Boxoffice barometer (1947)

Will Rural Communities Support First-Rate Theatres? (Continued from page 38) of the average small-town builder. I see no reason why the socalled stock-plan theatre, even though small, could not be modern and attractive. (7) “There must be quite a number of experienced theatre architects who have some mighty fine ideas as to just what is needed for the average small-town Main Street 25xl40-foot lot. There must also be a number of small-town theatre owners who just happen to have an ideal set-up. I know there must be thousands of smalltown theatre owners who would like to turn their firetraps back into a grocery store and erect a nice, modern small theatre building. There must be many others of us who would like to erect a nice small theatre in some of the towns that do noi; now have shows. So, to make it really worthwhile, let’s all chip in a dollar or so in a ‘pot’ and let some organization or association select the most desirable plan sent in, the prize going to the one offering the plan that seems most desirable. Then probably we could all get this plan for a reasonable amount — say 100 bucks. What do you say? (8) “Many of our small towns have brick or stone buildings that could be purchased for less than half the amount it would cost to build a like building. It may be some architect could offer a plan to remodel such buildings into safe, reasonably modern, theatre buildings without too much cost. While I feel the new theatre would be much better, there are possibly some very small towns that are quite some distance from any other theatre that could use a plan of this kind.” Reply to Eight Points Here are our answers, point by point, to the problems raised by Mr. B. in the preceding letters. (Refer again to like-numbered paragraphs.) (1) On this point we are in hearty agreement as to principle and fact, having often referred to our small-town contingency as “the spinal column” of the motion picture industry. But, may we raise this counter-point: Main Street appreciates motion picture entertainment. It merely tolerates cheaply constructed and poorly maintained “store shows,” because many exhibitors lack the get-up and guts to give Main Street something better and more deserving of full patronage and support. (2) We concur with the statement that the local picture show is about the only source of away-from-home entertainment for small-towners and farm people. What a chance for good showmanship! No competition; no counter-attractions. Metropolitan exhibitors yearn for such situations and some of these days, we predict, they are going to start looking for Main Streets — and they’ll bring their architects along. We disagree that a “shooting gallery” is better than no show at all — or that any old thing is good enough for the natives. Of course, such places are not popular; hence, not profitable. So why build more of them? If the location is right it should have a modern theatre of a size to fit — or none at all. The natives will continue to ride their Fords and Packards to nearby towns where they can find what better suits their fancy. (3) Trouble with Mr. B’s arguments are that he seems to want, as so many others do, the services of an experienced theatre architect for nix — or at least at cut rates. When, as a matter of fact, the counsel and service fees of a competent architect usually add nothing to the cost of a theatre building. His eight or ten per cent commission is usually more than compensated for by the savings his services effect and the functional efficiency he adds to the plant is something for nothing. Then, why are small-town exhibitors so' scared of theatre architects? They might as well assume the same attitude toward their family doctors. (4) No “experienced” theatre architect, who is essentially by nature and training a professional man and an individualist, would care to sponsor or promote such a program. Stock plans will not serve the best interests of small-town theatre operators. The demand is for more individuality— not less — in small towns; and again, the competent theatre architect’s fee is small compared to what he creates. He’s the best purchasing agent a builder can hire. (5) We think his estimate of 80% is too high. Modern theatres are making money for their owners in hundreds of towns and villages of no more than 3,000 population and some towns of even less; because they are sufficiently attractive and properly operated to hold their own locally and draw patronage from the entire countryside, as well as from other towns, where the local exhibitors will always have limited means because their “store shows” are unpopular and therefore unprofitable in operation. There is no great gamble to giving the public what it wants, even out in the country. (6) Again here Mr. B. puts the onus unfairly on the architects, which is wrong. What he needs is to raise his sights and stop worrying about the need for stock plans. We see nothing wrong with prefashioned or pre-fab theatres, provided they ever become available — but besides fitting the pocketbook of the builder, they must also provide what the public wants, and we don’t believe they want more “store shows” on Main Street. (7) Yes, there are many experienced theatre architects who have made it their business to know what is needed on Main Street. But what may be good for one town, is exactly opposed to what is needed in another. Seating capacities, style of architecture, climatic conditions, local habits and many other contingencies enter into each project. Besides, a lot 25x140 feet is a pretty small plot on which to put a modern theatre and expect it to pay out on the investment at prevailing admission prices. (8) This point has some possibilities; but often it costs more to properly reconvert an old commercial building for theatre purposes than it would to raze it and build all new, assuming the site is suitable. And here again expert counsel on good building practice is a must requirement. In conclusion, it is our opinion that it is useless to try to operate a very small picture show profitably at every cross-roads community in the country. Neither cheaply constructed nor expensively built and furnished houses could pay off in certain situations referred to in Mr. B’s letters. But, we believe it is possible to provide for several such contiguous communities a centrally located modern theatre or amusement plant of such size and attractiveness to take care of the entertainment needs of several such communities within a radius of say, 25 miles. Properly planned, such an enterprise would pay off handsomely and because of obvious earning power, there would be no great difficulty in financing such a project through local banks. May we offer that as one solution to the problem? 40 The MODERN THEATRE SECTION