TOTAL

FACING TWELVE FEATURE LIMIT
ON U.S. FILMING IN ENGLAND
London Bars Studio Space
Deals Until Americans
Agree on Program
NEW YORK—There will be no large
scale transfer of production from Hollywood
to London. The British government
will not permit it. About la films per year
will be made in Great Britain and will
count for quota purposes.
Pending an agreement among producers
in this country on their production plans
in Great Britain the British government
will not allow them to preempt British
studios by advance agreement with the
owners.
SEE INDEPENDENT FINANCING
Many British studios are now practically
idle because of high production costs and
difficulty In securing financing. If this condition
continues, the British government will
find ways of financing independent producers.
Harold Wilson, president of the British
Board of Trade, a cabinet post, made these
statements to the house of commons early
this month.
Since then Fayette W. AUport, British representative
for the Motion Picture Ass'n of
America, has returned to London after two
weeks of conferences here, but silence has
been maintained as to the progress of his
talks.
So far some excitement has been created
in Great Britain by the apparent lack of
agreement among MPAA members and
SIMPP members. Several companies acted
spectacularly immediately after Eric Johnston's
return from London and shipped films
by air. Numerous statements have been
made about production plans. Wilson calls
this "jumping the pistol."
In this country some distributors contend
they can make outright purchases of
British
films in Great Britain and distribute them
here and in South America without contributing
toward the pool of receipts.
KORDA-SELZNICK TALENT DEAL
Sir Alexander Korda and David O. Selznick
have varied this approach by agreement
to share talent and other requirements
for production in Great Britain. Korda will
own distribution rights to the eastern hemisphere
and Selznick will take the western
hemisphere, presumably without regard to
any pooling agreement.
No official text of the British-American
agreement ending the 75 per cent tax has
been published. Wilson informed Parliament
three weeks ago that he had cabled Eric
Johnston that he thought it was time
to publish it in order to end misunderstandings
which have developed in England. Johnston
replied, according to Wilson, that he.
agreed. Nothing happened, however, and
deep silence descends on all MPAA representatives
when they are asked about this.
Copies of the agreement have been freely
circulated among member companies.
In the agreement there is no statement as
to how much of the blocked currency Amerl-
Deadline Is Passed to File Requests
For Rehearing of Paramount Case
WASHINGTON—With the expiration of
the 15-day supreme court deadline May 18
for filing rehearing requests in the Paramount
case decision, the judgment of the
high court automatically will become final
May 28. Any further litigation must be appeals
to the high court from future decrees
of the lower court on those questions remanded
to it, in the supreme court decision.
The ten-day lapse between the 18th and
28th is a supreme court regulation to allow
can companies can spend on production,
but Wilson told parliament that it would
not go beyond the limits of "fair competition."
He called the present studio idleness
a "tragedy" and said he intended to see
that British independent producers were financed.
No names have been mentioned to date
as to the members of a control board provided
in the agreement. Wilson says he
will include a representative of the British
industry among the two Britishers to be
appointed. Over here the impression prevails
that AUport will be one of the American
representatives and that the other will be
some American distribution representative
now resident in England.
After American companies have been allowed
to remit $17,000,000 to this country
and to invest $12,000,000 or more—probably
more—in production it is estimated there will
be somewhat over $10,000,000 left in England.
for the rehearing time, but inasmuch as
none of the defendants or appellants in
the case petitioned the court for any
further explanation of the judgment, the
ten-day period will pass uneventfully.
Meanwhile this week the Department of
Justice requested clarification of the Schlne
case decision, but as yet the supreme court
has not come through with an explanation
clearing up the doubtful points. The DofJ
wants to know whether or not a trustee
should be appointed to dispose of the 16
Schine theatres still unsold under the consent
decree of May 19, 1942.
The government brief said the questions
involved in the consent decree in which
Schine was to sell 16 theatres, did not depend
on the further divestiture proceedings
ordered by the supreme court, and that
enforcement of the decree "should not await
the entry of a final judgment as the further
proceedings which must precede a final judgment
are of uncertain duration. The appellants
agreed six years ago to do what the
district court was finally constrained to appoint
a trustee to do. That agreement was
made in consideration of a two-year continuance,
and its enforcement should no
longer be delayed."
The government contended that the supreme
court opinion set aside the divestiture
provisions of the decree pending findings by
the district court decision to appoint a trustee
to sell the five theatres as "merely implementing"
the divestiture provisions up for
reconsideration.
If the court believes, the brief asserted,
the trial court correctly decided that a trustee
for sale should be appointed to enforce
the consent order, the government should
have the right to move for an order appointing
a trustee.
If the high court believes the lower court
decision incorrect, the brief continued, "it is
important that this court specify the error
involved, as a guide" for the district court.
The Griffith decision handed down on May
3 by the supreme court along with the
Schine and Paramoimt judgments, provoked
no questions by any of the litigants involved.
It is expected that judgment will become final
for this decision also on May 28.
Fifth & Walnut Suit Trial
Resumes in Federal Court
NEW YORK—Trial of the $2,100,000 triple
damage antitrust suit brought by Fifth &
Walnut Corp., Louisville, against the majors.
United Artists Theatre circuit and Republic
resumed in New York federal court Monday
(171. Jurors were chosen the first day.
Harold Janicky, co-owner of Fifth & Walnut,
was the first witness for the plaintiff
Tuesday.
This can be invested in non-industry projects.
The agreement allows £2,500,000
($10,625,000) for this purpose.
There is no disagreement as to how the
American companies will share in the remitted
$17,000,000. It will be on a percentage
of receipts basis. The argument centers on
how the receipts from British films in this
country will be split. The theory of the
agreement was that British films would be
distributed, not owned, by American companies
and that the net would go into a pool
after deduction of distribution expenses.
Some U.S. distributors were quick to insist
that if they used their blocked funds in
England to buy pictures outright for nonsterling
areas in the world market they
could not be expected to put the U.S. receipts
into a pool.
The British are in favor of this. It gives
them a prospective income they had not
counted on.
8 BOXOFFICE :: May 22, 1948