Money behind the screen : a report prepared on behalf of the Film Council (1937)

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.

MONEY HKIIIM) THE SPREEN f-' paying tribute to tlu^ (electrical iiidiistry, tliim iippcarcd coniplcti* ami the astoiiisliin^ liistory ol its Itrcakdown jnovidcH one of tlic nio.st iustnietivo ehaptern in tho story of riiodeni finance. TIjo formation of tlu^ trust naturally aroused the viol«'tit opposition of all producers, manufacturers and distributors exelu<l«<l from its lu'iiefits, and the exliihitors as a whole felt an ecjually natural resentment a^^ainst. tlu^ restrictions imjxised by the condiine on their choice of pro;/ra?nmes and a^^^ainst. tine enforced 82 lic<'ne« levy. It is a remarkable fact that, almost without <-.\ception, the founders of the concerns later fused in tin; eij^ht major companies of to-day were in tlio vanguard of the struggle against the monopoly. Promin(Mit among these indeix^ndents were (.'arl Laemmle and 11. TI. ('ochran(\ the late and the present head of Universal, whose Independent lecture Co. (known as the " Imj) ") gave rise; to the star system, when th(\v made the experiment of indicnting the name of an actress on the film. The actress in fjuestion was Mary Pickfnrd, and the star system was destined to revolutionise the industry. Of equal importance were the ettbrts of Adolf)h Zukor and VV. \V. Hodgkinson, founders of concerns later merged in Paramount, to introduce full-length feature films. They first attempted to persuade the trust of the advantages of this policy, oiily starting as independents, when their suggestions were rejected. Foremost among the exhibitors fighting the trust was William Fox and the methods adopted by the combine to oust him are characteristic of the manner in which the struggle was conducted. One of Fox's projectionists was bribed by the trust men to take the films rented for exhibition from them nightly after the show to a house of prostitution in Hoboken. Shortly afterwards Fox's license was cancelled on the grounds that he had allowed the companies' films to be used for immoral purposes. Fox was able, however, to defeat this ruse and the action for damages which he subsequently brought against the trust under the Sherman laws was followed by similar actions brought by innumerable other exhibitors. At the same time the combine were unable to suppress the continued pirating of their patent rights by independent producers, whose activities even before and during the existence of the merger were largely responsible for the selection of Los Angeles as the ultimate centre of the movie industry. This city being within easy reach of the Mexican border, it was a simple matter for the pirates to escape with their cameras to safety on the approach of the process servers and thugs hired by the enraged patent owners to smash up their equipment. The overwhelming success of the feature film and star system experiments initiated by the independents and the actions brought by the exhibitors had already undermined the monopoly hold of the combine by about 1912. It received its final blow when the