Harrison's Reports (1948)

72 HARRISON'S REPORTS May 1, 1948 agreement calls for, or from the accumulated rentals of British pictures shown in the United States, and from other sources provided for in the agreement. Who is going to do the dividing, and in what manner? This paper has been told by a prominent independent producer that Eric Johnston is sincerely trying to solve this problem in a fair and impartial way. Unfortunately, the chiselers have swooped down, trying by different methods to get a bigger share out of the pot than they are entitled to. But whether they will succeed or not will depend on the stiffness of the fight that will be put up by the independents. According to trade paper reports, a tentative agreement has been reached between the major companies and leading independents on the principal points of a formula which, on the basis of individual company billings in the British market, will give each a proportionate share from the pool of remittable earnings. There still remains, however, many controversial points that have to be worked out. This paper will be watching with great interest the outcome. PRODUCTION IN FOREIGN LANDS MEANS LESS PRODUCTION IN THE U. S. According to the April 22 issue of Daily Variety, the American producers have thus far ear-marked forty-seven pictures for production in foreign countries. This number is equivalent to one-seventh or fifteen per cent of the total yearly American output which, for the past few years, has averaged 350 pictures. There is every reason to believe that, as soon as an agreement can be reached as to how the remittable funds from foreign countries can be divided among the different producers, more pictures will be announced for foreign production. To make use of their frozen funds is, of course, the main reason why the American producers are shifting some of their activities to foreign shores. But, unless domestic production is stepped up, this shift to foreign production cannot help aggravating the already serious unemployment situation in Hollywood. The Hollywood union members may look upon this shift in production as an economic condition over which they have no control, but they would indeed be short-sighted not to see the possible consequences, for once the producers get set in foreign production, it may very well be that conditions will prove so much more favorable overseas that it will serve as an inducement for the producers to expand their production activities to the point of spending even more money than they have frozen. And there is every reason to believe that conditions will be favorable, for practically every foreign country is in need of American dollars, and it will be to their advantage to encourage film production within their borders, perhaps to the extent that it will become a permanent arrangement rather than a temporary one. Of course, low cost of production will be a prime consideration in any producer's decision to continue making pictures abroad, and to accomplish this end you may be sure that every foreign nation will do its utmost to extend encouragement in every possible way, not the least of which will be labor con ditions that will assure a producer of a full day s work for a full day's pay. If the American producers should increase their production activities abroad beyond the point of using up their frozen funds, the union men in Hollywood will have no one to blame but themselves. They are asking for it because of their impossible conditions of employment; and unless they do something to make these conditions equitable, the number of pictures produced in Hollywood will be fewer and, consequently, there will be fewer jobs. The union men themselves are not to blame so much; it is their leaders, who establish short-sighted policies. ABOUT ASCAP CONTRACTS Several mid-west exhibitors have written to this paper stating that they have followed the suggestion given by several Allied leaders to insert a special cancellation clause in the contracts they sign with ASCAP. This clause, which was quoted in the April 10 issue of this paper, called for payments to be made either monthly or quarterly at the exhibitor's election, and gave the exhibitor the option to cancel the contract in the event that either an act of Congress or a final court ruling terminated ASCAP's right to collect a license fee from the exhibitor. These exhibitors now report that ASCAP has returned the agreements to them with a letter stating that the insertion of such a clause makes the agreements unacceptable. ASCAP further advised them that the only change they are willing to make in the agreement is in the termination date thereof. In other words, if an exhibitor docs not desire a license for ten years as provided for in the agreement, ASCAP is willing to issue a license for a shorter period in whatever length of time the exhibitor desires. They are willing also to accept payments on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis, whichever is most convenient for the exhibitor. In view of the fact that either legislation, such as the Lewis Bill, or a final court ruling on one of the numerous suits that have been instituted against ASCAP could invalidate existing contracts between the Society and the exhibitors, its refusal to accept the insertion of a special cancellation clause is difficult to understand. Despite this refusal, however, there would seem to be no harm in the exhibitors signing up for short-term periods. Several Allied units, having been advised by ASCAP's attorneys of the Society's stand, are recommending to their members that they sign applications for a one-year contract with payments on a quarterly basis. In a recent service bulletin of the Independent Theatre Owners of Ohio, secretary Pete Wood states that ASCAP's attorneys, in addition to giving him substantially the same information that is contained in this article, further advise that ASCAP will give credit on a pro-rata basis for any period of time that a theatre is closed down. In signing an application for a contract you should, therefore, stipulate not only the exact length of time for which a license is desired but also that credit be given on a pro-rata basis for whatever period of time your theatre might be closed.