The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

September, 1943 Page 245 when he retorts that he presents the better show. There are many other answers by the clergy, schoolmen, parent-teacher as- sociations and remaining non-theatrical groups, the most usual being that the exhibitor is not sufficiently particular about the influence of his pictures on the young. There are other charges by the exhibitor, too, their tenor being that his attackers are really trying to appropriate his business. But the truth seems to be that, in all the heavy, endless charges and recriminations on both sides, there are seriously vulnerable arguments; and no protestation yet has been so free of personalities and pccular local considera- tions that it might be set up as a defini- tion of justice for all parties. So, all that can matter in this connection to this history is the observation that some ex- hibitors try to get along amicably in their respective communities, and others arc constantly warring for their rights; that certain non-theatrical leaders are forever brandishing swords and breathing fire in the presumed cause of righteous- ness, and others are patient and eager not to trespass on the feelings or perquis- ites of others. In other words, that in human nature there are kindly, tolerant persons and also extremists of more violent temper. As to the specific nature of the clash, this struggle is es.sentially a process of adjustment to new times and new manners. It is a mere passing de- tail among the countless incidental con- flicts visible on the broader screen of these rapidly changing times. In the mid-nineteen-twenties the op- position of theatrical and non-theatrical exhibitors became exceptionally teiise. It might have resulted in some painful open warfare had the modern talking picture not intervened. That world- shaking innovation postponed serious hostilities for nearly a decade. But, by 1935, the militant leaders had donned their armor again and were once more wrathfully descending from their heights to compel decisions. Protests filled the air. A. H. Shaffer, owner of the Strand Theatre, of Kansas City, charged that the showing of films every Sunday at the Community Church by the Rev. Burris Jenkins—Dr. Jenkins, by the way, had long been known as an active friend of the motion picture in- dustry—was damaging his business, and sought an injunction against Fox Films for supplying the programs there. Ex- hibitors in Des Moines complained against showings of Russian motion pictures at the local First Unitarian Church. Fred Wehrenberg represented, on behalf of the theatre managers of St. Louis, and while addressing the com- mission in charge of the Municipal Audi- torium, that the commission had been unfair in permitting the Community School Foundation to present their "com- petitive showings of Flaherty's "Man of Aran." The Motion Picture Exhibi- tors and Distributors of Canada met to consider the annoyance caused by ."ome two hundred "hobo" projectionists who were wandering over the Dominion giving shows with their portable equip- ment. Regular theatre men in Wisconsin Ed Kuykendall's unceasing war on non-theatrical competition began when he was a traveling carnival entertainer, battling small town counter-attractions for his bread. and Michigan protested movies in the Civilian Conservation Camps because others than the C.C.C. workers were ad- mitted, and there was begun against them in turn, a conspiracy-and-damages action by Minnie Tulverman's Royal Talking Pictures Service which supplied some of the shows. One of the prolific sources of trouble was the insistence of the non-theatrical showman that he should be permitted to rent current pictures not in actual use by theaters at the time of his application A 1935 case of this sort involved the organization of a Motion Picture Coun- cil in Oklahoma City to investigate charges that local exchanges would not procure desired films. The main in- tent was to run to earth a persistent rumor that the Publix Theatres had a contract with certain distributors designed to shut out schools, churches and inde- pendent theatres. In Salt Lake City an especially diffi- cult adjustment was temporarily made. For a long period, twenty-two Ward Houses of the Latter Day Saints Church had been showing films on a subscription basis whereby admission to five weekly shows was given to families of any size for one dollar per family. Protests of the local exhibitors were of no avail until the Government's National Re- covery Act came into force in Ji:ne. Shortly thereafter two managers, backed by the International Theatres Associa- tion, complained to their industry's Code Authority, which decided that the churches should not exhibit pictures until six months'after their professional release in that territory. The N.R..A. code for the film industry was drafted in the summer and autumn of 1933. Article VIII, Section 8, Part 4, stated that: '-It shall be unfair practice for any distributor to license the exhibition of its motion pictures for exhibition in any non-theatrical account contrary to any determination, restriction or limitation by a local grievance board where such exhibition shall be deter- mined by such grievance board provided for in this code to be unfair to an estab- lished motion picture theatre." However, Part 4, in Subdivision b, continued in a manner which seemed decidedly con- tradictory : "Nothing in this part shall be interpreted to prohibit the licensing of motion pictures for exhibition at army posts or camps, or on board ships of the United States Navy, or ships engaged in carrying passengers to foreign or do- mestic ports, or at educational or re- ligious institutions, or at institutions housing 'shut-ins,' such as prisons, hos- pitals, orphanages, etc." I am not aware of what happened in the Salt Lake City situation after May 27, 1935 when the Supreme Court invalidated the N.R.A., but, if the behavior of other industries at the same time offer any indication, there was a prompt backslip into abhorred practices. The storm of protests continued into 1936. In May, Philadelphia exhibitors, who claimed dependence on patronage of downtown shoppers, declared a grievance against Gimbel's Department Store, which was screening old-time films in a free one-hour show four times daily. These presentations were actually in continua- tion of a plan of department store release which had been worked out to exploit the New York stock film library as- sembled years previous by Isaac Stone and since then managed by his widow and daughter, Dorothy. The plan had begun operation in February at the James McCreery & Company store in New York City. One finds the extreme exhibitor at- titude in the manager who holds that there is no saturation point in the volume of business which may be brought into his theatre. He thinks of his establish- ment as the only logical and proper community recreation center, and of any competitive attraction, of any sort what- soever, as an invader of his rights. In the truly diehard case the exhibitor op- poses the garden club's seasonal flower show, the afternoon monthly lecture at the woman's club, the community sing. In this stand he is .surely wrong. Using the same argument the stage could claim a right prior to his. The legitimate principle of being a hustler in business is to preserve the free choice of the customers, and to lead them to bestow their trade on a basis of superior values, meaning also, superior service. If there is business to be had beyond that, it is certainly not fair practice to disturb healthful customer relationships maintained by respectable competitors; it should accrue, rather, through the cultivation of neglected op- portunities. The reference to warring exhibitors and fire-breathing non-theatrical leaders has been made with specific persons in mind. On the exhibitors' side in 1935, was, for instance. Edward Kuykendall, president of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of .\merica. He made a speech at a New Orleans convention of that organization in February, 1935, staling that the trouble was partly the exhib- itor's fault for not sufficiently encourag-