The Exhibitor (1954)

"TAKING THE CURE"— THE HARD WAY In several different conversations with exhibitors and distributors of late, the thought was expressed that possibly the very seeds of the current product shortage and of many other ills now besetting this great industry were sown years ago. There is no questioning the honesty of purpose or sincerity of intention of the theatremen and theatre owner organizations that fought for “Regulation” of this business and which resulted in legislation. Department of Justice rulings, and court decisions. And while it is true that “regulation” did cut the arms off several large circuit octopi, both distributor-affiliated and independent that threatened to strangle the small independent the¬ atre owner, as often happens, the cure may have been worse than the disease. It makes little difference whether the 1954 theatreman hasn’t enough “A” pictures to keep his theatre open because some more powerful buyer is taking them away from him or because there just aren’t enough “A” pic¬ tures being made. Under either condition, be is in the same leaky boat, and whether somebody bored a hole or whether the seams just opened, he is going to get just as wet. Thinking along these lines, we remembered a letter we once wrote, and a search of old files turned it up. Written today, we might have made some minor changes, but the basic reasoning we believe is still worthy of consideration. And this was 25 years ago. Here it is : June 27, 1929 Committee on Interstate Commerce of the United States Senate Washington, D. C. Gentlemen, As an exhibitor operating four theatres in the Philadelphia area, I wish to state my views on the bill which has been introduced by Senator Smith W. Brookhart, seeking to impose certain rules and regulations on the motion picture industry. I am opposed to the passage of this bill, for I feel that if it should become law it would work untold hardships and injury on the theatreman. Personally, I am not averse to block booking for I have found as an independent theatre operator that the distributors from whom a group of pictures has been purchased in block are always willing to adjust the rental price on any poor pictures included in such a block, providing that the theatreman is also fair and clean in his business dealings with them. It is my opinion that many exhibitors buy pictures in block because they believe it is to their advantage to do so. Block pur¬ chasing gives them a secure source of supply for a full season. Supply purchasing becomes an activity requiring several weeks or a month just once each year, instead of a daily, catch-as-catch-can, continuing duty, and after a theatreman has established certain brands of pictures or picture stars through his own local advertising and exploitation, he naturally prefers, and should be allowed, to continue the use of such brands and stars. By the terms of this bill, no long range planning or promotion at the theatre level would be possible, for each theatreman would know that the results of his labor could accrue to any competing theatre that offered a higher rental price for the next picture after he had popularized its components. I believe that there would be very little benefit to be gained by prohibiting the rental of films until after they have been com¬ pleted and screened. No producer starts out to make a poor pic¬ ture and no theatreman in order to make his selection can travel hundreds of miles to his exchange center and spend all day every day looking at three or four times the number of pictures his theatre annually needs. An unassured outlet and the need for producers to invest a million dollars in a picture “on spec” are certain to result in less pictures and a tightening source of supply for theatremen as a whole. I am of the firm opinion that the provisions of this bill, requir¬ ing the selling of pictures individually, will greatly increase selling expense and that this expense will be passed along to the theatreman as the industry’s single source of income. Producers and distributors in this industry are no more endowed than theatremen, so these selling costs must go somewhere. I believe that Congress is primarily interested in this bill because of its effect on the public. If theatres, especially in small towns, are forced out of business by reason of less film and added film rentals, the public in those towns would be deprived of the receration to which they are rightfully entitled. I can also see no reason for the elimination of the arbitration of disputes in this industry. While I am not familiar with the activities of Boards of Arbitration elsewhere, on many occasions I personally have sat as a member of the board in Philadelphia and know that it takes pride in honestly adjudicating controversies in a fair and equitable manner. In conclusion, I want to urge upon your honorable body the rejection of this bill. I believe that it will harm, instead of help, the interests it is supposed to protect. This, we repeat, was written 25 years ago. From where we sit it certainly seems that the cure is now worse than the disease. The operation was a success, hut the patient isn’t in very good shape. How does it look to you? Jay Emanuel A JAY EMANUEL PUBLICATION. Founded In 1918. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 246-248 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania. New York office: 229 West 42nd Street, New York 36. West Coast Representative: Paul Manning, 9628 Cresta Drive, Los Angeles 35, California. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, general manager; Herbert M. Miller, editor; A. J. Martin, advertising manager; Max Cades, business manager; Marguerite Gibson, circulation manager; George Nonamaker and Mel Konecoff, associate editors. Subscription rates: Any one of the six sectional editions (NEW ENGLAND, NEW YORK STATE, PHI LADELPHI AWASHINGTON, SOUTHERN, MIDEAST, or MIDWEST-WESTERN) and the INTERNATIONAL edition; $2 per year (52 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries, $5 per year (52 issues); The GENERAL edition containing all local news forms from all editions: $7.50 per year (52 issues) and outside of the United States, Canada, and Pan-American countries, $15 per year (52 Issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Entered as second class matter at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, post office. Address ietters to 246-48 North Clarion Street, Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania