Harrison's Reports (1954)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Bntered as seootMl-class matter January 4, 1921, at the ^®st offiee at N«w York, New York, under tiw aet of March 3, 19W. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. PubMshed Weekly by Harrisoci’s Reports, Inc.. Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON. Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Poflcy; No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVI SATURDAY, FEBRUARY, 20, 1954 No. 8 PROPOSED NEW ARBITRATION CONFERENCE OF DOUBTFUL VALUE In a letter dated February 1 1, Eric Johnston, presi' dent of the Motion Picture Association of America, has extended to different exhibitor leaders an invita' tion to a new arbitration conference stating that it was the intention to hold such a meeting in New York City “as soon as it can be conveniently arranged and in any event within sixty days from the date of this letter.” Invitations were sent to Ben Marcus, newly-elected president of National Allied; Walter Reade, Jr., president of the Theatre Owners of America; Harry Brandt, president of the Independent Theatre Owners Association; Emanuel Frisch, president of the Metropolitan Motion Picture Theatres Association; and Harry Arthur, president of the Southern CaHfornia Theatres Association. The proposed conference stems from the resolution adopted unanimously by the TOA at its convention in Chicago last fall, which resolution called for the organization “to join the distributors and all other exhibitor groups that wish to establish a system of arbitration for the use of all exhibitors in the country who desire to use it.” This resolution was approved at a recent meeting of the general sales managers of Allied Artists, Columbia, MGM, Paramount, RKO, Republic, 20th Century-Fox, United Artists, Universal and Warner Bros., and they asked Mr. Johnston to issue the invitation to a new conference. “The purpose of the meeting,” stated Mr. Johnston in his letter, “is to make a fresh endeavor to agree upon a system of arbitration of disputes involving exhibitors and distributors of motion pictures in the United States. The distributors propose that, since neither the exhibitors nor the distributors were bound by the drafts submitted in 1952, the present conferees start from scratch.” Mr. Johnston expressed the hope that “some simple, effective and inexpensive machinery for arbitration can be set up which will commend itself to the exhibitors and distributors and can be approved by the Department of Justice,” but “to avoid misunderstanding,” he added, “the distributors asked me to make it clear that they will not be able to agree to arbitrate film rentals and that therefore they do not consider this subject open for discussion.” The fact that the distributors have excluded the arbitration of film rentals from any proposed arbitration system undoubtedly will cause National Alhed to decline the invitation to participate in a new conference, for one of its principal reasons for rejecting the arbitration plan proposed by the distributors in 1952 was that it contained no provision for the arbitration of film rentals. The distributors, of course, probably reaHze that there is Httle likelihood that Allied will join in the conference because of the exclusion of film rentals, and it may be that they are hopeful of setting up an arbitration system without Allied’s participation. In the opinion of this paper, however, it is extremely doubtful if a workable industry arbitration system can be set up without Allied, particularly since it represents nearly half of the organized exhibitors in the country. And it is doubtful also if the Department of Justice would approve an arbitration system that did not include the participation of Allied. As has been stated in these columns before, any further arbitration talks between the distributors and the different exhibitor groups will be just a waste of time unless the distributors are prepared to make concessions that will give the exhibitors the immediate relief they seek. That they are reluctant to make such concessions was indicated in the arbitration plan they proposed in 1952. The trouble with that plan was that the provisions were either too inadequate to afford proper remedies, or were written in language so obscure as to make them subject to different interpretations. The exhibitors, particularly the smaller ones, have reached the limit of endurance in coping with unsound sales policies and trade practices that tend to increase the hardships they are suffering. And with many hundreds of their fellow exhibitors already driven to financial failure, they fear a similar fate and are in mood to tolerate the distributors’ shillyshally tactics that slowed down the progress of the last arbitration conference and ultimately resulted in an arbitration draft that failed to create suitable substitutes for the other remedies available to aggrieved exhibitors under existing law. In ruling out film rentals as a subject of discussion in the proposed new conference, the distributors seem to have served notice on the exhibitors that it is their intention to limit the scope of any contemplated arbitartion plan. This does not augur well for the estabhshment of an arbitration system that will be meaningful. A DATE TO REALLY REMEMBER Throughout the year there are jotted down on the calendar dates that remind us of significant personal, social and business events. Few such dates — if any — can or should have the importance of Brotherhood Week, the annual rallying period of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, which this year is being observed during the week of February 21-28. (Continued on bac\ page)