Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1957)

FINANCIAL BULLETIN NOVEMBER II, 1957 By Philip R. Ward MOVIE STOCKS NOSEDIVED to their lowest level in almost four years in October's shake-down market. One would have to trace industry shares back to pre-CinemaScope 1953 to discover greater bargains or more woeful depths — depending upon the investor's point of view. From the inception of the Big Screen era (which, as a practical phenomenon, may be considered as having begun around October, 1953) to the present time, the securities of leading movie companies have almost turned full circle. By way of illustration we portray below the closing Film BULLETIN Cinema Aggregate figures for film companies from the year 1953 to 1956 as well as the close of Oct., 1957. Close Close Close Close (October) 1953 1954 7955 1956 Close 1957 111% 178i/2 I58y2 130% 116 1/8 It would appear from the foregoing that the stocks of the film firms attained their apex in 1954 and have been backtracking steadily ever since. Actually the apogee was reached in May, 1955, when the Cinema Aggregate recorded a reading of 18l3/8. From that atmospheric point to now the pattern of descent has been inexorable. Within certain limits, the financial statements of individual companies have corresponded with the movements of the Cinema Aggregate. So, to a certain extent, has the record of theatre attendance. The prime point is that moviedom, from an earnings and equity standpoint, is back close to where it was before the magic of the Scopes, the 'Visions and the extra dimensions. Four years have come and gone and the net achievement in terms of securities values is virtually zero. O Many industry professionals, especially those affiliated with companies which have engineered and sustained the technological revolution, tend to mark time from the advent of the enlarged proscenium. Flushed with its early successes, they have honored the mechanical contrivances by so naming moviedom's modern phase the Big Screen Era. But no number of super screens presently seem capable of arresting the mounting decline. Therefore, from a psychological viewpoint alone, it may well be wise to wring down the curtain on this episode in the industry's development and strive for a fresh beginning. Certainly one lesson may be learned: a sustained and powerfully merchandised program which calls the public's attention to the dramatic innovations in movies will beget boxoffice dollars. Such a program was developed around the attributes of the wall-to-wall screen surface. Purists may argue that in the first instance it is the quality of the film that sells, but four years of retrospect answers back that most of all it was the gimmick. Any other conclusion admits that movies were simpl\ superior in 1954 to what they are today. Few will hold with this. The answer, then, is that the hard-sell of the novelty brought them in — and from this point it was the mission of the entertainment to bring them back. Lest anyone dispute the enormous selling capacity of the novelty factor in movies, let him view the two most extraordinary successes of the moment, "The Ten Commandments" and "Around the World in 80 Days." The novelty aspects of each abounds. Each is unique, distinct and unusual. The distinguished motion picture writer of the New York Times, Mr. Bosley Crowther, in a recent critique, asked why the DeMille picture seems headed for an all-time record gross while other high budget biblical films scale only ordinary earnings plateaus. His answer, aesthetic considerations aside, is that in effect the DeMille film is different. Its scope is bigger, its spectacle is greater, the very marketing of the epic causes it to stand out in bold relief. In brief, it is a novelty presentation. By definition the novel is the unusual. CinemaScope, VistaVision, Three-Dimension, "The Ten Commandments", "Around the World" — the common denominator of novelty runs thru all. 0 It is not for this forum to suggest what shape a fresh beginning should take. It is enough to point out that one certainly is indicated. Moviedom requires a new and novel window dressing. There are brains enough within the industry to fertilize the form. One last point needs major emphasis. It is not good enough to sit back and say the best films are making more money than ever, that all this industry needs are better films. The better pictures will always be in scarcity just as there will always be a short supply of the best people to make them. What about the millions invested in journeymen films made by people working at the top of their competence? And what of the millions invested in theatres which cannot be sustained by a half-dozen first-quality films per vear? The big screen carried many an average film. The motion picture industry, day in, day out, depends upon the average film. A fresh and intriguing mode of packaging and merchandising is necessary to excite the public anew and start it talking movies again. What shall it be? Film BULLETIN November II. 1957 Page 21