Kennedy on
Film Industry
Boxoffice
magazine, January 1961
article
by Patrick McMahon
Θεάματα
Κινηματογραφικά
ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΣΚΕΨΗ
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE FILM
INDUSTRY
Kennedy Is the First President to Come From Family
With a Direct Tie to Motion Pictures
By PATRICK McMAHON
WASHINGTON—
When John Fitzgerald Kennedy was sworn in Friday, he became the first President
of the United States with direct personal contacts with both the production and
exhibition branches of the motion picture industry.
The new
President’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy, is owner of a string of New England
movie theatres. Moreover, it was his heavy investment in several production
companies back in the 1920s that lifted him from the status of a wealthy man to
that of a multimillionaire.
ENTERTAINMENT WORLD FRIENDS
Prominent
figures in the industry are numbered among the President’s closest friends,
including his brother-in-law, Peter Lawford.
Nevertheless,
in the opinion of reporters who know him best, President Kennedy will lean over
backward to avoid the slightest indication that his policies favor any
interests of his father, his family or his close friends.
So,
ironically, Kennedy’s very closeness to the industry and its problems, may
prove a handicap to exhibitor and producer alike.
In one
respect, however, the industry can take full assurance. The new President is
fundamentally opposed to censorship of any sort. For all practical purposes the
industry can just about forget the threat of federal censorship at least for the
next four years.
Should a
federal censorship bill be introduced, the President would use his influence in
Congress to defeat it, and he would veto it if passed. Only an overwhelming
demand by Congress and the public, a demand strong enough to override a
presidental veto, would enable such a bill to become a law.
That is the
view of those close to President Kennedy.
Two other
grave problems are certain to face the industry during the new administration,
and on these it can expect, at the most, complete impartiality from the White
House.
SEE HANDS-OFF ON PAY-TV
All signs in
Washington point to the long and bitter fight over subscription television
being moved to the final, decisive arena of combat — the boxoffice. And the
decisions at the boxoffice will probably govern the final decisions in
Washington,
The consensus
here is that Hartford Phonevision will soon be awarded the three-year license
it seeks to conduct a public test of pay TV in the Hartford, Conn., area. Also,
it is felt that the FCC limitation on a single test for each type of pay TV may
be amended to permit each system to conduct similar tests in cities scattered
throughout the country — one each in the New England, Middle Atlantic, Deep
South, Mississippi Valley, Midwest, Rocky Mountain, Southwest and Pacific Coast
areas.
The best
guess here is that the White House will maintain a completely hands-off
attitude on this controversy. Also, that his Attorney General brother, Robert
F., will leave any antitrust complaints the exhibitors may make entirely in the
hands of his subordinates in the antitrust division.
The second
problem facing the industry is a two-pronged one involving the foreign trade
and operations of the producers. While the decisions will be made on a broad
national basis, the White House views are almost certain to adversely affect
film makers in their overseas operations.
In testifying
before the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon
stated flatly that he intends to take steps to reduce or eliminate the tax
benefits now enjoyed by U. S. investors for their foreign operations.
COULD CUT INTO EARNINGS
This would
cut heavily into the earnings of motion picture companies who have been
diverting increasing amounts of the production abroad, in order to take advantage
of U. S. tax concessions.
Committee
members who questioned Dillon at length on the subject, expressed grave concern
at the extent to which U. S. investment capital is being used to produce abroad
products for export to the U. S. (“in competition with the products of American
labor”), and the Treasury-designate said he shared their concern. This, of
course, applies to films produced overseas by U. S. companies, their
subsidiaries and their affiliates.
The committee
members and Dillon also agreed that the existing tax concessions provide a strong
incentive for the investor to re-invest his profits abroad, instead of
repatriating them, thus depleting the nation’s earnings of foreign exchange.
Dillon said
this was justifiable immediately after the war when we were trying to rebuild
Europe and overcome the “dollar gap,” but that this need no longer exists as
far as Western Europe is concerned.
He assured
the committee that one of his first acts when he assumes office will be to
order a study of the tax concessions to foreign investors, with the purpose of
submitting to Congress remedial proposals.
Washington
reports are that Kennedy will strongly support any recommendation made by
Secretary Dillon to cut down, or eliminate these concessions.
MAY BRING TARIFF RISE
The other
prong of the foreign trade fork is an oblique one, which, most of Washington
hopes, will not be sharp enough to do any damage.
