Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

Published every Weonesday 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) 5628 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. Cufford, Managing Editor George Cufford, Business Manager Wiluam R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor J. Ray Murray, New Pictures Editor John S. Spahgo, New York Editor Othxe Publications: “The Box Office Record,” published semi-annually, and “Better Theatres,” published monthly as a supplement to Exhibitors Herald. SuBSCltipnoN 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 cent*. Member, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright, 1924, by Exhibitors Herald Co. Vol. XX January 17, 1925 No. 4 Hearst’s Exploits in Film Business There ia much conversation and interest concerning what Mr. William Randolph Hearst is going to do about the picture business. No one — and this probably includes Mr. Hearst himself — can make any fair guess on what may happen. Mr. Hearst’s operations in the film industry never followed any definite course. They just seemed to meander here and there, over any inviting field or byway that came into view. Mr. Hearst is supposed to have lost “millions” in the picture business. If he should continue in the industry, with the same lack of plans and the same exquisite disorganization in his film affairs, the one thing that would be practically certain to happen is that he would lose more millions. There is probably no one in America who is in a more advantageous position to become a dominant figure in production than Mr. Hearst. He is one of the most brilliant men of the day. His publication interests give him a decided advantage in the acquisition of literary material. His newspapers and magazines amount to a tremendous force in selling a picture to the public. Yet, as a producer, he is only a great failure. It is true that several very fin" productions have been turned out by his studios. But the average in merit has been exceedingly low and especially disappointing when the cost involved is taken into consideration. Mr. Hearst has only played with the picture business. He has given it much time but very little serious thought. Since coming into the industry he has seen everywhere about him evidences of the necessity of organization in production, yet he never built for himself an organization which was either permitted or able to function efficiently from one day to the next. His choice of executives has been a most curious thing. Repeatedly, he has seemed to depend upon executives whose records entitled them to little or no confidence and in the case of the several really good men who have been in his organization, their efforts have been so curbed and handicapped that they appear to have done little else than contribute to the general confusion of the organization. Mr. Hearst could make a place for himself in the motion picture industry which would be equally as great as that which he enjoys in the publishing world. But to make a substantial success in it he will find that he must take it at least as seriously as he does the newspaper business. « * * “What’ll I Do” — Brady Problem Mr. William A. Brady declares that despite the objections of the producers’ association he will make a picture of the play, “Simon Called Peter”. It may develop that Mr. Brady is only reveling in the satisfaction of defying the organized authority ol the industry; still, he may proceed with his plan of making that story. It would be difficult to say which course he is likely to follow because it is traditional with him to do the unexpected thing. Mr. Brady feels that he was not dealt fairly with in the ban that was placed upon his story. He knows. as well as anyone else, that it is not a suitable story for motion picture production but he probably thinks that he must give vent to his feelings in some kind of action because the making of a sequel to his story by a member of the producers’ association was not placed under a similar ban. He argues that if the original story is declared to be unsuitable, for the sake of consistency, the sequel should be accorded the same treatment. However, we hope he does not produce the story in question because it is not the type of entertainment with which his name has long been associated in the amusement world and because, if he would speak frankly, he probably would have to admit that the main reason spurring him to action is the fact that he has encountered opposition. * •» * Exhibitors Form Defense Line The state legislative sessions, now getting under way in many states throughout the country, may mean much to the motion picture industry. A great many bills aimed to tax and control the industry will be introduced. The public mind, as known to the legislators, doubtlessly will defeat many of the measures but in other cases nothing wiU give the industry its proper protection but a thoroughly determined and a thoroughly intelligent opposition backed by every factor of the business. And in this connection theatre owners must bear in mind that they are the industry’s representatives in their contact with the public and with the local law-makers. In all legislative matters they are the first and main line of defense.