Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

LEISURE— AND WHAT COULD MOVIE BUSINESS DO ABOUT ITS DOLLAR SHARE? Exhibitors in the state of California are not so confident that business will increase commensurately with population growth. Now that the occasion of becoming the first state has been jubilantly observed and recorded, a theatre owner faces, in this state, the competition of climate which seduces the new immigrants for such a long period that they not only give up movies but stop buying wearing apparel on the theory that to be casual is to become identified with this elysian province. It is no wonder that the advent of spring and summer out this way sends shivers down the spines of Mr. Exhibitor and it is quite understandable that he would like to see a law enacted that would declare golf, fishing, hunting, motoring and barbecuing public nuisances. And with day-light saving cutting drive-in movie time to half of normal, I must say that the potential for these fresh-air emporia has diminished. If the matter of leisure time is studied in any given state, city or township, it does seem strange that the motion picture theatre is really not up to the competition presented by the individual's obsession to participate rather than to sit and watch. What we must face is the successful propaganda issued not only by the vendors of fun apparatus, but the stream of advice flowing from medical societies, and even from the government. Dr. White, the eminent heart specialist who attended President Eisenhower, had much to do with the mad rush of adults into the bicycle shops. Dr. White said we all should ride bikes to our offices, even at the risk of committing suicide in the city traffic. He also advocated walking five miles a day. Now if you think this didn't cause thousands of persons to go on a health kick and forswear sedentary pleasures such as gin rummy, going to movies, and flirting with secretaries, guess again. The whole business of keeping healthy is distracting, and the hypochrondia which is a concomitant of these regimens has a lot to do with the boxoffice decline. Why anyone should think it isn't quite healthy to get a vicarious kick out of watching Doris Day and Rock Hudson make love is something beyond my comprehension. I learn from an article in the Manchester Guardian that in England "even commercial sport is not pulling the crowds as it use to. Nor is that other great opiate of the masses, the cinema, whose decline has been the most spec hi f ©cut ADAM WEILER tacular post-war phenonemon." The article goes on to say that "in 1955 there were roughly five thousand cinemas in this country; by last year there were under 3,000. Many of the defunct cinemas have been turned into bowling alleys or bingo parlours." The article continues with statistitcs showing that ballroom dancing (J. Arthur Rank Company has dance halls as well as bowling alleys), canoeing, gliding, skin-diving and, of all things, poetry readings, consume leisure time. In other words, in once merry England there is the same problem facing the theatres as exists in this country. The point of all this is that with all the extra leisure time, there is no longer the same leisure pattern. Like much industry, it has become diversified. It is my opinion that all of these activities will proliferate rather than diminish. Can the movie industry do anything to gain, or, rather, regain its share of the leisure dollar? I think it could. I believe if one million dollars were given to Compo for the sole purpose of selling the idea of going to movies, just as the beer, dairy and cigar industries, did to sell their products, something could be accomplished. The sooner we put emphasis on getting patrons to come out of the house and go to a theatre more often the better off movie business will be. Business-building, as such, has just been idle talk in this industry; it should be activated. 0 0 And while we are telling people how to run this business, we would suggest very strongly that something ought to be done about the industry's participation in the New York World's Fair. The last we heard about such a possibility a commettee at the MPA had the matter under active discussion. Pretty soon it will be 1964. Let's hope that the discussion will be over and that something definite is going to be done to have films represented. 0 0 Time Magazine in a recent issue explores the hegira from Hollywood to Europe. The piece suggests that with Uncle Sam modifying tax exemptions for citizens living abroad some of the boys might come home and even make pictures in California. The first paragraph of this article is worth quoting if for no other reason than to add to your confusion: "As every flunking schoolboy knows, runaway film productions have turned Hollywood from a suburb into a synecdoche. Don't stop to photograph that shabby beggar by the European roadside; he's just a scenario writer looking for work." And that, dear flunking schoolboys, is why Time labels its movie department cinema instead of movies. 0 0 Our ballyhoo experts who are becoming more and more inhibited year in and year out should study the case of Mr. Cassius Marcellus Clay, the pug who may not be the next great heavyweight champion but who certainly has created new interest in the boxing world. Mr. Clay reminds me very much of the late and lamented Maria Montez, who in the early forties not only seemed to have a role in every other Universal picture, but, at the same time, unleashed a barrage of publicity about herself that made fans believe she was the greatest actress since Duse. As she appeared in the same role time after time, her main propaganda consisted in uttering thousands of words about how different she was going to be in her next picture. She was so adapt at handling her own publicity that, like Mr. Clay, newspapers and magazines delighted in hearing from her. She was so good at selling Maria Montez that the studio sent her on tour to publicize not only her own pictures but others as well. Stars nowadays either talk through their press agents, or are so briefed by their agents that it is hard to tell whether they are representing movie stars or the National Economic Council. It seems to me that we need more of the flamboyant and less of the academic conversation about picture making. You may not like Liz Taylor's unconventional approach to some fundamental aspects of her life, but you have to admit no one is better copy. You might ask: But isn't this bad publicity? Personally I think it is better than reading about the arduous duties besetting the role of the new breed of actor-executives. Once these actors turned-producers realize that the public is not interested in the complicated business of putting a package together, the better movie publicity will be. Today it lacks that essential — glamour. Film BULLETIN January 21, 1943 Poqe 9