Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

Viewpoints MARCH 5, 1956 f VOLUME 24, NO. 5 Flood of Features To Television A new and relentless tide is engulfing the movie world. Hollywood-made features, features long since consigned to their celluloid Valhallas, are being suddenly invested with a brand new life span, thanks to the exigencies of corporate finance, the enterprise of promoters and the voracious product hungering of television. Just where the great movie-going, tele-viewing public stands in this vintage film tripleplay now looms as the major question of our times. It is also forcing the entire mass entertainment constellation — movie production, exhibition, and television, itself — into the showdown of its life. First, independent film makers, then RKO and Columbia, in part, and now Warner Brothers have undertaken to trade ancient footage for dollars. The last deal, representing, as it does, the most attractive film library yet sequestered for TV purposes, makes the problem quickly acute. Where the wheel will stop no one knows. Loew's is apparently negotiating. So, reportedly, is another major. And even among those exercising temporary forebearance, there are signs of a shifting attitude. Short of selling their libraries en mass, some of the more restrained film makers are feeling their way probingly, experimentally, talking of parceling out films a few at a time, or wetting their feet with sales of their aged one and two reel inventories. Sooner or later the smell of the money being offered for old and fully depreciated features seems sure to capitulate the staunchest holdouts. From a stockholder standpoint, this money looks greener with every offer. How much longer can management parry stockholders who arise at annual meetings to gripe: "Look at the money our competitors are getting"? In past days the sale of features to TV was regarded as a direct abrogation of exhibition's rights. Now that consideration is being put aside by many film executives as no longer being valid, neither ethically nor commercially. The die has been cast. Another library more or less, the remaining holdouts are bound to reason, will hardly stem the tide. In this climate, companies that continue to keep their libraries safely under padlock may be regarded as doing so less out of motives of altruism than motives aimed at a betterment of their bargaining position. These companies are clearly looking for the bidding to go up. These, then, are the simple facts of our industry life today. To deny them, ostrich-like, in the face of established truths would be reckless disservice. Plainly the library retaining wall has been breached; henceforth the breach can only widen. Thus arises the question, the question worth many times Mr. O'Neil's $12 million or Warner's $21 million: What now? To this there can be no accurate answer short of revelation. Indeed, mere speculation comes with difficulty, so heavy lay imponderables on the future's crown. How much, for instance, will exhibition suffer? Where does Hollywood go from here? What are TV's risks? To what extent will the smash hits of yesteryear on free TV bear on the /writs BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Duncan G. Steck, Business Manager; Robert D. Lauder, Publication Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 522 Fifth Avenue, New York 34, N. Y., MUrray Hill 2-3631; Richard Bretstein, Editorial Representative. WEST COAST OFFICE: 4240 Laurel Canyon Blvd., North Hollywood, California. Phone: STanley 7-4718. Vance King, Hollywood Editor. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, $3.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS: $5.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $7.50; Europe, $9.00. sociological and entertainment-seeking habits of the nation? Rather than seek pat — and possibly misleading— conclusions, let us better explore probabilities, projecting where we can present facts into future uncertainties. Effect On Exhibition? It has been held all along that a flood of old films to TV would decimate theatre business with all the force of a thermo-nuclear explosion. In reality the shock effect may be lighter than imagined. To measure possible reaction one must theorize on the audience potential vintage films can command. For, as televiewer interest goes, so in approximate proportion will go boxoffice. To do this we begin with the unrefuted fact that live shows outpull former theatre films by wide yardage. Pit a first-class live show like Ed Sullivan against the Famous Film Festival, and smiling Ed runs away with the viewer ratings. Granted that F.F.F. offers British film fare. Certainly a "Yankee Doodle Dandy", a "King Kong" or a "Casablanca" will excite many more viewers to tune in. But to test this belief, TV will have to scrap some of its live shows to give the films choice time. If, instead TV merely chooses to run them as afternoon fillers or late-late shows, there is the risk of scanty ad revenue, and exhibition is thereby freed of competitive worries. In the long run television will probably incline toward some middle ground. General Sarnoff recently declared that he has no intention of turning TV into "a motion picture circuit". Sarnoff considers live programming his medium's main forte, vintage films an occasional icing on the cake. Many keen observers of television, like Gen. Sarnoff, are firmly convinced that the great asset ( Continued on Page 20) Film BULLETIN March 5, 1954 Page 5