Harrison's Reports (1939)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published WeekJy by United States $15.00 R™m 1 ftl 9 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 . ,, _ _. . _ _ . Great Britain 15 75 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Australia, New ' Zealand,' Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia ... . 17.50 p Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 „oc a. ^ovy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXI SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1939 No. 15 FACTS MR. W. F. RODGERS MUST BEAR IN MIND From his testimony before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, which has conducted the hearings on the Neely Bill, one gathers the impression that Mr. W. F. Rodgers, de facto head of the distributor committee that has been negotiating with exhibitor representatives for trade reforms, has been irked because the Allied leaders have failed to accept the final reforms draft, which was submitted to them on the first day of April. Early last year Mr. Rodgers, having made a favorable impression with them for honesty of purpose and fair dealing, was given to understand that, if a distributor committee were appointed to negotiate with Allied for trade reforms, it would receive their support, provided he were to head such committee. And now he seems to be disappointed because Allied has failed to accept these reforms. For him to understand why Allied, in my personal opinion, has refused to accept the final distributor proposals, Mr. Rodgers must bear in mind several factors. The first factor is the mistake the distributors made in inviting into these conferences representatives of Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America. Mr. Rodgers was warned in the very beginning that, since this organization, the producers' stepchild, has been used by them to thwart the exhibitors in their efforts to obtain legislative relief, the dragging of it into the conferences would cause the confidence of the independent exhibitors in the producer sincerity to be destroyed ; the exhibitors would feel that the producers are not any more sincere now than they were in the past. The fact that the meetings with representatives of this organization were held separately does not seem to have made much difference ; the exhibitors know that this organization is supported with producer money and cannot believe that the presence of its representatives in exhibitorproducer conferences for trade reforms would bring any benefit to the independent exhibitors. The second mistake was the fact that the distributor committee told the Allied committee, at the very first meeting, that discussion of block-booking and theatre-divorcement definitely and irrevocably would not be discussed. At that meeting, some members of the Allied committee felt that, what they should have done should be to take their hats and say to the members of the distributor committee : "Good day, gentlemen ! We'll see you in Washington," and go. There was no use, as they saw it, starting negotiations for trade reforms with a committee that had been instructed beforehand how much they were to give and how far they were to go, for under these circumstances they would be dealing with men who were not to determine what is fair and what unfair, but merely what has been decided upon. They have not yet forgotten the money Allied spent and the time it wasted during the 5-5-5 conferences. They had not doubted the sincerity of Mr. Kent then, just as they do not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Rodgers now, but since those efforts of theirs came to nothing, because the producers failed to adopt the reforms, they feared lest it be a repetition of what happened then. Hut others felt that another etT.n l was worth making ; and they stayed. Did the distributor-lawyers' dilatory tactics help matters? Not at all; the exhibitor representatives saw that, instead of meeting men to men and deciding what is to be done to bring peace, they were dealing with the same lawyers who, from behind the scenes, have frustrated every independent exhibitor effort to come to an understanding with the producers. The fact that these lawyers have employed the same tactics as before — obscurity of language, the effect of which would undoubtedly have been to take away with the left hand what the right hand gave, did not contribute to the building up of the confidence so necessary in negotiations of this kind. The misunderstanding as to whether there was or there was not "an agreement in principle" in Chicago, played up by some trade papers, further contributed to arouse suspicion in the minds of the Allied committee. Mr. Rodgers may not have been responsible for that— the misunderstanding may have been one of those natural happenings in life ; but it did not help. The failure of the distributors to come forward with an arbitration plan, so close to the heart of the Allied organization, is an additional contributory cause. "... any proposals," last week's Allied statement said, "to merit consideration, must contain all the details of arbitration. ..." The other important factors Mr. Rodgers must take into consideration are these : The methods that were employed by Paramount to kill the theatre-divorcement law in North Dakota. The fact that Allied finds it difficult to let down the public groups that are seeking the enactment of the Neely Bill. Allied sought their cooperation in its efforts to have the Brookhart Bill, and afterwards the Neely Bill, enacted into a law by Congress. And they gave it unstintedly. How can it now say to these groups : "We are giving up our fight, because we have obtained a modicum of concessions in the selection of pictures"? It would not sound very well. After all, it was due to the aid the public groups have given to it that Allied was able to have the Neely Bill put through the Senate last year. And it has been the fear that the Neely Bill may, after all, become a law, that has prompted the producers to give as high a cancellation privilege as 20% in some cases. Without the passage of the Neely Bill by the Senate, it is doubtful whether the producers would have gone so far. Consequently Allied is, in a way, under a moral obligation to these groups. The failure of the producers to offer to the exhibitors a solution of the problem of theatre ownership — a problem which Allied considers the root of all the trade abuses. As a matter of fact, the producers have refused, as said, even to discuss it, let alone to solve it. But the most important factor is the suit that the U. S. Government has brought against the producers. The Allied leaders undoubtedly feel that, since the producers have refused to discuss separation of theatres, and since the U. S. Government's action seeks to bring this about, they might just as well wait for the suit to be tried, in the meantime offering to the Government whatever aid they can tor the winning of the suit. If the Government should win it, not only this but all the other abuses will be eradicated. An additional reason why Allied is willing, in the opinion of this paper, to wait for the Government's suit, even if the concessions the producers are now offering were to be highly satisfactory to the independent exhibitors, is the fact that it has no means to compel the distributors to adopt these reforms permanently. They no doubt feel that a change in administration in Washington may enable them to cancel these concessions. And who dares say that they will not cancel them under such circumstances? Hut they cannot disregard a court decision.