(The communications referred to were filed with the committee.) The CHAIRMAN. The statement of Mrs. Lawrence B. Akers, president of Better Films Council, of Memphis, Tenn., will be made a part of the record. (The statement of Mrs. Akers follows:) STATEMENT OF LUCILE A. AKERS, BETTER FILMS COUNCIL, MEMPHIS, TENN. As president of the Better Films Council of Memphis for the past 9 years, district chairman of motion pictures for the Tennessee Federation of Women's Clubs from 1936 to 1939, and State chairman of motion pictures for the Tennessee Federation of Women's Clubs since 1939, I have had much experience in working for the promotion of the higher type pictures. There is but one way to get better films and, indeed, to continue the high standard now achieved by the producers. That is through the continued education of the public to appreciate and patronize the same. Block booking and blind buying have never in any respect worked a hardship on our groups. With the present 20 percent elimination privilege, all undesirable pictures can be taken care of. The making of motion pictures requires full freedom from the artistic point of view. As much leeway should be given the producers as possible, and I feel that if the industry is handicapped in any manner in the making of pictures, it may hurt the quality considerably. There can be no possible advantage derived from the passage of the Neely bill, as it is foolish to think for a minute that exhibitors would cancel a picture because of its immoral or salacious character, but they would rather play these pictures first, if they were top box-office attractions. As a matter of fact, quite a number of exhibitors have actually refused to play some of the finest pictures ever made because they were box-office failures. It seems ridiculous for the proponents of the bill to take the position they do, that the passage of the Neely bill will be the panacea for the ills of the industry. The responsibility for better films is definitely on the shoulders of the public. As long as the women of America continue to be interested in the betterment of pictures and are aware of their responsibility in supporting only the best and in educating the general public to do the same, the future of good pictures will be assured. Legislation can never solve the problem. During my 9 years of heading the Memphis Better Films Council, I have been amazed at the steady improvement in pictures. Some years ago our council wes able to recommend only about 30 percent of all pictures made as suitable for general audience patronage, but today that percentage has been raised to 90 or 95 percent. In closing, may I commend the industry for the present improvement in the standards of pictures and may I emphasize again the fact that only through education of the public to patronize only the best can the problem of moral standards in pictures be solved. The solution is selection, rather than censorship of pictures. LUCILE A. (Mrs. LAWRENCE S.) AKERS. The Better Films Council of Memphis has a membership of 156 women's organizations. The following are the general classifications: Patriotic organizations, church groups, book clubs, service clubs, national college sororities, national college fraternities, music clubs, art leagues, garden clubs, civic clubs, libraries, Girl Scouts, private schools, philanthropic groups, educational groups, boys camps, art academies, literary clubs, Medical Society auxiliaries, departmental clubs. Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, WASHINGTON, D. C., JUNE 3, 1940. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. LEA: Because of my interest in motion pictures I have been present at several sessions of your committee during the hearings on the so-called Neely bill. For more than 25 years I have been reviewing plays and motion pictures for Boston and Washington newspapers. For 12 years I was motion picture editor of the Washington Times-Herald. I have no official connection with the motionpicture industry. During the course of the hearings several thoughts have occurred to me concerning section 4, the synopsis provision, and, for whatever value they may be, I would like to pass along these views to you. It seems to me there are 10 principal reasons why section 4 is wholly impractical and unworkable and would do damage to the quality of motion-picture entertainment. 1. Had the synopsis clause been in operation when the picture was sold, the producers of My Son, My Son would have been clearly liable under the penalty section if they had tried to submit in advance an accurate or true synopsis of the Howard Spring novel from which the screen story was derived. One of the principal characters in the book, Oliver Essex, was a murderer hanged for his crime, whereas the Hollywood version had him redeeming a lifetime of deviltry by forfeiting his life on the battlefield. The producers of Daphne Du Maurier's novel, Rebecca, would have been culpable under the Neely bill had they sold and described the picture as a true and accurate transcription of the book. In the book the principal character, Max de Winter, committed murder, whereas on the screen the tragedy was transformed into a suicide. An exhibitor might also attack and legally contend