Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1954)

Ftill Text oi Correspondence Between the Justice Department And the Small BtMsiness Committee PRE-RELEASES &) PRICE-CONTROL ter months of investigating motion picture trade practices last year, the Senate Small Business Committee issued a report on its findings. Among its recommendations was one urging the Department of Justice to keep an eye open for violations of the antitrust decrees entered against the major film companies, particularly with regard to prerelease and price-fixing practices. Some interesting correspondence has passed between Senator Andrew F. Schoeppel, chairman of the Committee, and Assis tant Attorney General Stanley N. Barnes, in which the latter set forth the Justice Department's views on enforcement of the decrees. While A. F. Myers, general counsel of Allied States Association, has said that Mr. Barnes' letter "does nothing to dissipate the fog that is slowly enveloping Washington", we believe industryites will find the statements of Messrs. Schoeppel and Barnes of interest. Below are reproduced the full text of both letters and a statement by Mr. Schoeppel. — Editor's Note Senator Schoppel's letter dated last Nov. 3, to Assistant Attorney General Barnes: "On August 3, 1953, the Senate Small I'.nsincss Committee issued its report on the Problems of the Independent Motion Picture Exhibitors. in the re|)ort two important recommendations outlined the means by whicii economic conditions in tlic motion picture industry coidd be greatly improved and then maintained. I'"irst, the Committee suggested that a voluntary system of arbitration be devised for adoption by the industry. Second, the Committee urged 'a more forceful and more vigilant policy on the part of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in assuring compliance with the decrees resulting from the extensive litigation against the major motion picture companies.' "At this time, the Monopoly SuI)Conimittcc which conducted the motion picture hearings, believes that the public interest requires that a study be made of the manner in which the Committee recommendations have been followed by the interested parties. Accordingly, the Subcommittee is observing closely the efforts which are being made by exhibitors and distributors to formulate a satisfactory arbitration system. Further, the Subcommittee deems it appropriate to request the Antitrust Division to submit a report describing its progress towards assuring compliance with the consent judgments. "Among the questions which the Subcommittee believes should be treated in the Antitrust Division's report are these: "1. What disposition h.as been made of the Reuben Shor case? "2. What conclusions has the Division reached in respect to the pre-release practice? Is price-fixing involved in the pre-release practice? "3. Does the Division consider it advisable to petition for amendment of the consent judgments ? "4. How many complaints have been received frf)m exhibitors since July 19.S3? What percentage is this of Division's workload? ".r What is the number of personnel currently assigned to motion-picture matter' "6. Does the Division now contemplate using Sec. 6(c) of the FTC" Act in order to enforce compliance with the consent judgments? "7. Has the Division ordered a review of the complete transcript of the motion-picture hearings? If so, have any violations of the judgments been noted? "Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter." Mr. Barnes reply to Sen. Schoeppel, dated Nov. 17: My dear Senator Schoeppel: This is in further reply to your letter of November 2. 1953 concerning the Antitrust Division's enforcement of the judgments entered in the case entitled United States v. Paramount Pictures Inc., et al. \nu have asked what disposition has been made of the Ruben Shor case. As was indicated in the Division's statement sent to you on June 17, 1953, as soon as we had seen the trade press accounts of the exchange of telegrams between Walt Disney Productions and Mr. Shor relating to the admission prices being charged by Mr. Shor for I'etcr Pan at two of his theatres in Cincinnati, we promptly wrote to RK(/) concerning this matter. RKO advised us that the telegram to Mr. Shor was sent by Walt Disney Pioductions without the knowledge or consent of RKO. We were also advised that on receipt of our letter RKO made inquiry to the Disney organization about the telegram and was advised that no further action had been taken by Walt Disnej Productions with respect to the matter. Mr. Shor testified before your Committee that "The one week's run of Peter Pan in my theatres was completed without hearing further from cither RKO or Walt Disney Productions." RKO also advised us that because of this incident and because of a statement made by Samuel Goldwyn concerning admission prices to be charged for Hans Christian Andersen, a picture which Mr. Goldwyn produced and RKO distributed, about which we also had written RKO, and because of certain testimony before your Committee which RKO felt indicated that misunderstandings existed concerning their selling policies, it was making a review and study of the entire subject in which counsel for Samuel Goldwyn and Walt Disney Productions were participating. Shortly thereafter RKO advised us that they had issued new instructions to their sales organization which again emphasized that there were to be na agreements or understandings with exhibitors with respect to admission prices. (Continued on Page 16) FILM BULLETIN January 25, 1954 Page 15