Harrison's Reports (1932)

Bntered 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. Fubiished 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. XIV SATURDAY, APRIL 2, 1^ No. 14 SECTION 4 OF THE BROOKHART BILL The producers are naturally fighting the Brookhart Bill; they are concentrating their efforts as much on it as they are on the Brookhart Resolution. The one provision that they are dreading more than any other is that which obligates them to furnish the exhibitor with a one-thousand-word synopsis before offering the picture for sale. I understand that they are shedding crocodile tears before congressmen, telling them that this provision limits their action in making such changes after sale and during production as will improve the picture, a restriction that will prove, as they assert, detrimental to the progress of the art. It makes me laugh when I hear them talk about “art”; for in the minds of nine out of ten of them art is synonymous to sex. Let us discuss this provision with a view to determining whether it will prove detrimental or beneficial to production. Let me first, however, reproduce this part of the law : “Section 4. Six months after the date of the approval of the act it shall be unlawful for any producer or distributor of copyrighted motion picture films to lease or license, or offer to lease or license, in the course of interstate commerce any such films containing photoplays or other such subjects of 4,000 feet or more in length, to the operator of any theatre or theatres for exhibition to the public, unless such producer or distributor shall furnish or make available to such theatre operator, at or before the time any such lease or license agreement is entered into, a full and complete or outline of the story, incidents, and scenes depicted in said films. The synopsis of any such film of 4,000 feet or over shall contain at least 1,000 words and shall afford the theatre operator sufficient information concerning the subject matter of the film to determine whether the same is suitable for exhibition to his patrons. Failure to furnish such synopsis or outline, and any knowing or wilfull misstatement as to the story or incidents of the picture outlined in any such synopsis shall be punished by a fine not more than $1,000 and not less than $100 for each offense, in the discretion of the court.” The producers will assert, of course, that it is impossible for them to make pictures under such conditions. Picturemaking, they will insist, is an art and the artist must have freedom of action so that, when he gets an inspiration during the production of a photoplay, he may be able to carry out his inspired thoughts by suitable changes. With this law in operation he must adhere to the original plot faithfully. To begin with, not all producers of pictures are artists, and naturally what such persons may think are inspirations may actually be ravings. There is no doubt in my mind that the person responsible for the guillotine scene in “Prestige” thought that to have the life-convicts groan rhythmically while the hammer was being lifted; to have the horrorstricken faces of some of them shown in close-ups just before the hammer was to be dropped on the head of the person who was to be executed, were the inspired thoughts of a fertile imagination, thoughts that arose in the mind of the artist during production. To me, these were the ravings of a warped mind. It is only such a mind that can believe that scenes of this character are entertaining. I could fill volumes with such examples. But I don’t think it is necessary. Yet this provision of the law will in no way restrict them from making changes during production ; there is nothing in the law that forbids a producer from adding scenes and situations as long as he adheres to the facts described in the synopsis. But suppose the director, or the author, or any one connected with the staff that will produce a picture, conceived a certain scene or situation that would add entertainment values to the picture and proceeded to incorporate it, but that in doing so he changed the plot radically. Is there any exhibitor who will reject a picture so improved? The law cannot punish the producer for changing the plot radically as long as he notifies the exhibitor and obtains his consent to deliver the picture as altered. Though this provision of the bill appears as favoring only the exhibitor, a deep study of it will make one realize that the producer will benefit from it as much as the exhibitor, for the following reasons : At present, the producers maintain staffs of writers to put the r'a,w material into screen play form. These writers form a substantial portion of the cost of pictures, for often many of them are engaged at high salaries but are not given anything to do for weeks and weeks. Often the conscientious amongst them tire of idle life and give up their jobs and their lucrative pay. Today no author, however reputable, can sell to a picture company a screen play ready for production ; the studios reject them, for the studio executives want to maintain their staffs of writers and run up the cost of pictures, as much for posing as for keeping production too mysterious for the home offices. With the Brookhart Bill enacted into a law, the necessity for preparing the screen play of a picture before offering it for sale to the exhibitors will be apparent. As time goes on more and more of the raw material will be put into screen play form, out of which the synopsis may be obtained, until the time will come when the producers will be “caught up” with material and will no longer be running around like lunatics about two or three months before the beginning of each picture season, searching for material so as to enable them to announce their new season’s product, in desperation, grabbing anything that comes along. It is a well-known fact that in many cases the producers announce titles without any material in view. They just give an order to their artists to prepare some attractive drawings, color them, and if they look catchy to put them into the announcement. Yes, this section of the Brookhart Bill, along with the provisions that forbid allocation of product, will change all that, thus taking the business out of the racket class and making an honest-to-goodness business out of it ; it will force the producers to dispene with their theatres, thus creating a free market. With such conditions prevailing, the independent producers will assume a rightful position in the industry. Why should the exhibitor not be furnished with a synopsis of at least one thousand words describing what he is about to buy, for the money he promises to pay? What is wrong in that ? If you should decide to buy a diamond for which you will be expected to pay one hundred dollars, would you, would any one, buy it with eyes shut? You certainly would want to see it first, or you would want your representative to see it, before agreeing to pay the money. And yet the producers think it unfair to give the exhibitor an idea what he is buying, when the money he is expected to pay runs up to thousands, often to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and when the product they may deliver to you without a synopsis may not be suitable for your custom. Can any one doubt the right of the e.xhibitor, before he signs a contract, to know whether the picture will be clean, or a dirty sex story, or a gangster play, or any other theme, unsuitable for his custom ? As a result of the demoralization at the studios, not to say at the home offices of most companies, you must be prepared to expect a quality of product that will be worse than anything your eyes have seen heretofore. Pictures will be steeped in sex by the producers in their efforts to save their sinking ships. Your only salvation lies in the enactment of the Brookhart Bill into a law. Call on your ministers, priests. Rabbis, heads of all civic and fraternal (Continued on last page)