Harrison's Reports (1955)

IN TWO SECTIONS— SECTION ONE Entered as second-olass matter January 4, 1921, at the post offlo* mt New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1S79. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by United States $16.00 N.w Y . on N Y Harrison's Reports, Inc.. U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 N*W Tork ZO' T* Publisher Canada 16.50 A Motion Picture Reviewing Service P S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Great Br.tam ....... 17.50 Established July 1. 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India. Europe, Asia 17.50 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial „T , . .„„ 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. <~ircie A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVII SATURDAY, MAY 21, 1955 No. 21 THE DISTRIBUTORS MUFF THEIR CHANCE As anticipated, the presidents of the different film companies have refused to reconsider their decisions rejecting the invitation sent to them by the joint Allied-TOA committee for a roundtable conference. From a statement issued this week by the joint exhibitor committee, it appears that only Steve Broidy, president of Allied Artists, and Herbert J. Yates, president of Republic, had accepted the invitation. The statement, which was signed by Rube Shor, president of National Allied, and E. D. Martin, president of the Theatre Owners of America, had this to say : "We are greatly disappointed that the Presidents of distribution have rejected the Allied-TOA invitation to join in an All-Industry Conference to discuss exhibitor problems, the declining audience, and the low ebb of exhibitor-distributor relations. "Our invitations cited that we had no intention of discussing individual company sales and trade practices, the veil under which the invitations were declined. "We regret the short-sightedness of the film companies and that they fail to see that exhibition was acting in good faith in seeking to discuss with their Presidents forms of relief to the sad and chatotic plight facing the majority of exhibitors in this country and poor exhibitordistributor relations. We have earnestly sought the joint cooperation, assistance and counsel of the film companies and their Presidents on these pressing industry problems. Therefore, we cannot be criticized for the avenues we must take alone to obtain relief. "The Joint Committee of Allied and TO A will meet on May 23 rd and 24th in New York City to determine what action will be taken. Our thanks to Mr. Herbert Yates and Mr. Steve Broidy for their speedy acceptance of our invitation and their kindness and understanding." While it is problematical whether a roundtable conference with the heads of the film companies would have been productive of relief, there can be no question that both Allied and TOA sought to set up the conference in good faith and in a sincere effort to compose distributor-exhibitor disputes by means of self-regulation. That the film company chiefs saw fit to reject this bid for an amicable settlement of disputes is indeed unfortunate, for they must or should know that the intolerable film rentals and conditions of licensing imposed on the exhibitors cannot be continued indefinitely, and that the exhibitors, as a matter of selfpreservation, must seek whatever avenues of relief are open to them. History proves that the producer-distributor leaders of this industry have never done anything voluntarily, with the constructive purpose of weeding out injustices or erroneous industry policies. When they rejected the proposed roundtable conference, they muffed their chance to show sincerity and a willingness to listen to the other fellow's point of view. If organized exhibition now decides that its salvation lies in going to the Government for relief, any hue and cry that might be raised by the distributors against such a move will be just so many empty words. EVEN THE BIG FELLOWS ARE FEELING THE "SQUEEZE" That the complaints against distribution's extortionate film rental terms are not confined to the small exhibitors is evidenced by the statements made this week to trade press reporters by Robert J. O'Donnell, vice-president and general manager of Texas Interstate Theatres, a circuit of over one hundred theatres, which is one of the largest American BroadcastingUnited Paramount affiliates. O Donnell pointed out that the terms demanded for top pictures are so steep that, of five such pictures his circuit has presented since last September, not one made a profit. O'Donnell, who deplored the refusal of the film company heads to meet at a roundtable conference with the exhibitors, stated that there is no question in his mind that "distribution has been milking the theatres by asking exorbitant rentals." He declared that "theatres are entitled to more than 90-10 or 70-30 terms on top pictures." He added also that successful pictures, at the terms demanded by the distributors today, rarely leave the theatres with more than a six or seven per cent profit, which is by far an insufficient "cushion" when one considers the fact that the average films are usually no profit-makers. If a wise film-buyer like Bob O Donnell, who is backed by the important buying power of his huge circuit, cannot get equitable terms from the distribu tors, what chance has the little fellow got?