The Exhibitor (Nov 1939-May 1940)

EDITORIAL T H [ Volume 23, No. 10 January 17, 1940 A Jay Emanuel Publication. Covering the film territories in the Metropolitan East. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 122! Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. New York City office, 1600 Broadway. West Coast office, 1119 Poinsettia Drive, Hollywood, California Representatives in Washington, D. C.; Albany, Buffalo, Boston, New Haven. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, business manager; Herbert M Miller, managing editor. Subscription rates: $2 for one year; $! for three years. Address all communications to 122! Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Just in Passing THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED It should not be difficult to perceive that every time another anti-trust suit is filed against the distributors that a certain portion of the good will built up by the distributor in the nation at large is destroyed. Granted that the public understands little of industry problems, but when anti-trust actions are consistently filed, the old adage about “where there’s smoke there’s fire” must apply. Likewise, we further believe that since the Congressmen who will vote on the Neely Bill also must read the newspapers rather carefully, the ability of the Neely Bill’s proponents to build up the distributors as big, bad ogres is helpful. We have always been of the opinion that no anti-trust suit is ever filed until all other avenues of conciliation have been exhausted. Things are getting so jammed up in the distributors’ legal departments that hearings in some federal courts are being postponed because of the distributors’ pleas that the lawyers are so tied up they can’t handle all the cases at the same time. We will never understand why the distributors are willing to accept all the bad publicity, the lawyers’ fees and perhaps eventual defeat in most of these arguments, when all they have to do is to sit down and iron out the situation. But perhaps the easiest way isn’t what the attorneys desire. And handling some of the cases successfully for the distributors would be too much for even a Philadelphia lawyer, from what we have heard. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE NEELY BILL During the course of the current intra-industry debate on the Neely Bill many curious arguments have been brought forward in an effort to sway industry and public opinion, but one of the oddest was recently included in a press release by the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America. Mind you, we are still firmly of the belief that it is up to the individual film man to decide whether he thinks the bill is good or bad. While we do not agree with some of the methods being employed so openly (we have in mind the history-making evidence placed before the Black committee in regards to swaying of sentiment against the utilities regulation measure) we are of the opinion that everyone should register his sentiments with his Congressman. More is being heard these days from those opposing the measure, although it certainly must follow that advocates of the bill must be just as active. But to return to the MPTOA release. In speaking of claims for the measure made by those sponsoring it, under the heading of “Block Booking Delusions,” it reads: 10 — They {organizations which have been induced to support the measure) have been told that this bill will relieve and prevent a monopoly in the production and wholesale distribution of motion picture films. This comment follows : “There is no evidence of a monopoly in the business today. A considerable number of competent companies are engaged in the business of making and marketing motion pictures. It is very unusual to find any theatre that does not lease films from more than one company. The courts have repeatedly found, after careful investigation and examination of the facts, that no monopoly exists, that competition between rival wholesale distributors is very keen.” The MPTOA release is signed by Ed Kuykendall but the author of the page referring to the Neely Bill is not given. If it is the MPTOA head who wrote it, we are greatly surprised. Ed Kuykendall surely must know that the production and distribution of motion pictures are in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. What the courts have decided is on the records. We are only interested in preventing any greater deluge of unfair conclusions being hurled at the trade than are already apparent. Fight the Neely Bill with all your strength, Ed, if you so desire. But fight fairly. The attitude of this publication has always been against governmental interference or regulation of our industry. We are not very optimistic about the ability of the industry to regulate itself, but there are still many evils within the industry that seem to us more in need of attention than block booking. If, as the proponents of the measure claim, passage of the Neely Bill will make for a better industry and place the independent exhibitor in a better position, we are all for it. But we are not convinced that it is a cure for all headaches. QUAD.