The box office check-up of 1935 (1936)

THE EXHIBITOR WRITES HIS OWN REVIEWS t] They tell what their patrons want in "What the Picture Did for Me" by ERNEST A. ROVELSTAD THE verdict on product as handed down from the bench by the independent theatre owner in the "What the Picture Did for Me" department of Motion Picture HeraldHs not necessarily the same story as is told by the Box Office Champions." Many of the exhibitor-reporters to "What the Picture Did for Me" know most of their patrons by name, meet them at the door with a handclasp when they come in, and expect them to stop at the box office on the way out and report their reactions, and indeed those reactions are translated into words with the utmost frankness, yet in characteristically American fairness, with praise for the well-received picture, forthright criticism of the other kind. So, too, the independent exhibitor has his own convictions and he writes precisely what he thinks, recording both the oral expressions from his patronage and the reflections of the numbers written into the account book after the receipts have been counted. Analysis of reports to "What the Picture Did for Me" reveals certain majority opinions of the exhibitors who write it. Among them are these: Motion pictures must have action. The comment from the days of the silent picture differed not a whit from the opinion in these days of sound. Too much dialogue, in the titles of soundless times, was as roundly scored as is an overbalancing of the spoken word today. The socalled "costume picture," sometimes deplored in general by an exhibitor, was found to be well received when the production was well made. This resolved into a conclusion that "costumes" had little if anything to do with the case. The value of "prestige" pictures is generally recognized. Freguently exhibitors reported that, while a given production was met with a loss at the box office, they were happy that they had played it be cause of its influence as institutional screen fare. There is a definite demand for the western or outdoor picture. Titles must truly describe the productions. One of the most frequently noted subjects of comment was the title of the picture. "Down-to-earth" subject matter and player characterizations bring the best "box office." That conviction of the independent exhibitor, drawn from the number of tickets he has sold, is reflected also in the fact that the topmost ranking players in The Biggest Money Making Stars year after year since that Herald survey of the independent field was inaugurated for the season of 1931-32 won their place on the screen essentially in "down-to-earth" productions— Marie Dressier, Will Rogers, and now Shirley Temple. The independent showman likes color as well as does his neighbor — provided the picture satisfied his customers in its other ingredients. Color does not make an inferior picture good, but it does make a good picture better, in his opinion. Often found in reports to "What the Picture Did for Me" is the comment that the exhibitor from experience is wary of the "spectacle" type of production, but when the picture establishes itself as wellmade, that wariness gives way to enthusiastic reception. The phrase "foreign product," similar to the "costume picture," vanishes as a classification of product when the product is good. Recent years have brought out a number instances of enthusiastic reports on foreign productions, with the elevation of production standards. Again the value of the film as entertainment is the determinant, not the country of origin. Exhibitors do protest, however, against dialogue not easily understood and particularly against un-American pronunciations. Psychoanalysis as a motion picture theme is not for the audience of the independent theatre at large, particularly in the smaller cities, and the lesser communities. "Arty" pictures have no place in the scheme of things cinematic, says the independent exhibitor, an opinion matched by large circuit owners and managers, as attested by their comment in a recent issue of the Herald. These are not to be confused with the socalled "classic" productions and high standard pictures which in the past year or two have been universally acclaimed as a long forward step in the function of the motion picture. To be emphasized is the fact that the exhibitors reporting to "What the Picture Did for Me" are independent showmen, recording in the columns of the department their independent views on product, in the terms of the box office, which indeed is exactly what the title of the department signifies. In order that that expression may be without influence from any extraneous source, the constantly growing list of reporters is limited strictly to theatres without any affiliations with producers or distributors. When an exhibitor offers his first contribution of reports the fact of his complete independence of opinion is established before they are printed. Then blanks specially prepared for his convenience are sent him. There is no "editing" of phraseology of the reports. When the exhibitors wanders far afield from the subject, which is "what the picture did" for him, he is advised that columns are available to him in other parts of the Herald for comment on other matters. Nor does the type of comment show any great variance as the years march past. Reading at random from the department in the files of 1918, when "What the Picture Did for Me" started in Exhibitors Herald and Motography, one notes such comment as this: "What we want is more of the lighter comedy and comedy-dramas at these times." Another exhibitor wrote of William S. Hart’s "The Narrow Trail": "Westerns go good if they're real westtern." Another of Pauline Frederick's "Madame Jealousy," called it "an allegorical picture which only educated per[TURN TO PAGE 145] THE BOX OFFICE CHECK-UP OF 1935 73