that Gone With the Wind, as it was sold, was not a true and accurate condensation of the Margaret Mitchell novel. It omitted many important scenes and incidents of the novel, and no living author could condense this marathon book into a true and accurate synopsis as defined in section 4 of the Neely bill. 2. The synopsis provision would absolutely preclude any material changes in pictures as a result of flaws and deficiencies disclosed at sneak previews. For example, The Sin of Madelon Claudet (the M-G-M picture which won Helen Hayes her Academy award) was completely rewritten and revised by retakes after the first screenings. Had it been sold to exhibitors based on a synopsis of the original shooting script it could not have been released unless the producer took the trouble and expense of reselling it. Necessary revisions and changes, which frequently alter completely the story, are made in 75 percent of current production after the actual shooting starts. 3. The Neely bill would throw open the doors to widespread suits for plagiarism, inasmuch as with a synopsis filed months before production, unscrupulous authors could pirate the story and contend the story was stolen. 4. The synopsis provision would compel producers to disclose valuable production secrets to rivals in the industry. For instance, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had certain story novelties and an ingenious technique which, for protection of the huge investment, compelled secrecy until the picture was actually screened. King Kong was another picture which could not have been made had its unique qualities been disclosed for copying through a synopsis. The currently running Dr. Cyclops had its production secrets closely guarded until it was actually shown on the screen. 5. Producers would be restricted from keeping their product abreast of current events were they compelled to submit and adhere to a synopsis. Half a dozen productions now shooting in Hollywood will be changed by the swiftly moving scenes in Europe. Their synopses could not possibly be written until the pictures were completed. 6. Changes in title, a customary practice in the making and release of pictures, would fall afoul of the synopsis provision. For instance, Richard Sale's novel, Not Too Narrow, Not Too Deep, became, after production started, Strange Cargo, and changes were made in the cast, notably the substitution of Ian Hunter for Melvyn Douglas. MacKinlay Kantor's novel, Arouse and Beware, became Man From Dakota on the screen. The author has publicly criticized it for historical inaccuracies, a sufficient basis for legal attack under the penalty clause of the Neely bill. For 7. Treatments developed on the set would be absolutely forbidden. instance, Stage Door vas actually shot from day-to-day writing on the sound stage. Had a synopsis beeen submitted saying it was a version of the George Kaufman play, the picture under the Neely bill could not have been released without invoking a penalty. The synopsis could not have been furnished until the picture was completed. 8. Picking a successful or box-office picture from a synopsis is an utter impossibility. For instance, Wuthering Heights, a most successful picture, came into possession of producer Sam Goldwyn after one of the most eminent producers in the country, Walter Wanger, failed to detect its box-office potentialities and sold the rights. Farewell to Arms was a flop play on Broadway and so was Jezebel, yet both made highly successful feature pictures. On the other hand, Boy Meets Girl, an outstanding Broadway hit, was a screen failure. These instances could be multiplied hundreds of times. Pictures universally approved both in synopsis and on the screen by critics and public spirited groups have failed many, many times. The test of both a play and picture is public reaction, and neither Broadway nor Hollywood producer nor motion picture exhibitor can determine this from a synopsis. 9. Pictures frequently are made with two endings for box-office purposes. For example, Hearts Divided, a story of the Napoleonic era, had both a sad and a happy climax. This policy was decided upon after preview and could not have been foreseen when an original synopsis was submitted. 10. It is impossible to comply with the terms of the synopsis provision regarding "dialogue treatment." Importance of dialogue and its significance often depend upon the interpretation of the actor, upon voice inflection, emphasis, pause, gesture, expression, or innuendo. For example, it is generally conceded that the furore over Adam and Eve as delivered by Mae West on the radio was due to the irreverential expression rather than to the actual words of the dialogue. The most harmless words may become offensive with certain implications and actions by the actor or actress. Producer Frank Freeman of Paramount testified that some patrons of the screen who saw The Biscuit Eater were offended by one line, "Is Mary going to have puppies?" referring to a dog in the story. Yet, he asserted, this picture was the cleanest and sweetest ever turned out by his studio. The "dialogue treatment" clause in the Neely bill is clearly impractical and unrealistic. Yours very sincerely, ANDREW R. KELLEY. