Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1934 - Aug 1935)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1935 3 HAYS' PAMPHLET TWISTS FACTS INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN Vol. I No. 36 May 15, 1935 Issued weekly by Film Bulletin Company, at 1313 Vine Street, Phila., Pa. Mo Wax, editor and publisher; Roland Barton, associate editor; Ben B. Cohen, business manager. Telephone: RITtenhouse 4816. Address all communications to Editor, Film Bulletin ADVERTISING RATES Write or call us for our Advertising Rates. Weekly circulation 1000 copies, covering every theatre owner in the Philadelphia and Baltimore-Washington territories. (Coninued from Preceding Page) naive effort at deception. First, it must be remembered that not every theatre is forced to buy all or none. There are thousands of producerowned theatres which play selective contracts. They get their choice, but the independents do not. This accounts, for the most part, for the larger number of contracts written on good films. Secondly, such other factors as repeat bookings, after-season spot bookings, etc., add to the number of contracts written on outstanding productions.] QUESTION TWO Does the Exhibitor Choose Only the Socially Desirable? SHE DONE HIM WRONG, a Mae West picture, played to 10,102 contracts, more than any other Paramount picture in the 1933-34 season. Return engagements for this picture often ran to 3 or 7 times. LITTLE CAESAR, a film of the "gangster" type, much condemned on social grounds, had much the same reception. As one exchange reports, "No cancellations, 90% repeat engagements. Several exhibitors played this picture 3 to 5 times." Meanwhile ALICE IN WONDERLAND, VOLTAIRE, ALEXANDER HAMILTON (the last two were Arliss pictures and all three pictures received great praise for artistry and social value), encountered many cancellations. For example, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, receiving only 5,869 contracts, was cancelled by 873 exhibitors. ALICE IN WONDERLAND was booked by 6250 exhibitors, but there were 410 cancellations. [ The answer to this point is the same, virtually, as that to the second one in the pamphlet. Exhibitors are business men first, but they must be in position to heed the requirements and demands of their patrons.] Why Do Some Exhibitors Oppose Block Booking? A certain number of exhibitors oppose block booking in the hope that they may secure pictures retail at wholesale prices. Business experts declare this cannot be done. It would be just as feasible for the international news services to permit a newspaper editor to purchase at a "wholesale" price only those items of world news, the coverage of which is vastly expensive — such as the President's message to Congress, or Hitler's latest manifesto, or the flight of Lindbergh to Paris — even though the editor refused to take in his "wholesale" purchase the general run of all news items obtained and transmitted by the news services at less expense. So it is with motion pictures. The producer is able by means of his wholesale selling or block booking to give to the exhibitors such costly pictures as the LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER or CLIVE OF INDIA or LES MISERABLES; but the exhibitor accepts for this wholesale price productions of lesser cost. [The far-fetched analogy with newsreel clips is unanswerable because it fails to make sense. The wholesale idea might have a grain of logic if the producers could claim that they provide the good pictures at the same price as the poor ones. But, everyone knows that the exhibitor is soaked an exorbitant outright price or an unfair percentage for the better films, while he pays a price far too high for the cheaply produced pictures. Block booking is of no aid whatsoever to the exhibitor as a money saver; it forces him to pay more.] It has been suggested that a synopsis of each picture in advance of production would enable exhibitors to judge its social acceptability. Anyone who has any conception of the countless changes in story and scenes and cast which are made and must be made during the course of production of every picture — and particularly the great pictures — must know that it is impossible to submit a synopsis in advance. | It is seldom that any changes in basic plot are made after a production starts. Under the block booking system the producers could not provide synopsis because they, themselves, do not know which pictures they will make when they sell them to exhibitors. A synopsis could easily be supplied before every pictures goes into production.] What Have the Courts Ruled? The United States Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5, 1932, after reviewing the results of an extended investigation by the United States Federal Trade Commission, affirmed the legality of block booking as a trade practice. This high court, in the following language confirmed the existence of exhibitor choice: "The evidence in the record discloses that the effect of this method of negotiation has not been to unduly restrain the exhibitor's freedom of choice. It is only a small percentage of contracts made which are for blocks offered. The greater number are shown to be for a few pictures only. This, it would seem, demonstrates the method of negotiation . . . has not had the effect of unduly restraining the exhibitor's freedom of selecting from among the pictures offered those which he desires." What Is the Solution? The continuous stream of fine pictures now being made is the result of first, a public demand and support of better pictures, and second, the desire of the producers to make them. Therein is the real answer — not in trade mechanics. The patron of motion pictures is the best judge, after all, and in this enlightened day every opportunity is afforded for intelligent choice. Information about pictures is made freely available by the industry, by Better Film Councils in home communities, by newspapers and in many other ways. [In the three years since the Circuit Court sustained the legality of block booking, the major producers have tightened their monopolistic control over the independent exhibitors until the "little fellows" are being slowly strangled. The block booking system is the basic evil at the source of this ruthless domination. The power of the big 8 continues to grow to alarming proportions, while the independent theatre owner finds himself without recourse to the normal competitive factors inherent in the democratic system. It is economically unsound for exhibitors. It is undemocratic. The thousands of independent exhibitors in the United States must be rid of the block booking yoke if they are to regain their rights as individuals engaged in a free flowing business.]