Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1950)

JXetvs ami Opinion (Continued from Preceding Page) Brown, assistant treasurer. Later this year, it was expected that Robert M. Weitman and Edward L. Hyman would be elected to vice-presidencies. Weitman will head the company's Southern theatres and Hyman will be in charge of the Northern division. The new circuit began operations January 1, 1950, with over 1100 theatres, about half of which are co-owned with other exhibition interests. It has until March, 1952 to dissolve these partnerships, at which time it expects to have between 500 and 600 wholly owned houses. GOV'T DEMANDS IN GRIFFITH CASE AMONG TOUGHEST YET The Government made its demands on divestiture proposals for the Griffith Amusement Co., southwestern theatre chain, and they were just as tough as those imposed on affiliated eorrnanies convicted of violation of the anti-trust laws. The comparatively light demands in the Schine case, which had led some to believe that the Justice Department was disposed to ease up on non affiliated circuits, was belied in the case of Griffith. Almost half of all Griffith holdings were asked to be put on the block in the Government's brief filed in Oklahoma City Federal District Court. The theatres proposed to be divested were those allegedly acquired by "abuse of circuit buying power" as well as those to be sold in order to open "closed" towns. In addition to divestiture, the Government asked for a number of rigid injunctions to forestall future rebuilding of the chain's power to restrain competition. It cited the opinion of the Supreme Court showing that the Sherman Act had been violated "by the misuse of their circuit buying power in obtaining films, (and) has resulted in no change in the inability of competitors to obtain pictures from major distributors." Injunctions were asked to prevent the defendants, Griffith Amusement Co., Griffith Consolidated Theatres, R. E. Griffith Theatres, Westex Theatres, and Theatre Enterprises, from: — Combining with another corporate defendant or any exhibitor in licensing pictures, or from booking for any other theatre than those in which corporate defendants have financial interest. — Making franchise agreements, formula deals or master agreements, or knowingly obtaining discriminatory terms. — Licensing films in competitive situations for a five-year period, except where the picture is offered on competitive bidding. Mutual ownership of stock, overlapping officers or directors, or any other means of influencing or controlling the activities of the other corporate defendants. The number of theatres to be divested approximated 90 divided between Griffith Consolidated and Theatre Enterprises, each of which was to give up some 45 houses. The recent sale of a large portion of its theatres to a group of former employes may have some bearing on the final divestiture judgment. The Government brief had been prepared before the sudden sale a few weeks earlier and did not take any such action into consideration. BINFORD BOWS TO COURT RULING, ENDS 'RACIAL' BANS Lloyd T. Binford, the Memphis movie censor whose shears and "not approved" stamp have earned him the undying animosity of the motion picture industry, finally met his nemesis in the Tennessee Supreme Court. It was ruled that Binford "had no authority to ban the motion picture 'Curley' because of the presence of Negro actors in the cast." Simultaneously, the UA-Hal Roach complaint questioning the Memphis Censor Board's right to bar the film was thrown out by the Supreme Court on the grounds that Roach and UA were not denied freedom of speech simply because they are not motion picture exhibitors. In addition, the producers were denied the privilege of acting as plaintiffs because they are not Tennessee corporations and therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of Tennessee law. The more significant purpose of using Binford's "Curley" ban as a test case of the authority of local censor boards was blocked by the tribunal's refusal to recognize the rights of Roach and UA to contest the censorship. Commenting on the court's decision, Binford stated that no more motion pictures would be banned in Memphis because of racial factors. The decision climaxed a two-year court fight against Binford and the powers of the Censor Board by UA and Roach, with the backing of the Motion Picture Association SCULLY REALIGNS SALES, NAME FELDMAN EASTERN HEAD Universal's shakeup of its executive personnel spread to the sales department. Coming on the heels of the realignment in the financial division, which saw the resignation of J. Cheever Cowdin, Charles D. Prutzman and Samuel Machnovitz, and the elevation to vice-presidencies of (Continued on Next Page) CHARLIE JONES' OPEN LETTER Charlie Jones is a small-town exhibitor, a "one-horse operator" as he calls himself. His Dawn Theatre in Elma, Iowa (900 population) services the entertainment needs of a rural community and Charlie likes his work. Every month he prints up and sends out about two thousand calendars to the surrounding area. On the back of the calendar he usually includes a personal message to his patrons. Charlie attended the recent National Allied meeting in Minneapolis. He heard Ned Depinet talk about public relations, how important is the exhibitor's role in maintaining the public's respect and admiration for movies as their principal entertainment medium. Charlie, who had been doing just that all along as a matter of course, exactly like hundreds of other small town exhibitors, was very much impressed When he got back home, instead of his usual little message, he sent out a sort of open letter to his neighbors, the first in a series, telling them about what's right with the movies. He intended to send a copy to Ned Depinet, just as a suggestion of one thing that can be done by a movieman who likes and respects his business, but felt that his modest effort wasn't of much value and neglected to mail it off. A few weeks later, RKO salesman Sol Yeager dropped in, read Charlie Jones' open letter, and suggested he send it to Ned Depinet. When the chairman of the Conference Committee received the calendar with the letter on the back, he was so impressed that he had it reproduced and sent to the press. Here are some excerpts from Charlie Jones' open letter to his "Dear Friends": "First, a word about your exhibitor. I am in love — twice. I am. in love with my family and I am in love with my business. I probably don't make the most money in this community, but I challenge any man who is happier in his work . . . "Probably there is no industry so much in the public eye in the press and radio. We get a lot of free ballyhoo for the consumption of fans, we get a lot of free bad publicity every time someone in the industry steps off the straight and narrow. We must take the bad with the good. But in no other industry are the actions of an individual used to condemn a whole industry. How many times I have heard that 'they ought to clean up that whole Hollywood gang.' Is the automobile, steel or railroad industry condemned because some mechanic or vice-president went off the straight and narrow? I don't defend the wayward individual, but believe me, the vast, predominate majority in this industry are good American citizens interested in making your life a little better through the best entertainment on earth . . . "Our industry has one hundred million critics each knowing how to make better pictures. We must please every nationality, community, race, creed, trade, craft and profession . . . Not all movies are hits any more than all books or plays a success. However, I can prove to you that more movies are successful than any other form of the arts. The charge that pictures have increased delinquency is no more valid than would be the outlawing of sulfa drugs because they produced harmful reactions in a few susceptible patients. Would you condemn sugar because it is bad for diabetics, or exercise because it might strain an ailing heart? . . . "Hollywood is not a den of glamorous iniquity. To you, Hollywood means movies. Hollywood is churches, homes, stores, movie houses, dull people, interesting people, families and schools doing an admittedly glamorous job of bringing you joys, relief, enlightenment and happiness for the modest price of your ticket . . . "Yes, I like my business. I'm serious about it and will be telling you more. It's more than just selling you a ticket. I firmly believe that not only are movies your best, but your cleanest, most enlightening, influential and cheapest entertainment. — Charlie Jones" 8 FILM BULLETIN