Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1940)

Exhibitor Boomerang Foreseen in Neely Washington — Sharply attacking the Neely bill and its proponents, Ed L. Kuykendall, MPTOA president, expressed grave fears at the hearing here that the measure would boomerang against the exhibitor. In substantiation of his contention, Kuykendall cited the provision penalizing anyone transporting a film in violation of the act, arguing that buying contracts provide that the exhibitor shall handle the transportation of the films he buys, and so would be liable to the heavy penalties of the bill. Further, Kuykendall said, the bill would lead to competitive bidding for films, whether sold singly or in blocks, forcing prices beyond the reach of many small theatre owners whose competitors enjoy larger financial resources. Exhibitors successful in getting films, he testified, would be at the mercy of disappointed rivals who could file complaints that the law was violated in the sale of the pictures. Some of the proponents of the legislation, Kuykendall contended, see in the bill “a great opportunity for private censorship, through organized pressure on the management of the local theatre to forbid the showing of any picture to which the organized group may object, not merely because it may offend common decency, but because of religious bigotry, intolerance and personal prejudices. “The theory of this law seems to be that if it were not for so-called compulsory block booking the theatre management would select for showing only the finest and most suitable pictures; that no motion picture would be exhibited in the theatre except those which the people who seldom patronize the theatre would like to see, not those which the general public likes and will pay to see. "No Moral Protection" “These sincere people do not understand, or will not recognize, the simple fact that the proposed law does not prohibit the exhibition of any film, no matter how improper, at any time or place, and no matter how unsuitable it may be.” Wholesale buying, with a reasonable and fair cancellation privilege, is an economic necessity for the exhibitor, Kuykendall asserted. Calling attention to the fact that block booking legislation has been agitated for many years, Kuykendall told the committee that the whole industry is “on uneasy feet.” “No one knows how to plan for the future,” he declared. “We never know at what moment our activities will be restricted by legislation or governmental intervention. Large numbers of law suits are in the process of litigation all over the country. Some are government suits; a lot are private suits. All of you are familiar with the issues of the main government suit against this industry, which have been presented by previous witnesses. This suit is being rapidly developed and goes to trial June 3. Isn’t it reasonable to say that by this process the courts of this land will determine which ones among us are law violators and which are not.” (( Si War Cuts Income Of MPPDA in Hall Washington — Declining to be led into a discussion of receipts and expenditures of the MPPDA, Charles C. Pettijohn, general counsel, stated before the Senate Committee on the Neely bill he was not in a position to submit figures but the gross income of the association is about $450,000 a year, estimated at about half of what it was before foreign markets began to totter. He added his own department is only one of a dozen in the association and expenditures for opposition to the Neely bill have been "less than $2,000." Vfc >) Offers Alternative To Neely Measure Washington — Contending that the Neely bill would ruin the independent exhibitor and tend to create a monopoly in the hands of the chains, Thomas McGuire, director of public relations for Cooperative Theatres of Michigan, and former advisor to the administrator of the NRA amusement codes, proposed to the House committee on interstate and foreign commerce amendments that he declared would solve the industry’s problems. McGuire proposed that Section 3 be eliminated in favor of a provision for “fair arbitration” of all disputes; that Section R be changed to provide for a mandatory 20 or 25 per cent cancellation, prohibition against forcing of shorts, newsreels, trailers and reissues, and prohibition against selective playing time on percentage films, score charges. He suggested a provision for identification of pictures by the naming of stars, featured players and names of popular or famous books rather than by a synopsis. Analyzing the bill, McGuire testified it would bar producers from forcing blocks, but would not prevent an exhibitor’s competitor from bidding his pictures away by buying the whole output at high prices. He pointed out that where the competitor was not successful in the bidding, neither would benefit and both would pay higher prices. Adoption of the bill would throw the industry into confusion for three or four years, McGuire argued. Freeman Strikes at Synopsis Provision Washington — Defying Congress to enact legislation requiring that producers acquaint exhibitors with the contents of the films they offer, Y. Frank Freeman, chief of Paramount studio operations, told the House committee on interstate and foreign commerce, conducting the Neely bill hearing, that under no circumstances would he attempt to write a synopsis for a Paramount feature. Sharply countering suggestions of committee members that it should be possible to write a synopsis of a completed picture. Freeman said flatly “I am not going to take a chance as an individual to write a synopsis and send it out to 17,000 exhibitors, any one of whom can claim a violation of law and have me convicted of a crime.” Admitting that a script frequently is given a free-lance star considering whether to accept a part in a picture, the Paramount executive told Representative Wolverton of New Jersey that there is a vast difference between such a script and the synopsis which the Neely bill would require be given an exhibitor. Freeman set out to give the committee a brief description of the many things which interfere with the making of a picture, such as the illness of a star or his refusal to accept a role, and the difficulties of dealing with the 39 separate guilds, crafts and unions which participate in picture making, but soon found himself the target of questions. Under examination, he declared he saw no difference between an exhibitor contracting in advance for pictures and a newspaper proprietor signing up for a feature or news service. The publisher, he pointed out, does not have to use the service, but must pay for it because he agreed to buy it; on the whole, however, he bought it in confidence that it would be worth while, and that, the witness said, is the motive which influences an exhibitor to sign up with some particular company. Members of the committee led Freeman into a discussion of the English system of individual sales, and were told that the scheme has not worked successfully. Even before the war, the witness said, English production problems were almost insurmountable. (c Si Would Clarify Allied Stand Washington — Allied would like to clarify its interpretation of testimony offered by C. C. Pettijohn, MPPDA general counsel, during Neely bill hearings at the point he asserted Abram F. Myers and Col. H. A. Cole, in 1929, had engaged in production and distribution and had employed block booking and blind selling. In support of his statement Pettijohn submitted copies of a Tiffany-RKO franchise. "He made the flat assertion that Myers was referred to in the franchise as ’a representative of the distributor'," says an Allied communique. “The actual wording of the franchise should be noted. It reads: ‘The findings and recommendations of such representatives shall be transmitted to a National Appeal Board consisting of Abram F. Myers, a representative of the distributor and a third member to be chosen by the other two/ "Thus the board was to consist of three members," continues Allied: "(1) Mr. Myers, (2) a representative of the distributor, and (3) a third to be chosen by the first two. If the words ’a representative of the distributor' referred to Mr. Myers, then the board would consist of two instead of three." k ■— >J BOXOFFICE :: June 1, 1940 E 21