Mr. LAYMAN. I have a little detailed specific case I would like to, if I could, put in writing and submit to the committee.

Mr. FORISTEL. We would like to have it.

Mr. LAYMAN. It will go in the record?

Mr. FORISTEL. Yes. We can use names or leave names out. (Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF CHARLES NILES ANAMORE, JR.

Mr. FORISTEL. State your name.

Mr. ANAMORE. Charles Niles Anamore, Jr.

Mr. FORISTEL. What is your business?

Mr. ANAMORE. I operate two theaters, the Niles and Circle Theaters. I am also secretary of the Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors.

Mr. FORISTEL. The Allied States Association of Motion Picture Exhibitors has a national membership?

Mr. ANAMORE. It has units in Iowa and Nebraska, and a national membership.

Mr. FORISTEL. How many members do you have as members of the National Association?

Mr. ANAMORE. That I cannot give you at this time. We have in the State of Iowa around 417; that is, in Iowa and Nebraska.

Mr. FORISTEL. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. ANAMORE. I would say between four and five thousand at this time. Our own unit has gone up 50 or 60 in the past six months.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a bulletin on the so-called Crescent case, which is very interesting and which I would like to have made a part of the record.

Mr. STEVENSON. It will be made a part of the record.
Mr. ANAMORE. This is Bulletin No. 70 and is as follows:

[Bulletin No. 70, Iowa and Nebraska Independent Theater Owners]

ELDORA, IOWA, July 14, 1943.

The Crescent case uncovered some amazing film rental figures, showing how this comparatively small but powerful theater monopoly in Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky could and did buy film. This is the antitrust suit which was decisively won by the Department of Justice before Federal Judge Davies in Nashville, resulting in an order dissolving the offending combination, cancellation of long-term, monopolistic franchises, etc. It is a real victory and of the utmost importance to independent exhibitors. A summary of these amazing film rentals, brought to light by the Government suit and painstakingly compiled by Colonel Cole makes the best buying ammunition I have seen in an age:

ALLIED THEATER OWNERS, 20111⁄2 JACKSON STREET, DALLAS, TEX, Recently the Federal district court at Nashville, Tenn., handed down findings of fact in a case brought by the Department of Justice of the United States Government against Crescent Amusement Co. and affiliated corporations. The result was a complete victory for the Government and of great importance to the independent exhibitor; but for the purpose of this bulletin I shall not dwell on the legal aspects and results.

But as an exhibitor I find myself tremendously interested in the franchises and film deals made by these corporations with the various film distributors-the same film distributors with whom you and I deal. Please bear in mind that the film rentals shown in the attached are taken from the original contracts, franchises, etc., filed as exhibits with the court, and absolutely attested to by the court findings.

Towns of 8,000 to 10,000 population: If I were an exhibitor buying film in a town of this class or slightly under, I would study carefully the deals made for the

Crescent parent corporation. It would interest me greatly to find that Paramount's deal, now in effect, for Gallatin, Tenn., a town of 4,829 population, is four features at 40 percent; eight features at $25; ten features at $20; balance at $10. The Warner deal, now in effect, is not very specific and would not give me much enlightenment. But the Fox franchise, up to 1939, showing the average town in this circuit paid about $26.50 per feature, with no percentage, would rather open my eyes,

Towns of 1,500 to 4,500 population: If my town were about this size, I would turn to the Rockwood circuit deals. Paramount franchise, now in effect, is not set down in great detail; but a 40 feature commitment, with four at 40 percent and the balance “all flat, down to $8,” I'd find quite interesting. The Warner deal would satisfy me rather well for a town of this average size, covering 26 selected features at $10 and $11; no percentage. But I'd really get a thrill at the Fox deal: 40 selected features at a total film rental for each town of $155, or slightly less than $4 per feature; no percentage. When sending in this deal to the home office, Harry Ballance, district sales manager for Fox, wrote "This is an excellent deal." It is true that this particular franchise has expired; it has been renewed but we have no findings as to the basis of renewal. But did you get figures like this back in 1939?

For the neighborhood theater: There is but slight data for this type of operator; but there is the deal of one company (Warner) to which his attention should be called: It is undoubtedly typical of the others. In Nashville, Tenn., a city of 175,000 population, that company sold a selective contract, 26 features at $10 each (no percentage) for use in each of 8 neighborhood houses. This deal is now in effect.

