Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1946)

EDITOR Vol. 14, No. 21 October 14, 1946 America' A J)h4efteh4ent tycthh Picture Journal Page Seven BULLETIN An Independent Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Film Bulletin Company. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. BUSINESS OFFICE: 509 RKO Building. Rockefeller Center, N. Y. 20. COIumbus 5-2125. PUBLICATI8NEDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., Rlttenhouse 6-7424; Barney Stein, Publication Manager; Isabelle Weener, Circulation Manager; Bruce Gallup, Business Manager; Frank Leyendecker, Staff Representative. HOLLYWOOD OFFICE: 8580 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood 46. Calif., CRestview 6-2061; Sara Salzer, David Han«a. Subscription Rate: ONE YEAR. $3.00 in the United States; Canada. $4.00; Europe. $5.00. TWO YEARS. $5.00 In tbi United States; Canada, $7.50; Ewope, $9.00. Let The Supreme Court Decide! With no desire to be disrespectful to the three eminent judges of the Statutory Court, we must say that the decision they handed down in the Government's anti-trust suit against the film companies has resulted only in creating a state of overwhelming confusion in our industry. The decision itself was confusing and contradictory, for, after having supported virtually all of the Government's allegations, it condoned operation of theatre circuits by the defandants — the very core of the Government's case. But the muddle caused by the imponderables in the Court's opinion were as nothing compared to the bewilderment resulting from its suggestions for a decree. The idea of competitive bidding as a substitute for theatre divorcement can benefit only the defendants and a few isolated exhibitors outside their fold. If forced upon the industry, auction bidding which ultimately will affect no group so harshly as the average independent exhibitors. In brief, the Court propounded a remedy that will more likely kill than cure the patients it was supposed to help. Anyone (apparently including lawyers) who has tried to make his way through the labyrinth of legal verbosity contained in the decree proposals and counter-proposals submitted last week by the Department of Justice and the Big Five (see News Digest, Page 17) must realize what a hopeless hotchpotch the Statutory Court's decision was. It is immediately obvious from a reading of the proposals by the five theatre-operating defendants that they will nor willingly give one inch of ground on major issues. In typical fashion, the film lawyers have cluttered their draft of a decree with as many words as are necessary to hold the gates of the courts wide open for their clients. Some parts of their recommendations are gems of legal legerdemain that now-you-see, now-you-don't. For its part, the Department of Justice appears equally resolute in its intent to break the power of the Big Five which is inherent in their circuits of first-run theatres. To partially offset the Court's rejection of theatre divorcement, the Government proposes that each of the five companies' affiliated theatres be barred from licensing the pictures of the other four theatre-operatino defendants. Plainly, the proposed decrees of the contending parties are irreconciliabie and thus the three judges find themselves faced with the cute dilemma of accepting the formula of one side or the other, or writing their own set of ruies to govern the operations of a complex industry about which they admitted! / know very little. Before our industry is plunged deeper into months, months that mightstretch into years, of uncertain judicial direction, and before it is required, for a temporary period, to revolutionize its entire system of operation — before this farce becomes a fiasco — would it not be possible for the Statutory Couri to find some way to hold in abeyance the entrance of any decree, pending an appeal to the United States Supreme Court on the fundamental issue of theatre divestiture? Lawyers tell us there can be no appeal until the Court's final decision ii entered, but it is difficult for us to accept the opinion that our jurisprudence lacks the elasticity to enable the judges of a special Federal court to clear the way for a clear-cut decision on this vital issue by the nation's ultimate court. This MUST be done before the motion picture industry is turned topsy-tur. MO WAX.