We believe the Neely bill will accomplish no constructive purpose. To restrict movies is to censor them. If we censor movies it might simply lead us into censoring the press. Public opinion has gone a long way to correct the movies' shortcomings and can be depended upon to do the job far better than by Government regulation. WHOLESALING OF ANY PRODUCT MAY BE MADE CRIMINAL OFFENSE [Galveston (Tex.) Tribune, June 14, 1939-Editorial] The Neely bill is designed to make "block booking" of pictures a criminal offense, under the Federal statutes, punishable by a fine of $5,000, a year in jail, or both * * * Block booking of pictures is merely another name for selling by wholesale instead of by retail. Pictures are offered to the exhibitor in blocks, a supply sufficient to last for several months or a year. He has the privilege of canceling up to 10 percent, and plans are under consideration to increase cancelation privileges to 20 percent. * * * But the iniquity of the Neely bill, the dangerous feature, lies in the principle involved. If the Federal Government can make a criminal offense of selling moving pictures by wholesale, it can make a criminal offense of wholesaling automobiles, meat, and any other product moving in interstate trade. The bill should be promptly and effectively killed. [Resolution No. 24 passed this afternoon, June 5, 1940-Phelps] RESOLUTION NO. 24 Whereas there is pending in the Congress of the United States a Senate bill (S. 280) known as the Neely bill and a companion bill in the House of Representatives (H. R. 145) which bills propose to regulate the motion-picture industry and the exhibition of motion pictures in theaters, and Whereas labor is vitally interested in the outcome of those bills because of the fact that it has, at present, 276 crafts employing 282,000 persons in the production, distribution, and exhibition of the products of this industry, and Whereas the passage of either of these bills, in their present form or as they might be reasonably amended, would create a drastic reduction in employment for the aforementioned persons, and would accomplish, in no degree, any betterment to the industry or labor connected therewith, and Whereas the enactment of this legislation would reduce the revenue now accruing to the Government through the medium of taxation, in a very substantial way and would further discriminate against those theaters employing union labor to such a degree that they would be practically driven out of business; with consequent lack of employment from the producing studios, to the laboratory, to the film-distributing exchanges and to the exhibition of motion pictures in the theaters, and Whereas after careful consideration of these bills by the convention of the American Federation of Labor in 1939 it was unanimously voted that Congress be urged to reject the said bills or any similar legislation: Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the thirty-fifth biennial convention of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, recognizing the seriousness of the present situation and the extreme danger to our own livelihood; and acting entirely separate and apart from any employer-motivated interests, do respectfully request that you help to defeat the passage of these bills (S. 280 and H. R. 145) now pending in the seventy-sixth session of Congress, and furthermore, be it Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Respectfully submitted. U. E. Crick, District 7; Theodore Tolley, B-11; Geo. B. Snodgrass' RESOLUTION NO. 25 TO THE DELEGATES OF THE THIRTY-FIFTH BIENNIAL CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. GREETINGS: Whereas through the valuable cooperation and assistance of International President George E. Browne and of the general executive board of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees great progress was made in unionizing theaters and in increasing wages and in bettering conditions of employment of the moving picture machine operators in the city of New York for which the undersigned delegates representing Local Union No. 306 desire on behalf of that local to express their full thanks and appreciation, and Whereas there are still a number of nonunion theaters in the city of New York which should be organized under the banner and jurisdiction of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees: Therefore be it Resolved, That this convention authorize and empower the general executive board and the international president in consultation with the president and executive board of Local No. 306 to take such steps and adopt such means as may be expedient and necessary to effectuate complete unionization of the moving picture theaters in the city of New York. Respectfully submitted. Jos. D. BASSON, Local No. 306. STATEMENT OF JAMES C. INGEBRETSEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, Los ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, ON NEELY BILL, S. 3735, JUNE 5, 1940 Mr. CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE: My name is James C. Ingebretsen. In appearing before you in opposition to the provisions of the so-called Neely antiblock-booking bill, S. 3735, now under consideration, I am representing the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. This chamber of commerce encompasses nearly 10,000 firms and individuals engaged in businesses other than the motion-picture industry in the county of Los Angeles, which, as most of you know, includes as one of its communities, Hollywood, the home of the motion-picture industry. I am authorized to state to you that the board of directors of this chamber of commerce has unanimously and unqualifiedly condemned this bill upon grounds which I shall briefly outline to you as follows: A community of some 125,000, out of nearly 3,000,000 persons located in Los Angeles County, is supported by the motion-picture industry. Some 30,000 workers in the industry receive $133,000,000 annually in wages. Perhaps 15,000 other persons have jobs in subsidiary industries. In considering the welfare of this great group of people, dependent upon the industry for their livelihood, it should be borne in mind that the motion-picture industry is a highly specialized type of business. No producer can tell in advance whether or not a picture in production is going to be a financial success or failure. He cannot foresee how it will appeal to the public. The producer attempts to make a picture which will meet favorable public response and give entertainment which will meet with the approval of the public. The making of a picture is not similar to the manufacturing of a tool or piece of furniture, where samples may be made and submitted without any particular expense and if not satisfactory another tool or article may be made to suit the needs or demands of the customer. It is a special art just like the production of any legitimate play on