Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1954)

GOVT REGULATION & FILM PRICES OK Arbitration, trith tt»s»r rat ions (Continued frcm Page 9) satisfy them. Even to most of those who gave it an aye vote, the scheme apparently seems half-baked. So, let us turn attention to the alternative proposal offered in our poll: O O QUESTION NO. 5 / Do □ Do .\ot Q hclieic an arbitration system for our industry should make film terms arbitrable. Do Do Not 62% 38% This result vi^ill prove surprising to many. Here we have a clear-cut majority — better than 3 of every 5 — voting to endorse the concept of an overall arbitration system — and more particularly — specific arbitration of film terms. This vote supports Allied's advocacy of an arbitration system that includes film rentals, or, as recently modified, film "policies". Inasmuch as the valid respondents to our poll consisted of a majority of non-Allied members, the count on this question can be regarded by Allied's leaders as representing a clear victory for their position throughout the exhibitor body. It is that, to a certain degree, but net as conclusively as the "do" and "do not" result, itself, would seem to indicate. Comments accompanying the poll forms did not categorically embrace arbitration of film pricing. Once again, as in the answers to Question 4, reservations abound. Many respondents who marked No. 5 "do" placed their emphasis upon a desire to see a general arbitration system worked out for the industry, expressing the hope that film terms might be arbitrable, but voicing a willingness to go along with arbitration sans that point. Many adopted a skeptical "show-me" attitude. Others said arbitration of film terms would be wonderful, but doubted that it could be made to work. The big question in almost every approving pollee's mind seemed to be about the mechanics of arbitrating film terms. Grass roots exhibitor Arthur B. Clarke, Grand Theatre, East Greenville, Pa., like many another respondent, favors film terms arbitrable, but asks: ". . . Would it be flexible enough for all situations, or would it blanket-classify pictures? If so — it's no good." This worry — creation of hard-and-fast classification slots without allowance for individual differences — it will be recalled, worried many in considering an intra-industry administration of film pricing. In fact, this grave concern lay beneath most of the doubts of exhibition concerning the use of any and all agencies of recourse, be they government, intra-industry councils, or boards of arbitration. Thomas E. O rr, president of DeKalb Amusement Co., Alabama, states the case for an arbitration method to fit the local situation : "As to whether I would favor arbitration of film rental prices would depend on the way the arbitration board and panels are set up. If it is to be set up and operated by the American Arbitration Society with appeals of local boards to New York, then I say no. It is to slow and the expense outweighs the advantages gained, if any. "If it is set up on the local level and an appeal board for each state composed of men with knowledge of the operations of the business and with limitations on cost to participants, then I would say yes, by all means." The chief difference between the 62% who favor arbitration and the 38% who do not is one of degree, rather than kind. Most of the former group consider this means of solution the most moderate and businesslike at hand; and if doubts exist, at least a great many are hopeful that a workable system may eventually evolve. The minority on this question, for the most part, seem to view arbitration of film rentals as impractical. Too many imponderables, they say. The president of one of the deep South's leading circuits, preferring anonymity, puts it this way: "We favor arbitration generally, but film terms are too variable to be subjected to arbitration. The arbitration board would be, in our opinion, swamped." A fair number of the "do nots" said flatly that the industry's historic method of settling film prices is still the best; that is, between the individual buyer and the seller. This thesis is bouyed up by the claim that today's price difficulties really stem not from film terms generally, but only from the big. upper-bracket pictures. If each and every film were to be arbitrable, say some seasoned theatremen, the entire motion picture industry would soon be bogged down in a morass of petitions, arguments and delays that would disrupt the entire distribution of films. Central States Theatres' Myron N. Blank feels that despite the need for reform, arbitrating film terms would stifle the production urge : "I might be an idealist but I believe that through proper organization in each exchange area something can be done to brin^ about a fair division of the box office revenue. Film terms can never be arbitrated. I know if I were to make a picture or create any product, I would not do so if I thought a disinterested party would be allowed to price the item." Several other respondents, although likewise nettled by the alleged abuses of distribution, cite this same argument. Free enterprise, they say, dictates a more natural function of the price mechanism. Mike Blank, however, is not without a suggestion as pertains to arbitration generally and to the solution of price disputes, as well: "Ultimately. I believe a system of arbitration will be set up in our industry to handle all problems except film rental. Tied with this, I believe there should be a Conciliation Board established which can handle film rental problems. This Board should consist of exhibitors only, but if distribution wanted representation I am sure there would P*<j« 2t Film BULLETIN Dtctmbtr 13, 1954