Harrison's Reports (1946)

160 HARRISON'S REPORTS October 5, 1946 position by devices which compel everyone to trade with him exclusively that the situation becomes legally objectionable." Other quotations from the opinion of the Court on this subject are given in the section of this article devoted to "Monopolizing." There it was pointed out, with the citation of authorities, that monopolizing may consist, not only of "monopolistic practices" for the purpose of eliminating competition, but also of the intentional acquisition and exercise of monopolistic power, even without predatory practices directed toward the destruction of competitors. A summary was also given of the violations of law which led to the orders requiring divestiture of theatres by the Crescent and Schine circuits. At this time it might seem that no useful purpose would be served by engaging in an extensive analysis of the conclusion of the Statutory Court's denying complete divestiture. The opinion discloses considerable knowledge of the intricacies of the motion picture industry and a desire to mete out exact and impartial justice. Moreover, an appeal will undoubtedly be taken and all controverted issues ultimately adjudicated by the Supreme Court. But, in view of the fact that the chief purpose of the Government in instituting the litigation was to 6ccure an order for complete divestiture, and because of the overwhelming interest manifested in this issue by all persons engaged in the motion picture industry, it may be not inadvisable to consider if, under the standards already established, the findings of the Court indicate that the defendant exhibitors and their distributing alfiliates have monopolized or attempted to monopolize any part of interstate trade, and whether any one or more of the defendants, separately considered, constituted a combination in restraint ot trade. From the findings of the Court it is obvious that no single defendant or any combination of defendants has attained a complete national monopoly in the exhibition field. But it is equally clear that, irrespective of the methods employed, one or more of the defendants has, in many cities, obtained what is the equivalent of monopolistic control of prior-run exhibition. "Harrison's Reports, September 7, 1946. Harrison's Reports, September 21, 1946. (Continued next week.) MARY PICKFORD COMES TO THIS PAPER'S SUPPORT ON BREEN In my reply to the abusive and irrascible letter of Joe Breen, which I published in the second section of last week's issue, I insisted that Mr. Breen is showing decided partiality towards the major companies in his approval of what may be shown in pictures, but that he is very strict with the independent producers. Mary Pickford now comes forward with a similar accusation; it was printed in the September 25 issue of weekly Variety. I am reproducing the entire interview with the permission of Variety. "Administration of the Motion Picture Association's Production Code is loaded in favor of the Big Five and is hurting the indies, Mary Pickford charged in New York yesterday (Tuesday). She said she was planning to canvass independent producers on her return to the Coast next week with a view toward getting changes made which would give indies equal voice with the majors in judgment on PCAordered deletions and alterations. '* 'As things stand now,' Miss Pickford told Variety, 'the Big Five are both Congress and the Supreme Court. They not only make the rules, but they sit in judgment on the operation of them, so that an independent has no recourse. Inasmuch as we must live under the Code, we want some say in its content and administration." "Miss Pickford, a one-third owner of United Artists, made clear that 'The Outlaw,' which UA is distributing, had nothing to do with her resentment. She said she felt qualified to talk on the subject of the Code since her name had always been associated with nothing but the cleanest of pictures. "The Code is administered one way for the Big Five members, who control its administration, and another way for indies, Miss Pickford declared. "This echoes a charge made by British producers recently that American pictures were treated more leniently by Joe Breen, PCA administrator, than were English productions. "Miss Pickford said she knew of a number of specific instances of unjust treatment of indie films by the PCA, which she is certain would not have occurred had they come from the majors. She mentioned difficulties by David O. Selznick on 'Gone With the Wind' and, more recently, Lester Cowan on 'Story of G.I. Joe." Miss Pickford, incidentally, this week announced a producing partnership with Cowan. "She indicated that the leniency which Big Five members showed to each other was conscious or unconscious logrolling. 'They're big boys, you know,' she said. "Former star pointed out that she was not quarreling with the Code itself, but felt that everyone who must live and abide by it — including writers, directors and producers — should have a hand in determining its contents and administration. She pointed out, for instance, that a writer's reputation might be seriously injured by a deletion or change ordered by the PCA, and yet he had no representation in the Code Administration. "Should her ideas on broadening the PCA be in line with those of other indies they will ask Donald Nelson, head of the Society of Independent Producers, to take action, Miss Pickford said. 'The Code belongs as much to the SIMPP as to the MP A,' she asserted." Is Mr. Breen going to send Miss Pickford an abusive letter because of her statement? COOPERATION At the Allied Convention in Boston, George Jessel was to be the toastmaster at the banquet. But certain production matters in Hollywood made it impossible for Mr. Jessel to leave and he so notified Nathin Yamins, Chairman of the convention. When Mr. Yamins received the news, he called up Mr. Spyros Skouras, president of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, and told him of his predicament. Mr. Skouras then said to Mr. Yamins to let him think the matter over for a few minutes to see what he could do and that he would call him back in a short time. Mr. Skouras then got busy: he communicated with Monte Proser, owner of the famous Copacabana, of New York City, asking him if he would not do him the favor of letting Phil Silvers cancel the early evening's engagement to act as a toastmaster at the exhibitors banquet. Mr. Proser said he would gladly do so if Mr. Silvers would go. Mr. Proser spoke to Silvers, and Mr. Silvers expressed his gladness to go. Mr. Skouras arranged for Mr. Silvers to take an early plane for Boston. When Mr. Silvers arrived in Boston, Sam Shain, public relations man for 20th, had ten exhibitor leaders at the airport to receive Mr. Silvers, and flowers and refreshments were placed at his disposal by Mr. Yamins. When Mr. Silvers appeared at the banquet he was surprised by the reception that was given him by the exhibitors. This put him into a fine mood, and his work as master of ceremonies made a hit. All this cost the exhibitors nothing, but Mr. Skouras will be remembered by the exhibitors for the promptness with which he came to their rescue.