Harrison's Reports (1930)

8 HARRISON’S REPORTS The subject is too long to permit full treatment in a single issue. But all the important points will be treated in subsequent issues. Just now it is enough to point to the tact tliat, on tlie week-end proceeding tlie recent meeting at Pinehurst, North Carolina, Charlie Pettijolin, Lightman, Miller and many other M. P. T. O. A. men gathered there and travelled back to New York together. That the time was well spent, from the producers' point of view, may be judged by the proposals M. P. T. O. A. has made, as pi mted in the trade papers. With the exception ot the contract, on which the producers have to make concessions, and of the theatre expansion question, on which they adopted the producer attitude in Its entirety, the M. P. T. O. A. proposals are so vague, so indefinite, so meaningless, that they confirm the view of this paper that an organization consisting of affiliated as well as of imalfiliatcd exhibitors can never work for the benefit of the unafifliated exhibitors. The affiliated exhibitors will always be able to guide the thoughts of the organization. And such guiding will not be for the good of tlie unaflilialed exhibitors. The insistence of the Allied leaders to maintain an independent exhibitor organization truly independent, therefore, is, to any sane independmt exhibitor, fully justified. There is nothing in the M. P. T. O. A. proposals the expectant e.xhibitor can hang his hat on; there is an implication tb.at everything is well, and that things should be changed as little as possible. The contract, now outlawed, is chosen as the trading ground; but this paper has learned authoritatively that the Itl. P. T. { '. .'\. proposals on this question were not submitted by its delegates until after they had received copies of the .Allied proiiosals. The Allied proposals, on the other hand, are definite to a high degree ; they not only give the substance of what the exhibitors want but provide for a workable machinery for putting these demands into effect. The Allied leaders knew what the}^ wanted and put it down on paper before the meeting ; the M. P. T. O. A. Ica.ders had to talk matters over with the producers before they could put on paper what they wanted. Efforts are being made to di.sparage the Allied proposals by characterizing them as visionary. Rut the independent exhibitors wall not be fooled. Let every one of you read them and you will be convinced how' fair and how' constructive they are. A'ou may secure a copy by writing to your organization. ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARDS A point arises in connection with the decree in the arbitration case before Judge Thachcr that is of grave concern to all exhibitors. Under the decision, the decree will have to provide that the exhibitor be given a choice as to wdiether he will take a contract providing for arbitration or one with no such provision. According to prevailing rumors, the Hays organization takes the position fas might be expectedf that an exhibitor, having elected to arbitrate, may be held to the award by coercive action of the distributors, just as it is done under the existing system. Stated in just this way. the proposition has an annealing element of fairness but the exhibitors will, no doubt, be aroused when they know just what this formula means. Tf the fairness of the award could be insured, it would not matter how the award was enforced. Rut under the arbitration rules, neither the producer-distributor many misrepresentations. made through either their salesmen or the literature they issue at the beginning of the picture season and (’u-iuw it. nor their subsequent acts ran be talcen in‘o consideration by the arbitration board. The consequence is that th.e distributor has it in his pov-cr to malm the award unjust. Thus in a case where the exhibitor It’s bee’i forced to over-b”\' on account of the failure of the distributor to furnish pictures, the exhibitor that mav have consented to rrb'tra'ion will 'urioubtedly get an adverse award, but it would Ive too outrageous to hold that he had consented to anv such form of aebit ration. T’^nder such cirrumst"uces the enforcement of the award would be the rankest oppression. The Hays organizaton has taken “time” out of the .Allied, proposals for fair arbitration and is in the meantime seek’"•3 to obtain from fudge Thacher a ruling *hat will enable the nroducers to return to the conference this month fortified in their position that “coercive enforcement” is a