Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1955)

lewpoirits (Continued from Page 6) 3. In my opinion no voluntary outside control over film prices is possible, without Government supervision, which leads to — 4. — my opinion that Government control is fraught with too much hazard to be solicited. Certainly control of film prices would be coupled with control of admission prices. That might not be too bad in itself but the greatest risk is lowered quality of film, certain to follow any ceiiing on prices which in turn will make film financing most unattractive. Exhibitors generally are willing to pay for quality, while lack of quality will close us for good. The best film buy is the one which actually earns forty per cent at the boxoffice. The problem to be cured is paying forty per cent when the film earned only twenty per cent. Find the way to do this without Government intervention and we will all be happy. It is candid opinion that Congress looks with a dim eye on further controls over business except in cases of proven monopoly. Trueman Rembusch recently stated that we had to choose between asking Congress for a law on film pricing or asking Congress for further tax relief. I think we all agree that is so — but I say let's eliminate (or reduce) the admissions tax, which we almost accomplished save for a pocket veto. We have a chance to do this and no chance of the other approach being successful. PAT McGEE Cooper Foundation Theatres :.: * :;: I feel definitely that some means is required to correct present inequities in film pricing. I would be very happy if a solution could be found for our problem between exhibition and distribution without any outside control. However, we have attempted to solve this problem within the industry for many years without success. I feel that government control should not be asked until every other means is exhausted. Some thing must be done and if it cannot be accomplished in any other way than by government control this step may be necessary. We have always tried to operate on a "live and let live" policy. We believe the distributor is entitled to high film rentals for features that bring in high grosses. But, when we say "high film rentals" we mean film rentals that still allow a fair profit for the exhibitor with a large investment in his theatre. In my opinion, selling cn a graduating scale is fair for both sides. It gives the distributor a chance to earn top money, but it still provides a fair profit for the exhibitor no matter what the film rental should be. We must make our profit, if there is to be a profit, on the better pictures. The exhibitor has no right to be greedy, but he does have a right to a fair profit which in many cases is practically impossible because of extremely high film terms. For many years both exhibition and distribution showed adequate profits. There is no reason why this should not be true today and it would be true if distribution would figure terms which will give the theatreman a chance to make the profit to which he is entitled, MARC J. WOLF, General Manager Y & W Management Corp. ■f * I will attempt to give you my personal opinion and feeling with reference to your questions. I mention the word personal because this is not an official feeling of my organization. I am new talking as an individual exhibitor. No. 1. I feel that some means is definitely needed to correct the present day inequities in film prices. We can leave out the word — alleged — because the so-called alleged inequities are a definite existing condition. I have been buying film since 1928 and I think I can speak with a little experience. No. 2. Having been admitted to the Louisiana State Bar Association and having practiced law, I cannot conscientiously be against conciliation or arbitration because my creed has always been that a fair compromise is better than a good law suit, however, my experience in conciliating and arbitrating with film companies is like a shot of morphine, which gives temporary relief until the disease comes back to make its attack again. I might add here that pictures are being sold today, not for what they are worth, not to give the exhibitor a fair chance to make a few bucks, but strictly to see how much "the kid will go for". No. 3. Frankly, and this might seem siily to you, I favor any kind of outside control over film prices. No. 4. Under the present day feeling of the distributor for the exhibitor, that is, the utter disregard of the welfare of the exhibitor by the sellers of motion picture film, I think that government control is the only thing that will save exhibition and that goes for the big boys too. I might add that my answers to your queries are a sincere feeling based on my many years in the industry and a pretty fair overall knowledge of what is happening to the exhibitors in my territory. ABE BERENSON All'.ed Theatre Owners of the Gulf States How I stand on the question of Federal legislation to control film prices? May I say at the outset that I am unalterably opposed to any such activity and will do everything I can in opposition to it. This feeling on my part is predicated not only upon my ownership of certain motion picture theatres but even more strongly upon the fact that for more than thirty years I have been an attorney whose practice has been confined almost exclusively to representation of motion picture exhibitors. It is my opinion that the activity cf militant groups of exhibitors has done the greatest possible harm to the exhibition business, and in making this statement, I refer, among ether things, to the elimination of the standard form of contract, to the outlawing cf the film boards of trade, to the campaigns against "block booking" and ulti ( Continued on Page 12) Film BULLETIN September 19, 1955 Page 9