Harrison's Reports (1951)

36 HARRISON’S REPORTS March 3, 1951 divorced from their theatres and for the divestiture of so many theatres by the segregated circuits as may be necessary to restore lawful competitive conditions in the motion picture industry. You may recall that at the Minneapolis National Convention I offered those companies some gratuitous advice, adding, however, that I did not expect it would be heeded. I suggested that the Supreme Court might be fed up on cases involving the motion picture business and that by seeking another appeal they might find themselves in a worse position than they were then in.2 Nevertheless, they filed their appeal papers toward the end of the term and applied for a stay of the lower court's decree, which was denied. Then on the first decision day of the present term, October 9, 1950, the Court entered an order affirming that decree. “While the Supreme Court added nothing to the statutory Court's decree and the 'hold-outs’ were not penalized, they nevertheless were subjected to an extraordinary and humiliating action. The action of the Supreme Court, you will note was not merely to dismiss the appeal, but to affirm the judgment of the lower court. Never before, so far as I am aware, has any anti-trust case in which an appeal is provided as a matter of right, has the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment without granting the parties a hearing. Thus the Supreme Court wrote 'postiively' at the end of the divorcement decree. “You will recall from my annual report for 1948 that RKO and Paramount consented to decrees of divorcement and divestiture following the Supreme Court’s first decision and before the statutory Court, on mandate, had decreed total divorcement. The wheels of justice have been grinding slowly but inexorably and the Court's objectives in those decrees are in sight. Evidence of the effectiveness of the divorcement in the Paramount Case is mounting and strikin gexamples have recently come to our attention. To say that RKO has been dragging its feet is to state the case mildly but the Government appears to be alive to the situation and there is reason to expect that the dissolution processes will be hastened. Even RKO's friends among the exhibitors are looking forward to the day when, under the stimulus of free and open competition, this company will get down to the serious business of producing boxoffice pictures. It has been a source of regret to those of us who remember the fanfare which accompanied its formation that it has never lived up to its advance billing. “Recently, and on January 4, 1951 a consent judgment was entered against the Warner defendants which, in regard to divorcement follows the pattern of the Paramount decree. In the matter of divestiture, however, there is an interesting innovation. The former scheme of requiring a defendant to sell certain theatres in order to break up local monopolies has not always been satisfactory in practice. With receipts at a low ebb the value of such properties is depressed and to force a sale sometimes means a considerable loss. This results in applications for delay which the courts often feel are meritorious. Moreover, it is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the local independent exhibitor who is not able to purchase the theatre for himself. It merely means the injection into the situation of another — possibly a meaner — competitor. “A main purpose of litigation, and certainly the policy of Allied is to aid and strengthen the existing independent exhibitors — those who have struggled so long for a place in the sun. In the Warner decree outright divestiture is required in many cases but in places where there is an independent theatre capable of operating on the same run as the Warner Theatre, divestiture is contingent upon the development of such competition within a year and its continuance for five years. A typical example of this 'sword of Damocles' provision is that relation to Appleton, Wisconsin, which provides that Warner Bros, (or its successors) shall dispose of — One theatre if by the end of one year from the date of this judgment an independent3 theatre is not regularly playing first run, or if thereafter (during a period of five years from the date of this judgment) for the greater part of any year an independent theatre is not regularly playing first run.4 “This ingenious device casts upon Warner Bros, (or the segregated Warner Circuit) the burden of seeing to it that the independent exhibitor has enough Big Eight product with which to operate on first-run or else suffer the loss of one of its own theatres. “The trade practice provisions of the final decree of February 8, 1950 and of the several consent decrees are identical and these have been dealt with in prior bulletins and reports. The exhibitors manual based on these provisions, which Allied announced would be issued, has been delayed pending clarification of certain of those provisions. Progress in such clarification was made in the decisions in the Windsor Theatre and Milgram Cases as reported in an Allied bulletin dated December 28, 1950. Still outstanding is the serious question which has arisen with respect to the legal status of competitive bidding. Allied now has pending before the distributing companies and the Department of Justice a proposal worked out by the General Counsel and his Advisory Committee, all as set forth in a bulletin dated No* vember 29, 1950. Information relating to the alleged forcing of pictures in violation of the decree has been received from several sources but action on it is being withheld for the time being to see if the distributors, following the giveand-take discussion at the Pittsburgh Convention will take the necessary action to end the practice. "It now seems safe to predict that Allied will be able to produce for its members a comprehensive manual bearing on all phases of the new order in the motion picture industry during the next six months. . 3 I cited the case of the convicted murderer who was sentenced to life imprisonment and then appealed and obtained a reversal of his conviction. Un the second trial he was again convicted and sentenced to be hanged and this sentence was upheld. * I.e., not affiliated with any of the defendants in the case. I.e., first run of the eight distributor defendants.” (To be continued in next issue) “Fourteen Hours” with Richard Basehart, Paul Douglas and Barbara Bel Geddes (20th Century-Fox, May; time, 92 min.) A real thriller that should keep movie-goers on the edge of their seats from start to finish. Centering around a mentally unbalanced young man who spends fourteen hours on the narrow 15 th floor ledge of a New York hotel and threatens to jump, the tension hits peaks of almost unbearable intensity as he sways precariously on his high perch and defies all attempts to talk him out of his suicide plan. Photographed against an actual New York background, the action is strikingly real, and throughout one tingles with suspense and excitement as the camera shifts from the would-be suicide to the reactions of the different characters in the gasping crowds below, and to the feverish efforts of the police emergency squad to set up a safety net while a smooth-talking policeman, played superbly by Paul Douglas, tries to dissuade the boy from jumping. Briefly, the story has Richard Basehart stepping out on the ledge early on St. Patrick’s Day. Douglas, on duty near the hotel, quickly notifies his station house and rushes up to the hotel room, where he hears Basehart threatening to jump if the police come near him. By talking to him casually, Douglas wins Basehart’s confidence and keeps him quiet, but the young man resists all efforts to lure him back into the hotel room. The arrival of the emergency squad, headed by Howard da Silva, a brusque but efficient lieutenant, upsets Basehart and he renews his threat to jump, but he calms down when Douglas, on the advice of two psychiatrists, resumes talking to him. By chatting with Basehart on every conceivable subject, Douglas keeps his mind off his determination to jump and in the process obtains information that helps the psychiatrists to determine that his mental strain stemmed from the domination of Agnes Moorehead, his mother, a selfish woman who had led the boy to believe that his father (Robert Keith) is an incurable drunkard, and who had induced him to give up Barbara Bel Geddes, his girl-friend. Basehart’s parents and Barbara arrive on the scene, but their efforts to sway him from his suicide attempt are to no avail. Under cover of darkness, the police spread a huge net two floors beneath Basehart while Douglas holds his attention to keep him from seeing what they are doing. Matters come to a head when a huge searchlight is switched on accidentally and Basehart, twisting wildly to get out of the blinding ray, falls from the ledge. He just manages to grasp the outer edge of the net, and is pulled to safety by the police. There are any number of situations that will send cold chills down one’s spine as Basehart teeters on the ledge, deliberately swaying to thrill the morbid throngs below, and occasionally slipping unintentionally. The direction and acting are first-rate, and the camera work highly effective. It is an outstanding and unusual picture that should turn out to be a top box-office attraction because of favorable word-ofmouth advertising. It was produced by Sol C. Siegel and directed by Henry Hathaway from a screen play by John Paxton, based on a story by Joel Sayre. Morally suitable for all.