Boxoffice (Apr-Jun 1939)

Figures Show Wide Variation in Runs (Continued from page 56) 119 on “Thin Ice,” to 3,581 on “Dinner at the Ritz.” Paramount ranged from 13,200 on “Wells Fargo” and 11,532 on “The Buccaneer” to 3,947 on “Love on Toast.” RKO ranged from 9,567 on “Stage Door” and 9,073 on “Radio City Revels” to 845 on “The Rat.” Universal ranged from 10,569 on “Three Smart Girls” and 9,892 on “My Man Godfrey” to 2,315 on “Four Days’ Wonder,” while M-G-M ranged from 10,873 on “Navy Blue and Gold” and 10,784 on “The Bad Man of Brimstone” to 5,455 on “The Chaser,” and Columbia ran from 10,298 on “Theodora Goes Wild” and 9,907 on “Pennies From Heaven” to 2,006 on “The Beloved Vagabond.” “These schedules show a very wide variation in the number of theatres that show the different pictures released in the same group block by the same company,” Pettijohn pointed out. “If they are sold by compulsory block booking, most theatres must have a big cancellation privilege. If not, then most of the theatres must have a very wide selection when they buy. Many Outs Available “Actually, exhibitors have a variety of ways to get out of playing a picture. They may have a selective contract, that is, buy 40 out of 50, the 40 to be selected as they are released. They may persuade the distributors to cancel a picture by mutual agreement, by bargaining and trading. Or they may just refuse to play it and defy the distributor to make them use it. But by one or more of these methods, it is quite obvious that most theatres do get out of playing certain pictures of every company, otherwise every picture from the same company in the same year would play the same number of accounts. The records I am submitting now show the real facts, not theories, not opinions, and not personal beliefs.” National organizations of which she is a member have no difficulty in working under the present system, the subcommittee was told by Mrs. Frances Flagg, Newtonville, Mass. Drive On Duals Revealed At one time, Mrs. Flagg related, she attempted to work with the proponents of the bill but found them “so firmly fixed on a negative policy of criticism of block booking” that she was forced to withdraw. Miss Lyford, who has worked so hard for the bill, she commented, never joined in local efforts to improve exhibition conditions. In fact, the witness declared, block booking is not a matter for the women of the country to interest themselves in, and none of her organizations has ever given it consideration. At the same time, she said, they have accomplished much in the improvement of films and now are about to undertake a campaign against double features as the next step toward betterment. Intimations that the Neely bill will not slide through the Senate as easily as it Says 5,873 Accounts Rejected Martini Washington — Although they had signed for it, 5,873 exhibitors refused to play "Music for Madame,” starring Nino Martini, but the reissue of "Frankenstein" played to more than 4,000 accounts with no cancellations, C. C. Pettijohn told the senatorial subcommittee hearing arguments on the Neely measure. did a year ago were given by Chairman Smith at the conclusion of Mrs. Flagg’s testimony. “I have been greatly enlightened as to the motion picture industry and its methods of production and distribution,” he said. If the bill reaches the Senate floor, he continued, he will talk about it for the benefit of members who have not been able to acquaint themselves with the problem at first hand. “Music for Madame,” with Nino Martini, was refused by 5,873 exhibitors who had signed up for it, but the reissue of “Frankenstein” played to more than 4,000 reissue contracts with no cancellations, Pettijohn told the subcommittee as he laid before them a list of 30 pictures, 15 of which had less than 20 cancellations or rejections and 15 which were cancelled or rejected by most exhibitors. Mae West’s first two pictures got no cancellations, he told the senators, but her last was turned down by 140 which, he commented, might show some improvement in public taste. Boxoffice the Motive Pettijohn explained that the lists were submitted to demonstrate that boxoffice rather than moral considerations moved exhibitors. “As I take it,” Chairman Smith commented, “regardless of what system you have of selling, the success of a picture depends upon the boxoffice receipts indicating what the public wants. If we did away with block booking, then the censor or the man who assumes to cater to the public taste becomes the arbiter of the fate of a picture.” “You say the public rejects them,” Pettijohn replied. “I say the exhibitor rejects them, because if you showed them to the public I believe they would have done good business with a lot of these pictures.” Many of the pictures of which the civic groups complained were on the list with the minimum cancellations, he said, while the list with most cancellations included what the producers had felt were outstanding quality films. The motion picture industry is a profitseeking business, Pettijohn emphasized, and to that extent differs not at all from the industry in England. Laying before them excerpts from a debate on films in the British Parliament in March, he suggested the senators read it, adding “Don’t let anyone tell you that these English gentlemen are interested in anything but trade and commerce in motion pictures.” Even under present conditions, he said, (Continued on page 58-E) Ed Kuykendall Lists The "Inadequacies'' Washington — After introducing himself to the subcommittee conducting hearings on the Neely bill as the president of the MPTOA, whose membership controls “more than twice as many unaffiliated or independently operated theatres . . . than there are represented in any other exhibitor association,” Ed Kuykendall declared: “I am convinced that in many respects the Neely bill to prohibit block booking is an amazing example of misleading, deceptive and confused legislation, prepared and sponsored by people who are inexperienced in our business.” Shifts Responsibility Specifically, Kuykendall foresees these “damages” should the bill be enacted: “It will not insure right moral standards in the production of motion pictures, because the picture is recorded in the film before it enters the process of distribution and cannot be changed. “It does not prevent any exhibitor from showing any objectionable or indecent films he wants to show. “It does not help the theatre owner who may be persuaded to cancel an announced picture because of local objections. He has already made a contract agreement to pay for the film. The act does not provide any option to cancel the picture after it is licensed. “It forces the distributor to raise wholesale prices to an artificial level under criminal penalties. We exhibitors think that in many instances film prices are already too high. “It imposes the constant threat of drastic fines and imprisonment on every person in the business. “It invites misuse of the criminal penalties by unscrupulous exhibitors to secure commercial advantages not available in open competition. “It compels the production of mediocre pictures by imposing impossible restrictions on creative effort. “It takes away the responsibility on the producer, where it rightly belongs, to maintain right moral standards in pictures, and seeks to put the entire responsibility on the local exhibitors scattered throughout the country, without offering to the exhibitor an option to cancel pictures as they are booked. “It destroys business methods built on practical experience and forces the motion picture industry to embark on an untried experiment over the protests of those responsible for making and marketing modern motion pictures.” Deemed a “Whip” “Many exhibitors are inclined to desire that the bill remain pending in Congress for strategic reasons in connection with the trade practice negotiations,” he said later. “It is one thing to have such a bill as this pending, for the purpose of forcing consideration of the wholesale distributors on modification of objectionable sales policies, but, sooner or later. Congress is bound to act on the bill. It seems that we have reached that point now.” BOXOFFICE :: April 15, 1939 57