JANUARY

7i(j^oft^'7?l(>tion7^icti4^
NATIONAL FILM WEEKLY
blished in Nine Sectional Editions
JEN
SHLYEN
for-in-Chief and Publisher
;S M. lERAULD Editor
4AN COHEN....Executive Editor
E SHLYEN Managing Editoi
I SPEAR Western Editor
HUDNALL Equipment Editor
•i G. TINSLEY..Advertising Mgr.
ublished Every Saturday by
SSOCIATED PUBLICATIONS
rial Offices: 9 Rocl[efeller Plaza, Ne»
20, N. Y. John 0. Tlnsley, Ad«ertl»-
Manager; James M. Jerauld, Editor:
fr Friedman, Editor Stwwmandlser
A. J. Stocker and Balph Scholbe,
.
iment Advertising. Telephone COis
5-6370.
cation Offices: 825 Van Brunt Blvd.,
IS City 1, Mo. Nattian Cohen, Execu-
Editor: Jesse Shlyen, Managing Edl-
Morri.< Schlozman, Business Manager,
th Iliidnall, Editor The MODERN
VTItB: Herbert Roush. Manager Ad-
Ing Sales. Telephone CHestnut 7777.
al Offices: Editorial—624 8. Mlchl-
Ue.. Chicago 5, III. Jonas Perlberg.
hone WEbster 9-4745. Advertising
ist Wacker Drive. Chicago 1, 111.
; Hutchison and E. E. Yeck. Tele-
ANdover 3-3042.
rn Offices; Editorial and Film Adver-
— 6404 Hollywood Blvd.. Hollywood
Calif. Ivan Spear, manager. Tele-
GLadstone 1186. Bqulpment and
film Advertising—672 S. UFayette
Place, Los Angeles, Calif. Bob Wettmanager.
Telephone Dtlnklrk 8-2286.
ington Offices: 6417 Dahlonega Road,
I Older, manager. Phone Wlsmnsln
. Sara Young, 9.12 New Jersey, N.W.
in Offices: 47, Gloucester Terrace,
uster Gate, W. 2. Telephone Padon
7509. John Sullivan, Manager.
shers of: The MODERN THEATRE,
shed monthly as a section of BOX-
CE: BOXOFFICB BAROMBTER.
ly: 21-23 Walter Ave., M. Berrlgan
Ingham: The News, Eddie Badger.
m: Frances W. Harding, Lib. 2-9306
otte: 216 W. 4th, Pauline Griffith,
nnati: 4029 Reading. LHIIan Lazarus,
land: Elsie Loeb, Falrmount 1-0046
Ji: The Times-Herald, Virgil Mlers.
t: 1645 Lafayette, Jack Rose.
Moines: Register-Tribune, Russ Sehocb
)it: Fox Theatre Bldg., H. F. Reres.
napolls: Route 8, Box 771), Howard
Rudeaux, GA 3339.
ohls: 707 Spring St., Null Adams.
aukee: 3057 No. Murray. John Hubal.
eapoUs: 2123 Fremont, So., Les Roes.
Haven: 42 Church, Gertrude Lander.
Orleans: Frances Jordan, N.O. Statea.
City: Terminal Bldg., Polly Trlndle.
la: World-Herald Bldg., Lou Oerdes.
delphia: 5363 Berks. Norman Shlgon.
burgh: R. F. Kllngensmlth. 516 Jean-
Ite. Wllkinsburg, ChurcMII 1-2S09.
and. Ore.: Keith Petzold, Broadway
eatre. Advertising: Mel Hkjkman. 807
nnlnal Sales Bldg.. ATwater 410T.
jin\t: 5149 Rosa. David Barrett.
Lake City: Deseret Newi. H. Pearwn.
Antonio: 210 Slocum Place, 0. 9718,
J. B. Ketner.
franclsco: Oall Lipman, 2S Taylor St.,
ifciy 3-4812. Advertising: Jerry Noil,
Howard Bldg., 209 Pod St.,
inton 6-2522.
ito: 1303 Campus Pkwy, Dare Ballard
In Canada
iry: TV Albertan, Helen Anderson.
real: 4330 Wilson. Roy Oirmlchael.
ohn: 116 Prince Edward. W. MirNulty.
tl ito;
R. R. 1. York Mills. M. Oalbralth.
Vjiiiver: Lyric Theatre Bldg.. Jack Drey.
f Ipeg: 282 Ruperts. Ben Sommers.
