the exhibitors full rights to cancel such films. In most instances such films shown under "adult only" permits were made by small independent producers and even then, the exploitation of film was more objectionable than theme. The code seal in Hollywood has assured the public of decent film entertainment. The offenders today are producers who are not submitting scenarios and finished product to the Breen Board. We quote from Legion of Decency: "Of 3,740 films reviewed, 97 have been approved.' No more rigid test of decency in entertainment is needed. This organization believes that box office control is more effective than any legislation in securing better films. The latest report, current year, shows that of 317 films reviewed-27 are condemned. Not one of these pictures is made by a major studio.

So we may then be assured that the proponents of the Neely bill do not desire the passage of S. 280 in order to effect a higher moral tone. We can find no provision in the bill for securing better production technique or story selection or musical scoring. There seems to be no desire to find a means to exclude controversial political material from the screen, or to limit the showing of medical or social hygiene films of doubtful educational value, or war propoganda, or to curtail the evergrowing news stories of Hollywood's glamor, or even attempt to regulate the salaries of stars and executives, or in preventing what has been termed "wilful waste" or in terminating the objectionable double and triple feature programs or give-aways. If it did these things the bill might be termed remedial.

It creates no yardstick of uniform good taste whereby the producer, the exhibitor, and patron may fairly judge a proposed synopsis or later a completed film. It does not provide a sound plan whereby the independent producer will be compelled to submit stories for preproduction censorship or assure him of wider distribution of his product. It does not offer any regulatory method of advertising nor does it settle the problems of zoning and clearance of theater admissions. It takes no consideration of the fact that films are not turned out in dozen lots of identical pattern, or that films are like seasonable merchandise which must move rapidly because within 6 months they are of no value. No. S. 280 does not indicate that it hopes to improve quality of entertainment. It only hopes to bring about a better producing and buying advantage for a minority group although that group is numerically seven times larger.

It promises freedom of "community selection of films" by developing a different method of leasing films. This method of buying or leasing pictures is called-block booking. When one reads this proposed bill, one gets the idea that films have never been offered to exhibitors except in blocks of 50, 40, 26, and so forth, that pressure was brought to bear upon exhibitors compelling them to choose only films from the major producers in order to get any. That unreasonable pressure was brought to bear upon exhibitors the "you buy what I offer or else."

The oft-repeated words, "I have to buy whole block" would meanif we believed this, that a man showing any pictures at all, would be forced to buy several hundreds more than he could play. For instance, a theater owner in my neighborhood has booked for the current month films from Paramount, Universal, States Rights, Monogram, Metro, Twentieth Century-Fox, RKO, Republic, United

Artists, Columbia, First National, and Warner Bros. If he bought the entire block of all pictures listed in the announced schedule he would have to buy at least 572 although even a 3-a-week change would only use up 156. This exhibitor is too much a businessman to enter into all these contracts if he wasn't "getting a break" and saving money. He probably is offered "selective" contracts. We believe it is fair for a salesman to sell all of his product possible to one dealer or none at all under his own terms.

For instance, it is a common practice, and no one seems to feel it is either unfair or illegal, for a manufacturer to offer his line of goods to one store in a town. That store carries, in the advertising, "exclusive with - "Other stores would like to carry the product but the manufacturer has offered the merchandise to the store which he feels can handle the goods most satisfactorily and advantageously to the manufacturer-not the store. The other stores "shop around" and find a similar product and enter into competition. It may be just as good but it lacks the name of the more "exclusive" merchandise. Probably the second store can offer the product at a more rdasonable price because the original purchasing agreement was less. The manufacturer of the first line of goods may stipulate certain methods of exploitation and display, and the retail price is set so that the merchant who undercuts that price, immediately loses the privilege of buying from that manufacturer.

This policy, it seems to me, is identical to that of film salesmen. The affiliated theaters have larger buying power and consequently the producer sees a chance to get more for his product. The bigger the picture, with its anticipated box-office returns, the more eagerly that picture is demanded. We believe the producer has a right to establish his own price and manner of distribution on a "take it or leave it" basis.

Certainly a picture taking 3 years to make and costing $3,000,000 deserves a different sales program than one produced in 4 months for $85,000. Who is to decide but the producer what is a fair price and who shall most advantageously handle his product.

