UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Patriotic Play: Roosevelt, Antitrust, and the War Activities Committee of the Motion Picture Industry A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Film and Television by Mary Gelsey Samuelson 2014 © Copyright by Mary Gelsey Samuelson 2014 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Patriotic Play: Roosevelt, Antitrust, and the War Activities Committee of the Motion Picture Industry by Mary Gelsey Samuelson Doctor of Philosophy in Film and Television University of California, Los Angeles, 2014 Professor Janet Bergstrom, Chair This dissertation examines the role antitrust law played in the collaboration between the motion picture industry and the U.S. government during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency. It is largely an industrial analysis that incorporates legal, political, and social histories in its attempt to investigate the impact of antitrust law on the industry during the Great Depression and World War II. Antitrust law in the U.S. was relatively new when the first round of lawsuits were filed against the Hollywood studios in the 1910s, and it played a key role in the development of the business and economic structure of the industry. This study offers a basis for a more complete understanding of how antitrust shaped the motion picture industry by addressing three areas of historical specificity: first, government-industry relations during the Great Depression; second, antitrust law and its on the structure and behavior of the motion picture industry throughout the decade; and, finally, the reasons behind (1) the Department of Justice issuing a consent decree in ii the middle of the United States v. Paramount; (2) the subsequent creation of the Motion Picture Committee Cooperating for National Defense (later renamed the War Activities Committee— Motion Picture Industry); and (3) Hollywood’s substantial efforts to aid the government in its national defense work for the duration of the war. Ultimately, this dissertation argues that the motion picture industry’s close relationship with the Roosevelt administration played a key role in its ability to stave off the commencement of government actions against them until the postwar period. iii The dissertation of Mary Gelsey Samuelson is approved. John Caldwell Richard B. Jewell Stephen Mamber Janet Bergstrom, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2014 iv For my parents, and for AW—Thank you v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... viii Vita ................................................................................................................................................. xi Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Battling the Depression: Roosevelt and the Media (1933–1940) ................................16 Positioning the Media: Stephen Early and the Press .........................................................19 Early Exploitation of the Media: Newspapers ...................................................................25 Early Exploitation of the Media: Radio .............................................................................31 Early Exploitation of the Media: Newsreels (1933–1939) ................................................42 Roosevelt and the Motion Picture Industry—The Implications of Film Regulation .........51 The Roosevelt’s and the Motion Picture Industry—A Family Affair ...............................64 Soft-Selling the New Deal: Examining Roosevelt’s Politics on Film ...............................77 The Road to Government Filmmaking ..............................................................................92 Pare Lorentz: Roosevelt’s Filmmaker .............................................................................103 Chapter 2: The Shape of Things to Come: Early Interactions with Antitrust Law and the Development of the Hollywood Studio System Pre-Paramount (1915–1935) ...........................132 Developing the Business Pattern: Early Antitrust Litigation in the Motion Picture Industry ............................................................................................................................140 Innovations and Corporate Organization .........................................................................150 Crystallizing the Pattern: Block Booking, Vertical Integration, and the Rise of the Studio System ..................................................................................................................159 Antitrust and the Federal Trade Commission: The Famous Players-Lasky Case ...........173 Cooperation and Self-Regulation: The National Recovery Administration’s (NRA) Fair Code of Competition and the Hays Office ...............................................................185 Underwriting Monopoly: The NRA and the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. (MPPDA)’s Implementation of Uniform Trade Practices in the 1930s ......................................................................................................................200 Chapter 3: Battling It Out in the Courts: Historicizing the Paramount Case and the Collective Cooperation of the Motion Picture Committee Cooperating for National Defense (1938– 1941) ............................................................................................................................................211 Pre-Paramount Private Antitrust Actions (1934–1939) ..................................................215 Actions Involving Conspiracy ............................................................................ 216 Criminal Conspiracy Action: United States v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. ....... 218 Actions Involving Protection: Clearances and Zoning ....................................... 221 vi Actions Involving Protection: Admission Price Fixing ...................................... 226 Actions Involving Block Booking: The Neely-Pettengill Bill ............................ 232 Strange Bedfellows: The Not-So-Secret Pre-Paramount Meetings ................................239 “Nothing Short of Divestiture is Acceptable at this Point”—The Department of Justice and the Filing of the Paramount Case (1938) ......................................................246 In Limbo: Preparing for Trial (1939–1940) .....................................................................252 The Five-Day Paramount Trial .......................................................................................268 The Patriotic Play: The Formation of the Motion Picture Committee Cooperating for National Defense and the Paramount Consent Decree ....................................................272 Chapter 4: The Collaboration: The Domestic Motion Picture Work of the War Activities Committee—Motion Picture Industry, 1941–1945 .....................................................................285 Industry and War Activities: “…For the Duration…yes, and Beyond” ..........................288 A Bi-Coastal Organization: The National Divisions of the War Activities Committee ..304 Theatres Division ................................................................................................ 306 Distributors Division ........................................................................................... 314 Hollywood Division ............................................................................................ 349 Newsreel Division ............................................................................................... 357 Trade Press Division ........................................................................................... 361 Foreign Managers Division ................................................................................. 362 Public Relations Division ................................................................................... 363 The Official Government-Hollywood Liaison: The War Activities Committee and the Office of War Information’s Bureau of Motion Pictures .................................................364 Miscues and Misfires: The Perils of Voluntary Collaboration ........................................371 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................389 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................393 vii Acknowledgements Several people offered me guidance and support during the writing of this dissertation. First and foremost, I’d like to thank my dissertation chair, Janet Bergstrom, for her immeasurable insight, candor, and guidance. I cannot thank her enough for her support, encouragement, and commitment to seeing me through this project. Janet never let me lose sight of my goal, and has been a wonderful advisor and friend. Without her, this dissertation would not have been possible. I also want to give special thanks to my committee members, Steve Mamber, John Caldwell, and Rick Jewell, for their constant support and mentorship. Steve’s invaluable advice and feedback has made this a stronger piece of historical scholarship. I am forever grateful for the long talks and matter-of-fact guidance he gave me throughout the writing of this dissertation.