|
Goldwyn's Antitrust Warpath (After SIMPP)
Excerpt from Hollywood Renegades by J. A. Aberdeen
 |
Sam
Goldwyn, during his anti-trust battles in the 1930s and 40s. (Aberdeen
collection). To purchase Aberdeen photos for reprint purposes click
here.
|
|
Sam Goldwyn had already begun to reassert his individuality on the antitrust
front. He waged his own civil suit against his archenemy Fox West Coast—this
time without SIMPP. He filed the Fox West Coast case in San Francisco in May
1950, when the Detroit suit was stalled by the deposition requirement.
Some of the problems with the Fox theater chain had gone back years before.
For instance in the late 1920s, the independent producers opposed the
monopoly of Fox's notorious West Coast Theatres circuit that dominated the
Pacific states. On November 6, 1930, Joe Schenck and Sam Goldwyn issued a
statement signed by the United Artists compatriots Mary
Pickford, Douglas
Fairbanks, Charles Chaplin, Norma Talmadge, Gloria Swanson, Eddie Cantor, Al
Jolson, D. W. Griffith, and Ronald Coleman. They denounced the Fox West Coast
monopoly as "greedy and short-sighted." Fox responded by boycotting
all United Artists films, therefore cutting the independents out of many zones.
Goldwyn publicly threatened to show his movies "in halls and armories"
rather than give in to Fox. When the United Artists theaters began an aggressive
expansion in areas of California, Fox settled with the independents in 1931.
In the early 1940s, when SIMPP helped Goldwyn fight the Fox theaters in the
west by staging a showdown in Reno, the
action promted an FBI investigation of the Fox practices.
In the later 1950s suit, Goldwyn claimed that Twentieth Century-Fox, Fox West
Coast Theatres, National Theatres, Charles P. Skouras, and several affiliated
circuits including T. & D. Junior Enterprises
had intentionally discriminated against independently-produced films, and he
sought compensation for years of perceived oppression.
 |
Cecil
B. DeMille, who operated as an independent studio and
semi-independent production company at Paramount. (Aberdeen
collection). To purchase Aberdeen photos for reprint purposes click
here.
|
|
Early on, the case transpired much like the Detroit
suit. There were delays before the trial. Also the defendants were then in a
state of flux as Twentieth Century-Fox completed its divestiture and Charles
Skouras passed away. Likewise, as in Detroit, the suit was inhibited by statute
of limitations problems that forced Goldwyn to scale back his suit from 28 films
(treble damages of $6.75 million) to only seven films (seeking $1.75 million).
Goldwyn was represented by Joseph L. Alioto, one of the triumvirate of SIMPP
attorneys in the Detroit case, who would later become mayor of San Francisco.
After the demise of the SIMPP Detroit lawsuit, Goldwyn revived his Fox West
Coast case, and headed to pre-trial in September 1954.
The suit attracted attention off and on for several years. It was like the
good-old antitrust days—the independent producer accusing the theater monopoly
of eliminating competition by threatening to build on adjacent lots,
price-fixing, and over-buying films which they never intended to show. Goldwyn
gobbled up headlines when he brought in high-profile character witnesses on his
behalf, including Mary Pickford and Cecil B. DeMille.
James Mulvey became one of
the heroes of the trial when he contributed his first-hand distribution
information that turned the case in favor of Goldwyn. Eleven years into the
suit, the decision finally came on May 5, 1961, and the judge awarded Goldwyn
$300,000 in damages.
 |
The
1963 demolition of the Fox Theatre in San Francisco. Built in 1929 as
the western showplace for the Fox empire, the famous facade of the
"Fabulous Fox" theater was declared "irreplacable"
by preservationists who failed to save the movie palace.
|
|
SOURCES:
United Artists Theatre Circuit and the battle with Fox West
Coast: “Movie Stars Fight Fox Chain in West,” NYT, November 7, 1930,
p. 32; “Fox Replies to Artists,” NYT, November 8, 1930, pp. 8; also
see Balio, pp. 64-65, 113.
Goldwyn versus Fox West Coast—suit filed: "$6,750,000
Is Asked by Goldwyn in Suit," NYT, May 17, 1950, p. 35; delayed by
depositions: "Goldwyn Gains in Theatre Suit," NYT, February 26,
1955, p. 13; statute of limitations: "Antitrust Trial on Fox Films Is
On," NYT, July 11, 1957, p. 21; "Goldwyn Loss on Films Told at
Antitrust Trial," LAT, July 11, 1957; Skouras stock deal: Thomas M.
Prior, "Hollywood in Court," NYT, July 14, 1957, sec. II, p. 5;
appearances from Pickford and DeMille: Lawrence E. Davies, "Mary Pickford
Stars for Goldwyn in Suit Against Fox Film Interests," NYT, August
8, 1957, p. 25, and "DeMille Lauds Goldwyn," NYT, September 18,
1957, p. 37; "Sam Goldwyn Appears Briefly In Trust Suit," Hollywood
Citizen-News, November 19, 1957; "Film Trust Trial Ends First
Phase," NYT, November 21, 1957, p. 38; Marx, Goldwyn, pp.
331-333; Berg, Goldwyn, p. 387.
See Bibliography.
|