Mr. BOREN. Always 2 or 3 weeks before?

Mr. COLE. Yes; we must have time to get them out.

Mr. BOREN. Could you give me some idea how long they are completed before they are put into a first-run theater?

Mr. COLE. Well, as I say, there is no fixed rule on the matter. The first-run theaters usually get the pictures very shortly after their national release date.

Mr. BOREN. Then after the first-run theaters have used them for a period of time, some weeks or months elapse before they get down to the second-run or the third-run theaters in the small towns?

Mr. COLE. Depending upon the locality, the clearance system, and so forth.

Mr. BOREN. Well, would you say that it would average from 14 to 30 days; that is, 2 weeks to a month?

Mr. COLE. It varies tremendously. In some cases it will be 35 days and in other cases 75 days. There is no fixed rule.

Mr. BOREN. The point of my question is this: Why is it not prac tical to have a pre-view method in the purchase of pictures? First, for the first-run theaters between the time of the national release and the first run; and secondly I see no reason why the subsequent-run theaters could not have a pre-view of the picture.

Mr. COLE. That would be a difficult burden on the small-town exhibitors whom I represent for the most part. The distance away from the large distribution centers, Congressman Boren, as you perhaps know, in Texas, and maybe in Oklahoma is considerable. The exhibitor may have to go as much as 200 miles for a preview, and, going that distance would not be a very practical thing.

Mr. BOREN. You do not mean to indicate that the second-run theater, after a picture had been shown in a first-run theater, would have to go two, three, or four hundred miles?

Mr. COLE. Well, the theaters in the small towns are not all secondrun; some of the first-run theaters are in the small communities.

Mr. BOREN. You do not mean that the distance between the firstrun theaters in any town in Texas-and I have been over most every cow trail in the State-would be that much; that you would have to go as much as 400 miles for a preview?

Mr. COLE. Yes. I am running a first-run theater in Bonham, Tex., and I have to go 90 miles to Dallas. And there are a number of smalltown theaters running first-run plays that would have to go 200 or 300 miles to see a first-run.

In fact,

Mr. BOREN. Well, let us apply it to the second-run. Mr. COLE. The second run would be better off, of course. he would be helped under this bill as he would have that opportunity and the synopsis, too.

Mr. BOREN. Just one other question: If I am quoting you right you said most exhibitors want to buy in block but want to choose their pictures; is that correct?

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. BOREN. That is a rather surprising statement to me or either I did not understand. I thought you were asking to buy one picture at a time.

Mr. COLE. Oh, no.

Mr. BOREN. You do not?

Mr. COLE. Even under the bill, Mr. Boren, we want to buy whatever we want in block, but the bill takes it out from under compulsory block booking.

Mr. BOREN. You are not interested in doing away with block booking but in doing away with compulsory block-booking?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. BOREN. Then following that thought a little further, in the illustration that you gave about the difference between you and your brother, who you say is opposed to this bill, is an economic question as to who is benefited in this matter?

Mr. COLE. I do not quite grasp your meaning, Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. I do not mind saying to you that fundamentally I was very much interested in most of what you said, but that was one of the statements that rather surprised me?

Mr. COLE. That we wanted to buy in block?

Mr. BOREN. And who was benefited on the other hand.

Mr. COLE. Well, frankly, Mr. Boren, our objection to compulsory block-booking is that it makes us take pictures that we do not want; not that it makes us buy pictures in block but we have to take pictures we do not want.

Now if we can buy pictures we want I would not mind picking out 20 or 30 pictures if I could get the kind I wanted, and in most cases it will save a lot of trouble and a lot of time over picking out one picture at a time, and will give me a backlog of material that I have to have on hand in order to take care of my business.

It is unquestionably true that we want to have a stock on hand, as you would want to have in any other business, in order to run a theater and to run it right. We do not object to buying pictures in block, but we do object to compulsory block-booking, making us take pictures we do not want; in other words, if we buy 20 that we want, we have to take 20 that we do not want.

