Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1956)

TIME FOR A CHANGE! By LEONARD COULTER Three proclamations have gone forth to bedevil an already puzzled and perplexed industry: (1) An announcement that when Republic Pictures (whose stock control is, apparently, in doubt) resumes production, it will revert to its former policy of low-budget pictures costing between $150,000 and $250,000; (2) A pitch for more "unusual" films by Frank Ross, who produced "The Robe" and other boxoffice winners, and (3) A trumpet call from Arthur Hornblow, Jr., to the effect that the independent producer (rather than the major studio) is most likely to rescue Hollywood from the doldrums and save the exhibitor from a third mortgage. Taken at its face value, the Republic statement could be read as meaning that the company has failed to compete with other studios' more extravagant, high-budget product, and has given up trying. But does it mean only that? And is the avowed reversion to the former Republic policy of making "cheap" pictures necessarily a step in the wrong direction? Is Herbert J. Yates, the company's President putting into effect a change of production emphasis which other companies may be contemplating? This is one question which is well worth careful examination. The other two — posed by Messrs. Ross and Hornblow — also deserve closer analysis than they have received. The Conventional Is Taboo Frank Ross, who is in the throes of planning a film based on Joe David Brown's novel "Kings Go Forth" — which deals with a young girl born of a white mother and a Negro father — say he will not bow to the standard Hollywood conventions in making it. He says the public wants films about real things, real people and real problems of the kind which confront them from day to day — "basic things which are a part of our existence." Conventional pictures which disregard the facts of life and drain the vitality out of the subject matter to avoid being controversial are, says Ross, the biggest financial risks because they say nothing about the problems of living, and cause no public discussion. "Waterfront", "Blackboard Jungle", "Rose Tattoo" and "I'll Cry Tomorrow" made a lot of money, he contends, because, though they had unpleasant aspects, they were exciting. "I haven't seen anything", added Ross, "that has caused me to worry that the public isn't interested in going to the movies any more. It isn't, however, interesting in going to see some movies." Arthur Hornblow's contribution to the current debate of what's wrong with the movies, was in similar vein to Ross's. This is what he said, in essence: "The question of whether there will continue to be a motion picture industry in an important sense depends largely on the courage and ability of the independent producer. "If the independent producers were to gain domination of the industry, the major Hollywood plants would probably become service studios for independent film-makers capable of making better pictures. "Some of the major companies might welcome that turn of events because it would relieve them of the burden of turning out a set program, and solve the plaguing problem of constantly rising overheads. "The movement today is away from an organized industry as we have known it, and in the direction of what can best be described as show business where independent production stands on its own feet. "Similarly, the industry needs better theatres. My heart sinks at the sight of some of them, which are so shabby that they take the fun out of moviegoing for a large number of people. The concession stand too often is the only thing about the theatre that reflects the active attention of the management." Fat and Lazy What Ross and Hornblow are saying needs, of course, to be taken with a grain of salt. Others before them have said much the same thing these last several years. Independent film producers, seemingly, cannot resist dispensing wisdom whenever the industry is confronted with one of its periodic crises or is debating a major policy issue. If, this time, the familiar pattern is to be followed, it will not be long before one of the independents summons a press conference to denounce the Motion Picture Code and to blame all the industry's ills on the censors. Even, however, when their statements have been fully discounted, it does appear that they have some legitimate foundation, and that before the motion picture industry can get back "into the groove" it will have to shake out of their swivel chairs those men who have grown fat and lazy over the years and whose imaginative skill has for a long time past been poured into their individual tax returns instead of into the making of good entertainment. One of the most difficult things to accomplish in the in Page 6 FILM Bulletin June 25, 1954