Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1936 - Dec 1937)

Vol. 3, No. 6 9Hdependeti£ EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN Occobei \ 1SM6 THE INDUSTRY'S NEWS J>Ajdwl Che fcdibfriaL (JisavpoLnL DUALS CASE RE-ARGUED Before Circuit Court . . . The \it.il question of the major distributors' right to prohibit double featuring of their pictures now rests with the Circuit ( ouri of Appeals, following reargument of the celebrated Perelman cast on Tuesday before Judges Buffington, Davis and Thompson. The decision, which is expected to send the case into the Supreme Court, regardless of which side it favors, will probably be handed down before the first of the year. In the brief filed by attorney Morris Wolf for the six major film company defendants I Warners, Paramount. RKO, United Artists, Fox and Metro), it is argued that the conspiracy charge on which the plaintiffs' case is based was not proved. The testimony of I. E. Chadwick to the effect that Louis B. Mayer, president of the produceres-distributors association, stated at an open meeting that the film companies had evolved a plan to stop dual billing is deprecated on the ground that Mayer's remarks were made after all the defendants had already inserted the clauses against double featuring in their film contracts. Claim Restraint Disproved . . . The defendants' brief points out that "not one of the provisions (anti-dual clauses) attempts to interfere with double featuring of pictures not distributed by the particular defendant w hose contract is involved." This is advanced as evidence tending to disprove the plaintiffs' claim that the restriction against double featuring is, in effect, a restraint of interstate trade. District Judge Welsh, it is charged, "misunderstood this fact anil suspected that the provisions entirely prohibited the use of independent pictures or at least prohibited all double featuring." Judge Welsh handed down the original ruling. WOlf also raises the question of "undue" restraint, citing the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling that "reasonable" restraint is permissible under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. His petition implies that if the effect of the anti-duals clauses was to limit trade, it falls into the category of reasonable restraint. The testimony of Ed Kuykendall, president of the M.P.T.O.A., is quoted as "the most impressive" evidence that exhibitors are opposed to double features. (Kuykendall claimed on the stand that he represented 4,800 independent exhibitors.) Good Motive No Excuse . . . The brief for the appellees makes the point that the alleged good motive of the defendants does not furnish a defense for conspiracy. Numerous cases are quoted to substantiate this. On the issue of the admissibility of ( hadwick's testimony about Mayer, the petition claims tli.it the M -G -\1 executive introduced as president of and spokesman for the M.P.P.I). '■ the meeting at which he pissed the damaging remarks about bidding future double featuring. Officials of the other companies were present and ottered no objection to his statements. Denial ot conspiracy by the defendants themselves does not preclude proof by other competent testimony, it is argued in the Perelman's petition to uphold the lower court decision. Mayer's statement and the admission wrung from Kuykendall that he had attended a meeting of the heads of the defending companies at which the subject was discussed and a virtual agreement reached are presented as such "other competent testimony" pointing to a conspii HAYS IDLE ON RADIO ISSUE Menace Growing . . . With more and more movie stars signing contracts to appear on radio programs. Will H. Hays tails to find the situation menacing enough for him to take some action in checking the spread of this form of competition in theatres. After a purported "analysis" of the effect of the practice on boxotrice receipts, filmdom's "czar" receded into quiescence and inaction. Exhibitors who several weeks ago were raising a loud howl against the radio competition from movie-made stars have also relapsed into silence, apparently struck b\ a feeling of hopelessness if they can win no aid from the producers. REVOLT AGAINST U. A. Boycott . . . \ngeles. — local independent exhibibtors have set up a virtual boycott against United Artists because ot terms the) claim are unreasonable, liulic.it ions are that tew indies have signed the 1936-37 product so tar and many have announced their intention to pass it up unless U.A. submits a tair revision ot their terms. Agitation in independent circles is also quite strong here against Universale percentage demands. Statements h\ James R. Grainger, U's sales manager, to the effect that his company would run its product in halls or churches it exhibs did not meet their terms has stirred strong resentment. \lur threatening the (.olden State indie circuit .\nd selling "\\\ Man Godfrey" to subsequent run houses ahead ot Golden Si ite aee spots, Grainger finally closed a deal with the circuit last week. Issued weekly at 1325 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Phone: Rittenhouse "4J4. Mo *.i\, Puhlisht-r .in. I 1. Iit.u. Roland Barton, George Irns Nonamakir, AatOCiatC Editor*. New York Representative: Edward l.arkin. Room 505, 729 Seventh Arenuc, Medallion I