In Chicago the day I left, I had a conference with a representative from the United States Government film service, regarding the showing of a documentary film-The Fight For Life. This representative was doing this very thing of which I am speaking-negotiating with all of the distributors for the best deal for this film. I think I violate no confidence because the trade paper carried a story that Columbia offered the best distributing plan; namely, they-Columbia—pay Uncle Sam 25 percent of gross receipts. The film must be leased as a single feature on either a flat rental or a percentage basis because, I quote "of inherent difficulties in estimating the value of the picture in advance, the actual prices are left to the discretion of the distributor." Here the Government evidently in offering through this bargain method; that is, dictating terms-take it or leave it policy, a film which should be seen by al' groups, but which will probably be booked by only a few exhibitors because it is not box office.

The fact is, and the proponents of the bill, Allied White Book, agree that few theaters buy entire blocks.

The figures show that less than 10 percent of the contracts are for full blocks, as example:

For 1940: 10 large companies promise a minimum of 512 features and a total of 1,198 short subjects.

The Independent Producers, consisting of 104 producing or distributing companies or individuals, have announced some 800 features for 1939-40. These pictures include, in the main, "blood and thunder, down to earth" action films. There are all Negro films for the 385 Negro theaters, pictures in Yiddish, Hungarian, French, and English. There will be some sex or hygiene films.

There are available to the 17,000 theaters in the United States approximately 13,000 films. Note carefully that there are 14,500 of these theaters owned and operated as unaffiliated and independent theaters. There is no compulsion brought to bear upon these exhibitors in determining whether they shall buy the product of the major studio or that of the independent producers. They must, in order to keep a continuous supply of films coming into their theaters, buy more films than all affiliated theaters. They could, for a season or two, buy only independent product; they could refuse to sign a buying contract with a major studio if they were unfairly compelled to buy in entire blocks. The fact remains that even these independent exhibitors, while loyal to the independent producers, know that the majority of films made by independents lack high technical and pictorial quality as well as star value.

Exhibitors want the best box-office draws and they buy the product from the company offering "names." The exhibitor doesn't really care a great deal about theme and treatment as long as he can contract for the stars that are listed in the 10 best money makers of the year. Who are these stars whom exhibitors themselves vote as "best" at the box office? This year they are: Mickey Rooney, Tyrone Power, Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable, Shirley Temple, Bette Davis, Alice Faye, Errol Flynn, James Cagney, Sonja Henie.

Two companies have the majority of these stars under contract. But does the public consider the films made by these stars as outstanding? Study the list of films voted as best by the film critics of the national newspapers. They are chosen because of artistry by men and women trained to evaluate the quality of entertainment:

Goodbye Mr. Chips, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Pygmalion, Wuthering Heights, Dark Victory, The Women, Wizard of Oz, Juarez, Stanley and Livingston, The Old Maid.

Note the films selected by the National Board of Review:

Goodbye Mr. Chips, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Pygmalion, The Old Maid, Wuthering Heights, Dark Victory, Juarez, Wizard of Oz, Love Affair.

One may see that the public evaluates a film in an entirely different manner than the theater manager, for not one of Mickey Rooney's films are included in these lists and none of Errol Flynn's, Clark Gable's, Shirely Temple's, Alice Faye's, James Cagney's, or Sonja Henie's. Only Bette Davis and Spencer Tracy appear in both groups as money makers at box offices and deserving inclusion among the films of the year.

The theater manager or his booker will buy his 1940-41 product, just so far as possible, to include these money makers of 1939. It is interesting to note here that often in a year the box office value of a star changes so rapidly that exhibitors will endeavor to unload their contracts carrying that star-not because of moral grounds, or lack of entertainment, but because the film has proved a flop in other areas. I refer in specific to Shirely Temple and her Blue Bird. To

Raymond Massey and Abe Lincoln in Illinois, to Confessions of a Nazi Spy, to Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet.

Noe these are the films theater men cancel and they do so because the public selected or rather rejected the films in another locality. Theater men do not need the provisions of the Neely bill in order to select and reject. They have always done so.

We have no case on record, where a theater manager could not "shelve" or cancel an objectionable film if sufficient and concerted objection was manifested in advance of showing. One must carefully note the difference between a stupid, uninteresting, mediocre film and one protraying a story of depravity, crime, sex, or passion— or a film objectionable because of religious issues, political, or racial discrimination.

