Harrison's Reports (1930)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: ■'l^nited States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Janada, Alaska 16.00 _iexico, Spain. Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.50 35c 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, if 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. XII SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1930 No, 34 Paramount at Battle with the Warners I have received the following letter from Philadelphia ; it should interest every exhibitor : “Dear Pete: “I don’t know whether you are in touch with the situation locally but there is a major battle going on between Paramount and Warner Bros., the outcome of which may be serious for the brothers. “Paramount has rejected the Warner terms for Paramount product for the coming season and is threatening to sell away from Warner theatres wherever there is independent competition. No one here took this threat seriously until it was learned that the split was serious. Since then, several independent spots have been sold and a number of others are supposed that will be signed up in the next few days, if this should happen, it will precipitate probably the most severe clash between two major companies in the history of the industry. "The story goes that Warner Bros, are willing to sign up for Paramount pictures for the Warner Theatres on terms dictated by Paramount provided Paramount books Warner product also in its key-city theatres. This Paramount has refused to do contending that the \\ arner pictures, with a few e.xceptions, are not good enough for such Paramount theatres. This bitter pill Warner Bros, has so far refused to swallow. "Paramount is standing pat even though a loss of about $2,(XX),(XJU is involved if its product should be kept out of the Warner Theatres, and has started selling independents, competitors to Warner theatres. It is a poker game for big stakes, from which the independent exhibitors will be the beneficiaries. “Local opinion is doubtful if Warner Bros, can go through such a fight, particularly since their film is not selling so fast this year on account of the poor quality of their product last year, and the box offices of their theatres are sick when they play Warner pictures. Their only hope apparently is for them to produce another ’Gold Diggers,’ or to be taken over by some other company, like Paramount-Publi.x. “Confidentially, the Warners are trying to unload a number of their theatres to independent exhibitors. The houses they have are so many that often they overlap each other. This applies to large as well as to small theatres of theirs. “You have already learned by this time, I am sure, that the story I sent you several weeks ago to the effect that Fo.x was offering their product to Warner Bros, has materialized, despite Jimmy Grainger’s assurances to you that he was going to offer the independent exhibitors a ‘crack’ at their product. With Paramount product bought by them, the independent exhibitors feel that they will not need Fox pictures now. This will be somewhat hard on Fo.x inasmuch as the Warner-Fox deal permits Warners to pick only twenty-six pictures and leave the others. “The independent exhibitors here are very optimistic about the future. This optimism is reflected in their acquiring new theatres, opening houses that lay closed for years, and spending large sums of money improving their own houses. I understand that this feeling is nation-wide.’’ * * * The statement of my friend to the effect that Paramount is selling independent exhibitors, competitors of Warner Bros., is true, as I have been able to learn. The way I have obtained the story is that Spyro Skouras worked hard with Sidney Kent to agree on prices and terms, but that, when the agreement was made out and was ready to be signed by both companies, Sam Morris stepped in and told Spyro that unless Paramount agreed to book Warner pictures Warner Bros, would refuse to sign the Paramount contract. And Sidney Kent refused to agree to any such thing, for the reason that, if the industry got down to swapping pictures without a consideration for quality, he believes that, those on the Coast would grow careless and the quality of the product would suffer, for there would then be no incentive for making good pictures ; they would feel that the pictures would have a ready market, no matter whether they were good or bad. In regards to my friend’s reference to Fox, let me say that several weeks ago I received a letter from him intorming me that Fox was negotiating to sell their product .to Warner Bros. This the exhibitors of that zone would consider, he said, one of the worst acts of ingratitude the industry has ever known, for the following reason : Several years ago F'ox put up a theatre m Philadelphia. The Stanley interests became furious at what they considered as an unwarranted invasion of their territory and started fighting him. One of the means they used was to shut out all F'ox product from their theatres. Fox, then, had to turn for support to the independent theatre owners, who, according to my friend’s statement, supported him loyally through these years. They felt, therelore, that the Fox organization owed them an obligation at least to give them a chance to bid for its product before offering it to any one else. When I received my friend’s letter, I called up Jimmy Grainger on the telephone and informed him of the exhibitor feeling in that zone. Grainger assured me that to his knowledge there had been no negotiations between him or any one connected with his organization with Warners, but that he would not say that he would not start such negotiations, for he felt that his company needed money and he had to sell the pictures to him who would pay the biggest price. This conversation took place immediately after W illiam Fox had been ousted from control. 1 relayed Grainger’s statement to the Philadelphia exhibitors through my friend and I received a reply to the effect that there had been negotiations between Fox and Warner Bros, for the sale of the Fox product, Jimmy Grainger’s assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. FIRST NATIONAL ROAD SHOW PICTURES The Road Show clause of the First National franchise for talking pictures is the same as that in the Warner franchise ; it reads as follows : “(a) Road Show Motion Picture Productions are any motion pictures released by the Distributor which shall be exhibited in the main theatrical district of New York, Chicago and one other key point on a pre-release basis, that is to say, on the basis whereby only two shows a day are regularly given, at advanced admission prices and such exhibition in the main theatrical district of New York City shall be for not less than four consecutive weeks.’’ “Sally,” “Paris,” “Son of the Gods,” “Song of the Flame,” “No, No Nanette,” and “Bride of the Regiment” were so shown in New York City ; but in Chicago they were shown in grind houses. For this reason, they are not road show pictures in accordance with the Road Show provision, and you are not obligated to accept them as such. “Footlights and Fools” was not shown as a road show in New York City. If you have already shown them as Road Show pictures, having been made to think by the exchange they were such, you have cause for damages. You may also sue the exchange for the cancellation of the franchise on the ground of bad faith.