Start Over

Harrison's Reports (1942)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

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 Weekly by United States $15.00 R,w™«1ft19 Harrison's Reports, Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 KOOm 1014 Publisher Canada 16.50 New York, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 » « *i i-, * t> < . _ <m • r™.t Britain 1K7K 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 Itg Editoria, Policy. No prob.em Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 ibc a copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXIV SATURDAY, JANUARY 3, 1942 No. 1 HERE AND THERE SAYS THE DECEMBER 23 ISSUE of The Film Daily: "Circuits whose theatres have had their clearances cut over competing houses by arbitration awards have not suffered any loss in grosses, according to a checkup. By the same token, distributors apparently have felt little or no ill effects by the cutting down of clearance schedules. . . ." Not long ago this paper gave a case, for whose au' thenticity it vouches, in which the clearance of the downtown theatres of a certain circuit in a big mid' western city was increased to twenty-one days over the neighborhood houses of the same circuit, and the receipts of the neighborhood houses fell thirty per cent, whereas the receipts of the downtown theatres did not increase at all. After much arguing and plead' ing, the head of the circuit heeded the pleas of the manager of the neighborhood houses and cut down the clearance to sixteen days. Immediately the receipts of the neighborhood houses went back to the old level, but the receipts of the downtown theatres did not diminish at all. This incident, Harrison's Reports said, proved conclusively that in many cases clearance is too long; it should be shortened so as to make a quicker turnover possible. The effect of the arbitration decisions in clearance cases, where clearances are reduced, is, not only to give justice to the subsequent run exhibitors, but also to expedite this turnover. Every time an arbitrator re' duces clearance and makes it possible for the subsequent run to play the pictures sooner, he helps the subsequent-run theatre take in more money without hurting the prior-run theatre. This paper has noticed that the National Appeal Board has had the tendency of reducing clearances even against the judgment of local arbitrators, in many cases allowing only one day between the prior and the subsequent run. * * * THE TRADE SCREENING SCHEDULE for next week will be so loaded that no exhibitor can attend all the pictures shown. On Monday the following trade screenings are scheduled : At 10:30: "Young America," 20th Century-Fox; "Call Out the Marines," to be followed immediately by "Mexican Spitfire at Sea," RKO. (The two RKO pictures will be shown also at 2:30, for the benefit of those who will not be able to attend the morning showing.) At 2 :30 : "Son of Fury," 20th Century-Fox. (Also the two RKO pictures shown in the morning.) On Tuesday the schedule is even worse : At 9:30: "Woman of the Year," to be followed immediately by "Joe Smith, American," MGM. (These pictures will be shown also at 1:30, for the benefit of those who will not be able to attend the morning showing.) At 10:30: "You Can't Always Tell," 20th Century-Fox; "Joan of Paris," to be followed immediately by "Sing Your Worries Away," RKO. (These two RKO pictures will be shown also at 2:30, for the benefit of those who will not be able to attend the morning showing.) At 2:30: "Gentleman at Heart," 20th CenturyFox. (Also the two RKO pictures shown in the morning.) What is true of the screenings in this city is true of the screenings in other cities. The schedule of these screenings indicates plainly that there is no system whereby screenings may be arranged without conflict. This entire week has gone to waste; no pictures were screened. In spite of the fact that it is a New Year week, pictures could have certainly been shown on two days, Tuesday and Friday, to avoid conflict next week. * * * THE OFFICERS OF OPERATORS UNION, Local 306, must have lost their senses; they have sent to Loews, Inc., a letter stating that, before negotiations for a new contract are undertaken, Loew's must agree to three of their demands : That it supply MGM films only to theatres that employ Local 306 men; that Local 306 men should not be required to handle films that are transported by other than IATSE carriers, and that films be delivered only by members of IATSE. Loew's naturally refused to comply with their demands and, in order to prevent a strike, it has applied to the Federal Court for an injunction and a declaratory judgment. If Loew's were to comply with their demand, the Government would no doubt prosecute it for violating the antitrust laws, and the exhibitors affected would without any question bring damage suits that would cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the opinion of competent legal counsel, the court cannot help granting the Loew's petition on the ground that no person or group of persons can compel either an individual or a company to violate the law. (Continued on last page)