Harrison's Reports (1950)

208 HARRISON'S REPORTS December 30, 1950 THE READERS HAVE THEIR SAY TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORPORATION 444 West 56th Street New York 19, N. Y. November 28, 1950 Mr. P. S. Harrison Harrison's Reports • New York, N. Y. Dear Pete: I am writing to you in connection with the editorial which appeared in the November 18 issue of "Harrison's Reports," regarding exploitation of feature pictures in newsreels. Per' sonally, I feel that the industry needs this, as it needs support from every direction at this time. My feeling still is, as I wrote to the Allied Independent Theatre Owners of Kansas Missouri, Inc., that the exhibitors who complain at this stage about the content of the newsreel that happens to promote the motion picures are in effect "fiddling while Rome burns." Never was there a time when a greater need existed for an aggressive, forward-looking, unified step forward to cope with really major problems. Yet, we have one branch of the industry complaining to another about what seems to me to be a minor issue. While I can understand the contention that an exhibitor does not like to be charged for a certain footage of news that contains material regarding a coming attraction, I do not believe this objection is a serious one. The use of the newsreel for advertising our industry has been most moderate and I have not heard that the public has complained. The complaint that advance advertising of a particular picture puts the exhibitor at a disadvantage as to terms on such a picture is not, in my opinion, an insurmountable one because exhibitor and distributor can certainly talk out a question of this kind. The benefit that can come from an allout endeavor to promote motion pictures through the powerful medium of the newsreel, one of the greatest instruments on earth for reaching the public, should easily outweigh any anxiety that might be felt on this subject. Just look at what television and radio are doing, combining and uniting in an attempt to keep themselves afloat and to woo the American public away from the motion picturegoing habits they have formed over the years. A $2,000,000 sales and advertising campaign has been instituted. Not a word is mentioned about price, or shortages or color, but only strongly worded newspaper and radio advertisements, designed simply to "sell television," to keep receivers in« stalled in the people's homes. These campaigns are for the purpose of offsetting any possible trade slump. This is the idea behind the cooperative institutional advertising campaign launched by the combined chiefs of advertising of leading TV manufacturing companies. Ads are full-page ones of 1000 lines in 1100 newspapers in TV areas, and it started November 17. Besides this, spots on 250 radio stations in non-TV areas started November 6. I have been told that $2,000,000 budgeted campaigns will run indefinitely for as long as they are needed. They have already approached educators and editors, emphasizing educational value of TV and its importance in the lives of children, as well as its influence on the family group. The emphasis is: Stay home and be entertained free. Therefore, in my opinion, we must use every means at our command to prove to the public that our proud slogan, MOVIES ARE BETTER THAN EVER, is not just idle boasting, but actually a fact. What better medium can there be to prove this than our own screens? Certainly, the use of the newsreel occasionally for this purpose cannot be construed as "exploitation," when the exhibitor has every whit as much to gain as the producers and distributors, if not more. When we talk about a unified industry and tackling our mutual problems together for the common good, I think this is exactly what we mean. Anything else is bickering and definitely detrimental to every effort that has been made so far to unite our industry to fight shoulder-to-shoulder for betterment. The newsreel is a very important and influential medium and its occasional use to promote interest in a forthcoming attraction is beneficial to all concerned. Kindest regards. Sincerely, (signed) Spyros P. Skouras FANCHON 6? MARCO, Inc. 6838 Hollywood Blvd. Los Angeles, Calif. December 22, 1950 Mr. Pete Harrison Harrison's Reports New York, N. Y. Dear Pete: I read with a great deal of interest your article in the December 16, 1950 issue entitled "More Exhibitor Support for National Screen Service." It isn't my purpose to take any sides in any law suit, and I shall not try in this one. However, the efforts of others to get all exhibitors to join in a suit against National Screen seems to me completely inconsistent with the spirit of our Government. As you well know, it is deemed improper under the antitrust laws for parties to combine for certain purposes. It seems to me the combination of parties in a suit against National Screen is covered by the same moral or philosophical prohibitions that lie behind the anti-trust law. I am no lawyer and I do not profess to know whether any one else's conduct in a particular matter is legal or illegal, but so far as I am personally concerned it would not appear proper to me for me, as an exhibitor, to join in this suit. As I have indicated, I do not profess to know anything about the facts, or the law in connection with the suit of these exhibitors against National Screen, and I offer no opinion in that connection. So far as I am personally concerned, my experience has been that for many years National Screen has rendered a real service to exhibitors generally. According to my personal knowledge, our theatres have been served well and reasonably. One need only compare the prices and method with which exhibitors were confronted before National Screen developed its service to its present point of efficiency in order to realize what a constructive service National Screen has contributed to the motion picture industry. Many exhibitors will remember when the film companies had their own trailer service, and in my opinion, this was more of a burden upon the theatres than any supposed burden that may have been exerted by National Screen. In closing I want you to know that I have refused to join any suit against National Screen for the two reasons I have indicated above. Briefly summing them up, the first is because of my disinclination to "combine in law suits." If I have a claim against anyone, I believe I should proceed to litigate my claim, and if anyone else has a claim it is up to him to proceed according to his own discretion. I think this apparent effort to secure "numbers" for plaintiffs is akin to the mob psychology of adding to the crowd, and it somehow does not seem consistent with the basic idea of our judicial system that each man should be heard on his own. And, finally, National Screen has served us well, has served us reasonably, and, therefore, whatever one may think about joining with others in certain kinds of law suits certainly we have no reason to join anyone in this particular matter. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely (signed) Harry Arthur i