Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1934 - Aug 1935)

2 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITOR? FILM BULLETIN FILM BULLETIN EXPOSES BLOCK BOOKING PROPAGANDA! (Continued from Front Page) says the exhibitor, the entire blame for criticized pictures lies with the method of distribution, of which he claims to be victim. This seems, if you jump at it, an easy way out. Abolish block booking and you abolish bad pictures. The exhibitor will always select the good. Such is the reasoning of socially minded opponents of block booking. What Are Good Pictures? Here is the first source of misunderstanding. To the socially minded, "good" means ethically right. To most exhibitors "good" means a picture that brings big boxoffice returns. So the two are not talking the same language. [These generalized deductions are unfair. As a business man the theatre owner is naturally concerned primarily with the boxoffice returns from films he exhibits. But, the overwhelming majority of exhibitors do not desire to show any pictures which micrht offend a goodly portion of their audience. Moral standards vary greatly between sections of the country, and even between proximate communities. Under the block bookinp system, the theatreman is unable to take into consideration the standards and tastes of his particular patronage.] What Are the Essential Questions? 1. Is block booking compulsory? Has the exhibitor no choice? 2. If he has choice, does he choose the socially valuable pictures? QUESTION ONE Is Block Booking Compulsory? The exhibitor is not obliged to buy in blocks. He usually chooses a block because like all wholesale buying, it costs less, saves him money, enables him to charge lower admission prices, and secures an assured supply of pictures. This security is essential to continuous operation. The distributor tries to sell all he can of his pictures. The size of the block which he succeeds in selling depends on the acceptability of the pictures and the terms at which they are offered; these terms depending on the seating capacity, location, admission cost, etc., of the particular theatre — -in short, the ability of the exhibitor to pay. | The above oaragraph is full of deliberate lies. It is not true that exhibitors are not obliged to buy in blocks. Most independents in competitive situations are compelled to buy ALL OR NONE! The exorbitant rentals charged by the major film companies does not support the contention that the system saves the theatremen money. It does not enable him to charqe lower admission prices, because, through the majors' monopoly which the block booking system has created, exhibitors are forced, by contract, to raise and maintain high admission prices. It does assure the exhibitor of a supply of pictures, but it gives him absolutely no assurance of the quality. Without block booking exhibitors would have the same assurance of a steady supply. If the Pettenoill bill were passed, there would soon be poured into the production of films many millions of dollars from new sources. The demand from theatres would never exceed the supply of good films on which the producers could realize profits. That is elemental, Mr. Hays.] The effect of this arrangement is that where, say, the Music Hall at Rockefeller Center in New York City, might pay the distributor $25,000 or more for a given film, the same film may shortly appear in some outlying community at a cost to the theatre owner of $10.00 or even less. The range of choice accorded to exhibitors under the present system is shown in the record. Out of 37,179 exhibition contracts negotiated in 9 exchange territories in the 1933-34 season: 25,422 or 68 per cent were for 1 to 10 pictures only. 1 1 per cent were for 11 to 20 pictures. 9 per cent were for 21 to 30 pictures. 8 per cent were for 31 to 40 pictures. Less than 5 per cent were for more than 40 pictures. [These figures are unacceptable as indicative of any general truths. Why are only 9 exchange territories mentioned when each film company operates from 32 to 36? Which 9 exchanges were selected for these figures? Almost anything under the sun can be proven if the interested parties have their choice of only those facts that aid their argument.] No exhibitor need buy pictures in advance of their production if he does not choose to do so. Self-interest alone prompts him to negotiate for pictures before they are produced, or to conclude a contract before he has actually seen them. | This is not the cause for block booking; it is the RESULT!] What Cancellations Are Permitted Under Block Booking? A — Under the NIRA Code, exhibitors are allowed to cancel 10% of the pictures they have contracted for under certain conditions. B — Many exhibitors also eliminate pictures they do not desire to show by what has become known as "washing out." Although an exhibitor may contract to show a block of pictures, the pictures are not shown until the exhibitor assigns a ' play date" for each of them in turn. Exhibitors frequently delay fixing play dates on certain pictures until the end of the season, and at that time, in consideration of the execution of a new contract, the unplayed pictures are "washed out." The records show that by this means, on an average, the exhiibtor cancels an additional 10%, almost entirely on his own initiative and choice. C — Any picture which does not bear the approval seal of the Production Code Administration— that is, any released prior to July 15, 1934 — may be cancelled if genuine community objection is made to its moral character. [The Code 10 per cent cancellation privilege was made so involved that countless thousands of exhibitors never could make out its provisions and therefore failed to take advantage of it. This "washout" idea seems hardly possible under the system of compelling exhibitors to play pictures in order of release. The "C." portion of the above requires no answer, since its effect has been negligible.] Actual Figures to Support the Above Statements If exhibitors were required, as has been contended, to purchase "all or none," it is evident that all the pictures of a given distributor would be sold to the same number of accounts. But this is not the fact. For example, of 44 Fox pictures (season of 1932-33, latest for which complete figures are available): STATE FAIR was booked in 9490 contracts. AFTER THE BALL was booked in 3101 contracts. The rest of the Fox product ranged between these two. CALL HER SAVAGE (a Clara Bow picture socially criticized) was booked in 8420 contracts, with 70 cancellations. CAVALCADE (one of the best in social worth) had 7230 contracts, with 229 cancellations. Of 50 Columbia releases: SO THIS IS AFRICA? (a Wheeler-Woolsey comedy much objected to by the socially minded) was booked in 7702 contracts, with only 98 cancellations, in spite of widespread protests. MUSSOLINI SPEAKS, an admirable biographical picture by the same company, received only 885 bookings. RUSTY RIDES ALONE, one of the best "Westerns," was accepted by only one half the exhibitors who took SO THIS IS AFRICA. Of 27 Universal pictures, MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS led in number of contracts, with 9158, and TRAIL DRIVE came in last with 4638. | The discrepancy in the number of contracts does not imply that there is no block booking. This is another (Continued on Next Page)