Harrison's Reports (1932)

Ent«r*d 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 16.60 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.60 36c 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 XIV SATURDAY, JUNE 1 1, 1932 No. 24 TEN YEARS OF WILL H. HAYS — Article No. 5 In Article No. 4, printed in last week’s issue, a fuller comparison was made of the principles laid down by the Hays Code of Ethics with the producer performances. It was proved in those comparisons that the producers did not pay any attention to the Code interdictions. I could fill volumes with examples to prove to anj' fairminded person that the Code is a meaningless document, and that production under it not only has not improved but has become worse. But I consider additional examples unnecessary. Let us now review Mr. Hays’ record as regards to his attitude toward independent e.xhibitors and their organizations : W hen Mr. Hays came into this industry in 1922, he said that he not only was not opposed to exhibitor organizations but he welcomed them, letting it be known that he would do all there was in his power to make them stronger so that producers and exhibitors combined might be able to fight the enemies of the industry more effectively. But what has been his attitude towards them? He has done everything he has been able to do to destroy them. W hen lie came into the industry there was a powerful exhibitor organization — Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America; so powerful, in fact, that during its fight against Paramount, the Famous Players-I.asky stockdropped on the board from around 80 to 45. .^nd it brought the president of this company to his knees. Within a few months after Mr. Hays became the head of the producer organization, M.P.T.O.A. was disrupted. This organization is now in reality a branch of the Hays organization. This is what Mr. Hays has done to that powerful body. litforts were made at different times to revive M.P.T. 0..\., hut these efforts came to naught: Mr. Hays, acting through his lieutenants, was always able to neutralize the indenendent exhibitor efforts. At one time he went so far as to induce the exhibitors of the northern part of this state to apply to his organization for a membership. It was only after a strong attack by this paper, which attack aniu.sed the exhibitors in every part of tlie United States, that he abandoned his plans of absorbing exhibitor organizations, confining himself to strengthening M.P.T.O..'\. as much as he could, for he can always pull the strings and make it dance to his tunc. At last two or three exhibitor leaders woke up to the danger that threatened the interests of the independent exhibitors and formed what is now known as Allied States. A1 Steffes, of Minnesota: H. M. Richey, of Michigan; .-V. H. Cole, of Te.xas, were the prime movers in that movement. They felt that they ought to have as a leader an outside man, and they finally decided that Mr. Abram F. Myers, former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. was that man. Mr. Myers had made so fine an impression of his impartiality and his grasp of the independent exhibitor problems during the Trade Practices Conference, held in Xew York in the first part of October, 1927, that they knew he would be acceptable to the e.xhibitors at large. And their judgment did not prove mistaken. What has been the attitude of Mr. Hays towards the .Mlied organization, and towards Mr. Myers in particular? The answer may be found in that discreditable incident that took place at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, on July 2, 1929: Allied States, seeing the interests of the independent exhibitors endangered by the greedy and oppressive tactics of the producers, called a nation-wide meeting of exhibitor leaders to discuss these matters and to make appropriate measures. To show their sincerity, they invited the national president of M.P.T.O..'\. and the reeional leaders affiliated with it. Many of them accepted the invitation and promised to be there. But what happened? The M.P.T.O.A. leaders went to Washington, well enough, and registered at the same hotel. But they did not attend the sessions of the Allied organization. Instead, they held a secret meeting of their own, and afterwards issued a statement to the newspapers attacking Commissioner Myers and denouncing the Brookhart bill. These leaders then returned to New York and gloated over the fact that they “put one over on Mr. Myers” and on the other Allied leaders. Personally I don’t see how any self-respecting person could have countenanced such an act ; it was the lowest political act one could conceive. And Mr. Hays did not reprimand his subordinate, who engineered it, nor did he do anything to put an end to such disreputable tactics. To this day, innuendo and whispering intended to shake the confidence of the exhibitors in their leaders is carried on just the same. Mr. Hays’ history in the moving picture industry has been one blunder after another. His first false step, and a most serious one, was taken by him in the Arbuckle case. Every one of you remember, I believe, the Arbuckle sordid scandal in which a young woman died during a drunken party, and Roscoe Arbuckle, at that time a big drawing card as a slap-stick comedian, was arrested for her murder. Before .Arbuckle was tried, and a jury had rendered its verdict, sanctimonious Mr. Hays wanted the world to know how well-behaving a child is the motion picture industry and barred Roscoe Arbuckle pictures from the screen. But there was too much money tied up in Arbuckle pictures, and too much money to be lost by barring .Arbuckle from the screen for all time: Paramount had several Arhiickle pictures playing at that time in addition to two or three negatives of completed but unreleased pictures, and Joe .Schenck ran the risk of losing additional millions in his rights to the Arbuckle contract. So shortly after Arbuckle was acquitted they brought pressure on Mr. Hays to lift the ban; and Mr. Hays, around Christmas. I believe, felt that the American people were entitled to a Cliristnxas present. And he gave them Arbuckle. Blit the .American people did not prove so gullible this lime and the Arbuckle pictures never saw the light in the United States. Did Mr. Havs show good judgment in the Arbuckle matter? Any clever business man would have waited the outcome of the trial before taking any action. After the acquittal he could have either remained silent or taken the same step, thus raising the prestige of the industry before the eyes of the American people. Or he might, before the trial, have barred .Arbuckle for a definite length of time, sav two years, and then at the end of that period of time he needed do nothing; .Arbuckle would have been automatically re-instated. But. no ! He wanted to show that he was the czar of the picture industry and made the worst blunder a business man could have ever made. Rut it is a good thing he did make it, otherwise the industry would have suffered worse than it suffered by that sordid incident: more parents would have barred their children from going to pictures, and the discussion of that sordid affair would have been kept up so that every young man and young woman of the rising generation would have had an opportunity to learn all the details of that drunken party. (To he concluded next week) FORECASTER TALK No. 2 It frequently happens that, when you tell a representative of a producer how poor some of the material they have announced for production is. he retorts : “\Ve are going to change it ! Wait and see ! It is going to be marvelous!” or. “Do }-ou suppose that we will produce it that way? We’re .going to change it all around.” In order for yon to accept this statement as correct, you (Continued on last page)