Mr. BOREN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF NATHAN YAMINS, FALL RIVER, MASS.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yamins.

Mr. YAMINS. My name is Nathan Yamins. I live in Fall River, Mass., where I have been an independent exhibitor since 1917.

I have been a member of exhibitor-trade associations since 1920. I first joined the Massachusetts branch of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of America, and in the year 1922 attended a convention of that organization here in Washington where a resolution was adopted condemning the practice of compulsory block-booking. Similar resolutions were adopted at subsequent conventions until 1928, when the officers placed the control of the organization in the hands of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, known as the Hays organization, by giving the right to vote and the right to hold office to affiliated theater owners and subsequently held them in office.

By this process of infiltration the producer-distributors established a fifth column in the ranks of the independent exhibitors for the pur

235749-40-pt. 1-27

pose of sabotaging the cause of the independent exhibitors in all controversies between independent exhibitors and producer-distributors.

In substantiation of that I have here the stenographic record of the testimony given by the secretary of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America in a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the suit of Edward Quittner and Middletown Combined Building Company, Incorporated, plaintiff, v. Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, in which he testified that 90 percent of the costs of operating the national association was paid by the Hays organizations, by the affiliated theaters and producers.

And in further substantiation of that I have here the record of the case of the so-called Yangclaus v. Paramount, William N. Yangclaus against the Omaha Film Board of Trade, and the finding by the court in that case was that the defendant, the Motion Picture Theater Owners of America, was a subsidy of and subservient to the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America.

After the producer-distributor gained control of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of America the Massachusetts organization withdrew and joined the Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors, to which only independent exhibitors are admitted to membership.

I am past president of the Independent Theater Owners of New England, and past president of Allied State Association. I have been a member of virtually every committee from 1928 to 1940 that attempted to confer with distributor committees to improve the trade practices in the motion-picture industry, and served as a member of the code authority hearing of the National Recovery Act.

I might state here that I appear in behalf of the Independent Theater Owners of New England, having appeared at numerous other hearings before the Congress and the Senate, and I want to stress that I am not on salary and never have been and have never received one penny compensation from the exhibitors for traveling expenses. I have come here to protect my interests.

As stated before, I have been an exhibitor for the past 23 years. I am at present interested in the operations of five theaters in the city of Fall River. Two of these are large, first-run theaters, and three are subsequent-run theaters. I own the real estate of three of these theaters and lease the other two. These theaters represent a large investment, all my life's savings are in them, and I depend exclusively on these theaters for the support of my family and the education of my children. The theaters I own are encumbered with large mortgages which have my personal guaranty, so that my stake in this industry can fairly be said to be substantial and of vital importance to me and my family.

Now, with the full realization of this, I want to say that if I thought for a moment that the passage of this bill would ruin the motionpicture industry, or if I thought that the passage of this bill would be in any way injurious to the motion-picture industry, I would appear to testify against the enactment of the proposed bill rather than in favor of it.

Instead of being injurious to the motion-picture industry I am convinced that the elimination of compulsory block-booking and blind selling will be a boon both to the production and exhibition branches. of the motion-picture industry.

At the present time the exhibitor is compelled to fill his play dates by contracting for pictures blindly in blocks which he needs. If he needs from 150 to 200 pictures a year, depending upon the number of changes he runs, or whether he has a single feature or double feature, his requirements are filled by contracting for the entire product of four or five of the eight major companies. His election is only as to which of the companies he is to do business with. In that case he cannot exhibit the good pictures of the companies with whom he did not make a contract; he has to confine himself to the producer from whom he secured his products because the other majors will not sell him their products singly; he must buy them in block, and since his playing time is filled he cannot buy in block.

If, however, he requires about 300 pictures a year, he must of necessity acquire the blocks of all companies. The net result is that the independent producer is completely discouraged because the screen play dates have been preempted by the major companies, and a good independent production could not secure enough play dates to warrant its production.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. May I ask a question here, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yamins, Mr. Tenerowicz has a question.
Mr. YAMINS. Yes.

