Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

TDA-ALLIED CDMPACT 'From Abuse to Scurrility'' (Continued from Page 11) contained in a film contract, including rentals and sales policies, is desirable and is what a majority of the exhibitors want. Accordingly the leaders agreed to poll their respective boards on a proposal to jointly present their views as above set forth to the Department of Justice and the Senate Select Committee on Small Business. The poll was conducted by telephone. Both boards having approved, Allied and TOA leaders presented their views to the Department of Justice on January 24. They acted with such promptness because it then appeared that the Small Business Committee hearings would start on February 2. It was not expected that the Department would be in a position to give answers at that time. The Department's representative appeared to think well of the proposal to unlease the circuits to enable them to relieve the product shortage. He did not react so favorably to the suggestion that the Department recommend to the film companies and the Smail Business Committee that film rentals be included in the arbitration plan. Both questions were taken under advisement and Allied and TOA will be notified when the Department is ready to talk. Do The Distributors Really Want to Arbitrate? There is honest doubt in the minds of some of the exhibitors who participated in the arbitration negotiations, as to whether the film companies really want an arbitration system. During the negotiations the distributor representatives always sought to make it appear that it was the exhibitors who were pushing for arbitration and that it was pretty magnificent of the distributors to condescend to meet with them.* They took Allied's withdrawal from the negotiations very calmly and it was not until the Senate Small Business Committee began hearings the following year that they clutched the Keough-Schimel draft to their bosoms and declared their undying love for it. The motive behind the switch was so transparent that it is amazing anyone was fooled by it. They wanted to smear Allied and, especially its General Counsel, for daring to testify before that Committee. Their professed devotion to arbitration before Senator Schoeppel's Subcommittee was a little ludicrous to those who were close to the situation. The Subcommittee's report recommending that a further attempt be made to agree on arbitration was issued August 3, 1953. Eric Johnston delayed until February 10, 1954 before calling for another go at it. He stipulated that negotiations should get under way within 60 days. Actually * This does not apply to If m. F. Hodgers who presided over the sessions in 1952 and tried to do a constructive joh. I hope Hill uill some day reveal hil innermost thoughts concerning Austin Keough's contribution to the debacle that year. — A. F. M. it was much longer than that before a meeting was held and thereafter the conferees dawdled through 1954 and most of 1955. Late in 1955, with the hearings before the Humphrey Subcommittee in the offing, the distributors again became enamored of arbitration. Overnight it again became a "must". We do not know what happened among the conferees but our impression is the new draft was a forced draft; that its emergence from the conference room was precipitate, to say the least. The film companies no longer made any attempt to disguise their purpose. They wanted to clear their skirts before the Senate Small Business Committee by pointing out that they had done all they could to carry out the 1953 recommendation and that only Allied is to blame that no arbitration system has been set up. Then The Roof Fell In Our New York informants teil us they have never seen such fury as was displayed by the film executives when TOA released a statement saying it had withdrawn its support from the current draft and would work for a system that includes arbitration of film rentals and selling policies. According to Motion Picture Daily (1/25/56) distribution circles registered "bitter disappointment", calling TOA's action "shameful". "A few distribution officials roundly condemned TOA". But, the writer hastened to explain, All officials declined the use of their names . . . Having thus protected themselves against liability or even rejoinder these knightly gentlemen moved on from abuse to scurrility. One of them, referring to the points of agreement between Allied and TOA, described them as "a trade made in the market place of thieves." He went on to liken the present TOA-Allied pace to the Nazi-Russian non-aggression pact of 1939 . . . TOA, he added, has traded its honor for a mess of pottage. Not to be outdone by its contemporary, Film Daily also angled for anonymous statements among its advertisers and landed a sculpin (1 25 56) : One voice, that of a key distribution executive of a major company, was raised in denunciation of the action which he characterized as "a stinking deal" and "a cheap sellout". And this anonymous Chevalier Bayard spoke feelingly of honor : What a low level of honor when one organization seeks advantage at the expense of the whole industry. In view of the record, anyone who thinks that all this sound and fury represents grief over the setback to arbitration should have his head examined. The distributors are enraged merely because they cannot now run to the Page 14 Film BULLETIN February 4, 1954