Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1923 - Mar 1924)

EXHIBITORS iper Martin J. QuigleyPublisher ^Ec|» Published eveo' Wednesday by Exhibitors ILEiiALD Co. Editorial and Executive Offices: 407 S. Dearborn St.. Chicago, U. S. A. (Tel. Harrison 9248-9249) New York Officb Loa Angeles Office 147S Broadway (Tel. Bryant 5111-1368) 5528 Santa Monica Blvd. (Hollywood 8520) James Beecroft, Manager Harrt Hammond Beall^ Manager All Editorial and Business Correspondence Should Be Addressed to Chicago Office Edwtn S. Clifford, Managing Editor George Clifford, Business Manager William R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor J. Rat Murray, Review Editor John S. Spargo, New York Editor Other Publications: "The Box Office Record." published semi-annually, and "Better Theatres," published monthly as a supplement to Exhibitors Herald Subscription Price: United States and Its Possessions, J3.00 a year: Canada, $4.50 a year; other parts of world, J6.00 a year. Single copy, 25 cents. Member, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright, 1924, by Exhibitors Herald Co, Vol. XVIII March 8, 1924 No. II The High Cost of Studio Efficiency Amateur experts, quoted freely, have been responsible for many erroneous notions about the picture business. Many persons who actually do not know what they are talking about have been quoted and requoted so much that their false notions have, in many quarters, come to be accepted as the trutli. The alleged waste and extravagance that is supposed to spread over all production has been inveighed against so many times that mere mention of the subject causes many people to boil up into a frenzy. Yet, outside of internal company investigations and surveys, there never has been any real check made to determine just what extravagance is practiced in studios and just what part of any heavy expenditures could be eliminated without injury to entertainment value of the pictures. In this connection an interesting statement from Mr. Douglas Fairbanks was printed in last week's issue of the Heb.ild. Mr. Fairbanks related that he requested Mr. Charles M. Schwab, one of the really big business men of America who was recently in Los .Angeles, to examine into the existing methods in production with a view to saying whether any obvious extravagances were being practiced. We do not feel that a casual observation by Mr. Schwab, or anyone else who was without expert knowledge of motion picture production, could produce any great amount of exact information. Yet a man with Mr. Schwab's knowledge of good business practice, and familiarity with the conduct of various big businesses, could quickly reach conclusions of importance. Mr. Schwab does not see great ex travagance in the existing methods of productions. He believes that the nature of the business does not permit of such methods as are applied to shoe factories and he believes that too much efficiency in the studio would cost more in entertainment value of the pictures than it would save in dollars. * * * Why John M. Quinn Never Used Watch The late John M. Quinn, general manager of Vitagraph, was an unusual personality, a man of a number of unique characteristics. He was particularly determined in his policies and practices and had a very decided manner of carrying through. An unusual practice of his was never to carry a watch. His theory was that it is a mistake to live by a clock. He was disinterested in the time of day. Instead of arranging his program by the clock he simply set before himself the things he had to do and he then proceeded to do them without reference to the time involved, but solely with the thought in mind of getting the things done. \ few years ago he took up residence in a suburb of New York. It looked then that his no-watch policy would have to be abandoned because the average commuter, even with watch in hand, has enough difficulty in meeting trains. But Mr. Quinn did not procure a time piece. He simply went to the station when he was through with his work and awaited the first train out. This practice did not prove satisfactory; he found that the train schedules were imposing a cut and dried working day schedule upon him which he did not want and after a brief experience with suburban life he returned to the citv. Exhibitors Resort To Cutting Pictures Producers generally have not responded to the demands of exhibitors for shorter length feature pictures. It might appear from this that the producers therefore are still exerting supreme mastery upon the matter of the length of their pictures. This, however, is not exactly true. Like the horse that can be led to water but cannot be made to drink, pictures can be shipped to the theatres in just as great lengths as the producers see fit, but exhibitors cannot be made to run them if the pictures are longer than they think the public wants. A large number of instances have come to our attention recently wherein exhibitors, finding pictures they have booked running up to unreasonable lengths, set out arbitrarily to cut them down to suitable lengths. We do not believe that even the exhibitors will maintain that this is a proper solution. We think, also, that they will admit that they are not properly equipped to make lengthy excisions from pictures they receive and that this practice cannot help but result in material injury to the continuity and therefore to the general entertainment value. But the exhibitors feel that they had better risk the cutting than to face the certain loss and disappointment of pictures that run too long. There is no doubt tliat producers feel that they are being grossly imposed upon when their pictures are unofficially edited by exhibitors. But they can easily protect themselves from this practice, if they will, simply by cutting out padding and longdrawn-out and tedious detail.