Harrison's Reports (1948)

Entered as eecond-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, Now Y«rk, under the aot of March 8, 1879. Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States 115.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports. Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 „ v L. r>n W V Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew IorK n' »• p. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain ............ 15.75 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, _____ India, Europe, Asia .... 17.60 lt_ Edltorlal pollcy. No problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7-4622 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXX SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1948 No. 5 A CASE FOR ERIC JOHNSTON According to Drew Pearson's column of January 23, the Republican party is planning to produce twenty-five motion picture films to be used in the presidential campaign. The first such picture will go into production, Mr. Pearson said, on May 1. Actors George Murphy, Robert Montgomery and Adolphe Menjou were mentioned as loyal Republicans who will be called upon by the party to help with the project. The worst service that these actors, or any other actors, can do to the motion picture industry is to ap' pear in political propaganda pictures. Many actors have not yet come to realize that it is ruinous to the industry for them to be identified with any political party, so far as their work on the screen is concerned, for the simple reason that, if they are popular, they are the idols of persons of all political parties. For them, then, to come out in the open and electioneer for this, that, or the other political party is equal to diminishing their box-office value, for in doing partisan political work they cannot help offending those of their followers who are identified with another political party. Mr. Johnston should see to it that no actors take part in political propaganda pictures that plug the policies or candidates of any party. Enough harm has been done to the industry by the Washington investigation on un-American activities in Hollywood; we cannot afford to risk any additional unfavorable publicity. WHEN AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE MEETS AN IMMOVABLE BODY! The news from London is that the British Government will not retreat from its position of wanting the imposition of a seventy-five per cent tax on American films brought into their country. As a matter of fact, Sir Wilfred Eady was somewhat indignant when the representative of the American producers suggested that the law be changed — the British Government will not, he said, change the law to accomodate the wishes of foreigners. On the other hand, the American producers will not retreat either from the position they have taken — that they will not ship film to Great Britain as long as the confiscatory tax remains in force. What makes it impossible for the American producers to alter their attitude even in the slightest is the fact that, if they accept the seventy-five per cent tax, they must first figure out how much a film will eventu ally gross, pay a seventy-five per cent tax on this estimate and, if the film does not gross the amount estimated, wait for a refund from the British treasury. It seems as if there will be no film shipped to Great Britain as long as the British Government's attitude, as exemplified by Sir Wilfred, remains firm. What will be the result? Hundreds of theatres will close down in Great Britain for lack of product. And with the closing of a substantial number of British theatres, most indepedent exhibitors will go out of business by reason of the fact that they will be unable to get back their investment from the rentals of the remaining theatres. Consequently, the entire British motion pic ture industry will suffer. Perhaps the American Government will find a way to satisfy Britain's acute need for dollars, and at the same time enable the American producers to recover their earnings in dollars, for there seems to be no other way out — if the British Government will not recede from its position, neither will the American producers, for, as it has been stated in these columns before, the Americans cannot accept this tax lest they encourage other nations to follow Britain's lead. In the meantime, innocent people — the British exhibitors, are made to suffer. Throughout history, the British have been noted for the coolness of their judgment and the soundness of their logic. What has become of these virtues? WILL UNITED ARTISTS ACQUIRE NEW THEATRES? According to a recent issue of The Hollywood Reporter, United Artists has decided to expand its theatre operations. The report states that the Blumenfeld Circuit, in which United Artists has in interest, will expand in Southern California. This circuit now operates the four music halls in Los Angeles. This paper doubts the accuracy of this report for the simple reason that there is now pending before the U. S. Supreme Court the Government's suit for the divorcement of exhibition from production-distribution. If the heads of United Artists decide to expand their theatre interests before awaiting the Supreme Court's verdict, they would be committing a business error that would prove very costly in the event the Court heeds the Government's plea for theatre divorcement. Perhaps the statement, made at a meeting held in San Francisco, in which Arthur Kelly, vice-president of United Artists, and Joe Blumenfeld and Joseph McNerney took part, was merely a feeler to compel the affiliated theatres to give the United Artists pictures more bookings.