The Exhibitor (Nov 1939-May 1940)

EDITORIAL T II [ f Vol. 23, No. 14 February 14, 1940 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 “TEDDY” IS TOPS We wager even Norman Moray, Vitaphone’s enthusiastic shorts sales chief, can’t think of enough adjectives to describe “Teddy, the Rough Rider.” If ever a sock two reels of entertainment was manufactured this is it. Urging that every theatre in the country should play this high -rating Technicolor review of the high spots of Teddy Roosevelt’s career probably won’t mean a thing, so let’s put it this way. The exhibitor who books this and fails to sell it is tossing money out of the window. “Teddy” is a short that will make the feature that follows look pretty bad unless it is exceptionally good. It is marquee fodder if ever we saw one, and it will get more attention than the ordinary second feature. In other words, the boys outdid themselves on this. It is your duty Mr. Exhibitor, to play it, for profit and prestige. Warners is to be congratulated. MAYBE MR. MYERS MISUNDERSTOOD We would prefer to think that Abram Myers didn’t know exactly what kind of a picture “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet” was when he recently included that among others in a group some of which he said had “subject matter that was filth.” Having seen it, we think the picture belongs in the screen’s top bracket (and we don’t mean allocation). It took courage to make it. It is a fine picture, no matter from what angle you look. The screen must be growing up. Any business which can come forth with “Gone With the Wind,” “Grapes of Wrath,” “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet,” “Of Mice and Men,” “Abe Lincoln in Illinois,” and “Pinocchio” within the space of a month or so has plenty of reason to hold its head high. THE MORAL ISSUE IS CLARIFIED The news from Montclair, New Jersey, is important. During the course of a debate on the Neely Bill between Felix Jenkins, 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation counsel, and Colonel H. A. Cole, Allied States Association president, the latter was reported as asserting at the outset of the argument that block booking did not force any immoral or obscene pictures on any exhibitor. Inasmuch as Colonel Cole is said to have made a deliberate and emphatic statement to clear up this point, both sides now agree that there is no moral issue connected with the Neely Bill and Colonel Cole is to be congratulated on his frankness and honesty. Pressure for this measure, it is known, has come in a large measure from organized groups concerned with pictures’ moral effect on the community. It must be assumed that these people are not interested in the exhibitor’s financial worries, or whether he will make money under the Neely Bill, and it cannot be expected that they should be. Remove the moral issue, then, and the problem remains solely one for the trade. Will it be better off with the bill than it is now? Because we have yet to be convinced that the Neely Bill will be beneficial, we have failed to come out for it, but we are still open to argument. During the past week, for example, advocates of the measure have tried to point out to us personally what the good effects of the bill will be if it is passed, but we’re still not sold. Among the advantages under the bill, they say, will come increased trade-paper advertising, since the producers, selling individually, will be forced to advertise all pictures instead of perhaps one-third the product as they do now. Even if this were true, the interests of the entire industry come before any individual gain. Again the disadvantages which would come to us as an exhibitor would be far greater than any predicted gain for the trade-papers, we feel. Mind YOU, we are not pleased with conditions within the industry. Drastic reforms are needed but we do not believe the Neely Bill will directly or indirectly solve such trade problems as clearance, overbuying, circuit buying monopoly or similar headaches and we speak as an exhibitor of 28 years’ experience with both first and subsequent runs. It has always been our opinion that there is nothing like fair arbitration to handle all industry headaches, and the action of Allied in seeking arbitration is indication of that body’s belief, regardless of the Neely Bill. By the time the hearings on the measure come up before the House Interstate Commerce Committee next month, there should be no one within our industry who hasn’t made up his mind where he stands. If it has done nothing else, the bill has destroyed for once the “let George do it’’ attitude which had too long prevailed. Practically everyone knows that something is happening in Washington and “George” is getting plenty of help this time. To come back to Colonel Cole’s statement. He deserves credit because he has clarified an issue. But it is now clearer than it has ever been — the Neely Bill as far as Allied is concerned, is desired for other reasons. Common sense must prevail. Producers will not sell their product at a loss. Complying with the bill means furnishing a synopsis with criminal provisions, as a penalty for violations, which does not seem practical. And instead of making one sale, as at present, there must come greater selling costs, to be paid for out of the exhibitors’ pockets, resulting in higher rentals. Where is the gain to the exhibitor? But as we said above, we’re still willing to listen further. QUAD.