Harrison's Reports (1958)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the poet office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison's Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE Published Weekly by xt • i j ci* + (,r nn Harrison's Reports, Inc., United States $15.00 New York 20, N. Y. Publisher U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 „ „ „ 1ft,„ . __ , „ _ , P. S. HARRISON, Editor Canada 16.50 a Motion Picture Reviewing Service AL PICOULT Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Managing Editor Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, Established July 1, 1919 India, Europe, Asia 17.50 its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial 35c a Copy Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XL SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1958 No. 25 THE "COMMANDMENTS" TERMS FOR DRIVE-INS Edward G. Chumley, Paramount's special sales manager for "The Ten Commandments," announced at a trade press conference held last week that the picture now is being made available to "suitable" drive-in theatres for special engagements during the summer months only, subject to a sales policy that provides, among other special conditions, that the film rental be computed on a per person royalty basis. In a letter sent by Paramount to selected drive-in theatres, the operators are advised that the company is not at this time interested in licensing any drive-in theatre that cannot play the picture at least two weeks. Consequently, the minimum playing time that Paramount will accept is 14 days. Moreover, the policy provides for the engagement to open on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Another principal point in the policy calls for the engagements to be licensed only during the period when children are on Summer vacation from school. The letter also suggested that, in competitive bidding situations, "the terms you submit to us include a dollar guarantee to help us evaluate your offer and to help assure us of a fair return on this picture." A company policy statement, issued to its sales staff, had this to say, partly: "In having decided to offer licenses to drive-in theatres on the basis of payment to us as film rental of a specific royalty per person admitted to the exhibition, we are seeking as film rentals from drive-in theatres a specific amount for each person 12 years of age and over, and a lesser amount for each person under age 12 (excluding infants). "In order that we may obtain a fair rental based upon the number of persons admitted to the theatre the per-person royalty which you shall seek shall be computed on the basis of the appropriate percentage of the net admission price which other exhibitors in the area have charged for admission to their theatres on this production. "As you know, many exhibitors who operate drivein theatres issue an excessive number of passes, admit patrons for a dollar, or even less, a carload and use other practices, all of which are among the factors that have led us to adopt this method of determining film rental. As you also know, the picture, with an intermission, is almost four hours long, and this, too, suggests that in order to return a proper and adequate film rental to us, usual methods of licensing drive-in theatres may not be satisfactory." Present at the press conference was Leonard Kaufman, of the Paramount legal department, who had ready answers for questions about whether or not the per capita method of collecting film rentals con' stituted the fixing of admission prices, contrary to the provisions of the anti-trust decrees. Kaufman emphasized that Paramount was not interested in the admission prices set by the drive-ins, just so long as the company collects a specific amount for each child and adult admitted, citing as an example 30 cents per child and 60 cents per adult. Kaufman added that the Department of Justice has twice ruled that film rentals in the form of royalty payments are not in violation of the decrees. The first ruling, he said, was back in 1953, when Stanley N. Barnes, then in charge of the Department's anti-trust division, upheld a similar policy in connection with the exhibitions of "Peter Pan" and "Hans Christian Andersen." The second ruling was handed down last April when Benjamin Berger, the North Central Allied leader, raised an objection to the practice in connection with his negotiations for "The Ten Commandments." At that time, said Kaufman, the Justice Department informed Berger that the practice did not violate the decrees. Despite these rulings by the Department's anti-trust division, National Allied, at its recent Spring board meeting, charged that Paramount's royalty basis of collecting film rentals "is a palpable subterfuge for controlling the admission prices charged by the theatres contrary to the decrees in the Paramount Case, and for forcing drive-in theatres to charge an admission price for children, contrary to the custom in many areas." A resolution adopted by the Allied board called upon the Attorney General of the United States "to institute proceedings to halt these and other evasions of the provision of the decrees against the fixing of admission prices." Allied, of course, long has been criticizing the Department of Justice for its failure to either properly enforce the provisions of the decrees or to interpret them in a manner that is consistent with their plain language and the declared purposes of the antitrust laws. Aside from the angle of fixing admission prices, Allied believes that some of the new and revolutionary marketing methods, such as is being employed by Paramount on "Commandments," violates at least two other provisions of the decrees, namely, that there be no discrimination in the licensing of motion pictures to the theatres, and that unreasonable clearance shall not be imposed where there is competition between theatres. In Allied s view, the decrees handed (Continued on Bac\ Page)