Motion Picture Herald (Apr-Jun 1952)

MOTION PICTURE HERALD MARTm QUIGLEY, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher Vol. 187, No. 13 MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., Editor June 28, 1952 COMPO vs. The Tax ONE of the most successful of the various attempts at unified industry action in the motion picture business was COMPO’s first tax campaign two years ago for the elimination of the twenty per cent Federal tax on admissions. It is possible — even likely — that COMPO’s second tax campaign, now underway, will achieve an even greater harmonious action. Barring adverse news on the international front, the campaign also should accomplish its purpose by winning relief from the unfair, discriminatory taxation. Although COMPO drifted for months without executive leadership, the new triumvirate — Messrs. Trueman Rembusch, Sam Pinanski and A1 Lichtman — has lost no time in starting the tax fight. The tax committee chairmen, Col. H. A. Cole and Mr. Pat McGee, are now at work on details of the campaign. COMPO’s leadership has promised them complete cooperation in carrying out the work and has pledged to raise all the funds necessary. Shortly the call will be received by every exhibitor to contribute to COMPO’s tax repeal fund. Many times each year theatre owners are asked to give to worthy causes. On this occasion there will be an opportunity of contributing to something that is very much in the interest of exhibition. In fact COMPO leaders estimate that the Federal tax stands between profit and loss in the operation of thousands of theatres — big and little — in all parts of the country. Up to now there has been too much said for publication about either passing on some or all of any tax cut to the public or none of it. So far as the industry as a whole is concerned, the tax committee has decided that there will be no unified pledge of passing on any cut to the patrons. Each exhibitor will have to decide for himself in the light of circumstances in his community what action, if any, he wishes to take. In any case consideration of the point is somewhat premature — at least regarding public announcements. No patron must get the idea that the industry is trying to “raid the U. S. Treasury and pocket some tax money.’’ Good public relations require that the patrons be friendly to the industry’s campaign or at the least be neutral. Any patron hostility would quickly find its way to Congress on which the responsibility for a decision rests. There is a place for everyone in the front lines during the fight of COMPO vs. The Tax. Free Competition Exhibitors throughout the country should watch with interest future court developments in the Urbana, Ohio, case in which Judge David S. Porter of the Common Pleas Court ruled recently that a newspaper could refuse to accept advertising from a theatre at its discretion. The particular case grew out of the refusal of the Urbana Daily Citizen to run ads of the Skyhigh Drive-in. The plaintiff asserted that its advertising was turned down because the newspaper felt that the interests of other theatres would be hurt if the copy were accepted. The court held that, “A newspaper is not a business affected with the public interest in a manner similar to a utility organization.” While that is indeed true it is to be doubted that a newspaper or any publication is acting prudently and wisely in rejecting advertising merely on the grounds that it might injure the business of other companies. There is no question that a publication has the right — and the duty — to reject copy that is offensive, indecent or not in keeping with mechanical or other requirements applied impartially to all advertisers. Competition can cause many heartaches but the American system is based on free enterprise. To deny the access of a competitor to an advertising medium such as a newspaper is hardly an action to build good public relations. It is unseemly for the exhibitors within an area to become embroiled in such a dispute. Films and the Flag ylNOTHER manifestation of the power of motion r\ pictures to influence trade is the distribution of a leaflet entitled “Selling Through the Screen — The Overseas Distribution and Exhibition of British Trade Promotion Films” by the central Information Office of the British Government’s Board of Trade. In clear terms British makers of films are told “How the Government Overseas Information Services can help . . . the help is yours for the asking and will cost you nothing.” The British Government services lend all possible help even to distribution of “prestige films” and “technical advertising films.” Regarding “direct advertising films” the British Government gives only advice. ■ ■ ■ Messrs. Bing Crosby and Bob Hope are to be complimented on their willingness to do the Telethon June 21-22 for the purpose of raising funds to send U. S. athletes to the Olympics this Summer. The impact of the show is measured by the fact that over a million dollars was received in cash and pledges. Undoubtedly added interest was created since it marked Bing’s debut as a TV performer. However, someone should have reminded both Bing and Bob that the selection of the day of the week — Saturday — and the starting time, 7 P.M. Pacific Coast time, were certain to be a serious blow to the theatre business out of which Crosby and Hope have profited handsomely. A good Saturday evening makes the difference between profit and loss for the whole week in thousands of theatres. Exhibitor groups that have been criticizing the use of the newsreel to help publicize forthcoming attractions by the inclusion of scenes of premieres might ponder the fact that such events are news in the entertainment world. The public wants to see screen celebrities in offstage activities. Furthermore, any reasonable device the industry can use to heighten interest in outstanding attractions is sound exploitation policy.