Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

'Cleopatra' at $5.50 Per I see by the papers that "Cleopatra" has been booked into the Rivoli Theatre in New York for a 75-week minimum run, for which a guarantee of $1,250,000 has been paid to Fox by the theatre. It is my understanding that the Rivoli will be scaled (from a new high of $5.50 per ticket) for a weekly capacity income of $80,000 at the box office. Thus, assuming that the entire weekly take went into the pocket of the exhibitor— nothing out for overhead, operating expenses, salaries, advertising, taxes, etc. — it would take more than 15 weeks to recoup the initial guarantee. Salah Hassanein, executive vice president of the company which operates the Rivoli, was quoted in one publication as saying that in the normal course of events one "should have his head examined for making such a deal," but certainly a booking of "Cleopatra" is not the normal course of events (nor is a $5.50 movie ticket price.) Before you start getting excited about that $5.50 ducat, I keep telling myself, you should remember that right now on Broadway there is a 4-man show asking, and collecting, approximately eight dollars a ticket, and that many a stage musical on a premium night costs considerably more than that for a seat. It's inflation with a vengeance, and the movie prices are certainly not out of line. They're a little rich for my blood, but compared to the stage shows they are bargain basement. What troubles me about the "Cleopatra" booking is a purely psychological factor. I find that when I pay more than I have ever paid before for something, whether it be automobile, theatre ticket, sirloin steak or television set, I expect to get my money's worth. In other words, a lot of poeple are going to be expecting more from "Cleopatra" than they have ever gotten from a movie before. Not having seen the film, I don't know whether their expectations will be met. But I do know that this imposes an unusually heavy burden on the film. I also have the feeling that we are coming to the end of an era, and that "Cleopatra" will write finis to that era, either (hopefully) in a blaze of glory or in something rather less pleasurable. I refer, of course, to the era of the multi-multimillion dollar epics. Conceivably, some day a picture costing more than "Cleopatra" might be made; but I doubt it. In industries where spiralling costs have inflated prices the most — such as book publishing — the greatest growth has come in the low budget areas, the paperbacks. The expensive books continue to pour off the presses, but the average bookstore appears to be much more interested in the paperback trade. I suspect that the same thing is soon going to happen in the movie industry. All of us with any affection for the film business hope fervently that "Cleopatra' will be an outstanding succes. I must say that I personally hope with equal fervor that "Cleopatra" will stand alone. I hope that once it is out of the way we will go back to movies as a mass medium, distributed while they are reasonably fresh to thousands of theatres — not a first-run handful — throughout the country. And I hope that the art of making a good movie for six figures, rather than Paqe 8 Film BULLETIN January 21, 1963 eight, will finally have its long delayed resurgence. Meanwhile, may the gods smile down on the Queen of the Nile and may millions of Americans be blessed with the will and the resources to plunk down $5.50 for a ticket. 0 0 The thirtieth anniversary of the Radio City Music Hall deserves a somewhat belated but nonetheless enthusiastic comment on this page. I have long enjoyed this notable theatre and the way it is run. It is an unique institution. The uniqueness of the Music Hall is admittedly due in part to its impressive physical proportions. It is the biggest and by far the most impressive of the New York showplaces. It draws the rubberneck trade because it is one the great sights of the greatest sightseeing city in the world. But it also drews plenty of New York native trade — people who might only rarely gq to any other first-run downtown theatre. And this trade is not attracted by the imposing architecture or the rubberneck urge. These people have seen the Music Hall often. It isn't a sight to them; it is a good buy in entertainment. In any case you get more for your money. The Music Hall is the only stage presentation theatre in the Times Square area. But you get your money's worth at the Music Hall in ways other than the amount of stage entertainment your dollar buys. For example, you get ushering service superior to that of any other downtown theatre in Manhattan. To quote an elderly lady in my family, "I like the Music Hall because there is always an usher around to help me." You also get your money's worth in another, possibly more subtle and certainly more snobbish way. Either people behave better at the Music Hall or it just attracts a better class of people. At any rate, there never seems to be any of the juvenile delinquent or sloppy adult aura about Radio City that you are apt to encounter in other Broadway houses. This may indicate that Gresham's Law can be reversed, and good people can drive bad people out of circulation in any given area. 0 0 Recently I attended a showing of "The Music Man" in a small, nicely run theatre in my neighborhood. At the end of the picture, the various members of the cast were shown with their names, so that there could be no case of mistaken identity. When Robert Preston's picture flashed on the screen with his name underneath, there was a burst of applause from the theatre. I consider this not only a compliment to Mr. Preston's fine performance, but also to the good judgment of the producers who chose to identify their cast so clearly at the conclusion of the performance. One of the things which keeps bothering me from time to time when I go to the movies is my inability to connect faces and names. I see the names of two or three performers on the marquee and on the opening credits, but when the picture ends I don't know which performer played which role. Obviously, I am not talking about well-known, established players. I don't need a label to recognize a Cary Grant or a Tony Curtis or an Elizabeth Taylor, thank you. But I could mention any number of younger performers whose names are known to me without equal knowledge of what they look like. Even though I knew Robert Preston, I did not regard the closing credit for him as unnecessary, any more than a curtain call on the stage is pointless. Furthermore, there were many people in the audience, young and old, who had not been completely aware of the fact that the performance they liked so much was by Robert Preston until they saw the identification. Many years ago, a talent agent was trying to convince me how important his latest client was. "Everybody knows him," the agent said, as we stood on a street corner and heads turned to look at the actor. Finally we heard one woman saying to her companion, as she passed us and turned to look at the thespian, "I know I've seen that face someplace." Since she didn't connect a face and a name, his drawing power was nil to that person.