The Independent Film Journal (1952)

Reactions Against Government's 16mm. Suit Continue To Develop Kcverberi'atioiis fi'om tlie Govci'iiiiunit’s anti-trust suit aj>'ainst the motion picture coinpanu's for not niakinj;' Kiniin. iilins available to television continue to (h'velop. A sidelight to the government action oc¬ curred in Philadelphia where suit was started against seven majors and others by (lari Kunz, l()mni. film dealci', in Federal District Court, charging conspiracy to rcsti’ain and monopolize the distribution and exhibition of Him. Knnz is asking $3,135,00 for him¬ self and corporations of which he is jiresident and main stockholder. Kunz, also seeking injunctive relief to pre¬ vent future damages, asserted in his com¬ plaint that a continuing and greater coni spiracy exists which is causing further dam, age to liiinseA' and his holdings. He said I there were “hamstringing clauses ’ he claimed he had accepted from the distributors as jiart of their leasing and licensing arrange¬ ments. Editorial Attack Sept 20 issue of “Collier’s,” the weekly magazine, lambasted the suit in an editorial, claiming that is could establish, if successful, a “disquieting” precedent. Blast was headed : “Reallv Happv Marriages Don’t Start This Way.”'' Illustrating the editorial was a color car¬ toon showing the shot-gun marriage of a blissful video lass to rattled “Hollj^wood In¬ vestment” with the Justice Dept, holding the gun while an Uncle Sam; in night-.shirt, i)erformed the ceremony. The editorial observed that it didn’t seem likely “that a deep, dark formal conspiracy would be necessary to persuade these indi¬ vidual members of the industry that it would be inviting commercial suicide to sell their product indiscriminately to their TV conqietitors at a small fraction of the iiroduct’s original cost.” Noting that “the film industry is one of the countiy’s largest simply because its product has won popular favor ail over the world.” the editorial stated that “thousands of people depend uiion it tor their livelihood — not only the stars and exi'cutives . . . but the man who runs the neighborhood movie house and hires a half-dozen people to work for him.” Washington Paper In Washington, the “Star,” through its film critic, Harry MacArthur, observed that the government was “on shaky ground” in its suit. MacArthur said that the D. of J. “may know what it is doing” but “it is one thing to dissolve a conspiracy so that no party to it is bound by it. It is quite sonietliing else to tell a man who his customers must be. A movie studio is a private' business, not a public utility.” An editorial appearing in the “Record,” Meriden, Conn., stated: “We cannot under¬ stand how monopoly applies in this parti¬ cular charge.” “it would appear,” the edi¬ torial continued, “the governmont is trying its iiowmr to see how far it can control, limit and direct the kind of competition which, when tree, has been the life blood of our enterjirise system.” Heading its editorial, “Both Meddlesome and Confiscatory,’’ the “Daily Globe” of Shelby, Ohio, noted that the • suit posed “another basic threat that is nothing short of confiscation. For our Federal government to step in and force one industry to give 111) its own property to aid its competitor seems entirely unreasonable.” The Brooklyn “Daily Eagle” called the action “bathing” while the Jamaica, Long Island, “Daily Press” termed it “unfair provocation. ’ ’ Gene Autry, cowboy actoi' in both theatre and TV pictures, disclosed to Robert J. (Bob) O’Donnell, Texas circuit executive, “how impossible it would be to spend hun¬ dreds of thousands of dollars for motion pictures, and, regardless of ‘reasonable clear¬ ance,’ to have them shown on TV screens with the possibility of only a modest re¬ turn.” Autry noted that “obviously it is impos¬ sible to complete with the magnitude of motion picture theatre screens within the limitations of TV. Television future lies in attractions specially produced for TV only.” Ohio Censorship Loses In Conrt Toledo. — Laws of this state for the cen¬ soring of motio]) picture newsreels were de¬ clared in violation of the Constitutions of both Ohio and the United States by Munici¬ pal Judge Frank W. Wiley in the test case sponsored by MPA A and involving exhib¬ itor Martin G. Smith. “To subject a newsreel to our