Exhibitors Herald (1927)

12 EXHIBITORS HERALD November 12, 1927 EXHIBITORS HERALD Qjfie independent Qrade ^aper Martin J. Quigley, Publisher Editor Published Every 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 Box Office Record & Equipment Index, semiannual. Vol. XXXI November 12,1927 No. 9 No Profit , No Rental THE financial brokerage firm which is offering for sale stock in the United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., is making certain assurances to prospective purchasers which will he very interesting to exhibitors generally. In a circular letter the company declares: “The rental is made directly dependent upon the drawing power of the picture at the box office. No rental is paid for the picture unless our theatres make a net profit for the common stockholders.” The United Artists Theatre Circuit. Inc., a subsidiary of the United Artists corporation, through its brokerage firm herewith presents a rental scheme which, we are sure, would be hailed with great delight by all kinds of exhibitors, everywhere. No film rental unless the theatre makes a net profit is ideal enough for the exhibitor, but we wonder how United Artists, as a producing and distributing company, would like to adjust their selling system to conform with this idea. * * * Foreign Market Demands THE experience of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in being temporarily ruled out of Spain is an object lesson for producers generally. When the M-G-M picture, “Valencia,” was sent out from the Culver City studios we have no doubt that there was no realization that the subject would appear pertinently offensive to officialdom of Spain. In all of our studios the practice has been quite general of assuming a typical American attitude of disrespect toward many of the institutions of Europe, especially if royalty or nobility is concerned. This disrespect is not intentional or deliberate, but it is simply a feeling that sport may be made of these institutions without doing any particular harm. But, aside from all other considerations, the necessities of the industry’s overseas trade now impresses the stern obligation to see to it that pictures sent out for world distribution contain nothing of a character that may be deemed offensive abroad. The laxities in these matters which appear in our vaudeville stage and in our musical revues cannot be duplicated in our motion pictures without serious consequences. In many cases no right or equity will be involved. Throughout Europe many things offensive to America are not accidentally but deliberately injected into popular entertainment. The French stage, for instance, during the past two or three years, has contained material viciously offensive to the United States government and its people, but all of that involves another question. The situation facing the motion picture industry simply is that in order to be able to operate successfully in the foreign field every subject sent abroad must be carefully considered from the standpoint of its possible effect upon the foreign publics and the foreign governments. Central Europe A BIG item in the current news of the foreign market is the projected dissolution of the Fanamet enterprise which is a selling and distributing combination of Paramount, M-G-M and First National in Central Europe. The dissolution of this enterprise, which is announced for January first, closes another chapter of the story of the trying effort which has been made by the abovenamed companies and others to establish and operate successfully activities in Central Europe. It will be remembered that operations for American film companies in Central Europe were slow to start after the war because of post-war conditions. But even with the return of something like normal conditions, difficulties have increased instead of diminished for most of the American companies, allowing for certain conspicuous exceptions. There are many reasons for this, some obvious and some obscure. Among the obvious reasons is that persons out of the American trade have been dispatched to various of these Central European points who had no experience in the export business and who knew little or nothing of the conditions to be faced. They conducted themselves very much as if they had simply been transferred from one territory in the United States to another. They seemed quite oblivious of the requirements of their new situations. One representative, for instance, in an interview with a high official of one of the smaller Central European countries about a trade regulation matter, threatened the official with bringing down the wrath of his company upon the official if concessions were not allowed. After the American representative was quietly but firmly shown to the street he learned that the official to whom he was speaking had never previously heard of the company he was representing. Another American representative gave a special showing to a distinguished gathering of a subject which burlesqued one of the most cherished traditions of the country. Experiment in distribution in Central Europe has been expensive, but much valuable experience has been gained. It is to be hoped that the experience which has been bought and paid for will now commence to bring back profitable returns. -X -X* -X Triple Features THE policy of double features, although widely persisted in, is still without the sanction of good judgment except in certain isolated circumstances. However, the triple feature bill has recently made its appearance. This is shocking but not surprising because the same line of thought that leads to double feature programs tends eventually to lead to triple feature programs. Quantity alone has never made a wonderful program. The use of two features on a single program to some extent must be considered as an admission on the part of the theatreman that he is either desperate or indifferent. A well-selected and well-balanced program built around a single feature must of necessity have a far greater appeal than two features. Double — and of course triple — feature bills discourage and do not build patronage.