Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1947)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

A PREDICTION EDITOfi March 31, 1947 X Page Three Vol. 15, No. 7 BDLIETIL An Independent Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Film Bulletin Company. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. BUSINESS OFFICE: Suite 622, Manufacturers Trust BIdg., 1819 Broadway, New York 23. Circle 6-9159 David A. Bader, Business Manager. PUBLICATION EDITORIAL OFFICES; 1239 Vine Street, Phlla delphia 7. Pa., RIttenhouse 6-7424; Barney Stein Publication Manager; Jacli Dash, Circulation Mana ger. HOLLYWOOD OFFICE: 9126 Sunset Boulevard Hollywood 46. Calif., CRestview 6-2061; Sara Sal zer, Hollywood Representative. Subscription Rate ONE YEAR, $3.00 in the United States; Canada. $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS: $5.00 In the United States; Canada, $7.50; EDropĀ«, $9.00. Although the distributor defendants in the monopoly case have been most vociferous in their public protests against competitive bidding, certain of the sales executives are tripping over themselves in their haste to institute the system. Small wonder, too, for as this provision of the decree Is written and as It figures to be operated by the film companies, competitive bidding promises, to be a bonanza for them. Some one has been harsh enough to remark that if the Government had sued the independent exhibitors, Instead, the verdict could hardly have proved more favorable for the distributors. The early straws in the wind indicate that the system already Is being turned to the advantage of the majors and against the exhibitors. This publication has heard from several Independent theatremen, who report that film salesmen are employing the rumor-technique of mentioning "competitive bids" by other independents for their runs as a lever to hoist their film prices. One exhibitor tells us he has been receiving "warnings" that a long-closed theatre, a failure with every type of policy, will be reopened and is bidding for his run. There appears to be no limit to the tactics that can be devised under this system to batter down exhibitor resistance. A recent bulletin from Allied, written by counsel A. F. Myers, cites a number of violations of both the spirit and the letter of the bidding provision' which have come to his attention. Mr. Myers, on the basis of information he' has at hand, comes to these conclusions: "( I ) The system is being used primarily to stir up antagonism among Independent exhibitors with a view to securing still higher film rentals. "(2) The distributors are ignoring all provisions written Into the decree for the protection of the exhibitors. "(3) Where the competition Is between an Independent and a large circuit, the independent either will not be afforded the opportunity to bid or will be granted the privilege under the most discouraging conditions. "(4) Even after an offer has been made to an independent, the pictures are subject to be withdrawn at any time and licensed to the circuit." The bulletin observes, further: "The only legitimate purpose of competitive bidding, and the purpose which the court had In view was to end situations where preferred runs were arbitrarily withheld from independent exhibitors who were qualified and justly entitled to enjoy or at least share those runs. As it is being administered, the system cannot possibly accomplish that purpose. The great circuits are being protected in their local monopolies and the only competition that Is being stimulated Is between independent exhibitors In order to raise film rentals." Even before any evidence was available of the manner in which competitive bidding would be administered, there was little room for doubt that the mass of exhibitors (Independents) and the public were destined to suffer, not benefit, by this provision of the decree. And how it can be interpreted as supporting the anti-trust laws of our country appears to be a secret shared only by the learned judges of the Statutory Court. FILM BULLETIN makes this flat prediction: COMPETITIVE BIDDING, AT LEAST AS PRESENTLY ORDERED BY THE COURT, WILL NOT STAND UP, EITHER IN PRACTICE OR IN LAW! It has a chance to work as a corrective for monopolistic first-run situations, but, generally, it appears doomed to failure. It is our belief that the Supreme Court will knock It down. Before the distributors rush to inaugurate this dubious court-decreed practice and before independent exhibitors start bidding against their fellow independents, they had better pause to reflect the chaotic conditions they will face if this prediction comes true. MO WAX