Exhibitors Herald (1927)

March 19, 1927 EXHIBITORS HERALD 45 LETTERS From Readers A forum at which the exhibitor is invited to express his opinion on matters of current interest. Brevity adds forcefulness to any statement. Unsigned letters will not be printed. Roy W. Adams on Risque Pictures, The Small Town Situation, “The Box Office Ticker,” Accessories, “Ladies Home Journal” Slander, The Beauty Contest MASON, MICH.— To the Editor: Mr. A. Hurley of the Princess Theatre, Tucumcari, N. M., asks in this week’s Herald why producers insist on incorporating suggestive sequences in pictures that are otherwise attractive. My guess on the subject isn’t worth a nickel, but here it is : Producers who make risque pictures are painting the kind of life which they know best, to please the metropolitan audiences with which they are most familiar, ignoring the fact that the daring scenes which are relished by blase tastes are simply offensive to the less sophisticated. The majority of people in the little towns and rural districts — not just a few fanatics, but the majority — don’t drink, or gamble, or condone sexual laxity, and are rather dubious about the propriety of Sunday amusements. Try to tell a big city man this and he doesn’t even know what you’re talking about; tell him these are the people we are trying to coax into the theatre — he thinks you’re kidding or crazy. Nevertheless, that’s the state of affairs in these benighted backwoods districts ; more than that, these people are trying to bring up their children in the same way of living. The wise theatre man in a little town, whether he has a conscience or not, remembers when planning his programs that he is playing to family trade every time he opens. And that often means a battle with the salesman or exchange manager who simply can’t comprehend that the big city knockout may be poison to the small town. “What the Picture Did for Me” in several instances has warned me of an objectionable picture in time to shelve it or swap it off for something I could use. A few times in the last two or three years I have had to take this up with an exchange manager, and with an eye to my future business they are usually reasonable. If they were stiff-necked and haughty about it I believe I would give them a battle. They would have a lovely time in court trying to force anyone to show an offensive picture. Your "Box Office Ticker” is the finest thing yet. Comparing it with other percentage ratings on the same pictures badly upsets the dope of these sharps who appraise a production according to their own personal ideas of what it might, could, would or should do, but accurate figures on actual performance, instead of potential possibilities, are what we want when buying pictures, just as we do in buying a car or anything else. “Accessories,” in the Herald of February 12, is another mighty constructive department. Whether the Herald questionnaire on this subject a year or so ago, and our subsequent discussing and cussing of it from all angles, did any good or not, at all events I’m much better satisfied with the posters I get lately. What I want in posters is this: The name of the picture and the star (or the author, if he’s a “Name”) in big plain boldface that can be read across the street. “T’ell with the art stuff. And frevensake, leave those sickening all-day-sucker kisses, as Abe Martin calls them, off the posters. Tell the man in the street something about the picture that he doesn’t know, not something he’s seen a thousand times already. While I think of it — last month’s Ladies Home Journal, in an otherwise excellent article on “Taking the Movies into the Community,” had this: “Of course the small town is the greatest sufferer from the objectionable movie. ‘All the nasty bits going cheap,’ as the butcher said.” A cheap and nasty slander, eh, what ? I wrote and told them so in a refined and ladylike way, got a frosty little note in reply, but nothing said about retracting their slander. I see some of the boys want to start another Beauty Contest. I’ll name the winner right now and save the rest of you the trouble of writing in. It’s Madge Bellamy, of course, with Billie Dove a good second. — Roy W. Adams, Pastime Theatre, Mason, Mich. Jones Kicks the Kickers VANDERGRIFT, PA.— To the Editor: I see by the items on the readers’ page that some of my fellow exhibitors are not satisfied with what some of the rest of us say about some of the pictures. To my mind, the fact that the reports do differ increases or makes more valuable this great service rendered by “What the Picture Did for me” ! In forming an opinion of a picture from these reports we can consider the size of the place, class of patronage, etc. A picture may be good one place and not in another. I report a picture by the reaction of the audience; it is what they think of it that counts. I think that the brothers who are criticising the reports that do not agree with theirs are just not granting the other fellow the same right to their own opinion as they themselves wish. Also, I think that suggesting