Motion Picture Herald (May-Jun 1948)

ON THE MARCH by RED KANN UNCERTAINTY and speculation over the Supreme Court decisions in the Schine, Griffith and Paramount, et al, cases partially gave ground during the week to certainty and conviction that the high court really threw the book at the industry— the five major circuits and independent circuits with equal imperturbability. Pinpoints of light seem to be. breaking through impenetrable gloom, but what such meager light throws into relief is not encouraging from where the defendant companies sit. Heard, ex-officio or what have you, are reports that, by lawyer insistence, two or more of the national chains intend taking the dilemma by its horns by implementing long-prepared blueprints for painful surgery leading to removal from the parent body of a number of its nutritive theatre organs. In the main, however, decisions as to general procedure either are lacking or formulating slowly. Mr. Justice Douglas covered an encompassing area in the three decisions which are best appraised when approached as a group. His specifics leave no room for doubt, of course. But in his philosophical discussions of the Sherman Act and the theories and effects of conspiracy and monopoly, established and potential, it becomes inevitable to contemplate how the high bench's pronouncements will affect the thinking of the district courts to which the three cases are now remanded ; and how that thinking may show up in the final decree. It is well to repeat that lawyers can be wrong even as they believe themselves to be right and that nobody, but nobody, is in a position to pontificate on final answers. This applies with no exceptions to an interesting idea, speculation or theory — you name it — on competitive bidding. The mere fact that several distributors, encouraged by their legal departments, believe themselves to be correct must be recognized as no guarantee that the district court, or finally the Supreme Court again, will bear them out. The Supreme Court ruled out competitive bidding, described in the majority opinion as "perhaps the central arch of the decree designed by the district court," on the ground it might have served as an alter, native to theatre divorcement.' But this is not viewed as the only circumstance under which competitive bidding may apply. Here is a hypothetical case which just between us, is not so hypothetical after all : Exhibitor A is an independent competing with an affiliated theatre not identified with the distributor peddling a film. The independent yells for first run and is willing to meet terms. But the affiliated house, accustomed to first run and unaccustomed to any change in its years'-old habits, proceeds in accord with its ways. The poser is: What does the distributor do? Does he make a deal with the affiliated theatre, which is his established customer, and run the danger of a damage suit from the unsuccessful and disgruntled independent? Or does he consider it the better part of valor — and good business — to entertain competitive bids with the film going to the theatre which meets the terms and thereby avoid the possibility of legal action? The distributors are to be found who maintain this is what they have the right to do and, what is more to the point, intend doing unless their legal giants stop them. Hypothetical Case No. 2 ; but not as valid as No. 1 : More than two theatres want the same film at the same time. Does the distributor dare take the chance of closing out all others by sticking with his old-time customer? Or does he throw the can of film on the floor, outline his terms for one or all to accept and depart the premises muttering "a plague o' both [or all] your houses" ? THE occasional distributor, at least, is to be found who asserts this is proper and decidedly feasible if he wants to run his business without spending his ensuing days in the court house. His kind of thinking is best typified by a quoteless sales manager : "Let 'em all have it. Furthermore, they can charge what they like or run it for free. Or they can take the damned print home and run it for the family. All I want to do is to get off the hook and stay off it — and out of the law courts, too, for that matter." There is no mystery about the origin of this approach. It flows in a straight line to the Supreme Court decision in the Goldman case. There, the court refused to review a lower court decision upholding the treble damage judgment awarded William Goldman Theatres, Inc., of Philadelphia against the "Big 5" as well as Columbia, Universal and UA. This piece of anti-trust litigation, swinging around the alleged refusal of the defendants to sell Goldman's Erlanger theatre first run, has had the distributors wringing their hands for months. However, the precise connection between the Philadelphia case and the new approach on competitive bidding ties to the added fact that the Supreme Court upheld the injunction of the lower court compelling each distributor-defendant to offer Goldman an equal opportunity to negotiate for first run before licensing any film to any other defendants. The "other defendant," obviously, is the Warner circuit in the City of Brotherly Love. Philadelphia is only one city, and there are hundreds of others sprawled all over these United States. And so it is that this and other matters posed by Washington persuade a celluloid philosopher to remark : "Between television and these decisions, we're in one fine fix." Eagle Lion Plans Move to Expand Europe Market Eagle Lion, now selling its pictures individually in countries serviced by the Motion Picture Export Association, is planning a drive to widen its European market, aided by a particularly favorable remittance situation as the result of its contract with the J. Arthur Rank Organization, it was learned this week. The company for some time has been taking advantage of restrictions against MPEA pictures in the "Iron Curtain" countries. Recent sales have included nine films to Hungary; five to Poland and four Czechoslovakia. H. W. Auten, assistant to Sam Seidelman, Eagle Lion's foreign head, will go abroad soon for a tour of Europe. As part of its expansion drive. Eagle Lion plans to release "Love from a Stranger" in France in August. This is the first of the Eagle Lion product to play that country where all income is blocked. "Red Stallion" will be next. No financial participation in French production is planned. Eagle Lion, together with the Rank Organization, also is surveying the European 16mm market and plans cooperative coverage of the continent to take advantage of the wide-spread Rank distribution system. The company for some time has been selling its films in Holland. The impression is that MPEA will relinquish that territory to the individual companies. Remittances on Eagle Lion pictures are paid in pounds sterling in most of the countries where the company competes with the pooled MPEA films. The sterling currency is sent to London where the Bank of England permits conversion into dollars on the ground that, under the current Eagle Lion contract with Rank, which runs until 1954, it is "foreign income" and does not fall under the Johnston agreement. Eagle Lion is neither a member of the Motion Picture Association of America nor of the MPEA. The Bank of England has indicated that this arrangement may not be continued after the Eagle Lion-Rank contract expires. Eagle Lion gets a 40 per cent distribution contract in all the "Iron Curtain" countries it sells. These countries dub these pictures themselves and there is no check on editing once the contract has been signed. Two Georgia Towns Decide Against Sunday Shows There will be no Sunday shows in Dalton or Thomson, Ga., for the time being. At Dalton, the proposal to permit Sunday shows failed last week when the Mayor and the City Council decided to table the matter indefinitely. In Thomson, residents voted May 4, 453 to 246, against a measure which would have permitted the Sunday screenings. 18 MOTION PICTURE HERALD, MAY 15, 1948