Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1960)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

FINANCIAL BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 19, 1960 By Philip R. Ward THE ANATOMY OF SUCCESS. Once upon a time, according to a folktale, there was a flatulent, walrus-whiskered millionaire who, as whimsy would have it, decided to subject the seediest, most dissolute bum he could find to a one-day Bacchanalia of luxury. Finding the victim and thrusting him pell-mell into the chandeliered opulence of the old Astor, the plutocrat settled back into delicious expectancy. But as one bedazzlement followed the next, the bum responded with an equanimity bordering on boredom. And as the day wore on the tramp acted out his part as one accepting an inevitable birthright, however long-suspended in realization. By nightfall his hauteur was hopeless. Enraged to the point of madness, the millionaire had the idler tossed bodily into the streets, whereupon the bum puffed up his chest with dignity and stalked off majestically. The story ends. 0 Any parallel between this fable and recent developments in filmdom depends on individual sensitivities and the state of corporate self-consciousness. It was recited to us at a recent luncheon by a partner of a good Wall Street house in connection with one of our burgeoning companies. "You'll forgive the irony," said he. "Eve always had a funny view of your business — as though it wasn't really a business at all, but a sort of good-natured tempest set to music, like a circus, perhaps — along those lines." We said we knew and nodded agreeably. And of course we did know. "I've never been able to really take your business quite seriously," he continued. "The fact that it makes profits or losses has always seemed like an incidental fact to me. I mean we really don't think about the Yankees making or losing money. It's a matter of orientation toward a business, and I've possibly never recovered from my boyhood perspectives." He acknowledged that his research department has been busily occupied with two or three movie situations, something of a departure for his firm which evidently dealt in tweedier industries than picture making. "We're as amenable as the next house to focus on a promising target as the result of sound appraisal, but I can't help overlaying this ingrained prejudice of mine upon any prospectus dealing with a movie stock. I'm afraid you're not going to be too happy with this interview. I can't, for the world of me, foresee the ingredients of stability that I demand in a security, however uncertain its present outlook may be, to encourage considered speculation. Now your outlook is not terribly uncertain. In fact, both income and profit have stabilized nicely. But the longer view offers little. There's too much decision-as-you-go. There's not enough planning. Of course, I'm one man, and your industry looks pretty good right now, especially two or three of the companies we've talked about." 0 This little luncheon session set us to thinking — about the disastrous state of our public relations and about filmdom's long-range direction. No one can gainsay Wall Street's newly gained respect for the film craft. Profits are profits. And at last count, we noted i no less than 14 separate stock recommendation services had i listed one or more film shares as "buy" or "growth" selections. Noted, too, has been the profusion of articles in financial newspapers and periodicals dealing with the improving income of the industry, as well as a rash of feature stories treating individual companies. Most significant is the torrent of research appraisals issuing from investment firms. In 30 days, thirty-odd studies have passed over our desk. Heaven knows how many more are ini circulation. Clearly, the money business has discovered the ] movies. And, not surprisingly, point gains by individual firms i have run almost in direct ratio to the volume of printed I propaganda. Universal Pictures, for instance, at whose feet have been , tossed perhaps more encomiums than ever in its history, hasi gained gloriously. Likewise M-G-M, another bellringer in the garnering of published recommendations. Others maintaining organized Wall Street fan clubs include Columbia, 2()th-Fox, Warner Brothers and Paramount. Paramount studies are amusing, hinting as they do of sly Old Uncle Remus. There is something about Paramount book keeping that inspires awe. This firm produces double entry miracles from operational vacuums. It wheels, deals, acquires, plants, retires stocks with the dexterity of a Houdini. Says one commentator: "If only it could make movies!" 0 Perhaps this is what so disturbed our luncheon friend. No planning. Decision-as-you-go. If this industry is to consolidate its now ripening gains and build from here to greater and higher peaks, now is the time to set the compass needle to one true course and stay with it. Isn't it about time we really knew where we are going? . It's worth a moment of thought, at least. f.<q 8 Film BULLETIN September I?, 1 940