Investigation of concentration of economic power; monograph no. 1[-43] (1940)

2g CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER exhibitors to "fulfill their contractual obligations" (that is, to send, immediately a check for any film rentals which may be due), but it is also used to induce exhibitors to play undesired films. I screened The Tower of London and because of the horror it contained, I deemed the picture unfit to show at the Lyric Theater * * * j^ thereupon,, called the Universal naanager * * * and attempted to cancel it out. He assured me I would mak,e a lot of money and I had better play the picture. I, however, still did not wish to play it and so I wrote him * * * attempting to cancel. That letter * * * yt^m gjve you a summary and story of his reaction to my attempts to cancel. Finally, I had to pay for the picture in order to get Destry Rides Again, and not play it. I did this and still have not played the picture, nor do I intend to play it.'^ It has also been alleged that distributors can easily circumvent a cancelation privilege by including with releases a few definitely unsat- isfactory and cheap pictures, knowing that the privilege will be used up on these films. The significance of the cancelation privilege as a remedy to block booking is succinctly stated by Nathan Yamins, a leading independent exhibitor. * * * the cancelation privilege offers no remedy to the evils of block booking. These provisions still enable the producer-distributor to maintain their monopoly on the screen, it still enables the distributor to pass on his mistakes to the exhib- itor, and with the exception of the top group pictures offers no inducement for improvement in quality. It is a temporary provision offered and will endure only where the industry is faced with legislation and litigation, and as practiced now is so hemmed in with- numerous restrictions as to be worthless." An additional alternative to straight block booking is contained in the recent consent decree signed by the five affiliated companies. It is agreed in the decree that these companies, for a limited period after August 31, 1941, will sell their features in groups of not more than five each, and the purchase of any one group will not be made contin- gent on the purchase of any other group. Provision is also made for the cancelation of any feature considered offensive on "moral, religious or racial grounds." The consent decree is discussed in full in appendix III. It may be mentioned that the affiliated companies in buying each other's pictures are not, on the whole, troubled by the compulsory "aspects of block booking. Instead, these companies usually negotiate selective contracts with each other. Under this system a company may contract for all the pictures distributed by another company, but retain the option of accepting for use only those which are later con- sidered desirable. Continuity of film supply—a very desirable fea- ture—is thus assured. At the same time, the affiliated companies acting as exhibitors assume no obligation to show films which after a preview are considered unsatisfactory.^^ Forcing of short subjects.^Another aspect of block booking, though it is usually treated as a separate practice, is the forcing of short subjects—news reels, comedies, travelogues, etc. Short subjects are presumably used to complement features in filling out a program. Exhibitors allege that not only must tjiey in many cases contract for "Ibid., pp. 407-408. Letters on pp. 408-409. A similar case on pp. 261-265. '* Ibid., Testimony Nathan Yamins, p. 441. '« The selective contract not only substitutes for block booking so far as the affiliated exhibitor iseoneemed; it also has certain unsatisfactory connotations in connection with the delay of play dates in independent^ theaters. This side of the question will be discussed in a later section.