Harrison's Reports (1948)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the aot of March 3, 18T9. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS PubUshed Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 XT . _A „ Publisher Canada 16.50 New York 20, N. Y. P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion picture Reviewing Service AustraUa^New ' Zealand." Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1. 1919 India, Europe, Asia .... 17.B0 Jtg Edltoriai PoUcy . No problem Too Big for Its Editorial Circle 7 4S22 35C a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXX SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1948 No. 40 WHOM IS JOHNSTON "KIDDING"? While on his present tour of the foreign markets, Eric A. Johnston, head of the producers1 association, went to Russia to sell American pictures and, according to news dispatches, he hinted in Moscow that Russia would soon be buying American films. A deal, he said, had been "practically set," with the details of the agreement to be worked out in New York. If Mr. Johnston went to Russia to get personal publicity for himself, he did a good job of it, for he received plenty of newspaper space; but if he went there to sell American films, that is another matter. Let us try to analyse the Russian mind to determine whether Johnston could or could not sell American films to the Russians: The Russians know that the American film industry produces the best pictures in the world. But do the Soviet leaders want to show our pictures to their people? Do they want to show them that the American way of life is comfortable and luxurious in comparison with the Russian way of life? Do they want the Russian people to see that the Americans have plenty to eat, to drink, and to wear, with electric refrigerators even in poor homes, with running hot and cold water, with rugs on the floors, with the walls in the rooms of homes either painted or papered, with fat piles of uncensored newspapers available for reading, with children dressed in comfortable and warm clothes, wearing pajamas when ready for bed (something unheard of in Russia) , with the mother tucking the children into comfortable beds in well appointed rooms, with people free to come and go as they please and to belong to different political parties or none at all, with workers employed on jobs of their own choosing, free to quit if they so desire, with law officers keeping the peace but not violating the rights of decent people — do the Russian leaders want to show such a bountiful, democratic life, as depicted in American films? If any one thinks that the Politburo will allow such films to be shown to the Russian people, he must be out of his mind, for one of the main reasons why the Soviet leaders want to shut out the American pictures is that the American way of life depicted cannot help but make the Russian people dissatisfied with their miserable lot. Oh, yes! There are circumstances under which the Russian government will buy American films to show to their one hundred and eighty million people — glad to do it. But what kind of films will these be? "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or "The Senator Was Indiscreet," which show American politicians and elected officials as crooks of the worst sort; "Roxie Hart," which depicts a rotten judiciary system; "Grapes of Wrath" or "Tobacco Road," which can be used to give the Russian people a distorted picture of the American way of life; and dozens of other pictures with crime themes and vicious characters, which the Soviet leaders would like to exhibit to their people as perfect examples of the degeneration of American democracy so that the miserable life they lead will seem, by comparison, like heaven. No one is more aware than Mr. Johnston of the impossible conditions under which the Soviet Union will agree to take in American films. Consequently, it is difficult to believe that he went to Moscow for the purpose of concluding a film agreement. As James M. Jerauld, editor of Boxoffice, pointed out in a recent column, "obviously he (Johnston) wasn't going on film business, because an assistant booker in any exchange could handle all the film business done between the American industry and Russia without shortening his lunch hour. And it probably was not the caviar, because it isn't necessary to fly halfway across the continent to get it." There is considerable talk that Johnston is angling for a big job with the Dewey administration — that is, if Dewey is elected as president, and most industry observers feel that his trip to Moscow was more for the purpose of furthering his political aspirations than to sell film to the Russians. Stop "kidding" us Mr. Johnston! Do something constructive for the industry. The foreign market situation has gone from bad to worse, putting a number of producers and distributors in the "red," and as if that isn't bad enough the industry at home is suffering from poor public relations. You have been with us a long time— long enough for you to have taken positive step toward winning the good will of the American people for the industry. The motion picture has done so much for the American public that you should have no difficulty finding a basis on which to build a solid public relations program that will more than offset the adverse publicity the industry is subjected to from time to time. But you have done nothing in this matter. On the contrary, the manner in which you acted before the Congressional Un-American Activities Committee in Washington during the hearings on Communism in Hollywood, and the statement you issued at the termination of the hearings, in which you claimed that the industry had been fully vindicated, in spite of the fact that the public, influenced by the behavior of the hostile witnesses, became convinced that Hollywood was a hotbed of Communism, brought discredit to the industry. Your efforts to swing public opinion to the favor of the industry failed, because the public, which is preponderantly against Communism, was in no mood to sympathize with any one who elected to defy the committee rather than to cooperate with it. Stop "kidding" us Mr. Johnston — do something or get out!