Variety (November 1954)

Wednesday, November 10, 1954 PICTURES WHO LOVES OUR FILM CRITICS ? He Banker Readers of Times as a Reason For Hollywood Rage at Pans ! \ By GENE ARNEEL Few reviews touch off as much intra-trade conversation arid con- troversy as those written by. Bosley Crowther on the N.-Y. Times. He’s regarded as just about the. tough- est of all critics on metropolitan dailies. Hollywood production of- ficials, New York distribution ex- ecutives and theatremen generally have expressed suspicions that he favors foreign product over Hol- lywood's output, reserves his most devastating raps for 20th-Fox pix in Cinemascope, pans some en- tries, particularly' “big” produc- tions, because he simply feels these had no right to be “big” , in the first place. * Whether there’s valid criticism | among the sour grapes is immateri- al. The point is that Crowther, while often stirring resentment among filmmen -taking objection to his notices, is incessantly courted by visitors from the film colony, and is constantly bowed to by pub- licists and execs in the east. Since the Times is limited in penetration in comparison with, say, the mass circulation N. Y. Daily News* why, then, the salaams for this “terror of the Times?” Crowther himself figures the an- swer lies in his paper's audience. The Times; is especially important to the industry' because it’s, “read by the. bankers,” he opines. This is clearly a key; factor. In. short, the Times has weight in influential Circles. It’s important to the trade On the corporate arid institutional levels. “I write for the readers of the N. Y. Times and never-to instruct Hollywood,” declares the critic, A film might be a commercial suc- cess despite his downbeat appraisr al. “But I think many of the Times readers might have stayed away.” Crowther says he has no preju- dices: “It might be. that I’m nega- tive on five pictures in a row from the same company. But then I might be high on the next five from the same company arid then they’d say I'm a great reviewer.” Crowther refuses to applaud the pictures out of a foreign country simply because of their Origin, "It would be hard to find 20 pictures, say from Italy, that could stand up against 20 fine Hollywood pictures of the past year,” he notes. Today’s Admission Prices Give Practical Value To Critical Tipoff By LES REES Minneapolis, Nov. 9. In these hinterlands the general feeling among exhibitors* distrib- utors and even the newspaper film reviewers and columnists them- selves is that film criticisms exer- cise little boxoffice influence. At the same time* paradoxically per- haps, adverse reviews- of what they consider “good” pictures anger ex- hibitors and they relish favorable notices. It is conceded that “a certain ^percentage of people, probably not very large* swayed, by the critics.” Minneapolis Morning Tribune columnist Will Jones, who has a very considerable reader following and should influence many people, has rapped such pictures as “The High and the Mighty,” “The Mag- nificent Obsession,” “Sabrina,” ’‘Rear Window,” “Woman’s World,” etc., and they all enjoyed long runs,, “Sitting Bull” was fairly torn to shreds by St. Paul Dispatch critic Bill Diehl, but turned in an above par gross. Says Diehl: “I recently roasted ’The Malta Story’ and it did so poorly that it was yanked after two days. But maybe that would have occurred anyway because 'Sitting Bull’ did. good business. In re- viewing a picture, I try very much to consider if it’s worth the .aver- (Continued on page 22) HAVE HEARTS OF GOLD By IONE MOORHEAD Des Moi , Nov. 9. What .weight film criticism in a one-newspaper town? The Cowles morning, and evening Register- Tribunes have four local column- ists with followings but none pays much heed to thO films. While botfi editions carry reviews no one individual is critic. Initials only are carried. If any of the initialed reviewers ever really blasted a picture. it would probably create more con- versation than the recent $10 chain letter business. All of the boys and girls appear to have , hearts, of gold who can find some good in everything. * Sometimes the columnists do Use a paragraph or, two bn a film they’ve enjoyed or didn’t enjoy— and they say so. For some reason it is used after the picture has departed its first run. Public: Phones Portland Critics For Guidance On ‘Best Now In Town’ By RAY M. FEVES Portland Ore., Nov. 9. Opinion of exhibitors, arid dis- tributors in this area regarding the impact of film criticism on box- office can be summed up as fol- lows: Patrons have made up their minds regarding the worth of. a picture before it hits the screen. Here are some direct quotes: Arnold Marks, Oregon Journal: “Since big product is presold through advertising* comments of the local critic have little or no effect on boxoffice. However, most critics do have a following. I believe we have a boxoffice ef- fect on ‘sleeper’ or foreign product where neither the film nor the stars are to well, known... Good ex- ample of a ‘sleeper’ film helped by local criticism, might be Metro’s ‘Lilli,’ “Frequent telephone calls asking “What’s the best picture in town”? are difficult to answer since it is not possible to know the likes and dislikes dr the telephones. Most of the time the answer can be given by stating that “Alan Ladd plays paratrooper, and he’s not bad.” “On the Oregon Journal the job is more than reviewing films. De- tails such as Sunday deadlines, wire copy, spot news on entertain- ment, etc., crowd the day. A daily column also takes considerable time. Thus