Showmen's Trade Review (Oct-Dec 1949)

SHOWMEN'S TRADE REVIEW, November 26, 1949 21 Jackson . . . (Continued from Page 19) j of removing the distortion, but that requires an investment of approximately $17,000, so let's not go into it. ! The disturbing angle, from a theatreman's viewpoint, is that Zenith promises "the newest pictures" and declares : "The movie producers : are enthusiastic over the possibilities of Phonevision and are cooperating with the tests." i That part ain't so good, because the possibility looms that there will be loud and raucous calls to Uncle Sam for clearance edicts if the films to be shown are the same that appear on the regular releasing schedules of distribu■ tion companies. And, unless some producer has gone completely nuts, it seems unlikely that any ' other kind of feature film attraction will be i available for Phonevision use. If and when iPhonevision gets under way — and the news report indicates a practical cinch ' — theatre attendance is certain to be affected. Zenith plans the movie to be a supplement to ' the free advertiser-sponsored entertainment of I television. It contemplates having a station I show three or four movies a week via Phonevision in addition to its regular schedule of sponsored shows. The revenue dollar is to be I split between the producer, the station and the phone company, with the Hollywood end staked at a full 50 per cent. While there is the possibility that stage productions and the larger sporting events will be similarly broadcast, all tests to date have been made and are being ] made with feature films. j From another source I gather that Zenith ]j has formed a special subsidiary to handle Phonevision, to be known as Theatrical Enterprises Corp., with capitalization of $1 million. The venture is described as "the cornerstone of a national theatre," so far as Broadway plays are concerned, and declared as holding potential for the cure of artistic and economic headaches of producers and investors. These latter are growing pretty scarce around the big stem, the cost of "angeling" a Broadway show having gone up some 400 per cent since prewar years. The possible added revenue from Phonevision would be mig'hty welcome in legit circles where any added business does not materially afifect the revenue of the few houses engaged in presenting "live" talent. But the owner of the movie house is in an entirely different situation. Just about every picture theatre in the land is hard pressed to garner sufficient patronage to chalk black figures consistently on the profitand-loss statement. If any new megig come along that promises to lift a chunk of current patronage, it must be viewed as an enemy and treated as such. Certainly this Phonevision could not have grown to proportions warranting an 8-column banner in the Chicago Daily News without some of the upper-bracket authorities of the motion picture industry being aware of its plans for the presentation of feature film attractions. And, such being the case, it is equally certain that those in the know should take steps to protect any and all existing theatres from the threatened competition. If they haven't done so to date, it's high time they got busy. Television, as pointed out in this column several months ago, holds promise of being anything other than a boon to theatres. As we wrote at that time, there exists great need of establishing some protection to prevent the televising of Hollywood attractions that will be in competition with theatre exhibitions. At Organ Programs Draw When the Capitol Theatre in Salt Lake City was remodeled recently. Organist Gus Farney was heard at the 1,200-pipe Wurlitzer on the opening program. Since then, to bring in added business, Manager Nevin McCord occasionally has Farney preside at the organ. "Community Sings" add to the popularity of these occasions. the time this writer talked with the program arrangers of several TV broadcasting stations, it was determined that an average of 70 reels each week would be needed to augment the existing array of "live" talent. This was more than a year ago. That the need for movies has risen to keep pace with the increase in TV stations must be conceded. In response to the article mentioned I received a couple of rather lame excuses and some information as to the barricades existing against the enforcement of any workable "taboo" against the ether photos. These included the bromide about copyrights having been sold without TV protection, etc. Since then, I've learned from actors taking part in such pictures as are being and have been shown on TV that the Guild is taking steps to secure payment for services from TV stations using the films. If these steps are successful, it is certainly possible to prevail on actors to forbid the use of films in which they appear over TV. I know that it seems like a difiicult way to poison the cat, but when an outfit with a million dollars behind it and already possessing favor with the powers-that-be declares its intention of raiding your private customer barrel, it's time to grab any and every weapon in sight to keep him at a distance. Of course, it's still possible to give the producers who happen to be currying favor with Phonevision their choice between the new gadget and the established theatre as an outlet for their artistic effort. Television, even in its present imperfect state, is an imposing competitor of theatres. If we are gullible enough to fall for that smooth line about it being a new source of scouting the world for movie talent, that it offers us the opportunity of getting our trailers into the very homes of a new field of prospective patrons, we're downright silly. Television is talking pictures being shown "for free" in competition with theatres charging admission. It must be viewed as such. If it intends to scout the world for talent to appear in movies, let it keep hands off the talent that movies — supported by the many advertising dollars of theatre owners everywhere — have built to proportions that magnetize boxoffices. It just makes sense that no thinking person will pay for the privilege of witnessing in a theatre that which can be seen without charge in the privacy of his own parlor. If the ■ Hollywood producers declared by McDonald as being "enthusiastic over the prospects of Phonevision" are sincere, why shouldn't the distributors insist that such films as they make for Phonevision be forever withheld from theatre release? 'Phonevision must have merit or it couldn't attract a million dollars. Let's wish it every success. But not the kind of success that will scratch shingles off the roofs of theatres. As a newcomer it deserves every opportunity but should be willing to pay its own way through the expensive fields of experiment and not ride the prize horse or horses of a competitor who has, and is, footing all the bills. OVER 5,000 LEADING THEATRES HAVE "VOICE of theTHEATip" SPEAKER SYSTEMS For detailed information consult your local theatrical dealer. 161 Sixth Avenue, New York 13 • 1161 N.Vine Street. Hollywood 38