We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
ASSOCIATED PUBLICATIONS
Vol. 36 Number 7
January 6, 1940
Member
Audit Bureau of Circulations
BEN SHLYEN
Publisher
MAURICE KANN
Editor-in-Chief
LOUIS RYDELL
Advertising Manager
Editorial Offices: 9 rockefeller plaza, new york city; Publication Office: 4804 e. 9th ST., KANSAS CI1JY, MO./ Hollywood: 6404 HOLLYWOOD blvd.; Chicago: 332 s. Michigan blvd.
William G. Formby, Editor; Jesse Shlyen, Managing Editor; J. Harry Toler, Modern Theatre Editor; A. J. Stocker, Eastern Representative; Ivan Spear, Western Manager.
S.280
Jt,NT EVER before in their fight against the majors have the Neely bill proponents enjoyed such a favorable position. The bill already has been put through the Senate sufficiently early to give time for House consideration; the majors are doggedly fighting anti-trust suits in every section of the country, and a large number of House members have been interested in the plea for legislation which proponents claim would enable an exhibitor to select the pictures he shows one at a time instead of having to take them in quantity, 'sight unseen and contents unknown.' "
This is the word from Washington.
In New York where the pressure against the bill chiefly generates, the impression is that this accurately reports the situation.
In the pros and cons of any contest, and especially in one which has raged so bitterly as the campaign for and against the elimination of compulsory block booking and blind selling, it must be borne constantly in mind that propaganda, manufactured and exploded by both sides, is apt to concentrate on the climaxes and gloss over the love scenes.
Remembering this to be a normal battle front in any sharply divided issue, it becomes easier to understand why angles are made to fit the case and promises indulged. There is never any exclusive on this and, according to the rules, it is all very much on the O. K. side.
Pro-Neelyites maintain the measure would transfer heaven from its accustomed spot to the film business. The antis are quite as positive a tough period of sledding would automatically get tougher. Don't be misled blindly into a Utopia which does not exist, their arguments might be summed up.
Around the country, some peculiar notions appear to have caught on, indicating the Neely bill would turn out to be a corrective for all and everything of which the exhibitor has been complaining. Maybe that's propaganda from the other side, at that.
Yet regardless of how the bill is viewed, one observation in connection with it must be conceded by either-way champions. The indisputable point of them all is the vital need for the exhibitor body to clearly understand the proposal, regardless of where the theatre constituents finally align themselves.
Exhibitors, for their own protection and satisfaction, must make certain they know what is in Senate Bill No. 280 before they can intelligently determine whether or not they want it.