the legitimate stage is an art. If production is to be limited to pictures which must be certain in advance to be a success then we will either have few pictures made or a producer will be so restricted in production as to ultimately destroy in this country the moving-picture business. Likewise, production under such circumstances will result in excessive costs and ultimately in reduced employment. If the standards proposed by this bill are to be applied to moving pictures why not apply the same standards to magazines and newspapers? Our public press knows the circulation of its newspapers depends upon public approval. They regulate themselves. They know the tastes and demands of the public. No one would attempt to say with respect to the press, in reporting news depicting vice, crime, or sex passion, that for failure to depict it in accordance with the tastes of all of us they should be exposed to the penalties imposed in this act or one similar to it. The proposed law is an attempt to put the Government into business where it cannot do a constructive work but on the contrary will place such restrictions upon the industry as to handicap it in the field of entertainment, news, and education. The moving-picture business is one essentially dependent upon the good will of the public. If the producer fails to meet public approval he will soon know it. There is no need for some district attorney or governmental bureau to be scanning every film produced to determine whether or not the producer or distributor gave a correct synopsis of its contents. The public will give that answer to the producer in no uncertain terms. Good pictures must be produced to attract and hold public patronage. If indecent pictures are made and distributed you may rely upon public pressure and sentiment to change such a shortsighted policy. No responsible producer would resort to such questionable practice. His reputation and financial investment alone would deter him from taking such a course. The moving-picture industry relies more than any governmental authority on the positive need of doing a good job. We have plenty of laws now to take care of the unscrupulous person who attempts to make and distribute a picture offensive to good taste and good morals. Our sense of public decency is our best protection. In this connection it should be stated here that the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce is unalterably opposed to indecent pictures. We believe that the welfare of the youth of our country should properly be kept uppermost in the minds of the members of this committee considering this bill, but we feel absolutely certain that this particular measure can make no contribution whatsoever to the improvement of the moral character of films. As a matter of fact, little if anything has ever been accomplished by attempts to legislate morality. The responsibility that the producer recognizes to the public is the surest way to protect the public. If block booking or blind selling results in a monopoly we have ample laws to protect the public against such a monopoly. By way of concluding this statement and in resume of what I have said, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce condemns this measure upon the following grounds: 1. If any monopolistic abuses exist today in the motion-picture industry they can be corrected under existing antimonopoly statutes. 2. By specifying the manner in which the business of distributing motion pictures must be conducted, the bill would bring the motion-picture industry under an unworkable form of Government regulation. 3. Established practices in distribution of films which have been developed over a long period of years, as particularly suited to the least expensive distribution of films to the public, would be disrupted by this bill. 4. The bill constitutes a form of Government price regulation costly to the public. 5. The bill makes the doing of certain acts a crime, and yet those acts are defined in such vague and uncertain terms that no motion-picture producer could safely conduct his business unless he discontinued entirely the age-long practice of giving quantity discounts by quoting a better price to a distributor who contracted to take all of his films than he could quote to a distributor who took only a single film. 6. The bill seeks to establish a form of Government censorship over an industry which has earned a well-deserved reputation for self-imposed regulation. 7. Requirement that a synopsis of each film play and a statement as to treatment of certain types of scenes be made in advance is impracticable and unworkable in the motion-picture business, because many pictures develop and change as their production progresses. We are grateful to you for this opportunity to place before your honorable committee the views here expressed. We sincerely hope and trust that they will receive your earnest and favorable consideration. Thank you. GREATER DETROIT MOTION PICTURE COUNCIL, Mr. CLARENCE LEA, DEAR MR. LEA: Being chairman of the following groups, namely, public relations chairman of the Greater Detroit Motion Picture Council, motion picture chairman for the Detroit churches, and motion picture chairman for the Federation of Women's Clubs of Detroit, I am very much interested in the Neely bill. I have been in the work 7 years and after much study on my part have come to the conclusion that this bill as presented is not the solution. It will not encourage community selection. In my own neighborhood there are 8 theaters within a radius of 12 blocks. Who will be the judge of what these local exhibitors will show and will they show a picture that a small pressure group demands even at a loss? This bill will not elevate the moral standards of pictures. Many lay people who favor the bill do not know what it is and are certain that block-booking is used to force the showing of poor pictures. I see and evaluate practically every motion picture shown in our first run houses in Detroit and I believe there are more worth-while pictures made today than any one person can see. Finally, section IV of the bill would impose an impossible condition and work an undue hardship on the producer. I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to incorporate my statement in your records. Yours very truly, Mr. CLARENCE LEA, Chairman, Interstate Commerce Committee, CYNTHIA G. SUTHERLAND. WAYNE UNIVERSITY, Detroit, Mich., June 3, 1940. Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. LEA: I am submitting the attached report containing an analysis of my opposition to the Pettengill bill on block-booking and blind selling, which I should like to have incorporated in the records of the proceedings now taking place on this bill before your committee. Very sincerely yours, PRESTON H. SCOTT, Chairman, Department of Speech, Wayne University, and Assistant Director, Language Education, Detroit Public Schools. REPORT Mr. CLARENCE LEA, Chairman, Interstate Commerce Committee, Washington, D. C.: I would like the following analysis recorded in the proceedings of this committee in order that I may go on record as being opposed to the passage of the Pettengill bill on block booking and blind selling. Before presenting the specific analysis, may I state briefly that I represent no specific organization or no special interest group on this motion-picture problem. Some 4 years ago I was called upon to teach motion picture appreciation in the College of Education here at Wayne University. Since that time I have been handling this work both in motion pictures and in radio. The classes are composed primarily of teachers, with a sprinkling of club women. They run each semester from 50 to 100, causing the influence that they may exert to be rather broad, since each person in the class teaches anywhere from 50 to 200 youngsters in the public schools. Also during this same period I have had an opportunity to investigate the problems of the motion-picture field, both from the standpoint of the literature and from the standpoint of experience and observation in the studios. From a teaching standpoint I maintain a position of reasonable neutrality. As far as the Pettengill bill is concerned, I bring in representatives who are in favor of it and representatives who are opposed to it. I make no statements myself as to what my personal feelings are. I draw material from organizations in favor and from organizations opposed. I feel that my study and analysis during these past 4 years enables me to make some observations which may be of value to your committee. The following report does not concern itself with the problems of distribution, with the problems of production, or with the problems of the exhibitor. I assume that during the many weeks you have been in session that people far better qualified on both sides of the question have called to your attention every conceivable technical item involved in this question. I have been concerned, however, a great deal about the kind of attack that is made upon the motion-picture producers by a certain interest who are in favor of the passage of this bill. It is this attack that has changed me from being in favor of the bill some 3 years ago to being opposed to the bill at the present time. I object to having the statement made by reputable citizens that a person has sold out to an industry because he happens to favor certain things that an industry must favor. I object to interests using materials that arouse emotions of thousands of people who fail to read things themselves when a careful analysis of the materials shows that they could not lead to the conclusions suggested. Frankly, I do not think that there is a serious problem in the motion-picture field today as far as the interests of the public and the effect upon the people are concerned. Perhaps when the original agitation for this type of legislation was started, the starting of the legislation has done some good. But certainly if the quality of motion pictures is the problem concerned at the present time, there is no need for legislation of this type, first, because the bill hasn't anything to do with the quality of motion pictures, second, because legislation isn't the logical way in which to better quality. Yet the following analysis will indicate that advocates of this bill are misleading the people in groups throughout the United States by causing them to believe that the issue before the people today is the question of improvement of pictures. I present this analysis to call your attention to this fact, and I feel very strongly that a large percentage of the people who are apparently in favor of this legislation have never read the bill, don't know the true significance of the issues involved, know little about the problems of producing pictures, and have merely been acting upon what I call a misuse of certain data, which although factual if pointed in one direction is actually misleading if pointed in another. I am opposed to the Pettengill-Neely bills for exactly the same reasons that so many people and so many organizations seem to favor them. I believe that final passage of the Pettengill bill in the House of Representatives, since the Neely bill has already passed the Senate, would, instead of improving the quality of motion pictures and aiding in the development of a better type of entertainment for our communities, have exactly the opposite effect. I have given a good deal of careful study both to this bill and to the flood of propaganda that has been issued in its defense. In the first place, I find nothing in the bill that has anything to do with the production of motion pictures. It deals entirely with distribution, and I submit that the problem must be treated at its roots-if there is a problem-not after pictures have been made. But what interests me most is the type of propaganda that is being issued constantly by the Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors and in fact by all organizations which support the bill. To me it is highly misleading, grossly lacking in factual material, and deals in the main with ideas that have little or no relation to the contents of the Pettengill bill. May I comment on this by using illustrations from the Allied White Book. I am fully aware of the age of this pamphlet, but its continued use makes the following discussion more important. In the foreword on page 5 I find these words: "Which practices have a direct bearing on the character of entertainment offered by the independent theaters to the public." Further on the same page in the next paragraph is this statement: "That the rights of the public are involved and must be protected by the intervention of the public." On page 6 in defining block booking I quote this statement: "Its entire output of motion pictures for the ensuing year affording the exhibitors no choice except to take all of the pictures so offered or none." In the third paragraph this statement appears: "Compulsory block booking prevents the theaters from choosing the best pictures offered by all the distributors and requires them to take all of the pictures, good, bad, or indifferent." The last paragraph begins with: "The abolition of compulsory block booking would open the screen of the country to anyone who could make good pictures and thus would encourage capital and creative talent now excluded from the business to enter into competition with the existing monopoly." On page 9 is a summary: "(a) It forces the showing of undesirable pictures. (b) It prevents the showing of many highly desirable pictures. (c) It deprives the local or neighborhood exhibitor, acting with the advice and cooperation of his patrons, of all discretion as to the kind of pictures he will exhibit in his theater and vests that discretion in Hollywood." |