Mr.TENEROWICZ. How many pictures do the Big Eight produce in a year; have you any idea?

Mr. YAMINS. Yes. Approximately 334 is the number of releases. Mr. TENEROWICZ. Suppose that you and I have theaters in the same areas and we are contracting for pictures; and we have, as you stated, the maximum that you can run, one hundred and some odd pictures if you are running a double feature. Now, you say that there are 334 pictures produced by the Big Eight producers; so, is it not a fact in this neighborhood that you and I would split those pictures and would not run the same pictures?

Mr. YAMINS. Yes.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. We would do that just as a good business proposition?

Mr. YAMINS. Congressman, what happens is this: Yes, these pictures are split between the eight majors.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Yes.

Mr. YAMINS. You play some and I play the others, but I will have to play the bad with the good; those that I do not want.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. Is it not a fact that there are now not enough good pictures produced?

Mr. YAMINS. Oh, that is absolutely a fact. And I am going to show you that more good pictures could be made; I will come to that in a moment in my testimony; more good pictures should be made, but the playing time is all taken up now by the eight, the Big Eight producers, and there would be no opportunity to sell them unless they were distributed through the Big Eight.

Mr. TENEROWICZ. As I understand it, if you and I have theaters in the same community you would take the pictures of four companies and I would take the others?

Mr. YAMINS. Yes; if we assume there were 330, and you need 170, you will buy from four companies and I will buy from four companies, assuming that our playing time is about the same.

Now, if the screens of American were open to competition there is

enough ability, intelligence, and capital to bring about the production of worth-while motion pictures to compete at least with the B, C, and Z pictures that are at the present time turned out as if by machine because they have been previously sold to the exhibitors in the block and must be exhibited or paid for.

The elimination of compulsory block-booking must inevitably result in an increase in the production of independent pictures, giving employment to a greater number of actors, writers, extras, and all others necessary in the production of pictures, and thus new production and competition would result in an improvement in the quality of pictures, because it would become economically unsound to produce the "clucks" and "duds" that are now forced on the exhibitor, but which the chain-operated and affiliated theaters do not have to play. With the elimination of these "clucks" and "duds" the receipts of the theaters would increase. People would no longer stay away from the movies and a good part of the lost 25,000,000 weekly theater admissions would be recovered. An increase in admission price would therefore be unnecessary; the improvement in attendance resulting from the improvement in quality would enable the exhibitor to pay more for the feature he uses, and the industry as a whole would be better off.

Let me give you a practical illustration. I am going to name two pictures, and I do so only for the purpose of giving the illustration and not for the purpose of placing a stigma on either one of those pictures.

The exhibitor playing Farmer's Daughter for which he paid Paramount $15 would eliminate that cluck, if he thought it was a cluck, from his screen, and show instead Destry Rides Again, paying Universal $35 for it.

His box office would show an increase greater than the $20 increase in film rental. His profit would be greater, and the distributor and the producer would be $20 better off. This would be repeated many times a year by thousands of theaters, adding millions to the industry.

The opponents contend that under this bill they would sell only one picture at a time, after it was made, and this would result in greater distribution costs, which would have to be passed on to the exhibitor and by him to the public.

There is absolutely nothing in the bill that makes it necessary for the distributor to sell one film at a time. He can sell as many as he desires, provided he gives a synopsis and provided the exhibitor is willing to buy all or any part that he offers. But, the distributor says he would not risk selling by synopsis. I say he does not want to. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. As I understand, you state he still can sell one or more films provided he gives a synopsis and does not make the exhibitor buy more?

Mr. YAMINS. That is correct.

Mr. BOREN. Now, again it occurs to me that this synopsis provision would be rather a weak approach to determine the quality of a film, and I want to ask you one or two questions. You are an ex

hibitor, are you not?

Mr. YAMINS. Yes.

Mr. BOREN. Do you think that it is practical to write a synopsis which would assure you that you would not be passing on to the public a film that had a sex scene that should not be there?