Variety (November 1954)

22 PICTURES Variety Wednesday,' November 10, 1954 Who Loves Our Critics Continued from page S the vocabulary, tpe less the critic’s boxoffice influence. It is interesting to discover that, In certain towns, film, critics con- stantly get telephone calls request- ing guidance as to the best films currently in firstrun, However, critic, influence varies from m-. munity to community and. critic to critic. It would probably take an exhaustively detailed Ph.D. thesis to . correlate "quality” of reviews with boxoffice results. Every filth man. has a few classic examples of a turkey.vrelease that cleaned up. “Fabiola” in 1951 collected perhaps the wor.rt set , of pans in recent years,. An Italian import landed on these shores for under $75,000, this "poor , man’s Quo Vadis” has something like $900,000 in the till ' far. Yet it rates as a stinker. Babysitter Angle Critics in somd instances offer themselves as a conscience-in the light of today's high admission, prices.. If: it costs $5 for’ a couple to travel downtown to a picture, and maybe more with babysitter rates; then the. choice of theatre becomes increasingly pertinent. Operators of film exchanges and firstrun theatres profess npt to es^ teem criticism as boxoffice influ- ence, Still they tend to quote lav- ishly (Balaban & Katz in Chicago is unusual in systematically never doing so). There is little tendency nowadays to blast the' blaster,, to appeal to the business Office in an effort at retaliation against a saucy reviewer; Still the boys burn. The biggest of the Hollywood bigshots burn easiest, and most, at the re- views. of Bosley Crowther in the N. Y. Times, Crowther’s own inter- pretation of why this is so (see separate story) is arresting. .Interestingly, considerable em- phasis is. put upon "Americanism,’’ Critics are not too powerful, it is argued, because the average Joe exercises his American right to •m9 make lip his own mind. But this theory is weakened by the com- panion idea that the average Joe’s mind has been made up ahead of time by the advertising and exploi- tation campaigns,, including na- tional magazine eppy, / There, are about 350 film critics in the United States. Only one city,. New York, has a Film Critics Circle and it manages to meet only Once a year to bestow awards.: Personal devotion to his job over some 15 years, plus the great, pres- tige'of the N. Y. Times, undoubted- ly explains the special status of Bosley Crowther as No, 1 film critic. Who else is held in re- spect? Such a list must neces- sarily run the risk of invidious omissions. Difficulty in getting: a balanced estimate prompts Variety to. duck this aspect; As far as the New York film trade. is sensitive to film criticism in England, two women 1 ; C. A. Lejeune of the London Observer and Dellys Powell of the London Times,'are notably appreciated. Portland Phones In from page 5 By FRED TEW .. Detroit; Nov. 9. Detroit exliibs, distribs and film critics are about evenly divided on the question of. whether criticism does or does not have an effect on boxoffice receipts. Borne just ■•throw up their hands and say: "I honestly don’t know." The four local, film Critics had •dme' interesting things to say—in addition to agreeing their reviews had'little influence on the boxoffice -7-regarding the standards they use In judging a feature and whether or not ■they are swayed by the known .boxoffice pull of popular stars. The film critics had this to say regarding their influence: Helen Bower, Free Press: "I have no illusions that any review of mine can make or mar a picture at the boxoffice, especially in first run.. But I know for a fact that readers and exhibitors (particularly In the neighborhoods and in small- er towns outstate), are guided by my judgment of; a picture, though I have uo way of knowing how ex- actly this, influences the boxoffice of a given movie/’ A1 Weitschat, News, ‘‘1 .don’t know what, effect my reviews hav on business;” Walter Stevenson, Times, aid he feels his. fill reviews have ‘’very little ..influence on the . boxoffice. 