Harrison's Reports (1950)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS Published Weekly by United States $15.00 (Formerly Sixth Avenue) Harrison's Reports, Inc., U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 M v L on w v Publisher Canada 16.50 Wew Y ork * P. S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Great Britain 17.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Established July 1, 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia 17.50 Ug Editoria] p0iicy: 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. XXXII SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1950 No. 45 COMPO'S SURVIVAL AT STAKE Having survived one serious crisis in its brief history only three months ago, the Council of Motion Picture Organiza< tions once again finds its future in doubt as a result of new demands on the part of the Theatre Owners of America. This time TOA, through an action taken by its board of directors on the final day of the organization's annual convention held last week in Houston, is demanding larger representation on COMPO's executive board before it will approve continued membership in COMPO. Under the present set-up, COMPO's executive board is comprised of two delegates from each of COMPO's ten charter member organizations, with both delegates entitled to only one vote as a unit. TOA is dissatisfied with this set-up, claiming that it is entitled to "fairer representation" on the board in proportion to the number of theatres it represents, the importance of these theatres, the number of states in which it has regional units, and the huge percentage of dues its members will pay for the support of COMPO. As an example of what it considers to be inadequate representation, TOA points out that its regional units in twentytwo states west of the Mississippi have no official spokesmen on the COMPO executive board, and that these states are now represented by two delegates from the Pacific Coast Conference of Independent Theatre Owners, which has no affiliation with TOA. Fairer representation on COMPO's board would correct this condition, according to TOA. Under a resolution adopted by TOA's board of directors, Sam Pinanski, the organization's president, appointed a committee "to meet with representatives of COMPO seeking to have COMPO reorganize itself along the lines of fairer representation and limiting its activities to public relations at the national level, with the end in mind of said TOA committee reporting back to the board of TOA for final approval." This committee includes Ted Gamble, as chairman, Charles Skouras, Robert J. O'Donnell, Mitchell Wolfson, Sherrill Corwin, E. D. Martin, Tom Edwards, Max Connet, Si Fabian, Arthur Lockwood, Robert Wilby, Gael Sullivan and Mr. Pinanski. Presumably, this committee is to meet with COMPO officials prior to the scheduled COMPO executive board meeting on November 16-17. Ned E. Depinet, COMPO's president, in his speech at the TOA convention, told the delegates that the problem of greater western representation will be considered at the forthcoming executive board meeting. That the other constituent organizations in COMPO will resist any move that tends to give the TOA a dominating voice in COMPO matters soon became apparent this week when Abram F. Myers, National Allied's general counsel and chairman of the board, commenting on the TOA action, had this to say, as quoted in Motion Picture Daily: "Unquestionably, the regional representation idea is to give TOA more influence. You can be sure Allied will be against any proposal to upset the present balance or give TOA or any of its people domination in COMPO." Stating that Allied will veto any reorganization plan that gives TOA increased influence, Myers said that Allied's board of directors had ratified participation in COMPO only on the basis of the present organizational set-up, and that any change in that set-up would have to be approved by the Allied board. "I do not believe," he added, "that the board for one minute would participate in any organization where TOA is given greater influence than anyone else, merely to appease it. Allied is interested in a public relations project where all interests have an equal voice and which functions by unanimous consent. We are against any appeasement of dissident elements by granting special favors." As to TOA's claim that its western regional units are without representation on the COMPO board, Myers said: "TOA can send its directors from the West as well as the East. It can name Charles Skouras instead of Sam Pinanski or Gael Sullivan if it is so worried about the West Coast being represented. But tearing the structure of COMPO apart to take care of something like that can lead only to disaster." Commenting still further on the matter, Myers, in an apparent reference to reports that the COMPO high command is willing to work out an agreement with TOA to keep it in the COMPO fold, is quoted as saying that the Allied leaders are "good and tired of the way COMPO insists on playing politics all the time — the reaction is very strong." Whether or not a compromise can be reached with TOA is a matter of conjecture. It is known that, like the Allied leaders, some of the leaders of the other constituent groups in COMPO are annoyed over the constant TOA objections, which have served to impede COMPO's progress. Moreover, there is need for further clarification of TOA's demands. For example, if TOA's demand for "fairer representation entails no more than an expansion of COMPO's executive board so that a larger number of TOA leaders can give expression to their views, the other charter organizations, except Allied, of course, may be willing to go along with the plan even to the point of accepting smaller representation on the executive board themselves. Allied, no doubt, will accept nothing less than equal representation with TOA. If, however, TOA's demand for "fairer representation" includes also a provision for greater voting power — that is, if it wants more than the one vote that is now allotted to each constituent group, the demand will unquestionably be rejected, not only by Allied, but also by most if not all the other groups. Pending further clarification of just what TOA's demands entail, no fair-thinking person can disagree with the views expressed by Mr. Myers. After all, no exhibitor leader with a proper regard for his responsibility would expose his organization to the control of any other group. As a result of this latest TOA demand, many industryites now look upon the future of COMPO with misgivings. This is most unfortunate, for if ever there was a time in the history of the motion picture industry when unified action was needed, that time is the present. Improved public relations, unfair legislation and discriminatory taxation, competition from television, declining box-office receipts, industry participation in the defense effort — these and many other problems that aifect the industry as a whole await solution. And the only organization that can accomplish the most in dealing with these problems is COMPO, for it provides the means by which all elements of the industry can get together in harmony to exchange views and work our programs that will have each and every one of us fighting shoulder to shoulder to protect and safeguard the business. The industry cannot afford to let COMPO fall by the wayside. Too much is at stake. It is to be hoped that at the forthcoming COMPO executive board meeting, when consideration will be given to TOA's demand for reorganization, cool heads will prevail, and that there will be a demonstration of sincerity on the part of all concerned to keep COMPO alive in the interest of unity.