Motion Picture News (Jan-Feb 1922)

1 222 M. P. T. O. Convention ( Continued from preceding page) Immediately following liis opening speech Mr. Cohen launched another, presenting figures tending to show the loss exhibitors have sustained, and attacking United Artists for alleged “ hold-up ” methods. Mr. Cohen said : I want to take a little time and talk as one business man to another. My interest in motion picture theatre owners, aside from being the President of your National Organization, of which I am very proud, is the fact that I have for a little man a considerable investment in this business that I have been trying to protect. My great interest in organization for the last few years was to prevent my moneys and the moneys of we all in the organization from being taken from us. The organization is developing. The morale is high. That is itself evidenced by the large number of substantial theatre owners here in these depressing times from all parts of this state. I want to present to the attention of the motion picture theatre owners who are here the fact that the government statistics show for the year 1921 that the admission tax based on about a 10 per cent percentage of the receipts showed for the year 1921 receipts of $82,633,093. For the year 1920, $86,944,000. The admission tax was $4,000,000 less for the year. Based on 10 per cent means our admissions to theatres and places of amusement in this country were about $40, 000,000 less in the year 1921, as contrasted with the year 1920 ; despite the fact that almost 1,200 new big theatres opened up throughout the United States. Now don’t let’s lose sight of the figures — that our receipts were $40,0000,000 less during the year. The rental tax, which evidences the S per cent on the rental of films that we paid, shows for the year 1921 $5,902,731; 1920, $5,372,000. Six hundred thousand dollars more in 1921 than in 1920 on the 5 per cent basis, meaning a difference of $12,000,000 more paid in film rentals in 1921 than in 1920, despite a falling off in receipts of almost $40,000,000. That evidences the business conditions that we have been suffering from during the past year, and an analysis of these figures will show that the worst depression and the worst loss to the theatre owners were in the months of November and December and what we are suffering at this time. The time has come for producers of film and distributors to reduce film rental prices to the theatre owner in order to keep the theatre owner in business. It is necessary, in my opinion, that the war that has been warred upon us for years by certain elements in this industry be stopped ; that the warships that have been built by certain interests be scrapped ; a disarmament, if you will; if not voluntarily, by force, so that this antiquated machinery, this business machinery that serves no purpose in this industry except to add to the cost of doing business for the exhibitor should be done away with to bring film prices down to the basis that will permit a man who has his money invested in a theatre in any part of this state or country to get an opportunity of getting a return on that investment. A case was brought to me today by one of the theatre owners of this state which no doubt you will hear about tomorrow, relative to the tactics of the United Artists Corporation and their selling methods. I am with my own here and I can mention names. I know I will be protected, in case I need to be. I want to register our emphatic opposition and protest against the business methods of Hiram Abrams and the United Artists Corporation. Please do not misunderstand me. There isn’t a thing personal about this at all. The personal equation in no way enters into this discussion. Hiram Abrams means nothing to me one way or another. But I contend that Hiram Abrams has a parasitical influence in this business. He puts nothing constructive in our business, nothing corrective, and he takes out far too much from we theatre owners for what he contributes to the industry. Letters at National headquarters, we get anywhere from eight hundred to one thousand a week from theatre owners all over the United States. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn geography with the postmarks on these letters, and the protests have come in from theatre owners who have been waiting time and time again for an opportunity of playing these pictures. May I just say a word about the New England situation insofar as Hiram Abrams is concerned. “ Way Down East ” reflects the character of that particular territory. Most of the scenes were made in New Hampshire. The theatre owners in the New England territory have been waiting almost two years for an opportunity to play this picture. Men up there have written to the Boston office or United Artists Corporation asking for an opportunity to play the picture. They would get a “ stall ” of one kind or another, or word that they later on would be afforded an opportunity, and without any notice to the theatre owners of New England, what happens? United Artists goes into town after town, engages the town hall and plays the picture on percentage in opposition to the theatre owner, not even giving those owners an opportunity to play these pictures they have been waiting for. What happens in the town where the men do put the picture on? The prices he exacts from the owner makes it impossible for the theatre owner to make money to stay in business and live, and that should not be permitted to continue by you substantial owners and other theatre owners of these United States. It isn’t right. We theatre owners have helped make every one of these stars. They are just plain, ordinary beings. We have twenty-four sheeted all over the country; we have spent thousands of dollars on our screens and lobbies and rostrums and in our newspapers, popularizing these people, and why should they be permitted and why should we, as business men, permit them to continue these chaotic, destructive business methods that if eventually are not stopped will put too many men out of this business? I hope that this matter will be given the serious business consideration by the members of the motion picture owners association of New York so that immediate relief can be afforded to the theatre owners of this state. (Applause) At our National Convention those of you who were there at Minneapolis will recollect that there was considerable discussion on the floor regarding a motion that was introduced providing for a corporation, socalled, to handle centralized distribution. This is the first opportunity I have had to report about the Minneapolis Convention to those of you who were not there. I want to say at that time considerable discussion came up about that matter and about twenty-three men spoke about it. It looked like an all-night affair until our very tactful and diplomatic friend, our State President, introduced a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee to give this matter consideration and attention and to report back the next day. I immediately appointed the twenty-three men who spoke for and