Boxoffice barometer (1954)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

by J. M. JERAULD JUST about the time some exhibitors began to decide an aspect ratio was not a salad and resumed figuring on how to buy wide-angle lenses, big reflective screens, stereophonic sound, 3-D synchronizers and other gadgets, RCA came along and said, in effect, that both pictures and sound tracks would be recorded in tiny magnetic lines hereafter. That climaxed a year of dramatic announcements during which many of the new things turned out to be 15 or 20 years old. Any exhibitor who murmured something about the good old days was promptly cautioned that this new exhibition excitement is good for exhibitors, good for the public and good for grosses. WIDE SCREENS APPEAL TO PUBLIC The new look which seems destined to stay for a while is based on wide screens. The theory is that the public is tired of watching motion pictures at home the size of a postage stamp on which the principal characters become blurs if they get into the background. And the theory seems to have worked out in a big way on the first Cinemascope attractions from 20th Century-Fox—“The Robe” and “How to Marry a Millionaire.” Not so much can be said for the other 1953 innovation — 3-D. It furnished some fast income for the producers of the first films, but by early fall 3-D was something less than an avalanche. It may come back. Many hope so, because two or three or more types of presentation help keep novelty alive. So much for 1953. What of 1954? And there comes the big question mark. Just one prediction can be made with some degree of certainty as to fulfillment. Every exhibitor who can raise the money will have a wide screen of some kind, and hundreds more will go all the way in trying to get directional or stereophonic sound. GROSSES UP 30 TO 40 PER CENT Several of the big circuits have had to strain their financial resources to make these installations, but all who have gone for the new investments agree that business has risen from 30 to 40 per cent. This has held even on the pictures that were not originally made for wide screens. An increase in income of this size is irresistible. As more big pictures produced in this medium become available, the public demand for them will probably increase, with the inevitable result that the subsequent runs will follow the larger houses into the new medium. Aspect ratios will become academic. Theatres will install screens as large as their size limitations will permit and projection apparatus will be adjusted accordingly. And to make sure that the public doesn’t become adjusted to an expectation that everything should be a city-block wide, exhibitors probably will have both narrow and wide films on every program to dramatize the contrast. This was the practice followed in the early showings of Cinemascope and showmen were quick to notice the public reception. Drive-ins which now account for about 20 per cent of the total exhibition revenue, according to Walter Reade jr., president of Theatre Owners of America, are arguing for super-sized screens and probably will get the pictures for them after the big indoor theatres have had a chance to play them first run. Stereophonic sound doesn’t mean anything in a drive-in, so the investments in new apparatus may be smaller than in the indoor houses. Some time during the first half of 1954, it it quite likely that there will be less talk about a product shortage. By the time the first dozen wide-screen specials have reached the subsequent runs, hesitant producers will know what they are going to make and how many. An exhibition pattern will have emerged. POLICIES ARE FLEXIBLE Amid widespread talk about making nothing but super-specials for wide screens and nothing else, Universal-International has stuck to its theory that films should be made for all types of theatres. United Artists has expanded its release schedule, films have been made available in both 3-D and 2-D, and executives of some of the major producers have tried to ease the tension among exhibitors by indicating their releases sooner or later will be available in whatever form the exhibitors desire. Barney Balaban told the Motion Picture Pioneers that it would be economic suicide for any company to deliberately cut production merely for the sake of creating a scarcity and Spyros P. Skouras said the same thing in a different way when he declared that smaller theatres have to be kept in business for the sake of the future of the industry. Charles M. Reagan of MGM has made it plain that he intends to help distress theatres and continue the “friendly company” policy which William F. Rodgers made famous. These statements acted as an antidote for the oft-repeated assertions of some producers that only big pictures were turning in profits and they intended to concentrate on these. OLD PROBLEMS STILL EXIST None of this removes the standard trade practice complaints. Arbitration, believed completely dead after the Allied turndown in Chicago two years ago, came up for air at the Theatre Owners of America convention in Chicago, with the result that the major company sales managers held a meeting in mid-December with the Motion Picture Ass’n of America to find out what the latest thinking was at that time on the subject. Opinions were divided. Some contended that it would be useless to try to start an arbitration system without Allied. Others pointed out that, if a sys tem were set up, anybody could use it or ignore it. It was on this note that the matter was referred to the mid-winter meeting of TOA directors in Washington. Where it will go from there, if any place, remains to be seen. Film prices have always been a subject that could generate heat at any season, but the acrimony is now more pronounced than ever. TOA and Allied exhibitor conventions sound exactly alike when the subject is under discussion. Two conflicting pressures — the effort of producers and distributors to meet increasing costs and the struggle of exhibitors to finance new projection and sound systems in the face of new charges they hadn’t dreamed of a year before — make film rentals a touchy subject these days. EXHIBITORS MAY PRODUCE Leonard Goldenson has suggested that exhibitors ought to finance production. His proposal was received warmly at the TOA gathering in Chicago. Other leaders brought up the matter at regional meetings of exhibitor groups. Stanley Warner Theatres asked stockholders to approve an amendment to the articles of incoi’poration so the circuit could go into production. Time will tell whether this idea will spread. Some of the younger exhibitor leaders may be more inclined toward it than the older men who went through the building up and decline of First National. For some reason 1954 gets under way with less talk about competitive bidding and clearances. Exhibitors, who had their fingers singed in their rush for first runs after the consent decrees became operative, are wiser now. They are heeding the advice of their leaders to talk things over with their competitors before rushing in with high cash offers for films. As one convention speaker put it, “A first run with no profit is fine for prestige, but not for paying the rent.” YEAR OF DEMONSTRATION Anybody who wants to hear some confusing comment can get it by asking how many theatres have been closed during the past three years. Some say up to 2,000. The Council of Motion Picture Organizations predicted a thousand would close last spring, if the 20 per cent ticket tax was not removed. Some closed, but not a thousand. Shifting populations, changing neighborhoods and the impossibility of improving some of the older properties are still causing closings. Circuits that took over after the consent decrees and had to get rid of many theatres did so on the best terms they could and then began looking around to see how many fringe houses they could dispose of. The oldtime theory that no house could be closed because a competitor might grab it was discarded. Nineteen-fifty-three will probably be known as the year the industry took on a new look and 1954 may prove to be the year that will demonstrate how long the new look will last. 12 BAROMETER Section