Canadian Moving Picture Digest (Feb 20, 1954)

FEBRUARY 20, 1954 CANADIAN MOVING PICTURE DIGEST PAGE THREE Keay Presents F I weré writing an editorial on what I am thinking about, I would caption it, Observations and Lamentations. The caption does not imply, that the Lamentations are the result of the Observations, although there are times when we wonder, if being too curious, is not conducive toward injuring good health, and _ being too observant spoils the bliss of ignorance! I question the wisdom of such conclusions. However, Man, belonging to the Animal Kingdom, is not the only animal which is curious. Ever watch the curiosity of a dog, cocking its head from side to side, at something it does not understand, or the curiosity of a horse, which sniffs at something of which it is not afraid, but about which it is inquisitive. It appears that while there is life, there will always be curiosity. ENNYSON conveyed the Seeker-Spirit in the lines of, “Flower in the crannied wall, I pluck you out of the crannies, I hold you here, root and all, in my hand, Little Flower,—but if I could understand what you are, root and all, and all in all, I should know what God and Man is!” I would think that the most curious of all animals in the Animal Kingdom is Man, because Man is a Seeker of Knowledge, and Man has a Spiritual Insight which inspires him to seek the Source of his Truth. I think that Observers are all very curious, without being aware, that they observe what is transpiring. They are curious to know the Cause of the Effect, and what Effect will follow, which will make the former Effect a Cause! ENATOR MARIO M. DE OPTATIS, of Albany, spon sored a Bill, which will keep a film out of a projection booth in New York City, unless it has been first inspected and repaired, and bears evidence thereof, immediately prior to shipment. Does this mean, that if this Bill becomes Law, each Exchange or Carrier will be obliged to have a Government Inspector stamp each picture, which is sent out, for a showing in New York? Who pays for such inspection, the Exchange, or Exhibitor? I observe, that the Federal Government of Canada has voted to give C.B.C., for its Radio and TV operations, an appropriation. of $23,644,450 in the fiscal year, as compared with the 1953-54 appropriation of, $8,634,368. The National Film Board, which received $2,997,650 last year, will receive $3,431,283, but when it moves its studio operations from Ottawa to Montreal, it will be housed in a $5,000,000 project, which latter move has already been the cause of much lamentations in Ottawa. OBSERVE, that the U.S, Government will prosecute its Civil Anti-trust suit, which was filed in Los Angeles, in July of 1952, and in which twelve film companies have been charged with conspiracy to restrain Interstate Commerce in 16 mm features, in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. Assistant Attorney General Stanley Barnes, head of the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice, is reported to have said, that as yet the date of the trial has not been set, on the calendar of the Federal District Court, in Los Angeles, but preparations are being made toward that objective. HE Defendants, who responded to the Suit with lamentations, loud protests, which in my opinion were most justifiable, are Warners, 20th-Fox, RKO, Universal, Repub lic, Columbia, also certain subsidiary companies of these named majors, and Pictorial Films. The Theatre Owners of America, which association of exhibitors, was not named as a Defendant, was named as a co-conspirator in the action. You know the old story, about the man, who was in jail, and was told by his lawyer, “They can't do that to you”, and his reply was, “I’m here?” This is the way I feel about the U.S, Government's 16mm. Anti-trust Action. I cannot see why any distributor, or several of them, refusing to release their pictures in 16n:m, can be designated as operating in restraint of Interstate Commerce, anymore than can the banning of any picture, in any state, or city, or town, be termed a restraint of Interstate Commerce! VERY member of our Industry knows, that before TV was in business, it was not customary to release pictures in 16mm for theatrical or non-theatrical exhibition, in competition with the exhibition of 35mm. This policy of operation is not something new, it is as old as an organized distribution policy. in our Industry. It is a voluntary and not compulsory policy. If in the release of 16mm, there was a Gentlemen's Agreement, that such pictures would not be exhibited in competition with 35mm, would such Gentlemen's Agreement be a Conspiracy in Restraint of Interstate Commerce, and fall into the category of section | of the Sherman Act? WILL give you an example of what happened in the U.S. about 1945-6, in respect to a picture, Tom Sawyer. This picture was sold to a theatre circuit in an important city in the U.S. It was to open on a Monday at a large theatre, the first of this circuit, and the admission price was 65 cents. It was well advertised. On the Saturday, one week in advance of the opening, at the theatre, Tom Sawyer was advertised to play in an auditorium in 16mm, three blocks away from the theatre, and the admission price was five cents. The Theatre pulled the picture, and cancelled the theatre deal, also, threatening to sue the company in which I was interested. The company threatened to sue the company which was releasing Tom Sawyer in 16mm, and it happens to be one of the companies now named as Defendant in the present action. T finished up with general apologies, regrets, promises that it would not happen again, but my company lost a circuit deal of importance, and deals on other pictures with the circuit company. There is no doubt in my mind, but that the 16mm company, and the operator of the auditorium put their heads together to capitalize on the extensive advertising which the theatre had given Tom Sawyer. Could such action be designated as a conspiracy to re strain the trade of the exhibitor? The exhibitor was within his rights in cancelling the picture, and was not my company within its rights in an endeavor to restrain the 16mm company from such exhibitions, or was my company acting in restraint ef trade? The company which had purchased the lomm rights, had agreed to respect the rights of the distributor of the 35mm rights, and had agreed not to enter into competition with the latter distributor. HE 16mm distributor received not more than $25.00 for its Saturday morning exhibition, which cost my com(Continued on Page 7) :