Harrison's Reports (1931)

36 HARRISON’S REPORTS She takes all sorts of men, whites or yellows, except French sailors, because she had a son in the French service. One day a French sailor comes to the place and demands “amusement”; but she refuses his request, telling him that she had a son in the French Navy and for all she knows he might be her son. He becomes so enraged at this suggestion that he curses her and beats her. (When it was presented on the stage this scene was so brutal, so revolting, that theatre-goers, though hardened and sophisticated, left the theatre.) In resisting his demands, she is forced to shoot him. The play opens with a prologue in which this woman is shown trying to dissuade a young girl from taking a false step. In order to persuade her, she relates the story of her life, which is the play. The play may, of course, be changed before being put into picture form. But it is hardly possible to change it enough to make a pleasant picture out of it. “The Man In Possession,” which is the stage play by H. M. Harwood, and which played in New York, has not yet been put into production, either. The nature of the story is as follows: In England, there is in existence a law that gives a creditor the right to petition the court to place a custodian, called The Man in Possession, in the house of a man that owes him money until the debt is paid. In accordance with the provision of this law', the hero, son of a wealthy man, out on his own, takes a position as a Man in Possession and is placed in the home of the heroine, who owes a debt. Eventually the tw’o fall in love with each other and everything is settled satisfactorily. I have not been able to get any information about “The Great Lover.” “The Easiest Way” and Lullaby” are Feing offered in the place of the tw'o canceled GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES, “Merry Widow” and “Naughty Marietta,” which are percentage pictures. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer should pay you to show them, for the harm these two pictures may do to your business may be great. LEGISLATION AGAINST “PROTECTION” A bill outlawing protection has been introduced in the legislature of North Carolina. This is a good beginning. Harrison’s Reports only hopes that the exhibitors of other states will follow the example of the North Carolina exhibitors and work for the passage of anti-protection legislature. For years the exhibitors have been complaining against the practice of circuit theatres of holding of film from the independent exhibitors unreasonably long, but the producer theatre owners have ignored these protests, just as all the producers ignored the protests against the system of arbitration introduced in the industry. But just as they suffered in the matter of arbitration, so will they suffer in the matter of “protection,” for the system is illegal and some of these days the Government will step in and take the matter to the courts, w'here the influence of the producers cease. They will then regret that they did not pay attention to wise counsel. If the producer theatre owners know' what is good for them, they will voluntarily make concessions on the “protection” question so that others may be able to make a living; if they should show the same short-sightedness they will soon regret it, for the independent exhibitors are determined, as the North Carolina exhibitors have given them an inkling, to foster legislation that will destroy “protection” entirely. AGAIN ABOUT THE ILLEGALITY OF THE OLD STANDARD CONTRACT On February 2, I received the following letter from Edw'ard G. Levy, Secretary of M. P. T. O. of Connecticut, whose address is No. 152 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut. “Today I received w'ord from Judge Allyn Browm sitting at Superior Court. New London County, Connecticut. that a motion made by me last Friday to strike from the files a substituted complaint introduced by Radio Keith Orpheum Distributing Corporation in its case against the Breed Theatre. Norwich, Connecticut, was granted. This means that the Radio Keith Orpheum Distributing Corporation must either withdraw its suit or press the matter and lose the case with costs to the defendant exhibitor. “I have been settling many cases for exhibitors up here, but this is the first case that went before a judge in Connecticut. It seems to indicate the attitude of our February 28, 1931 State Courts toward the Standard Exhibition Contract and alleged violations of it. Over $5,000 tor unplayed pictures was claimed by RKO from the exhibitor, and although we had several detenses, just this one attacking the complaint itseli was sufficient to win out. “Radio Keith Orpheum has ten days to appeal, but I don’t believe they will proceed further." in a subsequent letter, dated February 13, Mr. Levy iniorms me that the complaint was prepared by the attorney for the distributor upon, what is known, "common counts writ.” Later he filed a substituted complaint, which set out the specific contracts upon which the claims of the plaintiff were based. "As attorney lor the theatre,” Mr. Levy writes, “I immediately made a motion to have these contracts thrown out as evidence, and the courts granted that motion. The distributing company had no other remedy, and was compelled to withdraw the suit, which was done yesterday. "I hope this information will be of value to some of your subscribers.” This paper prints these facts to help several exhibitors release themselves from the old contracts out of a desire, not to aid the exhibitors in breaking contracts, but to discourage unlawful acts. The old standard contract was conceived in inequity, and even criminality, as Judge Miles said, and was enforced by methods Judge Thacher declared illegal. In this he has been upheld by the highest court in the land. Since the contract, then, was illegal and even made tne framers of it liable before the criminal law, the producers should have accepted the cancellation of all contracts so made with grace, and not threaten the contract holders with lawsuits, in some case going so far as to bring such suits. THERE IS NO ORIGINAL DISC SOUND The Cinematograph Times, an English trade journal, published by the exhibitor organization, in London, in discussing recently tne question ol guarantee with percentage, said among other things tne following: ‘Tirms supplying duped discs have abandoned their charges |Jor scorej. In regard to Warner Bros, and hirst National, which supply discs directly recorded, they have announced that prices to the smaller halls [tiieatres] will be reduced to what should no longer be a hardship. The General Council has accepted tnat compromise because the future indicates that discs will soon belong to the past as a means of recording.” There is no such tiling as original disc recording; it is all duped, under different conditions. Warner Bros, used to record on separate discs — one disc with each scene, there being as many discs as there were scenes. Alter the recording was completed, the discs representing all the scenes in each reel were run through a recorder and one disc was made out of them, to go with the reel, the other distributors used to make, ana still make, their discs from the film sound. About this time last year I made the prediction that the distributors would abandon making discs for their 1931 ~32 pictures, it seems as if that prophecy is coming true; by next fall, the disc will have been almost a thing ot the past. And no one will mourn it ; it brought talking pictures, well enough, but after it brought them it nearly killed them. It was the obstinacy of Warner Bros, that kept the disc alive. But now, Warner Bros., and their subsidiary, First National, record on film. With these two concerns now recording on film, and finding it more convenient as well as less expensive, the maintenance of the disc is no longer excusable. Let the disc be buried; with ceremonies, if necessary, but buried let it be ! HOGAN OPERA HOUSE Susquehanna, Pa. Jan. 27, 1931 Mr. P. S. Harrison New York, N. Y. Dear Mr. HaTrison : It affords me no small amount of pleasure to enclose my check for the ensuing year’s subscription to Harrison’s Reports. I regard these Reports as the exhibitor’s bible and his only true friend. I think your paper is absolutely necessary to any one connected with the theatre business. During the year 1930, I received benefit in dollars and cents to the value of many years’ subscription. Very truly yours, J. J. Ryan, Lessee and Manager.