proper accompaniment of “voluntary arbitration.” The methods of enforcement by the Allied States Association go as far as any one cotild properly go, and these should be adopted by the industry in their entirety. Should the producer-dis January 11, 1930 tributors or their representatives shut their minds to reason, the ba'.tle over arbitration may have to continue until all arbitration was kicked out of the motion picture industry. '1 his is a fine opportunity for the Hays organization to show w hether it is guided by reason or by the narrow view of protecting the interests only of the memlx'rs of its organization. If you want to be enlightened further on the subject, you should compare the Allied proposals with those of M. 1^. '1'. U. A., both of which you may obtain from your organization. ABOUT THE FOX PICTURE TITLED “THE WELL DRESSED MAN” At the beginning of the 1929-30 season, the Kox Film Corporation sold " 1 he Well Dressed Man,” No. 123, which it was described in the June 20 Work Sheet as follows: “A V ictor .McLagleii talking and singing picture. .Sue Carol, Sharcdi Lynn, and Frank Richardson . . . Robbie Burns, and Charlottle Henry. Story by Roland Brown, lai<l in Oklahoma and New York. Directed by J. G. Blystone." '1 he same tacts wore given in an advertisement in the June 19 Variety, in the June 19 Work Sheet for silent pictures, and in the July 22 and in the August 22 Work .Sheets for sound pictures. The title, iitimber and description of this picture was omitted ill the tM-pteinber (> Work Sheet for sound pictures. But in the Work Sheet lor silent pictures of the same date, that is, September 6, it is described as follows : "A Victor McLaglen picture. With h'.l Brendel, Fifi Dorsay, Lenno.x Bawle, and Folly Moran. Directed b> Raoul Walsh. Story and Dialogue by Ralph Spence.” Thi.is an entirely different story, by a diff’erent author, it has been directed by a different director, and has an entirely different supporting cast. It is, therefore a substitution not only for those who bought the sound pictures but also for those that bought the silent pictures. Some time in November the Fox Corporation announced that the new title of “The Well Dressed Man” is “On the i.evel.” It has now notified the e.xhibitors, as I have been informed, that its new title is "Hot for Paris.” In looking over the press sheet for “Hot for Paris.” however, I have found out that the story was written hy R.'ioul Walsh, it was directed hy him, and has El Brendel and 1 ifi Dorsay in the suiiporting cast. No matter under what title Fo.x delivers “The Well Dressed Man" ; you are not obligated to accept it unless it is delivered as sold to you originally. It is possible that Fox made it and took it off because it turned out to be an excellent picture, hoping to sell it to you under a new title later on. at higher rentals. But I shall be watching his releases very closely, and if I find anything resembling the original “The Well Dressed Man,” you will be informed of it. In the meantime, send in any change of titles Fox may notify you of. 1 want you particularly to tell me what was the contract title of “Holiywood Nights,” because 1 cannot find this title either on the contract or on the different Work Sheets. Fox is delivering it as “Fast Workers." I had had information to the effect that there were going to be at least eight substitutions even before the Fox crash ; imatrine how many there may be now, as a result of his predicament. WHY SOME OF THE REVIEWS ARE LATE Projection room showings of pictures for the benefit of the trade press have been discontinued for more than a year. It is conjectured that such a policy has been institu.ted by consent of all producer-disfibutors. -As far as Uolumbia. First National, Paramount. Pathe, Radio. Tiffany, and Universal pictures are concenied. I always managed to see them even before they are shown at a local theatre. But I cannot do so with pictures of the other nroducer-distributors at all times. The following are pictures that I cannot see for a re\ Yws: M-G-M: “It’s a Great Life.” “Navy Blues,” Fox: “The I.one Star Ranger." Warner Bros.: “The ,Sao” and “So Long Letty.” Often pictures are held back for showing at a theatre in this territory because they happen to be poor and the producers want to avoid bad reviews as long as they can. If you can exert pressure upon the producers to let me see tiieir late pictures, you are at liberty to do so. I am ab'xiys readv to look at a picture, no matter at what hour of the day or of the night.