that a photograph would be appreciated is only a way of saying, “The picture was good and we liked the player.” The kickers on this call it mooching, whatever that is. I never mooched but one, and that one was not autographed, but a number of the stars sei:t me autographed photos for Christmas. That was nice, and good business too. I did appreciate them, and they are up in the lobby advertising daily for those wise stars. ■ — L. M. Jones, Arcadia theatre, Vandergrift. Pa. O’Hara Nominates Patsy Ruth Miller ELGIN, NEBR. — ^To the Editor : Well, here comes Harry Selk of Scotia, Nebraska, and he thinks that we ought to have another beauty contest. And to start it off right he submits the name of June Marlowe as his candidate. Well, Harry, you are a pretty good judge of beauty, but not what I would call an expert. Just to show you that, against you being the first to start this contest, I am going to second your motion, and also to further show you that I am what might be termed an expert in picking the winner in a contest of this kind, I am going to place in nomination the most beautiful woman in America — Patsy Ruth Miller. Now what have you to say to that? I say, let’s go. Who is next? Come on, boys. I suppose that the Herald representative (G-goofy 0-old M-man) will sprout out with his second love, Clara, as a candidate. Wouldn’t that burn you out after all those years blowing his head off about “the one and only Viola,” to have some baby star get inside of his tough old hide so much as for him to change the name of that old rattletrap of a Chevy from Vi to Clara? And the best of it is that he thinks that he is spiteing Viola, which I bet my old Chevy he is not. He has been taking up about half a colyum in the Herald each week telling us poor misguided Exhibs what a wonderful car “Vi” was and how he was going to win the race from Neligh to Forks, Wash. Well, what I know about those busses which have been entered I would figure that he would have just about as much chance of winning that race as he would have of picking the winner of this baby star contest, and you won’t have to get a pencil to figure that out — no, siree. And I suppose that poet of Salmon, Idaho, who knows all about fishin’, will have nerve enough to think that he can pick a winner just as good or better than the G. O. M. Well, I suppose he can, just about. I expect that after this contest is over Phil will repeat and beat it out to Hollywud again, just as he did after the other contest, to try and find out why in tarnation he could not pick the winner. I might say to you birds that think that you have race cars which you are going to tear the roads to pieces with in that Neligh to Forks Race that I have an old buss, ten years old, that I figure on driving, but -I do not intend to enter it in the race, as it would not be fair to the other exhibs., as it is too fast, but I wish to make application as judge for both starling and judging the winner at the outcome of the race. I agree to be fair and impartial and award the race to the winner. I will start the race and then drive to Forks and judge the winner. I will also see that there is no sculldugery being done on the way out there by the participants, give a square deal to all and see they get a square deal. I will have everything ready at the finish — that is if everybody is willing for me to act as the judge. I don’t want to beat Mr. Anderson out of being judge if he is intending to perform that duty, but as I understand it he has a fast car entered in the race also. But, at any rate, I will see them start and finish, so what more would wish for? I have never named this old boat of mine except at times when a tire went blooey and then the name would not sound good for a new star. Don’t you like to read the colyum which the G. O. M. dishes up to us about Huckelberry Pie Kansas and Iowa Mud, Fishin’, Golphin’, Mrs. Exhib’s wonderful cookin’ and Clara alias Vi? Keep at it, Dad. I reckon we can stand it if Clara and Vi can. Well, I got this off my chest. Reckon I can stand to look at Buster in “Battlin’ Butler” now. — F. J. O’Hara, Community theatre, Elgin, Nebr. Attaboy, Jack! DETROIT, MICH.— To the Editor: I have been sick for the past two years and that accounts for my delay in sending in reports, but now that I have regained my health again you will hear from me more often. — Jack Cairns, Brooklyn theatre, Detroit, Mich. Defends Will Rogers BREESE, ill. — To THE Editor: I get my enjoyment out of the page called “Letters B’rom Readers” so I decided to write one myself. I like to read of the troubles of brother exhibitors, as it makes mine look small, and some brothers sure get more than their share, like this lad at Lytton, la., but “live and learn,” brother. My big surprise was to read where my brother exhibitor of Chetek, Wis., wrote about Bill Rogers. He does not think Bill made much of a splash in pictures. He wants to call Bill Rogers’ attention to directors that crawl around in filth, or he wants good clean family entertainment comedy. Thrills, tragedy, stunts and every