Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

TEN BEST LISTS Morv Emphasis an *Prcstig«* A air in Hallywaatl ( Continued from Page 9 ) tures are ignored outright by the critics. The only value of such product is a commercial one, to be estimated by the accountants, not the critics. The better mass films come in for critical attention, and so they should, and in this category critical opinion becomes of concrete concern to the exhibitor. Are the critics, in their leaning toward more artistic films on the Best Ten lists, really "out in left field", or are they actually more closely attuned to the changing taste of the American public than most movie magnates realize or are willing to admit? Does this trend in the "best" choices have an important implication for exhibitors in general, or does it merely prove the old adage that what is art is not boxoffice? A number of factors seem to be conspiring to make the distinction less cut and dried than it once was. The increasingly "discriminating moviegoer" is a phrase being heard more frequently in the industry. What does it mean? It means, among other things, of course, that people want better technical quality, more color, more exotic scenery. But it also means that the public, in growing numbers, is seeking quality productions; more unusual stories and greater artistic quality. SOMETHING BETTER FOR PUBLIC The availability of free television entertainment at home, now that the novelty is wearing off, is prompting people to seek something better than that when they go out. The success of the higher priced hard-ticket pictures shows that many are willing to pay a bit more for something they can't get in their living rooms. The product shortage is breaking down the resistance to foreign films as theatres use them increasingly to keep something on the screen. This is creating a greater public acceptance of all imports, including those that are winning the plaudits of the critics and were once to be seen only in the art theatres in a few metropolitan cities. A few years ago "A Taste of Honey" would not have had a chance to break through from the art to the class market, in which it has made a respectable showing. In short, there are increasingly persuasive commercial factors, in addition to those things that have always prompted some producers to make class "losers", that are contributing to a growth in the number of high quality films being made. To judge from the new year's predictions and resolutions being made out loud by the leaders of the American film industry, U.S. producers are coming to a fuller appreciation of this trend. Never before has so much thought been given to the production of prestige films as is now becoming evident in Hollywood. 1962 was a bad year as the industry seemed to run a little behind the trend, but production of many class items in work, or on the drawing boards indicates heavy concentration in the years ahead on high quality class offerings that don't contain the old-fashioned "safe" boxoffice ingredients. That there is a solid commercial basis for this approach seems evident. The market for good films is growing and the prestige of the entire industry, on which, to some extent, the sale of all its pictures depends, is dependent, in large part, on the public and critical ratings of its best productions. If the American film industry loses by default in these ratings, even the mass films may suffer eventually as word gets around that the best movies are no longer coming out of Hollywood. Even now, "strictly Hollywood" is not the most complimentary comment a picture can receive. MORE CLASS FILMS PLANNED That the American film industry has no intention of being shoved off the Ten Best lists is becoming increasingly evident as the new class pictures come out and as plans for the future are revealed. If Hollywood, as it seems determined to do, keeps up its prestige with the critics and the growing numbers of knowledgeable and demanding film goers, the whole industry can only benefit. Where does all this long-range planning leave the theatre owner who is trying to cope right now with reduced selections, television, limited appeal films and the countless other ills the exhibitor's flesh is heir to? A fresh look at the old tried-and-true principles of booking might be in order, less, perhaps, from the point of view of what has generally been booked as from the viewpoint of what has generally been avoided. Some of the films exhibitors have tended either to ignore or shy away from are gaining in appeal faster than a conservative estimate would suggest, and exhibitors may not be sticking their necks out as far as they fear by bringing in an occasional import or class picture. The distance "over the heads" of the public these films fly is often not as great as has been generally supposed. DISTRIBUTORS' ROLE Distributors, for their part, have a heavy responsibility to see that films are properly exhibited and could well offer more realistic guidance to theatre owners than they often give. Kirk Douglas recently complained to the Holywood correspondent of the New York Times that his "Lonely Are The Brave" was rushed into big theatres and advertised as just another western, whereas it belonged in smaller, more intimate houses presented as a class film. The picture's boxoffice performance, he claimed, was hurt by this fast play-off treatment, instead of enjoying the word-of-mouth publicity longer runs in smaller theatres would have given it. Let it be noted that "Lonely Are The Brave" made Time's Best Ten. The Ten Best lists, while they don't seem to have much bearing on current boxoffice receipts, cannot be dismissed as having no bearing at all on the market. In the lists are some films that will always appeal only to the few, some that didn't do well financially because they were poorly handled, some that are both good films and good boxoffice, and some for which there is a still-unrecognized public acceptance. It may take the wisdom of Solomon to sort them out as they become available instead of at the end of the year, but not to risk it is to miss some opportunities for some reasonably successful runs. Is there an exhibitor in the country who hasn't been surprised at one time or another by the success of some picture he was sure wouldn't draw ? Page 22 Film BULLETI N— January 7, l?A3