Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1946)

SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, October 26, 1946 9 NATIONAL NEWSREEL Judges 'Moved^ By Mass Attack on Bidding In Briei The proceedings this week at the federal statutory court hearing on decree proposals included : Surprise announcement by the court that it had not meant that competitive bidding was to be taken as auctioning of films. Court acknowledgment that the exhibitor attack on its competitive bidding plan had "moved" it. Possibility that cancellation privileges for blind buying would be set at 20 per cent and that a full year's product could be sold at one time. Possibility that arbitration was completely out. (Too many objecting). A new proposal suggested by Paramount's Whitney North Sejmiour which would add a limited "some run" clause to the injunction provisions on clearance. It was opposed by the Government and criticized by Thurman Arnold. All intervenor and friends of the court petitions taken under advisement. (Two new friends of the court appeared: Auctioneer Joseph Day with an auction plan; Kentucky Theatre Owners, arguing length of run as a consideration in bidding.) Cook, Raftery & Frohlich— They're Three of a Kind But Not of a Mind Court Declares It Never Said Films Should Be Put on 'Ruction Block' By BILL SPECHT News Editor Three judges of the federal statutory court in New York — Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Augustus Hand, District Court Judges Henry L. (}oddard and John Bright — openly declared this week that the scale of the exhibitor attack on competitive bidding had impressed them and that by competitive bidding they had not meant auction selling. The court's comment came during arguments on the decree proposals when Judge Hand, the senior judge, said: "We were moved, all of us, by this large attack by the so-called independents, many of whom were independent, on the competitive bidding system." Several times the court asked protesting attorneys if they had suggestions for any other sales plans which would be competitive. Discussing the court's intention. Judge Hand said: "We never said it (film) should be put on the auction block." This point had been previously made by Herman Levy, General Counsel for the Motion Picture Theatre Owners of America, and reiterated by Robert L. Wright, special assistant to the attorney general who is conducting the case for the Government. The hearings themselves were bidding for a place in court history with none of the parties involved, those who wish to intervene, or those who wish to appear as friends of the court, seeming to be able to agree on any major point. The defendants themselves, split into the Big Five — Warner Bros., RKO, Paramount, Loew's (MGM) and 20th Century-Fox— and the Little Three— 'Columbia, Universal, United Artistsdisagree on fundamental points. Those who sought to intervene — the American Theatres Associations, and some 30 exhibitor members of the Confederacy of Southern Associations — agree on the main in their opposition to competitive bidding, but disagree with the defendants and the government. The friends of the court disagree with the defendants, the government, the intervenors, and in some instances, among themselves. The only point of near unanimity seems to be that all parties but the Mosque Theatre of Newark, N. J., oppose competitive bidding and that all the opponents are willing to see it scrapped. Another point which was carried without {Continued on Page 12) 10,000 vs. Auctioning Final results of the American Theatres Association Poll of exhibitors throughout the nation showed that 10,000 theatres are opposed to auctioning selling. The poll, which took in both ATA and non-ATA members, showed that 95 per cent of those replying were for intervention in the anti-trust suit for the purpose of fighting auction selling. Cook, Raftery and Frohlich. No, it's not a new law firm. The gentlemen in fact don't see eye-to-eye in several aspects of the current decree hearings. But they don't see eye-to-eye with the Big Five attorneys either. In fact, they might be called the rugged individualists of the defendant attorneys. For while attorneys for the Big Five crowd around one long, document-loaded table at which Charles Cook sits as a lone 'dissenter, Louis Frohlich and Ed Raftery take their places elsewhere in the court room. And when the attorneys for the Big Five, meaning Paramount, RKO, Loew's (MGM), 20th Century-Fox and Warner Bros., rise to speak for the defendants. Cook, Frohlich and Raftery are sure to make it plain shortly afterward ithat Universal, Columbia and United Artists also are defendants and may not be in accord ■ with the argument advanced. Presenting the argument that selling product by a year's program is necessary, that franchises and master deals should be legal and that the distributor should have the right to insist that That "Duel in the Sun" might be allowed to roadshow was considered likely by observers in the federal statutory court in New York this week after Vanguard had presented its argument to the court. The belief that roadshowing of the Selznick special might be possible came when Special Assistant to the Attorney General Robert L. Wright said that the anti-roadshowing provision of his proposed decree might be waived for "Duel" through a stay in the court's decree. I?ut Wright made it plain that the Government Dliposed "roadshowing per se" on grounds that it would permit price fi.xing and clearance fixing, and that it believed any road showing which might be allowed should be done in tlicatres not affiliated with the dcfeiulanls. an admission price be maintained during the run of a picture, is Charles Cook, attorney for Universal whose voice is heard through the marble and wood paneled court room without any difficulty. Cook's arguments have included an attack on the court's right to set up competitive bidding and its machinery and maintains the position that Universal had not conditioned sales on pictures. When United Artists interests are affected, broad shouldered, white-haired, ruddy-faced Edward C. Raftery materializes apparently from out of nowhere. He had been sitting behind other lawyer observers to the court's right. His measured statements are laced with Celtic irony which add a lighter touch to the drear business, of the arguments. When the subject of inserting six month? buying clauses and 30 days run of a picture after availability were discussed, Raftery explained that exhibitors to his knowledge never held up a hit picture, but when a bad picture (Contiiiiird on Pane 12) Wright told the court tliat a "roadshow is by definition an exhibition supported by extraordinary high admissions supported by liigh clearance." .\ X'anguard attorney presented the plea for "Duel" to the court Monday, pointing that the extra cost of the picture and the position of iiis clients in not owning theatres, made a road show policy necessary. He suggested several methods by which roadshows could be defined and controlled. (Showmen's TR.-\nu: Review, CXn. 12, 1). y.) .^.sked by the court why Vanguard needed roadshowing with fixed i)ricos, the attorney replied : "To make nu)iK\." Gov't May Not Object To 'DueF Road Show But Opposes Policy Generally