Harrison's Reports (1946)

4 HARRISON'S REPORTS whom he is supposedly in competition? The independent producer may produce an artistic triumph and a picture of the greatest possibilities, so far as public reception is concerned, but he cannot select the theatres where this picture is to be shown. On the contrary, he is told by the big five' where he can show it and he is required to show it in accordance with a playing policy dictated by the big five'." When Mr. Peter Rathvon, president of RKO, was on the stand, he was asked many questions to which he gave ample answers. The brief quotes his testimony to impress the court with the fact that a theatre-owning producer has many advantages over a non-theatreowning one, and that, without a theatre outlet, RKO would have been in a very bad position financially. Part of this testimony is to the effect that, during one period of five years, the company's productiondistribution activities resulted in a loss of about five million dollars, which was readily absorbed by the profit from theatre operations of nine million dollars. This is, indeed, no trifling advantage that a major company has over the independent producer, whose earnings depend entirely upon the efficiency of his production activities. After pointing to the fact that many of the witnesses who testified for the defendants stated in unequivocal terms that the independent producer is a talented man, one who has been responsible for the greatest advancement of motion pictures throughout the years, the brief concludes: "... Independent production can continue only if the motion picture made by the independent producer is given an opportunity in fair, free and open competition with individual motion pictures made by major producers. The independent producer cannot exist and compete with the majors if the doors of the first run theatres in the major cities of the United States are closed to him by the producer-distributorexhibitor defendants or, if opened to him at all, are only partially opened on terms and conditions unfairly disproportionate with those offered to the distributorexhibitor defendants." SCHINE CIRCUIT FILES NOTICE OF APPEAL According to a report in Motion Picture Daily, the Schine Circuit has filed notice that it will take an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court in connection with the recent decree handed down by Judge John Knight in the Government's anti-trust suit against it. Judge Knight ordered dissolution of the circuit on the grounds that it operated in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. The notice alleged that the decree entered against the circuit was "contrary to the findings of fact and to the evidence." That the Schine Circuit has filed a notice of appeal does not come as a surprise. In the opinion of this paper, however, the case seems to be too strongly in favor of the Government to hold forth much hope for a reversal Assuming that the Supreme Court will examine into the merits of the case, it might well result in an affirmance of Judge Knight's decision, thus strengthening further the Department of Justice in its fight to assure all buyers of film free and open competition. PRODUCER-DISTRIBUTORS INDIFFERENT TO LOCAL TAXES ON ADMISSIONS The producer-distributing companies seem to be indifferent to attempts by city councils to impose a tax on theatre admissions. That is what has been the experience of exhibitors in the city of Los Angeles. Recently the city council decided to pass an ordinance imposing a five per cent tax on theatre admissions. You would naturally think that the producerdistributors would stand behind the exhibitors and fight the tax. If that is what you think, then you have another guess coming; they did not raise a finger to fight it — the fighting was done by the exhibitors alone. So far the exhibitors have been successful in fighting that ordinance. But who can tell what may happen tomorrow? But if the efforts of the city fathers to impose a tax on admissions is resumed, it is a question whether the exhibitors will be as successful in fighting it as they have been so far. In any locality where it is sought to impose a tax on admissions, the producer-distributors should be concerned as much as the exhibitors, even though the effects of the tax will not be felt by the former as directly as they are felt by the exhibitors. Consequently, to compel the exhibitors to fight off the tax alone is, not only a task that may be too great for them to accomplish, but also a rank injustice. IS THE SPONSORED SCREEN ADVERTISING MISTAKE TO BE REPEATED? Some of these days there will be a war again between the newspapers and the motion picture industry, because the picture theatres are encroaching more and more into a field that belongs to the newspapers — the advertising field. If you were in this business in 1931, you will prob' ably recall that during that year Paramount and Warner Brothers began accepting sponsored screen advertising. Other companies were making ready to enter the field. They made short subjects advertising commercial products. The newspapers of the nation were aroused and began writing editorials against a practice that was repugnant to the picture-going public. As a result of that campaign, both Paramount and Warners were compelled to give up their advertising activities. Rumors have had it that some picture companies are again flirting with sponsored screen advertising, and Harrison's Reports is prompted to ask whether the film companies will repeat the 1931 mistake? ORDER YOUR MISSING COPIES OF HARRISON'S REPORTS During the holidays the copy of an issue or so may have been lost in the mails. Look into your files and if you find the copy of any issue missing, write to this office and it will be supplied to you free of charge. A sufficient number of copies of many back issues is kept in stock for just such a purpose.