Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1934 - Aug 1935)

2 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN^ EVENTS on the MARCH/ WHO'S BEHIND SUNDAY MOVIES Report Not Printed . . . Early the following day, the first reading on the bill was held — without any record of it appearing on the schedule of activities posted in the House! This was contrary to the constitution and to parliamentary procedure, but it did not deter the gentlemen who were set on forcing the measure through without a public hearing. The second reading came and went, although the Rev. W. B. Forney, of the Lord's Day Alliance of Pennsylvania registered a vigorous protest against the unseemly action by the legislators. The rules of the Legislature provides that there shall not be two readings of a bill in one day, but this, too, was ignored in the rush to smash the measure through. Only after a flood of protesting telegrams poured in on several members of the House did the bill's backers halt to reflect on the fact that the public might not tolerate steamroller tactics on the Sunday movies question. Protests started to come from the floor and a rising tide of opposition threatened to overwhelm the sponsors on the spot. A public hearing was ordered. Even an attempt to straighten out the mixup by rushing through a printed record of the bill's hearings had failed! Church organizations, the public and many independent threatremen demanded: Why was there to be no public hearing? Why the shroud of secrecy about the bill's introduction? Who was behind these tactics? Queer Happenings . . . The proponents of Sunday movies in Pennsylvania dealt themselves a solar plexus blow last week from which they may not recover in time to push their bill through the State Legislature. In the wee small hours after midnight last Monday, the House Law and Order Committee popped out with the Melchiorrc-Schwartz-Barber bill, providing for a referendum on the question at next November's municipal elections. The eerie hour at which committee saw fit to report the bill favorably immediately gave rise to suspicions that there was something peculiar taking place behind the scenes. Who Wants Sunday Movies? . . . Behind the move for an open Sunday are the major film companies and Warner Bros. Theatres. For them there are decided advantages. The film companies will receive another day's revenue totalling many thousands. Warners' Theatres, operating the first-run houses in the important cities, anticipate an improvement in their business, since the people will flock to the centrally located theatres on Sundays, while the residents of nearby towns will drive into the larger cities for their holiday entertainment. The particular interest of Warners lies in the fact that they look forward to gaining from both ends. After all, the interests of Warner Bros. Theatres and Warner Bros. Pictures are identical. Even if the theatre affiliate should fail to profit as much as expected, the picture unit is bound to realize a handsome increase in its income from the additional day's film rentals. Independents' Position . . . Or. the other hand, there is a great body of independent theatre owners in Pennsylvania who are opposed to an open Sunday for two reasons: (1) Personal convenience; (2) economics. While the executives of the large circuits will not be required to give up their Sabbath leisure if the theatres under their control operate on that day, the vast majority of small theatre owners, conducting their businesses individually, will be forced to add another day's labor to an already over-long and tedious week. Sunday is the theatreman's one day for rest, contemplation, or personal pleasure. He does not relish the prospect of relinquishing it, even if he considered it likely that he could make more money. But, can he? Reports from other exhibitors in open-Sunday states indicate that there is no greater gross in seven days than there is in six. Or, if there is some slight gross increase, additional expenditures consume it. Relief help must be provided for one day in the week. The week's total film rentals go up considerably, since the producers demand their highest percentage films play on Saturday and Sunday. So, asks the business-minded indie: What is there in it for me? And he answers with: Just another day's work. Also, the suburban and small town theatreman is disturbed by the possibility that his community will reject Sunday movies, while the neighboring city will approve the legalization in the referendum. If this should occur, his community will be drained of a large percentage of its movie-goers, drawn into the city for a Sunday movie show, with a consequent damage to his weekly business that may be ruinous. Pro Activities . . . Warner Theatre boss, Joe Bernhard, solicited the support of Philadelphia's real estate operators for Sunday movies with an address before the Real Estate Board Sunday evening. Said Bernhard: "We are really a five-day town, with nothing for the Saturday and Sunday visitor to do. "City Council has refused to let us place signs over our marquees. "The Stanley-Warner Company operates 94 theatres here. Our weekly carrying charge is #21,000. But seme of our theatres must remain closed because of the lack of Sunday movies. Why, right here in this city you have one of the most beautiful theatres in the world, but it must stay closed because we have no Sunday movies. Our last attempt to keep it open cost us plenty. To win back some of its popularity this city must have Sunday moving pictures." Observers will find it a bit difficult to understand Mr. Bernhard's assumption that open Sundays would spell success for the huge Mastbaum or any other house. Are there no closed theatres in cities where they have tneir Sunday shows? Free Train Tickets . . . There is much speculation regarding the source of a large supply of round-trip train tickets to Harrisburg, supplied free of charge to major film exchange employees, who were sent to the state capitol to lend their support to the Melchiorre-Schwartz-Barber bill during the public hearing held yesterday. Independents are contrasting the strenuous efforts of Warners in favor of this measure to their inaction on the proposed ten per cent admisison tax. The latter bill, so vitally important to the state's independents, was defeated solely through the efforts of the IEPA and the Allied unit of Western Pennsylvania, despite the active obstruction of certain theatre interests and the defeatist attitude of some exhibitor leaders. • • PENNSY GOIN' WHOOPEE Racing and Lottery . . . Staid old Pennsylvania seems to be throwing off its cloak of strait-laced respectability with a flourish that may leave it one of the widest open states in the Union. In addition to the muchdisputed Sunday movies legislation, the state's lawmakers are contemplating measures to legalize horse racing and to establish a State lottery. The pari-mutuel betting bill, introduced by Charles Baldi (R), Philadelphia, and John Dent (D), Westmoreland, provides for simultaneous referenda in each municipality and the entire state. If the entire state vote is for the racing bill, the sport will be legalized everywhere, excetp in those counties which voted against it in the local referendum. The horse-racing season would be limited to two meetings yearly, each to run no more than 30 days. The Representative Sowers-sponsored lottery bill provides for the conduct of a series of lotteries to raise a total of #100,000,000. Tickets at 10 cents each will be sold to the public through authorized agents. The state would get