The Exhibitor (Nov 1939-May 1940)

EDITORIAL T H E f Volume 23, No. 23 April 17, 1940 A Ja j Emanuel Publication. Covering the film territories in the Metropolitan East. Published weekly by Jay Emanuel Publications, Incorporated. Publishing office: 1221 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 TOO MANY LAWYERS This department has pointed out many times in the past that the motion picture industry is presenting a field day for the lawyers and that whatever the legal departments cost is being paid for by the exhibitors in film rentals. Things were bad enough when companies chose litigation for arbitration, but when the lawyers go into the branch offices for the information necessary to proper defense in the various actions against the companies and this results in the normal activity of the exchanges being held up, it sets a new high. We still believe that if the companies had spent the same amount of time and less money in paying attention to the complaints of the exhibitors, it would have proved cheaper in the long run. GEORGIA COURTESY Having just returned after partaking of some of that southern hospitality in Atlanta and Albany, Georgia, in connection with the premiere of Paramount’s “The Biscuit Eater,” we might declare that there is really nothing like it. And although “The Biscuit Eater” isn’t the biggest picture ever made, that didn’t stop the localites from putting on a show that almost made us think another “GWTW” was being born. A FRIEND PASSES The trade mourns the loss of Louis A. Diamond, for many years head of the Paramount short subjects production and music department. This publication particularly regrets the passing of a man whose encouragement in the development of shorts services was so valuable. There are so few industryites really concerned themselves with the future of good shorts that the loss of one man, let alone an executive of his type, will be mourned. YES, THIS IS A VERY FUNNY BUSINESS This has been called an odd business and we can think of nothing more peculiar than the situation regarding previews and early reviewing of features, a problem for which the tradepapers have themselves in a measure to blame. ONE of the purposes of any tradepaper, we have always maintained, is that of reviewing features and shorts as early as possible, allowing the exhibitors to get some idea of just what is contained in each can of film. One would think that all the companies would be more than glad to co-operate in order that this information be laid before the industry as soon as possible. But this is not the case. Let’s look at the record. At least two companies have requested that no reviews of their pictures be printed until the official coast screenings of the shows. A reason one of them gave is that the coast papers have promised to stop carrying reviews on sneak previews of uncompleted pictures. At least one company will not let the tradepapers see its pictures but it does offer early co-operation to the National Legion of Decency and the National Board of Review. They see shows weeks ahead of the trade press, in many cases. And screenings for music, radio and other groups always come ahead of the trade press viewings, too. At least one distribution executive runs a preview for himself when a print comes in, in order to be at the head of the parade, even though it is obvious that a re-running of the shows later for the important first runs becomes an additional expense. One COMPANY runs exchange screenings for exhibitors but the tradepapers can’t run the reviews until notified. Then there is “executive order No. 56.” This advises the branch manager not to screen pictures in a “cold” projection room but to make certain that it is shown before an audience “as it is that type of picture.” Whether those who gave the executive order know it or not, this is an advertisement to the trade that there is something wrong with the show. If the company were certain it had a hit, no “executive orders” would be given. There is at least one company which places no restrictions on its screenings in its exchange centers, encouraging each and every exhibitor within reach to come into the projection room to see the shows when the distributor heads do. These are only a few of the examples. They are sufficient to prove our point — that the companies in question are defeating their own ends by keeping the news of their pictures from the people who must know about them — the exhibitors. Why kid ourselves? If there is an aroma to a production, it gets about, but when a show is really good there is nothing that succeeds like success. As A tradepaper that believes in service all the time, it proves very annoying when we can’t deliver the goods to our readers as fast as we would like. And in answer to those who ask why we can’t break the reviews as early as we see them, regardless of the companies’ desires, we would like to point out that another of our principles of operation concerns itself with the keeping of a promise. Because it is useless to try to pave the way alone, we must go along — but we still don’t like it. QUAD.