Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1958)

WHAT 5KDUHA5 TDLD ALLIED Exhibitors, Sells, Creuivd Sellers' Market (Continui'd from Page 11) should be revised. Our pictures are going through the market too quickly. Lately, in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or in any other metropolitan city, a picture goes out of existence in a very short time — sometimes 45 days after its first run engagement. Unless a patron sees it in that time — it's gone forever. Before divorcement a motion picture could be seen in any metropolitan city for a period of 100 to 120 days. In the past, bookings were staggered at different admission prices which attracted greater audiences. The public could choose a theatre or a picture to fit his pocketbook. This is no longer the case. Today too many theatres are playing a picture at the same time. We are over-pricing ourselves in many theatres, and most of the general public stays away because of this. Competitive Bidding Turned Into Price-Boosting IVIonster Competitive Bidding: This policy appeared in the beginning to benefit both the exhibitor and distributor — but in the long run it hurts both because the distributor gains benefits from only a few pictures while many of his other pictures remain unplayed, since their price is out of the reach of the exhibitor, who suffers accordingly. The distributor is also handicapped under the decree because he has to sell pictures singly — at enormous expense to himself and the exhibitor in money, energy and time — which could be used to promote the picture. The distributor wants assurance when he plans his production program that he can get sufficient dates for all his pictures — and the theatre man wants to have sufficient pictures available in advance so he can have a steady flow of pictures for more efficient operation. In the days of block-booking an exhibitor could buy his pictures for one year and sometimes two years in advance. He was assured of an inventory of tremendous value — without investing a cent — and he could devote time to selling these picturs in his theatre. Here again I must recall a little history in my efforts to prevent the terrible calamity that has befallen us. During this early agitation for divorcement — when I was an exhibitor myself— I met with Al Steffers and the other members of your organization at the St. Moritz Hotel in New York in an endeavor to stop what I felt was a suicidal action in obstructing the valuable flow of inventory to the theatres. As you well know, the position of the organization was adamant and I failed in this mission, too. You created a seller's market which operated against you, because as pictures became scarce, film rentals increased and you had to haggle over each booking. The elimination of block-booking was also responsible for the increased cost of production. Your books will tell you more eloquently than I can the difference in film rental that you paid immediately before and after block-booking was eliminated. And the books of the film companies will tell you that the cost of production increased immediately. Any exhibitor — or any other competent person who wants to go into production and who is financially able to do so is welcome and has our blessings. This is needed in our industry today. In the same spirit the distributor should be permitted 11,491 9,248 10,336 to have showcase theatres in important situations in order to properly exploit films to your benefit. A workable arbitration system for the industry — fair to both the exhibitor and the distributor — should be set up. / Became Alarmed When I Read Your "White Paper". When Paramount had the courage to spend more than thirteen million dollars to produce "The Ten Commandments" are they not entitled to seek a sales policy which would recoup their investment and tremendous gamble with a profit to that company? We are criticized for our distribution policy on "Peyton Place" — in that we held back bookings on this picture. The following facts show that actually "Peyton Place" had more bookings in a shorter period of time than a number of pictures that had immediately preceded it in release: Picture Weeks In Release Bookings The Sun Also Rises 55 10,105 No Down Payment 50 9,084 The Three Faces of Eve 49 11,712 Stopover Tokyo 46 9,926 April Love 44 Kiss Them For Me 43 Peyton Place 39 I am sure every theatre which played "Peyton Place" had a satisfactory engagement. And I am also sure you would be happy to have many more "Peyton Place's" regardless of our distribution policies. It is in your self-interest to encourage producers to make important and expensive productions. When a film company invests ten to fifteen million dollars in a single motion picture, they should be applauded because these important films give vitality to our business — they keep motion pictures foremost in the people's minds — and our industry sorely needs subjects like "The Ten Commandments" , "Gigi", "Around The World in 80 Days", "Farewell To Arms", "South Pacific", "The Young Lions", "Bridge On The River Kuai", "The Vikings", "Sayonara", "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, Peyton Place". Many Stockholders Prefer Liquidation of Film Studios How can you expect MGM to risk fifteen million dollars on "Ben Hur"? How can you expect Twentieth Century-Fox to undertake the most ambitious project of its history — "The Greatest Story Ever Told" — without the assurance of at least getting back its investment Do you want the producers to quit making films.' If that is what you want you will have lots of help because many stockholders believe that film companies are better off dead than alive. There is constant stockholder agitation for liquidation and demands for more profit and dividends. That's why they have invested their money and there is more in it for them in the liquidation of assets rather than the production of motion pictures. I would like to express here my gratitude for the help extended by your organization, as well as exhibitors of the coun (CoHtiniH'd on Page 23) Page 12 Film BULETIN October 27, 1958