1.don’t' believe' a.fan .will stop go- ing just because he reads a bad review ” Dick Osgood, whose five-times a Week, 15-minute "Show World” lias . been, on W.XYZ 16 years,, said; ‘•Filin criticisms have almost no in- fluence on tfie mass audience, al- though exhibitors have indicated they do.V Discriminating people are Influenced/’ SOI Krim, who operates an arti thinks: "Reviews, have a great in- fluence on the boxoffice in. my type Of operation.” Joseph J. Lee of 20th-Fox belieV.es “Film criticism is, very helpful, as a rule. Even if a Critic pans and raps a picture too hard, people go to see it to sec just how bad it is,” Says Joseph B. Rosdn -of Universal, "Anything helps a good picture. I don't know Whether a. bad review hurts a pi tuie/’ “in reviewing a film, I attempt to put myself in the position of the average filmgoer to determine if the picture will provide good - tertainment for audiences/ : Of course, quality of story and play- ing must be taken into considera- tion. I am not swayed by the box- office pull of stars. Even the most popular stars can not carry a poor story. Just because a fa- vorite is playing a stellar role it does not: follow that the film 'will be a good One.” Grocery Angle Herbert Royster, Publicity Di- rector, J. J. . Parker Theaters: “Deep ‘panning’ hurts boxoffice Up to 30% whereas a polite tact- ful criticism will only hold a few away. Customers at a food mar- ket buy canned goods, sight un- seen depending on the quality of product on labe l ou tside of can, ads,, and merchandising campaign. Therefore why should a critic tear down the merchandising program of theatre, and display the mer- chandise concealed in the earn?’’ Russ Brown, Oregon District Manager for Evergreen Theaters: "A critic can distract from the boxoffice, if he does not use a tech- nical approach to his review; He can also add to.the boxoffice take. A critic who writes well and has a ^public approach rather than a technical one, can carry a great deal of weight.” Dick Newton, Manager Para- mount, Theater: “Generally, drama criticism has little, effect on box- office.” Marty Foster, Manager, Guild Art Theater:, "Beyond a doubt, local criticism couild be of great value if it were an honest review, If the critic were able to praise the- worthwhile pics and without any hesitancy disclaim the medi- ocre ones, without pressure from the newspaper executives, then in the long run the exhibitor, public; and newspaper critic himself would benefit. The public would etsablish faith in. the critic’s re- views and could' align their tastes with his. As the situation' exists, llie public forms an. opinion of the picture before arriving; i Word of mouth is a terrific, assist. Critics should be given a free hand to make their criticism-become irm- portant at the boxoffice.” Any Reporter a Buffalo Critic on the Side But Reviews Hold Public Eye By SID PFEIFER Buffalo, Nov. 9. That .film criticism is feather- weight in its impact on the box- office is the consensus in . local in- dustry well as critical circles. Unequivocal thumbs-down no- tices are thought to have; some effect on attendance, Word-of- mouth plugging from satisfied v.iewei’s is assigned as the ■. chief reason for strong turnouts, arid it. is v believed that the public forms its opinion beforehand via metro- politan newspapers, syndicated col- umnists and national magazines, so that what a local reviewer may say —either good or bad—is not taken too seriously. , Why then favor reviewing at, all? They ought to be continued be- cause “it shows the public we’re still in business,” and helps the industry stay in the public eye as an institution. Much of the ineffectual quality of “provincial” critiques is attribut- ed to haphazard assignments, the mere reportorial character of local reviews, and a general “whafs the use” top-desk attitude. Local pa- pers have first, second and third string reviewers, and with several pictures sometimes opening the same day much of the coverage is apt to be matter-of-fact and lack- adaisical■ Reviewer is frequently just,a reporter without, critical ex- perience and ,/with the . exception of the first stringers, none shows signs of taking their assignments too seriously. With only one morning and one evening paper left in Buffalo, town has only two first string : men— Ardis Smith of the (evening).News, Who is also in charge of the drama, desk, and W. E. J.; Martin of the (morning) Courier-Express, who has held the. berth, together with other general duties for bver a quarter of a century. Neither be- lieves that his work has much ef- fect on the retail trade: Smith tries to i>e ‘‘readable, amusing, informa- tive and honest." He feels that; if he were less, he would be out. Martin,, the veteran, is convinced that newspaper reviews assert no influence on the box office. A bad one may just be “another nail in the coffin.” Al Today’s Prices Continued from age-person’s money. In these days of $1 admissions, parking: and transportation costs .and th pense. of baby sitting, moviegding is a costly proposition, the night but running; to as. much, perhaps, . as $5 for a. couple, which is a con- siderable chunk out of the local entertainment: budget.” Harry /B. French, United ^Para- mount circuit president, says: “I kn w of some people originally staying