It consists of
the possibility that the drain of U. S. gold — resulting from a seriously
adverse balance of payments situation — will force a general raising of U. S.
tariffs and other restraints on the inflow of foreign imports. There is already
strong pressure from many quarters for a substantial return to the protective
tariff policies in vogue prior to World War II.
The new
Secretary of Commerce, Luther H. Hodges, a North Carolina textile manufacturer,
is a convinced advocate of an effective protective tariff, high enough to
offset the competitive advantages that foreign producers receive from low
wages.
Moreover, on
at least two occasions while he was in the Senate, Kennedy himself protested
mildly that industries in his state of Massachusetts were severely hit by
competition from the low-wage areas, as result of the deep cuts in the U. S.
tariff walls made during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.
Of course the
great danger to the U. S. motion picture industry is that any substantial
tariff increase effected by this country would almost certainly lead to
retaliation by foreign governments.
Hundreds of
foreign concerns made heavy investments to build up markets for their products
in the U. S. — at the direct instigation and often with the support of the U.
S. Departments of State and Commerce, and our international cooperation.
Should we now
arbitrarily cut them off from these markets, they are certain to appeal to
their governments for redress. And, in this instance, redress is apt to mean
retaliation.
Furthermore,
should Western Europe — which will be the main target, along with Japan, of any
U. S. tariff boosts — decide to retaliate, one of the first of our exports to
be hit is likely to be motion pictures, a heavy earner of foreign exchange and
a luxury product.
Of course if
the producers lose a substantial share of their present foreign markets as
result of tariff retaliation, U. S. exhibitors will have to pay a larger
proportion of the cost of production, so both branches of the industry will be
hit.
Those are the
two main problems facing the industry that are certain to involve federal
action. On neither can they expect help from the White House. On the one, they
are very likely to get a backward push.
At least
that’s the way it looks in Washington as President Kennedy takes over
How the Administration Stands On Film Industry Matters
CENSORSHIP:
President
Kennedy is opposed to federal censorship. Should a censorship bill ever reach
his desk, it can be expected that he will veto it.
TAX RELIEF:
There isn’t a
ghost of a chance that the federal admissions tax on tickets over $1 will be eliminated,
or that producers filming overseas will gain additional tax advantages.
Producers may actually lose some of the tax concessions now in force.
SMALL BUSINESS:
The
Administration favors legislation granting small business firms, including
theatres, authority to deduct from taxable earnings sums spent for expansion
and improvements. Bills allowing deductions up to $30,000 or 20 per cent of net
income have already been introduced.
ANTITRUST:
Robert F.
Kennedy, the new Attorney General, can be expected to vigorously enforce the
antitrust laws. Under questioning by Senator Estes Kefauver before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last week, he said he felt “a stronger appointment” than
Robert A. Bicks, who has headed the antitrust division in the last year, might
be made.
PAY TELEVISION:
The White
House can be expected to take a hands-off policy in this controversy, at least
in the matter of granting tests under FCC supervision.
WAGES-HOURS
LEGISLATION:
President
Kennedy was chairman of the Senate Labor subcommittee which, at the last
session, accepted an amendment exempting the motion picture industry from the
Wages and Hours bill. The President’s advisers and key members of the Senate
and House labor committees are now drafting new legislation. Rep. James
Roosevelt of California announced this week exemption of theatres will
“definitely be written into the bill.” Senator Pat McNamara of Michigan, Senate
committee chairman, is reported favoring the exemption.
Joseph P. Kennedy Headed FBO in the Mid-1920s
Joseph P.
Kennedy, the President’s father, had a brief but spectacular career in the
production and distribution of motion pictures.
In 1926, when
the President was nine years old, his father, a Boston investment banker,
acquired control of Film Booking Office of America (FBO), a major
producing-distribution company, and served as its president and board chairman.
Two years later, when the company was purchased by Radio Corp. of America and
reestablished as RKO Radio Pictures, the elder Kennedy served as RKO’s chairman
of the board during the transition period.
In 1929, he
was president of Pathe Exchange, Inc. and then for several years produced films
starring Gloria Swanson, for release through United Artists.
In 1933, he
left the industry and began his long career in government service.
Boxoffice magazine, January 23, 1961.
ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΓΡΑΦΟΣ
[ ανάρτηση 6 Μαρτίου 2024 :
Kennedy on Film Industry
Boxoffice magazine, January 1961
article
by
Patrick
McMahon
Θεάματα
Κινηματογραφικά
ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΣΚΕΨΗ
]
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου