Harrison's Reports (1931)

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: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, 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 PEnnsylvania 6-6379 Cable Address : Harreports (Bentley Code) A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol.XIII SATURDAY, MAY 9, 1931 " ' No. 19 GIVING CHILDREN THE SMOKING HABIT It is a well known fact that the talking pictures have driven the child trade away from the picture theatre. The success “Skippy” and “Tom Sawyer” made at the box office, by drawing the greatest number of children any other talking picture has drawn to this day, and through the children the parents, has so electrified the producers that they have decided to bring this trade back by making more pictures of this kind. Paramount is including in its new season’s program “Sooky,” a sequel to “Skippy,” with the same child actors, and “Tom Sawyer, Detective” and “Huckleberry Finn,” the Mark Twain classics. There is no question in my mind that these and other juvenile pictures will contribute greatly toward bringing back the child trade. But herein lies the great danger to the children : since they are running the risk of coming across an unlabeled advertising film extolling the virtues of a particular brand of cigarettes, they may be started on the road to smoking. In almost every state of the Union there is a law that makes the selling of cigarettes to minors a crime; but there is no law to punish those who give them the smoking habit. It is a shame that some producers would prostitute the screen for trivial gains, particularly when some of their advertisements harm the morals of the young. It is a shame also that they should enter into the advertising business, causing a friendly press to turn into a hostile press. The newspapers have always been friends of the motion picture industry. They have fought with us against our enemies, against adverse legislation. And we are now paying them back with ingratitude. Unless they abandon this unjust and unfair competition, however, we all shall be made to suffer, for next time we appeal to them for their moral support in fighting an enemy of the industry or some bill taxing theatre receipts, they will turn a deaf ear. It is yet time for the erring members of the motion picture industry to come to their senses. OTHER PAPERS THAT HAVE JOINED THE HARRISON CRUSADE AGAINST UNLABELLED SCREEN ADVERTISING Here are some more papers that have joined the Harrison anti-advertising crusade : Mr. James E. Wales, Editor of the Berkeley Daily Gazette, of Berkeley, California, writes me as follows : “I have been very much interested in the information contained in several of your reports that have reached my office. I fear we of the newspapers do not fully realize the rapid encroachment of the motion pictures and the radio into what was once our particular field. “I am not prepared to take the question up in our columns at this time, but I will be interested in being informed of the progress of your undertaking or that of any individual or group of newspapers.” Mr. Wales is right — only a small part of the newspaper editors have so far realized the danger to their interests from screen advertising. But the number of those that are realizing it grows every day. At any rate, let Mr. Wales be assured that this paper will never give up the fight until a victory shall have been won. The fact that every mail brings along an encouraging letter from some newspaper editor steels me to keep up the fight. Mr. W. W. Gaines, advertising manager of Del Rio Evening News, Del Rio, Texas, writes me as follows: “Enclosed herewith is a page from our issue of April 20, wherein we use a goodly portion of your material, together with some of our own ... we will greatly appreciate any new material sent us. “We agree with you entirely on the subject, and will gladly cooperate with the movement along with other newspapers, of which there should be a large number. “Keep up the good work and thanks.” Encouraged by Mr. Gaines’ letter, and by other similar letters, I am sending out another letter to all the dailies in an effort to arouse them against this menace to their interests. The Detroit Free Press, of Detroit Mich., published a strong attack against screen advertising in its issue of April 27, reproducing part of Mr. Laemmle’s statement. “What patrons of motion pictures pay for,” the article said partly, “is entertainment unadulterated with advertising. When they do not receive it they feel cheated. A radio program comes to its audience free of charge. A motion picture show has to be paid for. Would it be surprising, then, if movie fans, whose entertainment costs them something, were to become even more resentful of the injection of advertising into it than radio fans already are, whose entertainment costs them nothing? . . . the lure of easy money must be resisted if the screen is to be saved from this form of commercialism.” The Daily Herald, of Passaic, N. J., printed an attack against this practice. The February number of The American Press, printed a strong editorial against screen advertising. “The old Menace of the Movies,” the article said partly, “has ceased to be the favorite theme which it formerly was for uplifters and moralists. The net result of those early anti-movie crusades, to date, seems to be a rather childish and futile sort of censorship to which nobody pays much attention, and a fat job for Will H. Hays. “But the new Menace of the Movies is something else again. “They are selling advertising in the talkies. . . . An insult to the innocent public which pays its money to see a show and has advertising — just think of it, advertising! — thrust upon it. . . .” The Dalles Optimist, Dalles, Oregon, prints a strong attack against the practice. The Chicago Leader, Chicago, 111., condemns the practice in a vigorous and long editorial. A reporter of that paper interviewed Mr. L. Sussman, proprietor of the Adelphi Theatre, North Clark Street and Estes Avenue, who enlightened the reporter on the subject. He also called his attention to articles that appeared in the different issues of Harrison’s Reports, from an issue of which the paper copied liberally. The Brownsville Telegraph printed two articles against the unethical practice, in two different issues. In the one, the editor copies freely from Harrison’s Reports. BE CAREFUL OF THIS! Sidney R. Kent, of Paramount-Publix, and Felix Feist, of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, have gone on record as stating that it will not be necessary for any exhibitor to buy their short subjects in order to get their features. If the salesmen of these companies should try to force you to buy their shorts before they accept a contract from you for the features, notify this office so that it may enter a protest. For that matter no distributor has the right to refuse a contract from you for his features just because you refuse to buy his shorts ; it was declared an unfair trad£ practice at the Trade Practice Conference, held under the auspices of the United States Government, on October 10, 1927.