away from a picture after reading adverse comments but later influenced to see it by friends’ word-of-mouth, in such cases, the critics or columnists ai?e discredited and .th'eir ,vi. ivs there- after carry less weight;” Two Shots, Same Pic Continued: from page 5 low a bad rap, but a good review doesn't spur biz proportionately. / Most managers feel there is a segment of the paying 'public that, carefully' reads the reviews, but there also is a large segment which pays no attention to them. Readers generally pick up a- review to find out what the picture Is about. •A good mahy papers In this area follow the policy of simply recount- ing in their reviews just “who is in it” and “what it is about/’ without expressing a reviewer’s opiniop. Springfield,. Mo., and Kansas City, Mo., papers,: however, go in for rating the films. The Kansas City Star follows policy of reviewing picture on opening day and recap- ping with its : famed "little man” in the Sunday section. This has raised objections from some, film men. oh grounds it gives the paper two pot shots at a pic- ture; but on good 'pictures it turns out to be two happy shots. Meant to Be Read Continued from page 5 say a good send-off may help a bit but that iif a majority of ca&es a bad one can’t do much harm. To substantiate that, they point to the stinkers which , never get off the floor on opening day before the reviewers have even had a chance to get their hooks into it. By . the same token, /films which take off big and then are rapped show po noticeable drop in attend- ance, below the norm, down the stretch. Of course, despite their feelings; they all. love good notices but don’t scream to the high heavens at a bad one and go rushing to the ad- vertising departments the way they used to do locally. Older reviewers can recall another generation of exhibs that, even though they didn’t believe an unfavorable re- view wds too. damaging, were burnt; to a crisp and raised the roof at a bad opinion. Present crop of ex- hibs, however/isn't so corny .and knows long before a critic tells him when he. has a turkey. As for the local critics them- selves, almost to a man they’re aware of their minor: influence on ; the box-office and subscribe to the- old: adage that “Critics are meant to be read; not agreed with any- way.” One of them, who has been covering pix for quarter of a cen- tury, said he tried to make his no- tices as entertaining as possible in order to at least get them read even if he had little hope that Very many prospective • customers Were being swayed by them. Midst of critics here double as daily columnists. Crowther Both Ways Continued from, page 5 ing on the phone from Nat C. Rosen, 20th-Fox branch manager; “What are you trying to* be, Bos- ley Crowther?” was the snapper/ Asked what effect he thought his slam had on patronage, Roseberry (a columnist) quipped “Well, RosCn was awfully, mad.”. “The Egyptian” grossed around $13,000, good but not great, at the 1,920-seat Strarid here. However, as a generality; Roseberry did not feel reviews were a weighty boxoffice factor. If the critics mean little at the boxoffice, why do distributors and circuits Cultivate-them, give them ■attention? One manager replied: “Because It’s human mature to work, on the assumption that a boost better than a knock.” ... Had an exhibitor ever cited an Albany or a Schenectady review to him, in bargaining for a picture? No, replied one branch manager, but Crowther’s N. Y. Times crit- tiques had. been brought in. “If you are trying to sell a feature and mention Crowther’s favorable comment/’ the manager explained, “the exhibitor is likely to. sluff it off as of no account. On the other hand, if you are offering a picture that Crowther. has panned,'the ex- hibitor may mention it, to prove you are wrong. The exhibitor uses Crowther both ways, for his own advantage.” IndustryitCs feel that Bradt, in his reviewing days, and Roseberry, when he had the beat regularly, were strongly influenced by Crow- ther. At present Harold Henderson is still newish on. the News and Edgar Van Olida of the Times- Union seldom writes “critically.” San Francisco Continued from comments in the press. /And oddly enough, this was. no news to the film .critics themselves/ .The sit- uation/apparently, is well known to both sides. However, it applies only to the. Hollywood product.. In the art film field,, the theatre operators were just' as adamant, that ; criti- cisi played a vital role in the success or failure: of thei^. pictures. “We even clip out and*post the review's on the lobby wail,” one manager reported , while another said that in the. case of art films, criticism had built them into a profitable business. One critic, Luther Nichols of the Chronicle, was cited by almost everyone in the art. film biz ; as packing; a powerful wallop in his reviews with a definite and dis- •cernable reaction in the boxoffice, .