Harrison's Reports (1932)

HARRISON’S REPORTS 24 A CANARD I have received the following letter from Southern California ; “Certain interests, associated with producer theatre owners indirectly, are circulating information to the effect that next season the producers are going to sell their pictures in small towns and in many sections of big cities to one exhibitor exclusively. In other words, no matter how many individual theatres there may be in such localities, only one exhibitor will get the film, for all runs. "Do you think this can be done legally ? I want to know, for if it could, many theatres will eventually be compelled to shut down.” There has been talk about such a policy now and then. A discussion of it once occurred in my presence, some of my friends taking the attitude that it was perfectly legal for the producers to sell their product to whomever they pleased, and on terms they saw fit. They asserted that a producer may go so far as to give his pictures away if he saw fit and there is no court in the world to stop him from doing so. Talk of this kind is, in my opinion, idle, for the conditions surrounding the sale of films is entirely different from the conditions surrounding the sale of other commodities. Let us, for example, take fountain pens as the subject of our discussion ; Waterman may choose to sell his pens to one shop in a town and refuse to sell them to another shop in that town. But there are other than Waterman pens in the market and the owner of a store need not shut it down for lack of pens ; he may buy Parker, or any other brand. The matter, however, differs with motion pictures, for there is no competition in the moving picture business, or there is very little of it, and only in some localities. If, for example, an exhibitor shows a film a day, second run, there is no competition among the producers as to who will sell him his product, for this exhibitor shows almost every feature film made. If each producer should decide to sell his films to the first-run exhibitor in that locality exclusively, the second-run exhibitor would have to shut down his theatre. In such an event it is highly improbable that the courts would permit it. A lawyer friend of mine said this : If block-booking is illegal, and he feels sure that the courts will so declare it eventually, it is a foregone conclusion that the exclusive sale of pictures to one theatre in a given locality is ten times more illegal. Exhibitors need not become frightened by such a rumor, because I believe that it has been sent abroad for a purpose : the producers have made so many errors in the past that I doubt if they would be unwise enough to make one more, particularly when the consequences of an error of this kind may be serious. “PROTECTION” WITH VENGEANCE Publix Theatres inserted an advertisement in the LaSalle paper extolling the merits of “Frankenstein.” The advertisement contained the following statement : “This Production Will Not Be Shown in Any Other Theatre in the Tri-Cities for 30 Days !” The intent of this statement was to make the people of LaSalle and of two surrounding towns go to the Publix Theatre to see the picture instead of to the independent theatres, w'hich have it booked for showing at a later date. And then there are exhibitors who recommend that the problems of the industry be settled within the industry instead of taking them before Congress ! WARNER BROS, PICTURES NOW BILLBOARDS In the issue of January 23, I called your attention to the fact that Warner Bros, inserted a “plug” in “Taxi” for Warner Bros, pictures and theatres, but hoped that the production department of this company would not make this a practice. Unfortunately, it seems as if this company intends to make this a permanent feature of their films. That is, at least, what I gather from the fact that in “High Pressure,” Mr. William Powell, the star, delivers a fine eulogy of the Warner Bros, spirit in pioneering talking pictures. A practice of this kind is harmful to the business in that, w’henever the name of Warner Bros, is mentioned, the spectator is made to return from the world of illusion to the world of fact. Not onlv is this practice harmful to the entertainment values of the picture ; it is also unethical, for by such a February 6, 1932 practice this company uses your screens, which you employ it to entertain those who pay their admissions to jour theatre, to boost their product and their theatres. This calls for a united protest on the part, not only of the organizations but also of every individual exhibitor whether he uses or does not use VV'arner Bros, pictures. It is my belief that if your protests were sent to Jack Warner, who is the production head, they would prove more effective. His address is 5842 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, California. Forward your protest immediately 1 And mark it “Personal.” SUBSTITUTIONS “Disorderly Conduct” was sold to you by the Fox Film Corporation with Victor McLaglen and Edmund Lowe in the leading parts. Since the finished product is delivered with Spencer Tracy, Sally Eilers and Ralph Bellamy, it is a star substitution and you are not obligated to accept it. The fact that the story was to have been written by Barry Connors and has been written by William Anthony McGuire makes it, in addition to star, a story substitution. THE PREVAILING SEX ORGY AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES The only conclusion that one can reach by the kind of sex trash that is being released continuously is that the producers, either do not realize the harm they are doing to themselves, or are fatalists, like the Orientals. The Orientals believe that whatever happens is written by a superior power and that man cannot change it. There is an outcry against sex pictures almost everywhere and yet the producers are doing nothing to curb the abuse. Instead, they are intensifying it. The Paramount organization used to be the smallest offender ; it has now become the biggest. That is what one assumes by the sex picture or^ they have been releasing this year. They have been making poor pictures for a long time and some one from within the organization must have been asking the production forces to give them the reason. The production forces, unable to put their finger on the right trouble, must have come to the conclusion that there has not been enough sex in their pictures. And they are now proceeding to put it in wholesale. It is my opinion that we have not j-et seen the sex limit in Paramount pictures. The sex element in “No One Man” was a sample, if anything. But the motion picture industry will not go unpunished if the producers persist in such a policy ; they will pay “through the nose” ; for it is unthinkable that the agitation that is goin,g on in all lay as well as religious organizations for the curbing of the evil will spend itself without any results. If the producers still believe that Mr. Hays can avert censorship and other restricting measures they are sadly in need of good advice, for his influence among religious organizations and women’s clubs is nil ; and among the newspaper people his influence seems to be still less. ABOUT THE 1930-31 SWANSON PICTURE No. 2 According to the Michigan Allied Bulletin, the United Artists exchange in that territory is trying to force the exhibitors to play “Tonight or Never” as the Gloria Swanson No. 2, sold on the 1930-31 contracts. As I said in the issue of December 12, under the heading, “About ‘Tonight or Never,’ ” Mr. A1 Lichtman, General Manager of United Artists, told me that the two Gloria Swanson pictures that were sold on the 1930-31 contracts were to be made bv Joe Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy, after making the first one, ‘AVhat a Widow,” refused to go through with his contract by making the other picture and so United Artists was unable to deliver the second Swanson for that season; and that, since “Tonight or Never” was made by another company, the Art Cinema Corporation, the holders of a 1930-31 Gloria Swanson contract were not entitled to this picture, even though he ^yas willing to let such exhibitors have it for the contract price, if it had not been sold to another exhibitor in a particular locality. lust as the exhibitor, holder of a 1930-31 contract, is not entitled to “Tonight or Never,” so United Artists cannot force such exhibitor to play it. In other words, no exhibitor is under a contractual obligation to play “Tonight or Never” unless he does so out of his own free will.