Evidence study no. 25 of the motion picture industry (1933)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

Block Booking <^> <z> <^ ^> ^> <^ <^ 147 Commission, outlined the historical basis of block booking as follows: 4 The practice of block booking, in its essential substance, has been rooted in the industry since its inception. The practice is directly evolved from the old service idea, under which entire programs were furnished to exhibitors, and which is frequently referred to as the "program" system .... . . . Shortly after the formation of the General Film Company, prices for pictures were divided into three classes : ( 1 ) for films shown 1 to 10 days after their release date, (2) for films shown 10 to 30 days after their release date, and (3) for films shown 30 to 60 days after their release date. It was customary for exhibitors to contract for a supply sufficient to consume all the exhibition time of their theaters for the entire week for an indefinite period in the future. While some exhibitors preferred the service rendered by the General Film Company to that of the Universal or Motion Picture Distributing Sales Company, it never occurred to them to use some of the pictures furnished by one service and some of the pictures furnished by the other. Of course an exhibitor who changed his program frequently might arrange with one company for service on certain days of the week, and with another company for service on other days. To say that this method constituted an illegal sales method and was a method of restrictive and tying contracts is to forget entirely that the distributing companies of that early day were not licensing individual pictures for exhibition but were selling a film service. That the service character of motion picture distribution persisted at least until 1917 is shown by the price schedule [p. 148] for Paramount pictures in effect between 1914 and the fall of 1917. As the industry progressed to the point where it was realized that it was possible for different pictures to be of differing qualities, distribution methods underwent a change. . . . The recognition that these pictures as individual entities differed in quality came about principally because of the tremendous importance which was attached to the presence of a certain star in a given motion picture. . . . 4 Brief on behalf of the Famous Players-Lasky Corporation in answer to supplemental brief for the Federal Trade Commission — Docket 835.