SCREEN-L Archives

May 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Shawn Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 26 May 1994 09:09:03 -0700
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (28 lines)
On Thu, 26 May 1994, ibhdnw8 wrote:
> Another question:
> Back in the 1940s, there was a consent decree that in effect dismantled the
> vertical integration of the film industry.  If I understood it correctly, no
> company could do all 3:  production, distribution, and exhibition.
> Is this decree still in effect?  I assumed so--till I started noticing things
> like Disney owning theaters (e.g., The El Capitan in Hollywood).  If it is
> still in effect, how can these apparent exceptions be explained?
The 1948 Paramount Consnet Decrees did indeed force studios to divest
themselves of their theater holdings, but they can still hold theaters
(Cineplex Odeon circuit is owned in part by -- I believe --
Columbia-TriStar (aka Sony)).  The distinction nowadays is that the films
by the parent studios cannot be automatically booked into those theaters
or booked on preferntial terms (exclusivity, for instance, or special
ticket prices).  The El Capitan theater is owned by Disney in conjunction
with Pacific Theaters, a mid-sized So. Cal. circuit, for instance, and
while it runs *mostly* Disney fare, is often in competition with screens
just down Hollywood Blvd.  Under the old set-up, it would've been the
ONLY place to see a Disney film in town.
     Shawn Levy      |  "Arms and the man I sing, and sing for joy
[log in to unmask]  |   Who was last year all elbows and a boy."