Harrison's Reports (1928-1928)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the aet of March 3, 1879. Harrison’s Reports Yearly Subscription Rates : United States $10.00 U. S. Insular Possessions 12.00 Canada and Mesico. . 12.00 England and New Zealand 14.50 Other Foreign Countries 16.50 25c. a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service by a Former Exhibitor Devoted Exclusively to the Interests of Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, rf It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher Established July 1, 1919 Tel. : Pennsylvania 7649 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. X SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1928 No. 37 “Protection,” Non-Theatricals and the Brookhart Bill A recent announcement in the trade press stated that the arbitration troubles between Motion Picture Theatre Owners of the Northwest and the Film Club of the Minneapolis zone have been settled, representatives of the exhibitors' organization resuming their places on the board of arbitration. The trouble arose when the exhibitors’ organization issued an ultimatum to the exchanges demanding that they refrain from selling film to non-theatrical institutions, informing them that the exhibitor members will refuse to arbitrate the cases of exchanges that would disobey it. United Artists ignored the ultimatum, and the exhibitors refused to arbitrate United Artists’ cases. There was an immediate break between the exhibitors and the exchangemen. For a while matters stood still, neither side being willing to give way. But the exchanges, seeing thousands of their dollars tied up by the arbitration strike, made a frantic appeal to their Home Office (the Hays organization). As a result of this appeal, Charlie Pettijohn, Mr. Hays’s right hand, and Mr. Gabriel Hess, Mr. Hays’s left hand, threatened to rule the exhibitors out — to declare them arbitration outlaws. The exhibitors did not budge. Messrs. Pettijohn and Hess then ruled them out, and suggested to the exchanges to make an appeal to the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis for a new set of exhibitor arbitrators, to be selected from non-members of M. P. T. O. The Chamber of Commerce refused to be embroiled in the controversy. Finally the exchanges succeeded in some way in having exhibitor-arbitrators appointed. The organization threatened that, if these exhibitors functioned, it would resort to injunction proceedings. I don’t know the terms of the settlement. It is not the important thing ; what I want to call your attention to is the fact that the Hays organization, in order to induce some of you to fight the Brookhart Bill, told you impressively that the bill would open the doors for non-theatrical competition. Many of you took the word of the Hays men and fought that bill (which is not yet dead but only retarded, the adjournment of Congress making action impossible), because you really believed that it was harmful to your interests. Mr. Hays did all this ostensibly because, as his lieutenants stated, he wanted to save you from non-theatrical competition. And yet when an organization of your kind demands that the producers cease from renting films to such non-theatrical places as are in direct competition with you, Mr. Hays rules your arbitrators out and appoints “scab" arbitrators so as to force you to accept a situation metrically opposed to your own ! What a farce ! What a pity that there should be exhibitors so short-sighted as to swallow all the “bunk” that is passed out by an organization whose interests are diametrically opposed to your interests ! Will this incident be a lesson to those of you that were led honestly to believe that the Brookhart bill was harmful to your interests? The actions of the producer-distributors in reference to non-theatricals since their statement that the Brookhart Bill would open the door to non-theatrical competition has belied their professions. There have been very few instances where the exchanges refused to sell to non-theatrical places that are in competition with regular theatres. And in these, the action was taken not as a result of orders from the Home Offices but as a result of the belief of sincere exchangemen that it was wrong to ruin the business of the established theatres. It was the honesty of these men, the fearlessness of them, that prompted such action, for as far as my investigations show the producers and distributors, as a class, favor the growth of non-theatrical places. Don't allow any one to make you believe they do not; they feel that they can create thousands of such places to the few thousands of theatres now in existence and to the few thousands more that may be added in time, and that the revenue from such places will eventually be far greater than the revenue from the theatres. The Brookhart Bill is your only salvation. Besides this abuse, the Brookhart Bill will correct also another abuse — that of unjust and unreasonable protection. I have received many heart-rending appeals lately from exhibitors asking my help in solving this problem for them ; they have been shut out of film for long periods of time because the circuit theatres wanted to shut the film out of them. I told them that I could not help them in that there was no law to prevent a film distributor from giving an exhibitor in a certain zone a year’s (or more) protection over his competitors, even though these might be situated forty miles away. The Balaban and Katz interests in Illinois actually succeeded in getting a year’s protection in some towns, as I have been informed by exhibitors. This organization is so “hoggish” in the matter of protection that it has printed a twenty-three page protection provision of its own, and forces the exchanges to sign it under penalty of refusing to buy any of their pictures. The Brookhart Bill is the only effective remedy. And it is just the time when you can help Senator Brookhart put it over. Election time is on. The politicians would want your vote. Procure a copy of the bill from Senator Brookhart and ask these politicians where they stand. Throw the power of your screen back of him who will give a solemn written pledge that he will vote for the Brookhart Bill, no matter whether he is a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist or a Prohibitionist. It is the chance of your lifetime to do something for yourself. Don’t throw it away ! MAKE YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ONE! When pictures of different grades are bought from one film concern, it is customary to put the pictures of each grade on a separate contract. In accordance with the terms of the contract, each application of such group is considered a unit. In other words, the producer-distributor may approve one, two or three of the contracts and reject the rest, and he would be within his rights. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, however, the exhibitor, when he buys the different grades of a producerdistributor’s products, buys them all or none, and means to have them accepted, or rejected, as a group. In other words, he does not want the producer-distributor to accept half of the contracts and to reject the other half. Several cases have been brought to the attention of this office in which a distributor approved the contracts for the features and rejected the contracts for the specials. The exhibitor naturally became indignant, and rightly so. But technically the producer-distributor is right and the exhibitor wrong, even though the exhibitor is right morally. But it is not the moral rights that seem to govern this industry. To avoid misunderstandings in such cases, an exhibitor should number such contracts from one to the exact number. and put in the. following provision on all contracts: “This contract is part of a group of contracts, five in all (if 5 is the number of the individual contracts), and it is agreed by both parties that they must be either approved or rejected as a whole.” It takes but a slight effort to insert such a provision in the contracts either by pencil or by typewriter. But it saves much trouble afterwards.