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow. (There upon, at 12:25 p. m., an adjournment was taken until 10 a. m., of the following day, Tuesday, June 4, 1940.) MOTION-PICTURE FILMS TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The Committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. I understand that Mrs. Bannerman is the first witness. We will be glad to hear from you now, Mrs. Bannerman. REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY T. BANNERMAN, WASHINGTON, D. C., LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, MOTION PICTURE RESEARCH COUNCIL, AND NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS Mrs. BANNERMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, regard for the heavy responsibilities of this committee, the conservation of time, and the importance of expediting action on this bill have prompted its proponents to present their arguments with as little repetition and the introduction of as few witnesses as was compatible with a full presentation of the problem requiring solution and their views regarding how this solution may be accomplished. Had they attempted to present representatives of the State branches of the many supporting national organizations, arguments already presented would have been endlessly repeated and months of needless time wasted. We appreciate the thorough and courteous consideration accorded by you, Mr. Chairman, and by the members of your committee to the testimony of the proponents of the Neely bill. 77 66 In an effort to destroy support of the bill, opponents connected with the motion-picture industry have called us "pressure groups," "Communists,' sore spots on democracy," and so forth. It matters little what we are called so long as we remain loyal to our homes, to our children, and to local self-government. A number of opposition witnesses have reported here their cooperation with and support by parent-teacher associations. It is quite possible that among the approximately 30,000 local associations a few may have given credulity to the motion-picture monopoly's campaign against the Neely bill. Mr. Brandt, it is understood, told of such cooperation in New York City. There are many groups of organized parents in Greater New York City, but so far as I know, none of them is affiliated either with the New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers or with the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. 235749-40-pt. 2- -35 991 Mr. Roy L. Walker of Lampasas, Tex., also testified regarding parent-teacher cooperation and support. I have the following telegram, dated May 27, 1940, from Mrs. Hal P. Bybee, legislative chairman of the Texas Congress of Parents and Teachers, also a letter from Mr. Walker to Mrs. Bybee and her reply, which I should like to include in the record. I will read the telegram: Mrs. MARY T. BANNERMAN, 1822 Columbia Road NW.: AUSTIN, TEX., May 27, 1940. Roy Walker in error stating Texas parent-teacher associations against Neely bill. Repeatedly Texas Congress of Parents and Teachers, consisting of 132,134 members, has endorsed Neely bill. Mr. Walker, some small-town theater owners, and representatives of interstate theaters have made strenuous efforts to change stand of parent-teacher associations in many localities by stating passage of bill would put hundreds of theater owners out of business; that industry had already cleaned up motion pictures, so why hinder their operation. Many have been disturbed by this propaganda, but no association has notified me of any stand against bill after arguments on both sides have been studied. Mrs. HAL P. BYBEE, Texas Legislation Chairman. I will include the letters. (The letters referred to are as follows:) Mrs. HAL P. BYBEE, Austin, Tex. WALKER & HAMMETT, Lampasas, Tex., January 8, 1940. DEAR MRS. BYBEE: I have just read with a great deal of interest circular letter sent out by you urging the passage of what is known as the Neely bill, to abolish block booking. This letter being mailed to all of the parent-teacher association presidents, but failing to give any reason for such action on their part. And I am at a loss to understand just why you feel the necessity for action of this kind, which will put out of business all of the small-town theater owners in Texas. I have been interested in small-town-theater operation for the past 22 years, and have been State president of the Theatre Owners for several years. It is my opinion, from my knowledge of the actual operation of the small theaters, the Neely bill will put out of business, and I feel sure that you would not want to see this done. The bill in no part of it will do what the national president and other good ladies have been led to believe it will do, and will only create a situation that will make it impossible for the small-town theater to operate. I would suggest that you talk with your local theater owners and get their advice as to what this bill will mean to the exhibitor, as I feel sure you would not intentionally want to sponsor legislation that would ruin three or four hundred small-theater owners in Texas. Thanking you for whatever consideration you may give this letter, I am, Sincerely yours, ROY L. WALKER, President, Theater Owners Protective Association. |