KEEP THIS: STUDY IT. USE IT IN YOUR BUYING

Paramount: All towns-4 at 40 percent; balance flat (few details, but as example, Gallatin had 4 at 40 percent; 8 at $25; 10 at $20; balance at $10).

Warner, franchise 1939-43: Towns marked * had 24 features on percentage; balance flat. All other towns, no percentage. Fox, franchise 1936-39: Flat sum deal: 52 features, with average total film rental in each town in final year, $1,400; or an average per feature per town of $26.50. No percentage.

Mr. FORISTEL. You may proceed.

Mr. ANAMORE. This shows what the circuits buy film for. They buy film for as low as $8 a feature.

independent who can do that.

I do not believe there is an

Mr. STEVENSON. What is the average charge for the independent? Mr. ANAMORE. Anything they can get, all the traffic they will allow. Mr. STEVENSON. $50 to $100?

Mr. ANAMORE. Anything they can get, depending upon the size of the town.

As a comparison, here is a town where Fox is located, a town of 1,500. This is a town of 1,500. There were 40 selected features, total film rental for each town $155, or slightly less than $4 per feature. No percentage. It is all in this. The complete story is in here. Mr. FORISTEL. What would the independent pay in a town of that size for one of those pictures, the average picture?

Mr. ANAMORE. In a town of 1,500?

Mr. FORISTEL. Just approximately.

Mr. ANAMORE. I would say $25; six times this.

Mr. FORISTEL. Go ahead.

Mr. ANAMORE. There is one thing that film companies have set up, and that is their gestapo-Confidential Reports, Inc.-a checking service.

Mr. FORISTEL. Is that a monopoly, too?

Mr. ANAMORE. I believe every one except Metro is partners in that. They say it is set up so that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There is RKO, Fox, Universal, Paramount are partners in this checking service.

Mr. FORISTEL. What are the disadvantages to the independent exhibitor under that system?

Mr. ANAMORE. I am getting to that. They check your theater. They have the results on percentage engagements. There is no reason that Fox, being a partner in Confidential Reports, Inc., cannot know what a Paramount picture grossed or an RKO grossed. It is collusion pure and simple. We have filed this with the Federal Trade Commission. We filed a complaint and at the present time they are investigating it.

Mr. STEVENSON. Is that all they investigate the gross of a picture? Mr. ANAMORE. I did not catch you.

Mr. STEVENSON. Is that all that is investigated by this organization? Mr. ANAMORE. They check percentage pictures. They go further and use local checkers. I don't know how many of you are in a small town, but we object very much to having our business talked over the back fence. Their selection sometimes is very poor in the type of individual they send in.

Mr. STEVENSON. That individual goes in there and counts?

Mr. ANAMORE. He counts them, he has access to the box office.

Mr. STEVENSON. You have to give them that access?

Mr. ANAMORE. Yes, it is in the contract. The only way you can counteract that thing is to leave the percentage pictures out which many of us are doing, but they are forcing us.

In our own territory Fox is the worst. In the Iowa-Nebraska group, Fox is the worst offender. They absolutely refuse to sell unless they allow C. R. I. to check your theater.

Mr. FORISTEL. With respect to the suggestions made by Mr. Goldberg, I suppose you agree with the remedies that he definitely suggested?

Mr. ANAMORE. Definitely. I do think that when the Supreme Court of the United States hands down a decision and the film companies can flagrantly violate that decision as they are doing, enforcing the sale of pictures-in other words, RKO says you cannot buy Fort Apache unless you buy the Fugitive, which is absolutely slapping the Supreme Court of the United States in the face. It is high time they learned they are dealing with the United States of America.

Mr. FORISTEL. We thank you.

Mr. ANAMORE. There is one more thing I want to add and that is the intimidation of the film companies.

I have a letter I want to send the committee and the reprisal that the exhibitor is afraid of. It is a shame that in America you have to be in business where a little exhibitor is afraid to stand up for his rights because he is afraid he will be put out of business by the big

trust.

Mr. FORISTEL. Send it to the Hotel Kentucky, at Louisville. Have it arrive on October 4 and Mr. Milberg will put it in the record at that place.

