Harrison's Reports (1940)

96 HARRISON'S REPORTS June 15, 1940 other major companies guilty of having violated the Sherman Act in the Arbitration case; and, in the Credit Committees case, he found them "not guilty," but the U. S. Supreme Court reversed him, and found them guilty as charged. Need I, Mr. Raftery, mention all the cases in which the major companies have been found guilty of having violated the Anti-Trust laws? I hardly think it is necessary, for you know every case yourself. But what has Mr. Myers to do with whether the major companies, in the present case, have violated the law, as the Government charges, or have not violated it, as they assert ? The outcome of this suit will depend, not on what Mr. Myers has said or done, but on the facts that will be presented to the court and on their relation and significance to the acts of the defendants. Since the producers' lawyers have resorted to irrelevant matters and to attempts to besmirch the character of men who are doing their duty toward those who have engaged them for the purpose, there are only two inferences that may be drawn : either the producer defense is weak, or the lawyers, by stirring up personal animosities, are trying to smash the attempts to bring peace in the industry. Which is it, Mr Raftery? AN AMAZING REVELATION! In the editorial that was headed, "What Zanuck Said and What He Should Do," which appeared in last week's issue, I said : "Were the exhibitors to raise the prices of admission as a matter of permanent policy, the attendance would be reduced by fifty per cent overnight." At the A.M.P.A. luncheon on Thursday, last week, Mr. Spyros Skouras, head of National Theatres, guest of that organization, made a revelation so astounding that I have been compelled to alter my views regarding the raising of the admission prices. Mr. Skouras said that, in 1932, mere were at least 2,500 theatres charging fifty cents or more admission, whereas now there are only 240 theatres charging more than forty cents. The reason for it has been the admission tax : when the ticket exemption was lowered to forty cents, he said, all those exhibitors who were charging fifty cents admission went to forty cents rather than charge fifty-five cents and pay the government the five cents in taxes. And what was the result upon the subsequent run exhibitors, mostly independents? They had to lower their admission prices, even though they were not affected by the tax, to meet the competition. After making this revelation, he pleaded for an increase of admissions. He said that, if the big theatres will go at least to fifty cents, the subsequent runs will be prompted to add five cents to the price they now charge. Such an increase will benefit, not only the producers, but also the exhibitors. The producers, he said, must have additional revenue to offset the loss of income from the European market to enable them to produce pictures ; otherwise, some of them will find it difficult to keep going. Because of this revelation, Harrison's Reports feels that a nominal increase of the admision prices is necessary to give the producer additional revenue without charging the exhibitor higher percentages. The only observation that it wishes to make is this : If the exhibitors should resort to an increase of the admission prices so as to help the producers, what arc the producers going to do to help the exhibitors and themselves? There is only one thing they can do — make better pictures. And to make such pictures it is necessary for them to give up producing re-makes, and to select better story material. They are not asked something that they cannot do. NEELY BILL HOSTILE WITNESSES WHOM ABRAM MYERS EXPOSED In his rebuttal on the hearings of the Neely Bill, Mr. Abram F. Myers, counsel for Allied States Association, exposed to the Committee the motives of some of the witnesses that testified against the Neely Bill. Roy Walker, the master propagandist, Mr. Myers said, did not tell the Committee that, in certain Texas towns, he is partner of the Griffith Circuit, against which the Govern ment had filed suit under the Sherman Act. Among the Government's charges is one to the effect that the Griffith circuit and its partners collectively contracted with each of the defendant distributors and that, by means of the contracts had combined with each other to compel each of the defendant distributors to grant to them in all said towns the exclusive privilege of selecting only such features as they deemed suitable for exhibition in their town, before such pictures were released to any other exhibitor in those towns ; and of receiving clearance on said feature pictures over competing theatres in said towns. Since Walker, because of his partnership with a powerful theatre circuit, enjoys exclusively the privileges that the Neely Bill aims to confer to all exhibitors alike, why should he not be opposed to the Neely Bill ? He certainly would hate to see any other exhibitor enjoy the same privileges. Why shouldn't Harry Brandt, the New York circuit exhibitor and so-called president of I.T.O.A. of this city fight the Neely Bill? To begin with, he own Film Alliance of the United States, with Major Thompson, of RKO. Then he owns Times Pictures, a local film exchange. And now he has made a deal with RKO to produce two pictures with Charles Boyer. Mr. Abram F. Myers said the following about Brandt: "This witness, while admitting that he handled some French and English pictures, proclaimed his sturdy independence and in reply to a direct question said that he had no connection with any producer or distributor. On the very morning that he testified, May 24, the New York Times announced that Harry Brandt was engaged with Charles Boyer and others in the production of pictures to be released by RKO "Film Daily for March 13, 1940, announced that Brandt had acquired the franchise . . . for the Fine Arts brand of pictures. . . . "Nicholas M. Schenck, president of Loew's, Inc., recently testified that he had a 15% interest in two theatres, one of which was operated by Brandt. . . . "Finally, Brandt used to be a vigorous opponent of compulsory block booking. Herewith is an excerpt from a statement by Brandt before the National Recovery Review Board (the so-called Darrow Board) appointed by the President to hear complaints against the N.R.A. codes. Brandt opposed the motion picture code for the reason, among others, that it did not abolish block booking. He spoke on April 4, 1934. The excerpt is taken from pages 375-376 of the official report of the hearing. (Attachment N.)" Perhaps Harry Brandt was not, at that time, a distributor ; and since now he is one, he naturally opposes the Neely Bill, because he wants the exhibitors to buy his pictures in a block instead of singly. What surprises me is this : how can Brandt expect the exhibitors to buy his pictures when he sides in with the distributors in a matter that means the life and death of every independent exhibitor's business? Besides being surprised, I wonder how a person who has had neither dramatic training nor production experience can dare undertake to produce pictures ! It is one of the peculiarities of this business. And this is the reason why you get so many poor pictures. PICTURES NOW IN PRODUCTION Columbia "THE PINTO KID," with Charles Starrett. Program western. "MARCH OF CRIME," with Bruce Bennett, Florence Rice, Barton MacLane and others. Double-bill. Paramount "THE NEW YORKERS," with Dick Powell and Ellen Drew, produced by Paul Jones, and directed by Preston Sturgcs. Fair to fairly good. Twentieth Century-Fox "THE GREAT PROFILE," with John Barrymore, John Payne, Gregory Ratoff, Mary Beth Hughes, Anne Baxter, and Willie Fung, produced by Raymond Griffith and directed by Walter Lang. Its box office value will depend largely on Mr. Barrymore's popularity.