Harrison's Reports (1933)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New Tork, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Yearly Subscription Rates: United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 16.00 Australia. New Zealand, India 17.50 35c a Copy 1440 BROADWAY New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the 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. XV~ SATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1933 No.~^ Benefits the Exhibitor Will Derive Under the Code — No. 4 Some exhibitor leaders have become peeved because of the campaign that I am conducting on behalf of the Code. Exhibitors of the rank and file, however, have not taken such an attitude. The editor of a publication should never do any explaining as long as he is doing his work sincerely and conscientiously. But because of the fact that I have been in the habit of always being explicit with the exhibitors, I do not hesitate to assure you that the course that I am pursuing toward the Code is sound and sane ; it is, in fact, the only course that I should pursue, regardless of the emotional into.xication of some exhibitor leaders. When in 1920 I undertook to analyze the First National franchise, I was confronted with a worse problem than I am confronted with now. At that time First National consisted of about twenty-five territorial franchise holders, all e.xhibitors. Before printing the first installment they had already sold subfranchises to approximately 3,500 exhibitors, who were “sold” on their franchise idea. You may imagine the t>’pe of letters I received from some of them. It was a tough battle, because at that time I had not yet gained the confidence of the exhibitors for loyalty to their cause even by one-tenth that I have now. But I knew that I would win out in the end, because I was right. I felt that those of the exhibitors who denounced me for having condemned that franchise agreement as a one-sided instrument would some day pay a high price for a picture, out of proportion to what the picture was worth, would ask for an adjustment, and when refused they would say: “Harrison was right !” They would then come back to the fold stronger than ever. And that is exactly what happened. Many, many years later I had the satisfaction of having been told by my good friend Jim Ritter, of Detroit, president of Allied States, that, in a conversation with the branch manager of a film company which I was fighting bitterly for certain injustices it had committed against the exhibitors, he said the following to him : “When Harrison fought First National we all thought that he was wrong. Harrison was right then, and Harrison is right now.” Jim Ritter and all my other friends may again repeat what Mr. Ritter told that branch manager : “Harrison was right then, and Harrison is right now !” How can any sane exhibitor leader advise the rejection of the Code since it is now the law of the land, since the failure of an exhibitor to sign it deprives him of a right to seek justice from the Code bodies without immunizing him against being dragged before a Grievance Board on a complaint of either a distributor, or of another exhibitor, and since he, if he should sign it, can get immediate relief ? That no responsible exhibitor leaders would give such advice may be evidenced by the fact that some of them have taken the position that the signing of the Code is a problem that must be decided by each exhibitor individually. It is a good advice, but an exhibitor must sign the Code just the same. To me the worst calamity that could have befallen the exhibitors would be not to have any Code at all. Many exhibitors, on the other hand, have expressed a pleasurable surprise that there should be in the Code so many provisions that benefit the exhibitor. And this is only a trial Code, for a trial period ; at the end of ninety days, the President may become convinced that block-booking and blind-selling must go, and that other reforms may be instituted, in which case the independent theatre owners certainly will not come out the losers, for the President has repeatedly stated, in interviews. statements, or in radio broadcasts, that his one aim is to protect the small business man. We can get more concessions from the President by cooperating with him, and not by fighting him. The fears some exhibitors felt as a result of the trade paper interpretations of Mr. Johnson’s memorandum issued by him after the major producer representatives, headed by Mr. Hays, had called on the President to ask for a modification of the Executive Order have been allayed by the true interpretation that was given of that memorandum in the editorial that appeared in last week’s Harrison’s Reports. In that editorial it was proved that the major producers got away with nothing. The Code is decidedly advantageous to the independent exhibitor, even if the balance of power on the Code Authority appears to be with the major companies. Remember that the United States Government will have on the Code Authority three representatives, whose business will be to observe the acts of the individual members. If these representatives should report to the President that the Code Authority, by majority vote, perpetrates rank injustices on the small business men, I would not be surprised if the President disbanded the Code Authority altogether and appointed an administrator to carry out the provisions of the Code. It is then that the major companies will find out what it means to be unjust and unfair. The only thing we now have to do is to watch the proceedings not only of the Code Authority but also of the local Code bodies to see that the Hays forces do not again attempt to adulterate them just as they adulterated the arbitration boards. We must exercise vigilance. And we can exercise such vigilance only if we take advantage of the situation instead of wrangling. ( I have been informed that the Hays forces have gone as far as to try to make the secretaries of the film boards of trade secretaries of the Grievance Boards. The gall of these people cannot be estimated.) I suggest that every exhibitor organization send either to Mr. Charles L. O’Reilly, Room 908 Times Bldg., New York City, or to Mr. Nathan Yamins, either to the same address or to Empire Theatre, Fall River, Mass., the names of such exhibitors as they feel that are qualified to act as members of either their local Qearance and Zoning Board or their Grievance Board. As I have already informed you, the sales managers of the big companies have ordered their branch managers to send them the names of such exhibitors as can be “trusted.” But let this not frighten you, for the names of the appointees on these boards will, before being confirmed, be given out so that if any exhibitor feels that any one of them may possibly be a tool of the Hays association he may file his objections against him either with Messrs. O’Reilly’ and Yamins, or with the Code Administrator in Washington. Let us now proceed with a further interpretation of the Code : Part Three of this (the Sixth) Article, specifies that all persons who are appointed to serve on the Zoning and Qearance Boards and on the Grievance Boards shall bear a good reputation and shall be of good standing in the industry, and must, when they accept the appointment, take an oath that they shall determine all issues presented to them fairly and impartially. Part Four states that when a member of any Board ceases to represent the class from which he has been drafted his membership shall terminate (must resign voluntarily or be removed either by the Code Authority or by the Code Administrator), and the Code .Authority shall fill the vacancy from the same class. (Continued on last page)