Motion Picture Herald (Oct-Dec 1951)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTIN QUIGLEY, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher Vol. 185, No. 6 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor November 10, 1951 An Arbitration System A FTER negotiafions break down in any dispute which is not AtmL to be settled by force, all that is left is litigation or / \ arbitration. The point would seem at hand where no exhibitor or distributor who goes to court can feel any advance confidence about what the ultimate verdict may be or its final effect on his own business. The complexity of the motion picture business already has resulted in weird and contradictory decisions. The very nature of the judicial process where time is allowed to run on and costs up also makes litigation unsatisfactory tor many commercial matters. All these circumstances have tended to increase interest in arbitration. While it is true that no arbitration system is necessary to put arbitration into practice, it is undeniable that a system would do much to facilitate its use. Benefits to be expected from a good arbitration system would be: I. an increase in harmony in the business through avoidance of or prompt settlement of disputes; and, 2. a decline in the amount of litigation. All those who believe in arbitration as a speedy means of settling disputes or as a refuge from the law courts have reason to be pleased with the action taken by the Allied convention in directing the board of directors to explore an "all-inclusive" industry arbitration system. The action, approved by the board the day after the convention closed, came as something of a surprise because until a few days before the meeting opened there was doubt that arbitration would be an important feature of the agenda. Until recently Allied spokesmen generally have been opposed to an arbitration system. On the other hand for more than a year the Theatre Owners of America has been advocating such a system, IT is much too early to know whether an industry arbitration system can be worked out. In the Herald poll of exhibitors on this subject (published in the issue of January 27, 1951) 89 per cent were found to be in favor of arbitration. At that time, 57 per cent expressed themselves as favoring arbitration panels including an exhibitor, a distributor and an outsider. Less than 5 per cent wanted all outsider arbitrators and 39 per cent suggested arbitrators drawn from the industry only. Discussion at the Allied convention made it clear that a number of members object to arbitrators selected by the American Arbitration Association or a similar outside group. In practice it might be difficult for the one exhibitor and one distributor arbitrator to mutually agree on a third, and presumably deciding, arbitrator if the selection were restricted to members of the industry. These and many other problems would have to be decided, after agreement was reached with the distributors on the broad outlines of a system of arbitration. So far as the courts are concerned, there is little likelihood of any objection to a motion picture arbitration system. Rather, it is to be expected that the courts will endorse almost any method. Whether or not any progress will be made this year on an industry arbitration system depends a good deal on how literally the Allied board of directors takes the suggestion of THE HERALD INSTITUTE Elsewhere in this issue Motion Picture Herald announces the establishment of The Herald Institute of Industry Opinion. Its purpose is to provide a facility for furnishing the industry with information about the current thinking of exhibition, production and distribution, and also representative views on public attitudes towards motion pictures. It is indeed true that, in the words of the announcement, “We do not know enough about the trend of public thinking, soon enough. We, as an industry, do not know the concensus of our own thinking, soon enough.” The Herald Institute intends to serve the industry and every one in it by providing data on trends through material supplied by its three panels — exhibitor, producer and distributor. Each panel is organized on a broad and a thoroughly representative basis. Reports of the Institute will be published in the Herald. The Institute should prove to be one of the most valuable services ever sponsored by the Herald. the convention that it seek an "all-inclusive" system. Arbitration may die a-borning on the definition of "all-inclusive." The catalogue of items mentioned for the system in the Allied convention resolution is all-embracing: a. clearance and prints, b. competitive bidding, c. film rentals, d. forcing of pictures, e. illegal setting of admission prices, f. runs, g. any other important problems aecting the operation of the motion picture industry. IT is safe to predict that there will be no arbitration if that list is presented to distributors on a "take it or leave it" basis. They won't even take a second look. The Herald survey showed that exhibitors place chief emphasis on clearance and runs as subjects for arbitration. Bidding comes next. The Allied demand on "film rentals" doubtless will fall on deaf ears and that probably is just as well. Rentals are subjects of negotiations and occasionally of conciliation but hardly fit for arbitration. If they were, some exhibitors, as well as distributors, might be in for surprises. The fair deal would hit both ways. The points in the Allied list covering "forcing of pictures" and "illegal setting of admission" seem out of place. It is not likely that distributors would agree to arbitrate subjects already held illegal by the courts. Protests of exhibitors to top sales executives, either directly or through exhibitor organization leaders, would seem to be better than arbitration for the handling of alleged instances of forcing or fixing of admission prices. It is not possible to forecast what type of arbitration will finally be established but it would not be rash to assert that the industry will not prosper for long unless arbitration is used to alleviate some current problems.