The Exhibitor (Nov 1938-May 1939)

EDITORIAL 1 II E EXIMITII Vol. 21, No. 22 April 12, 1939 (UREAU f Of JRCULATIQ A Jay Emanuel Publication. Covering the film territories in the Metropolitan East. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 1225 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. New York City office, 1600 Broadway. West Coast office, 1119 Poinsettia Drive, Hollywood, California. Representatives in Washington, D. C.; Albany, Buffalo, Boston, New Haven. Jay Emanuel, publisher; Paul J. Greenhalgh, business manager; Herbert M Miller, managing editor. Subscription rates: $2 for one year; $5 for three years. Address all communications to 1225 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. JUST IN PASSING ON DIVORCE PUBLICITY The recent newspaper publicity given a prominent star in the matter of a divorce from her husband was hardly of the sort to help that star’s slipping status. Many people, no doubt, were offended by the flippant manner in which the proposed divorce was referred to by the star, herself. In our opinion, even if the player were in the topnotch category the publicity was of a nature that wouldn’t help, but in the present case the star is slipping and newspaper headlines of the nature referred to won’t be of any advantage now or in the future. Indicative of how some editorialists feel is that attitude of the Allentown (Pennsylvania) Morning Call, which, in the very same case, said, in part: In this case, two famous people who seem to get along very well together decide upon a divorce because of alleged conflicts between themselves and one another’s careers. They seem to think that their own decision about the matter is all that is necessary and so make no effort to be on hand in court when the case is to be heard. ‘The place of Society in the Court has never entered their minds for probably, in their own egotism, they are more important than Society and law. Instead the couple put a continent between themselves and the divorce court, dined and danced with each other and made arrangements to share the company of a dog just as parents, about to be divorced, plan to share the company of children on holidays and weekends. Of course in so many of these matters affecting people in the entertainment world pressagents’ activities and stories falsely present the characters concerned. The press-agent will do anything for a laugh or to get a first-page story in the newspapers. Certainly if this particular case be a press-agent stunt, it is one that stultifies the principal characters and presents them in a light where the Very purpose which is sought by press-agentry is likely to be defeated.” THE NEELY HEARING MAKES THE HEADLINES As this is being written, almost everybody who has any ideas on the subject and many with no monetary interest in the industry are in Washington battling for or against the Neely bill which would prevent block booking, and the thoughts which come to mind are certainly not pleasant. In the first place, if every local branch of the educational, women’s and other organizations becomes as active in the local movie scene as the national officers are in Washington, the exhibitors of this country are in for some mighty busy days. If the Neely bill becomes a law, it is almost assured that every organization (aside from the exhibitor groups) which fought for it will demand that the local exhibitor consult it on what to play and when to play it. Gone will be the local exhibitor’s defense that he is forced to play a picture, even tho he knows deep down in his heart that the show would have been played anyway because he knows there’s money in it. Gone will be the local exhibitor’s argument that the distributors force him to do things a certain way. Everybody will be telling the exhibitor what to do and how to do it. Mind you, the Neely bill may not sound the death of block booking if the exhibitor still wants to buy in that fashion, but no one can expect the distributors to sell in the same fashion if they know that their selling is subject to the individual discretion of the exhibitor. Most exhibitors favor block booking because they want assurance of product. Exhibition, these days, depends on the average. The exhibitor knows, in buying certain product, that he can depend on a certain number of good pictures. But he has to stay open with something, and the question is whether there will be enough product for him if block booking is abolished. Nothing can be said for or against the measure that has not been written before, but in our mind those Washington headlines grew very serious when we read some of the testimony by the outsiders, not the independents who want the bill, but the reform groups and others who feel that they have every right to tell the theatremen what to do with his theatre. No one seems to be able to say how many theatremen want the bill. No one ever took a poll of the individual vote. The MPTOA speaks in big figures and so does Allied. But there isn’t a person in the industry who can truthfully say how the individual theatres stand. Ask yourself the question. Will your theatre be worth more or less if you have no assurance of product? What if someone builds across the street? How will that affect your investment when you will buy your product singly? Take a poll. It would be indeed a shame to have the measure become law and suddenly discover that the industry does not want it. And then it would be too late. (Note — Since the above was written, Sidney R. Kent, president, 20th Century-Fox, expressed the same thought in the Neely hearings in Washington, thus indicating more than ever a need for a poll of the nation’s exhibitors.) QUAD