My Little Chickadee which might suggest to some a picture dealing with bird lore, while being the latest vehicle for the inuendos of Mae West.

The description of the movie theater situation all over this country as given by Mr. Pettijohn was most inaccurate. He stated that the majority of situations are ones in which a town has two to five theaters. On the contrary nearly 70 percent-69.6 percent-of the 9,187 towns which have theaters have only one theater. (See attached table compiled from Senate hearings, p. 449.) And it is estimated that another 20 percent have only 2 theaters apiece.

Of these 8,371 places represent the communities with small theaters and have only 38 percent of the seating capacity of the country. They represent a substantial portion of the theater going public. Moreover that portion of the public living in places which have three or more theaters may be limited by their pocketbook to one or two subsequent run theaters in their neighborhood which charge low admission prices.

6,401 TOWNS, OR NEARLY 70 PERCENT OF ALL TOWNS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVING THEATERS, HAVE ONLY ONE THEATER

Table on page 449 of the Senate hearings submitted by Carl E. Milliken and later adopted by the Department of Commerce.

Thus it appears that there are 9,187 towns with a total number of 17,541 theaters, and most of them have only one theater. This conclusion is arrived at from the following calculation:

And these 816 places have 6,715,385 seats, 61 percent of seating capacity. VI. To the contention that the proponents wish to do away with the production code, we see nothing in the Neely bill to remotely suggest this. Moreover, there is no reason why Mr. Breen should be disturbed in his excellent code-enforcement work in any way unless the Big Eight wish to break another highly publicized promise and discharge Mr. Breen.

Furthermore, the independent producers who will be encouraged by the passage of the bill to make pictures will be able to use the code and Mr. Breen's services just as much as any of the Big Eight producers, judging from what Mr. Harmon of the production code said yesterday-that services were now furnished to members and nonmembers of the Hays organization on identical terms. There is no reason, therefore, for anyone to suppose that the work of Mr. Breen will not continue to be available to all those who want it.

VII. One of Mr. Pettijohn's latest gestures before this committee was that of appearing to present for the record a copy of an exclusion clause which would make it possible for any exhibitor to reject a picture on the grounds that it was morally offensive to his community.

Before presenting this to you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pettijohn tore off that part of the exclusion clause which gave the date. For the benefit of those who did not see Mr. Pettijohn in action, I would like to submit that the date on this clause was one since this hearing began. Mr. Pettijohn would have had you believe, however, that the exclusion clause had been in contracts for several years. Of this and previous exclusion clauses we know:

1. The exclusion clause is a privilege temporary in character if not in fact, and can be withdrawn by the distributor for any future reason.

2. Thus it was not included in contracts until by a special rider printed just this spring. (Testimony of W. F. Rodgers.)

3. For 6 years it was treated by the producers as a trade practice simply announced in 1934 in the trade papers. (Pettijohn.)

4. The announcement in 1934 came only as a result of a public protest and an organized boycott.

5. This concession, therefore, was forced on the producers first by a national protest, and then by the imminency of legislation before Congress.

6. It can be withdrawn for any reason in the future, if no law is passed.

7. Furthermore, if there is a controversy it may have to be arbitrated at a distant point from the theater.

8. Also the protested picture might acquire notoriety. A recent example of this is reported in Variety (May 1, 1940) which reads:

"Church blast against Metro's Strange Cargo, through the agency of a weekly Catholic newspaper, proved a boomerang here and picture finished a week's run at Loew's with an estimated $16,000 which bettered the weekly average by a nice margin. Using a first page box that looked like an ad by the theater the tirade called attention to the crusade against the film in Providence, Detroit, Davenport, and other towns.

"It further stated that Catholics had been advised from pulpits not to see the film and asserted that one of the chief objections was the 'ugly sex angle.' Copy wound up by declaring, 'Opens at Loew's Friday.'

