Exhibitors Herald (1927)

16 EXHIBITORS HERALD August 20, 1927 EXHIBITORS H E RAEB Qjke independent ^Im ^ade ^aper Martin J, Quigley, Publisher ^>0 Editor Publrehed Eyery Wednesday by Quigley Publishing Company Publication Office: 407 So. Dearborn St., CHICAGO, U. S. A. Martin J. Quigley, President Edwin S. Clifford, Secretary George Clifford, Asst. Treasurer Member Audit Bureau of Circulations Copyright, 1927, by Quigley Publishing Company All editorial and business correspondence should be addressed to the Chicago office Other Publications: The Chicagoan and Polo, class journals; and the following motion picture trade publications published as supplements to Exhibitors Herald: Better Theatres, every fourth week. The Studio, every fourth week, and The Bo.x Office Record & Equipment Index, semiannual. VoL. XXX August 20, 1927 N^o. 10 Picking on Production The popular thing to do now in the picture business is to pick on production. It is plainly a case of everybody’s doing it. Throughout the length and lireadth of the business the production end of the industry is being criticized and castigated, assailed and assaulted. If the reform to he accomplished equals the degree of vehemence of the critics, then an ideal day Avill soon come in the studios. But, it strikes us, the greater part of the criticism now lieing launched against production is simply a case of fanning the air. The critics tell us that the studio and studio operation is all wrong — and they stop there. It is an accurate case of destructive criticism. Destructive criticism serves its purpose in making known the existence of an evil hut it falls far short of any possible correction of any evil that may exist. Certainly no person who is alive to conditions in the picture business has been unaware of the need of reform in production. Production itself has admitted to the world the existence of difficulties. The one thing now needed is the development of ways and means of correcting the evils that are known — and admitted — to exist. L'VST week Mr. Frank R. Wilson joined the forces that J are assailing production. But Mr. Wilson did not make the usual stop at the point where production is described as being all wrong. He proceeded further and in a very interesting interview published in The Film Daily not only struck at various evils that exist hut also pointed the way to be traveled if certain of these evils are to be corrected. Mr. Wilson asserts — and we believe correctly — that producers have built up a wall about production which is resulting in the shutting out of new ideas and new talent, causing a continued drain on the already impoverished store of ideas and talent within. This brings up the point which we have heard frequently urged of late: That no little part of the present difficult production situation may he due to the virtual elimination of the independent producers. Of course, the difficulties of the independent production situation are troublesome ones. At one time the system of independent production practically ruled in the industry. Most of the large distributing companies obtained their product from a number of sources which operated independently of each other. In the development of the industry this system was almost totally supplanted by an arrangement under which the product was made by a single organization, usually in a single studio. This latter arrangement permitted supervision, consultation and responsible executive direction and it was thought that only by means of these aids could progress in production be maintained. But it may he that this idea was wrong; that centralized production activities do not lead to the best results. If this be true then a sweeping reformation in production must take place. Mr. Wilson asserts that, “mediocrity in pictures is driving people away from the box office.” This is an assertion which we do not believe can be supported. The standard of production has not fallen. It may be that the degree of progress of a few years ago has not been maintained, but to maintain such progress year by year without a let-up would be the accomplishment of a miracle. Certainly this business would rest on a mighty weak foundation if its success could only be assured by the working of miracles in the studios. No, the production standard has not fallen down. It may not have been raised in the past 12 months but it has not sunk. On the production end the trouble lies not in the quality of the product, but rather in the cost of the product. Mr. WILSON further says : “The tremendous amount of money invested in theatres must be protected by quality entertainment, which is not being provided.” At this point Mr. Wilson really diverts attention from the production problem and centers it upon another problem of the industry, which is entitled to at least a fair share of the blame for the adverse conditions which now exist. The other problem has to do with the overbuilding and frenzied development that has taken place in certain quarters of the exhibition field. And in this latter connection it may be that Mr. Wilson might properly drop the role of deliverer of criticism and adopt that of receiver of criticism. If in certain localities unsound exhibition conditions have come about as the result of over-building and frenzied development, as was the case in various West Coast Theatres Corporation interests, then it is quite unreasonalile to demand that production performs the necessary wonders immediately to render sound and profitable these interests. If a theatre is wrong then production should not be expected to make it right by the shipment every week of a “Big Parade,” a “Covered Wagon,” and a “What Price Gidfy.” Mr. Wilson adds his voice to the chorus which has lately been denouncing “the elaborate auxiliaries with which pictures are now being surrounded.” While it may not be noted that practically all of the criticism on this point has been issuing from persons other than those who have reputations as successful theatre operators, still with all this smoke there must be at least a little fire. It is interesting to recollect that these “elaborate auxiliaries” were not primarily invented and introduced because of their entertainment values or because of any popular demand. The basic reason prompting their introduction was for the theatre owner to seek to escape total dependence upon the film companies for his entertainment. Thus the jJractices were evolved not for what they promised to afford in entertainment solely, but also — and more particularly — for strategic purposes. A rather dubious genesis for a type of entertainment.