The Exhibitor (1952)

EXHIBITOR NT-3 A sound truck bannered with 24-sheets and six-sheets recently was used in Boston by Red King as part of his pro¬ motional campaign on U-I’s “The World in His Arms,” RKO Memorial. Working with John McGrail, U-I field representa¬ tive, King arranged several effective promotional tieins. Newington Michael Diakun was named concessions manager, Pike Drive-In, succeeding Norman Turgeon. West Hartford Vince Capuano, manager, Elm, was recovering from injuries received in an auto accident. Massachusetts Lynn Motiograph announced the installation of a dual large screen Trad Television System in the 2500 seat Paramount. The Paramount is part of the New England Theatres Circuit. The installation was effected by Joe Hornstein, Inc., New York, under the personal supervision of Victor Trad, president, Trad Television Corporation. New Hampshire Concord Francis J. Cahalan, manager, Concord Drive-In, reported the fast return of stolen speakers. Flashed onto the screen before each night’s performance is an announcement that anyone seeing speak¬ ers being stolen and turning in the culprit will# receive $50. A man stepped to the office, and informed him that he had just seen a couple of boys make away with some of the speakers. The informant gave the license number of the car. With This lobby display on MGM’s “Lovely To Look At” attracted lots of comment recently at the Park, Taunton, Mass., Johnny Corbett, manager. Ann Pivorato is seen in the photo admiring the display. Adapting the national tie-up between Sylvania Radio and Television Company and U-I to the local level, Red King, RKO Memorial, Boston, recently developed several important window displays on U-I’s “The World in His Arms” through¬ out the area, including this one at an appliance store. in 20 minutes of the time the theft was reported, police had brought back not only the stolen speakers but the thieves. No charges were pressed against the juveniles. Dover Michael J. Nadeau and Raymond Went¬ worth opened their new drive-in just across the line from New Hampshire. Nadeau is president, Kittery-York DriveIn, while Wentworth is treasurer. Keene Two washers rode the marquee of the Colonial 15 feet down to the pavement when it collapsed shortly after the start of the matinee. The workers were clear¬ ing the top of the marquee of excess water which had accumulated during rainstorms. They also attempted to adjust one of the heavy chains which support it. A chain broke, and let the marquee down to the pavement. The marquee had been completely reconstructed about a year ago. Rhode Island Providence City Solicitor William E. McCabe notified Mayor Reynolds that motion picture censorship as in effect in this city is now illegal, in view of the U. S. Supreme Court decisions on “The Miracle” and “Pinky.” McCabe pointed Doris Day recently got top billing on all New England News Company trucks as Collier’s cover featuring the actress was displayed as a tie-in with the forth¬ coming Boston opening of Warners’ “April In Paris.” out, however, that the U. S. Supreme Court ruling did not do away with film censorship as such, and that ordinances can be drawn up to prevent the showing of pictures which may be considered obscene,, indecent, immoral, or profane. Under sach proposed ordinances, the licensing bureau would be authorized to censor motion pictures in those cate¬ gories, McCabe said. He also offered a draft of a censorship ordinance for pos¬ sible use by the city government, but the draft was not made public. McCabe’s report answered the mayor’s request for a study of Providence censorship methods after the U. S. Supreme Court ruled illegal the banning of “The Miracle” in New York and “Pinky” in Marshall, Tex. In “The Miracle” case, Burstyn, Inc , vs. Wilson, the court overruled earlier decisions, held that principles of free speech and press apply to motion pictures, and ruled that a state cannot ban a film because a censor concludes it is sacrilegious. In the “Pinky” case, the court ruled unconstitutional a Mar¬ shall, Tex., ordinance authorizing license denials whenever the board believed that a motion picture was “prejudicial to the best interest of the city.” The ordinance was too indefinite, the high court said. Both cases “clearly show that censorship as hitherto exercised by the licensing authorities in Providence can no longer legally be upheld,” Mc¬ Cabe said. Continuing, he reported: “The ordinance in the Gelling case was prac¬ tically as broad as the powers purported to be vested in the bureau of licenses . . . giving authority to suspend, annul or revoke for any reason which the bureau may deem to be in the public interest. Clearly, this purported legislative grant would be within the prohibition in the Gelling case. The doctrines established by these two cases do not mean, how¬ ever, that censorship of any type is invalid or illegal. The opinion in the Burstyn case would seem to inferentially apnrove the constitutionality of a welldefined law prohibiting the exhibition of obscene motion pictures. The majority opinion further points out that the Con¬ stitution does not require absolute free¬ dom to exhibit every motion picture of every kind at all times and places. If we are to follow the law laid down by the court in other recent decisions with respect to other forms of communicating ideas, certainly pictures deemed profane can be prohibited. It may be that censor¬ ship could be exercised to prevent pic¬ tures which are considered likely to incite a riot or breach of peace, although the reasoning in the Burstyn case seems to me to raise some doubt as to censor¬ ship on that ground. Until such time as the law may be further clarified, it is my opinion that censorship should be limited to obscene, indecent, immoral, and pro¬ fane films, this being the type of censor¬ ship which, by implication at least, has received judicial sanction. I further feel that the bureau of licenses has the power and authority to exercise this censorship without the necessity of further legisla¬ tion. If, however, it is deemed desirable to specifically legislate on the subject, I think the city council has jurisdiction to do so within the limitations herein set forth.” September 3, 1952