Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

Sunt fmoldivyn \ Or of an Turned t Xigh tni are Mr. Samuel Goldwyn is theorizing fbnce again on his favorite subject, ■ihese are his words, according to a ■despatch from Tokyo: "The only ■way for the motion picture business to survive the competition from TV is to produce fewer pictures — and ■only good ones." In keeping with the Oriental set■ ting from which this profound thesis emanated, we assume a Yogi stance, take a spot of hashish, and slip off into that dream world of "only good pictures" Mr. G. contemplates. The industry we dream of has adopted his do?ma and is now geared to produce "fewer and only good" movies. In the lofty atmosphere of this tightly restricted production era, naturally, there is no room for films like "Marty" and "Blackboard Jungle" and "On the Waterfront" and, perhaps, even a "From Here to Eternity". These modest ventures, after all, were undertaken in Hollywood's attics, I and art in this Goldwyn age must I be forsaken for size and the safety [I of the big budget. For, you see, the N two million dollar-and-up budget II will henceforth vouchsafe quality n and boxoffice. It's really very simple: we are now making only Cadillacs; no more I low priced jobs. Instead of producing 250 features per year, a mere one | hundred are made. Obviously, by ! following the Cadillac blueprint it I shouJd be a lead-pipe cinch to turn | out 100 great or near-great pictures — although we can't in our hashish haze, recall the halcyon year in which there were anywhere near one hundred outstanding pictures. But, at any rate, in this rosy dream world envisioned by the great Goldwyn the producers set out to deliver 100 top films. Lo and behold, by some quirk of unkind kismet it developes that this is a rather fallow year for moviemakers and only 30 of the finished productions turn out to be of top quality. The Cadillac blueprint, it seems, cannot be relied on in film making! What happens to the theatres? In the average major city there are at least a half-dozen first-run houses, so we allot five of the top films to each. With these, and a few of the other "disappointing" productions booked for brief engagements, the first-runs survive. Most of the second-runs, key neighborhood theatres, however, are in trouble. There is barely enough product available to maintain one in each neighborhood. The remaining second-runs, as well as the thousands of thirdand fourth-run theatres have been consigned to conversion into supermarkets or warehouses. But the dream turns into a nightmare. Now we have real constriction in our industry. Pictures are few, but theatres also are few. In the dealings between the remaining theatres— largely non-competitive — and the Goldwyns of production, we witness a shattering of the old sellers' market and, in its place, growth of a ruthless buyers' market. The survivors of exhibition's war of attrition now dictate film terms. Producer Goldwyn, about to release his costly new production for an average rental of 17 percent of the gross, recalls with nostalgia those "good old days" when he took anywhere from 50 to 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 Fitth Avenue, New York 34, N. Y., MUrray Hill 2-3631; Richard Bretstein, Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR. S3. 00 in the U. S.; Canada, $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS: S5.00 in the U. S.; Canada, $7.50; Europe, $9.00. 90 percent of the boxoffice take for "Guys and Dolls". But this hashish seems to be wearing off . . . And how are you feeling, Sam? All Exhibition Musi Support The Tax Fight On the credo that what is good for the whole is good for its components, we urge whole-hearted support of the present campaign to lift the admissions tax from all tickets under $1.00, as recommended in the King Bill, H. R. 9875. There are two potential irritants to the type of all-industry collaboration needed to bring this campaign to fruition. The first is a "what's the use" attitude stemming from the belief that Congress or the Treasury wouldn't go for it; the second, and probably the more fatal, is the talk that little exhibitors have no interest in removing the tax above the 50cent exemption. The best refutation of the first negative attitude is the result of the last admissions tax campaign, when the "impossible" was achieved by an all-industry sweat and blood effort. Moreover, we do not believe that men like Bob O'Donnell, who is chairmanning the current tax campaign, would devote their precious time and effort to an action they considered fruitless. And those who led the last fight will never forget the enormous requirements of both time and effort needed in that herculean struggle. Another important factor is the priceless experience and contacts made in the previous campaign, both potent reserves for the forthcoming drive. More insidious than the "hopeless" attitude is the one that says, "It won't do me any good because all I need is the 50c exemption." (Continued on Page 6) Film BULLETIN April 14, 1956 Page 5