Exhibitors Herald (Jul-Sep 1922)

Breaking Contracts By MARTIN J. QUIGLEY MAXY persons in the motion picture business seem to regard a contract merely as a matter of convenience, to be fulfilled or ignored as one may happen to feel about it at any particular time. A great deal of financial loss, confusion and unhappiness is directly traceable to the existI ence of this unfortunate circumstance. We are willing to credit the mining-camp i I conditions of the earlier days of the business with i the responsibility for permitting this attitude toI ward contracts to creep into the business and gain a foothold. In this respect the motion picture • business doubtlessly does not differ a bit from other industries which had a quick and huge development. Investigation unquestionably will i reveal that a loose, free and unscrupulous attitude toward agreements is characteristic of unsettled and changing conditions. But this industry, striving valiantly and determinedly to establish itself on the bed-rock of commercial stability in a position in which it will be able to regard itself proudly before the world, must be done with this loose attitude toward contractural relations. * * * ONE type of contract that has been little respected is the rental contract, and for the lack of respect toward this type of agreement we hold the distributor equally to blame with the exhibitor. Distributors have encouraged theatre owners to book more product than it would be I possible for them to use in a desperate hope that somehow their product would be played and someone else's would be left on the shelf. In instances where a distributor has been left with a great deal of unplayed business he has been loud in his denunciation of exhibitors because of their failure to fulfill contracts, meanwhile forgetting the fact that he has been a big factor in bringing about a condition that must of necessity result in repudiated contracts. There is much hope that the approaching , adoption of a uniform contract, which lias been foolishly delayed for years for no good reason at all, will correct this evil for the general benefit of all. A more aggravated form of contract repudiation, however, is to be found in dealings between producers and artists and there is no denying the fact that the unscrupulous agent is chiefly to blame for this condition. The blacklist seems to be the solution of this difficulty — a blacklist for the disturbing agent and a blacklist for the artist who is unwilling or unable to realize what a contract means. * * * THE Hays organization is negotiating an agreement which will end the confusion over the rental contract matter and it appears that this organization also must be looked to for relief on the other matter. The courts, of course, are always open for relief to the producer who has been victimized by a star's perfidy — but the slow and expensive operation of the courts seldom provides adequate relief in a business matter of this character. What the producer, and consequently the whole industry, needs in this matter is the establishment of some system under which legitimate contracts must be fulfilled by artists before such artists will be accorded consideration in other quarters. This might appear to be an arbitrary arrangement but it is necessary and equitable. It is necessary because there is no producer of importance who has not suffered severely through the ruthless repudiation of contracts by artists and in most instances the eventual situation of most artists who project themselves into such controversies is no better than the former and often it is much worse. Contracts to be legal must at the start be equitable and if they are legal they must be lived up to and any person who places himself above the acknowledged sacredness of contracts must be summarily dealt with.