Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1959)

(MERE SHOWING' CAST OF THOUSANDS g;«"HERCULES"S |S '7un-mT»KLillD0FU»tW0lgir Crowds line Boston streets to see mammoth parade heralding New England premiere of "Hercules". Pilgrim Theaatre set high of $26,000 for week. By BERNE SCHNEYER "It's amazing! I just had to hold 'Hercules' over," said one happy exhibitor. "It broke every house record. And what gets me is that it's by no means a great picture. Oh, it has color, action and a good title, but it lacks a lot of the ingredients that make a film classic. The answer has got to be that Joe Levine. He's a real showman. Why can't the major companies promote their exploitable films into boxoffice hits, too?" Then, a film man (branch manager of a major distributor) recently put this purely hypothetical question forward at a luncheon table: "Suppose a major film company had taken on the job of promoting 'Hercules'; what do you think they would have spent on it?" His cynical tone clearly indicated that he already had his answer to the query. There was no doubt in his mind that hardly any one of the film companies would have plunged half so deep as did the dynamic independent, Joe Levine, to put "Hercules" on the lips of millions of people and establish it as one of the most amazing grossers of recent seasons. The cold, hard fact is that bookkeeper thinking predominates in a large section of the film industry. This tends to fly in the face of what should be one of the maxims of the business; namely, each film must be treated as an individual, brand new piece of merchandise. Showmanship: It Because bookkeeper calculations control promotion budgeting in most of the major film companies, many promising pictures never realize their boxoffice potential. That same film man mentioned above paused during our luncheon tete-a-tete to recall a noteworthy contrast to the "Hercules" example. A few years back, he remembered, Paramount had a release that contained all the same ingredients Joe Levine conceived as being so exploitable in "Hercules ". That picture was "Ulysses" — myth, spectacle, color, and a star to boot, Kirk Douglas. As a matter of fact, our companion observed, "It was a helluva lot better picture than Levine's." But, despite the similarity of built-in promotional values, Paramount spent only a small fraction of the "Hercules" budget on its "Ulysses", let it slip into release in somewhat lacklustre fashion and, while the figures were not available to us, an educated guess must be that its gross was far less than half of what "Hercules" will show. Accepting the current "Hercules" case as another prime example that showmanship still pays off, let us consider where the responsibility rests for proper promotion. It is not uncommon to hear film men heap scorn on exhibition for its failure to sell the picture. But, as one exhibitor put it: "Levine didn't ask us to put over his picture. He went out and did it himself." That capsule comment sums up one of the basic flaws in the industry's relations — failure by the distributors to face the fact that the majority of exhibitors are businessmen, not necessarilv showmen. True enough, some of the film executives, too, are businessmen — and not showmen. The wiser ones, however, recognizing the crucial importance of promotion, hire the best talent available to carry out that vital function of the business. While they seek — and need — exhibition help in the field, they assume the major burden of exploiting their product. And it is .1 proven fact that the most successful (Continued on P.i^c 12) Film BULLETIN July 20. 1959 Pane 11