Boxoffice (Oct-Dec 1939)

PRODUCE FEATURES OF SINGLE-EEL CALIBRE, THE FIELD'S ANSWER TO EXTENDED-RUN PLEA Contend Approach and Responsibility Are Upon Hollywood New York — Hollywood should produce films of a calibre that will justify national audience acceptance of single bill programs in order to realize sufficient rentals to permit studios to operate in face of the European crisis. This sentiment looms significantly in a nationwide survey conducted by Boxoffice following the comment of Joseph M. Schenck placing responsibility for overcoming the loss of revenue from Europe largely upon exhibitors. Schenck urged extended playing time “whenever public patronage justifies” to insure a “return to the producer that will compensate for decreased revenues elsewhere.” “Make fewer pictures, but make them better” is the oboe note accompanying the majority reactions. “This would permit higher rentals and longer runs” is a companion observation. Uppermost in the minds of showmen, the survey indicates, is the necessity of an uninterrupted flow of “quality product.” While this is the very peg on which Schenck hangs his plea for extended runs the approach and responsibility for pursuance of the quality process would be Hollywood’s, not the exhibitor’s, majority reactions show. Typical of such opinion is that of a southern California exhibitor: "If the producer was to make better pictures, so we could run single bills, exhibitors would have an opportunity to exploit them. There is no chance to exert showmanship under the dual-bill system.” It is significant that the bulk of such expressions come from subsequent run operators, the same group Schenck’s statement is interpreted as being aimed at. It is the contention of late-run operators that to extend playing time beyond the normal traffic films wiU bear is of no benefit to production or exhibition, in the large sense of their respective operations. Virtually universal is the observation that existing clearance is badly out of proportion; that extension of playdates at prior runs would be ruinous to subsequents. In this connection there are specific pointings to situations where subsequents are forced to wait “months” before films become available. Suggestion Gets a Cold Quaker City Reception Philadelphia — Joseph M. Schenck's plea to exhibitors for more extended runs gets a cold reception by representative exhibitors here. Some of them fire his request back at him and assert the remedy for decreasing revenue lies with the distributors. Figures It Out By Calendars New York — Fred Schwartz, film buyer for Century circuit, thinks he has the answer to Joseph M. Schenck's plea for extended playing time figured out to a day. "There's so much playing time now that, in order to extend the dates on some pictures, we would have to cut down on others. How can that help anyway? After all there are 52 weeks in a year and seven days a week and we book pictures for each day. I can't see where extended playing time will help." 'Typical comments follow; Dave Milgram, president of the Affiliated Circuit of 15 theatres, thinks the matter of extended runs is solely one for the first-run circuit to consider — which in Philadelphia means Stanley-Warner. “In the last two years our circuit, which has only second runs, hasn’t extended a single picture,” Milgram points out. "A second-run house cannot profitably extend runs, no matter how good the pictures may be. Of the 15,000 theatres in the United States, 12,000 are second-run, and they are unable to prolong runs. On the other hand, we would be glad to see Stanley-Warner extend its runs, because the circuit will thereby use less product Chicago — Divergent opinions continue to come from Chicago exhibitors on Joseph M. Schenck’s recent contention for extended runs. In agreement was Allied’s Jack Kirsch, who said, “I have always been for longer runs and less changes per week for pictures. If we practice that more now, we’ll stay in business, and it will help everyone.” Some exhibitors, like Edwin Silverman of Essaness Theatres, thought that v.'hile it is true exhibitors always try to get as long runs as possible, it is not the position of the producers to advise the theatre operators what to do. Said John Balaban of B&K, “If it is true that Hollywood will spend that much money still on pictures, it is the obligation of every exhibitor to do all he can to produce maximum revenue for producers.” Said John Jones of Jones, Linick and See Existing Clearance As Territorial Snag To Wide Adoption and ease up the tight product situation.” Melvin Koff, Darby, declares, “We’re willing to extend playing time if we get a better break from distributors. If they were really sincere in their search for increased revenue, they would encourage the independents. Instead, several exchanges have actually refused to sell me product. One exchange manager gave as his reason that he was getting all the revenue he wanted from my territory. Schenck’s statement doesn’t sound logical following that.” Charles Stiefel, owner of a chain of four, states: “The cause of lower revenue for distributors and exhibitors alike can be summed up, as far as this territory is concerned, in one word; Clearance. "We’re in favor of extended runs. But how can we put it into practice, when every good picture is played all over the Warner circuit and milked dry before any independent has a chance to get it, even if he charges higher prices than some Warner houses? And not only that. After it has played the last Warner house, we still have to wait 28 to 45 days before we’re allowed to play it. Why don’t the distributors cut down the clearance to a week? 'ITiey don’t make a cent while the film is lying on the shelf; and when we (Continued on page 6i Schaefer: "Such action will not be for the little theatre operator mainly, but rather for the operator of the de luxe first-run and subsequent-run houses. It is from these large houses that run on percentage that the producers will get the large additional revenue through added playing time. The little operator cannot stand to pay any more or run longer.” Max Sachs of the Lexington Theatre said that one way for more revenue would be to return to single features, which would permit the exhibitor to pay more per picture and run them longer, and in the final analysis there would not be need for so many pictures. Thus those that would be made could have more production value and would be better. Harry Balaban, of H. and E. Balaban Theatres, added that "much more can be done to exploit pictures, but we’ll have to return to a single feature policy before this is done.” Some Chicagoans Agree; Others See Deluxers Sole Gainers BOXOFFICE ;: October 7. 1939 5