Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1960)

VOICE OF EXHIBITION Exhibition .Must Ens*' I'rntlurt Bind — Fabian (Continued from Puge l)) short time, as many as a thousand theatres are going to close, squeezed out of business because of a lack of merchandise. It is a policy that is changing our theatre structure. Big houses — the movie palaces of a few decades ago — are closing down as unprofitable; the Roxv of New York City and the Mastbaum of Philadelphia are two typical ones that have disappeared. Other big theatres are scaling down their seating capacities; I might cite the Capitol, the State and the Astor in New York City. The mammoth theatre is going; and, unfortunately, so are many of our smaller theatres, which, if adequately supplied with good film, should by every rule and equation, be profitable. Frankly and candidly, this policy of product shortage, this new method of doing business which the film companies have established, means eventual destruction for most exhibitors if unchecked. SMALL FILMS OK The history of our business since television became a nation-wide competitive factor, has been that if a motion picture has sufficient attraction for the public, it will make money regardless of what the other leisure-time competition might be. I am not talking about the blockbusters which are in a class by themselves, though we know that some so-called blockbusters — made at great expense by the film companies — have failed miserably. I mean ordinary good pictures, made at relatively modest production costs, such as "Summer Place," "Bramble Bush," "Al Capone," and "Pay or Die" w hich have had something the public wants, and have been great grossers for most of us. Some of these pictures didn't even have the so-called "insurance" of big name actors. Yet they did fine business. They prove to me that the theatre business can be a good business, if the right kind of merchandise is available — and in sufficient quantity. The success of pictures like these also means to me, that hit pictures can be made without the investment of multimillions of dollars. It also means to me that if more pictures were made, we would have more of this class of good hits. It is an economic law that the percentages of achieving hits are all in the FABIAN favor of both the exhibitor and film company, if more pictures were made. The gamble, the risk, the odds become smaller for success, if the film companies would try more often, by making more pictures. Every picture is a gamble, but the more throws of the dice that are made, the greater the chance of turning up the "point." And what can we, as exhibitors, do about it? In the light of all that has happened, and is happening today, and for the actual purpose of survival, a plan has been conceived to organize a company, by and for exhibitors, to cause more pictures to be made, either by financing or actually making them, or by buying good European films satisfactory* for the American market. At this very moment there is S2.000,000 lying in the bank, as the nucleus of a fund to form such a company. This money was set up by the five former affiliated theatre circuits — my own company, Stanley Warner, by RKO Theatres, by Loew's Theatres, by American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, and by National Theatres. We five companies have agreed we will not manage any part of this new company. We will not have a vote in the operation of this new company. We will get no interest or dividend from it until all other moneys invested in it by exhibitors and anyone else gets paid first. We have agreed we will have no equity in it, nor will we be represented on its governing board. In fact, the S2,000,000 we have advanced for it might be called "bottom money"; it is in fact a loan only, with no priority of any kind. Why, you may ask, are the five former affiliates so magnanimous. We are altruistic because, even though we operate many theatres, we need more pictures just as badly as the man who runs only one or only a few theatres. As I said once before, there are no longer any "haves" and "have nots" in the theatre business; we are all "have nots." We feel that because we are the biggest companies in our business, we must take the lead for all exhibition; we must utilize our greater means and capacity to start the effort by which exhibitors will cause more pictures to be made for our screens. I want to emphasize, most importantly, that this is not an attempt to solicit nor sell stock or subscriptions in any company that may be formed. I am giving you this information today only so you will know what we, as exhibitors, are trying to do, and intend to do, if we are to survive. JAN. 1 DEADLINE This new company, to which the five major companies have subscribed, to which many of the larger independent circuits are currently subscribing, and to which I hope all exhibition will eventually support financially, is no open end proposition. As a matter of fact, unless all the money is obtained by January 1, 1961, no operational plan for the company will be developed and all the moneys that have been given will be returned. This is a company wherein the independent exhibitors who invest in it, will run it, manage it, be on the board, determine polio, and do everything that is necessary to run such a company. These are our plans. This is, in our opinion, the best way available to us now, today, to plot our own survival by causing a new source — exhibition's own source — for the making of more movies. I have told you briefly what we are attempting to do. The Government has given us permission to do what we propose. I hope when the proper time comes, you as exhibitors, will be quick to support this means for your own survival. The cure to the product situation rests in your hands — the independent theatre owners of our country. I hope you will be ready for it. Film BULLETIN July II. I960 Page 17