Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1961)

The Vieu; frw OuUide by ROLAND PENDARIS More Films — Smart Business One of the points which is constantly being made by defenders of Hollywood's decreased production of theatrical films is that it is smart business. These people insist that on a hard business basis the Hollywood producers simply cannot afford to turn out more pictures, because of the shrinkage in theatre lttendance. They also point out that more and more of the producers' revenues are coming from television sales. And herein lies the rub. These same apostles of less production look with favor upon the predicted tremendous expansion of their markets in the illusory world of pay television. They say that when pay television arrives (and they always assume that it is a foregone conclusion) there will be a market for all the pictures that Hollywood can possibly produce. Meanwhile, they are producing less and less. This means that in a short time they will have virtually no backlogs to sell to free television and even less to make available if feevee should ever become more than a promoter's dream. I In recent years, certainly, the producers should have discovered how important it is to have a large stock of completed motion pictures on hand, but obviously they have not learned their lesson. The fact that a greater supply of pictures would increase the theatre market is actually, in large measure, the icing on the cake. Even if such pictures just broke even in the theatrical market, they would be wise investments for future income from non-theatrical sources. The pity of it all is that the feevee people in particular have helped to create a pie-in-the-sky attitude without reminding Hollywood that it takes a heap of baking to make yourself a pie. 0 0 The front page headline in one of the New York dailies reads: "Say Film Figures Star in Rome Call Girl Ring.-' In the first paragraph of the dispatch from Rome, we find that the Italian police have announced the smashing of a vice group whose clients were said to include "unnamed foreign diplomats, Italian politicians, and former government ministers." In a second paragraph, we learn that others included were "industrialists, film producers and directors," and later in the story we are told that "two noted foreign actresses, movie starlets, top fashion models and some girls of good family" were in the ring. Obviously, the headline is somewhat out of keeping with the lead in the story itself. Once again, newspaper sensationalism is pointing its finger mistakenly at "film figures." The fact that the American motion picture industry is not in the slightest involved is clearly spelled out in the story; but certainly few, if any, readers of this American newspaper, when they look at the headline, will realize that this is not a story about American motion pictures. In a dubious way, this is a tribute to the continuing glamour of Hollywood. Without its headline mention of film figures, the story of a scandal in far-off Rome would hardly have gotten the same play on the front page. Now, if we could only translate the reader appeal of anonymous film figures into concrete box office terms . . . 0 0 I see by the papers that the National Broadcasting Company has acquired a supply of films of the 1950s from 20th CenturyFox for showing in prime time on Saturday evening opposite two of the most popular television shows of all time, the CBS Television Network's "Have Gun, Will Travel" and "Gunsmoke." While the NBC move is obviously designed to promote the network with a strong challenger to the CBS Saturday evening honors, there is no question but that it will certainly have theatrical implications as well. This is a case where a television network is going to be offering comparatively recent motion pictures during theatre hours on the most important theatre night of the week. It is entirely possible, as a matter of fact, that there will be occasions when the film on the network will have the same stars as the newer film being shown in the neighborhood theatre. As these lines are being written, no information is available regarding the titles of the pictures which will be telecast, nor regarding the dates of specific showings; but certainly it can be said that even Saturday night at the theatre now faces a serious challenge. 0 0 The Supreme Court's latest decision on censorship is hard to understand. Apparently the thrust of the decision is that the basic idea of government censorship of the movies is permissible, although the standards of the censor might be thrown out by the courts. This would seem to bring us back to where we started. Perhaps I am reading too much into the decision just made by the highest judicial authority in the land. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the inevitable result of this acceptance of censorship is going to be a strongly renewed battle by all kinds of pressure groups to reimpose shackles on the movies. This column has spoken out strongly against certain types of subject matter which we have felt were not in good taste. We do not, however, believe that censorship by any government body is the answer. Any such censorship is an invasion of the responsibilities which rightly belong to the industry itself. And just how the Court can permit censorship of movies and prohibit censorship of newspapers and magazines is something which I am frank to say troubles me. Film BULLETIN February 20. 1941 Page 17