Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1934 - Aug 1935)

2 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN EVENTS on the MARCH! Reporting the Industry's News front An Editorial Viewpoint" "Exhibitors Must Practice Self-Help/' Says Myers Block Booking Sales Policies Product Problems Discussed by Exhibs At Allied Convention Practical . . . While, aside from the appearance of Congressman Samuel B. Pettengill, sponsor of the bill against block booking, the convention of Allied of New Jersey, held in Atlantic City last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, was uneventful, those who sat in on the closed exhibitor meetings carried out some instructive data on major film company sales policies and warnngs by Abram Myers and Sidney Samuelson that independent exhibitors must seriously contemplate the product problem. The convention, minus the usual fireworks and the useless resolutions, was a practical one. The talk by Mr. Pettengill was enlightening to those who still misunderstand the purposes of his bill to outlaw the block booking evil. The exchange of sales policy information is bound to aid indies in obtaining the best deals from the majors. The warning on product was timely and cannot be repeated to exhibitors too often. Pettengill . . . The Representative from Indiana told the Allied delegates that the industry should take the intiative in eliminating block booking. No business can continue to succeed unless it is built upon solid foundation and fair policy, he said, and the coercive feature of block booking makes it an unhealthy practice. The Congressman stated that although many people do not regard his bill as going far enough to eradicate the ills of the industry, it is his belief that its provisions go as far as the House Interstate Commerce Committee will stand for at this time. "It is a step in the right direction," Pettengill declared. He pointed out that "this is not a censorship bill," saying that those who oppose it are, "either through ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation," seeking to distort its meaning. "The so-called Pettengill bill does not prohibit buying of films in groups. It merely seeks to give the buyer the right to select and buy as many as he wants or needs." Pettengill urged the delegates to lend active support to the bill. It is scheduled to come up before Congress when it reconvenes in January. Propaganda False . . . Following the sponsor of the block booking measure, Abram F. Myers, who had been one of the most active leaders in framing the bill, branded the propaganda being disseminated by Metro against the Pettengill bill as "utterly and mendaciously false." Answering certain contentions in a letter being sent out by M-G-M, Myers questioned exhibitors on their experiences with and opinions of block booking. He asked how many exhibitors present in the room must buy all or none of most major products. Only one answered that he could buy selective contracts. Myers explained how block booking monopolizes the playing time of theatres, precluding the showing of independent films. The average theatre requires a certain number of major products and when these large blocks are contracted for, no time remains for more than a few other pictures. SAMUELSON and PETTENGILL . . . Discussed Block-Booking and Film Sales Terms Vary . . . The exchange of information about major sales policies revealed to those present the fact that their claims to national sales set-ups are purely mythical. Not one company was found to have an absolutely rigid policy and most of them varied to great degrees in different territories. During this discussion, the delegates were told that M-G-M had indicated their intention to audit books of percentage accounts. Universal Praised . . . While the sales policies of certain major companies were condemned for their unreasonable(Continued on Page 6) Film Bills Wait As Congress Adjourns Not Dead . . . With the National Congress off on a welldeserved four months' vacation, legislation affecting the movie industry will rest in the desk drawers of Congressmen and Senators until the "boys from the states" re-convene in January. Observers were aware for many months that it would be virtually impossible to hold debate on any film bills during the hectic session which ended Monday. Measures like the Pettengill anti-block booking bill, the Duffy Copyright Revision bill, and even the recent proposal by Representative Sirovich (D., N. Y.) for a sweeping investigation of all phases of the film industry, including the unfair practices employed by the major producers in their dealings with indie exhibitors, are not dead. The Pettengill and Duffy measures are almose certain of receiving considerable attention shortly after Congress meets again. Sirovich's inquiry demand has fair support in the House and a less active House may decide to give the business a thorough "going-over." ■ ■ 'Farmer Takes A Wife' On 1934-35 Contracts Pointing out that the showing of "Farmer Takes a Wife" at the Fox Theatre in Philadelphia, on July 19th, constitutes a general reelase, Abram F. Myers, general counsel for Allied has written the film company demanding delivery of the picture on all 193435 contracts. It is his contention that releases before July 3 1 places the film on last season's contract. Fox has sold the Janet Gaynor starring vehicle as part of the new season program. John D. Clark, sales manager of Fox, replying to Mr. Myers' first letter, quotes Article Fourth (b), which states that the distributor may hold "pre-release" showings of pictures where seasonal conditions make it desirable. Clark's letter closes: "We appreciate your taking this matter up with us, but. in view of the one or two pre-releases in Philadelphia and at the seashore (Atlantic City), I question whether your Exhibitors, or any Exhibitors, would consider that this was last season's picture." In his answer to this, Myers declares, "The showing in Philadelphia cannot, in my judgment, be called a pre-release under any previous understanding of the term. It seems to me that there was, therefore, a general release of the picture in the Philadelphia territory prior to July 31. "As I understand it Fox is nine pictures short on its 1934-1935 contracts. For this there is no remedy. It does seem that pictures completed and played before July 31 should be delivered on those contracts and not used as bait to get contracts! for next year."