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) 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. Clifford, Managing Editor George Clifford, Business Manager William R. Weaver, Exhibitor Editor Jay M. Shreck, News Editor J. Ray Murray, New Pictures Editor John S. Spargo, New York Editor Other Publications: “The Box Office Record,” published semiannually, and “Better Theatres,” published monthly as a supplement to Exhibitobs Hsutu. Subscription Price: United States and Its Possessions, $3.00 a year; Canada, $4.50 a year; other parts of world, $6.00 a year. Single copy. 26 eenta. Member, Audit Bureau of Circulations. Copyright, 1926, by Exhibitors HBRAUt Co. Vol. XX. HOLLYWOOD, March 3.— Considerable anxiety pervades most of the producing organizations here at the production capital of the world. The only companies which appear to view the coming season with complete confidence and satisfaction are those few organizations which have an assured outlet through their own theatres and through agreements with combinations of exhibitors. The others are obviously in grave doubt as to what policy should be followed; they do not know whether they should plunge ahead and take a chance on finding a market when their product is ready, or whether they should hold back and await a more favorable turn in affairs. Apparently the latter course is to be followed by a sufficient number of producers to have the effect of both limiting the total volume of product and also of seriously limiting the number of big or pretentious productions. Everywhere among the smaller companies the question is asked, “Is there going to be any playing time left for us after the big companies have set in their pictures with their own theatres and with the theatre combinations with which they have agreements?” * * •» The developments that have been taking place during the past few months do not seem to be well-understood among many of the smaller companies but surface indications have been enough to create a general condition of alarm. These companies are awaiting some word from exhibitors which will throw light on the immediate future and which will enable them to compose their plans March 14, 1925 Smaller Firms Worried About Coming Season with some assurance that they will not simply be making pictures to gather dust in the storage vaults. The situation referred to has already had a serious effect on the financial problem of the smaller companies because the unfavorable prospect has been realized by banks and bankers and there has been a further stiffening up in respect to financial accommodations to the smaller producers. One of the producing companies here which has contributed a number of fine box office attractions during the past year has decided to avoid the risk of making any fairly costly pictures and will confine itself entirely to the production of just as inexpensive negatives as possible. This policy probably will enable the company to escape, as it is trying to, any serious loss because they can figure on getting their costs back out of the smaller independent theatres, but it is tending to bring about a serious situation for the theatreman who intends to remain in complete and independent control of his theatre properties. The narrowing of the market which has been taking place during recent months is having its effect in many ways here. Outside of the very cheap negatives, which are being made in what is known locally as “Poverty Row,” there are very few independent productions in No. 12 work. Even if the total volume of product to be offered exhibitors this year is not materially less than last year — and this is the prospect at this time — -the bulk of the year’s product certainly will be made by fewer companies than at any time for many years. « • • In addition to the difficulties confronting the smaller producer in the theatre market, he also is facing many grave problems even in respect to production. Very few proven directors or players with box office names are to be had. The supply — which is scant enough in itself — is practically monopolized by the larger organizations. Here again the narrowing process is being felt. There are other influences affecting the situation which seem to be beyond the control of anyone. The tremendous improvement in the excellency of pictures that has been taking place makes it almost impossible for the smaller companies with a limited staff and with limited facilities to keep pace with the advance. The theory is constantly being more widely accepted that good pictures are the product of organization; that a uniform high standard is only to be maintained through conference and discussion participated in by experts in various lines of special knowledge and information. In this respect the smaller company is again being compelled to face a withering brand of competitive assault. It cannot match the equipment and the organization of the larger companies and without these it is severely handicapped, even before the product enters into the struggle for playing dates.