Harrison's Reports (1951)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

208 HARRISON’S REPORTS December 29, 1951 voice; that, even though he has the gift of gab to an extraordinary degree, he spoke about everything but motion pictures. The editorial praises Mr. Johnston’s decision to bring the association’s headquarters back to New York City, from which point it never should have been removed to Washington. “A good portion of the fratemizing and gadding about which representatives of any association do in Washington,” says the article, “not only accomplishes nothing but actually gets the business represented into difficulties.” The article, which was written in the form of an open letter to Mr. Johnston, adds this: “The Motion Picture Association must necessaxily assume a major share of the conduct of the industry's public relations. It will not of course be news to you, Mr. Johnston, that for some time the industry has been receiver of a great deal of harmful attention from the press and elsewhere. About all this very little has been done and still less has been effective. Outside observers of the industry, for instance, have been amazed to find one department of your association engaged in promoting a foreign film which another department of your association had refused to accept on moral grounds . . The article also accuses Mr. Johnston of doing nothing to offset the harmful effect on our public relations because of the pro-Red disclosures arising out of the hearings of the Un-American Activities Committee. In other words, the article states, in diplomatic language, that the money the motion picture industry has paid to Mr. Johnston for his services has been wasted. Whose fault is it? Not Johnston’s! The producerdistributors wanted a politician and they got him. They thought that they were getting a business man, but they are now finding out that they made a mistake. They thought that Johnston, because of the publicity he got on his trip to Russia, would get them the Russian business when common sense should have shown them that a deal with the Russians for American pictures was impossible. They should have known that the Russian heirachy would never have consented to show the Russian people the American way of life through American pictures, except, of course, those pictures that tend to degrade us in the eyes of other peoples. But Mr. Quigley still believes that Mr. Johnston will be able to accomplish now what he was not able to accomplish in more than six years as head of the distributors’ association. How come? A JUSTIFIED DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF POLICIES Jack Kirsch, president of Allied Theatre of Illinois, and a former president of National Allied, issued a strongly worded statement last week calling upon the presidents of all major producing and distributing companies to declare their position on the issue of selling motion pictures to television so “that the exhibitors may know where they stand in this whirlpool of uncertainty.” His statement, which was made before his organization’s board of directors and unanimously concurred in by that body, follows : “There seems to be a deep silence prevalent among the major film companies as to where they stand on the issue of selling their films to TV. While this silence persists, many independent film companies have already disposed of large libraries of film to TV, notably among them Republic Pictures, while several large producing organizations are setting up subsidiary companies solely for the production of pictures for TV. Also, certain independent producers, formerly releasing through major companies, have already made deals on a grand scale for the showing of their product over TV, latest one taking this step being Edward Small, who sold a local automobile agency 27 pictures produced by him. In spite of all this, you hear men in the top echelon of production and distribution assert that the outlook for the film industry is very bright and that there are many encouraging signs on the horizon. But the important question is: for what segment of the industry is the future bright and encouraging? Certainly not for exhibition, if one is to carefully analyze the trends. Then for whom are all these alleged encouraging signs pertaining to? For the producers of motion pictures, of course, who are looking with a determined eye to the TV field which they feel offers them a lucrative market for the thousands of films that had their runs in theatres throughout the country and are now resting in the film vaults awaiting the day when more channels are opened up and ready to consume this vast backlog of film merchandise. “I think it’s about time the exhibitors knew where they stand in this whirlpool of uncertainty. I also think it s about time that the major film companies call a spade a spade and stop beating around the bush. Exhibitors are holding on with both hope and despair. The hope stems from all the statements of encouragement uttered by the film company heads, while the despair results from the growing tendency of more and more independent producing and distributing companies turning to TV for the sale of their pictures and we, who are situated in strong TV areas, know what a devastating effect this has on theatre attendance. “If ever there was a time for plain talking, this is it. If ever there was a time for the major companies to let exhibitors know where they stand on this issue, this is it. The time for pussyfooting is past. This is no time for hedging. Thousands of exhibitors have their last dime invested in motion picture theatres — they have a right to know whether the major producing companies are going to continue to concentrate on the theatre market or TV. There can be no half measures, no ifs, ands and buts. This is too serious a piece of business to trifle with. Frank and straightforward statements should be made on this score now by the presidents of every major film company. “At least if the presidents of 20th Century-Fox, MGM, Warners, RKO, Columbia, Universal, United Artists and Paramount would come out with a statement that the future of their business lies solely with the motion picture theatres — and mean it — then the hopes which these exhibitors harbor will prove meaningful and the despair meaningless. “The New Year is rapidly approaching. That would be an appropriate time for putting the record straight once and for all.”