Boxoffice-October.03.1966

NATO CONVENTION
Cont'd
NATO TRIBUTE TO THE TRADEPRESS
New York—A special tribute to the motion picture tradepress was
given at the Thursday morning session of the National Ass'n of Theatre
Owners convention here. The tribute read:
"The National Ass'n of Theatre Owners salutes the motion picture
industry tradepress whose news columns, reviews and advertising pages
ore an essential communications link between exhibitors and producerdistributors
by furnishing vital information on pictures, advertising and
theatre
operations.
"NATO regrets the curtailment of tradepress advertising by the major
distributors, which results in a decreased flow of merchandising information
essential to theatres.
"NATO beheves a strong and constructive tradepress is needed now
Exhibition Investments or Mergers
With Producers Advised by Aarons
NEW YORK—The investment ol
more than ever for the mutual benefit of producers, distributors and exhibitors."
exhibilion
dollars in stock, or outright merger ol
exhibition interests in existing film production
companies as a means of protecting
the product source for theatres, was suggested
to the National Ass'n of Theatre
Owners convention here Thursday, September
29, by Stuart H. Aarons, house counsel
lo Stanley Warner Corp. and chairman of
the NATO legal affairs committee.
Pointing to the many so-called conglomerate
mergers—mergers between companies in
unrelated business—Aarons said the Departnieni
of Justice appears to be throwing no
roadblocks against such mergers, but rather
is "directing its first against horizontal mergers,
that is a merger of companies in the
s:mie line of business, and vertical mergers,
that is a merger between a supplier and customer.
"Covetous eyes are being cast in the direction
of film producing companies,"
Aarons continued. "The skyrocketing value
of television rights of motion pictures accounts
in part for the attractiveness of film
companies. We have seen such a conglomerate
merger recently involving one of our
oldest and largest producers. And it nearly
happened in the case of another major supplier
of our product. Despite all the promises
and statements that nothing will be changed
in the picture producing company, can we
be sure that changes will not be made? After
all, a new controlling interest without the
adventurous, yes, gambling spirit, which is
the essence of picture-making, might so curtail
production activities to concentrate on
the sure thing of selling the TV residuals that
«e'll find ourselves without a source of supply
of pictures. This would be disastrous."
"The time." he continued, "is now to think
what we exhibitors can do to assure continuance
of our product sources, even to the
extent of supporting and bolstering our existing
producers. Sure, this has serious anti
trust implications. But a merger between a
.upplier and customer is not illegal, per se.
We still have the test of reasonableness. And
what is more reasonable than to seek to protect
one's sources of supply?"
Aarons pointed out that the big television
networks have made deals with distributors
lo produce feature pictures for free television,
adding that the pictures would be
shown first in theatres, not only for added
revenue but also because of the belief that
prior theatrical exhibition enhances the value
i>f the film for free TV.
"This anschluss of free TV and motion
picture producers is likely to grow," Aarons
warned. "Are we to be reduced to the status
of relying on free TV as a source of our
product? How humiliating! But. apart from
humiliation, how can we take that chance?
We are faced here with both a legal and
business problem. Has not the time come
for exhibition to throw a protective shield
around its sources of supply? To speak
plainly, I'm talking of merger with or substantial
stock interests in production companies.
There are many large aggregations
of exhibitor capital, that have no decree
limitations, and that can serve here. They
serve primarily themselves, for if product
shrinks all exhibition shrinks. Think about it.
I can see nothing that transcends this problem
in importance."
Aarons outlined de\elopmenls in the pay
television and community antenna television
field,
then turned to the problems of censorship
with particular attention to the i;)allas
lilm classification ordinance, asserting that:
It doesn't take a soothsayer to predict that
similar ordinances will spread like wildfire
over the United States.
"For this reason," he told the exhibitors.
"it is my belief that exhibitors throughout
the country should enthusiastically support
the Motion Picture Ass'n in its present efforts
to give authority, integrity, meaning
and prestige to its code seal. If the seal attains
such prestige, then the existence of that
seal on motion pictures should serve as a
potent argument to convince municipalities
not to adopt the Dallas ordinance, or convince
them to list as an exception from the
classifications ordinance any motion picture
which hears the seal of the Motion Picture
Ass'n. I cite, in support of my position, the
lact that the state of Texas' criminal statute
applying to obscene motion pictures specifically
excludes commercial motion pictures
that have the production seal of the MPAA.
Ilie MP.AA's seal has meaning and prestige
:iiKi we should do everything we can to cnliance
its standing."
.Aarons decried the lack of action by the
hisiice Department on the problem of blind
biikiing and in other instances involving
governmental action, noting that the government
has not yet responded to the application
of one of the consent decree exhibitors
to loosen the acquisition clause and that
I here had been no statement of findings in
I lie Federal Trade Commission probe of
compliance with the consent decrees.
Catholics Laud MPAA
For Code Revision
NFW YORK.— Archbishop John J.
Krol.
chairman of the Catholic Bishop's Committee
for Motion Pictures, last week applauded
the Motion Picture Ass'n of America for its
revised Production Code, then asked the induslr\
to li\e up lo it.
"Without rancor." the bishop's statement
said, "we recall that other declarations have
been made and as quickly forgotten by those
who spoke them. And we must point out that
the 19.S6 Motion Picture Production Code
has been circunnenled. ignored, qualified
and very often honored more in the breach
than in the observance."
"We take the Declaration and Code as
the most solemn of pledges to the people of
this country. We accept these as a contract
with the American people into which
MPA.A has entered — a contract imposing
far higher obligations upon the industry than
are implied from existing law concerning obscenity.
"We look to those companies which are
signatories to the Code," he continued, "to
honor the Code through seeing that its requirements
are applied to all films whose
production and distribution they directly or
indirectly control.
"We wish the association, its
subsidiaries the fullest
members and
me.isure of success in
its new approach. We look lo a great induslr\
to emphasize the best in its own great artistic
tradition and to achieve higher levels
of excellence. We appeal to the public to
support the industry in its present good intentions
and, to parents, in the exercise of
their parental duties, to cooperate with local
theatres to give voluntary advisory classification
a real chance to work," the statement
concluded.
BOXOFFICE October 3, 1966