Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1945)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

We Can't Quit Now! Let's Finish The Job! VICTORY LOAN DRIVE OCTOBER 29 DECEMBER 8 Vol. 13, No. 20 OCTOBER A LAST CHANCE In the trial brief, the text of which starts on Paga 7 of this issue, the Department of Justice takes the unequivocal stand that the issue of monopoly in the motion picture industry can be resolved only by divorcement of exhibition from production and distribution. A reading of this comprehensive document leaves one with the distinct conviction that the Government has built a most formidable case against the defendants — one which their battery of talented and expensive counsel might find more than even they can cope with. It is a damning indictment of the manner in which the Big Five interlocked their operations to control the most desirable exhibition fields. Film Bulletin has had its say from time to time about the high-handed, arrogant attitude of the film lawyers toward the other elements in the industry and in their handling of litigation. Representing firms of immense financial stature (from which they receive fabulous fees), their conduct in cases involving the United States of America has sometimes seemed to verge on the borders of insolence and disrespect for the attorneys for the Government. An observer at some of the proceedings often was struck by the impression that the film lawyers believed they could "beat" any case against their clients. And, we might add, they have enjoyed noteworthy success to date. In all their previous negotiations with organized exhibitor groups and with the Government, they have been particularly adept at splitting legal phrases wide enough for their clients to ride roughshod through to their objectives. That's why the first decree was a bust. That's why the Department of Justice today is skeptical of any offers of compromise. It may well be, as a matter of fact, that the Government will not heed even a bona fide proffer from the defendants, but that is only a surmise. But the wheels of democratic government turn slowly. If has taken years to assemble the mass of evidence required to document the suit and what is con tained in the trial brief and in the accompanying appendices (three thick books of them) is but a sample of the effort that has been applied to this case by the Department of Justice. Now the die has been cast for complete divestiture of theatres owned by the film companies and on October 8th in U. S. District Court of New York, the Government will start pouring the evidence into the mold. When that is done, there will be no altering its form. Despite its readiness to try the case, the Department of Justice repeatedly has made it clear to the defendants that the Government is always willing to hear any reasonable offer of settlement. There have been several meetings between heads of the film companies, their lawyers and Attorney General Clark. To date, however, there is no word that the film people have proffered a compromise which the Government could accept or even consider without abusing the law, the interests of the public and the independent elements within our industry. What do the film companies intend to do then, to hold fast? Have the executives been convinced by their counsel that there is still a chance to stall and win a "soft peace"? The defendants are rich — richer than ever before — and powerful today, but the zenith is not only the peak of an incline, it is also the starting point of a decline. There must be some alert minds in the ranks of the film leaders which will rebel at the song that their bank accounts make them invulnerable. The "man with the whiskers" is a pretty tough fellow when aroused, and he has gone too far in this movie matter to let the opposition off with a slap on the wrist. So much for the Government's position. Where are the independent exhibitors situated in this conflict? It is our opinion that we speak the mind of the vast majority of them when we repeat the statement made (Continued on Next Page) teW."lltotl "J v'T^'lI, "t""/^ Tr»" "«««» * ■■Mill. ClIH. * W«l. UUm .n< Milt* BUSINESS OFFICE: 509 RKO BtlMla* Bartty Stria. PialleitlM Naaattr 6-2051: San Sa Unit* Stit« Caatta. $7.50: Evtf*.