Harrison's Reports (1955)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1S79. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by Uns.e?nsulare Possessions'. %U^0 New York 20, N. Y. Publisher Canada 16.50 A Motlon picture Reviewing Service P S. HARRISON, Editor Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Great Britain •••••••••••• 17.60 Established July 1. 1919 Australia, New Zealand, India. Europe, Asia .... 17.60 ita Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial _,T . „ ...„ 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. circle i-^n A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVII SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1955 No. 45 ARBITRATION PLAN DEFENDED BY DRAFTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS In an apparent reply to the strong criticism levelled against the proposed arbitration plan by Abram F. Myers, National Allied's general counsel, and to the rejection of the plan as a whole last week by the Southern California Theatre Owners Association, a joint statement has been issued by Herman M. Levy and Mitchell Wolfson, of the Theatre Owners of America; Max A. Cohen, of the Independent Theatre Owners Association; and Leo Brecher, of the Metro' politan Motion Picture Theatre Owners Association, all members of the drafting committee of the industry arbitration conference. Their statement follows: "Criticism has been directed at one aspect of the proposed industry arbitration system — that dealing with the so-called 'pre-release' or 'special handling1 pictures. The criticism is not well founded. The plan does not make 'a deliberate attempt to legalize the pre-releasing practice/ but for the first time, a restriction is placed on the number of pre-release pictures any distributor may have in one year. "There is now (before the adoption of the proposed system) no legal limitation on the number of prerelease pictures each distributor may have in total disregard of all customary and established patterns of clearance. Therefore, restricting each company to not more than two such pictures a year is a positive gain in favor of exhibition. "The pertinent language of the plan is: " 'Two pictures designated during each 12 months following the effective date of this agreement by each distributor party hereto as of unusual character shall be excluded from the provisions of this agreement. Such pictures in nowise shall be subject to arbitration until such time as the same are announced by such distributor for general distribution. Thereafter the provisions of this agreement shall be applicable in respect of matters occurring in the course of such general distribution of the said pictures.' "This language neither condones nor authorizes the distribution of pre-release pictures — it simply sets a limit where no legal limit now exists. "In 1952 (when Allied took part in the arbitration negotiations), and, again, in 1954 (when Allied, through its own choice, did not take part in the negotiations), the important question facing the exhibitor representatives was, very simply, this: 'Since exhibitors can not by law stop pre-release pictures, should they not accept the opportunity to restrict the number of them?' "If, at some future time, the Department of Justice should establish the illegality of the practice of prereleases this would, of course, supersede the provisions of the proposed arbitration system. But, meanwhile, exhibitors will have had the benefits of a restriction on distributors contained in this plan. "The proposed system of arbitration is not a cureall. But, we are cognizant of the fact that it has many points of advantage for exhibitors, especially in the fields of clearance, runs, competitive bidding, and contract violations. The plan clearly defines old and new rights, and affords remedies for the violation of those rights. As an illustration, it provides, for the first time, a set of 'rules of the game' for competitive bidding, aimed at eliminating under-the-counter shenanigans. "Under the plan, no exhibitor is obliged to go to arbitration. The plan does not impair or interfere with his right to resort to litigation. "Distributors may not bring any proceedings under the proposed system. It is for exhibitors only, and only if they wish to use it. The plan provides that it be in existence for one year. If it does not work well, or if it works to the detriment of exhibition, then, at the end of the year, it may be corrected, changed, or, if exhibitors wish, they will be privileged to abandon it. "Not enough attention has been paid to the conciliation provisions of the proposed system. Under our plan, exhibitors are provided a means of seeking relief for all grievances, large and small, independent of the arbitration machinery." As a reply to Mr. Myers, this joint statement is totally inadequate, for, in denying his charge that certain provisions in the arbitration draft constitute "a deliberate attempt to legalize the pre-releasing practice," it avoids the issues and uses as a defense the claim that it is the first time a restriction has been placed on the number of pre-release pictures any distributor may have in one year and, therefore, "is a positive gain in favor of exhibition." In making his charge, Mr. Myers, whose remarks were published in last week's issue, clearly illustrated that, since pre-releasing involves the superimposing of a new run ahead of the established runs, it disrupts the established clearances upon which the subsequent-run and small -town exhibitors have a right to rely. Moreover, by citing the methods employed by Paramount in pre-releasing "Strategic Air Com mand" and "The Desperate Hours," he showed how the sanctioning of such a practice through an ap(Continued on bac\ page)