present cen¬ sorship is of itself a greater evil than the possibility of evil against wdiich the statute Avas designed to protect,” Judge Wiley de¬ clared. The judge pointed out that the industry’s practice of self-censorship “has removed much of the possibility for evil that may have existed in the earlier years.” Conse¬ quently, Judge W^iley continued, “. . . the censorship statutes of Ohio as they now stand, substantially unchanged for 40 years, no longer meet the test of constitutionality noAv required by Supreme Court decisions.” Refers To SC Opinion The judge was referring to the High Court’s opinions in the “Miracle” and “Pinky” cases. Supreme Court ruled that the motion picture screen came under the same Constitutional guarantees as did the press. The fee of $3 charged by the state for censoring newsreels Avas attacked also by Judge Wiley, Avho agreed Avith the argument of the defendant that it Avas a discrimina¬ tory practice. Judge AViley said the fee vio¬ lated the “equal protection” clause of the Ohio and Federal Constitutions because it singled out one means of disseminating in¬ formation as against the others. “A film can be run in a television studio at any place in the country and reproduced in eAU'ry home in Ohio that has a television set and there is no attempt at censorship or taxation,” the Judge said. The charging of censorshii) fees. Judge Wiley declared, constitutes the taxing of films, Avhich is a “form of prior restraint (Continued on page 30) MPEA, SIMPP Okay UK-US Pact Modifications Approval of the modifications in the tAvoyear Anglo-American film agreement Avas given this Aveek by both the board of direc¬ tors of the Motion Picture Export Associa¬ tion and the Society of lnde})end(‘nt Motion Picture Producers. Modifications were negotiated in Wa.shiiigton last week by representatives of the British Government and of the MPPIA and SIMPP. Modifications deal Avith arrangements un¬ der Avhich U. S. film companies are allowed to convert into dollars part of their earn¬ ings in the United Kingdom. 7951 Agreement In 1951, it was agreed that the U. S. com¬ panies should be alloAved to ti'ansfer, in ad¬ dition to the amounts i)rovided for under the Anglo-American film agreement of 1950, the extra earnings accruing to them under the so-called Eady plan. The American comj)anies have noAV agreed, in recognition of the difficulties Avhich tho United Kingdom is facing at this time in its dollar balance of payments, to waive part of these transfer rights under the Eady plan in respect both of the cur¬ rent year ending Sept. 30, 1952, and in respect of the year ending Sept. 30, 1953. In total, the amount by Avhich the dollar transfers of American companies Avill be abated will be $5,900,000. In other respects, the arrangements remain unchanged, includ¬ ing thr retention of the basic figure of $17,000,000 of unconditional annual transfer by U. S. companies. Under the Eady plan, theatre admission prices were increased in Britain to provideadditional revenues for exhibitors and dis¬ tributors and to create a special central re¬ serve fund to encourage the production of motion pictures in Gre-at Britain. Mulvey Announces Approval James A. Mulvey, Chairman of the SIMPP Distribution Committee, avIio together Avith Ellis A. Arnall represented SIMPP in the negotiations, stated : “The agreement con¬ cluded Avith the British government repre¬ sents an accord which is mutually beneficial to the British government and to the Ameri¬ can motion picture industry. It Avas a car¬ dinal point in our position that the $17,000,000 annual remittance provided for in the basic Film Agreement should not be re¬ duced, and the British government recognized and agreed to the equity of our stand. Hie American companies on their ])art ri'cognized that a Avaiver of dollar remissions of earn¬ ings under the Eady Plan could b(' agrci'd to without affecting basic American interests and at the same time giving recognition to the problems of Great Britain in connection with its dollar balances. “The entire negotiations and their final conclusion represent the kind of Interna¬ tional Agreement which can be reai'hed Avhen all 2^Jirties approach a iiroblem in the spirit of good will and determination to recognize each others problems.” THE INDEPENDENT FILM JOURNAL — September 20. 1952 7