Showmen's Trade Review (1939)

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.

July 15, 1939 SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW Page 3 to e The Conn. Resolution We are always happy when we hear about exhibitors putting up a squawk or battling against unfair practices. But we aren't always happy about the way they do it. In this issue, and in several other papers, the two Connecticut exhibitor units combined and paid for an ad setting forth their resolution against high film rentals and certain unfair practices. No doubt they were justified or they would not have passed such a joint resolution. Which brings us to the next point: Were they fighting their battle the most effective way when they released their resolution via paid advertising before taking up their kicks directly with the sales heads first? Wouldn't it have been reasonable to assume that they resort to advertising their feelings only after they had first tried to gain their ends through negotiation? We are not saying they should ... we are merely asking. This particular resolution is charged with a certain amount of dynamite in view of the government suit and the current agitation within the industry regarding the adoption of the code and arbitration formulas. There is a grave possibility that it will return to haunt the industry in several ways. Which may cause rejoicing in some quarters and despair in others. But in the final analysis, if this resolution brings about the desired results for the Connecticut exhibitors, then no one can find fault with what they did or the way they did it. We only hope it will help those exhibitors without hurting the industry as a whole. A A A Spotlight the Coercion The previous portion of this editorial brings us to a matter of grave importance and the possible solution. If it is true that certain salesmen and branch managers are guilty of violating the promise of no forcing of shorts or any other form of coercion that is contrary to the pledges given by the distributors, how will it ever be stamped out unless each instance is given full publicity and those responsible are dragged into the spotlight. How else will the industry ever be able to stop those things which have brought down upon it the criticism and condemnation of outsiders as well as those within the industry? Perhaps it is that ol' bugaboo, "retaliation." If so, forget it. No exchange representative will have the nerve to crack down on an exhibitor who exposes any flagrant violation of an agreement, written or oral. The industry has too much at stake to risk allowing any such a thing to happen and we believe the distributors' representatives when they say that salesmen who do such things will be fired on the spot if such charges are proven. Let's stop the inuendo route and get down to brass tacks. If any exhibitor is approached by any sales representative who uses threats or coercion to force the selling of shorts, newsreels or trailers, contrary to the understanding that such forcing is now outlawed, let that exhibitor come forward and raise plenty of hell and state definitely who the offender is. Use these tactics and every form of coercion will fade away for good. None of the offenders or their superiors will be able to stand the glare of the spotlight of such violations. But let's cut out the veiled implications not backed up with facts and names. A A A The Golden Jubilee Some semblance of a start has been made to observe the Golden Jubilee of the Motion Picture Industry. But aside from a limited observance of the occasion there are no indications as to whether the event will be backed up with any kind of a national campaign. It cost the industry about a million dollars to try an experiment last year in the form of a national campaign designed to attract attention to motion pictures and bring patrons to the theatre. True, the campaign fell down in certain respects. But equally true, it did accomplish something even in the face of European war-scares and other news that crowded even the movies off the front page. A campaign restricted to national advertising to the public plus exhibitor-aids in stimulating interest in the movies and box offices, is bound to be more effective and less costly than last year's campaign. Serious consideration should, therefore, be given to making far more capital out of the Golden Jubilee than appears probable at this writing. As a matter of fact, if anything is to be done it must be started now. A A Encouraging Signs If it be true that anything ailing the industry can be cured with good pictures, then exhibitors can indeed rejoice over the possibilities for the new season. Instead of our trying to tell you why, suppose you look over all of the releases for the next four months, and judge for yourself the strength and merit of the product to come when you start your new season. Perhaps we are over-optimistic but our checking of those releases seems to indicate that with any kind of a break in weather and economic conditions, the 1939-1940 season will be off to a grand start. — 'CHICK" LEWIS