The Bioscope (Jul-Sep 1931)

24th YEAR. SUBSCRIPTION s Home 10/6 per annum. Abroad 30/ per annum. “ Independence and Progress ” (FOUNDED BY JOHN CABOURN) Faraday House, 8-10, Charing Cross Road, London, W.C. 2. Telephone : Temple Bar 7921, 7922. Telegrams : ‘Gainsaid, W estrand London.” No. 1301. Vol. LXXXV11I SEPTEMBER 9tV 1931 PRICE 6d. In Brief rJ r*HREE new theatres opened this week * are symptomatic of the trade’s determination to bridge difficult times by creating public optimism and goodwill. Page 21 PRESCRIPTIONS and exclusive “ Bioscope ” pictures of the new Paramount Theatre, Newcastle, and of the Granada, Tooting, and other new cinemas are on pages vii.—xiv QAM Goldwyn, writes our Hollywood ^ representative, says that production profits are now half what they used to be. The million dollar masterpiece is a thing of the past. Page 20 QOVIET Russia is said to have an eye on German theatre interests and may acquire holdings in the Emelka chain. Page 22 ' f %HEA T RES are threatened with a film 1 famine in Mexico if the Government persists in levying an uneconomic tax on film imports. Page 20 pAUMONT are to operate their newly constructed Alhambra in Paris on a SO-SO policy of films and vaudeville. Page 22 1 V. Bryson has resigned his man* aging directorship of Universal and is succeeded by S. Frank Ditcham. Page 20 Goodbye To All That ! The whole business world is tightening its belt, and those who have been living most dangerously are having to pull tightest. That means us. We have, as a trade, enjoyed our youthful splash of extravagance. We have even profited by it financially, for the lavish expenditure on some productions was undoubtedly a selling point to the public. But now this mad spending race has reached its ordained end. Film producers in Hollywood find they are spending more on bait than the fish they are catching are worth. They are willing to sacrifice everything to films — except their balance-sheet ! Hence the new Economy campaign. We prefer to call it an Efficiency campaign, because more than mere Economy is needed. If Economy was all that the situation called for, the problem would be simple. There is a big snag. Our public has been educated to expect lavish luxuriousness in films. They find in it a genial contrast to their own drab surroundings and will resent its disappearance. The problem then is to maintain the present face value of films at a reduced studio cost. A black-coat man does not economise by wearing a scarf instead of a collar; he devises economiesthat will not hurt his appearance. That is Hollywood’s problem to-day. The problem is urgent. No longer can Hollywood budget for substantial returns from countries abroad. There was a time when American rentals balanced the entire cost of a film and all foreign rights were easy profits. “ Talkies ” limited the market to Englishspeaking races. Moreover, all the world is economising ; public spending power is weak ; money is more valuable and more people are looking askance at filmdom’s spectacular juggling with millions. So we are likely to hear less in 1932 of the inflated costs of films, of grotesque salaries for stars and fat fees for stories. In every department men will concentrate on doing things as well as they did yesterdav but at a lower cost. The electrician, the scenic artist, the cameraman, having learned how to do things well, will now proceed to do them cheaply. J lFA’S “Monte Carlo Madness,” an English version of which is shortly to be seen in London', created a great impression at its Berlin premiere. Page 22 nALPH Lynn is to star in a new Ben Travers screen version of “Mischief.” page 29 DOLAND Pertwee is writing the * *■ dialogue for Warners’ first British film, “Murder on the Second Floor,” which starts production next week. Page 29 Personnel will be judged by results and not by the Studio Tables of Affinity. The campaign will go far. It will undoubtedly improve the chances of the independent producer. The studios with “ Overheads ” running to 25 per cent, of gross costs will begin to realise they are now working on a handicap. The new Efficiency Engineers will probably decide that the big studios are using up steam in merely turning the wheels round which should be used to make progress. The independents, with overheads limited to production days, will smile and prosper. Incidentally, the same process may invade the exhibiting field, for the Big-jCircuit principle has not produced the economy avid efficiency that were expected. , i ' , ' Exhibitor’s hjive much to gain from a Grand Farewell to Waste. It is up to them, to see that the gains are not made at their expense.