Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

Viewpoints (Continued from Page 3) companies as an appendage to their Hollywood product, get a few sporadic first-run dates and sputter out on the lower half of dual bills. Why? Accents unintelligible? No star value? Actionless? Stories too essentially "British"? Perhaps in some cases. The Rank Organization's ad in the Times asked what about the scores of these pictures that have featured names like James Mason, Charles Laughton, Stewart Granger, Richard Burton, Jean Simmons and Deborah Kerr with their accents. In an American picture, they're big; in a British picture, they die. The British producers' charge that American theatremen are "prejudiced", but on the basis of this horrendous boxoffice record, is it prejudice or plain businesslike reluctance to buy an unmarketable product. There is no question that British films that can be sold to the mass American public would be welcomed by this country's exhibitors — without prejudice. So would French and Italian and Zulu films if there is a market for them. We believe that British films can and should become an important source of supply for American theatres, but we can't envision this becoming reality through the methods employed up to now by United Kingdom film makers. Ads in the N. Y. Times won't accomplish anything in the mass American theatre market. Showing films first-run on TV will positively preclude any appreciable playing time in American theatres. Korda's "The Constant Husband" and "Olivier's "Richard III" will, to all intents and purposes, open and close their American engagements with that one showing. We think the answer for the British producer, if he wants to gain the screens of Joe Exhibitor on a truly major scale, is to make preparations to do it with an organization of his own in this country, with American salesmen and American exploitation experts who know how to promote and merchandise the product for all it is worth on these shores. This can't be done with a half-cocked, part-time organization, nor can it be done, we believe, by shunting the selling and promotion job to major American film distributors who have a solid roster of their own domestic product to sell. Universal, for instance, one of the principal outlets for British films over here, has always had a full supply of its own pictures to merchandise and Mr. Rank and the others have no rip'ht to assume that their pictures can get the full promotional treatment or the full attention of the sales organization. Full scale campaigns have to be worked out, first to sell them to the exhibitors and then to the public. Advance campaigns have to feed production news to columnists and fan magazines, stir up talk about a picture long before it hits the screens, exploit the stars and story and all the other myriad details that go into presenting a marketable piece of movie merchandise. Exhibitors have to be sold not only on the picture, but on the selling job that is being done for the picture. This is a full-time job and requires a fully manned, on-the-spot distribution organization. And while British films generally would never see the playoff that the average American film gets, there is no question that a much wider exhibition of British films can be extracted here with the right kind of sales and promotional organization. The United Kingdom moviemakers must make up their mind — either they are in the American market or not. To be "in" means just that — with both feet. Crying "prejudice" from across the sea will not alter their unhappy situation. American exhibitors are hungry for more product. There can be no question that British film makers will find a hearty reception here for well-made, properly merchandised, properly exploited British product. The Mail Box To the Editor: I have just read your blast against Commander McDonald's letter on subscription TV in the Wall Street Journal. You had to reach pretty far to uncork this below-the-belt punch. You pooh-pooh the gloomy situation in TV broadcasting, but as an editor in the field you must know that the situation of independent TV broadcasters is much worse than the abbreviated figures published in the Journal indicate. How could you honestly ridicule this situation when FCC figures show that in 1954 the TV networks and 108 pre-freeze stations collected $510 million and earned $104 million, while 302 post-freeze stations collected only $83 million and shared a loss of $14 million? Particularly, when all industry estimates indicate about the same split of revenue for 1955 and currently? As to commitments from producers: In the past six weeks four majors have released 1,000 features for TV on top of those released earlier. Does this leave any doubt in your mind as to what major producers will do with new movies when subscription TV gives them a chance at the home box office? I realize that you oppose any kind of home entertainment that will compete with exhibitors, not just subscription TV, and that you would love to see every form of home TV drop dead. Matty Fox has other ideas. In announcing plans for putting 740 RKO features on sponsored TV, Matty Fox said he was going to urge the public to "See a Move Today — at Home", and commented that movie theatres could now "Drop Dead Twice". The recent releases of major studio products to TV are bound to be followed by release of thousands of other recent features by other major producers. Truman Rembusch's threat to boycott producers who release to TV won't have much effect when most of them are doing it. Why don't you lay off your snide remarks long enough to think things through and figure out who the theatre's real competitor is? Then your adherence to the $ mark might lead to a change in your party line. Cordially TED LEITZELL Director of Public Relations Zenith Radio Corporation Chicago, 111. Pag. 10 Film BULLETIN February 4, 1956