Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (Sep 1935 - Aug 1936)

Vol. 2, No. 50 9Hitenvnden£ EXHIBITORS FILM BULLETIN THE INDUSTRY'S NEWS WARNERS DUAL POLL BOGUS Not Representative . . . On May 15 th last, Warner Bros, opened a poll which they reputed was to ascertain the desires of the American public in regards to single and double features. Monday the result of the vote was announced as standing 568,751 in favor of single features, 157,073 in favor of double features, a margin of almost 4 to 1. No one familiar with this film company's long standing opposition to twin bills or with the nature of the poll it was conducting had the slightest notion that the result would be otherwise than overwhelmingly against duals. The questionnaire was obviously directed to people who would have disdain for "bargain shows." College heads, leaders of civic organizations, newspaper editors — these are hardly representative of the mass audiences that comprise the largest portion of daily movie theatre attendance. In contrast to this vote is the poll held in a group of Detroit theatres several months ago, where the tabulation showed the patrons favoring double features by a 3 to 1 margin. Too, there were the recent experiments by Loew's theatres in New York, where the dropping of the second feature resulted in a noticeable reduction in business and the circuit quickly restored its former policy of twin bills. The Warner poll result was published almost simultaneously with the announcement in Chicago that the Balaban & Katz circuit, affiliated with Paramount, resumes a double feature policy, breaking down the single feature agreement reached between them and most Chicago independents almost four years ago. Cause or Effect? . . . The grave problem of double features is responsible for one of the industry's most perplexing dilemnas. Is the practice the cause of poorer quality films, or is it the effect? Undoubtedly, the spread of duals has had a tendency to reduce the necessity for making pictures of a high quality if they are to succeed at the nation's boxoffices. In territories where the practice is widespread almost any feature film, regardless of how cheaply and inartistically it has been produced, will show a profit. There is a shortage of product and exhibitors buy every film available to fill their playing time. Thus, the production of "quickies" is encouraged, not only by independent film companies, by any means, but by the biggest of the majors as well. Many theatremen claim, and with justification, that the spread of double featuring is the effect of the producers' mass production methods. Companies turning out 50 to 70 feature pictures during a season are to be expected to make many of them hurriedly merely to meet thir contracted commitments. These "quickies" are glutting the market and, it is claimed, forcing exhibitors to support them with another feature or suffer loss. Not Desired . . . Independent exhibitors generally desire widespread double feature programs no more than the major producers or their affiliated theatre circuits. It results in a shrinking of the film market available to independents for good runs and compels them to follow their stronger competitors with two features, instead of having the opportunity to buy some of them for prior run. But, while they do not want the practice, the exhibitor asks: "What am I to do with all the 'duds' delivered to me every season? How else can I get a fair return on pictures that few people will pay to see if shown alone?" This is the problem of double features in simplicity. No polls will solve it. Production will. TELEVISION PROGRESS Philco Test . . . In its inevitable progress toward widespread commercial use television took another step forward on Tuesday when the Philco Radio and Television Corp. conducted successful tests at a distance of seven miles from Philadelphia to the suburb Rydal. A boxing match, soloist singing, a radio commentator talking, a telephone-television conversation and a movie film were broadcast in the experiment, which was conducted for a group of some sixty people, including newspaper reporters. The reports indicated that the tests were very successful, the images, about 7 by 8 inches, being revealed as "clear and without evident distortion." William H. Grimditch, chief engineer for Philco, stated that they hope to achieve the clarity of home movies in the very near future. He expressed the opinion that commercial television will "not come this year nor next." Larry E. Grubb, president of Philco, declared, "We don't believe that television is right around the corner, but we do believe it will result in a tremendous industry when it does arrive. We do not believe in doing anything premature." But, it is on its way and presents an acute problem for the motion picture industry. Issued weekly at 1323 Vine Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Phone: Rittcnhouse 7424. Mo Wax, Publisher and Editor; Roland Barton, George Frees Nonamaker, Associate Editors. New York Office: 1 658 Broadway; phone: Circle 7-3094.