Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1952)

JVvmvs antl Opinion (Continued from Page 5) and local levels," Wolfson said. They will be a "source of additional manpower", lie added, to gather information and recommend a course of action on an industry-wide basis. Morton Thalhimer, of Richmond, Ya. is chairman of the committee. The Treasury's study indicated that any plan to reduce or eliminate the Federal levy on admissions would receive a "relatively low priority". They claim that the tax is on a "relatively non-essential service" and is spread over a wide ratine of income groups. The door left open, however, to the possibility that the Treasury might credit any state or local admission taxes on the Federal take. In effect, this would serve to place a 20 per cent ceiling on the admissions levy by all sources. The principal drawback in any such proposal would be the red tape involved in allocating the revenue from the tax. Goldman Pushes Attack On Advanced Admission Pics What may be the spearhead of a drive throughout the country by exhibitors against advanced admission price pictures has been launched by William Goldman. The fighting Philadelphia independent chain operator, who has won the industry's respect and admiration for his consistently successful bucking of the powers that be, led the way in taking the case against "capricious" labeling of "Road Shows" to the public. Goldman's technique was a two-edged master stroke of public relations for his theatres and a subtle dig at his major competition, the Warner circuit. It started with a paid ad urging moviegoers to see "With a Song In My Heart" at the competing Fox Theatre (not a Warner house), praising the house's policy of not raising admissions for the film. The ad brought an overwhelming response from the public and the press, with the Philadelphia Daily News acclaiming Goldman in a glowing editorial. Using the News editorial as a springboard, the circuit head struck deeper at the indiscriminate tagging of "Good Pictures" as "Road Shows", pointing out that movies have grown by "catering to the masses, at prices within the reach of the average citizen." The "recognizable Road Show" has its place in the theatre, the ad said, noting such pictures as "Quo Vadis" and "GWTW". "My point is that the public can recognize a Road Show in sight . . . and so can the conscientious theatre men. What I oppose is the capricious classification of 'Good Pictures' .is 'Road Shows', with a disappointed patron feeling he has been overcharged." Coincidentally, perhaps, Warner houses were playing such films as "The Greatest Show On Earth," "I Want You," md "Streetcar Named Desire," as well as "Quo Vadis", at lipped scales. Goldman told FILM BULLETIN that these were only the opening nuns in. his 24 personal battle against advanced admissions. He feels it is one of the principal deterrents to re-establishing the movie-going habit. "The public wants to come back to the movies," he said. "Quality pictures are doing business. Tint where a theatre labels a picture a Road Show and raises the admission, the house is tagged as an advanced-price theatre and the people stay away." He cited the inevitable drop in business at the theatre for the attraction following the uppedscale picture, regardless of the subsequent film's qualitj With all the outcry by exhibitors agai'ist advanced admissions, it may well be that Goldman's fight will start a snowball that could reach nationwide proportions. PARAMOUNT'S ZUKOR CB Hurts More Than TV Bidding Bigger Factor Than TV in B.O. Drop— Zukor Competitive bidding, normally the pet gripe of exhibitors, rated a bouquet of scallions from a top distributor, Paramount Pictures board chairman Adolph Zukor. The Paramount topper, on a visit to the studios, rated the bidding practice as well as high taxes and the inflated cost of living as more important factors than television in the decline of boxoffice grosses. ■ Since the theatreman doesn't know whether lie will play a picture until shortly before playdatc under the competitive bidding system, the opportunity for exploitation on a local level is seriously handicapped, Zukor felt. It' ;dso tough on the moviegoer shopping for his entertainment, he believes. After a film is publicized by the distributor and given the "want-lo-see" factor, the patron is Forced to search for the theatre playing the film, Zuko. said. M '>rc than offsetting higher wages, acording to the Paramount veteran, is the increased taxation and high, cost of living, which has made the public watch carefully every dollar spent. Supreme Court Brief Filed By Distribs In Milgram Case Fearful that the conspiracy findings in the Milgram drive-in case by the Federal District Court, upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, would put the distributors "at the mercy of the plaintiffs in the mass of litigation with which they are confronted," the film companies are taking the case to the Supreme Court. Principal points in the brief presented to the high court were: (1) The Appeals Court citation of the Paramount decision as evidence of the distributors' practice of "unlawful conduct", despite the complete dissimilarity in the case. (2) The findings of conspiracy purely on the basis of parallel action despite sound arguments by each of the distributors in refusing to license the drive-in first-run product. If such inference is drawn, then wherever any future parallelism occurs, the distributors would be forced actually to conspire prevent such similarity, lest they be faced with another suit. (3) If the Appeals Court decision is allowed to stand, other district courts in the Third Circuit must follow this finding. Judge Reconsiders 'Pinky' Case, OK's High Court Appeal The action taken by the Texas Court of I Criminal Appeals which eased the way for a I Supreme Court test of movie censorship, I modestly labeled a "surprise move" by the I Motion Picture Association, was seen as a \ sign of tlu> industry's growing prestige in judicial circles. Having refused to sign appeal papers in | the "Pinky" case brought by Texas theatre manager W. L. Gelling, through his attorney, Robert H. Park, of Beaumont, Texas, Judge H. N. Graves "reconsidered" and signed. P>ut only after the MPAA has announced its j backing of the appeal and assigned a member of its legal staff, Philip J. O'Brien, Jr., and Herbert Wechsler, professor of law at j Columbia University, to assist in the case. Gelling, manager of the Paramount Theatre in Marshall, was fined and jailed in 1950, ; when he defied a local censor board's order and showed "Pinky." His conviction was ' subsequently sustained by a County court j and later tv the Court of Criminal Appeals. | Judge Graves' signing of the appeal papers, j in effect, authorizes Gelling to appeal to the I high court. If the Supreme Court holds that | the case is within its jurisdiction, it will be 1 asked to strike down movie censorship as a violation of constitutional guarantees. The Teaxs Appeals Court based its ruling j mi the 37-year-old "Mutual Films" decision) which held movies to be in the same category as a "circus" or a "spectacle." The appeal jj calls upon the Supreme Court to reverse the ] I (Continued on Page 25) FILM BULLETIN