Harrison's Reports (1951)

156 HARRISON’S REPORTS September 29, 1951 ment. Its application in the uncontrolled discretion of the distributors makes a mockery of free enterprise. On this point, with prophetic wisdom, the United States Supreme Court said in U. S. vs. Paramount, et als: ‘Yet delegation of the management of the system to the discretion of those who had the genius to conceive the present conspiracy and to execute it with the subtlety which this record reveals, could be done only with the greatest reluctance. If in fact they (the exhibitor defendants and the large circuits) were enabled through the competitive bidding system to take the cream of the business, eliminate the smaller independents, and thus increase their own strategic hold on the industry, they would have the cloak of the court’s decree around them for protection. Ted Gamble, in his short talk before the convention, agreed with Starr’s remarks on competitive bidding. Gamble not only hit out at the current efforts to obtain higher film rentals, but he took a swing at competitive bidding by claiming that its purpose is legitimate in only five per cent of the cases, and that it is by and large simply a device for increasing film rentals. Gamble took up also the claim that the distributors are using the “Movie time” drive as an excuse to hike rentals. He declared that “it would be nothing short of a crime if the shortsightedness and greed of some film companies were to spoil the chances of success for ‘Movietime.’ The great lineup of films scheduled for playoff during the coming campaign won’t do anyone any good if the exorbitant terms asked for them prohibit their showing in all theatres.” Gamble also hit out at the efforts being made by some distributors for advanced admission prices on certain pictures. Charles Skouras, too, took a blast at the distributors because of their demands for higher film rentals. Pointing out that the arbitrarily fixed percentage terms being demanded today are way out of line, Skouras drew a resounding round of applause from the delegates in urging that the exhibitors wake up and do something about it. The fiery talks delivered by Messrs. Starr, Gamble and Skouras were received so enthusiastically by the exhibitors present that it left no doubt that they were plenty riled against the film companies and were in the mood for some positive action. The fact remains, however, that although the subject of trade practices was of prime concern the meeting ended without the formulation of a single plan that would help bring about some acceptable solution. On Tuesday, for example, the meting was highlighted by the appearance of distribution executives of six of the major companies at an open trade practice forum conducted by TOA’s exhibitor-distributor relations committee, at which time they answered questions posed from the floor on such problems as clearance, the print shortage, and competitive bidding. The sales executives were sympathetic in their recognition of these problems, but generally they defended their positions by either claiming that their hands are tied by the law, or by suggesting that the solution to several of the problems, such as multiple runs, the setting back of availabilities, and the print shortage, must be found within the ranks of the exhibitors themselves. The exchange of ideas and opinions was interesting, but the net result of the meeting was that the discussion was decidedly academic, and that the exhibitor-distributor relations committee, in its formal report to the convention, condemned the distributors for the inequitable sales policies, put the blame on them for the print shortage, and accused them of bad faith in their use of competitive bidding. But this report did not contain any recommendations to the exhibitors on how to meet these problems or fight back. The report was, in other words, a slap on the wrists of the distributors. This failure to formulate a positive plan of action in connection with trade practices left many exhibitors, particularly those who operate in smaller situations, disappointed, even though all were given an opportunity to voice their complaints. The one noticeable thing about the convention was that the complexion of TOA has undergone a radical change. In the early days of the organisation, its prodistributor sentiments were obvious, but such sentiments no longer exist, if one is to judge from the angry remarks and fiery speeches condemning the distributors’ policies. The TOA today is without a doubt a pro-exhibitor organisation. But if it is to give its members the proper guidance and advice they need, its leaders must resort to acts and deeds rather than talk. With Mitchell Wolfson and Charles Skouras at the helm, the TOA members can look forward to plenty of positive action. CONVENTION SIDELIGHTS An interesting phase of the Thursday morning session of the convention, which was devoted mainly to the formal report of the exhibitor-distributor relations committee, was the insistence of one exhibitor that the speakers, in discussing the film companies that are seeking exorbitant rentals and otherwise giving the exhibitors a hard time, name the offending companies. This led to the naming of Paramount and Warner Brothers as the worst offenders. But as strong as the exhibitors were in their condemnation of distributors who refuse to go along on a live-and-let-live basis, they were just as strong in their praise for a distributor who gives them fair treatment. Singled out in this category were MGM and Bill Rodgers, its sales chief. One exhibitor, Nat Williams, of Thomas ville, Georgia, made an interesting observation in comparing MGM’s policy with that of some of the other distributing companies. He pointed out that the exhibitors, by giving in to the exorbitant demands of the gouging companies, are doing an injustice to a fair company like MGM. To illustrate his point, he recited an amusing though hypothetical story in which the stockholders of MGM demand Bill Rodgers ouster because his fair policies do not bring in as much profit as the unfair policies of some of the other sales managers. * * * Of the formal reports submited to the delegates by the different committees, the one submitted by the National Legislation Committee, under the chairmanship of A. Julian Brylawski, contained a sour note by omission — the failure to give credit to Abram F. Myers, Allied’s general counsel, for the prominent part he played as spokesman for COMPO in presenting the industry’s case before the Senate Finance Committee in connection with the admission tax exemptions of the pending tax bill. This failure to mention Myers’ efforts in behalf of all exhibitors, while giving credit to others, does no credit to Brylawski and his committee.