The Exhibitor (1966)

The Trade Paper Read by Choke— Not by Clnnce , • • I Founded in 1918. Published weekly except first issue in January and first issue in Septemb r by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. General offices at 317 North Broad Street, Philade ohia, Pennsy vania 19107. Publishing office at 10 MiGovern Ave., Lancaster, Pa. 17604. New York field affle*! 1600 Broadway, Suite 604, New York 10019, West Coast field office: William M. Schary, 818 S. Curson Ave., Los Angeles, Calif , 90036, London Sureau: Jock MacGregor, 16 Leinster Mews, London, W. 2, England. Jay Emanuel, publisher and gen. mgr.; Edward Emanuel, vice pres.; Albert Erlick, editor; Mel Konecoff, New York editor; Albert J. /Aartin, advertising manager Max Cades, business manager. Subscriptions: $2 per year (50 issues); and outside of the United States, Canada and Pan-American countries, $5 per year (50 issues). Special rates for two and three years on application. Single copy 25^. Second class postage paid at Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Address all official communications to the Philadelphia offices. Telephone: Area Code 215, WAInut 2-1860. CHANGING ADDRESS? Please send old and new address. If possible include address portion of old mailing wrapper. Volume 76 • No. 25 February 8, 1967 Our 49th Year THE HARD ROAD TO FREEDOM Keep your fingers crossed, but we may be approaching a break in the frustrating log-jam that has kept legitimate exhibitor complaints from receiving real consideration. The Justice Department, for instance, has finally moved off dead center in the matter of blind-bidding. Now, say federal spokes¬ men, distributors may meet to determine means of ending the patently unfair sales practice without putting themselves in danger of conspiracy charges. That’s a giant step forward. Speaking before the Texas Drive-In Owners Association, NATO President Sherrill Corwin discussed this and also pledged exhibitor support to the trade press campaign to review new films early enough so that exhibitors in bidding situations could benefit from them. Yes, blind bidding and blind booking both took a rap on the chin last week. Of course, the industry has heard all these words before. The vital question is whether or not they can be translated to action. The product shortage that perpetrates these evils is bad. It represents coercion and forces exhibitors to accede to unreason¬ able demands. It gives the seller a powerful lever to exert pressure on the buyer, and creates a situation where zeal over¬ comes wisdom. Coercion or restraint imposed by one branch of this indus¬ try over another is wrong. Those who exert the pressure would be the first to cry for help if the situations were reversed. Arti¬ ficial restraints — and we include both the evils of blind bidding and the deliberate withholding of trade paper reviews by scheduling screenings at the last possible moment — must even¬ tually hurt both the buyer and the seller. We know of no other business that operates under such restrictions. Blind bids and refusal to divulge terms of winning bids seem to be character¬ istics only of the motion picture industry. Yet, despite the complaints of countless theatremen, the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies have sat on their hands until now, apparently putting political considerations ahead of what is necessary and right. The industry awaits their next moves with interest. The distributors who currently withhold trade press reviews and silently sanction blind bidding are the same individuals who will spend thousands of dollars to fight political censor¬ ship. They are right in fighting this battle, and recent court decisions have upheld their position. Freedom of expression must be defended. It is remarkable, therefore, that these same distributors fail to see that they themselves are exercising a form of censorship when they deliberately keep theatremen from receiving the information they need to conduct their business intelligently. It seems to boil down to a condition of “ Do as I say, not as I do.” People as a rule are forgetful. It seems to be the human con¬ dition. The growth of television as a market for feature films seems to have driven from the minds of some in this industry any recollection of the days when theatremen alone supported producers and distributors. We recall a situation in which an exhibitor saved a company more than $60,000 in actual cash in a business deal. Reminded about it later as the exhibitor was struggling to stay in operation, the reply was something like, “So what did you do for me today?” “Freedom” can be defined as the absence of restraint. Prac¬ tically every trade paper has complained that they are being denied the freedom to do their job — that of informing theatres about upcoming films. When hundreds of exhibitors attend special screenings of new films months before trade paper reviews are permitted, it should be remembered that thousands more theatremen have been unable, for a variety of reasons, to attend. Unless trade papers can review such films immediately, this larger group is unjustly penalized. Many of them, in addi¬ tion, are in bidding situations, and if they do not learn about a film until after their bids are due, it is too late. Evidently, “freedom” to some people means the ability to act as one pleases regardless of whom it hurts. There is no word but “oppression” to describe some of the practices in the mo¬ tion picture industry today. The Bible teaches us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Could it be that lawyers have advised their employers that the Biblical injunc¬ tion does not pertain to the motion picture industry? The suggestion has been made that distributor meetings on blind bidding be conducted under the aegis of the Motion Picture Association of America. It is an excellent suggestion. Many have expressed surprise that capable MPAA President Jack Valenti, who did such a brilliant job in bringing the new Production Code into being, has been so silent in the sensitive area of d rributor-exhibitor relations. With the fear of acting in concer removed as far as distributor talks on blind bidding are concerned, Valenti could go a long way toward proving that the liaison between his office and the exhibition com¬ munity is a real achievement and not an empty boast. A top flight exhibitor once remarked that it appeared as though the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Com¬ mission had been brainwashed when it came to problems affecting the motion picture industry. Now the decks are cleared for action and exhibitors are eagerly awaiting some real progress after far too much polite conv rsation. We should know soon enough whether “freedom” and “justice” are just pretty words or living concepts with the oower to uplift men and better their condition, be they dis¬ tributors, exl bitors, or government representatives.