The Moving picture world (July 1925-August 1925)

252 MOVING PICTURE WORLD July 18, 1925 Challenges Hays to Meet Contentions FOURTH — The exhibition date of each nuch photoplay* which has not otherwise herein been specified, sihnll lie fixed as follows: (a) For all purposes under this contract, the release date of such photoplay shall be construed to be the date when such phot€>play shall have been exhibited for the first time in a first-run theatre in the key city in the district in which the thentre herein is located. Prompt notice of such exhibition date and the date of the expiration of the protection period of said first-run theatre shall be given to the exhibitor. From and nfter the date of the expiration of such protection period (not to exceed — days) such photoplay shall forthwith become available to the exhibitor for exhibition nnder this contract. (b) If the exhibitor is entitled to a firstrun of such photoplay, the exhibitor shall fix an exhibition date, such date to be within a period not exceeding: three (3) weeks following the expiration of the protection period aforementioned. If the date of exhibition so fixed by the exhibitor shall not be available because of insufficiency of positive prints, the distributor shall so notify the exhibitor and the exhibitor thereupon shall have an additional period of seven (7) days within which to fix such exhibition date. The notice of the exhibitor, fixing the exhibition date as aforementioned, shall be given to the distributor at least two (2) weeks prior to sueh exhibition date. If the exhibitor shall fnll to fix such exhibition date in the manner above provided, the distributor shall, promptly after the expiration of three (3) weeks following the protection period, fix sueh exhibition date such date to be within two weeks following such three (3) week period, and In such case the date so fixed by the distributor shall, for all purposes hereunder, be deemed the exhibition date of snch photoplay. (c) In case the exhibitor shall have a run subsequent to a first-run, then the exhibitor's exhibition date of such photoplay shall be fixed in like manner as hereinabove provided for the exhibition with respect to a first-run, except that all periods shall run from the date of the expiration of the protection period of the exhibitor having a run immediately prior to that of the exhibitor named in this contract. (d) In the event any of such photoplays shall not be exhibited In a first-run theatre in the key city In the territory embracing the theatre herein, within a reasonable time after Its production, and within such period no definite booking therefor shall have been fixed by any such first-run theatre, then the distributor obligates Itself to fix a general release date which shall be within a reasonable time after the completion of the production of such photoplay and such release date so fixed shall be deemed to be the release date for all purposes under this article. Said photoplay shall thereupon forthwith after such date become available for exhibition under this contract, with the same force and effect as if such release date were the date of expiration of the protection period hereinabove in the preceding subdivision referred to. (e) In case this contract shall embrace a series of feature photoplays five reels or more In length and featuring a particular star or director, the exhibitor shall not be required hereunder to exhibit more than one photoplay of such series every five (5) weeks. (f) So far as the same may be feasible, the distributor agrees to release the photoplays embraced hereunder at equal Intervals apart, to the end that the exhibitor shall be enabled to exhibit such photoplays so far aa practicable, over the entire term of this contract, at approximately equal intervals. "Mr. Burkan tells me in this never-to-be-forgotten talk we had during the banquet in Asbury Park last week that Mr. Hess argued that the exhibitor has no right to dictate or request particular clauses in a contract. Mr. Hess contended that in every other line of business the seller makes his contract and the buyer either buys under its terms or not. "How can you apply this argument to this business of ours? In this business all the distributors got together and decided to use one procedure under which the exhibitor must buy — or he cannot buy at all. Thus the exhibitor has no chance of buying from the man who gives him a squarer deal. Every distributor uses the same selling methods and the exhibitor has no alternative. He must take it or leave it "All the eighty letters which the Hays organization has obtained cannot measure up to the statement of one man — Sol Raives. He has given up all of his time to arbitration. He is a true exponent of the principle of arbitration and has been tied up with it for the past four years. "Raives tells us that the reason there is