reviews sometimes must be “dashed out,” Evening private screenings are most help- ful . . especially at the first of the week. The idea of spending two hours per film (and we have sijf first runs) in a theatre on a Wednesday with Sunday and daily copy waiting to. be completed by 5 p.m, and with an enforced 40- hour week ruling* makes the job hectic, as well as interesting and exciting.v Herbert Larsen,. The Oregonian: (Continued on page 22) ARTIES ADMIT DEBT But Market Street Only Bothered By Pans By RALPH J. GLEASON : San Francisco,(Nov. 9. “We don’t care what the critics say, but don’t give us any bad re- view's,” That just about sums up the reaction of Market Street first run houses to the film criti- cism of the four metropolitan papers, To a man, managers of the main stem theatres, while, individually requesting not to be quoted, col- lectively agreed that their public was not swayed by pro or con (Continued on page 22) By ROBERT J. LANDRY American film criticism^-does it have standards or standing? What, does the industry think of critics? What do critics think of them- selves?.. How much does in-print comment affect firstruns. as against word-of-mouth? Do bankers read film reviews and is that one . rea- son Hollywood studio officials sometimes holler so loud? On this page Variety presents, a compendium of analyses from a representative sprinkling of key; centres in a realistic try for a bal- anced 1954 evaluation. But one thing must be separated from the discussion of film, criticisrii itself— namely* the broader question of the local newspapers’ amusement edi-r tor* and section. Where do: both rate in the thinking of newspaper ownership? The film industry seldom says so out loud, looking a publisher right in the eye, but it -is widely felt that newspapers cannot justify charging theatres special “circus” rates without providing “circus” cooperation. (On today's tight daily, nearly every department suf- fers space starvation.) But focusing down to film criti- cism* as such. The best reviewing occurs in cities with truly competi- tive newspapers. Poorest criticism is on the papers run by the busi- ness offices, openly so, or where a Single ownership has the one. morn- ing and One evening sheet. Such dailies are apt to assign any city room reporter to be the critic of the day. He. or she, Signing only initials, lacking either pride, train- ing or incentive, is likely to “de- scribe the plot,” an excuse for criiticism. always recognized by pros as the sure mark of a re- viewer who doesn't care or dare. There is considerable evidence that reporter’s-turned-critics or Critics' new to their jobs consult Bosley Crowther in the New York Times and Variety for clues as to what: to say. Some startling echoes h.aye been picked up. Some local newspapermen are quite frank about it. Note, too, in Ray Feves story from Portland, Ore., the hardship of covering a lot of first-run pictures within a rigid 40- hour city room work week. Important to Arties Everybody agrees, and the point, is made, repeatedly, that critics make or break art and foreign re- leases. But that’s, about the only area of unanimity this journal un- covered. Views on criticism run from the extreme hostility of those Who think pictures should be en- tirely exempt from -newspaper evaluation, like a can of beans, to those who esteem criticism as an institution which helps build up films as. an institution* For more detailed itemization of these points, read the various stories under sepa- rate bylines herewith. On the question of critic incen- tive, one provincial critic who de- clined to be directly quoted put it I this way; “It’s a very delicate, sore point that under the publisher’s agreement in this b.urg- none of us is permitted to accept air or thea- tre engagements. Publishers say they fear Outside interests would warp our judgment, cause logroll- ing., collusion, and .breakdown of loyalty and discipline. We’re paid Somewhat better than' the average in compensation but. our ambitions are nonetheless, effectively frus- trated. There is just no financial incentive to undue expertness.” Gossip A Staple The point is frequently repeated that the reviewer must turn into a gossip columnist to build a regional following and circumvent the pub- lishers tendency to clip amuse- ment-as-such space. Hardboiled .New York exploitationeers say they d rather see more, reader in- formation and' less critique pub- lished., They are concerned with “sell/’ Another reiterated com- ment is that critics, by work habit, veer to the highbrow. The fancier i (Continued on page 22) ‘MEANT TO BE READ, By HAROLD COHEN Pittsburgh, Nov; 9. General feeling among theatre owners: here is that criticism has small effect on the boxoffice except in very isolated and art houses. There they agree the daily reviewer can make or break a pic- ture* Principally, however, break it. A bad notice for something. in a sure-seater is the kiss of death'.: But, on the other hand, a good one doesn’t always mean that the film’s in the bag* Most of the time, yes. But exhibs can recall many instances where critics went .Over- board and they died just the.same. In the first-run hpuses, however, nobody seems, able to make up his mind how much the reviews count. Managers will admit that a small audience, fringe is influenced by reviews, but admit this section of its potential is very, small. Some (Continued oil page 22) One Denver Premise: Films Are Merchandise, Who Reviews Groceries? By B. J. ROSE ♦ Denver, Nov. 9. The motion picture critics here are modest. Both