Harrison's Reports (1959)

4 HARRISON'S REPORTS January 3, 1959 longer attracts customers to the box-office. Such rou' tine picture entertainment is available to them for nothing on television, and for that reason, more than any other, the exhibitor is badly in need of meritorious pictures with which to win back some of his lost patronage. Under today's tough selling policies, however, the small exhibitor finds himself backed up against the wall when it comes to playing the top box-office attractions, for in addition to excessive rentals and harsh terms, the pictures frequently are not made available to him until after they have been milked dry in the prior runs, further reducing his chances of making a profit. This much is certain: Unless the producers and distributors take immediate steps to help alleviate the stress under which most of the small exhibitors are operating today, many of them will have no alternative but to close their doors. And if this happens, the extra profits the producer-distributors may realize now from excessive rentals will be a drop in the bucket when compared to the losses they themselves may suffer later as a result of closed theatres, whose patrons will turn to other forms of entertainment and thus further increase the number of people who have lost the movie-going habit. For better or for worse, exhibition and productiondistribution are completely dependent upon each other. Current selling methods are entirely out of line with present trade conditions, and common sense dictates that they be abandoned by the distributors for more realistic sales policies. Unless the distributors do this, they will weaken exhibition to a point where it will undermine the very structure upon which their own welfare depends. A FABULOUS RECORD BECOMES EVEN MORE FABULOUS The impressive record established by United Artists since it was taken over by the Krim-Benjamin management group in 1951 was further enhanced this week when pictures released by UA swept the year-end 1958 New York Film Critics Awards with five of the top six prizes. Additionally, other UA features placed as runners-up in all the major categories voted upon by the New York critics, whose selections often coincide with the Academy Award "Oscars" handed out in March. The five top prizes won by UA releases included Stanley Kramers 'The Defiant Ones," as the best picture of the year; David Niven, as the best actor of the year, for his outstanding performance as the bogus Major in "Separate Tables"; Susan Hayward, as best actress of the year, for her stirring performance as Barbara Graham in "I Want to Live"; Stanley Kramer, as best director of the year, for his work on "The Defiant Ones"; and "The Defiant Ones" as having the best scenario of the year, with the screen writing credited to Nathan E. Douglas and Harold Jacob Smith. "Separate Tables," "The Horse's Mouth" and "The Big Country" were among the UA releases that garnered votes as the best picture of the year. In the "best director" category, votes were received by Delbert Mann for "Separate Tables," William Wyler for "The Big Country ' and Robert Wise for "I Want to Live." In the "best actor" category, Alec Guinness won second place for his work in "The Horse's Mouth," and Sidney Poitier received several votes for his performance in "The Defiant Ones." The "best actress" category included Deborah Kerr for her work in "Separate Tables," which picture also figured in the balloting for the best screen writing award. Earlier in the week, prior to the awards, United Artists announced that it would conduct world-wide, year-long celebrations during 1959 to mark the 40th anniversary of the company, which was founded in 1919. It could not have received a better anniversary gift than the top awards given to its current releases by the influential New York critics. QUIGLEY REPLIES TO MYERS In a friendly complaint to this paper, Martin Quigley, Jr., editor of Motion Picture Herald, states that Abram F. Myers, National Allied's board chairman and general counsel, acted impatiently in circulating his letter of December 15, in which he criticized Quigley for attempting "to undermine the legal status of the decrees by asserting that they amount to no more than agreements entered into between the Department of Justice and the film companies." Myers released his letter to the trade press last week in the belief that Quigley did not intend to publish it, as requested by him. Quigley points out that the letter is published in full in the Herald's December 27 issue and could not be published in the December 20 issue because it was received too late to meet the press deadline. Since we published Mr. Myers' letter last week, we are herewith reproducing Mr. Quigley 's reply, as published in the Herald's December 27 issue: "Dear Mr. Myers: "This is in response to your letter dated December 15, 1958, in the concluding paragraph of which you state that you seriously think I have done the Allied spokesmen' a grave injustice and that I should publish your letter in fairness to them. While I cannot for the life of me see any injustice or unfairness I will, as you request, publish your letter together with this response. "It seems to me as a layman that you are making a legal mountain out of a molehill and that you are creating confusion by your letter where none could possibly have arisen from what I said in the editorial. "When I said that consent decrees are not laws but agreements I thought I was stating a simple fact. You seem to make it a very complicated one indeed. It still appears to me that when its draftsmen call a document one of 'consent' it is an agreement, and it is not a law or a statute but merely declaratory of the way the parties to a specific litigation are to act. Of course, as I originally stated, the Federal Court approved the Consent Decrees. I did not say those decrees could be disobeyed as you seem to imply for I stated plainly 'their revision or their interpretation is reserved by the Federal court.' "All such matters lend themselves to the niceties of legal interpretations — interesting to lawyers but not necessarily productive of better trade practices. "The main point of the editorial is correct and will continue so: that the best way to settle the issues at stake is by intra-industry conference and cooperation carried on in a spirit of mutual understanding of the problems." — Martin Quigley, Jr.