Harrison's Reports (1933)

192 HARRISON’S REPORTS capable. In other words, Paramount did not produce good pictures previously to the time it entered the exhibition field, because it saw no reason, as I interpret his statement, to do so, since it wasn’t Zukor’s ox that was gored when theatres showed poor pictures. It may be recorded here that Paramount made its best pictures in 1917, when it did not own a single theatre, and the worst in 1931 and 1932, when it owned the largest number of theatres that will be gathered again into a single circuit either by Paramount or by any other company. The ownership of theatres, instead of helping the producers make better pictures, handicapped them to such an extent that they made worse pictures, for their attention was devoted chiefly to the theatre headaches instead of employing it exclusively for the production of pictures. Even if by some chance the theatre owning producers had made their l>etter pictures during the period that they controlled the largest number of theatres, still theatre ownership by producers of pictures would not have proved sound in principle, for when a person is compelled to divide his energies between too many ventures he cannot give the proper attention to any of them. Mr. Zukor knows this too well ; and so does Harry Warner, who set out to own not only theatres, but also every sort of manufacturing business that was needed to supply these theatres with what they had to have. Had the market crash been delayed one or two more years, he might have taken in even grocery stores. But it cannot work, as it has been proved conclusively since the market crash, not only because the Home Office executives had to divide their attention among too many enterprises but also because of the lack of man power to operate these theatres efficiently. The abuses that took place in the operation of theatres by the large companies are too well known to every one connected with the picture industry to need re-enumeration. The fact that every company that owned a large number of theatres collapsed is the best proof that theatre operation by film companies is unsuccessful. Look at the stock market quotations of the theatre owning film companies, compare them with the highest that such stock had reached, and you will be convinced of the unsoundness of Mr. Zukor’s theories. Some one may say that what has happened to film stock has happened to the stock of all other industries. That is true; but Mr. Zukor states that the producers were enabled to “protect” their theatre investments by being able to deliver to these theatres better pictures, when in fact they neither delivered better pictures nor saved those investments. Ask any one who once owned moving picture stock, or who still owns such stock, and he will inform you whether the investments represented by the stock he held or still holds have been saved or not. The moving picture industry will never be right until the producers have divested themselves of all theatres except the “show windows.” It is against sound principle and serves only to perpetuate the chaos. THE CASE OF MGM’S “THE DANCING LADY” Many exhibitors, holders of 1932-33 MGM contracts, have asked me whether they are or are not entitled to the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture, “The Dancing Lady,” with Joan Crawford; since they have a Crawford picture still coming, they feel that they are entitled to it. Most of these exhibitors have informed me that as late as the middle of November they had been notified by the MGM exchange of their zones that this picture is theirs. One of them, from Illinois, has written me as follows: “I am enclosing herewith a letter just received from the booker St. Louis Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer exchange, cancelling our booking of ‘Dancing Lady’ and advising that this picture will be released as No. 432 on the 1933-34 contracts. “The 1933-34 contracts have been sold by Metro to a competitor of ours. This picture ‘Dancing Lady’ had been booked into our theatre under the production No. 313 some weeks ago on our 1932-33 contract. . . .” The 1932-33 MGM contract form contains the following provision under the Schedule : “It is further understood and agreed that the Distributor may release at any time, and independently of this agreement, an additional photoplay of any star listed in the Schedule (but not more than three sueh additional photoplays altogether during the terms of December 2, 1933 this agreement) ; and nothing in this agreement contained gives the Exhibitor any right to any such additional photoplays. . . Accordingly, no holder of a 1932-33 MGM contract is entitled to “The Dancing Lady” as long as MGM saw fit to release it in the 1933-34 season. But here is where injustice has been done: Before the picture was exhibited in Los Angeles, the heads of the distributing department of this company notified the exhibitors holding 1932-33 contracts that it is theirs; but when they showed it in Los Angeles and read the favorable criticism the reviewers gave it, they decided to take it away from them and sell it with the 1933-34 group so that their salesmen might be enabled to demand more money for their entire product. Had the picture turned out poor they would no doubt let the 1932-33 contract holders have it. Ever since the practice of selling production numbers was adopted, Harrison’s Reports has not ceased warning the exhibitors of the danger of such practice. By means of it the distributor is enabled to withhold good pictures and to deliver the mediocre ones, and the exhibitor is impotent to reject them, for he has no way of identifying his pictures. The third revision of the Code is deficient on this point in that it makes it possible for the producers to continue this pernicious practice. The Code Administrator should be acquainted with it just as he should with that other practice, indulged in by Warner Bros., in such pictures as “Gold-diggers of 1933.” The producer-distributor should be made to deliver whatever pictures he owes before undertaking to make pictures for another season. It is the only way whereby abuses of this kind may be prevented. WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH LEE TRACY? Because of the idolizing done by young folk of screen players, whatever such players do in public affects the minds of the young. This makes it necessary that the conduct of the screen players be exemplary. No matter how they behave in private, in public they must act like Caesar’s wife. I f a screen player must display an exemplary conduct in his public life in the United States, he must do doubly so in a foreign country, for conduct of another kind reflects upon the entire United States; the people of that foreign nation hold us in ridicule if the actor, or an American of any other profession, for that matter, should act disgracefully. You have all read in the newspapers, I believe, of the disgraceful conduct of Lee Tracy while in Me.xico. According to the newspapers he, while in an into.xicated condition, appeared naked on the balcony of his hotel room and insulted the Me.xican police. A girl of twelve happened to be outside. As if that wasn’t enough ; when he, after his arrest, was released on his own recognizance, he boarded an aeroplane and fled the country. He did not have the courage to stand by what he had done. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, if the dispatches in the newspapers are correct, did an honorable thing — it discharged him. and apologized to the Mexican Government. Let us hope that this will be an example to other actors. And I believe it will if every film company should act as MGM has acted. LOOK OVER YOUR FILES FOR MISSING COPIES Quite often a copy of your Harrison’s Reports is lost in the mails. And it frequently happens that the information you want is just in that copy. You then rush to the telegraph office and telegraph for the missing copy ; and when you do not telegraph but write there is considerable delay. Why suffer such an inconvenience when you can prevent it ? Look over your files now and if you find any copy missing let me know and I shall send you a duplicate copy without cost. I always carry a sufficient number of extra copies in stock for just such a purpose. Frequently a copy is received with the inside pages blank; this is a misprint, and as careful as is the mailing department, now and then one such copy escapes its attention. If you should come upon such a one among your copies, write for a duplicate copy at once. Look over your files now !