The Exhibitor (Nov 1938-May 1939)

EDITORIAL 1 H E THE NEWSPAPERS PUBLICIZE SOME SALARIES Vol. 21, No. 23 April 19, 1939 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 THE STATUS OF THE PACT It is to be assumed that most of the exhibitors of the country will find considerable merit in the proposed trade pact and will go for it but the issue is not yet ended. In fact, it will still make headlines until the fate of the Neely bill is determined. Allied units, for the most part, will not make their final decision until they find out what Washington can do for them — although several of the independent, unaffiliated organizations throughout the country intend to get the benefits of the pact as soon as possible. From where we are sitting, the exhibitor has nothing to lose by accepting such benefits now, and continue working for what else he thinks he ought to get. PROJECTIONISTS— NEW VERSION That there is another side to the projectionists’ picture is best evidenced by the news from International Projector Corporation that many operators from theatres in small and large towns have been using their vacation time to visit the IPC plant to see what makes the wheels go around. These projectionists, conscious of their duties to the management of the theatre and patrons, have a desire to lift their projection to the highest notch. As a result, their trips to the New York City factory illustrate that in some localities there are union men who really have the theatres’ interests at heart. The value of good projection needs not be argued here. There is only one side to it — constant improvement — and houses which have become sold on this point can prove it pays off at the box office. Publication of the salaries earned by top executives in American industry during 193 8 was particularly newsworthy to industryites inasmuch as Metro Goldwyn Mayer’s Louis B. Mayer was accorded the distinction of being the No. 1 wage earner of the country. No mention, of course, was made of how much of this went for various state and federal taxes. (Note: Almost 80% of the amount Mayer received went back in the form of taxes.) The point we are now trying to make is that publicity of kind is hardly of the sort to benefit the industry. Coming when it did, with many legislatures throughout the country looking around for new sources of taxation, the announcement probably gave added argument to those lawmakers who think that everyone associated with the motion picture business is earning a fortune. The government’s announcement of top salaries also included some record-breakers of other captains of American industry, but because the motion picture business is everyone’s concern, there was not the concentration of attention on other men. Movie people belong in a niche all their own, especially since the impression is created that ours is a fabulously wealthy business. This also brings to mind the speed and eagerness with which many dailies try to present a picture of the industry in the manner they desire. Few of the same dailies, we think, gave the same attention to the news which came from Washington last fortnight that American companies had been gradually taking it on the chin in dictator and other foreign countries, without help from our government. This the headliner writers probably did not consider meriting much attention, although in the widely read Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, an editorial writer said, in part: ”... the financial losses arising from the curtailment of their foreign market must be painful to American film interests. But the ban of dictatorship is a tribute to the film as an American institution which should salve the money hurt.” What Hollywood earns does not represent a true picture of the business. The best idea of the ability of the exhibitors to add on burden of more taxes is evidenced by the fact that very, very, very few independent exhibitors were included in the names of the men who made the top money in 193 8. QUAD