All in all an exclusion clause can only be negative, and it does not give positive choice of selection to the exhibitor so that he may freely and positively meet the needs of his community. It is well to remember moreover that the majority of the opposition witnesses stated that they had special privileges granted by selective contracts, such as are usually enjoyed by producer-affiliated theaters. 9. Past performance and present trends indicate that anything short of a law for selectivity like the Neely bill would be of no use. Earlier in my testimony I submitted the 11 broken promises which were documented evidence that the motion-picture industry cannot be trusted. Present trends suggest that they are already considering relaxation of their production code. To quote from The Film Daily of May 24, 1940:

"Catholic Reviewers See Trend Toward Indecencies

"The observed trend toward indecencies in current and recent films was cited by several speakers at the annual luncheon of the Motion Picture Department of the International Federation of Catholic Alumnae this week at the Hotel Roosevelt. Hope was expressed by the speakers that war-reduced revenues from abroad would not tempt or impel producers in a move of desperation to insert offensive material under the false impression of increasing thereby theater attendance."

A series of objectionable pictures are already being shown in addition to Primrose Path and Strange Cargo, which have been mentioned frequently during these

hearings. I submit some descriptions of unappetizing motion picture fare which is not available:

Excerpt from New York Times, February 11, 1940:

"Having discovered neurosis, Hollywood is bent upon popularizing it. A major step in making it a conscious part of the lives of the customers, is being taken by Paramount, where Destiny is before the cameras with as neat a set of neurotics as the cinema has offered. The case is headed by Basil Rathbone, who frets under a psychosis which reaches its full flower when he murders his several wives, and by Ellen Drew, who dotes on suicide. With the peculiar ability occasionally observed in the exhibition trade, it is conceivable that the picture will show up at many of the Saturday 'kiddie matinees,'

Excerpt from New York Times, February 14, 1940:

66* * * and just last week, A Child Is Born which wallowed through a maternity ward in a gale of sobs. We could mention a half dozen others without looking any further back than mid-December, but we've no doubt that you've gone through the harrowing experiences already. Curious, the things that fall under the general classification of entertainment."

The New York Times of May 5, 1940, describes a new picture thus: "Dead man's body floating in water, five murders, trickery, espionage, drowning blind people in tank to get insurance, instruction in criminal methods, drinking, blind man's home a camouflage for gangster's evil deeds, horrible screams, crime made exciting and alluring, many views of drowned bodies lying in slimy water, drunkenness, drowning man in big tank, joking about tragedy, coarse language, tattooed arm, horrible face, harrowing details of strapping blind mute in bed and making him blind, horrible screams as eyes are operated upon to make him blind, forgeries, bogus insurance policies, horrible screams as girl is chased, maniacal sounds, choking girl in preparation for drowning her, faking blindness, drowned bodies thrown out window into river, many views of drowned bodies, murder by shooting, throwing vials of gas at people shooting, taking law into one's own hands, publicity states 'If you are weak do not come. For the strong

only.'

In the New Yorker of June 17, 1939, we find this article: "A picture called 6,000 Enemies develops into something more strenuous and realistic than you expect after you have seen only a bit of it. With a primary sequence of courtroom scenes, underworld master minds, frame-ups, and the like, you are adjusted to the prospect of the usual gangster-and-prison number when you find yourself startled by the details of prison life. The prison scenes, which occupy most of the film, have been handled with an effort at actuality, and this leads to an impression of ugly violence. Since the ladies' prison adjoins the gentlemen's, there is opportunity for the tender sentiment and for Miss Rita Johnson to portray a young woman, incarcerated but provocative."

As a person who has worked very closely with the prisons in my own home State, I resent the insinuation of what is portrayed; that does not happen in our penal institutions.

This advertisement from the Motion Picture Herald gives an idea of the newest thing in horrors:

"Boris Karloff in The Man They Could Not Hang-the Frankenstein monster defies even the gallows to temper the savagery of his soul-consuming blood-lust." Whenever hearings are held on the Neely bill, the producers and distributors rush forward with finely phrased offers of future self-regulation. Always these offer such improvements only as the motion-picture industry wishes to institute them, and there is never any guarantee offered to the public groups or the independent exhibitors that they will carry them out. The motion-picture industry's past promises being broken as soon as made, destroy any possible hope of their trustworthiness. Nothing short of legislation such as is embodied in the Neely bill can give sufficient guarantee to meet the needs of the situation.

