactment of this bill, which destroys the methods by which the theatres in this country are provided regularly with the film necessary to their existence, would inevitably cause the closing of many theatres, curtailment of production, and the consequent unemployment of the actors whom we represent.” Thomson referred to himself as one who had spent ten years of his life as an actor in motion pictures, during which time he appeared in at least 50 films, both silent and sound. He also said in the last five years it has been his duty to observe closely the production methods of the entire industry. “Therefore,” Thomson said, “I feel qualified to state that the substitute for ‘blind selling’ in the Neely bill will not accomplish what the proponents of the bill expect of it for two reasons.” Those two reasons, according to Thomson, are that it would place production into a straight jacket, making it impossible for all hands concerned to improve a picture after production, and secondly, it presupposes the exhibitor is capable even from a complete synopsis to judge what the finished picture would be like. Referring to his acting experience, Thomson told the committee members, “In every case I have been furnished, not with a synopsis but a complete shooting manuscript and I never knew until I saw the finished picture on the screen and before an audience just what the result of all the effort and expenditure would be.” “I submit to you,” he added, “that the average exhibitor is no more qualified to judge what a picture will be from a study of a synopsis than he would be to understand the Einstein Theory.” Schaefer Accounts For Film Excess White”,’ is it good business for me to sell ‘Snow White’ and my 41 pictures or to say ‘I will sell you “Snow White” but the other fellow has to take my 41?’” However, he explained, the cases to which the Senator referred were settled to the satisfaction of the exhibitors concerned. Where theatres have more product than they can use, Schaefer continued, as had been charged by exhibitor witnesses, it frequently was due to the exhibitor involved making readjustments in his operating policies, as in the case of Nathan Yamins, who took over a first-run theatre and made it second run. Yamins, he pointed out, had a monopoly for years. Recently, local interests in Fall River undertook construction of a new theatre and, Schaefer charged, Yamins attempted to block the issuance of building permit and operating license. He was not successful, and the theatre is now being constructed, he said. Refutation by UA Schaefer also answered Yamins’ testimony that United Artists did not sell in blocks. Pointing out that he had been head of that company and should be in position to know the facts, the witness declared that UA did sell in blocks and that, in fact, “it would be more difficult for United Artists to sell under the Neely bill than any other company.” He also controverted Yamins’ assertion that there are 160 producers in Hollywood who could turn out pictures under the Neely bill, declared that there may be that many producers but they are in the employ of the major companies at “headache” salaries. This brought from Senator Neely acid comment that one film executive received more than all of the 96 members of the United States Senate, and from Chairman Smith the facetious comment that “I’m going to join them.” If, as charged by proponents of the bill, the distributors were forcing their product, all pictures put out by any one company during a year should have approximately the same number of contracts, it was pointed out by C. C. Pettijohn in submitting figures on the 1937-38 sales of a half-dozen companies. Many Runs for “Hits” “That the charge is unfounded,” he said, “is proven by the fact that the most popular pictures of any company will have four to five times as many showings as its most unpopular.” That morals have little to do with the situation, he added, is shown by the fact that five years ago the most popular pictures in the country were those of the late Will Rogers and Mae West; also, he said, it is proven by the fact that some companies received few bookings for “fine” pictures as compared with those of the type under attack. To show that compulsory block booking is a myth, he said, the figures for 1937-38 show that the number of contracts secured by 20th Century-Fox ranged from 12,214 on “In Old Chicago” and 12,(Continued on page 57) 56 BOXOFFICE :: April 15, 1939