Harrison's Reports (1945)

October 27, 1945 HARRISON'S REPORTS 171 is Miss Faye, but one finds it hard to sympathize with her because of her unhappiness, for at all times, before and after her marriage, she was aware of Andrews' unworthiness. There is suspense and intrigue in the second half of the picture, during which the waitress is murdered mysteriously under circumstances that point to Andrews1 guilt. The manner in which he clears himself and catches the murderer leaves much to be desired, for it is done by convenient dialogue instead of by action : — Stranded without funds in a small California town, Andrews becomes infatuated with Linda Darnell and offers to marry her. When she refuses him because of his lack of money, he sets out on a campaign to marry Alice, intending to divorce her subsequently. Alice, although warned against Andrews by her sister (Ann Revere), elopes with him. On their wedding night, Andrews steals out of the house and rushes to Percy Kilbride's restaurant to see Linda. He is followed by Alice's sister, who overhears him tell Linda that he had married Alice for her money, and that he would soon be free to marry her. Linda, however, scorns him, and rushes off on a date with Bruce Cabot, a juke box salesman. On the following morning, Linda is found murdered, and Charles Bickford, a retired New York policeman, is appointed by the local authorities to investigate her death. Andrews, questioned by Bickford as a suspect, points out that Cabot, Kilbride, or even Alice's sister, might have committed the crime. Bickford agrees, but he succeeds nevertheless in summing up a damning case of circumstantial evidence against Andrews. Lest Bickford pin the murder on him, Andrews decides to run away. Alice insists upon accompanying him, vowing her belief in his innocence. Impressed by her love and by her faith in him, Andrews determines to clear himself. By tracing a clue found at the murder scene, he succeeds in tracking down Bickford as the killer, proving that he had murdered Linda to stop her from marrying Cabot. His name cleared, Andrews vows to reform. Harry Kleiner wrote the screen play, and Otto Preminger produced and directed it. The cast includes John Carradine, Olin Howlin and others. Not suitable for children. MONOPOLY IN PRACTICE (Continued from bac\ page) "With reference to Paris, Lazar told the independent, who was taking steps to build, that if the independent went ahead with his projects 'Schine' would build a 1200 seat theatre in Lexington where the independent had a theatre and that the house would be run with 10c policy at all times. * * * "At Seneca Falls, after an independent had taken steps toward building a theatre, a sign was placed on the Seneca theatre, (shortly theretofore purchased by Schine) which read : 'Closed for alterations. Will re-open soon as a Schine theatre.' Independent then discontinued efforts to build. 'Schine' did not reopen. Practically the same things recurred two years later. The same independent took steps to build. The sign re-appeared on the 'Seneca.' The independent did not go through with his plan. The 'Seneca' did not open. It had not been open in several years. "After 'Schine' opened a theatre within a town, it was arbitrarily able to keep the independents from opening a theatre in the town with suitable run products, as in Auburn, Lockport, Mt. Vernon, Paris and Bellefontaine. " 'Schine' was able to monopolize first run product at Corbin, Medina and Lockport even though the physical facilities of the independents in those towns were better than Schine's. He was able to monopolize the first neighborhood run in Rochester even though the physical facilities of the independents were better. "The evidence discloses that 'Schine' cut admission prices at Corbin, Geneva, Lexington, Malone, Ogdensburg and other towns; gave out cut rate tickets in Addison, good in his Corning theatre for students, and frequently engaged in two for ones and bank nights in other towns. "In cases of purchase or the assumption of leases other than those hereinbefore referred to, the agreements therefor provided for no competition by the independents for long periods of time. The non-competitive feature was also extended to cover outside towns. * * * "By reason of franchise agreements entered into prior to May 19, 1942, (voided thereafter, see Decree herein of that date) permitting special film rentals not given independents, 'Schine' was able to reap benefits unavailable to independents and these were utilized against independent operators as a means of restraint. These have a definite bearing on the competitive effect of buying power. * * * "Proofs connecting the distributors with certain of the aforesaid acts of defendents come from the provisions of the franchise agreements and acts of the distributors, inter-department communications of the distributors and statements made by their authorized representatives, of which numerous ones have been set forth herein. It is hardly believable that the executive officers of the distributors did not know some of the methods employed by 'Schine' in its efforts to restrict competition. * * * "In many instances the distributors refused to negotiate with the independents for runs. After 'The Circuit' came into the town, in many instances it was impossible for the independent to get a good run of major product, or even to have his requests to purchase considered. * * * In these instances, when the independent attempted to make application for product, he was simply advised that the product had been sold to 'Schine' in a circuit deal. "Special privileges were granted, as in the option of paying a percent of the gross receipts from product or flat rental, and as in deducting cost of competitive devices (bank nights, etc.) from gross before computing the distributor's share. "Special license provisions were given by tying up second runs. * * * "In certain instances Schine's film contracts called for lower minimum admission charge than those for the independent subsequent run. * * * "There is much other evidence going to show the influence of 'Schine' with the distributors to gain preference over independent competitors and also the cooperation of the distributors with 'Schine' to the same end. * * * Judge Knight is to be commended for his painstaking task of specifying the aforementioned activities of the defendants, which he held to be unlawful. Contending with these activities by a powerful circuit was indeed an onerous task for an independent exhibitor, and he should now be thankful that Judge Knight's decision will permit him again to engage in free competition in an open market.