not a greater realization of the seriousness of this situation — of this one-sided contract, the bad rules governing arbitration — is because arbitrators work so hard and exert super-human Saw 61 fill Posters During the first six months of 1925, Martin Singher of Montreal, theatre poster censor of that city, examined 61,027 posters and other display signs for use in theatre lobbies and stands and of this number 54,465 pieces were accepted, 6,562 posters being rejected. The report for the period ending June 30 issued by Mr. Singher thus reveals that more than 10 per cent, of theatre posters were banned by him. Receipts for the examination of all posters during the six months totaled $1,743. The report gives figures for each of the six months and it is shown that June was the record month, no less than 12,777 posters being examined in that month, of which 899 were refused the official stamp of approval. The total number of posters examined month by month makes enlightening data: January, 9,769; February, 9,000; March, 9,597; April, 9,630; May, 10,253; June, 12,777. DINE ROSENBLUH The friends and associates of Louis Rosenbluh, executive of New York Exchange of Pox Film Corporation, gathered recently at the Hotel Astor at a farewell dinner tendered in his honor prior to his departure for Europe, for a much deserved rest. Among those present were Harry Thomas, vice-president and general manager of Merit Film Corporation; Abe Blumstein. general manager of Commonwealth Film Corporation; Al Marstyn. prominent New York exhibitor; Ben Levine. general manager of Oxford Exchange; Dave Gross, of First National; Leo JuskoWltz, Joseph J. Felder, Frank Walsh, Adolph Weiss, Nat Furst, Jack Meyers and Moe Sanders. Louis Phillips, attorney and executive secretary of the F. I. L M. Club, acted as toastmaster. efforts to obtain a square deal for the theatre owner before the arbitration board in spite of the one-sided contract on arbitration rules. "He holds out to us the promise of so much better arbitration if we establish an equitable contract and fair system of arbitration. "Mr. Burkan's contract is a masterpiece. I said that before and I say it again. However, I do not consider it a solution because he has not gone far enough. "This comment may appear laughable in view of the attitude taken by Mr. Hess in his action in rejecting Mr. Burkan's contract. "But, bear this in mind. We cannot go half way on this proposition. We must bridge all our differences with a single sweep. A concession and the giving to us of half our rights would temporarily appease. This, however, would only throw further into the future the solution of this problem which is so necessary for the safeguarding of our investments. "Just as getting exhibitor participation in arbitration without correcting the fundamental wrongs, only tended to give apparent legal sanction to an illegality and further delaying a solution, just so would our accepting a compromise without getting down to the solution protract safety, a square deal and the buying and selling on a mutual basis of confidence. "Why do the distributors fear so much the establishment of a fair and equitable contract ? "It cannot be that they do not want fair dealing. I am inclined to believe that they judge the theatre owner not as he is today, but as he was in 1910. "It now takes real money to even lease a small house. The theatre owner is now financially responsible. He has 'graduated from the store front type of 'movie.' He has a big investment at stake. "The exhibitor ranks of today are filled with men from all walks of life and while the exhibitor end of the business has grown the opinion of the distributor for the theatreowner has not kept pace. We find distributors applying the 1910 customs to the 1925 exhibitors. "The distributor can well afford to give up the advantage held by him over the exhibitor through the control of a contract and arbitration. "The theatre owner is an appreciative sort, so hungry for the respect to which he is entitled that I have often seen a showman buy from a salesman only because he has addressed him as 'Mister.' "We even have exhibitors praising the present arbitration system because it is such an improvement over its predecessor. "The establishment of a fair contract and arbitration will go further than is now apparent. Strip both the exhibitor and the distributor from the fear which they now have for each other. Then the natural coarse of evolution will do the rest. By this I mean that the barterings in the buying and selling of pictures will be eliminated. "Both parties will sooner come to the point and a fair rental price will be sooner agreed upon under a live and let live policy. Unlike, as illustrated in the Gleichman case where neither party would give and take, according to the trial justice — let us have a give and take method of doing business."