Harrison's Reports (1931)

56 HARRISON’ AGAIN ABOUT THE PATHE CONTRACTS RKO Pathe will do nothing for those who hold contracts for Pathe pictures. I made to their executives the suggestion that they furnish the contract holding exhibitors with one Harding, one Bennett, and one either Boyd or Twelvetrees, but after discussing the suggestion they decided not to adopt it, for it might cause legal complications, as they said. Thus the rights of the holders of Pathe contracts are cold-bloodedly disregarded. Pathe Exchanges, Inc., had no right to sell the contracts for the stars, Ann Harding, Constance Bennett, William Boyd, Eddie Quillan, and Helen Twelvetrees, in that these were your "property” until the pictures Pathe Exchanges sold you were made and delivered. And I believe that if you were to consult your lawyer he might tell you that you may, if you want to go to the expense of a lawsuit, make an application for an injunction to restrain these stars from making pictures for another concern until they produce the pictures they owe you. It may even be possible to tie up the money that RKO agreed to pay to Pathe. In reference to the inquiry made of this office whether those exhibitors who have a contract for the Pathe shorts have the right to reject them or not, allow me to inform you that the Philadelphia exhibitor organization has engaged counsel to advise them as to what action they should take to protect their rights in the contracts they hold for pictures of these stars, and has suggested to the members not to book any more shorts until counsel has studied the case and rendered his opinion. There are indications that the organized exhibitors of other zones, aroused because of the deliberate violation of their rights, intend to follow the example set by the Philadelphia zone organization. They say that the contract does not relieve a producer-distributor from its provisions when he sells out. At any rate they are bent upon finding out what their rights in the matter are. ADDITIONAL NEWSPAPER COMMENTS AGAINST SCREEN ADVERTISING Last week, Mr. L. P. Palmer, secretary of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, called me up on the telephone and told me that one of their members drew his attention to the publicity matter I sent out to the newspapers and asked permission to reproduce in their house organ some of the articles. At his request, I sent him copies of the other issues that dealt with the same subject. The members of this association will, no doubt, deal with the subject editorially when they read Mr. Palmer’s article. Editor & Publisher The Fourth Estate, of March 26, wrote a long editorial on the subject as a result of the material that was sent to it from this office. The article closes as follows : ‘‘Harrison’s Reports declare that audiences in New York have recently hissed or hummed when advertising pictures were shown, an indication that the stuff is a disservice to the advertiser. Many people who would make no demonstration would feel resentment . . . Radio’s selling pressure at the present time is so excessive that it, also, is severely damaging the medium. Newspapers and other legitimate advertising media can afford to wait and watch developments with composure. But no newspaper can afford to ignore the advertising film’s impudent exploitation of its paying customers. Paramount and Warner Brothers ought at least to consider reducing the box-office prices. Common advertising ethics also demand that advertising be labeled as such.” Let us hope that Messrs. Adolph Zukor and Harry Warner will pay attention to the hint from this journal, which is the newspaper of the newspaper people. The Rochester Times-Union, of Rochester, New York, in its issue of March 27, wrote partly as follows : "Introduction of advertising into motion pictures is something new, but may soon spread unless people who pay for seats make their dislike evident. “Harrison’s Reports, a motion picture reviewing service in the interest of the exhibitors, says of the Paramount picture. ‘It Pays to Advertise :’ 'It is nothing but a billboard of immense size. . . .’ "No one is obliged to read advertising in a newspaper, though many persons find the detailed statements of what merchants have to offer one of a paper’s most useful features. “Rut when advertising is injected into a motion picture there is no escape from it. It is made part of the entertainment for which patrons paid their money at the box office. They must take it or leave the show. . . .” REPORTS April 4, 1931 Willows Journal, of Willows, California, opening its editorial with, “And now the big moving picture concerns have entered the advertising business,” condemns strongly the Paramount and the Warner practice. The Cisco Daily News, after mentioning this paper’s crusade against commercial advertising in pictures, by stating that it has opened a “two-fisted attack” upon the practice of concealing advertisements in motion pictures, says partly : “The scheming motion picture producer who figures he can feed the exchequer from both ends by charging the patron public for surreptitious advertising might just as well sell his soul to the devil and hope for St. Peter’s blessing at the pearly gates as to look for a long and prosperous career in the business of providing entertainment. It is indeed a sad commentary upon the quality of the brains in the industry that resort must be had to such unethical methods to obtain revenue. ... If the motion picture industry wants to keep healthy and live long the motion picture industry, mark the words, had better keep faith with the public. For Mr. Public, charitable to an extent, has a way about him. He is particularly exacting about getting what he pays for.” The Christian Science Monitor long ago had an article against the practice, when Paramount had just shown the first reel. And this is only the beginning; the snow ball, which Harrison’s Reports started at the top of the hill and sent going fast down-hill, is growing bigger, and unless Paramount and Warner Brothers get out of its way, it may crush them. ABOUT “FOREIGN FILM BOOKING OFFICE” In the Blue Section published with last week’s issue, a schedule of foreign language pictures was given as being handled by FOREIGN FILM BOOKING OFFICE, which company is owned by Symon Gould. We received the impression that he was the distributor of those films. We now learn, however, that he is merely an arranger of bookings, a sort of middleman, and that the distributing rights are owned by other companies. In buying pictures from a middleman, you may have to pay more, for he will no doubt charge you for his services. Such services are, of course, worth something; but the aim of this paper is to save money for every one of its subscribers, therefore, it does not see why you should pay commission to any one when you can avoid it. For this reason I shall try to obtain the addresses of those who own the distributing rights for the purpose of printing them, so that you may have the choice of dealing either through FOREIGN FILM BOOKING OFFICES and possibly pay a commission, or directly with the distributors, and pay no commissions. ABOUT COLUMBIA’S “DIRIGIBLE” Columbia Pictures Corporation has withdrawn “Dirigible” from the contract to roadshow it. Later on it will resell it to you. no doubt at much higher prices. The picture is to open at the Central, this city, on April 4. In withdrawing this picture from the contracts, Columbia is within its rights. Put it was hoped that this company would not put into force this “Gypping” clause, exacted by the Hays organization during the negotiations for a contract form from exhibitor leaders many of whom did the Hays bidding. But it has. Columbia may not value the exhibitors’ good will, but I doubt if it will take this picture away from those exhibitors who have it under contract without resentment. Its executives will find this out when they start selling their next season’s product. Columbia has been playing upon your sympathies by virtue of the fact that it is an independent concern, asserting that, as such, it deserves your support. It took but one occasion to show the tartar under the skin. The many lawsuits it has entered against small exhibitors, some of whom are in towns of fewer than one thousand inhabitants, demanding every drop of "blood" from them, is further proof that Columbia is outdistancing the big producers in oppressive tactics. The big producers have, in fact, shown such a generosity toward the small exhibitors during these hard times that many exhibitors are wondering whether it is worth while trying to help companies such as Columbia, which does not seem to care about exhibitor good will. When the Columbia salesmen call on you to sell you their 1931-32 product, give them a piece of your mind.