Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

lewpoints DECEMBER 10, 1956 * vninuc v Kin ->c VOLUME 24, NO. 25 Distribution \ Oppartun ity The most significant development at the National Allied convention in Dallas was prevalence of the outstretched hand over the mailed fist. Traditionally the tartar in the motion picture industry, the independent theatres organization adopted a singularly conciliatory and constructive tone throughout the brisk proceedings. Notably absent was the long string of condemnatory resolutions and cocking of legal guns. The accent was apparent in the conclusion to keynoter Roy L. Kalver's address: "If we are to survive and to succeed, old differences must be resolved, old antagonisms eradicated. There must be created a true tolerence and sympathetic understanding for each other's problems so eventually a peaceful coexistence will prevail." In its endorsement of an industry arbitration system without film rentals, in its willingness to explore reconciliation with COMPO, in its reaffirmation of cooperation with TOA in matters of common interest, in its praise of the Motion Picture Association's "vigorous attack on the boxoffice depression" — in all these stands and others, the Allied leadership and the convention delegates clearly manifested a desire for a program of pacification, negotiation and cooperation. This is not to say that it was a soft-palmed, unctious convention. The old Allied militancy, determination and criticism of practices injurious to the small exhibitor were very much in evidence — and it could hardly be otherwise with men like Myers, Shor, Berger, Kirsch et al. But through it all shone the hard light of realism, of recognition that compromise is not a shameful thing but rather a realistic approach to the solution of the issues that have thrown theatremen and film men into the most serious conflict during the past few years. Much of the credit for the organization's cooperation position must go to president Rube Shor, whose persistent efforts to effect a top-level conference with distribution keyed the convention's decisions, and to general counsel A. F. Myers, who led in the formulation of the new program. Undoubtedly it took a lot of selling to some of the die-hard fighters in the ranks, men who firmly believe that concessions for the small exhibitors can only be won in the halls of Congress or the courts of law. They will be watching closely distribution's reaction to their organization's new look. The extended hand is a new posture for Allied, and one that calls for a stand in kind by the distributors. In one fell swoop, the Dallas convention cleared virtually every road-block that previously existed on exhibition's side to the path to industry harmony. Opportunity is pounding away at the door of distribution. The organized theatremen of the country are asking the chief executives of the film companies sit down with them to pet at the core of the issues that make for discord. It is a golden opportunity to win tranquility for our industry. It may be an irretrievable opportunity. What will distribution's answer be? Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paoer oublished every other Monday by Wax Publications Inc. Mo Wax. Editor and Publisher PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward. Associate Editor Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor: Duncan G. Steck, Business Manager; Marvin Schiller, Publication Manaaer; RoDert Heath. Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 522 Fifth Avenue. New York 36 N Y.. MUrray Hill 2-3631; Alt Dinhofer, Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, S3. 00 in the U. S.; Canada, $4.00; Eurooe. S5.00. TWO YEARS: S5.00 in the U. S.; Canada. S7.S0; Eurooe. S9.00. Sit j ih v Un ions The Hollywood A. F. L. Film Council has announced a nationwide campaign to "inform the American public that a number of motion pictures being produced abroad by American interests or with American financing are employing Communist union members in preference to members of anti-Communist unions." Analyzing this action, N.Y. Times Hollywood editor Thomas M. Pryor sees it as a campaign to force producers to cut down overseas filming and questions the wisdom of this "broadside attack" on the grounds that it tends to blanket the entire industry with suspicion. Certainly, a shotgun blast of this type is reprehensible, even if there are instances such as alleged in the Council's pronouncement. This is a serious charge, one that should be couched in specific language and documented with facts. No one can deny the Council's right and obligation to seek greater employment for its members, especially where statistics indicate a steady decline in domestic studio employment. However, forcing tactics of this kind are dangerous both to the industry and to those employed within it. If, because of changing circumstances, overseas filming is going to permit a producer to make a profit prohibited by domestic costs, then it is plain good business for the producer to use foreign facilities. These are economic facts of life the Hollywood unions must face. If some American producers are showing preferential treatment to Communist workers overseas, the council should name names and cite facts. But, it is unwise to resort to desperation smear strategies that can only boomerang in the long run ajainst their very own members. Film BULLETIN December 10, 1956 Page 5