Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

Published every Wednesday by Exhibitors Herald Co. Editorial and Executive Offices: 407 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, U. S. A. (Tel. Harrison 9248-9249) New York Office Los Angeles Office 1476 Broadway (Tel. Bryant 6111-1368) 6528 Santa Monica Blvd. (Hollywood 8620) James Beecroft, Manager Harry Hammond Beall, Manager All Editorial and Business Correspondence Should Be Addressed to Chicago Office. Edwin S. Gufford, Managing Editor George Clifford, Business Manager Wiluam R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor J. Ray Murray, New Pictures Editor John S. Spahgo, New York Editor Other Publications: “The Box Office Record," published semi-annually, and “Better Theatres," published monthly as a supplement to Exhibitors Herald. SUBSCiUFnoN Price : United States and Its Possessions, $3.00 a year ; Canada, $4.60 a year ; other parts of world, $6.00 a year. Single copy, 26 oenta. Memher, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright, 1924, by Exhibitors Herald Co. Vol. XX Jainuary 3, 1925 No. 2 Year-End Survey and Glance Ahead Measured by the dictum that the happiest nations are those without spectacular histories, it may be said that the history of the film business during the past year shows it to have heen a happy business. The film business during the past year has been notable for its lack of notable events. Although the business is essentially a spectacular one, many of its customary and notorious gestures of the past have been absent during the year just ending. An outstanding feature of the industry has been the widespread and continuous construction of better, finer and bigger theatres. Everywhere throughout the country the building program has continued on at a swift pace, until now it may be safely stated that the representative motion picture theatres in the various communities rank creditably with the finest public buildings of these communities. Running parallel to this development has been the very great success of producers in turning out a large number of really big productions. In fact, big productions have been so numerous that the publication of one of them is no longer an outstanding event. Month by month during the past year one big attraction after another has entered the market until a condition has been reached in which a wise man would not attempt to compile a list of the best pictures of the year, because such a list would either be a too-lengthy document or it would be one which would be arbitrarily made up on the basis of personal preference. * * •» It may be safely stated that the past year has been a period of the most substantial progress and prosperity in the history of the business. Such an assertion is based chiefly on the fact that the industry in its most important point — the theatre box ofiice — has continued in a flourishing condition. Public patronage has increased materially. The motion picture has been favored with greater and steadier support than ever before. Persons who have expressed apprehension over the ability of picture entertaimnent to hold indefinitely the public’s interest have been able to find but very little to justify their fears. There need he no worry over the futm-e of this business just so long as box office revenues continue to increase, and the tendency during the past year has been decidedly upward. Details of production continue practically without control. Still, no one has yet been able to come forward with any practicable ways and means of controlling studio activities and studio expenditures. The policy among the most successful companies seems to be to make good pictures as economically as possible — but to make good pictures. And until someone can show a bigger success with some other policy there appears to be no reason for any attempt to revolutionize the present system of procedure. Distribution has been talked about — ^but there is nothing new in that. It has been a favorite topic of conversation and paper schemes for fifteen years, yet the larger companies are gradually becoming more confirmed in their present systems of distributions and added investments along this line seem to put off into the hazy and far-away future the day when any substantial change in distribution methods will come about. * * A conunendable effort was made during the year by a New York trade paper to bring out a plan, by means of a contest, which might assist in solving what is commonly referred to as the distribution problem. The contest, however, produced nothing of importance because it merely brought out a crystallized draft of a distribution system which has been well-known and well-understood for many years. The proposed system has many unquestionable advantages bqt it amounts to nothing more than a conversational topic because the various companies which would have to join in it to make it practicable are very well satisfied with present arrangements and have (Continued on follozving page)