To prohibit and to prevent the trade practices known as "compulsory block-booking" and "blind selling" of motion-picture films in interstate and foreign commerce .. (1939)

2 TRADE PRACTICES IN MOTIOX-PICTURE INDUSTRY as the Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors, denounced the bill and its provisions as harmful and destructive to the operation of their business. All of the other witnesses that appeared before the subcommittee, except the 9 that are alined with the Motion Picture Research Council, Inc., wliich is the organization sponsoring the bUl, opposed it either because they were convinced it would accomplish no useful purpose, or because thej^ were convmced it woidd prove to be a serious detriment to the public and to those who are trying to raise the standards of motion pictures. Fair consideration of the merits of the bill, it would seem, would require some examination of the testimony registered against the bUl. Motion pictures, like all entertainment, and particularly theatrical entertainment, by their very nature invite criticism. "With the continuous stream of film that pours out of the studios all year it is not surprising that am^one can easily find items that lie or she may dislike the number and proportion of such items depending upon personal taste and critical attitude as much as upon the quality, artistic standards, or popular appeal of the motion pictm'es. i\Iuch of the testimony presented to the subcommittee in support of the bill consisted of general, and some specific, criticism of motion pictures as mass entertainment. Yet there is nothing in the bill that prohibits or declares imlaw^ful the sho^\ing of any of the motion pictures or types of motion pictures that are thus criticised, nor of a motion picture that is clearly immoral or indecent. It was pointed out at the hearings that the w^orst type of sex and vice expose pictures that have been shown in the past could easily comply with all of the provisions of tliis bill as they are invariably sold one at a time, not in blocks, and only after the picture is fully completed and ready for screening. In other w^ords, it appears to be undisputed that there is no compulsory block booldng or bhnd selling in the distribution of this type of offensive motion picture. It is also undisputed that this type of picture is not produced or distributed or exhibited by the companies referred to as the Big Eight, A vast amount of the testimony by the proponents of the bill at the hearings was devoted to criticism of motion pictures made and exhibited in the past, many of them years ago, of the titles of the motion pictures that are used to excite interest and allure patrons into the theaters, and of analyses prepared 7 years ago, on motion pictures produced prior to that date, to demonstrate the harmful effect of moving pictures on children and morons. This criticism and denunciation of motion pictures is of no importance in considering the question presented by this bill, imless it can be shown that the bUl as applied under penalties to the motion-picture industry wih bring about an improvement in the motion pictures produced and exhibited, and without seriously damaging the business in other ways. The testimony of those who have had practical experience in the business is almost unanimous that the specific provisions of the bill presented, enforced under penalties as proposed, wUl do nothing but damage to the quality and standards of the motion pictures produced and exhibited, and will serve no useful purpose. The sponsors of the biU state: The primary purpose of the bill is to establish community freedom in the selection of motion-picture films. A secondary purpose is to relieve independent interests in the mrti-n piptnrn iniii?trr prr»Hi^pf»7-,c; Higfrihnty^rg and exhibitors — of monopolistic and bun lerigigiij^f^q^ S^'ifiitf^SS JUM 2 Z 1939 WVfSION'OF O00UMENT8