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.

Chain Theater Control <^ ^> ^> ^> ^> 355 it to his customer when the film is either boresome, demoralizing, as in the case of crook plays, or injurious to the morals of the young. This is a privilege the chain manager does not enjoy. And it is a great detriment to the successful operation of the theater, for the pictures made by his company are produced to suit key-center theaters, where people are not so particular about the moral caliber of the stories. Although such pictures are unsuitable for small-town theaters, the chain manager has to run them. He cannot reject them; he exercises no control over the policy of the company. Chain operation has done harm to the business ; it has created an antagonistic feeling towards the industry. This has been reflected in the numerous bills introduced in the legislative bodies of the different states. Some of such bills catt for a tax of 10% on the gross receipts. The Hays Organization seeks to weld the independent exhibitors with the affiliated exhibitors so that united these may fight adverse legislation. But he would not succeed in staving off such legislation even if he were to accomplish his purpose, for the cause is such that it cannot be easily overcome. There are no longer, or at least there are left very few, exhibitors, who know their Congressmen or their state law-makers well enough to call them "Bill", or "Jack", or by any other familiar name. This is a handicap to the successful fight against adverse legislation, for with such exhibitors lacking it is difficult for the producers to convince the legislators that they are seriously exerting efforts to cleanse the screen. In 1926, Sam Katz, of Paramount Publix, decided to dispose of all Publix theaters in small towns, his intention being to confine himself to key cities. The poor quality of the pictures, which at that time were silent, was the cause. The weekly losses were heavy. Talking pictures came along and saved the situation for him. People so flocked to the picture theaters that the losses turned into profits overnight. In the following years, the profits were great, not only for Publix, but for all chain operators; because of the tie-up with Electrical Research Products, Inc., they were able to get instrument installations immediately whereas the independent exhibitor sweated blood trying to get an instrument. But the novelty of the talking picture has worn off ; people have become just as discriminating as before. More so, in fact, with the result that theater attendance has fallen off. The quality of the pictures has been so poor that people have become sick and tired of them. But the chains cannot stand poor business now as much as they did in the silent days, any more than can the independent exhibitors. The cost of operation is much greater today than it was during the "silent" days. There are .the talking picture instruments to amortize; and service charges to take care of. And pictures cost more, shorts as well as features. The result is that