(Nicholas has/just left the Chroni- cle after some seven years). Popcorn & Arl Continued, from page 5 By JERRY GAGHAN Philadelphia,, Nov. 9. Majority reaction of the first-run theatremen here is that the critics do not matter,. but. “For God sakes don’t quote me!” Consensus gives critics an impact only on “art” films.' “Salome” got poor notices and did big business. ‘"Betrayed” got bad reviews and did fine. “Sabrina’s” mixed recep- tion had no effect on boxoffice. Lone dissenter among film men was Joseph Cull.ihan,. manager of the 625-seat Arcadia. Theatre. “Good reviews help. They’re the backbone of the industry. You can quote me.” Critics here are not influenced by known boxoffice popularity of stars/ “Who would admit they were influenced?’' asked. Laura Lee, of the Evening Bulletin. “I’m a. rugged individualist and follow my own standards,” declared Mildred Martin; of the Philadelphia. In- quirer. Miss Martin, stated, “I feel that more people road reviews nowa- days due to the high prices. I re-. alize, that an audience goes for corn: and I judge any Martin & Lewis picture simply as good or bad Martin & Lewis, as/the case may be. I make less Allowance, however, for the .pretentious type of film.” Chuck Melven, of the Daily News, said he didn’t think the critics have too much influence. “My primary purpose is to inform the public of the general idea of a film, its story and acting. I try riot to get too far away from the audience. I praise an art show, but won’t kick another film in the teeth because it isn’t arty.” Wayne Robinson, Sunday film editor of the Bulleti , said, “A rave never hurts. The trade tells you the critics have no effect; but if a picture gets good reviews they promptly put them in the ads and in front, of the houses. The reader soon learns the likes and dislikes of a critic; and if a critic hates slapstick he makes 1 allowance for it and follows his own tastes. The specialized house arid the special film have an audience that follows the critics/’ pepple would rather be persuaded to see a picture, than: dissuaded. Lesner feels newspaper reviews at least help on the opinion-form- ing level, fomenting talk among the literate minority who generally ex- press arid extend their influence to the masses. Word-of-mouth then builds a picture.” Importance of Popcorn In. general,, the four daily critics here tend to be more lenient than severe with pix in order to keep the industry buoyant. All show an awareness for the vital part the popcorn trade plays in film busi- ness, and they rate pictures flexi- bly by what they purport to be. Ei tor Kean, who pens for ;thd Sun-Times Under, the nairie bf Doris Arden, believes a critic owes her readers a report on “the pic- ture's purpose and how well it is accomplished.” Therefore,, west- erns are treated on their own terms and corn comedies by how they sat- isfy the “ ” tastes. More Artistic the Filin, More Weight the Critic By SAM X. HURST St Louis, Nov. 9.. Critics don’t carry much weight at the b.o. of flicker houses in the St. Louis area, according to film exchange heads' arid exhibs. . And the two local critics themselves agree, in a measure, that this is about correct. Clarence Hill, manager of the Columbia Pictures exchange, cited “From Here to Eternity” as a re- cent example. One critic couldn’t see it and even after it had played Loew’s State for eight weeks at an upped scale, which is a rarity here, and had copped an Academy award, this critic would hot budge from hiS initial stand. “People in this area have come to the Conclusion that the critics in their; reviews, are expressing only individual opinion. What they may like the public doesn’t and vice versa,”. Hill said. “St. Louisans are canny shoppers for their entertainment whether it be films, legit or anything else.” Myles Standish of the Post Dis- patch, the p:m. Pulitzer rag, and Herb Monk of the Globe-Democrat, the a.m. rag, each alone in his re- spective field, agree; that it re- quires fine reviews to put British, French and Italian films in the black at the three small, art the- atres, but for American made films it’s a different matter; Even a mild review of a foreign-made pic- ture kills the b.o. appeal as such houses cater to special, trade/ Monk believes “the. more artistic the pic- ture the greater the influence of the critic.” Natives who like Ab- bott and Costello and Martin and Lewis will nqt be swayed by any review. And Monk added that the same yardstick applies'to Wester