Mr. ANAMORE. I would like to add one thing on this vertical integration thing. We feel that not only will that help out, but that the quality of pictures throughout the country will be improved if this divorcement, as we call it, would be put into effect. Today the major producers own most of the big-money theaters throughout the country in the big cities where the big money is. The independent producer has to get that picture into his theater. These major film companies can put the squeeze on the independents, if they want to. If the producers no longer owned these theaters, more independent producers would come into the business and thereby we would have more and better pictures. There would be more of a competitive state in our business than exists today.

(Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF J. H. WATTS

Mr. FORISTEL. State your name.

Mr. WATTS. J. H. Watts.

Mr. FORISTEL. Where do you live?

Mr. WATTS. Osage, Iowa.

Mr. FORISTEL. Proceed.

Mr. WATTS. In line with this idea of the film companies forcing sale. one picture depending upon the sale of the other, I had an experience in July or in June regarding July bookings with Columbia in that we contracted for a bunch of pictures and received approval on dates, but had not received the contract as yet. Calling the exchange before we put our monthly calendar to press-we had 11 pictures belonging to Columbia for that month and it was down to 3 days before we sent the program to press. I called long distance again to double check on the day we sent the program to press, and the dates were still satisfactory. So we sent our program to press. Within a few days the salesman came out and said that the contract could not be approved on those terms, they would have to have more money, the very day my programs came in. I showed them to him and called the Des Moines office and tried to reach an agreement; I could not by telephone, so I made a special trip to Des Moines to talk to them in person. They still would not agree to the terms on the original contract.

We did some adjusting on films. The "Fuller Brush Man" I said would be in line with our other pictures. Now they had to have a percentage. It was already on our program. Not only did they have to have percentage, but they would have to have the sale of five other pictures along with it. I couldn't buy Fuller Brush Man alone.

83019-49- -33

Mr. FORISTEL. That has been ruled out in a decision about a year ago. Block booking has been ruled out. That is a type of block booking, is it not?

Mr. WATTS. Yes. So I had two choices; either to take the deal as they wanted it, or destroying my program. We have 3,500 of them printed up, either discard my program and have them printed all over again, which I did not have the time to do so we were compelled to take pictures we did not want and on terms we did not like, but we had to go ahead with it.

I feel they deliberately held up the contract waiting for me to get the pictures on our program, getting them dated, up until the last minute, then forced it on to me. There was nothing else I could do. That is one definite case.

Mr. FORISTEL. You heard the other abuses testified to by the people. Have you found them to be true in your area as well?

Mr. WATTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. FORISTEL. Do you agree with the suggestions that have been made as to the remedy? That is, a special court?

Mr. WATTS. I am sorry. I got in late and I did not hear those suggestions.

Mr. FORISTEL. What is your remedy or cure for the situation? Have you thought about that?

Mr. WATTS. According to the new ruling, as I understand it, pictures are to be sold singly, individually, not contingent upon one another.

Mr. FORISTEL. Have you been buying some individually?

Mr. WATTS. Some we have. We have other cases similar to that, but this is the most violent one, I feel.

Mr. FORISTEL. Is that all you have?

Mr. WATTS. I think that covers it unless you want other cases.

Mr. FORISTEL. If you have anything to offer for the record, either now or later, we would like to have it. You may submit it for the record.

Mr. WATTS. Back in April of 1948 a Fox salesman called upon me to negotiate a deal. We were talking terms and finally came to the statement that we could not buy any pictures unless we bought "Scudda Hay, Scudda Ho" first. That was released out and had already played around our territory. We could not play it. We could not get any unless we bought "Scudda Hay, Scudda Ho," which we could not agree on, and we did not buy. We did not buy anything.

I wrote the Fox manager in Des Moines asking him to please explain his policy on it and I got an answer that the policy was not that one sale depended upon the sale of another picture, a very evasive type of letter. There was nothing definite I could do. The negotiations ended. There was nothing further done on it. We have not gotten together with Fox yet. That is all I have.

(Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF VICTOR A. MILLER ON BEHALF OF WISCONSIN IMPLEMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. FORISTEL. State your name for the record.

Mr. MILLER. Victor A, Miller.

Mr. FORISTEL. State your connection.