Motion Picture News (Apr-Jun 1919)

3014 Motion •Picture News Who Started This Open Market BOYS, the " Open Market " is here — and with us in full strength. One of the reasons we know it is in full bloom is that already a strenuous struggle is on for the title of " Pioneer." A few weeks ago, Fred Warren signalized his debut with the W. W. Hodkinson Corporation by running an advertisement, headed " Dynamite," the effect of which was to throw the entire Hodkinson product, past, present and future, on the " Open Market." The following week J. D. Williams came to bat in the discussion on distribution started by William A. Johnston's editorials, and incidentally took occasion to tell of First National's pioneering efforts on the " Open Market." Last week Carl Laemmle took up the cudgels and related the history of Universal's special attractions, long ago placed on the market on their individual merits. This week Fred Warren comes back with hot shot aimed at the J. D. Williams letter, while Pathe recounts some history and matters of record concerning the placing of their productions on the " Open Market." Who's next? The Gloves Are Off The letter submitted by Fred Warren goes to the subject with a roaring bang. Here it is in full '. Dear Mr. Johnston: This letter is written to The News to keep Mr. J. D. Williams, general manager of the First National Exhibitors' Circuit, from getting off the main line and on to a sidetrack. Or, in less technical language, to keep him from barking away out of the back window at night and peppering the old man's lingerie that he mistakes for an intruder. In The News of April 19 Mr. W. W. Hodkinson made a detailed and sympathetic analysis of the principle of co-operative booking by exhibitor circuits. He applied the acid to bring to light the elements that will menace and tear down any co-operative booking organization that follows in the footsteps of those purely commercial producers of motion pictures who have to grind out product linked together like sausages to feed a distributing machine which the producers own and must sustain with a given number of releases to meet its overhead charges of maintenance. lit the week's previous issue of The News I had sponsored a Hodkinson announcement headed " Dynamite," and the explosive that lay hidden in some very simple elements of the English language was that the W. W. Hodkinson organization had declared for wide-open booking; had begun to sell each of its past, present and future pictures singly on the basis of individual merit. J. D. Williams has the power and ability to reason " on a straight line ; " to shoot directly at a target, and hit the spot at which he is aiming. But in The News of April 26, in his retort to W. W. Hodkinson, Mr. Williams makes an oblique reply. Before pulling the trigger he closed his eyes, and merely scratched his original target. The remainder of his shot went wild and spattered over my Hodkinson announcement labeled " Dynamite." It was a matter of first concern to Mr. Williams, apparently, that some other organization might take away from First National the credit for being the initial organization to sell pictures one at a time on a basis of individual merit. Thereupon he says IT'S WORTH MORE! Declares Exhibitor in Speaking of the News T TE has read it four years — and I 1 wouldn't miss it. A. A Read what Exhibitor Blaine has to say: " I have been a subscriber to your paper for four years and certainly will keep on, as long as I am in the show business. " It's worth one hundred times more to any showman than what we are getting Motion Picture News for. " It's the Associated Press of the Motion Picture Industry. Thanking you for your cooperation to us exhibitors." (Signed) CHAS. BLAINE, Manager, Yale theatre, Henryetta, Okla. " From its inception First National has had no other policy than that of open booking. We have not made a release by any other method. . . . Mr. Hodkinson has it within his power to do a good deal to foster the open market, but why enshadow his plans in an announcement of them that steals the thunder of someone else? I wonder what has been the thoughts of exhibitors who read the obvious inference in that adv. — exhibitors who, for more than a year, have been booking First National releases on an open market, independent basis." The answer to this from Mr. Williams is to set down on paper the actual releasing calendar of the First National Exhibitors' Circuit. During its 23 months of operation First National has had a total of but 21 pictures, inclusive of Mr. Chaplin's few and. very excellent comedies. The First National releases in entirety, listed opposite their days of release, are : " On Trial." " Alimony." "The Life Mask" (Petrova). "The Light Within" (Petrova). "Daughter of Destiny" (Petrova). "The Fall of the Romanoffs" (Nance O'Neil). "Empty Pockets" (Lytell). . " Passing of the Third Floor Back " (Forbes Robertson) . "Tempered Steel" (Petrova). " Tarzan of the Apes^" "My Four Years in Germany" (Gerard). "The Sign, Invisible " (Edgar Lewis). "A Dog's Life" (Chaplin). " Pershing's Crusaders " (TJ. S. Official). "Italy's Flaming Front" (Italian Official). " The Panther Woman " (Petrova). "Shoulder Arms" (Chaplin). " Virtuous Wives " (Anita Stewart). "Our Teddy" (Colonel Roosevelt). "A Midnight Romance" (Anita Stewart). With the exception of five, Petrova productions, three of them in consecutive release separated by intervals ; two Anita Stewart productions since December, 1918, whose owner-producer would not permit them to be sold collectively; and two Chaplins, released months apart, what could First National have sold in series? Or, except to its own franchise-holders, what could First National have sold to outside exhibitors in general under programs? It could not have sold Chaplin in program or star series — definitely and certainly not program— for Mr. Chaplin knows his values too well to see them delivered in one package. Of course, First National has been committed to the principle of selling pictures singly. I don't debate that ; nobody does. But what could First National have done but sell singly? Even now, what can it do but sell singly, until some of the new product for which it has contracted is delivered or approximately ready for delivery? It is attaining the point where it will have a volume of product, and it doubtless will continue to sell all of its output individually. Not until it attains the volume of product, has it any moral rights to crow over pioneering into the open booking market. Any and all states rights men who have started out in some regional exchange with a single release, or with three or four in the course of a year, have been " committed irom the first to open booking." What else could they be? First National has been in the same position. Its irregularity in having releases ready for marketing in the past prevents it from arrogating to itself the credit for pioneering. -What can be said for the Hodkinson espousal of wide-open booking can be said quickly and to the point: We have not announced that we are the first company to adopt the open booking policy. We have said, and continue to say, that we are the first company in the industry offering, or that has ever offered, a sustained volume of productions on the wide-open booking basis. We have thirtysix multi-reel productions released in the year prior to April 20, 1919. It is of lesser consequence that we throw those open to open booking. But we have in excess of thirty multi-reel productions to be released at regular intervals in the twelve months beginning April 20, 1919. It i's an impregnable fact that W. W. Hodkinson has led in this policy, with a sufficient volume of product to make his leadership valid, and that others who are now espousing and in the next few weeks will espouse open booking will be following Hodkinson. That is the point I wish to make : To establish precedence. Many so-called leaders of the motion picture industry have been following Hodkinson for twelve years. Cordially, . F. B. Warren, Vice-President, ■ W. W. Hodkinson Corporation.