Harrison's Reports (1932)

120 HARRISON’S REPORTS July 23, 1932 THE HODKINSON PLAN W. W. Hodkinson, founder of the Paramount Pictures Corporation, is now proposing a new plan; he suggests that the present archaic system of production, distribution, exhibition and exploitation will have to be changed completely. According to Motion Picture Herald, this plan consists partly in (i) releasing pictures nationally at the same time, at a fair admission price ; (2) and grading the pictures so that each grade may be shown at the proper grade theatre, to the end that the pictures of one grade may not be shown in theatres of another grade. I have great respect for Mr. Hodkinson’s ideas; I worked under him during the General Film Company’s days and I know that he has vision. There are, however, two great weaknesses in this plan: First, it does not say how good pictures will be produced, for without good pictures no plan, however ingenious, can bring patrons to the box office ; and secondly, it runs, I believe, afoul of the Sherman Act. For these two sufficient reasons, the Hodkinson plan cannot be adopted by the motion picture industry at present. While at the Atlantic City Convention of Allied States, the branch manager of one of the biggest film companies told me : “I wish some one would invent a plan to make the exhibitor’s buy pictures.” Such a plan should be good at least for a certain number of persons connected with the motion picture industry. To me, however, the greatest plan would be the one that would bring to the exhibitor eight good pictures out of each ten produced. Until such time, all plans, no matter whether they are proposed by W. W. Hodkinson, A1 Lichtman, or Felix Fesit, will be just plans. By the way, talking about the A1 Lichtman plan of exclusive runs, which has been adopted in some territories also by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, it would be a good idea if the sponsors of this method of distribution consulted firstclass lawyers, for it is the theory that, after Judge Hunger’s decision, a plan of this kind may run afoul of the Sherman Act. There are some persons, in fact, who think that it does so run. In the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, they point out that the producing company is separate from the distributing company, and each is separate from the theatre departments. Some theatres are, in fact, controlled by other subsidiaries. These persons feel that there may be some violation of the Sherman Act when these different subsidiaries come together and decide that a certain picture shall not be shown in another theatre. It is worth mulling over, for if these subsidiaries should be found violating the Sherman Act, the consequences will not be so healthy for them. GREAT HOPE FOR THE BROOKHART BILL! Close to the heels of the victory in Nebraska came another— the reporting out of the Committee of the Brookhart Bill. This means that it is now on the Calendar and, though there is no hope that it will be acted upon at this session of the Senate, it will be acted upon at the next session. Its order number on the Calendar is 1079. How great is also this victory may be judged by the fact that one of the Hays’ lieutenants had assured one of the big distributors that the Brookhart Bill would not be reported out of the Committee. He was one hundred per cent wrong ! Now is the time for you all to work for the Brookhart Bill, for every vote gained makes us feel that much surer of its passage. The picture industry lies in a heap and only a law such as the Brookhart Bill provides can save it. Do not pay any attention to the exhibitor-hirelings of the Hays’ organization ! There is nothing in the Bill that will prevent an exhibitor from buying any number of pictures he wants, or that he must read the synopses of the pictures offered for sale before buying them. “THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY” AND THE SECRET REPORT OF COLONEL JASON JOY TO MR. WILL H. HAYS The July 13 issue of The Christian Century printed the following editorial : "The Christian Century of June 15 with its article ‘The Movies in Politics’ was scarcely in the hands of its readers when Harrison’s Rkports, staunch trade organ of the independent exhibitors, came out with a startling confirmation of the main point of that article. It published a report made by Col. Jason Joy to Mr. Will H. Hays under date of May 23. Colonel Joy, it will be remembered, is an assistant to Mr. Hays and has charge of relations with studios, just as Mr. Milliken has charge of the industry’s relations with the churches and women’s clubs, and Mr. Hays himself has charge of relations with politicians. According to Harrison's Reports, Colonel Joy reported to his chief in part as follows:” After printing most of the Joy report that was printed in a recent issue of Harrison's Reports, The Christian Century concludes as follows : “Yes, and does it not also ‘demonstrate in a rather spectacular way’ the betrayal of confidence the churches and civic associations have placed in Messrs. Joy and Hays? And the grim determination of the industry to defeat the agencies which the public has set up to defend its children from vicious pictures? Reduced to its plainest terms this sort of policy says : Give us our profits ; the children be damned ! Probably not a single producer or distributor would admit such an attitude as his own ; but their collective action means nothing less.” IS THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS A RAY OF HOPE FOR EXHIBITORS ? Justice Burch, of the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, has handed down an opinion declaring that the contracts entered into between R. E. Mills, an exhibitor of Chanute, Kansas, and United Artists, in 1929, for a number of pictures are invalid in that the contracts specify a minimum admission price and the pictures h^d not been submitted to the state censors for approval before selling. The point counsel for United Artists sought to make was that though Judge Thacher declared the arbitration clause illegal, the Standard Exhibtion Contract is divisible and the lawful part of it enforcable. The court passed over the arbitration clause with a short comment but it declared that the contract was made unlawful by virtue of the fact that it stipulated a minimum admission price, and that such a provision violated the laws relating to combination in restraint of trade as well as the laws of the State of Kansas. On the point relating to the fact that the pictures had not been submitted to the censors of the State of Kansas before their sale, attorney for the distributor contended that since the contracts were accepted in New York the laws of Kansas did not govern them. A decision on this motion will be rendered in a few weeks. This court’s decision may have a far-reaching effect; when the exhibitors find out that, because of producer opposition, they cannot put the Brookhart bill through, they may turn to censorship. They may not believe in censorship, but is there a drowning man who will push away a plank when he sees a chance to grab it? CONDEMNING THE SHADOW BUT OVERLOOKING THE SUBSTANCE According to a news account that appeared in last week’s trade papers. Will H. Hays, who is now on the Coast, has threatened with “summary action” all studio publicity department employees who may be found violating the advertising Code of Ethics. He directs that, in the future, all publicity material must conform to the principles of this code; otherwise, the violators will be liable to discharge. The big stick, however, will not be confined to falling upon the heads of producer employees only ; it will fall also upon the heads of such exhibitors as will make use of such material. To those who have watched the filth in pictures in the last two years this action of Mr. Hays’ will appear laughable. If Mr. Hays wants to bring about a cleansing of the motion picture industry, why does he not start with the filth in pictures? Why doesn’t he tell IMetro-Goldwj-n-Mayer to withdraw “Red Headed Woman”? Why did he allow this company to trebble the sex appeal of the book? There are situations in the picture that were not in the book. And why does he not stop Paramount from making “No Bed of Her Own” and other material of similar vileness. Fox, “Call Her Savage,” RKO, “Life Begins Tomorrow,” “The Sun .■\lso Rises,” and many other sex books or plays, announced by this and other companies? But that would be dealing with employers instead of employees. And this would not be so healthy for him ; in all probability he would be told to mind his own business, and to confine himself to helping them put over their filthy pictures through the different censor boards, for that is what he is being paid for and not to criticize them.