Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1934 - Aug 1935)

6 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN METRO MAKES "BOO!" AT THE BLOCK BOOKING BILL An Amusing Answer to Some More Producer Propaganda Against the Pettengill Bill Roland Barton The Editor dropped me the following note to New York, where I am busily engaged viewing new movies and old chorus girls, and being, the producers will tell you, much more favorably inclined to the latter: "Dear Stutsenmayer (he calls me that for short!): Am enclosing herewith copy of a juicy bit of major producer flim-flam on the b-b issue, sent out to local exhibs by M-G-M. For fear that it may actually frighten one or two jittery boys into opposing the Pettengill bill, I would like you to find two or three minutes to answer it — providing you can get serious enough about it." MW Well, my dear exhibitor pals, imagine my surprise to learn that the stuff had been sent out over the signature of Bob Lynch, Metro's Philly boss, whom I know to be a shrewd and amiable business man, but an old die-hard when it comes to having his company give up a swell money-making proposition like block booking. I laughed for five or ten minutes after reading the list of questions and answers contained in the sheets. Of course, it isn't so easy to become serious about stuff like that, but the Editor is boss and when he says "get serious" it's time to stop kibitzing, as that jovial humorist, Will Hays, might be expected to remark. However, let us get down to the business of showing up the M-G-M propaganda, which isn't original or any smarter than the bunkum that is pouring out of the Hays' offices daily. The most amusing phase of this whole campaign by the major producers to discredit the Pettengill bill is their attitude of benevolence toward the independent exhibitors. Read the bosh that they are passing out and you find that the 8 majors have suddenly become the guardian angels of the poor little independents. The one and only reason they want to retain block booking and "number-alphabet selling" is to protect the exhibitors. Profits for themselves?— how dare you think of such a thing! TELLS THE TRUTH The awful truth about the Pettengill bill (can we tell them, Mr. Hays?) is that it will bust the majors wide open; yes, wide enough for some competition to get into picture production. There will not be any 8 majors. There will be twelve or fifteen, each making fewer and better pictures and competing among themselves to sell theatres. Quality will be the keynote— not quantity, although there will be more pictures made than ever before. There'll be new money, new faces, new energy, new talent poured into production. So, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Kent, Mr. Zukor and the other boys at the top will have to struggle along on a quarter of a million a year. Tough, I admit, but say, even Morgan has been smoking his cigars clean down to his moustache since the depression. But, now, seriously, the Ed. wants me to answer Bob Lynch's stuff and nonsense, so here goes. Bob pulls the old gag of asking a question and answering it himself before anybody else has a chance. That makes it pretty safe that he'll get the reply he's looking for, but I'm going to take the proferred liberty (extended by my Ed.) to disagree with him on every point he makes. Not that I want to shut out Bob, but he failed to hit even one pop fly which I might have intentionally dropped and credited him with a one-base hit. Lynch's questions and statements are in the quoted italics below. Our humble opinions appear in brackets following each quotation. ANSWERS QUESTIONS "Do you want Churches, Schools and civic organizations who do not pay taxes put on a competitive basis with you?" [This is the producers' pet scare. Churches, schools and organizations have given movie shows ocasionally for years, without encountering any difficulty in obtaining films from major producers who saw a chance to grab a few more dollars. These institutions have their particular functions; they do not contemplate going into the amusement business any more than they might be considering to enter the delicatessen line. Churches have bazaars during which they sell ice ream, but that is no reason why the confectionery store should be forced to purchase more and cheaper ice cream as protection against competition. The film producer sells to theatres and the ice cream dealer sells to the stores because they are the regular and more profitable customers.] "Do you want the Government to run the motion picture business?" f_This is the producers' pet scare. Anyone who has only hastily perused the Pettengill bill knows darn well that under its provisions the Government will have no more control over the industry than it ever had prior to the NRA and far less than it had during the Blue Eagle's life. This argument is a rank phoney!] "Do you want distributors to be prevented from reducing rentals as an incentive to you to buy more than one feature or short feature?" fThis is the producers' pet scare. Now, isn't that question just killing! Will the exhibitor who is buying film cheaply as a consequence of block booking please step up to be awarded the Bob Lynch trophy — a pair of cast-iron swimming tights. This argument is the one that puts me in stitches1. They are selling you pictures CHEAP! What they mean is that they are selling CHEAP PICTURES at high prices. Would you have paid Metro as much for "The Winning Ticket" for "The Band Plays On" for "Have a Heart" — if you could have bought them individually? Would you have bought them at all? Could Metro have soaked you more for "The Merry Widow" for "David Copperfield" for "Barretts of Wimpole Street" — if they sold them to you singly? No; because you wouldn't have bought them if you couldn't make profit.] "Do you think distribution and production costs should be materially and arbitrarily increased?" {This is the producers' pet scare. The only increase in distribution costs will involve the employment of a few more salesmen in each exchange. Don't you remember when each film exchange had eight or ten salesmen, and some more than that? Now, they don't need salesmen; they have the exibitors waiting in their outer offices to buy the products. Production cost wouldn't be increased. It would be decreased by the effect of competition. The fantastic salaries of the bigwigs would come down to earth — or half way, at least.] {Continued On Next Page) The Block Booking Issue FILM BULLETIN has been deluged with requests for additional copies of the May 15th issue in which we replied to the Hays' pamphlet entitled "What Do You Know About Block Booking?" These requests have come from individual exhibitors, theit organizations and many civic groups. Only a small supply of these copies remain, so we ask those desiring them to send their orders immediately, enclosing 10 cents for each copy.