Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1938)

14 yHdepetutent exhibitors FILM BULLETIN MYERS TO KENT (Continued from page 4) "My associates and I have not been greatly concerned by the claims that the Neely Bill would disturb or destroy the price structure of the industry because it would entail pricing on the basis of groups less than the total block. It seems to us that most of the transformation has been already accomplished by the distributors in their own interest in comparatively recent years, because the contracts today provide for separate price groups less than the entire block. The main difference would be that the distributors would have to identify in a binding fashion the pictures offered and this, it now develops, is the main bone of contention. In this connection the practice under the Neely Bill would be more of a restoration than an innovation, although the distributors never supplied the detailed information required by the bill. It is curious that the socalled weaker companies, which you feel will suffer most under this bill, have done less blind selling than the stronger companies and have offered contract forms with the titles of the pictures and stars listed therein. "It is only natural that, being on opposite sides of the fence, we should differ regarding the proper interpretation of Section 4 of the Bill. You say that no one can write a synopsis of a picture months in advance that I, as a lawyer, can't attack afterwards as inaccurate. I say that if the distributor supplied a bona fide synopsis which contains no statements that are knowingly false, he is immune from prosecution. As to the large percentage of pictures based on books, plays, stories, etc., the problem should be comparatively simple. As to the originals, if planned in advance, the problem should be no different. A workable outline, made in good faith, and with particular attention paid to dialogue and scenes concerning vice, crime, etc., will fill the bill. Your statement, in another place, that the bill will require a foot-by-foot description seems to me to be all out of reason. The word "synopsis" may mean something different to you, but I have been seeing synopses at the beginning of continued stories in magazines for years and they did not seem overpowering. You are unmindful of the fact that, under the bill, the producers will have a whole year in which to accustom themselves to the new order. "Now I can not believe that you or the industry are seriously worried about the danger of going to jail or being fined for making knowingly false statements in the synopses to be furnished. However, you may be concerned about the provision which says that if the picture delivered is "substantially different" from the synopsis the exhibitor may cancel the lease as to such film. In no other business in the world can the seller deliver an article other than the one bargained for and require the buyer to accept it. But in the motion picture business the contracts and practices have been skillfully devised to permit of every kind of substitution imaginable. And since this reserved right of substitution fits in so admirably with the vicious system hereinabove mentioned, the distributors cherish it and have opposed any and all suggestions that it be modified or reformed. Whether the position of the distributors or that of the exhibitors in this matter is more selfish is an issue which I will gladly submit to any impartial tribunal. "But I can not escape feeling that you and your associates are unduly alarmed about the extent to which this privilege of cancellation will be used by the exhibitors. The running time in the theatres is not going to be curtailed and the exhibitors must have pictures. Is it possible that if, in shooting, there are departures from the synopsis made in good faith to improve the quality of the picture and such is the result, exhibitors will want to cancel it because of such departure? If they are going to exercise such privilege, assuming it to exist in any such case, where will they get the pictures with which to operate their theatres? Throughout the opposing arguments, yours and all others, I find no recognition of the basic fact that under the Neely Bill there will be as many playing days and hours as at the present time which must be supplied from the same sources — or at least until new distributing organizations enter the field. "You express doubt whether the bill will promote community freedom in the selection of motion picture entertainment. Possibly I might be warranted in saying that one on the distribution end does not have the same opportunity as one on the exhibition end to know about the clubs formed and being formed in all communities to take an interest in the motion picture entertainment offered. On second thought, you should know about this because many were organized, at least encouraged, by the M. P. P. D. A. Of course, the M. P. P. D. A. merely intended that they should be docile groups which would give free advertising and exploitation to the big pictures when they came along. But it was a short cut from this to active boycott of the bad pictures and the exhibitor, under compulsory block booking and blind selling, bore the full brunt of this. The Neely Bill is supported by educational, welfare, religious and civic groups with combined membership running into the millions and these actual and potential movie goers are not supporting the bill blindly. I will tell you very frankly that so far as I have been able to do so 1 have tried to point out to these groups that it is unfair to hold the exhibitors responsible for what they show and what they do not show when they in fact have no choice, and this has met with a sympathetic response from those groups. In supporting the Neely Bill they know what they want and will know what use to make of it when they get it, and spokesmen for the industry (not including yourself) who refer to them slightingly as "dupes" are doing the industry no good. "While this comes from the shoulder, there is not a grain of malice in it, and I assure you of my very high regard. "Sincerely yours, ABRAM F. MYERS." KENT TO MYERS (Continued from page 4) suggestive of sexual passion." You certainly know this as you claim to have helped draft the Bill, and once enacted it is applied by the courts as it is written, as you well know. "If you are honestly concerned with community selection of motion picture entertainment as a reason for supporting this Bill on the basis of public morals, why doesn't your law under the same criminal penalties require the exhibitor to publish this synopsis in the local newspaper so that the community can know just what the picture is before they pay admission to the theatre to see it? How does the community, so-called, know anything about the synopsis furnished the exhibitor under the Bill? "There are companies in this industry, however, who cannot afford to take the same position that I am taking with regard to individual selling, and I do not wish to inflict hardships upon producers now struggling to make both ends meet. The argument has been advanced that I should not oppose this Bill because it would probably throw more business our way. That argument is shortsighted. I don't want that kind of business or any business that comes as a result of legislation of this kind. "I have repeatedly pointed out that there is only one thing in this industry that is paramount, and that is good motion pictures. I have never pretended to be a producer, but I do sympathize with the man who has to make motion pictures as I think it is the toughest assignment we have in the industry and at many times the least appreciated. "Sincerely, S. R. KENT."