Boxoffice barometer (1959)

By IVAN SPEAR THERE’S a trace of the don’t-looka-gift-horse-in-the-mouth philosophy to be found in a survey of the product prospects that Hollywood in 1959 has in store for the motion picture theatres of the world. Indications are that there may be fewer features rolling off the film capital’s assembly lines during the year just getting under way. The same early harbingers point to the probabilities that what pictures are produced will follow pretty well along the lines of those of former years. But one fact is inescapable and that is that a larger percentage of those pictures than ever before will come from independent producers. Therein lies what is perhaps the most significant and noteworthy facet of current filmmaking, a development that is definitely reflective of a growing trend. And, after all, a symposium of this character to justify the space that is being accorded it must devote itself to trends — if any. PROGRAMS ARE FLEXIBLE Before getting into the rise of the independents and the apparent reasons therefor, it might be well to emphasize as this space has done in Boxoffice Barometer for lo! these many years, that any early-year prophecy of the number of pictures that will be available during the 12 months to follow must of necessity be a haphazard undertaking. Under the best of conditions, those hardy — and often mercurial souls who manufacture motion pictures for theatrical entertainment, ranging from the major companies to the most humble unaffiliated producers, change their minds and their plans often and, usually, in direct proportions to rises and ebbs in grosses, profits, stockholders’ reactions, directorate whims, bankers’ generosities and other reasons which it is impossible to foresee. So, let it be assumed that whatever statistical matter to be found in their roundup is a guesstimate. It’s always been that way and this year it is more so than ever, inasmuch as the various production companies, with a few exceptions, have been a bit on the vague side as regards their full year’s lineup. In most cases, the actual blueprinting of features to be made extends little more than through the first six months of 1959. ESTIMATING TOTAL OUTPUT True, there are a few exceptions to this condition. One is United Artists which has definitely scheduled a minimum of 28 top attractions for 1959, to which other releases will be added. Another is the rapidly-growing American International Pictures, which has announced unequivocally that its schedule for the year will be a round 30 features. Taking everything into consideration and permitting the above mentioned guesstimating to run rampant, it seems likely that the pictures produced during the year will total somewhere between 225 and 250, a slight drop under the past year’s figure. Let it again be emphasized that this figure is subject to growth or shrinkage, depending upon what happens businesswise during the first six months of the new year. Those who are optimistic about the future of theatrical films — and there are scores of reasons why they should be in the majority among thinking industryites — are of opinion that enhancement is more likely than curtailment. But regardless of whether the overall figure is up or down — and to return to the main theme of this dissertation — it’s the independents from whom will flow many of the features comprising the total, whatever it proves to be. Why this burgeoning in the number of independent producers? The answers are numerous; all of them have been projected scores of previous times, and most of them make sense. Tax structures, desire on the part of creative and acting talent to participate to a greater financial degree in the results of their efforts and an inclination on the part of the companies themselves to curtail as much as possible their respective investments in celluloid in the process of manufacture. SIGHT BETTER PRODUCT The last-named reason is comparatively negligible in many instances, since much of the financing of some of the independents’ efforts comes from or is arranged by the outfit that is to distribute the pictures made by the independents concerned. But even in these cases the studios apparently welcome the status, if for no other reason than the productional payroll is trimmed to a point of near non-existence. That doesn’t mean that pictures will be any less plentiful or meritorious. In fact, it is the opinion of many magi of production as well as Cinemania railbirds that, on the average, product will be better because of this precedential diffusion of authority. The reasons are obvious. It is figured — and with considerable logic — that the average fabricator of theatrical film fare will contribute just a mite more of effort and attention to a venture in which his stake is on a profits or share-theprofits basis than to one upon which his salaried income is fixed — win, lose or draw. And that goes for both ends of the filmmaking merry-go-round, creative and histrionic alike. It is estimated that upwards of 100 individuals or their respectively owned companies will be engaged in independent production during 1959. Moreover, there isn’t a distributor in the business that will not be peddling their output. Major companies, which but a few short years ago wouldn’t touch a so-called independent picture with the proverbial ten-foot pole, are now dependent upon their freelance affiliates for a striking percentage of their season’s lineup. The reference is to the major companies to which films -by -independents is comparatively new, not to such outfits as United Artists and American International, which have always dealt in such product. Witness the following array of indies and the major outfits through which they will distribute: INDEPENDENT ALIGNMENTS Allied Artists — Charles “Buddy” Rogers, Ferde Grofe jr., William Castle-Robb White, Irwin Allen, Lindsley Parsons, David Diamond, William P. Broidy, Motion Picture Releasing Corp. and T-D Enterprises. Metro — Samuel Goldwyn jr., Joe Pasternak, Pandro Berman and Lawrence Weingarten, Julian Blaustein, Arthur Freed, Alfred Hitchcock, Anatole Litvak, Sol C. Siegel, Mickey Rooney-Red Doff, Aaron Rosenberg, Harry Belafonte, Raymond Stross, Anatole de Grunewald, A1 Zugsmith, Joseph Fields, Andrew Stone, George Pal. Universal-International — Martin Melcher. Vintage Productions and Kirk Douglas. Disney-Buena Vista — Rowland V. Lee. 20th-Pox — Samuel G. Engel, Darryl F. Zanuck, Jack Cummings, Jerry Wald, Mervyn Le Roy, George Stevens, Walter Wanger and Bing Crosby. Columbia — Harry Romm, Sam Spiegel, William Goetz, Stanley Donen, Irving Allen and A. R. Broccoli, Carl Foreman, Sam Fuller, Harry Joe Brown and Randolph Scott, Cornel Wilde, Raoul Levy, Roger Edens, Charles Schnee, Otto Preminger, Paddy Chayefsky, Martin Melcher, UPA, DRB Productions, Philip Waxman, Louis de Rochemont, Charles Schneer, Richard Brooks, George Sidney, Fred Kohlmar, Sam Katzman, Charles Vidor, Norman Krasna, Danny Kaye-Norman Panama-Melvin Frank and Carol Reed. Warner Bros. — ^Milton Sperling, Elia Kazan, Frank Sinatra, Fred Zinnemann, Joshua Logan and Jack Webb. Paramount — Sy Weintraub, Cecil B. De Mille, Alfred Hitchcock, William Perlberg and George Seaton, Carlo Ponti and Marcello Girosi, Martin Jurow and Richard Shepherd, Norman Panama and Melvin Frank, Jack Rose and Mel Shavelson, Marlon Brando, Hal Wallis, and Jerry Lewis. IN TRADITIONAL PATTERNS As to the pictures themselves, and despite the fact that their source will be materially altered, they will adhere rather closely to the pattern of preceding years, with representation in all of the time -honored categories — the westerns, comedies, musicals, problem plays, horror pictures, war dramas, or what attracts best in your situation? As the exhibitor reads the “Looking Ahead” (Continued on page 12) 8 BAROMETER Section