Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

4 INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN Vol. 2 No. 45 July 8, 1936 Issued weekly by Film Bulletin Co., at 13 23 Vine Street, Phila., Pa. Mo Wax, editor and publisher; Roland Barton, George F. Nonamaker, associate editors. Saul S. Leshner, business manager. Bell Phone, RITtenhouse 7424 Address all communications to Editor, Film Bulletin New York Office: 165 8 Broadway, New York City Room 486 — Circle 7-3 094 HCLLyWCCD rLICKERS What The Newspaper Critics Say: "CRIME OF DR. FORBES" (20th Century-Fox) ". . . In spite of having had to work under definite restraint, director and extremely competent cast have produced an engaging picture . . . Good entertainment . . ." N. Y. TIMES. "... A production fit for the most fastidious film fan ... A sensible, forceful and, at times, highly humorous story . . . a splendid cast . . . well directed . . ." N. Y. DAILY NEWS. "A hotly controversial theme is introduced in this unusual melodrama which presents it with taste and without championing either view of the question, "Has a consciencious and qualified physican the right to end human suffering?" . . . Substantial drama, daring and provocative with a climax that packs a staggering wallop . . ." N. Y. DAILY MIRROR. "I STAND CONDEMNED" (United Artists) "An excitable piece . . . performance of Harry Baur as vivid a characterization as any screen has offered." N. Y. SUN. "Baur gives an excellent performance in heavy drama.'" N. Y. DAILY NEWS. "Baur's acting most impressive . . . artfully photographed, imaginatively directed and splendidly acted." N. Y. DAILY MIRROR. "WHITE ANGEL" ( Warner's) "Deserves to take its place alongside of 'Pasteur'." N. Y. DAILY NEWS. "A great and distinguished film." N. Y. DAILY MIRROR. "Ennobling, inspirational entertainment." N. Y. AMERICAN. By HARRY N. BLAIR Hollywood, July 6. Once more the Catholic church lets loose on Hollywood. This time the blast comes direct from the Vatican and will be heeded. Already the studios are taking steps to clean house. Not only will the moral tone of pictures be advanced. The tendency to glorify cheapness in both language and conduct will be curbed. As usual. Will Hays has "nothing to say-" To us, it looks very much as though his much vaunted "censorship within the industry" plan has failed or, at least, slipped . . . badly. Producers will now really have to toe the line, hope that it isn't too late. Let's When are exhibs really going to get busy and put a stop to movie stars appearing on the air in competition with their own pictures? This is a ridiculous situation which could exist in no other line of activity except this screwy film business. If only the boys got together and levied a boycott on some of the offending screen names, it might bring home to the producers that they mean business and will not tolerate such unfair competition. Truth is, the producers are afraid of the boxoffice bets. In creating the star system they have built a Frankenstein which will in time destroy the whole works. On one end you have the extras struggling along on a few dollars a week while the top notch players pull down five thousand a week and sometimes more. For what? Acting is a very complicated business, they say. Oh yes? How about Shirley Temple, the biggest draw in the business? Based on long observation I say that acting in pictures is child's play compared to stage acting and anyone of average intelligence could do it after a few weeks coaching. Right now, it's the world's sweetest racket. RKO, in its present spot needs names . . . badly. Knowing this, its three biggest stars: Astaire, Rogers and Hepburn, all went to headquarters with demands for salary boosts. Did they get them? You win ... of course. In fact, the latter player has kicked up such a row that her contract has just been adjusted for the third time in the past few months. Each time she got a raise. Yet anyone who studies the boxoffice barometer knows that Katie is on the wane. Bette Davis is the latest star to walk. And, as Warners seem in no mood to give in, she remains on the suspended list along with Jimmy Cagney. Even the indies are not immune, the Gene Autrey-Republic matter still hanging fire. Only in constantly developing new personalities does there seem to be any solution. And then you begin all over again. With Barney Balaban installed as the new prexy at Paramount and brother A. J. in a top spot at RKO, those persistent merger rumors are again hot. Wall Street credits this with being partly responsible for the steady climb in Paramount stock offerings. Henry B. Wathall's impressive performance in MGM's "Devil Doll'' was in the nature of a grand exit for the veteran performer. His sudden passing has resulted in Ben Zeidman having to postpone "In His Steps" for three weeks. Walthall was to have had the lead in this. The story is now being rewritten to play up to the love interest.