Harrison's Reports (1933)

40 HARRISON’S REPORTS are 407. Of these, 225 have been delivered and 182 remain for delivery. Accounced Delivered To Be Delivered Columbia .... 48 29 19 First National . . . . 30 16 14 Fox .... 44 29 15 MGM . . . . 50 16 34 Paramount 39 23 RKO 34 28 United Artists I I 1 Universal . • • • 35 16 19 Warner Bros ■ . . . 35 18 17 World Wide— KBS . . . . . 29 17 12 _ — — 407 225 182 How many independent pictures will be produced during the entire season is extremely difficult to determine ; but as I realize that such information is of great importance to you on account of the probability of picture shortage as a result of double-feature practice of some exhibitors as well as the smaller number of pictures the major companies have scheduled for production, not to mention the possibility of “break-down” in some of the companies, I shall try in the two or three weeks that will follow to obtain whatever information is available so as to arrive at an approximate number. In the meantime, I would suggest to those of you who face a possible shortage to plan now to shut down during the latter half of June, the entire July and at least the first half of August, if not the entire month, so as to ease up your situation, in addition to effecting considerable saving from reducing your lossses. AGAIN ABOUT THE MEDDLING OF OUTSIDERS IN THE DOUBLEFEATURE CONTROVERSY “A sweeping, comprehensive, direct-to-the-public survey of the ‘double-feature’ problem as an aid to the entire motion picture industry in arriving at a solution of this vital question,’’ says a publicity story sent to the trade papers by the Hal Roach studios, “has been inaugurated by the Hal Roach Studios through the Hays organization. “In conjunction with Mrs. Thomas G. Winter, associate director of public relations of the Hays office, seven hundred leaders of the Better Picture Movement, representing more than six million theatre patrons, are being canvassed to secure an unbiased expression of their views of the ‘double-feature’ problem. . . . “The questionnaire as formulated by the Hal Roach Studios is as follows : “r : Do you prefer patronizing the theatre showing double-features, namely two pictures, during one performance? “2: Would you prefer a more diversified program, i.e., such as one good feature, supplemented by short comedy subjects, newsreels, etc.? “3 : What objections, if any, have you against the doublefeature policy? We will appreciate a comprehensive summary of your opinion, and the general attitude of your membership.” Notice the manner in which the questions have been framed: No. i is such as to bring a “No!” answer. No. 2 calls for a “Yes!” answer in at least ninety-five cases out of each hundred. No. 3 calls for the registering of objections, for the false pride of the person to whom this question is submitted is touched — he has no other way out but object to double features. The questions have been framed in a tricky way and are such as to cause embarrassment to those of the exhibitors who are .showing two features on one bill. It is an unfair way of proceeding, in that it does not give the doublefeaturing exhibitor a chance to be heard. He is thus condemned without a hearing, a procedure which is unethical, unfair, and altogether un-.\merican. And the Hays organization has been guilty of abetting such mean propaganda. .^s this paper said in the article that it printed in the February 25 issue, the double feature is an economical problem, and must be solved along economical lines. .Als long as the affiliated circuits continue clinging to the privilege of buying pictures at the run they want, and to impose upon subsequent exhibitors protection of a duration they choose, the double-feature evil will exist, particularly in situations where the circuits have reduced admission prices and are giving away premiums. Wrest from the circuits privilege and the double-feature problem is automatically solved. March 11, AGAIN ABOUT FOX SUBSTITUTIONS What are your rights in the matter of substitutions by the Fox Film Corporation? Under the heading additional clauses, printed in red ink, the following clause appears on the face of the Fox contract, under the schedule : “It is further understood and agreed that, except in such cases where a definite published book, or play, is designated in the schedule and/or in any work sheet and/or in any preliminary trade announcement or advertisement, the Distributor reserves the right to change the title, story, plot and/or the director of any photoplay contracted for hereunder, it being understood that all such designations, except for such published book, or play, are tentative and subject to change, without notice.” This clause means that, unless a picture sold is to be founded on a well known book, play or magazine story. Fox reserves the right to put a different story in its place, a different director to produce it, and a different cast to act in it. Whether this clause can be sustained in a court of equity is a question. Personally I doubt it, for one party reserves certain rights without granting corresponding rights to the other party. But in the event that you refuse to play substitutions the matter has to be settled in a court of equity in case Fox insisted that you play or pay for a substitute picture. “Handle With Care” : In last week’s editorial it was stated that this is not a star substitution in that James Dunn appears in it though Sally Filers does not appear. In some contracts the Chaplin children and Mrs. Chaplin were to be featured. In such cases it is a star substitution. The substitution is to the detriment of the interests of the exhibitors, in that the picture would have undoubtedly drawn to the theatre ten times as many persons as will the picture with tlie present star. The contract holder paid, no doubt, more money for this picture, because of the Chaplin children, than he would have paid for it had it been stated that James Dunn was to be in it. For Fox, then, to insist that you accept this picture without some readjustment of the price is unjust and unfair. The fact that the Chaplin children have been barred from the picture by court order makes no difference so far as your interests are concerned, for the Fo.x Corporation was not under an obligation to produce it without them. Since the Chaplin children may well be thought to be “stars,” and Janies Dunn can hardly be expected to mean as much to a picture, I would class “Handle With Care” as a definite substitution. THE PRODUCERS ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PANIC Mr. Abram F. Myers, general counsel of Allied States Association, has issued the following statement : “\'arious industry leaders have pledged fealty to the new administration but I have received complaints from all sections that the film exchanges are contributing directly to the present panicky conditions by refusing to accept checks in payment of film rentals and are demanding cash or United States money orders, C. O. D., or in advance. “In States operating under moratorium the producers are refusing to sliare the common lot, are sucking into the exchanges all available currency, are casting the entire burden on the theatres and the public, and are destroying confidence in the banking structure. “This is unpatriotic and unfair and merits the condemnation of the (^vernment officials who are striving so hard to restore confidence and avert a national catastrophe. “State leaders are urged to take this matter up with the Governors, bank commissioners and other state officials and protest against the draining of all the available cash money into New York by these means.” Mr. Myers has also sent telegrams to the secretaries of the Treasury and of Commerce requesting their intercession to stop this practice. The present state of mind of the people of this country reminds me of the ill-fated sinking of the French ship Burijundy more than three decades ago. Grown up men were trampling upon women and children to make the life boats. In the scramble many life boats were sunk and they lo.st their lives. In the present case, everybody seems to be running to the hanks to draw out whatever money he has so as not to be caught in the panic. But in so doing every’ one is contributing just to the condition he wishes to avoid. Has reason fled the minds of men?