Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1937)

BDXDFFICE THE NATIONAL FILM WEEKLY PUBLISHED IN SEVEN SECTIONAL EDITIONS UBLiISHED WEEKLY BY ASSOCIATED >UBLICATIONS BEN SHLYEN Editor -in-Chiet I and Publisher WM. G. FORMBY Editor A. L. FINESTONE Associate Editor JESSE SHLYEN Managing Editor ' J. HARRY TOLER Modern Theatre Editor J. H. GALLAGHER director of Advertising Publication Office; 4704 last 9th St., Kansas City, lo. Phone. Chestnut 7777. ten S h 1 y e n, Publisher. lEW YORK: 551 Fifth Ive., Joseph H. Gallagher, jigr. Phone, Vanderbilt i-7138. CHICAGO: 908 So. Vabash Ave., Calvin Herler. Mgr. Phone, Webster 1233. HOLLYWOOD: 6404 'lollywood Blvd., Ivan pear. Mgr. Phone, Gladlone 1186. SECTIONAL , liFFICES; BOSTON, 14 ■j’ledmont St.; PITTStURGH, 1701 Blvd. of the Hies; CLEVELAND: 12805 ledar Road; DETROIT. 425 Cass Ave.; MINNEli.POHS, 801 Wesley Temle Bldg.; DALLAS, 210 S. [arwood; ATLANTA, 162 Valtpn St.; SAN FRANjlSCO, Golden Gate Bldg. )c Per Copy. Per Year $2, Foreign $5 ntered as Second Class I atter at the Postoffice at jUansas City, Mo., under Cost Hurdle Too High D ISTRIBUTORS as well as exhibitors are commencing to show real concern over mounting production costs. Distributors are concerned with the problem of rental incomes to get an even break, let alone a profit, on the multi-million dollar specials; and exhibitors are even more worried about the impending higher film rentals, not to mention the greater expense of selling such productions to the public. It is true that it costs money to make good pictures. But how many two and three million dollar specials can the market absorb? Higher film rentals seem to be indicated to justify these higher production costs. But exhibitors already are up against rising labor costs, increased federal and state taxes and, in numerous cases, increases in ground and property rents, plus generally higher operating costs in every other direction. Granting that big pictures cost big money to make, the expenditure of big money does not always assure a big picture. Putting half a million dollars into two star names, for instance, is quite an initial load with which to start a production. And that kind of a load calls for higher expenditures all along the line to make good the gamble on the two big names. Then there is the current example of two musicals, one of which cost over a million and the other slightly more than a quarter million. The lower-cost production is packed with more entertainment values, better-known and better-draw names and is head and shoulders above the more costly picture except from the standpoint of lavish sets. The predesigned "big hit" isn't proving such. The more carefully planned picture, because it had to be made on a smaller, tighter budget, is more than was expected of it. Of course pictures costing upwards of a million have been known to return their costs, plus handsome profits, to their producers and even to satisfy exhibitors. But, until now, there have been only a handful of such pictures. The public wants good pictures; the industry needs good pictures — yes, and even prestige pictures on which a loss is expected; but prestige without profit won't sustain the industry. And another thing — we hear talk of increasing the cost of small groups of so-called "A" pictures at the expense of the "B's" on which budgets are to be reduced. Better to be less lavish on the "A's" and use the surplus to improve the "B's". Grossing possibilities are not as unlimited as some production budgets seem to be. This business used to make a lot of money for a lot of people when $100,000 was a terrific picture cost and 25 cents was top admission price. It isn't how much you take in, but what is left after all expenses are paid that counts. Making the cost limit too high a hurdle is dangerous business. Retaliation? Recently several large department stores began showing motion pictures as a means of attracting customers to their stores. They argued that theatres had gone into the merchandising business, so why shouldn't they go into the picture business. Comes now from New England the report — and verified — that several retail stores are using Bank Night to bring people into their stores. And, as further evidence that retail merchants are following exhibition practices, there is the growing popularity of "two-for-one" sales in drug and other retail stores. ^'Here to Stay^ Speaking of "two-for-ones" we are reminded of the double-feature policy that goes on apace despite all agitations and arguments to the contrary. We are reminded further that, when sound first broke loose, every important industry figure interviewed for his reaction to the possibilities of sound invariably responded, "Sound is here to stay." And this retort came from many who originally had looked upon sound as a passing fad. Quite some time ago a very large circuit affiliated with a producing and distributing company took a ballot among its millions of patrons as to their preferences for single or dual-feature programs. The result was about 9 to 1 against duals. Yet that circuit has continued the dual policy in the majority of its theatres, including first runs. Recently another large circuit, also producer-owned, made a similiar survey with the results again favoring single-feature programs. But the dual-billing policy of this chain has not been changed. Our reporters were sent out to interview prominent industry figures on this current exhibition problem. And the result? "Duals are here to stay."