Harrison's Reports (1932)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. . 16.00 Canada, Alaska 16.00 Mexico, Spain, Cuba 16.00 Great Britain, New Zealand 16.00 Other Foreign Countries.. 17.60 36c a Copy s 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. Published Weekly by P. S. HARRISON Editor and Publisher 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. 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, OCTOBER 15, 1932 Na 42 THE MILLION DOLLAR FAILURE When a person decides to put up a building that is to cost one million dollars, he does much planning and thinking. To begin with, he goes to a first class architect to draw the plans : then he sends for experts to look over those plans to see that there is in them nothing wrong that might cause the building to collapse later on ; then he gets the cost of the building ; then he figures out whether the investment will bring any returns. It is only after a careful investigation of everything and after the advice of experts as to the safety of the investment that one goes ahead with the building. In the motion picture business, one million dollars is spent on a picture on the assumption and hope that it will turn out good, making money not only for the producer but also for the exhibitor. There have been so many costly mistakes that you would think that the producers would evolve some system whereby the chances of making failures were reduced to the minimum. But such is not the case if we are to judge by the fact that the ratio of failures to successes is just as big as ever. (Jne case in point U “Skyscraper Souls,” the MGM picture, which was released recently. I have no information as to how much it cost the producers, but I would say that it has not cost even one cent less than one million dollars. The MGM executives would have got great value out of the money spent in the production of this picture had they taken half of the money and scattered it on Broadway in dollars bills ; they would at least have got publicity. With the other half million, they could have made two smaller pictures with less dirt and more human interest. MGM production heads are reputed as being the wisest in the business. If we are to determine this by the number of costly failures they made during the 1931-32 season, we shall inevitably come to the conclusion that MGM is still making pictures by the hit-and-miss system. If they were so wise, why couldn’t they foresee that the material of “Skyscraper Souls” could not make a great picture? “Skyscraper Souls” is not only poor entertainment ; it is vile entertainment, and demoralizing for young people. Small town exhibitors will not be able to show it. The hero, impersonated by Warren Williams, double-crosses everybody, even his dosest friends. The Skyscraper building is his only love and he leaves nothing undone to retain control of it. The fact that he brings misery upon the investors, and even death, does not make him spend a sleepless night. On top of this, he is a licentious person ; and he takes them young. For instance, he saw the heroine, a young girl, and immediately made up his mind to possess her. The scenes where he makes her drink champagne will undoubtedly prove objectionable to millions of parents, for they make drinking attractive. There is a situation in this picture that will make many a parent stop his children from going to pictures. It is that which shows Norman Foster, fiance of Maureen O’Sullivan, getting so out of control that he tries to seduce her. The talk exchanged between the two is bolder than anything that has yet been heard in pictures. The running of this picture is a serious problem for small town exhibitors. They cannot show it, and they cannot get a release from it. In other words, they will have to pay for it even if they may show it. The stage is dead, because of the dirt the producers put into it ; and the talking picture will meet the same fate, unless the producers change views about what the people want. Permanent success is brought about by an appeal not to the flesh but to the mind. ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE OLD STANDARD CONTRACT Hon. Walter M. Pickett, of the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven County, in the State of Connecticut, in a lengthy memorandum rendered by him in the case of Universal Film Exchange vs. Middlesex Theatres, Inc., ruled that the old Standard Exhibition Contract is illegal, in that it was the “instrument of conspiracy.” The suit was started by Universal to force the exhibitor to play some of the contracted pictures he refused to play. Edward G. Levy, Secretary of Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Connecticut, was the attorney for the defense. The plaintiff introduced as witnesses branch managers, members of the Film Board of Trade, and even a general counsel of the Hays organization itself, in addition to the general counsel of the company. But their testimony was offset by the able defense, which introduced letters and other documents, as well as a competent witness, Mr. Allen C. Morrison, of Hartford, whose million dollar conspiracy case against United Artists and the Film Board of Trade comes up in the Connecticut District Court for trial within the next thirty days. Since the Trial Court branded the contract illegal on the strength of the facts presented to it. a doubt has been expressed whether Universal will appeal from Judge Pickett’s decision. Judge Pickett’s decision branding the old standard contract illegal, coming on the heels of a similar decision by the Supreme Court of North Dakota, in the case of United Artists vs. John Pillar, should induce the producers to give up annoying the exhibitors with suits trying to make them pay for pictures which they bought on the old contract form, but many of which they refuse to play or pay for. In the North Dakota case, the Court stated partly the following: “Appellant concedes that, that part of the contract providing for arbitration is invalid, but claims that the objectionable part of the contract is separable from the other provisions and that while the provision relating to arbitration is unenforceable, when it is separated from the other provisions there is still a good workable contract upon which he can recover. * * * “This view of the Federal decision holding arbitration of the contract invalid is followed in the courts which sustain appellant’s contention. The decision does not specifically provide ‘that nothing therein shall affect the rest of the contract,’ but does say that ‘nothing that has been said should be taken in derogation of the right of trade or commercial groups, or of traders generally, to voluntarily impose upon themselves standard forms of agreement which do not unduly restrict competition and thus restrain trade, or to agree that all controversies arising between them shall be settled by arbitration. Such agreements dealing only with the rights of those who execute and intend to be bound by them are normal and usual, and are proper instruments in the lawful conduct of trade. It is only when such agreements are sought to be imposed upon others, regardless of their wishes, by coercive combinations having power to say “take what is offered or get nothing,” that they become illegal. “ ‘Upon settlement of the decree the parties may suggest provisions, if such be feasible, under which uniform contracts containing arbitration clauses may be voluntarily adopted by the members of this industry without coercion or other unlawful restraint.’ “This language means, that it was not the intent of the Court to say that the parties could in no case arbitrate but that they might arbitrate so long as it was voluntary and without coercion. In other words, the distributors might get together and adopt a new contract with an arbitration provision which did not offend against the law. The enforcement of the contract against the exhibitor was not involved. He was not a party to the action and his rights under it could not be determined. The action was brought by the United States Government against the distributors only, to enjoin them from operating under a contract in restraint of trade and the court did not undertake to say and did not (^Continued on last page)