(VIII) The representatives of the American Federation of Labor made some very dire predictions about the result of the bill on employment. The C. I. 0., however, endorsed the bill last year. We believe the bill will help, not hamper, all branches of the motion-picture industry. Evidence of this appears in an article by Mr. W. R. Wilkerson in a recent issue of Harrison's Report. It says: "Whatever change will be made in pictures as a result of any of the legislations that are now up (and one or more of them seem a cinch to be enacted) it will call for the greatest spurt in production Hollywood has ever seen, as every piece of legislation will demand that producers and distributors have their pictures to show before they are booked. To do that, even presenting them in groups of five or less, Hollywood will be on the jump, with every studio in the business filling its stages with product and working night and day to get it finished.

66

"Another thing Hollywood must expect, resulting from the changes that are a cinch to be instituted one way or the other, is the demand for better pictures, with the full knowledge that those better pictures will bring better returns than the picture business has ever seen, other than the current exhibition of Gone With the Wind. Pictures will have to be shown before they are booked. This will, of necessity, eliminate a lot of the B and Z shows that the majors have turned out. "It's this writer's impression that the change that is to come will be the greatest boon to industry progress it has had since the inception of sound, that every branch of the business will thrive and build as a result of the change."

I would like to quote one excerpt from the testimony of the Assistant Attorney General, Thurman Arnold, before the Senate subcommittee on S. 3735, of April 22, 1940, in which he stated:

"It seems to me further, that the conduct of the whole business is wasteful and extravagant. I do not like to be in the position of throwing stones, so to speak, at the gentlemen connected with the motion picture industry, but it does occur to me that this vertical trust is the greatest sort of contributor to waste. The reason is they can force their product on the market regardless of cost. The theaters cannot pick and choose.'

In a recent New York Times Mr. Goldwyn made some interesting remarks as to what is wrong with the present situation in Hollywood. The article states this: "Mr. Goldwyn believes the present system of selling the 'bad product for the same price as the good one' is partially responsible for the industry's present troubles and says the first step toward a remedy is for the producers to abandon the 'old wholesale method of making pictures, and to truthfully advise the public about the quality of pictures instead of calling every picture released the best ever made.'

"There is," says Mr. Goldwyn, "a tremendous difference between a really fine picture and a class B offering. And it is the business of the industry to see that this difference is made apparent to the public before it visits the box office. The public is entitled to know what it is getting without paying for that privilege.' Comments on this situation of considerable value are to be found in an article from Harrison's Reports of August 26, 1939:

A very interesting story appeared in the August 12 issue of Box Office, on page 32; it is so instructive, and at the same time so destructive to the arguments that are put forward by opponents of the Neely bill, which is designed to outlaw block booking as well as blind selling that I asked Red Kann's permission to reproduce it, so that it may reach the greatest number of exhibitors possible. "DETROIT.-Hollywood's big brains are up to their necks in new worries over the Neely bill, but many of the creators there predict an industry renaissance if the measure is enacted, Harold Heffernan declares he has discovered, in a copyrighted article for the Detroit News and the North American Newspaper Alliance. "You would see the greatest inspirational boom Hollywood has experienced since the talking pictures came in', he quotes one 'prominent producer whose name cannot be mentioned.'

"From the same source, this:

“Unshackled from block booking, we would be forced to get down to work. Competition among studios would be increased tenfold. Automatically, all the laggards would take to the outer gates.

66

Naturally, the most important and immediate improvement would be noted in stories. The bill requires film companies to display a synopsis of the story to the exhibitor, as well as a title, before he can be asked to purchase. That means the end of substituting as we have been doing for years out here. And the story synopsis must stand up or the exhibitor might decide his public won't go for it. That leaves the producer holding the bag-not the exhibitor, as is the case under the present sales system of job-lotting 50 or more 'sight unseen' pictures each year. "This individual and direct method of sale on merit alone would put it straight up to the studio, the author, the cast and the director. If any of the group faltered, out they would go-and I believe it would be in a very great hurry. All hands, in effect, would be salesmen, obligated to deliver or else.'

