The Film Daily (1918)

Sunday, December 1, 1918 TdljA DAILY wholeheartedly, sincerely, conscientiously and exclusively, would enable me to far outrank and out-qualify the competitor who was handicapped, in his competition with me in that one work, by the problems and details of still another business, or another phase of the same business. Surely Mr. Zukor did not wish it to be understood that he refers to his own organization as an example of genuine specialization. It was. But today it is not, according to his own definition of that much-abused word. The first Famous Players' production and the early releases of the Lasky company are still bright spots in the memories of exhibitors. They were the products of specialization. The producers had no distributing interests. Their output was handled by independent exchanges, organized for that purpose, but devoid of any other identifying relationship with the manufacturers and each specializing in its chosen field — distribution. And exhibitors, in those days, could go to any exchange handling the releases of the Famous Players Company or the Lasky Company and book pictures under those brand name without a precluding service clause compelling them, as the chief condition to getting these two outputs, to contract for other and less profitable subjects handled by the same exchanges. Gradually these independent exchanges were bought by Paramount for cash and stock considerations and are now operated by Paramount under direct jurisdiction of the same executives at the home office of Famous Players-Lasky-Paramount Artcraft who divide their time, thoughts and energies between controlling the operation of these exchanges and generalization in the supervision I of the studios turning out the product these exchanges handle. I want to repeat the dictionary's definition of specialization : "An occupation or study limited to one particular line," as the prelude to a brief reiteration of statements made repeatedly, week after week, in our trade journal advertising setting forth the purpose, functions, limitations and ambitions of the First National Exhibitors' Circuit. We have tried to make them plain and understandable, but it is evident that I will have to check up our advertising department, and ask for greater clarity in construction. First National's policy is summed up in one word: Specialization. To wit: We have a contract with Charlie Chaplin for eight comedies. There are no conditions in that contract which permit us to interfere in the least with him as a producer. He is an independent manufacturer, owning and operating his own producing company and the studios in which it works. He can take any length of time he feels is essential to quality in his releases. He is free to choose his own stories. He is not harassed by telegrams and long-distance telephone calls, urging haste in the completion of a picture to make a certain release date. He is entirely independent of any one or any other concern of any character. His contract with us provides for distribution of his output and that, to Mr. Chaplin, is First National's only function and part in activities. An example of the specialization to which Mr. Chaplin is a convert: Evidence his latest comedy. Shoulder Arms," with a quality and entertainment value born of time, thought and uninterrupted attention to his own particular business — which won such acclaim from the public that Mr. Edel, of the Strand Theatre, New York, has continued it for a second week, an action without precedent for the Strand since the house played its first and opening attraction, "The Spoilers," for a similar length of time. This public tribute is the result of Mr. Chaplin's clear and unmistakable understanding and appreciation of the meaning of specialization, and its honest application in practice instead of verbose discussion on paper and in theory. Furthermore, First National has a specific responsibiU ity in the specialization of Chaplin comedies the same as to all other productions it distributes. Exhibitors can go to First National exchanges and book Chaplin come= dies or Anita Stewart Productions without contracting for "My Four Years in Germany," Madame Petrova's pictures, "Pershing's Crusaders," "Italy's Flaming Front," or any other production they control. That is specialization in distribution. The same conditions and relationship prevail between First National and any other manufacturer for whom it is distributing. And the same conditions and relationship will continue, unaltered, unchanged and with equal independence for thought, action, results and with equal opportunity for an honest specialization in any other contracts we are making or will make. Mr. Chaplin is doing better work, obtaining infinitely greater quality in his productions today than he ever did before, just because he is an independent, unhampered free agent as a producer. And he is properly entitled to any added benefits, financial or otherwise, which accrue from his farsighted policy. If his productions can earn more, not by increased rentals to exhibitors, but by extended runs — meaning more booking days — justified by greater public patronage resulting from increased quality — he should share in the added profits made possible by his faith in the superior results of specialization. Any other star can duplicate Mr. Chaplin's method for attaining quality with its consequent pecuniary advantages. But, apart from freedom in production, there must be no restraining conditions in the exchanges, no saddling down to one star's effort with productions featuring stars of lesser magnitude and uncertain drawing power, who are paid and maintained by a producingdistributingexhibiting organization not for exhibitor benefit, but on the dog-in-the-manger principle. How many of the real big stars are there on the pro= grams today whose productions exhibitors can book with the certainty of a profit on them individually without signing a contract for other releases which feature stars with no particular box=office value and which consume, in rentals, what he makes in profit on the big star? No exhibitor will object to a service contract giving him exhibition rights to a series featuring a star of known box-office value. But it is now an old and taken=for= granted trick to compel him to pay out his dollars for unprofitable pictures to get the big fellows just because a concern wants everything in sight and has to "make the strong Varry the weak" to stifle and offset a the= oretical competition. If exhibitors could get the big star productions without the unprofitable ones, he could afford to pay more for those of known value. And the stars of known value would enjoy a corresponding increase in income. And more exhibitors, who cannot afford the premium demanded in rentals on "forced" productions, would book the big star features on an independent and individual basis, thereby swelling materially the gross income from each big star production, making possible the payment of a greater sum to the known-value stars than is possible under the restraining conditions which exist on some programs. Mr. Zukor asks, anent a certain star whose identity I do not presume to hazard a guess : "She has a contract which eventually expires. The producer cannot ignore his investment in that star, his efforts of years, his associates and their interests, he is compelled to offer still more for the contract wrhich he could have obtained without a counter-offer for far less." This counter-offer, he declares, is made by a group of exhibitors joined on a co-operative basis. But he does not characterize them, in this particular reference, as exhibitor-producers. He (Continued on Page 31)