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)

4 TR.^E PRACTICES IX MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY particular theater. It is usual in all communities of the United States, even in the very smallest, that there are several theaters. "What then is meant by the phrase "community selection"? The word "commimity" is not defined. One can suppose that a particular motion picture which is seen by about 40,000,000 people in the United States imder no compulsion to see it and is then sho\va to people tliroughout the world, in the cities and ^"illages of all the English-spealdng countries, of the Spanish-speaking countries, and of the Orient, has for its community all of the people who have seen fit to attend its showing. Certainly it would be \sTong to say that such community has been brought about by any method designed b}^ the distributor of the motion picture to negative "community selection." Motion pictures of course are not made for shelving in any given small geographical area. They are made for showing in many areas throughout the world. The proponents of the bill cite Mr. Walter Lippmann, who thinks the universal and common appeal of motion pictures proceeds from the fact that the American producers seek the largest common denominator in the pubhc taste. It is true that pictures are made with an appeal greater than that afforded by any single geograpliical community, but that in itself does not mean that any community is deprived of "community selection" in its motionpicture entertainment. In fact, no one community has a definitely ascertainable preference in motion pictures, or if one has, there would not be enough motion pictures to meet such particular preference. It may be, for example, that so-called action or western motion pictures are commerciaUj profitable because they are more attended in one geographical area than they are in another, but nevertheless these and aU other motion pictures must be made for larger patronage than is afforded by any single area. The fact as brought out by the testimony of exhibitor witnesses on both sides is that there is no single indicated community preference for motion pictures. Preferences seem to cut across geographical areas m the United States and across State and National boundaries and oceans. Even in the same family there are persons who have %\'idely varied tastes in the motion pictures they prefer. Indeed it is the experience of people in the business of motion pictures that in the same evening a family will spht up, several going to one theater to xievr a picture sho^^dng there, the others going to another theater to view a cUfferent picture. The argument made by the sponsors of the bUl in respect to its stated primaiy piu-pose proceeds from the claim that the exhibitor is "the logical and only point of contact between the community and the motion-picture industry" and from a definition it makes of "compulsoiy block booking" and of "blind selling," two other slogans and catchwords, rather than precise and fair descriptive terms of customary practices in the distribution of motion pictures. The idea must be emphatically rejected that the exhibitors in any city, to^vn, or village are the "only point of contact" between the people resident therein and the motion-picture industry. The motionpictiu-e industry, particularly at its source, that is in the production of motion pictures, has much contact vrith public and religious organizations truly repreaentative of the people for whom motion pictures are made, which contacts do more to influence the content of motion pictures than the individual statements some patrons may make to the proprietor or manager of a motion-picture theater. Other