Motion Picture Herald (May-Jun 1946)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-hi-Chief and Publisher Vol. 163, No. 12 TERRY RAM&AYE, Editor OP June 22, 1946 THE U. S. DECISION THE decision of last week In the Federal Case becomes a bench mark of reference for what is yet to be evolved in tfie adjustment of the industry to government regulation. It is after eight years, an arrival at a new level of negotiation on the progression which must one day come to finality In the United States Supreme Court. The industry might about now post a notice: "Business as usual during alterations." The fact is that such adjustments as might be made, in several directions, especially with respect to sales policies for the new season, were this week already in formulation. The exhaustive decision handed down in New York by the statutory court of the three judges, Augustus N. Hand, Henry W. Goddard and John Bright, is a document laden with awareness of the great import of the issues and the decided complexity and diversity of interests to be served and conserved. In the carefully worded decision there is a decided recognition of the court that "the defendants have built up a great business in a popular field", and there are words appreciative of the skill with which exhibition interests involved have developed a great amusement mechanism for the service of the people. There is a philosophic touch in the observation of the decision that: "A suit in the district court for violation of the Sherman Act is doubtless an awkward way to cure such ills as have arisen, but it is the best remedy now available to the government. There surely are evils in the existing system, and the Sherman Act provides a mode of correction which is lawfully invoked. At all events, that which is written is written, and is controlling on us." ■ ■ ■ "HENRY V" WITH the New York opening of "Henry V", Britishmade Two Cities production, it becomes increasingly apparent that United Artists Corporation has made a wise election to give this remarkable picture a series of special metropolitan road presentations. Distribution beyond such highly selective engagements has not been contemplated. Sponsorship by the Theatre Guild Is in itself indicative of the production's position as a motion picture. Reviews in New York's daily press are as variant and multicolored as the content of the picture itself. Mr. Howard Barnes of the Herald Tribune sees only perfection: "England has sent a superlative motion picture to these shores." Mr. Bosley Crowther In the Times finds it "stunningly brilliant", but containing some matter held to be "obviously non-essential" and "grotesque". Miss Kate Cameron in the Daily News, perhaps surprisingly, gives it her accolade of four stars. It remained for Mr. Lee Mortimer of the Daily Mirror to bluntly record'. "The highbrows and the longhairs, both sincere and phony, are wild about the film. But we peasants are puzzled and disturbed. We know the picture will click with an important but definitely limited audience." The fact is that the picture, a very long picture, contains blithe and sometimes impressive sequences, which are recordings of the London stage and its tradition-bound craftsmanship, made with the camera, but not in motion pictures. Mr. Laurence Olivier, In the title role, and director, is so faithful to Shakespeare and the art of the yesterdays that he makes but an unprofessional use of the film medium. "OUTLAW" SEAL SIGNAL opportunity is now afforded the Motion Picture Association to stand forth before the industry and the public with a decision in behalf of decency of the screen made conspicuous against the background of the malodorous "The Outlaw". The Association has before it action to be taken with reference to Mr. Howard Hughes and his picture, in sequel to his spectacular defeat in the United States District Court in New York in his quest of an injunction aimed to hold the Production Code seal which was issued to "The Outlaw" in a complex of circumstances. The MPA and Mr. Hughes have been at odds over his advertising of the picture in which he has persisted, with arrogance, over the disapproval of the Advertising Code authority of the Association. Compliance with the decency code for advertising was a condition of the agreement under which the seal was somewhat reluctantly, and by compromise, issued to the picture. The possession of the seal is essential to Mr. Hughes' distribution contract with United Artists Corporation, if the seal goes off the picture must go out — to become a renegade product. Judge John Bright holds that the Hughes Tool Company's contract was as binding upon him as upon the MPA and that he must comply. As recorded in the news pages, Judge Bright laid about him with great vigour in discussion of the publicity-seeking nature of the assorted campaigns for "The Outlaw" and the innuendoes about "tussle with Russell" and horizontal suggestions of the advertising at issue. The judge was not trying the moral issues, but he found occasions to observe them in most relevant fashion while he discussed the contract and the law. It would appear the while that the board of MPA must have before it the challenge of the fact that the Hughes contract has been irrevocably broken. The picture's standing, as affected by the violation of the advertising code and the violation of the contract conditions for the issuance of the seal. Is stamped Into the public consciousness. Regardless of nuances of negotiation and litigation, continued acceptance of "The Outlaw" by the MPA under any conditions, could only be regarded by the public, and by the industry, as "standing for it". That would be tantamount to approval — costly indeed to the screen. The interest of the motion picture, the theatre and the public can be served only by wiping the slate. The labour of years and the repute of the industry are at stake. — Terry Ramsaye