Harrison's Reports (1943)

140 HARRISON'S REPORTS August 28, 1943 was promised for 1942-43, this production rightfully belongs to the 1942-43 contract-holders. (7) "Wild IS the River," a production based on the bestseller novel by Louis Bromfield, serialized in Cosmopolitan Magazine, and published as a book by Harper, was certainly a promise of no mean proportions. Since Bromfield is one of the country's leading novelists, and since the picture was to be "produced with an all-star cast and a prominent director," exhibitors by the score must have been influenced to sign deals. (8) "Knights Without Armor," starring Olivia de Havilland and Brian Ahcrne, produced by B. P. Schulberg and directed by Charles Vidor, is described as "a great drama of Europe's guerillas." It is another choice picture undelivered on the 1942-43 contracts, and now promised for the 194344 season. (9) "The Return of Mr. Jordan," a sequel to "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," which was a huge success, is another "inducer" that never materialized. Harry Segall, who won the Academy Award for writing the fust "Jordan" picture, was to have written the screen play for this version. (10) "Salute to Sahara," a story about the heroic siege of Tobruk, produced by Harry Joe Brown and directed by Charles Vidor is another top production promised but not delivered. The film, which stars Humphrey Bogart, is completed, and Its title has been changed to "Sahara." It is now offered as a top production on the 1943-44 program, and has been set for release in September. Why in the name of decency has Columbia failed to deliver this picture to its contract-holders? The record shows also that among the more important stars promised but who do not appear in the released 194243 pictures are Humphrey Bogart, Olivia de Havilland, Melvyn Douglas, Irene Dunne, Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Randolph Scott. There is no question that the presence of any of these stars in a picture is of prime importance at the box-of&ce — another consideration that induced many exhibitors to sign Columbia contracts. So there you have the record, but only insofar as 1942-43 is concerned, and even then it is incomplete; lack of space prohibits the telling of more. What, then, is Abe Montague so proud about? He says of his company that "proud as we are of the record we are making we know that the future will exceed it." Will exceed it in what? In the number of top attractions Columbia will withhold in the future as compared with the past? Or in the number of such top pictures that Columbia will replace with low-bracket features shoved up into the higher brackets, thus raising the exhibitor's average cost per picture and preventing him from realizing the revenue commensurate with his cost? Montague should be more explicit. The 1943-44 prospectus contains a statement, in very small type, to the effect that there may be changes and substitutions, but that the information is given in "good faith." Admittedly, under Columbia's selling policy, an exhibitor, in order to receive a fair deal, has to rely on the distributor's good faith. But the faith that one has in another is based on past performances, and, insofar as Columbia is concerned, its record for failing to keep faith with the exhibitors is terrifying. Those of you who contracted with Columbia for its 194243 product did so on the basis of their prospectus, which, as stated in the Allied Resolution printed in last week's issue, "amounted to a representation that the attractions described therein would be delivered." Those of you who contemplate deals with Columbia for its 1943-44 product, will have to rely on the representations of its present prospectus. In view of what has been pointed out here, one would indeed have to be naive to place much faith in Columbia's representations. For an exhibitor to have any faith in these representations, he would have to see them made a part of the contract. Those of you who hold 1942-43 contracts should rise up and demand your rights. Make your feelings known directly to Abe Montague, Harry Cohn, and other Columbia officials. Shower them with letters of protest against this flagrant breach of faith with you. Those of you who intend to buy Columbia's 1943-44 product should make your feelings known to the salesmen by insisting that they put their company's promises above the signatures on the contract. CORRECTIONS ON THE THIRD WAR LOAN PRESSBOOK The Third War Loan Campaign Committee (jf the War Activities Committee advises that the pressbook mailed to exhibitors in connection with the Third War Loan drive starting September 9 contains some errors due to the speed with which it was gotten out. The corrections arc as follows: ( 1 ) The Rosalind Russell subject is not a trailer and will not be handled by National Screen Service. Instead, it will be a clip attached to all newsreel releases prior to the opening of the campaign on September 9. (2) National Screen Service will handle the gratis campaign trailer starring Corporal Alan Ladd. (3) Usher sashes listed at $.75 are $.16. A RESOLUTION AGAINST THE INCREASING NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE DEALS Following IS a resolution of the Board of Directors of Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors adopted August 12, 1943 at its meeting in Baltimore: "RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors that the attention of the Attorney General be invited, in connection with the pending prosecution of the motion picture trust, to the increasing demands on the part of the distributors for the playing of pictures under percentage arrangements. "Sec. XI, (par. 5) of the Consent Decree was designed to prevent the defendants from entering upon a general program of expanding their theatre holdings for a period of three years. The Attorney General already has been informed that despite that provision two of the defendants have acquired a total of approximately 125 theatres since the entry of the decree. "In addition, the consenting defendants and all other distributors have steadily and relentlessly increased their demands in the matter of percentage engagements both in the number of pictures required to be played on that basis and in the percentages of gross receipts to be paid to them as film rental. Heretofore it has been possible for some exhibitors to hcense the features of some companies on a flat rental basis. Now there seems to be a determination on the part of all distributors, both consenting and non-consenting defendants and non-defendants also, that exhibitors shall be required to license at least some pictures on percentage from each company with which they do business. "The Board respectfully reminds the Attorney General that when a theatre plays a picture on percentage the distributor forces itself into a strange form of partnership with the exhibitor whereby it assumes none of the liabilities but arrogates to itself all or a major part of the profits of the venture. From the standpoint of the anti-trust laws this policy is reprehensible inasmuch as, under percentage playing, the distributors seek to increase and protect their own revenue by requiring the theatres to observe fixed minimum admission prices, by dictating the days of the week on which pictures shall be played, by reserving the right to check the receipts and audit the books of the theatres and otherwise exerting control over the management and operations of the theatres. Thus in the matter of competition between theatres and enlargement of distributors" control and domination of the field of exhibition, the controls resulting from forced percentage playing differ in small degree from the form of control at which the Government's suit was aimed."