Quite frequently when such situations have been reported and managers inquire for our ratings on these films, I have asked them if they viewed the film previous to booking or checked the reviews in trade journals or film guides prepared by industry and nonindustry groups. I discover to my surprise how few managers avail themselves of the published material which they could secure if they were sincerely anxious to please the community by selecting only the best picturesperhaps not best in box office but in quality of entertainment or for educational value.

Today no film need be shown with insufficient knowledge about it. By the time the film finds its way to the theater, the manager could know all about its entertainment and ethical value. He might have contracted for the film without adequate detailed information but there's no excuse for attempting to sell it to the public that way-just because he "paid for it."

Although my grocer bought a whole box of oranges supposing them to be perfect and paid a stated price for them, he will not slip in two rotten ones with my dozen, just in order to get rid of them and make me share in paying for his poor investment. He knows I'll bring the two back and demand replacements-and what's more, I'll get them, so will the theater manager if he deals with the right people-the right in this case, is where he can make the best deals in money-saving prices over a long period of time. He trades with a firm whose trade name stands for something. He believes he'll get what he pays for. This policy of distribution of pictures known as compulsory blockbooking and blind selling has been condemned as a practice "contrary to public policy in that such practices interfere with the free and informed selection of films on the part of exhibitors, and prevent the people of the several States and local communities thereof from influencing such selection in the best interests of the public, and to create a monopoly in the production, distribution, and exhibition of films." Again and again it has been pointed out that at no time after the film is released is the exhibitor and public in doubt as to the quality of the entertainment. Every exhibitor has said he could cancel objectionable pictures. If community groups have not yet learned the part they play in film selection, it is no fault of the press, the church, or the clubwomen.

It was with amazement I heard, since coming to Washington, that the Neely bill does not seek to end all selling of films in blocks; or that the bill does not seem to mean what it says regarding the establishment of price differentials. It seems now that blind selling is the

important issue and this may be correct provided the retailer or exhibitor is given a synopsis of the film before signing of a lease.

Go back just a moment to a figure I quoted earlier. There are 17,000 theaters in the country. Every man leasing this film could claim substantial changes or endeavor to prove that the producer "knowingly" made such changes. He would then become involved in 17,000 Federal lawsuits; all of these cases would have to be tried in various States under different courts or there would be one trial case to settle all.

Then too, it may lead to national and State censorship because since various censor boards now operate under different ordinances, the synopsis would have to be prepared to fit each State or censor body. Before the film could be offered to the public it would have to be seen by censors who might make cuts and deletions and so the synopsis would be of no value and require a new one. These ordinances vary. In order to conform to the requirements of the bill, each producer would need to prepare 17,000 copies of each synopsis in order to "service" his potential market. This alone would be a "colossal" undertaking. Picture the poor exhibitor reading the hundreds of synopses from all the companies while the film salesmen wait for him to make up his mind which films his community ought to see! Or will the exhibitor pass the synopsis on to the community groups to read and compile their choice?

Can a fair evaluation of a film be made from reading a synopsis? I read Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, Gone With the Wind, and Anthony Adverse. I saw Of Mice and Men on the stage and Í was impressed anew by the fact that the stage certainly needed "cleaning up." I know my Victorian sensibilities were shocked by the profanity, the frank discussion of sex, and illicit love affairs in the above-mentioned books. I am sure that in reading a film synopsis of these books I should have been prejudiced and in all probability refused to book such films-yet the film treatments of these muchdiscussed books are winning the plaudits of even the most critical and skeptical and puritanical.

Yet I see another grave danger. Even though the exhibitor contracts for the film, he doesn't pay for it until he plays it. Suppose, as is usually the case in Chicago, the film has its premiere in other sections of the country and the film critics give unfavorable reviews and boxoffice reports indicate a flop-what's to hinder the exhibitor from finding "changes" in the film and thus releasing himself from his contract? It may be an excellent film, clean entertainment, and fine artistry, and yet not the kind of picture that draws. Is the producer to be penalized for making such a film by having the picture or himself tied up in litigations or by never getting the production cost out of his film after having produced it in good faith following the approval of his submitted synopsis? It's an easy way out for an unscrupulous exhibitor and a dangerous bit of discriminatory legislation against the producer.

There is no assured return on a film investment, but each producer endeavors to work out some sort of deal favorable to himself and profitable to the exhibitor. The better the product, the more the income, and the contracts are written with the probable income in mind. The producer doesn't always guess right-neither does the exhibitor. If the bill sets up a provision that the finished product is to be approved before leasing, then certainly few producers will stay in