Harrison's Reports (1930)

H8 HARRISON’S REPORTS September 13, 1930 their doors. And yet they insist on belonging to the same group. Perhaps the threat of shutting out the small fellows’ product from their theatres is the thing that turns the trick. 1 ‘aramount-Publi.x, in demanding unreasonable protection oVer small independent exhibitors, are inviting state legislation that will not be to their liking. They may succeed in elbowing out many indeiiendent exhibitors, but these and those that will remain will not stand idle and see their investments willed out without a light. They have many friends in the legislatures; when they tell their troubles to them, tax bills may be introduced that will tax the big circuits to death. 1 ’aramount-J’ublix had better look out! ZUKOR AND PROSPERITY -Mr. Adolph Zukor, President of ParamountPublix, called on President Hoover recently and told him that, so far as he knows, the country is in a prosperous condition, and that reports to the contrary were exaggerated. Shortly after he made that statement to the President, Paramount-J’ublix started laying off em])loyees ; and according to reliable reports the number has reached the round figure of 5,000. 1 know of one territory where in its home office alone it laid off sixty persons — New Orleans. 'I'he sad part about this sort of prosperity, however, is the fact that his company, instead of laying off persons with a salary that would mean .something towards economy, has laid oft' small salaried persons, per.sons to whom loss of position may mean even starvation. \\ hen you are about to contract for film, remember that Paramount-Publix, by laying off so many employees, has contributed its bit toward harder times. THE REFUSAL OF WARNER BROS. TO CONFIRM PLAY-DATES 'I'his paper has been informed by exhibitors that Warner P>ros. at no time confirm play-dates. In consequence, a branch office is able to withdraw play-dates made available by it within a few days from the time the picture is to be jdayed by an e.xhibitor, and the exhibitor has no way to prevent them from doing so. In many cases, this has resulted in great loss to an exhibitor. .\n exchange is obligated to confirm jilay-dates. So in case the Warner Exchange should refuse to confirm your play-dates you may refuse to play the pictures. There is no reason why Warner Pros, should not do what every other exchange is doing. THEY DO THINGS IN TEXAS Will H. llorwitz, of IIORWITZ-TEXAN 'ITIEATRES, of 1 lou.ston, Texas, is suing Paramount-Publix under the Texas laws for conspiracy in restraint of trade. He is making every big producer-distributor a co-defendant. In his suit, Mr. Horwitz accuses the defendants of having withheld film from him by the sy.stem of protection with the object of forcing him to increase his admission prices. The Texas Anti-Trust laws are very severe and the .sentiment against eorporations is verv strong in that State. Consequently, Mr. Horwitz’s chances of winning his suit are great. 1 his \)'d\)cr has often stated that the only way to force the jiroducers to abanflon their illegal system of ])rotection is to take them to the courts. If enough suits were instituted against the big comjjanies as well as all the heads of the industry, including Will H. Hays, they would soon abandon discriminating against the American public and forcing it to pay for its picture entertainment higher admission prices than it would pay in its neighborhood theatres. VARIETY’S TELEVISION DREAMS The issue of Variety of August 27 contains an article informing its readers of, what it thinks, the fact that American Telegraph and Telephone Company is doing intensive television experimenting for homes, and that it has developed it to the point where, if it can obtain air channels from the Government, it will kill the possibilities of home talking moving pictures. The Variety reporter .states “authoritatively” that, “right in Manhattan the wizards have a television station that every other night is broadcasting bands, acts, and soloists for (listances of from 10 to 60 miles to the homes of electric executives and their friends.” “A week ago last Friday night,” the news account .states gravely, “a well-known film executive happened in, unknown, to one of these inner circle teie parties. . . . "What this film e.xecutive saw convinced him that lilm-in-the-home ... is definitely out. ‘The ])icture vision was clearer than from my own 16 millimeter film and the sound was better than that of my radio. . . .’ ” For the benefit of Variety, H.\kkison’s Reports may say that American Telephone and Telegraph Company has not been broadcasting nightly “bands, acts, and .soloists,” and therefore no film executive could have been present at a demonstration, for the reason that it has no broadca.sting station such as the article describes. Although this paper knew that the account was but a fabrication of the / 'ariety reixirter. yet because of the scare that it might throw into the hearts of the exhibitors, it went to the trouble of inquiring to learn if there is even a foundation of truth in the statements, and it has found out that there is none. From authoritative sources it has learned that American Telephone and Telegraph Co. is not licensed to do develojiment work in that field. The only experimenting it is doing in television is for telephone booths, for the benefit of its telephone subscribers; and the picture does not exceed the head of the talking person and part of the shoulders, a few inches square in area. On the opposite page, another Variety reporter reports that the television pictures that were to be shown in Times Square and at the Ansonia Hotel by the Jenkins peojile with the cooperation of the Evening Journal proved a total failure ; the picture could not be seen in the daylight. Anyone who has read the series of four articles on television, printed in this paper recently, could have known, without even being present, that the demonstration could not have proved anything but a failure.