Boxoffice (Jan-Mar 1962)

THE NATIONAL FILM WEEKLY Published in Nine Sectional Edition; BEN SHLYEN Editor-in-Chief and Publisher DONALD M. MERSEREAU, Associate Publisher & General Manoger NATHAN COHEN .. Executive Editor JESSE SHLYEN Managing Editor HUGH FRAZE Field Editor AL STEEN Eastern Editor WILLIAM HEBERT. .Western Editor I. L. THATCHER. .Equipment Editor MORRIS SCHLOZMAN Business Mgr. Publication Offices: 825 Van Brunt Blvd. Kansas City 24. Mo. Nathan Cohen, Executive Bd;Dr; Jesse Shlyen, Managing EMitor: Morris Schlozman, Business Manager; Hugh Fraze, Field Editor ; 1. L. Thatcher, Editor TTie Modem Theatre Section. Telephone CHestnut 1-7777. Editorial Offices: 1270 Sixth Ave., Rockefeller Center, New York 20, N. Y. Donald M. Mersereau. Associate Publisher & General Manager; A1 Steen, Eastern Editor. Telephone COlumbus 5-6370. Central Offices: Editorial — 920 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago 11. 111., Frances B. Clow, Telephone superior 7-3972. Advertising— 5809 North Lincoln, Louis Dldier and Jack Broderick, Telephone LOngbeach 1-5284. Western Offices: EMltorial and Film Advertising— 6404 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood 28, Calif. William Hebert, manager, Telephone Hollywood 5-1186. Equipment and Non-Film Advertising — 672 S. Lafayette Park, Los Angeles. Calif. Bob Wettstein, manager. Telephone DUnkirk 8-2286. London Office: Anthony Gruner, 1 Woodberry Way, Finchley, No. 12. Telephone Hillside 6733. The MODERN THEATRE Section Is Included In the first issue of each month. Atlanta: Jean Mullis, P. 0. Bpi 1695. Albany: J. S. Conners, 140 State St. Baltimore: George Browning, 119 E. 25th St. Boston: Guy Livingston, 80 Boylston, Boston, Mass. Charlotte: Blanche Carr, 301 8. Cburcb Cincinnati: Frances Hanford, UNlversity 17180. Cleveland: W. Ward Marsh, Plain Dealer. Columbus: Fred Oestreicber, 52% W. North Broadway. Dallas: Mable Guirran, 5927 Wlnton. Denver: Bruce Marshall, 2881 8. Cherry Way. Des Moines: Pat Cooney. 2727 49th Bt. Detroit: H F. Reves, 906 Fox Theatre Bldg.. WOodward 2-1144. Hartford: Allen M. Wldem, CH 9-8211. Indianapolis: Norma Geragbty. 436 N. Illinois St. Jacksonville: Robert Cornwall, 1199 Edgewood Ave Memphis: Null Adams, 707 Spring 8t. Miami: Martha Lummus, 622 N.E. 98 St. Milwaukee: Wm. Nicbol, 2251 S. Layton. Minneapolis: Don Lyons, 72 Glenwood. New Orleans: Mrs. Jack Auslet. 2268% St. Claude Ave. Oklahoma City: 8am Brunk, 3416 N. Virginia. Omaha: Irving Baker, 911 N. 51st St. Philadelphia: A1 Zurawskl, The Bulletin. Pittsburgh: R. F. Kllngensmlth, 516 Jeanette, Wilklnsburg, CHurchlll 1-2809. Portland. Ore.: Arnold Marks. Journal. Providence: Guy Langley, 388 Sayles St. St. Louis: Joe & Joan Pollack. 733$ Shaftsbury, University City, PA 5-7181. Salt Lake City: H. Pearson. Deseret News. San EYanctsco: Dolores Barusch, 25 Taylor St.. ORdway 3-4813; Advertising: Jerry Nowell, 417 Market St., YUkon 29537. In Canada Montreal: Room 314, 625 Belmont St.. Jules Larochelle. St. John 43 Waterloo, 8am Babb. Toronto: 2675 Bayvlew Ave., Wlllowdale, Ont. W. Gladish. Vancouver: 411 Lyric Theatre Bldg. 751 Granville St., Jack Droy Winnipeg: 93 Albert St., Barney Brookler Member Audit Bureau of Circulations 8econd Class postage paid at Kansas City, Mo. 8eetlonal Edition, $3.00 per y«r National Edition, $7.50. JANUARY 2 2, 1962 Vol. 80 No. 1 4 IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST NEWSPAPERS have been devoting more space than usual to motion pictures, some of it highly favorable and much — far too much — unfavorable. On the positive side, there are articles such as the one written by Alton Cook, film critic for the New York World-Telegram. Under the heading, “Movies Face Bonanza ’62,” across three columns, Mr. Cook set forth a listing of some of the bigger pictures scheduled for release in the ensuing year, stars featured in them and other pertinent data. On the negative side, there are those that took just the opposite view, in many cases showing an obvious “hate” of movies and berating them in general. They went to the trouble of picking out “the worst” movies and detailing what, in their distorted minds, are the faults of those films. This bitter pill might not be so hard to take, if it were accompanied by a selection of movies those critics liked and what they liked about them. But they used the space allotted them with a lop-sided, wrong-sided view. And, all too often, these rashes occur in syndicated columns. Fortunately, however, the local movie critics, more often than not, present a fairer view. A further unbalancing of the scales is the continuing appearance in “Letters to the Editor” columns of condemnations of films that are designed for adult appeal. Whether inspired by reformist organizations