The withdrawal of three movies from the Liberal Union's spring film series has aroused the anger of many local connoisseurs of literary films. There are three elements that have developed in this problem: 1. What are the specific complaints of the University Theater that led to the restriction of these three movies and to revoking of the Liberal Union's contract with RKO? 2. In what respects are the University Theater and the Liberal Union in competition? 3. Are the actions taken against the Liberal Union's film series by the distributors justified?

Although the U.T. originally claimed the Liberal Union's selection of films was bringing them into competition, the management maintains that their only grievance is with the distributors. They say that the cancelled films were ones that were unobtainable to the Theater. The Theater fears a considerable loss of prestige when a non-profit organization of students pops up with a film they had been forced to tell their customers they could not get. Sixteen millimeter exhibitors are supposed to get films that are no longer desired by regular local theaters, and the U.T. considers these films still profitable and feels it might want to run some of them in the future without appearing as second run to the Liberal Union.

The possible loss of prestige by the University Theater in repeating HLU films brings in the question of areas of competition. The U.T. regards all foreign language films as excellent material for the HLU but seems to resent all fairly recent English language movies. This attitude of the Theater ignores a basic distinction that exists today in all movies. Two categories have become evident-the Hollywood type and the literary type. The former is generally considered more lucrative, and the U.T. has found its widest regular audience with this kind of movie. Even the U.T.'s revival days have lately been filled with popular Hollywood articles of the past instead of showing old cinema masterpieces. The Theater, with its two contrasting audiences, has made its choice. The HLU filled the gap left by the U.T.'s decision, supplying the College audience, smaller than the U.T.'s, with literary films, regardless of language. The competition claimed by the Theater, that it might want to show one of these films in the future, ignores the basic difference in the audiences appealed to.

The actions of the distributors in preventing the HLU from showing these movies would be justified when genuine competition exists. The whole business of 16mm films, rental rates, and other expenses, is based on the consideration that it does not compete with professional theaters. In any competition, the 16mm exhibitor would have an unfair advantage. But such competition does not exist. The U.T. itself says that it is not concerned with the limited audience possible in the Fogg Museum room at long intervals.

The fact then remains that a local demand exists for a type of movie the U.T. does not generally supply. When distributors refuse those films to the HLU because, of competition with the University Theater, that theater must adopt a policy favorable to this type of movie. Without this change in policy, local moviegoers will be deprived of a chance to see the kind of movies they have demonstrated they want.