Boxoffice (Jul-Sep 1938)

PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY ASSOCIATED PUBLICATIONS Vol. 33 Number 6 July 2, 1938 Member Audit Bureau of Circulations Editorial Offices: 9 rockefeller plaza, new york city; Publication Office: 4704 e. 9th ST., KANSAS CITY, MO./ Hollywood: 6404 HOLLYWOOD blvd.; Chicago: 332 s. Michigan blvd. ’“"N/'-v BEN SHLYEN Publisher MAURICE KANN Editor-in-Chief William G. Formby, Editor; Jesse Shlyen, Managing Editor; J. Harry Toler, Modern Theatre Editor; Joseph H. Gallagher, General Manager; Ivan Spear, Western Manager. THEY FIND WARNER GUILTY THE allegation: That Harry M. Warner, in a statement supplied news associations, newspapers and tradepapers, accuses producers, other than himself, with "deliberately withholding their important films until autumn while their course of action has placed the country in a famine for Grade A entertainment and has seen the motion picture theatres enter a slump." The prosecution's charge: That it is admitted Warner would have been exercising his right in discussing the problem of good or bad summer releases within the framework of the trade itself; but that, by circumstances unknown yet smacking strongly of high pressure publicity methods designed to annex free space for his own warm weather attractions, he has disregarded industry welfare for his own, thereby rendering a pronounced disservice in conveying a purely internal problem to the public and tending to create a further sales resistance in its mind. The testimony* before the court of industry opinion: That Nicholas M. Schenck is on record, declaring M-G-M indulges in no summer hoarding; that Paramount has at least five which it considers big attractions for summer release; that Twentieth Century-Fox is content to answer the allegation in terms of pictures, including “Alexander's Ragtime Band" in August; that, according to Ned E. Depinet, "we have nothing to hold back at RKO;" that "there is no hoarding so far as United Artists is concerned," by statement from George J. Schaefer; that it is a case of "nothing of the kind around Universal," by comment from Nate J. Blumberg, while A. Montague, speaking for Columbia, states "substantially, this is not so insofar as this company is concerned;" that Republic is putting its best foot forward [James R. Grainger]; that GB has five ready, Monogram, two. That Barney Balaban, officially speaking for Paramount, deplores the attack and calls its author "unwise;" that Leo Spitz, president of RKO, views the statement on trial as "unfair, unfounded, detrimental and harmful," and that Sidney R. Kent, president of Twentieth CenturyFox, evidences his strong disapproval in paid advertis *The testimony represents no editorial conclusions, but comment actually made. BOXOFF’ICE has the name that goes with each statement. ing space used widely and in this edition of BOXOFFICE. That circuit men, directly quoted and otherwise, agree the widespread publication accorded the statement can do no good, but much harm. That the comment is ill-advised, to say the least. That it is poor policy for a man in Warner's high position to break into print with any acknowledgment that pictures are bad or purposely withheld. That, while accusing Samuel Goldwyn of talking too much, Warner fails to know when to keep quiet himself. That the statement is an invitation to the public to stay away from theatres during the summer when things are at their worst. That the statement is ill-considered and will have vicious results at the boxoffice. That Warner is pumppriming for his own benefit and leaving independents with their tongues hanging out. That, if hoarding does exist, the Warner company is as guilty as any other. That, if any statement had to be made, it should have been confined to the industry. That Warner's indiscretion is boomerang-like in that it has thrown open wide the doors of criticism, involving the performance of his own product, the manner in which it is sold and has unleashed around the country a flood of wisecracks which the Warner sales force conceivably may hear reverberating for some time to come. That, while in scattered situations, exhibitor reaction lacks definition and, in some instances, agrees with Warner, the overwhelmingly preponderant opinion runs against him. The findings: That Harry M. Warner, by lack of discretion or faulty advice or by reasons unknown, is guilty of a serious industry disservice, its results incalculable, but potentially widely destructive.