Harrison's Reports (1937)

24 HARRISON'S REPORTS February 6, 1937 he represented nothing but dyed-in-the-wool independent theatre owners ? Another point on which I desire to comment at this time is his statement, "I am not a lawyer . . . ," and "This organization is . . . financed solely by dues from motion picture exhibitors, and its policies are regulated strictly by bonafide motion picture exhibitors, and not by promoters and lawyers." When he was making such a statement he was hitting, no doubt, at Mr. Abram F. Myers, chief counsel of Allied States Association. Since when have lawyers lost the right to represent independent theatre owners before any Congressional committee? Must lawyers represent before such committees only producers of pictures ? The following are additional extracts from Kuykendall's testimony : Kuykendall : "... It may be that some have referred to the present 10-per cent clause as having been secured with my approval or the approval of my committee. We had to take the best we could get, and we preferred to have something rather than nothing at all." Congressman Sadowski : "In other words, your committee felt that the principle of block booking is all right provided you could have the exhibitors, the members of your organization, secure from the distributors a large cancellation privilege?" Kuykendall : " . . . Yes. . . . We propose to continue our determined efforts to bring about an unconditional minimum rejection privilege in all exhibition contracts of at least 20 per cent of the number of pictures licensed. We firmly believe that this is the only practical solution of the problem, that when it is possible and practical for the exhibitor to reject the occasional picture that he considers unsuitable because of any peculiarity in his own community, any possible abuse in block-booking will be removed. ... I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that we just came from a meeting of our board, in Miami, Fla, and a committee is to be appointed ... to sit down across the table and iron out these difficulties, and I can assure you that we will be able to meet with the representatives of the distributors and iron out this difficulty in our contracts. ..." On Page 367, Kuykendall, addressing his remarks to Congressman Terry, said partly : "We have some assurance from the general sales managers in New York that they are willing to sit across the table and give us anything that we are rightfully entitled to. We do not expect anything further than that, and no one could try for more than that." Kuykendall and his board continued their "determined efforts" to bring about a rejection privilege of at least twenty per cent of the pictures ; a committee was appointed by him with the approval of his board of directors; this committee was able to sit and they did sit across the table to iron out "these difficulties," but, despite the assurances given to Kuykendall and his committee by the general sales managers in New York that they, that is, the sales managers, would "give us anything that we are rightfully entitled to," they gave Kuykendall and his committee nothing. Kuykendall's assurances to the members of the House Subcommittee, therefore, meant as much as those of Charlie Petti john. Mr. Abram F. Myers, in his January 6 release, which dealt with the MPTOA Bulletin, stated the following: "... Not a single concession was made. . . . Those who claim that anything has been yielded in the matter of cancellations will have the problem of squaring this claim with what they asserted before Congressional Committees last year that they already had. Certainly industry spokesmen on those occasions claimed with apoplectic vehemence that a ten per cent cancellation then existed." You have read what Kuykendall said regarding your ten per cent cancellation right. Do you find anywhere made clear to the House Subcommittee members that the ten per cent cancellation right existed with many conditions, the kind that frequently nullified it? Of course, not! Every word uttered by the producer spokesmen on the subject of the exhibitor's cancellation right tended to lead the members of the two subcommittees to believe that such a right existed without any strings attached to it. Take, for example, the paragraph in which Charlie Pettijohn dealt with this subject ! He said : "Mr. Kuykendall says, at the same time, that the 10 per cent cancellation clause was intended so that the exhibitor could cancel a bad picture or pictures that were not thought fit, from a moral or social standpoint for the community." Did he say anything to lead any member of the committee to know that the ten per cent cancellation right was not unconditional ? Did he say to them that, if the the exhibitor should cancel a high-allocation picture, the distributor immediately would put in the cancelled picture's place any other picture, from the low-allocation groups, on the same terms, and that when the "minimum" was not taken in during the days the substitute picture was shown, the exhibitor had to dig into his pocket to make up the difference, a practice that discouraged him from cancelling "a bad picture or pictures that were not thought fit, from a moral standpoint for the community"? Of course he did not make any such enlightening statement, for he and the other producer spokesmen were there, not to enlighten the minds of the committee members, but to becloud them — becloud them with irrelevant things, such as the personal conduct of some of the exhibitors that appeared in defense of the Bill, matters that had nothing to do with the issues involved. You see for yourself that, whatever assurances the producers gave to the Congressional Committees during the hearings, were intended to becloud the issue, and not to induce such committees to give them time to put in reforms. Consequently, the passing of the Neely-Pettengill Bill, now before Congress, in the Senate as S. 153, and in the House of Representatives as H. R. 1669, becomes necessary. And so is the bill that is to be introduced in state legislatures divorcing exhibition from production-distribution. UNITED ARTISTS GIVES "BELOVED ENEMY" HAPPY ENDING Mr. Goldwyn made two kinds of endings for "Beloved Enemy," the picture that is founded on the fight of the Irish for freedom. In the one, the hero, who had been shot by a hot-headed patriot for. what he thought, betraying Ireland by accepting a plan that left Ireland still attached to the British Crown even though the acceptance of that plan put an end to unnecessary shedding of blood, dies ; in the other, he lives. When the picture opened at the Rivoli, New York, it had the unhappy ending, but shortly afterwards the happy ending was put on ; this was done after the distributor obtained the opinion of the exhibitors as well as of the company's salesmen. Harrison's Reports feels that, although the unhappy ending is more artistic and in accordance with the hotheadedness of the protagonists, a happy ending is preferable, for the masses, as you know very well, would rather have a picture end happily than unhappily. REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO RESTRICT NUMBER OF THEATRES As a result of the many editorial recommendations urging exhibitors to provide against overseating in their towns or localities, many exhibitors appealed to their city councilmen to pass the draft that was printed in the May sixteen issue of Harrison's Reports. In many cases, however, the councilmen, not being lawyers, hesitate to put such an ordinance through, even though they are in sympathy with the local exhibitor. In most cases they wish to be informed if any other city or town has put through such an ordinance. If your city council has passed that ordinance or any other ordinance of this kind, I wish you send me a copy. This will help other exhibitors. The information will not be printed in Harrison's Reports ; it will be merely passed to inquiring exhibitorsubscribers. A STATEMENT FROM ALLIED STATES The following statement, dated January 29, has been issued by the Washington office of Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors : "Recognizing the necessity of centralizing authority and concentrating effort in the project to prevent producers from operating theatres, the Special Defense Committee has authorized its chairman, W. A. Steffes, to assume sole responsibility for securing the necessary legislation. "All requests for information regarding this feature of the Allied program should be addressed to Mr. Steffes. "The Committee on Arrangements has selected May 12, 13 and 14 as the dates, and the Hotel Pfister, Milwaukee, as the place of the 1937 annual convention. Mr. P. J. Wood, of Columbus, Ohio, is chairman of the convention committee. Mr. Ray A. Tesch, of Milwaukee, is in charge of the local committee on arrangements. "Requests for information regarding program advertising, exhibit space, etc., should be addressed to Mr. Wood, 39 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio. Reservations should be sent to Mr. Tesch, 709 North Uth Street. Milwaukee, Wis."