International photographer (Jan-Dec 1935)

Twenty-six T h INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER August, 1935 BLOCK BOOKING (Continued from Page 24) reformer looked down his nose and asked: "Oh, why do you have 'o insult our intelligence with such films?" There is only one thing to do. Blame someone else. The theater owner can't very well take the time to argue out the fact that pictures which make money are the ones that he wants to run. And every picture will not please all the audience. There will be squawks with the best or the worst. Box office value, not social value, determines the type of pictures made and exhibited. And the system of distribution should not be held responsible. The public prefers pictures that merely entertain and that is that. Another fact regarding the element of compulsion allegedly present in block booking. A popular picture may be sold to as many as 14,000 theaters whereas another picture offered by the distributor in the same block may be rented by only one-tenth that number of theaters. A popular picture enjoys extended runs and may be seen in a dozen theaters in the same district simultaneously -whereas a picture of less popularity if it does not "go over" is shelved. On April 5, 1932, the United States Circuit Court made the following statement in its review of the Federal Trade Commission proceedings: "The evidence in the record discloses that the effect of this method of negotiation has not been to unduly restrain the exhibitor's freedom of choice." Thus the legality of block booking is upheld. A number of groups blame block booking for the anti-social aspects of some pictures. They blame the system of distribution for the quality of the product, rather than blame the box office who spend money to make that kind of picture a lucrative commercial success. Legislation has been sponsored by them against block booking such as the Brookhart Bill (No. 1003 — 71st Congress) introduced a number of years ago, and the recent Samuel B. Pettingill Bill introduced on March 6 of this year. This last named bill which is still being considered will in all likelihood not pass. The bill stipulates that block booking be banned and that a synopsis be furnished for each story with the idea of indicating the social value of the picture. A synopsis of a story could no more indicate the audience impression of the picture than could the statement: "I saw a dead herring," indicate how the herring smelled. The objectionable features of an anti-social picture are the result of implied suggestions for the most part which could never be outlined in a synopsis. The crux of the matter lies in educating the public against naughty or shoddy pictures just as school children studying literature have been taught the unsatisfactory elements of a dime story. First of all the critics, reformers and social improvers must define and get together on a code that embraces just what they consider good. As it now stands one community will consider a kiss on the screen undesirable; fifty miles away in a neighbor community it is all right. One city wont' permit the showing of a gun on the screen even in the hands of a police man; another city nearby considers it harmless. An interesting fact of the argument about block booking in relation to the social value of pictures lies in the fact that the tremendous improvement which all public spirited groups have recognized in pictures during the past eighteen months has occurred under the same old system of block booking. If this system distributed all those pictures under which objections were made and now distributes with equal facility a product which most of the non-partisan outside groups endorse in 96 per cent of its entirety, there would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that pictures can deteriorate or improve under block booking. Pictures are made good or bad at studios, not while being distributed. Despite the apparent advantages of block booking there is agitation in favor of abolishing wholesale distribution of pictures. This group wants to substitute, instead, a system of selective buying. Such a system would upset the present systematic and timely distribution of pictures. More than that the costs of distribution would be greatly increased. Under the selective system the exhibitor would have to view in advance each picture offered by the producers. With over 700 pictures in addition to short subjects being produced annually, the impossibility of personally previewing each one is apparent. It is estimated that the exhibitor would have to spend 175 days of eight hours each in projection rooms in order to ascertain what pictures to select. Moreover, the expense of such previewing would be tremendous. Nothing would be more disastrous to the small theater owner and the audiences in general because this cost would be saddled on them. It has been estimated theater tickets would raise in price at least thirty per cent. Salesmen should have to cover the territories to market one or two pictures as they are available whereas in the block booking system pictures are shipped according to the pre-season contract. In the selective system the exhibitor would have no definite assurance of a constant supply of pictures, and publicity ICTER^ £ff«cls in Daytime ~F^ Sc^n^s Dif fused. F^^us.and many vmer «Ff«cts With any Camera " In any Ulimare Georcje H. Scheibo ORIGINATOR OF EFFECT FILTERS 1927 WEST 78th ST. LOS ANGELES. CAL. and program arrangements require that the exhibitor know far in advance what pictures he will screen. In the fall of 1923 Paramount tried to initiate a separate picture sales system, a selective system, but found the trade unwilling to accept it. The exhibitors wanted to buy and book wholesale and in advance. After a few weeks trial and a loss of over a million dollars Paramount was forced to abandon it and return to the wholesale group selling. Many groups and individuals who do not know the mechanics of distribution have been objecting to block booking in perfect good faith feeling that the system was responsible for objectionable films. mgm CAMERA b PROP RENTALS Camera Supply Co. 1515 Cahuenga Blvd. Hollywood, Calif. Ruddy Geraus, Manager CLadstone 2404 Nite Phone CLadstone 6583 Cable Address — "CAMERAS" KODACHROME NOW AVAILABLE IN 16 mm. FIFTYFOOT ROLLS AND PACKETTE MAGAZINES Here's news for amateur cinematographers who own 16 mm. movie cameras of 50 foot capacity or those who prefer to shoot 50 foot lengths of Kodachrome instead of the 100 foot rolls. Cine-Kodak Kodachrome Safety Film heretofore supplied only in 100 foot 16 mm. rolls and consequently limited to cameras with that film capacity, is now available in 50 foot rolls, or Packette film magazine. Please mention The International Photographer when corresponding with advertisers.