against — 13 for and 10 against, and the history of the meeting regarding that resolution was this. They convened at eleven o’clock at night after the banquet and sat in a meeting room until four in the morning and then these diversified interests came in with a unanimous report urging the formation of a corporation for the purpose of centralized distribution. That was advice and warning and notice to certain interests in this business that the theatre owner was complaining of the high film rental prices and wanted relief, and the relief during the year afforded by those people was to double and treble our film rentals. The time has come where we must stop resoluting. Something definite must be done, because all over these United States our theatre owners are writing in along the same lines. There has been some talk of an attempt of curtailment of production, that this company will only make fifty-two pictures this year; this company will not produce, and an attempt to limit production. I want to say to you all that you need entertain no fears regarding this proposition. Your National Organization have definite offers which have been submitted unsolicited of two of the biggest producing and distributing corporations, to turn over their entire plants to the motion picture theatre owners of America to work out this relief for the theatre owner, and also to help them from the business chaos they are in. We are also definitely offered by a large number of the most important producers, directors of pictures, independent producers and directors of pictures, to make for us motion pictures at prices that will yield them just a fair return on their investment and give an opportunity to every theatre owner to buy these films far below what these same films are being sold to us today. These matters are being given consideration and you will hear more of same. Our purpose, and the purpose of the motion picture theatre owners of America is constructive. It is not destructive. We are formed for the purpose of protecting the financial investments of the motion picture theatre owners of America and we will resort to such business methods that will afford that protection. We read so much lately in the trade-papers about a “ Goldwyn ” week and “ Metro ” week, and a ’’ Paramount ” week, and I think the time has come for an “ Exhibitors’ week.” (Applause) I think the time has come to consider the exhibitor and give him a break. We have been the “ poor boobs ” too long. We are supporting a lot of swivel-chair, non;producing executives who are taking from this business much more than they ought to and that they can earn. Might I call attention to an article I read in Wids, our leading daily, the other day. There was a discussion about Al. LiGhmann — that is the Film Daily — there was a discussion about Al. Lichmann taking over the reins of general managership of First National and they couldn’t get together and the reason being that all he wanted was $75,000 a year salary for that job, as general manager. In other words, the job means how much can I take from the exhibitor more than the fellow ahead of him. Pardon me, I owe you $25,000. It was $100,000. (Laughter) Now just think of it! Just think of $100,000 salary for Al. Lichmann to be general manager of First National? Why, we are all paying for it. It is all passed back to _us, but it has become so burdensome that it is breaking our backs. Those salaries are all artificial; they are wrong, and they ought to be stopped. Resolutions Offered At the very outset of the Wednesday meeting, Jules Michaels of Buffalo, chairman of resolutions, offered a resolution demanding from film sellers a reduction of not less than 33 1-3 per cent from the 1920 prices on existing contracts, and empowering a committee to be named by the president to bring about the full influence of the organization towards securing this reduction. No sooner was the resolution introduced than it brought out a wealth of discussion, led by State President Charles L. O’Reilly, who said that many houses in this state were losing money today through being compelled to pay too much for their pic Motion Picture News tures, and that unless something was done, Jj that by spring a majority of these houses ; would be closed. The whole discussion lasted for nearly ' two hours. Sydney Cohen, in the course of discussing the matter, declared that pro I ducing firms were spending too much money on their advertising and trade pa j pers, and, in fact, that there were too many ' trade papers, and that many of these do ‘ not serve the purpose which they should. \ He also said that there was a sameness of ] pictures, and that one director would get I a good idea and that ten others would ape him. He said that more money should be > spent by producers in ways that would bring people to the theatres, and thus give exhibitors encouragement that was so much needed. The resolution was finally passed. A resolution was introduced and later j referred to the committee on laws and leg t islation, to introduce a bill in the New ; York state legislature to the end that children under the age of 16 years might be, admitted to motion picture theatres where ' a chaperon was provided. Condemn “Leech” Films Another resolution was introduced, al I though later on sent back to the committee for redrafting, which condemned the makers and distributors of “ leech ” pictures l as being a menace to the industry, and also ‘ condemning any exhibitor who knowingly makes himself a party to showing the same and defrauding the public. It was • said in connection with this that it frequently occurs that some company capitalizes junk as genuine product, and that the public is hoodwinked. It was also discussed as to whether or not similar action should be taken against any trade paper which might knowingly advertise these leech pictures. Another resolution was introduced agreeing not to show any pictures in which a star or a performer is proven to be immoral, or who has been involved in any lewd, indecent or immoral action. After much talk it was decided to refer the resolution back to the committee in order that it might be further whipped into shape and meet with universal approval. A resolution was adopted pledging the hearty support of the state association to Urban Movie Chats. A resolution was adopted without discussion protesting against fake motion picture and theatre syndicate stocks offered to the public, as well as against any similar schemes to defraud the public by purchasing such stock. The resolution carried with it the suggestion that any person offered motion picture stock should confer with his local banker, or some member of the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of New York state. Without so much as a dissenting voice, the convention went on record through the adoption of a resolution protesting against campaigns, drives or special weeks, claiming that these have become so frequent that they are a nuisance, and resulting in much confusion in bookings. A copy of this resolution will be sent to every pro ( Continued on page 1228)