or sincere objections by well-meaning parents, these attacks certainly take a toll of theatre attendance. Each time a picture is released that deals with what, to many, is socalled “adult” subject matter, a new wave of such letters begins to appear in the public prints. Some of these take a constructive and understanding view, but these attitudes are rare. Often, the blame is placed on exhibitors for showing the so-called “objectionable” films. And, frequently, exhibitors rebut these charges with reasoned explanations of their position in the matter through use of the same newspaper columns. But the exhibitors can be greatly outnumbered, when the newspapers will publish ten letters of condemnation to their one in selfdefense. Aside from what some newspapers will publish, there is the instance of one editor going far out of the way to lambast the motion picture industry. In addressing a convention of newspapermen, the editor in question declared that “movies are dirtier than ever” and exhorted his listeners to “raise hell" about it. Yet, the hellrouser admitted to an exhibitor, who wrote him a strong letter in defense of the industry, that he hadn’t attended many movies in the last couple of years. His reason: “1 became fed up with bust measurements and sex-kittens.” He also criticized movie advertising. But what about this sort of thing in newspapers? Here’s what the exhibitor said, in part, in his letter to the editor, which surely will not be published in his paper: "Are some of the ads ony more suggestive thon the panty ads your paper carries? Or the ads for slips, brassieres and other undergarments women wear? Perhaps you have seen some of these displayed on the Jack Paar program. You failed to mention this type of advertising to the editors. I hove seen far more undraped women in department store ads than I ever saw in a regular movie od in any press sheet." And more: "In your movie coverage, during your talk, were you really not trying to solve your conscience? Do you actually think the press is not guilty of playing up crime and sex and sensational happenings for in excess of anything Hollywood has ever turned out? You didn't caution your editor listeners to go easy on those items. Neither did you tell them that many movies reflected that which is published on the front pages of their newspapers . . . "I hope the press does raise hell about many things. And, while they are at it, I hope they also praise a few things, now and then, and when a family movie comes along, and other fine films come along, how about a boost for those films? . . . "A majority of people in the movie business are good citizens, good businessmen. So, Mr be careful how you throw bricks; and remember you people of the press live in glass houses." That’s a fine rebuttal, but the necessity for having to make it is regrettable. Perhaps it will have a mollifying effect on the editor who had caused it to be written. But what about those at the press association convention whom he urged to “raise hell” with the movies? If only one of those takes up his suggestion, it could start a chain reaction and a crusade that could become widespread and hard to stop. What can be done about the problem as a whole? The pat answer would be for the industry to discontinue the making of the so-called “objectionable” types of pictures. But, it must be remembered that when such pictures were not being made, the industry still was being assailed by an assortment of do-gooders and an unfriendly press. True, some of the films that are being complained of may have gone too far in the growing-up process that the public — -and hundreds of movie critics — asked for. Bunching the release of such pictures had a tendency to throw' the process out of perspective. We feel, however, that time will adjust the pattern and remove any disproportion that may now' exist. Dealing with “mature” subject matter in pictures was but a natural evolution and in keeping with the mores and the change in conventions, just as was the transition that has taken place in newspaper publishing, literature and other communications media. What is called for is an improvement in relations between the industry and the press and an appreciation by the latter of the problems of the former in endeavoring to meet what, largely, has been an outgrowth of the public’s demand. Some newspapers have shown an understanding view of the situation, which has rendered a service to their readers as well as to the industry. More of that will, in the long run, be widely beneficial. Meanwhile, this industry needs to do more on its own behalf : Lessen, if not quit, going to extremes; and show more good taste in its advertising, as it already has begun to do in its treatment of subject matter.