Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

5 Yates Buys Carr's Republic Interest; Johnston May Sell Less Than Year . . . Less than one year after its formation, Republic Pictures Corp. is undergoing a reformation of its capital setup and management. Despatches from Hollywood late Tuesday afternoon state that Herbert J. Yates, the money man behind Republic and holder of a one-third interest in the indie producing company, is purchasing another one-third held by Trem Carr and W. Ray Johnston. Carr, it is said, is receiving $500 000 for his half of the one-third he holds jointly with Johnston and will step out of the company immediately. Johnston is also slated to sell his portion to Yates, but will remain as president and distribution head, temporarily, at least. Yates-Levine . . . Insiders profess to lack of surprise at these sudden developments, claiming that it has always been Yates' plan to assume complete control of the new company shortly after it got under way. With him will remain Nat Levine, who recently took charge of all Republic production after a tiff with Carr over studio authority. Yates is said to have fullest confidence in Levine and he believes that together they can bring Republic up to major standards. Levine owns one-third of the company. Johnston . . . Ray Johnston, always one of the most popular film executives, may remain in a salaried post indefinitely. His experience in distribution and his popularity will undoubtedly enter into Yates' considerations. There are not expected to be any radical changes made in the Republic home office staff, since the complaints from Yates have usually been directed against the Hollywood end. Eddie Golden, sales manager, and Ed Finney, advertising director, are not to be affected by the changes. May Spend More . . . W.th Yates talking of stepping into production himself and because of his heavier financial interest in the company, Republic can be expected to go in for bigger scale production than in the past. In addition, the top man has his laboratory business in mind and with Republic a more important factor in the industry, he foresees the possibility of forcing more work into Consolidated. ERRITT CRAWFORD OBSERVING THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY MERCY' ME! Thus, Andre Sennwald, N. Y. Times movie critic, closes his panning review of "Broadway Hostess" (First National): "The gentleman who accompanied me to the Strand on Saturday made the most pertinent comment. He suggested that the title be changed to 'Show Them No Mercy'." Meaning the audience, no doubt. NEW YORK. The jurisdictional dispute between the I. A. T. S. E. and the I. B. E. W. which, for a short time, leld a threat of nationwide projectionists' strike, has jeen successfully adjusted, apparently, to the satisaction of all concerned, and the big film executives ire breathing a little easier. Under the new agreement the I. A. receives ^risdiction over property men, laboratory workers and cameramen, while retaining complete jurisdiction in the theatres. The I. B., which holds a nine-year contract with the studios, will retain control of all electrical workers in the studios, subject to certain revisions and adjustments to be worked out with the officials of the I. A. on the basis of the jurisdictional agreements just concluded between the two unions. For the ind.pendent, unorganized or semi-organized theatre owner, several deductions of value might be made from examining the foregoing facts, as illustrating the power of organization, first of all, but more particularly the danger of splitting and opposing to each other groups whose interests are basically and fundamentally identical. As long as the I. A. and I. B. members could be used to replace each other both were at a disadvantage and could be effectively exploited by the big producingth atre-owning companies. Similarly, as long as the individual theatre owners or unaffiliated circuits can be kept divided into different camps and set against each other by the well-organized major companies and their powerful circuits, they are going to leave themselves open to every form of unfair competition. It should never be forgotten that the policies and practices of the producerowned or controlled theatre are distinctly different, if not diametrically opposed to the interests of the independently owned theatre. Their interests and policies are dictated by the interests and policies of the company owning them and not by the rules of fair and free competition in show business. Actually, the two have no common interests in the last analysis. The time has not come when the lion and the Iamb can lie down together, at least without the probability that the lamb will get into difficulties or into the lion. Which is much the same thing as far as the lamb is concerned. Practically speaking, to disregard this fact is to fail to recognize that any attempt to maintain a satisfactory working agreement between independent and affiliated theatres is only another way to keep the independents split and unable to act unitedly against the common enemy. There is also a longer view of the recent adjustment of jurisdictional difference!: between the two technical unions, previously referred to, which the independent theatre owner might well take into consideration. Just now it is only the technical workers who are fully organized in the film industry. As such, it will be argued their interests, demands for higher pay, shorter hours, better working conditions, etc., are as much opposed to the interests of the independent theatre owner as to the interests of the producer-exhibitor group, which dominates the industry. In a sense this may be partly true at the present moment. But the definite trend today is toward the unionization of all workers in a given industry. This trend is as strong in the motion picture field as it is in the steel, auto and other big basic industries. Probably the next year will see thousands of studio employees of various types, who are now unorganized, brought together or coordinated under some form of industrial union or of closely affiliated groups. This will present problems to the big producing companies in which the individual theatre operator will properly have no part or interest. On the other hand, the movement toward general unionization will undoubtedly bring him his own special problems, as his ushers and other house employees may b come organized and, if so, will undoubtedly be affiliated with the projectionists and stage workers, who are already unionized and are now in his employ. (Continued »n Page 6)