Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1921 - Mar 1922)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.

We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

70 LETTERS From Readers A forum at which the exhibitor is invited to express his opinion on matters of current interest. Brevity adds forcefulness to any statement. Unsigned letters will not be printed. Save the Kiddies' Pennies CHEYENNE WELLS, COLO.— To the Editor: A few weeks ago, through your columns, I took a "crack" at the exchanges. Now, if you will allow me a little more space, I'm going to remind some of my brother exhibitors of a certain thing. Say, brothers, do you know that an admission ticket to a "movie" costing not more than ten cents is not taxable? Sure you do, but you haven't figured it out. I notice that quite a few of you quote your admission prices when reporting "What the Picture Did for Me," and in many cases you are charging fifteen cents for children's tickets. In other words, you are holding the kiddies up an extra nickel and giving the government two cents of this said nickel as war tax, besides being a lot of extra trouble. It will not do in more ways than one. The first of this year I cut the price of children's tickets to a dime and find that I have almost twice as many kids attending now as I did three months ago, besides the whole dime is mine and half the war tax trouble is eliminated. Think it over, brothers, and let us all show our appreciation of the elimination of the tax from small priced fares. The government didn't need this said tax, evidently, or they wouldn't have given us this chance, and if we show that we appreciate small favors, I believe there is a good chance of the tax on all admissions to "movies" being eliminated by January 1, 1923 — and, oh boy, wouldn't that be a grand and glo-ri-ous feeling? Now, don't get me wrong and think I am trying to tell you what to charge. If you have something extra or special to offer, make it worth while and get twenty cents for kid's tickets, but on regular programs you will be money ahead if you'll make it a dime. My regular admission prices are ten and thirty cents. In conclusion, I will say that business has been a little better the past thirty days — hold on, boys, and don't any of you get excited. This doesn't mean that I made any money, I iust simply lost less the past thirty days.— W. P. Perry, Rialto theatre, Cheyenne Wells, Colo. Urges Better Paper CARPINTERI A, CALIF. — To the Editor: I appreciate the views of exhibitors in "What the Picture Did for Me," and I have found in nine cases out of ten (excepting, of course, the few who must kick regardless) that the opinions expressed under this head are sound and from men who not only know a real attraction but are fair judges of photography, directing and titling. Too frequently the name a production is released under is a serious handicap. "Heliotrope" is just such a case, and while the picture is fine, the name tells absolutely nothing. Another serious handicap many attractions arc up against is the misleading paper put out fur the purpose of bringing patrons into your theatre: Imagine a reliable producing company putting out a XHIBITORS HERAL Pola Negri in a scene from "The Red Peacock." (Paramount) picture with a wonderful portrayal of prayer and faith and asking the exhibitors to get churches and ministers to cooperate with you in putting it over. Then, open up your paner and find the only one sheets you have were a swell dressed woman, sitting legs crossed, dress up to her knees, and smoking a cigarette. Such a picture was with "The Stealers," and while the picture is all the producers claim for it, the paper on it depicts anything but the real theme of the production. I readily understand that anyone can criticize but few can offer real constructive and practical suggestions in the way of improvement. But I do believe that just so long as the producers cling to the idea that anything outside of a big super production will of necessity have to depict the "Dance Hall Queen" in her few clothes, the saloon brawl, the drunken wife beater, and exaggerated lawlessness of the small western towns either in the timber, cow country, or the mines, just so long as they hold to this idea of entertainment for the general public, just so long the sword of censorship will dangle over our heads and eventually the weight of public opinion will, like outraged justice, arise and point the road just as the 18th amendment did to the saloonkeeper and manufacturers. Why producers will get so near the danger line to put a punch in a picture has to me always been a mystery. — H. W. McCampbell, manager, Auditorium theatre, Carpinteria, Calif. A Letter on "Foolish Wives" ~ MILWAUKEE, WIS.— To the Editor: I feel duty bound to my fellow exhibitors to inform you as to the success of "Foolish Wives," which run I completed last night (March 3). I am compelled to go on record as saying that this picture had the most successful engagement of any picture that has ever played our theatre. Although the price of admission charged was the highest ever gotten by an exclusive mot;on picture theatre, the public seemed to appreciate the value they received, paying the admission price gladly and going out well pleased. 1 trust you will inform the readers through your columns of the success the Butterfly theatre had with "Foolish Wives," as I feel the exhibitor is entitled in these days of depression to a box office attraction and there is no question what this picture is. Anyone of your readers wishing information on it may write, phone or wire and I will gladly answer. That's what I think of it. — Harry Hart, manager. Butterfly theatre, Milwaukee, Wis. Organizes Producing Firm John P. McCarthy, in association with T. V. Barrett has organized John P. McCarthy Productions of which Mr. Barrett will be general manager. The company's product will be distributed independently by Apex Film Company. D March 25, 1922 PILM LAUGHS FROM TOPICS THE S ELECTED BY TIMELY FILMS Jnc "Marie is so modest she puts her pet dog out of the room while she is changing her gown !" "The idea!" "Well — it's a Pekingese." — Washington (D. C.) Times. * "Lay down, pup. Lay down. That's a good doggie. Lay down, I tell you." "Mister, you'll have to say, 'Lie down.' He's a Boston terrier." — Nashz/ille Tennessean. * Little Bess — Mamma, do dogs get married? Mother — Certainly not, dear. Little Bess — Then what right has Prince to growl at Fannie when they're eating breakfast? — Boston Transcript. * Ray (admiring little chow dog) — What a nice little doggie. Does she bite? May — No. indeed! Ginger snaps. — "Topics of the Day" Films. * "In suing for a separation Mrs. Smith says her husband is a rover." "I see. Led her a dog's life, eh?" — Nezv York Evening World. * Ladv (inspecting puppy) — Is he well bred ? " Peddler — Say, lady, if any o' your neighbors has got a dog ye'd like to see snubbed, this dog will do the job for youse ! — Implement & Tractor Journal. * "W ell, are you making your bride happy?"' "I dunno. She seems to like me, but I make no hit with her dog." — Judge. * Gentleman (indignantly)— When I bought this dog you said he was splendid for rats ! Why, he won't touch them ! Dog Dealer — Well, ain't that splendid for rats? — Patcrson (N. J.) Chronicle. * Andy, a negro porter at a theatre, belongs to a lodge. We met him on Broadway and he said the organization was to have new quarters. "Did you vote for a change?" we asked. "Ah wasn't at de meeting'," replied Andy, "but Ah voted by peroxide." — Nczv York Globe. Arrow President Reports Improving Conditions on Return from Western Tour W. E. Shallenberger, president of Arrow Film Corporation, has returned from a trip of the principal cities of Ohio, Illinois and Michigan. lie reports that conditions among the exchange men and exhibitors are steadily improving and that it is anticipated that the next two months will show marked improvement in the state right field. Dr. Shallenberger stopped off at Columbus and Detroit to look over the "Ten Nights" showing in these cities and is greatly pleased with the successful run of this picture at both of these cities where it was then in its second week in each place. Dr. Shallenberger expressed himself as confident that conditions were bound to improve and looks forward. to an excellent season.