!mber Audit Burtau of Circulations
B ed as Second Class matter at Pott
1' ', Kansas City. Mo. Sectional Edition.
«• > per year: National Bdltlon. $7.B».
JNUARY 13, 1951
V 58 No. n
THf ROAD TO RUIN
7 •^^HOSE who have felt that, when the final
decision was reached in what has been known
as the Big Case, the United States vs. Paramount
et al., there would come an end to antitrust suits,
are in for a rude awakening. On the contrary
the Paramount case seems to have caused the
gates to be opened to what may become a flood
of litigation.
First there is the verdict of SI, 125,000 awarded
to the plaintiffs in the Brookside case of
Kansas City. This was the first instance in which
the statute of limitations had been waived pending
conclusion of the big government case. In
the second instance, there is the ruling of Judge
Willis Ritter of the United States district court
at Salt Lake City, whose upholding of the waiving
of the statute of limitations makes possible
the filing of damage claims dating back to 1937
or prior. The Brookside case did go back to
1937, when that theatre was opened.
These two decisions presage a reopening of
many cases long since thought to be dead. And
this may result in an avalanche of antitrust actions
that would increase the already pending
total of litigation involving an estimated $200,-
000,000 by several times.
The lawsuits pending and recently filed are
not alone actions of exhibitors against distributors.
Several are the other way around, two of
these cases alone involving in excess of $20,-
000,000.
About a year ago we made note of the fact
that the total of litigation then pending amounted
to approximately one-half of the $200,000,000
which Charles Sawyer, secretary of commerce,
reported to be the total investment in production
and distribution. That seems now to have
been exceeded and penetration of the stratosphere
is increasing with each new day.
As we have said before, it is unnecessary to
ask what would happen if judgments for even a
fractional amount of such totals were to be granted.
Obviously the answer is: Bankruptcy. And
that would not apply to the producer-distributor
defendants alone. For, with virtually all sources
of product supply affected, many innocent bystanders
in the industry would suffer, meaning
exhibitors. The legal fees alone have reached
staggering proportions, in themselves difficult to
bear. And it is not unlikely but that the higher
film rentals of which exhibitors complain have
basis in the costlv litigation in which this industry
has for so long been entangled.
At a time when all of the industry's manpower,
all of its mind-power and effort should be devoted
to coping with the daily problems of making,
selling and exhibiting pictures at a profit,
it is shameful to force a restraint on these efforts
bv continuing the parade to and from the courts.
It may not vet be too late to do something
about these cases of the past, that is. to take them
out of the courts and effect reasonable settlements.
That is within the realm of possibility,
even though the stubbornness that has caused
these matters to grow and fester has long since
passed the danger point. There is an old axiom
that "a poor settlement is better than the best
court judgment." And we will venture that a
goodly majority of these cases can be settled on
reasonable terms.
However, whether or not anything can be done
in the matter of pending litigation, it is obvious
that something must be done to stem the tidal
wave of new lawsuits that seem to be in the
offing. This places heavy accent on the need for
expediting the implementation of an industry arbitration
plan that will keep litigation at a very
low level, if not eliminate it entirely. No matter
what the cost to accomplish this, it would be
infinitesimal as compared to the cost of litigation
in which the industry is presently involved, overlooking
the dark prospect which faces it.
It is high time that reason and reasonableness
displaced rancor, restoring this industry to the
peaceful pursuit of producing and exhibiting motion
pictures. That is where the profits lie
not in courts of law
Senseless Censors
With censorship again in the headlines, we
are reminded of an editorial on this subject
which we filed away several months ago. It
seemed to us to have summed up in very few
words a view of censorship which many have
overlooked. Under the caption "Censors Are
Senseless" the Salina (Kas.) Journal made the
following comment
"The Dodge City Globe suggests the censoring
of motion nictures is one activity from which
the state of Kan';a