Harrison's Reports (1941)

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 Weekly by United States $15.00 Rn«m1ft12 Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 nounl 10,6 Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor !!™0'C*' Spain ■■■■■ ]lf, 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 Ug Editoria, Policy. No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 Abe a copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXIII SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1941 No. 6 HERE AND THERE THE ALLIED BOARD OF DIRECTORS, meeting in Washington, took up the Consent Decree as one of the most outstanding exhibitor questions. Mr. Lee W. Newbury, President of the New Jersey Allied, head of the Policy Committee, submitted to the meeting the following observations regarding the provisions that are beneficial to the exhibitors and those that are not. The Policy Committee found that : Section III is beneficial in that it puts an end to blindselling, making it possible for the exhibitor to determine the suitability of the pictures he intends buying. Section IV does not abolish block-booking entirely and, unless the distributors are scrupulously fair in selling their pictures when the Decree goes into effect, the hardships the exhibitor will suffer under it will outweigh the benefits. Section V should eradicate the evil of compelling the exhibitor to buy short subjects in order for him to obtain the features, but it fears that, as long as the salesmen have several classes of products to sell, there will be a temptation to tie up the sale of undesirable product along with the product the exhibitor wants to buy. Since the distributors have declared that they intend to discipline any of their salesmen who may fail to observe this Section of the Consent Decree scrupulously, the exhibitor will have little to fear for a breach of this kind, particularly if he should report to Allied any violations of it ; Allied has undertaken to keep its eye on the behavior of the salesmen with a view to taking appropriate action should any of them resort to "chiseling" tactics. Section VI, relating to the right of the exhibitor to have some kind of run, is beneficial in that it ends exclusive selling, resorted to by some producers so as to favor the bigger circuits, particularly the affiliated circuits, against smaller circuits, as well as individual exhibitors, at the same time keeping pictures away from fly-by-night exhibitors. Section VIII is highly beneficial to the exhibitor in that it provides for arbitrating complaints against unreasonable clearance. Section X is of little value to the exhibitors, in that the arbitrating of cases of discrimination in the granting of a run imposes too many conditions ; but it is of value to those exhibitors who might qualify under all the conditions imposed. Section XI is the weakest of all the Sections, in that it postpones indefinitely the remedying of a condition against which Allied has fought bitterly all these years — theatre divorcement. Allied contends that theatre ownership by the producers has been the cause of all the industry evils, and postponing the curing of these evils for three years is the worst disappointment that Allied has felt. But Allied promises to watch the action of the theatre-owning producers closely with a view to determining whether they, in acquiring additional theatres, or in erecting new ones, violate the provisions of the Consent Decree, so as to call the attention of the Department of Justice to them. "Robert L. Wright, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, in charge of administering the Consent Decree," says the Allied release, "paid a visit to the directors and kindly consented to answer questions. This proved to be a profitable session and the directors will carry the information derived back to their members." Harrison's Reports recommends to all exhibitors who are not members of Allied now to become members of their regional Allied units at once, so that they might get the benefit of all valuable information passed to members. Whatever your viewpoint about Allied is, I can conscientiously say that it is the only exhibitor organization that deserves the consideration of every independent exhibitor. No matter what faults you may find in its structure, it is the only organization to which you may appeal for aid and get it. * * * AS STATED IN LAST WEEK'S ISSUE, the music tax matter came up for discussion at the Allied meeting in Washington last week. Mr. Myers had written to BMI asking whether it intends to collect royalty from theatres for performing publicly copyrighted music reproduced from the films they play, and Mr. Russell R. Clevenger, Director of Public Relations for BMI, replied as follows : "Dear Mr. Myers : "In my reply to your letter of the 21st, I can say that BMI is definitely committed to a policy of clearance at the source of all music, which will be put into effect just as soon as ASCAP agrees to do the same. Such a policy will unquestionably be a great benefit to motion picture exhibitors as it would relieve them of paying double for music. It seems to me that the motion picture exhibitor has just complaint against the policy taxing so much per seat for performance fees as he has no control whatever over the music he receives. "In answer to your question, BMI has no plan in mind for collecting royalties from exhibitors and it is doubtful if such a policy would be adopted unless it were essential to compete with ASCAP. "BMI now has under its control a supply of copyrighted music sufficient for producers of motion pictures to draw upon. We have several contracts pending with producers but, of course, anything that your Association might do to urge the playing of BMI music in your theatres would be helpful in stimulating its use." Mr. Myers accompanied the release of this letter with an explanatory note under the heading, "END OF THE MUSIC TAX," recommending that the exhibitors study the letter carefully, so as to compare the attitude of BMI with that of ASCAP, which refused to reply to a similar letter sent to it, asking for the same kind of information. I have read Mr. Clevenger's letter carefully, and the deeper I study it the more thoroughly I am convinced that the exhibitors are headed toward double taxation by two different organizations, ASCAP and BMI. Let us examine the letter : Mr. Clevenger admits that the exhibitor pays for music a double tax, concedes that he has a justifiable complaint against double taxation because he has no control whatever over the music he receives, but accompanies his assurance that BMI is definitely committed to a policy of clearance of all music at the source by the reservation that BMI will adhere to such a policy only if ASCAP agrees to do the same, implying that, if ASCAP should refuse to follow the BMI example, BMI might do what ASCAP is doing now — double tax the exhibitors. "BMI," says Mr. Clevenger, "has no plan in mind for collecting royalties from exhibitors," unless ASCAP refuses to stop collecting such royalties, in which case BMI might find it necessary to collect a similar tax. Just how the collecting of royalties by ASCAP can affect the position of BMI, Mr. Clevenger does not say ; and neither can I find an explanation. As I said in one of the foregoing paragraphs, the exhibitor is about to become a victim of double taxation, bytwo different music associations, unless, of course, the Government succeeds in inducing ASCAP to sign a Con(Continued oh last page)