Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1954)

ie\s)points MAY 3, 19 5 4 # VOLUME 22, NO. 9 VistaVision The Eastern demonstration of VistaVision corroborated the West Coast report: It is a filming method which produces a more sharply defined image. That, and nothing more. It is not deprecating this contribution by Paramount to improvement of motion pictures to say that this process is not revolutionary in the sense that Cinerama. CinemaScope and other radical screen develo|)ments were. In conjunction with other new processes, it should be of value to exhibitors. Of itself, however. VistaVision cannot be said to offer a major contribution to the boxoffice. Slot TV Logic Exhibitors, of late, have been so bogged down in a morass of jtroduct shortages, stereophonic sound, and aspect ratios, that they have had little time to concern themselves \s ith the Slot TV menace. Subx riplioM TV forces, however, have been busily at work. W bile they always courted motion picture producers, it is encouraging to note that llit y now ha\c drcanicd u|) some rather startling "benefit-s" for theatre exhibitors. Discussing Phonevisioii before The N. ^ . ."Society of Securilv Analysts. Zenith Hadio Corporation's Dr. Millard C. Faught observed. ".Motion picture exhibitors are still afraid that TV will murder their business ... It is hardly surprising that when one mentions subsi ription television to them, with its own boxofiice right in the American living room they really tremble, or they roar with anxiety." I p to that point. it"s safe to assume most exhibitors will heartily concur with Dr. Faught. But. in the next breath, he fires this fast ball: "There is much evidence and sound logic upon which to expect subscription television will help the motion picture industry, including its exhibition branch, in far greater proportion than so-called "free' sponsored television is now hurting it." Then Dr. Faught backs up his statement with this evidence and sound logic: "The ballyhoo of a subscription T\ premiere of a new movie will not only build future theatre audiences, but also enable exhibitors to |)re-test the market for the film." How ridiculous can you get? The "pre test" might easily eliminate the market. There are close to .'^O.OOO.OUO television sets in the 1'. S. today. Assuming each was slot-equipped, a properly ballyhooed showing could conceivably play-off a film overnight. It doesn't take much imagination to see how exhibitors would fare after one of these "|)remieres". First-run movie houses would become the equivalent of a sub-sub run. Dr. Faught conceives of other ways in whic h exhibitors \>ill "|)rofit" from subscri|)tion TV. "The \a.>t new revenue to Hollywood should assure first a great new supply of films — of which MOW there is a shortage. But in addition, this added revenue should assure a bigger supply of costly super-colossal films — for all types of exhibition." Sounds rosy, but how much good will "super-colossal" films do exhibitors after they have been wrung out in the Slot T\ network? \^ hen are the proponents of subscription television going to stop whistling in the dark and get down to cold, hard facts? \^ hat is the basis for supposing audiences will go out to theatres when they can obtain first-run films at home? ^hy would film producers maintain costly distributing operations for exhibitors, when it is claimed their product will realize fantastic grosses in a relatively few TV play dates? Double talk won't change the fundamental fact that payas-you-see video would, in truth, murder theatre business. That will take much more logic to disprove than was presented by the good doc tor from Zenith. Why Only Texas? The richly deserved reward due COMPO s tax repeal committee for their back-breaking efforts to win relief for our industry will materialize in some small measure, at least, thanks to mo\ iemen from Texas. Not that Texans do anything in a small ua\. mind you. On Tuesday. May \. Texas exhibitors will present Colonel H. A. (-ole with a pair of gold keys to a new powder-blue Cadillac . It will carry a coat of arms on the door; the dashboard will have a special gold plate inscribed: "Presented to Colonel H. A. Cole by Loyal and Devoted Texas Theatre Owners". And in the grand Texas tradition, a chauffeur in a uniform exactly the shade of the car will be at the Colonel's service for a full year. His office, too. will be completely redecorated as part of the Texas theatremens" appreciation. Only one factor mars this well-merited gesture — the realization that it was limited only to Texas, and only to theatremen. Is our industry so devoid of leadership that an organized, concerted effort by everyone in this industry could not have been made for all those who guided the campaign and marshalled nationwide support that led to the eventual victory? The theatres that would have closed — as well as those that may now reopen — owe that debt. And so do the film companies. Production and distribution will realize a bountiful new market instead of the void that would have been left if the tax fight had not been won. There isn't a working member of the motion picture industry that hasn't benefitted from the work of Cole and McGee and Coyne and Rembusch and Pinanski. and the others who gave of their time, their talents, their hearts. It was an ulcer job. a rat-race of politicking, long hours and days and weeks away from the businesses that meant their livelihood. It's a fine thing the Texans have done. The pity of it is that those from the lone (sic) Star State are the only movie people with a talent for expressing a heartv thanks. FILM BULLETIN May 3. 1954 Page 5