Motion Picture News (Jan - Mar 1928)

Ma ID 28 743 Hearing on Brookhart Measure (Contiiiut-il jroiii I'lUir d'M) il is my pcrsoiiiil opinion liiiit !•!! per cciil of tlic iiulividiiiils, on botli sides ol' this (picstion, wlio hnvc coniiiuinicatod with niciuht'i-s of tliis coniinittpc juid nicndxTs of Conprross, havo ncvoi read the bill or pivon any eonsidci-ahlc thonij-lit as to what it s(><'ks to accomplish in the way of jrivinfj the public n:ood motion pictures at the least possible prices. T realize when T make this statement that the opjwnents of this bill, the ])eoi>le who are on our side of the case, have ])ro})ably sent in more communications afiiiinst the bill tiian have been received for it." Defends Distrihutiou Plan Continuinj;', I'ettijohn said: "We have many doctois in the motion picture business who are <>()od diagnosticians, but we have very few doctors who can prescribe a remedy. Reams have been written about 'what's wrongs with the movies?' and before I have finished T want to take a few minutes to tell this committee 'what is right with the movies?' This bill proposed to put out of existence the ]>resent plan of sellino;, exploiting and distributing of motion ])ictures in the I'nited States Avitliout oft'ering anything to take its place, except a bureau or board or commission to conduct hearings, make investigations, fix jjrices, and sometimes make a decision. "The present plan of distribution is based on years of experience and the best brains in the industry. Everything that has been said against it here has been said by men who have never had anything to do with distribution, or any experience in it. If there is a better plan we would welcome it." Denies Monopoly Possible After discussing several sections of the bill and giving statistics with regard to the number of motion picture theatres and the number of people employed through the making, selling and distribution of pictures, Pettijohn went into the subject of the alleged monopoly which the Brookhart bill charges. He said in part: "The fact is that there is no monopoly or threat of monopoly and there can be none. Every year there are approximately 800 feature pictures put on the market, each different from the other and no two exactly alike. From their very nature they cannot be standardized like, for example. Ford cars, beca-use their function is to amuse and entertain — hence, newness, novelty and I)ublieity are the very essence of their value. They vary according to the type and character of their subject matter and the manner in Avhich it is treated. Pictures by different stars, directors and authors vary according to the individual talent and ability. There is also a wide variance in their appeal to the public; some are better suited for certain audiences than others and vei-y few are adaptable to all audiences alike. To illustrate, a wild and woolly Western picture may be very i>opular with a certain class of people, but with another class it will be unpopular. The final test for every picture is its market value which is determined by the picture's popularity with the i>ublic. That public popularity is an ex C^oliiiiibia Starts 7th Birthday Oanipai^n AVICrOItY drive, inau(;ura(ed l)y Columbia Pictures and cek'l)ratintj the seventh anniversary of (he birth of the company, was launched l'"ebruary 20 by the .'{.'{ Columliia l)ranch odices in the I'nited States jind Canada. .Vnother purpose of the campaign is to strengthen good feelings between the company and exhibitors. Kach week of the drive reprsents a year of the firm's history. \ national advertising and publicity campaign on the entire Columbia proKram of .SO productions has also been launched and will continue durinij the time of the drive, if is said. Hallvhoo material has been prepared in the form of special circulars, accessories and banners. tremely xarialilc ([uaiitity will not, T tiiiiik, be denicfl. "The raw material in this industry is not film or theatres or actors or directors, but originality of ideas and ability to exj)ress them. This raw material cannot be dominated or controlled by any oiu» producer or group of producers, no matter how many theatres they own or how great their capital investment may be. This is the primary reason why in the past and why today so many independent producers have been successful. The possibility of a monopoly, either in brains or ideas, or in studio business, is an absolute impossibility at the present time or in the future. There can be no monopoly of talent, brains and ability and any one who is able to make a good picture will have no trouble in selling it. The one great demand in the business from its inception has been for better pictures. "The 800 pictures being all different it must follow that some are better, that is, more popular than others and, therefore, there is a greater demand for them by the theatres as each exhibitor naturally desires the pictTires best suited for and most popular with his patrons. The theatres ])eing different it also follows that some of them are more desirable than others. Generally speaking each of these theatres uses from .52 to 365 pictures a year, which is to say, from one picture a week to one picture a day, dependent upon the policy of the theatre. Most of the largest houses change only once a week and pay the best prices for" the pictures and they constitute a very small minority of the total 20,30.3 theatres. Each distributor wants to sell his pictures to the best theatres. Intensive Competition Shown "When every year these 20,303 theatres go into the market, each one trying to buy from 52 to 365 of the best of the 800 pictures and meet the distributors each one trying to sell his pictures to the best theatres, there is keen and intensive competition. Of course, it is impossible for each of the 20,303 theatres to always get the best pictures. This is not caused by monopoly, but on the contrary by such a highly competitive market. The real trouble with the industry and the underlying cause of most III' I III' cuiiiplaints, niisunderstandings and gric\;inces, both real and fanciful, which ha\(' resulted in the introduction of this bill, when analyzed will be found to be the result of overproilnction. There are too many pictures and too many theatres. Monopoly denotes an abseiicf; of competition. 'I'he mr)tion picture irnlustry is suffering today from an overabundance of intensive comf)efition and this charge of threatened m()n<i[M)ly, when viewed in the light of all the facts, is, to say the least, absurd." With regard to the price regulation on pictures, Pettijohn said: "Pictures are not comparable to other products — like, for example, shoes, furnilure, hardware, iron, steel and coal, and no commission can fix a fair and reasonable price for a picture which will aj)ply to all (•xliit)itors generally. A picture is worth more to one exhibitor than to another, and vice versa, acc(n-ding to the type and character of both the picture and the theatre. To illustrate, 'Wings' is having a successful run on Broadway, but who can say what demand there will for it in other sections of the country? Could any Commission fix a 'differential' for this picture? Other outstanding examples are to be found in the pictures formerly made featuring certain stars which at one time were in great demand and comnuinded large x)ri5P'^> l»"t on account of unforeseen accidents in the short space of a few hours they became almost worthless in this country. ' ' There are from 400 to 500 thousand picture contracts made each year, any of which, under the provision of this bill, could be brought before the Commission for review and d«tennination. Such a procedure would require months of time and litigation, as will be developed later herein. Such delays would be fatal to the business. Pictures must move quickly as their advertising exploitation begins long before their release and their publicity value does not last long. "Let me say this in conclusion about the motion picture industry. Ever since its birth it has been heckled and hampered both from without and within. It has survived all attacks from without. It must now meet intelligent criticism from within and this it will do. "This industry, and particularly those I represent, welcomes this heai-ing. It has become necessary to have such a hearing where the facts can be stated. We appreciate the time and patience that you gentlemen have extended to us. And let me make one thing clear in closing; if anybody can give to us a better, more business-like, or more economical distribution plan than we now have in the motion picture business, one that is fairer or more simple, that will permit us to keep down the prices of motion pictures to small theatres, thus permitting the theatres to keep their prices of admission to the public down to where they are now, there will be no resentment of such a plan. On the contrary we will welcome it with open arms and pay real money for it. "Oh, Lord, our thanks; we have survived attacks that would enslave us. Our enemies we fear them not, but from our friends please save us."