Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

4 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITOR FILM BULLETIN INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN Vol. 2 No. 33 April 15, 193 6 Issued weekly by Film Bulletin Co., at 13 23 Vine Street, Phila., Pa. Mo Wax, editor and publisher; Roland Barton, George F. Nonamaker, associate editors. Saul S. Leshner, business manager. Address all communications to Editor, Film Bulletin Merritt Crawford, Publisher's Representative 165 8 Broadway, New York City Room 48 6 — Circle 7-3 094 What The Newspaper Critics Say: THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (Metro) " . . . The cinema pays lavish sentimental tribute to the most famous American showman since Barnum ... A romanticized biography, filled with music, dancing, beautiful girls and other art forms that appealed to the master . . ." — N. Y. HERALD-TRIBUNE. " ... So thoroughly Ziegfeldian that it would be easy to pretend it had been produced by the Great Glorifier himself . . . Has the opulence, the lavishness, the expansiveness of the old Follies; and that reverential approach with which, we suspect, Ziegfeld might have handled his own life story ..." — N. Y. TIMES. "Elaborate, magnificent, and gorgeous . . . Three hours of sheer entertainment for the film-goer who delights in musical-comedy fun ..." — N. Y. DAILY MIRROR. * ::■ "SNOWED UNDER" (Warner's First National) "A loud, witless and tiresome farce ..." — N. Y. Times. "... A farcial comedy which moves quickly but never gets very far . . . Falls flat . . ." — N. Y. Daily News. ". . . One doesn't know whether to laugh or yawn at this entertainment . . . Not brilliant in its achievement and sometimes boring in its artificiality . . ." — N. Y. Herald-Tribune. "BRIDES ARE LIKE THAT" (Warners) ". . . Pleasant little domestic farce played with proper exuberance by its cast . . ." — N. Y. Times. ". . . Frail, amiable and commonplace little screen comedy . . ." — N. Y. Herald-Tribune. "■ . . 'Homey' comedy an unpretentious program film . . . Its problems are built for comedy and and its action is for the most part conversational . . ." — N. Y. Eve. journal. MERRITT CRAWFORD OBSERVING THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY NEW YORK. Prospective federal control of the film industry, as recommended by Daniel Bertrand, formerly of the Amusements Division of the NRA, in the report which went forward to the President last week, dealing with the industry before, during and following the code period, was by way of being a bombshell. It has thrown the Hays office into consternation and has already been the subject of countless conferences by the high executives and legal talent of practically every one of the big companies, who realize the seriousness of its implications. It is not forgotten that a similar situation faced the industry back in the Harding Administration, though in this case it was a question of federal censorship of the films, which brought the question to the fore, rather than the correction of trade practices, injurious alike to a majority of theatres and the public which they serve, that is the underlying motivation of the recommendations in the present report. It was then that Will H. Hays, the Harding postmaster-general and campaign manager, became "Czar" of the industry and the move for federal control was headed off. Times have changed since then, however, and General Hays, who has done a big and complicated job quite as well as his employers, the companies forming the MPPDA could expect, no longer enjoys the influence and prestige in political circles he originally had, though his power within the industry has continually waxed greater. It is generally known, of course, that the General is persona non grata with the present Administration at Washington, and it is problematical also what influence he may be able to exert even should the next Administration be Republican. In any case the creation of a special federal commission to deal with the industry, whether as an extension of the Federal Trade Commission or as a separate organization by itself, as proposed in the Bertrand report, will have political possibilities, whether Democratic or Republican in personnel, that are far beyond General Hays' power to control and which may injure far more than they will help the entire industry. The report, which is considerably over 200 pages, deals at length with the various practices of the industry, overbuying, block-booking, clearance and zoning, cancellations, rebates on admissions, forcing of shorts, designated playdates and non-theatrical accounts, and their treatment under the code and since. It states that practically all these practices could be corrected or controlled by Federal supervision. The report suggests that the commission be formed by the appointment by the President of the various commissioners (number not designated) "with or without the approval" of the Senate, with the condition that it would be illegal for any commissioner to accept a position in the industry within a certain period after termination of his government service. Deputy commissions would be appointed for each exchange territory, with liaison committees composed of local film men to aid in preparing clearance and zoning schedules, settling complaints, etc. The political patronage involved in this set-up requires no diagram. Nor its potentials for regimenting and stereotyping the business of every exhibitor, as well, perhaps, as curbing, within limits, the present ruthless trade practices of the large producer-distributor-theatre-owning companies. Primarily, it is their greed and unwillingness to give the independent theatre a fair break at any time, as witness the scandalous disclosures of the St. Louis case and the tactics employed by the representatives of the big film companies in the recent hearings in Washington on the Neely-Pettengill bill, which is directly responsible for the recommendations in the Bertrand report. (Continued on page 10)