Harrison's Reports (1951)

12 HARRISON’S REPORTS January 20, 1951 itself, including TOA, readily scuttled the TOA plan when Allied, on the following day, presented one that was more equitable and workable. The compromise proposal authored by Allied seems to be a good one, for the enlarged board of directors will serve to give representation to each of the exhibitor units that will support COMPO, thus satisfying in part the TOA demand that each of its constituent units be given an opportunity to participate in the formulation of programs designed to benefit the industry's public relations. As to the new policy-making executive committee, which serves to extend the power of the veto to 31 individuals as compared with the present 10, there is a definite risk mvolved in that the abuse of the veto by only one committee member will be enough to stymie COMPO s progress, but m view of the fact that the interests of those on the executive committee will be diverse, and that some method is required to forestall any attempt by one group to impose its rule on another group, the veto power, as pointed out by Chester B. Bahn, editor of the Film Daily, becomes a necessary evil, and we can only hope that it will be exercised with extreme caution and infrequently. The industry can take heart in the fact that intelligent leadership has kept COMPO alive in the interests of unity. It is to be hoped that the attitude of conciliation and compromise displayed at the allimportant meeting last week will prevail in the future deliberations of COMPO, for only then will we be able to make progress on the long delayed public relations program that is so urgently needed at this time. A LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE Trueman Rembusch, president of the National Allied, has made public the following letter dated December 28, 1950, sent to him by John R. Steelman, assistant to President Truman: “Dear Mr. Rembusch: “The Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation has produced a picture entitled, ‘Why Korea?’ The purpose of the picture is to inform the general public as to why it is necessary for the United Nations to oppose aggressors and specifically why it became necessary for the United Nations to oppose aggression in Korea. “We have been assured by the producers of this picture there is no desire to make any profit whatsoever on it but that it will be distributed at cost as a public service. The picture has been seen by the President and other high officials and all have expressed the hope that the greatest possible number of people see it. “In behalf of our Government, I urge you to show ‘Why Korea?’ in your theatres and to urge others to do the same. It is important that the public see this picture as quickly as possible. You can render a great service to your country by cooperating in this activity. “Sincerely, “John R. Steelman” (Ed. T^ote: “Why Korea?” is an effective iO'minute documentary film, made up of newsreel clips and documentary footage that draws a parallel between current events and the aggressive tactics that led to World War II. Battle scenes in Korea and shots of UN meetings are highlighted.) A DESERVED BOOST North Central Allied, one of the most militant exhibitor organizations in the country, is noted for its unequivocal blasts against the film companies for their sales policies. Consequently, it comes as a pleasant surprise to find in one of the usually bellicose organization bulletins put out by Stanley D. Kane, executive counsel of the association, a kind word for Monogram. This is what Mr. Kane had to say in a bulletin dated January 9: “This writer studiously tries to keep this bulletin from serving as an advertising medium for any film company, but we do think that Monogram Week, February 11-17, deserves a boost. During this week, Monogram is trying to get a Monogram release on every screen in America. This will be impossible, of course, in many situations, with the usual run of Monogram product. However, the good old OUR GANG comedies are being re-issued under the trade name of LITTLE RASCALS. They have played every big and little theatre in the country. If any exhibitor cannot cooperate by playing a feature during Monogram Week, one of the LITTLE RASCALS series will help make the week a success. Monogram has had its share of tribulations during the past few years, and the company does need the support of independent exhibitors, and in helping Monogram, the exhibitor helps himself, because the continued existence of these independent companies is the only way to maintain, let alone increase, the supply of motion pictures.” Harrison’s Reports is happy to join North Central Allied in urging the exhibitors to play a Monogram picture during Monogram Week. This paper has always been in sympathy with the efforts of the smaller companies to better their positions, and it has always urged independent exhibition to support them because their continued existence not only assures a greater supply of motion pictures but also serves as a competitive threat to the major companies. And such a threat is healthy, for it keeps the major companies on their toes. UNFAIR CHECKING In a recent bulletin of the Independent Theatre Owners of Ohio, Pete J. Wood, secretary of the organization, has reproduced the following letter from a member, under the above heading: “During the many years that I have been in this business, it has been the practice of the film companies to ‘short-check’ engagements — by that I mean, picking specific days, generally Saturdays or Sundays, and then not showing up for the remainder of the engagement. RKO in checking Disney pictures have been very guilty of this practice. It is a known fact that Disney pictures for a small town and suburban theatres are only good for weekend patronage. The checkers show up on Sunday and then do not show up thereafter. Locally, where a Disney picture opens up on a Wednesday or Thursday and is to play through Saturday, the checker won’t show up until Saturday. Comparing figures on the entire engagement, it appears, naturally, that the exhibitor is a first class thief for the week days. I steadfastly refuse to allow checking of any engagement unless it is checked in its entirety.”