Exhibitors Herald (1925)

Published every Wednesday by L/XHieitors Hekald Co. Editorial and Executive Offices: 407 S. Dearborn St.. Chicago. U. S. A. (Tel. Harrison 9248-9249) New York Office Los Angeles Office 1476 Broadway (Tel. Bryant 5111-1368) 5617 Hollywood Blvd. (Tel. Hollywood 8520) James Beecroft, Manager Ray Murray, Manager All Editorial and Business Correspondence Should Be Addressed to Chicago Office Edwin S. Clifford, Managing Editor George Clifford, Business Manager William R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor John S. Spargo, New York Editor Other Publications: “The Box Office Record,” published semiannually, and “Better Theatres,” published monthly as supplements to Exhibitors Herald. Subscription Price: United States and Its Possessions, $3.00 a year; Canada, .$4.50 a year; other parts of world. $6.00 a year. Single copy. 25 cents. Member, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright. 1925, by Exhibitors Herald Co. Vol. XXL April 4, 1925 No. 2 No Defense Needed For Arbitration Recently Mr. Arthur Brisbane wrote as follows in his column in the Hearst newspapers: “If an American citizen, without any pull, had a very just claim for $10,000 against a big corporation, that citizen with the just claim would be a fool to take his claim into court. It would cost him more than $10,000 to fight it out. And, besides spending more than his claim was worth, he would go through heart-breaking delays.” In this statement Mr. Brisbane puts the case in favor of the arbitration of commercial claims very plainly and very pointedly. If he were to expand the statement he doubtlessly would refer to the loss the claimant suffers through the enforced neglect of his business while following the tedious trail that leads through the courts. He might also point out that the fate the claimant suffers in contending against the small corporation and against the individual citizen is almost equally as dismal. The escape from expensive and heart-breaking court procedure is, of course, arbitration and, very fortunately, the motion picture industry has a workable and working system of arbitration. We have heard no one contend that this system is perfect and we would not listen if such a contention were put forth; but it is vastly better than no system of arbitration at all and its imperfections are susceptible to correction in direct ratio to the sincerity and good faith of the parties concerned. An annual report on operations of the arbitration system of the Film Boards of Trade was made public last week by Charles C. Pettijohn. The scope of the operations is revealed in the huge total of 11,197 cases disposed of, involving a total sum of $2,119,622.56. To set up any kind of a system of arbitration is a difficult thing; to accomplish a perfect system of arbitration in such a complex trade as the motion picture industry is impossible. But, granting such imperfections as may exist, the lesson of the case cited by Mr. Brisbane cannot be ignored with any judgment or reason. The business man, and in particular the small business man, must keep out of court. The whole system of court procedure is a destructive thing economically and where trade disputes may be settled by conference and discussion, any other course is folly. The principle of arbitration needs no defense. The practice of it in the motion picture industry does not and cannot satisfy all but its record of genuine and substantial accomplishment commands for it the respect and support of every person who seeks to maintain a constructive attitude toward trade matters. We do not mean to suggest that the system as now in effect should be held free of all proper criticism; it is a human and fallible institution and it is, therefore, subject to improvement and development. But we do maintain that the benefits are so sulistantial and so manifold for the business generally, and particularly for the small business man, that it? existence should be safeguarded by giving to it the wholehearted support and goodwill of every constructive person in the industry. ■» * * Pictures Not Art But Entertainment Many of the ills of the industry may be attributed to the fact that persons in the production end of the business are inclined to regard themselves as creators of art. They look upon artistic endeavors in the fields of pure art — -literature, painting, sculpture, music and the others — and then pity themselves that they cannot indulge themselves in the freedom, unrestraint and license that they feel is the privilege of the other artists. In this consideration they are leading themselves far astray. They are not producing art; they are producing motion pictures and motion pictures is a form of popular entertainment and under the loosest possible definition a form of popular entertainment cannot be characterized as a pure art. Aside from legalized censorship and aside from the censorship of bigots, partisans and zealots, the making of motion pictures will always be circumscribed and limited as to what may or may not be done and the fact that something may be described as “art” will never give the producers of pictures the liberty to depict things that may be good art but bad popular entertainment. We are making popular entertainment— not art. Let that thought get over and stay over in pioduction circles.