Start Over

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.

274 ^> ^> -^ The Motion Picture Industry In spite of this formidable record of apparent success, a certain amount of decided criticism existed. This dissatisfaction found concrete, tangible evidence in the government suit to which reference already has been made. In some cases there was a downright refusal to participate in the arbitration proceedings — for example, the Northwest Theater Owners Association declined at one time to permit its members to sit on cases involving certain distributors until adjustments had been made. In Cleveland, exhibitor members refused to act unless defendant was present. In Michigan there was a temporary withdrawal by exhibitors following a refusal on their part to accept an award made for a certain distributor. One trade paper18 said: "The system of arbitration now in force in the motion picture industry is so lopsided, so unfair, that it is incomprehensible why you should have tolerated it at all." A circular letter, dated June 28, 1928, and sent to the members of the Unaffiliated Independent Motion Picture Exhibitors of America from the office of F. J. Rembusch, the national secretary of that organization, contained the following statement: "When our system of compulsory arbitration was suggested five years ago, I branded it as dishonest It has taken about four years for the rest of the exhibitors to find out that compulsory arbitration and trustification are one and the same thing." Judge Josiah Cohen of Pittsburgh is reported to have rendered a decision in which he said: 19 "So far as arbitration is concerned, there is a provision for arbitration, but what has the exhibitor to do with that? He does not have any choice in the selection of the arbitrators at all. The arbitration arrangement is made by a representative of the exhibitors and distributors and they arranged these clauses in the contract. Moreover all this is for the protection of the distributor as far as I can 9ee." In July, 1929, the Allied States Association, a national organization representing independent exhibitors, voted to ^Harrison's Reports, December 15, 1928. 19 Quoted in Film Daily, July 12, 1928.