Alex Murphee,. of the Denver Post, and Frances Mel- rose, of the Rocky Mountain News, are, not sure whether their reviews influence many to go to or stay away from* Theatre managers, and executives believe that good re- views help in Denver* Some managers argue that re- views are unwarranted comments on merchandise. What newspaper evaluates the quality of advertised goods in department .stores. Some fe^l that a critic, by definition, must be “arty.” One branch manager guesses that a good review might conceiv- ably account for 10% of the gross, and in some instances this could be the difference between profit and loss. Another felt that word- of-mouth plugging was much more effective than reviews, good, or bad. Alberta Pike, who was first a re- porter and critic on the News be-, fore going into theatre publicity, and' from there to own and operate the Vogue, an art theatre, had this to say about reviewers in general: “Count me in the cheering section. Critics share equally with the artists and technicians of the in- dustry, and the movie-going public, the honor of having helped to raise the standards of movie-making, to elevate the taste of theatre-goers, and dignify the screen as an art form as well as mass entertain- ment.” Frank H, Ricketson Jr., president of Fox Inter-Mountain Theatres, operating in seven western states, was a newspaper man prior to en- tering the theatre, business, and lie agrees to the premise that film critics are constructive even though they may at times turn out adverse criticism. Tom Smiley, general manager, of Wolfberg Theatre, votes that te- views have a boxoffice impact. By LES BROWN Chicago, Nov. 9. Theatremen here vary in their estimation of the effects of criti- cishi oh their bpxoffices, and ap- parently the watchdog influence tends to depend on the kind of pic- ture and the house at which it ‘ is playing. Smaller and* offbeat houses .And the criticism a help or a hindrance, according to; the tem- perature of; the notices, while the larger theatres incline to regard reviews as just another part of their publicity cafnpaigns. Art theatres .especially, like the World Playhouse, Surf and Car- negie, are anxious for the reviews to break arid frequently gauge their prospects on the climate of the in-print opinion. Their man- agements do a burn when the re- views break several, days after an opening, wince when their fare is treated in a joint^riotice with: four other pix, and curse at a. panning. The larger and established houses, which showcase for the mass audi? ence*. don’t even shrung. Balaban & Katz theatres, for example, never lift quotes from the reviews for ads regardless how favorable they may be; This chain sells pix by issuing as much information as possible on them to the press* and criticism merely fits into their pattern of news. Large, but offbeat firstruri theatres like McVickers, Monroe arid Grand have found good reviews to pay off* As witness a terrific response . to • the much-lauded “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” and the weakisli turnout, by comparison, to the tepidly-treated “Brigadoon,” which followed “Brides” at the Mc- Vickei’S; On the other , hand, a film like “Fanfan the Tulip” drew a great ovation in all four daily news- papers here and flopped at the Ziegfeld boxoffice. There’s no pre- dicting*, evidently. The truism, “a good review: has never harmed a picture,” is sub- mitted to by all exhibs regardless Of their attitude towards criticism. Chicago Daily News critic. Sam Lesner expressed it rhore pointedly when he opined that, “criticism is more effective in the positive than in • the negative, because most (Continued on page 22) TWO SHOTS! AT ONE PIC Sunday Repeat Disturbs Theatres (Unless It’s Favorable) By JOHN QUINN Kansas City, Nov. 9. Newspaper critics’ influence bn film box office has to .be chalked up as one of the intangibles of the trade, according to a consensus of exhibs and industry execs here. Opinions expressed ran the gamut froi “definitely a factor” to “virtu- ally ineffective.” It seems generally agreed that a marked adverse effect may fol- (Continued on page 22) Crowther Praise Discounted By Exhibs But They Quote His Pans to Exchanges By JAMES L, CONNERS Albany, Nov. 2. “Industry” consensus as regards Albany and Schenectady is that critics have rip great effect upon the success or failure of regular releases but it is thought they can help or hurt foreign product play- in Jarties to a discriminating, spe- cial clientele. One circuit., pfficial, Saul J. Ullman of Fabian,, com- mented “The present generation is to smart to have any critic tell them. They can make up their own minds; arid do.” “Don’t get me* wrong,” he con- tinued. “Word-of-mouth criticism is Very impprtant. If one member of the family comes home and says, ‘S uch-and-such is a great or an en- joyable picture,' others will be i fluenced. The same, holds true in offices and plants, where people know one another, But the critics —no,” Unirian pinpointed, one local film critic as “praising too much and too broadly to carry much weight” and he said of another critic that, he “spoiled” his reviews by de- tailed description of plots, Ullman regretted that editorial writer Clift Bradt, who formerly reviewed for the Knickerbocker News (Gannett) n longer did so. C. R. Roseberry’s review on “The Egyptian” in the Times-Union (Hearst.) some months ago was a ‘barn-burner. It was perhaps the roughest local rap of an important release . in iO years. Roseberry received a, tonguelash- i (Continued ori riage 22)