Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1961)

Viewpoints AUGUST 7. 1961 I VOLUME 29. NO. 16 A7©/ i\a! Novins An ancient maneuver on the battlefield or in industry is di\ ide-and-conquer. This stratagem is being employed by the pay-TV forces in an effort to drive a wedge in exhibition's solid front against feevee. In the glow of toll-TV's initial victory in Little Rock — and probably in anticipation of further legal efforts by exhibitors to block final approval — Louis A. Novins, president of International Telemeter, threw this handful of dust in the eyes of the nation's small theatremen: "It is time that average exhibitors woke up and stopped being suckers for the 'big boys' with television and other interests. What sense is there in joining forces with free television which gives away the product exhibitors have to sell? When pay-TV gets going in the United States, you can be sure that the major circuits will be among the first to hop on the bandwagon. Some of those who have been contributing to anti-pay-TV committees are already talking deals with us." This transparent bit of trickery isn't going to fool anyone. Of course, the "big boys" are keeping their eyes on every move the feevee promoters make; simple business sense requires such diligence, considering what an awesome threat the pay system poses against theatre interests. For their part, the "average exhibitors ", to whom Mr. Novins directs his rather plaintive pitch, are keenly aware of the destructive impact pay-TV will have on their business, /'/ and when it ever becomes a real factor. It's hard to imagine what the head of Paramount's feevee branch thinks he might accomplish by trying to double-talk any exhibitors into becoming bedfellows of the tollsters. No, No, Mr. Novins; you're barking up the wrong tree. Victory in Pen n stjtvun iu There never was any doubt in legal minds, or among those who witnessed how the measure was whipped through the legislature in a frenzy of haste, that the Pennsylvania Motion Picture Control Act of 1959 would be struck down by the courts. The State Supreme Court's judgment that the law is unconstitutional is a victory for common sense and for freedom of expression, not alone for the motion picture, but for other media of communication as well. Passed almost two years ago, but never put into effect, thanks to the prompt appeal by the Pennsylvania Association of Amusement Industries, headed by William Goldman, and by the film companies, the Act was as illogical and poorly conceived a piece of legislation as ever found its way on to a state's statute books. It was doomed for a number of reasons, among them: It permitted precensorship by restraining the first showing of a film for 48 hours upon notice from a review board. Three persons chosen by the governor would hav e had the power to judge and condemn films as obscene; since the exhibitor showing the picture would have been subject to criminal prosecu BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published 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; Berne Schneyer, Publication Manager; Max Garelick, Business Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 550 Fifth Avenue. New York 36, N. Y., Circle 5-0124; Ernest Shapiro. N.Y. Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, S3. 00 in the U. S.; Canada. $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS. $5.00 in the U. S.; Canada, Europe. $9.00. tion, this vital function should have been handled by a jury. The only qualification for membership on the review board was residency in Pennsylvania, no mention being made of education or special training. The Act said obscenity should be considered in light of contemporary community standards, thus requiring ruling on a broad standard for the entire state. These defects in the Act were decisively pointed out in the State Supreme Court decision (see Highlights, Page 15), but even more important from the standpoint of the broad issue of censorship were these statements by the Court: "No matter how laudably inspired or highly conceived a sumptuary statute may be, if its restrictions impingt upon the freedoms of the individual thus constitutionally guaranteed, it cannot stand. The harm to our free institutions, which the enforcement of such a statute would entail, would be of far greater portent than the evil it was designed to eradicate." And— "The Act is clearly invalid on its face. It is designed to effect * * * a pre-censorship of the exercise of the individual's right freely to communicate thoughts and opinions." It is in the reiteration of these basic principles that the Pennsylvania decision assumes such far-reaching significance. #*# •© ft ifju t *> iPriv€>-ins In these parlous product times, when many exhibitors are scratching for something to put on their screens, one group of theatremen are practicing profligacy as if tomorrow — and the day after — were filled with a cornucopia of (Continued on Page 12) Film BULLETIN August 7, 1961 Page 7