Harrison's Reports (1943)

Bntered as second-clasa matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Yearly Subscription Rates : United States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 16.75 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Room 1812 New York, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by Harrison's Reports, Inc., Publisher P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXV SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1943 No. 22 HARRY WARNER ON WAR PICTURES "When this war is over, Warner Brothers does not want to be known as the company that made the greatest musical picture during the war. We will leave that fairy tale version of this world we live in to the small group of entertainment appeasers which is presently at work in this industry or being pressured by groups on the outside." So says Harry M. Warner in a recent statement in which he branded as "isolationists" and "appeasers" those persons, in the industry, who contend that the public is fed up with the steady diet of war pictures they have been given. Mr. Warner describes these persons as "an isolationist group that is waging a propaganda campaign against war films which are doing a great service in the United Nations' cause." Urging the exhibitors not to be "intimidated or coerced by people who are not wholeheartedly behind the war effort," Mr. Warner warns them that "any arbitrary exclusion of war films, either to satisfy a small appeaser element or for personal reasons without regards for the general public's interest is equivalent to sabotage." Harry Warner is either badly informed, or he is suffering from a severe case of "jitters." For months, the exhibitors, from the small independent to the large circuit operator, have been crying out that their patrons are complaining about too many war pictures. In a recent poll conducted by the Motion Picture Herald, it was found that "overwhelming exhibitor opinion holds that the theatre is vastly over-fed with war pictures and themes of stress and strife. The preponderant demand is for entertainment, and entertainment of the sort that puts aside the care of these war worn days, when every day fills the lives of millions with intense emotional stress." A few of the more prominent men in the exhibition field who have decried the excessive number of war films now on the market, are Harry C. Arthur, Jr., E. V. Richards, E. J. Hudson, Elmer C. Rhoden, Bob O'Donnell, A. H. Blank, and M. A. Lightman — all have done and are doing fine work in behalf of the industry's war effort. To class thent as "appeasers" or "isolationists" is laughable. If Warner Brothers wishes to dedicate itself to the production of films that deal only with the war effort, in the belief that in following such a policy it can best serve the interests of the nation, no one can or will deny it that privilege. But it should not try to justify its stance by branding as "appeasers" and "isolationists" those who sincerely feel that they, too, will best serve the interests of the nation, if, through non-war films, they can help the harassed citizen and the men in the armed forces forget for a few hours the heartaches and worries that the condition of war impose. Such films as "Hello, Frisco, Hello," "For Me and My Gal," and "The Road to Morocco" may not teach us what we are fighting for, but they do succeed in giving a person much needed relaxation, thus strengthening his mind and body for the work that lies ahead. No one denies the necessity of war films that will, in terms of entertainment, clarify the issues of war, but there can be no question that an overdose of war-themed pictures — even good ones — soon tires the picture-goer. The same is true of musicals or any other cycle of pictures. A balanced diet of motion picture entertainment is necessary if we are to retain the interest of the millions of people who attend our theatres weekly. And so long as we retain their interest, we will be sure that the vital messages contained in our government shorts and in our war-themed features will reach the greatest number of people. As already mentioned, Harry Warner may be suffering from a severe case of "jitters." Of the limited number of pictures released by Warners in the past six months, as well as those slated for future release, practically all have to do with the war, and all are so-called big productions. The thought that a good many exhibitors will think twice before booking a war picture may be causing Mr. Warner some concern. His specific warning to the exhibitors about "arbitrary exclusion of war films . . . for personal reasons without regard for the general public's interest" smacks of his own personal interest to the exclusion of the general public's interest. It is unfortunate that Harry Warner resorted to namecalling to prove his point; his statement was publicized widely by the daily papers, and many people who are not acquainted with industry problems may get a distorted opinion of what goes on in our business. When Harry Warner brands as unpatriotic the producer who produces a non-war film and the exhibitor who exhibits it, he is merely furnishing ammunition to those who enjoy sniping at the industry. It is easy to throw mud under the guise of patriotism, but it often spatters him who throws it. A SWEEPING VICTORY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The final decree in the Crescent Case, handed down by Judge Elmer D. Davies on May 17, in which he enjoined the Crescent Amusement Company and its affiliates from continuing the competitive practices for which it was put on trial and convicted under the Sherman anti-trust law, constitutes a major victory for the Department of Justice's antitrust division, as well as for the independent exhibitors. In finding Crescent and its affiliated companies guilty of building up a monopoly in the theatre business, the decree, among other things, enjoined and restrained the defendants from continuing in combination with each other and with the distributors for the purpose of maintaining their monopoly; declared invalid all existing film franchises entered into between the defendants and the distributors, except for their theatres in Nashville; ordered the divestment of interlocking ownership among the defendants; and prohibited the coercion of independent operators into either selling their theatres, or abandoning their plans to compete against the defendants. The decree is an effective instrument, a great step toward the elimination of monopolistic practices on the part of major circuits and distributors that have plagued independent exhibitors for many years. What bearing it will have on the Department of Justice's attitude in its suit against the major distributors, temporarily settled by the Consent Decree that expires this coming November, remains to be seen. Because of the great interest many subscribers have shown in the Crescent Case, the complete text of the decree is printed on the back page of this issue.