Harrison's Reports (1937)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York. New York, under tne act or aaaicn 3, lsra. s Yearly Subscription Rates: United States J15.00 U. S. Irwular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.60 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 15.75 Australia. New Zealand, India, Europe, A3ia .... 17.50 jls 35c a Copy A REVIEWING SERVICE Vol. XIX 1440 BROADWAY iNew York, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison's Reports, Inc., PublisherP. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors PEnnsyivania 6-6379 Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial ^^a^r^portsS Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor (Bentley Code) FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FiLR* ADVERTISING SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1937 No. 2 THE CURE FOR OVERSEATING Under the heading, "Too Many Theatres," Jay Emanuel makes the following comment in the January 1 issue of The Exhibitor: "Exhibitors who would rather believe in the law than in the good intent of future neighbors might bear in mind that the time to pass ordinances barring new theatres from being built in any locality is not when a new theatre is announced but months or years before. "The situation that arose in one spot which possessed a sole theatre and found out another was entering the town should serve as an example. To pass an ordinance which apparently aimed at new theatres after a new theatre is announced is not good business. "Grosses picking up as they are, some of the folks who aren't satisfied with every one making a fair living aren't letting well enough alone. The exhibitor who has struggled through bad times and who wants to reap the reward for his courage shouldn't be faced with added competition just when things look rosiest. "Checking new theatres should come under the heading of industry regulation but it just doesn't appear to work out that way." There are exhibitors who, having never had a fire in their theatre, are lulled into a false security and do not provide themselves with the means by which they could extinguish a fire if one were detected. These become frantic when they discover a fire and haven't on hand the necessary precautionary mechanical apparatuses. As a result, their theatre burns down and, although they collect the insurance, out goes their regular income. It should not be surprising to you or to any one else if few exhibitors have taken advantage of the draft of a city ordinance, intended to keep out unfair competition, which was printed in the May 16, 1936, issue of Harrison's Reports. Mr. Hirshblonde, of the Traco Theatre, Toms River, New Jersey, has been a subscriber to Harrison's Reports for many years ; no doubt he read that draft, but he did nothing about it, and when the "fire" started rushed to provide himself with "fire extinguishers" ; but it seems as if it is too late ; he should have provided himself with the safeguards immediately after he had read that article. Even if the exhibitors have provided themselves with the necessary safeguards against unfair competition, they should not rest until, they have removed the cause: what makes it possible for circuit theatre operators who are envious of a small fellow's prosperity to start a competitive theatre is their knowledge that, with their great buying power, they will have no trouble getting the product away from the "lone" exhibitor. That is, then, the cause. And the preventive is the Neely-Pettengill Bill. If this Bill should be enacted into a law, your money will be as good as the other fellow's at buying films as it is now at buying groceries, shoes, clothing and other commodities. The Neely-Pettengill Bill will soon be taken up in both houses of Congress. The Allied leaders are working hard to muster as much public support as they can. Help them ! Disregard the paid agents of the producers masquerading as independent theatre owners, who pretend to grow hysterical at the thought of "Government control" of the motion picture industry. The Bill has in it no "Government Control" features ; there is in it no provision that would tell any one of you how to run your theatre — no provision that would dictate to you what pictures to buy or what not to buy : the Bill provides for a free market, a market where you will have, as our President has said, the same rights, as you now have in the "polling place" ; a market that is not controlled by the buying power of the circuits, to the detriment of the interests of the small theatre owners. If you were to put your heart and soul back of the Exhibitor Defense Committee of Allied States Association, then you will be doing everything you can to safeguard your income and, by the same token, the comfortable living of your family. One way by which you could support the efforts of the Exhibitor Defense Committee is to send to Mr. James Ritter, Rivoli Theatre, Detroit, Michigan, your minimum contribution, which is based on ten cents a seat for every seat in your theatre or theatres, either at a "lump" sum or at ten equal monthly installments. If you want to contribute more, the sky is the limit. At least you will have the satisfaction of knowing that every dime you will contribute will be spent for the purpose of introducing and making efforts to pass legislation divorcing exhibition from production-distribution, in every state where the prospects of success seem bright. Bear in mind that, when such legislation is passed even in one state, the producers will put an end to their activities of acquiring or building theatres, for none of them will be unwise enough to invest additional money in theatres when he will not be sure that the highest court in the land will find the law unconstitutional. As far as the constitutionality of the draft of the proposed law is concerned, let me repeat (Continued on last P<tQt)