Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

Viewpoints JUNE 25, 1956 » VOLUME 24, NO. 13 The Future is in Exhibition I From Loew's, Inc. has emerged a fresh and thoroughly logical approach to the tense problem of how most advantageously to deal with television. Rather than peddle its backlog of old films outright to the highest bidder or join in long-term leasing arrangements with syndicators, Loew's board of directors decided "that the company would be well advised to enter the television distribution field on its own so that it could exploit every facet and bring to the company the greatest amount of revenue." This move strikes us as both courageous and wise. Courageous — in that Loew's flies squarely in the face of nagging stockholder demands that it join the growing number of film companies that have made or contemplate outright sales of their libraries, and has instead chosen to gamble for the greater rewards implicit in a do-it-yourself approach toward television. Wise — in that Loew's retains for itself complete command over the disposition of its backlog, as well as over its entire TV policy. As the result of sweeping resolutions laid down by its board, Loew's has achieved concord with television, not by subduing it in negotiations, but by that oldest of economic stratagems: joining 'em. By broadening the entire base of its video operations (in addition to distributing the M-G-M library, Loew's will purchase stations, produce special TV fare), the film company wrests control away from the promoters, the middle men and the networks, while retaining for itself absolute selfdetermination in matters of programming, play dates, et. al. In short, Loew's has turned the tables by controlling its own library and buying into TV. This maneuver will enable it to capitalize upon the fullest potential of a competitor for its own use. Since the facts of life are what they are with respect to TV, Loew's video policy seems invested with considerably more logic than error, and we congratulate its directors on a most judicious move. At the same time, let us not lose sight of realities. In the light of the slumping theatre boxoffice, television may seem a golden apparition just beyond the rainbow, and no matter how pure their motives in amalgamating with the electronic Cyclops, grandiose ideas are certain to develop. Let the film makers put those ideas to rest. If commercial television were to expand to twice its present size, it would still not figure to provide Hollywood with anything resembling the revenues that flow from the theatre exhibition market. For the movie makers to rely exclusively upon TV for their sustenance is simply not in the nature of things. Not only has television an infrequent call for the type of merchandise Hollywood makes best, but its very physical standards are incompatible. For the most part, each medium can get along without the other very well. Actually, the much-reputed inter-dependence of movies and TV exists in only a minor degree. And it is only to this degree that relations are justified. Audience ratings prove television is strongest in live programming. It is next strongest in certain departments of situation comedy and drama that are clearly more indige Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 123? Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 095 1 . Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Duncan 6. Steck, Business Manager; Robert D. Lauder, Publication Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: S22 Fifth Avenue, New York 36, N. Y., MUrray Hill 2-3631; Richard Bretstein, Editorial Representative. 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. nous to TV sound stages than to those of Hollywood. Allowing that Hollywood could improve upon existing TV vehicles, were it to take on the chore, where would it wind up financially? Whether it turned out "I Love Lucies" or turned out John Wayne spectaculars for the TV screen, it would be all the same — penny-ante revenues compared to theatre grosses. Certainly TV can in nowise afford an elaborate, unplayed feature film. It still speaks reverently of the $600,000 invested in "Peter Pan," as though that figure may never be equalled. If TV could muster $1,000,000 to capture a well-made Hollywood film, it might never break even, limited as TV is to the number of replays. Even in today's depressed exhibition market that same show could gross three to five million dollars. In its truest perspective, Loew's television policy, and others that are likely to follow the same pattern, must be viewed as a shrewd and encouraging defensive measure aimed at keeping TV control at home. TV activities, properly harnessed, can be a productive by-products division of a film company, a good means of acquiring added income, much in the manner of the meat packers who maintain soap and animal food divisions. The principal output, however, flows to the traditional markets, markets capable of returning the greatest dollar volume. Hollywood's future rests with its traditional market — the theatre. It should leave no stone unturned to keep that market healthy. M*lan for Team trorli It was director George Sidney speaking: ". . . And I was truly startled when this exhibitor, whom (Continued on Page 12 J FILM Bulletin June 25, 1956 Page 5