"At this point, Heffernan steps in with an observation or two of his own 'For many years Hollywood has been severely criticized for not getting the most from its high-salaried writing departments, conceded to include some of the most brilliant minds in the literary field,' he states. Instead, it has seemed content to follow the easiest route-depending on purchase of big name stage plays and published novels (many unadaptable for movies) and resorting, in too many emergencies, to stop-gapping production programs with old stories produced in screen form twice and even three times before.

"His unnamed source then further remarks. 'A child would realize that such a condition is not a healthy one to be found in the world's leading amusement medium. The proposed new order would awaken screen writers to their responsi bilities. Possibly, if we had to face realities-real bread-and-butter competition-we could whip up literary works in our own writing departments that would compare favorably with the big-selling books and plays for which we must now bid exorbitant prices in open market competition.'

"Enactment of the Neely bill would end that, too,' believes this individual in discussing remakes released under new titles which Heffernan says has angered the public and brought stormy protests from exhibitors forced to take them in their block purchases. 'Can you imagine a film salesman calling on an exhibitor and showing him the synopsis of an old picture his company intends remaking? Unless it happened to be the revise of some sensational smash success, you could just about see the exhibitor showing the salesman the door with the parting word that he's no longer buying old stuff for his clientele.'"

Were Mr. Heffernan to have written this article before the hearings on the Neely bill had been held so that the exhibitors might have included them in the record, the exhibitor leaders would have had no better argument in their effort to convince the Senate committee, and through it the entire Congress, that the Neely bill will prove the salvation of the motion picture industry. Mr. Heffernan, whom I happen to know personally, is a sound man and would not have written such an article unless he felt sure that the views of the producer whose name he withholds were sound.

For years Harrison's Reports has been preaching, not only to the exhibitors, but to the entire industry, that the Neely bill will not destroy the industry; it will destroy only the laggards, who, feeling sure that their pictures will sell, no matter how poor, because of the ready market for them, exert no effort to improve their product.

Allies should call Mr. Heffernan's report of the producer's views to the attention of Congress.

A satiric comment made by Mr. Douglas W. Churchill in the New York Times, November 26, 1939, says:

"Independent production is looked upon with disfavor by some studios because of the low cost of the individual efforts. It is not a question of quality but of having such figures as appear on the books. It would be embarrassing to have a $125,000 production gross $500,000 when studio-make products costing twice that sum return an equal or even lesser amount."

As to the opponents of the bill, they seemed to be speaking with one voice and that the voice of the motion-picture industry. First there were the usual industry witnesses, followed by a bevy of allegedly independent exhibitors, many of whom, like Mr. Stanley Sumner, appear to have direct or indirect affiliations with the M. P. T. O. A., which organization has been found to be subsidized (see the Senate hearings of 1939). Mr. Pettijohn promised us the privilege of hearing from several movie actors-Mr. Herscholt, Mr. Walter Abel, and Mr. Edward Arnold, well known for his portrayal of the unsavory political boss in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Instead of this trio, Mr. Don Ameche came to make a charming but somewhat vague attack on the bill.

The opponents of the Neely bill stress the impossibility of writing a synopsis of a picture. It is hard to believe that with all the writing talent available in Hollywood, there is no one out there with skill enough to compose a simple synopsis of a picture. As Mr. Wolverton said, it is a comparatively simple task to provide a syllabus on a legal matter. As Mr. McGranery pointed out, high-school boys and girls are now expected to write synopses and outlines in their freshmen English classes.

A letter from the editor of The Atlantic Monthly, Edward Weeks, is pertinent at this time, inasmuch as his experience with writers should be of value. On May 13, 1940, he says:

"For many years American publishers have had to prepare the announcements of their new books for their catalogs, oftentimes with only a half-completed menuscript before them; yet their knowledge of the author and his manuscript has enabled these publishers to prepare a reliable announcement of the book to come. I see no reason on earth why the producers in Hollywood knowing the text from which the film is to be taken and the author involved, should not be equally competent to produce an honest announcement of the picture to come."

In regard to the women witnesses, Mrs. Beretta's testimony reflected some of the regular industry opposition arguments which have been so widely publicized in the Texas press, of which the committee has a photographic copy. Her most novel argument was that the bill was an entering wedge to destroy the freedom of