Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

BOSTON'S BEN SACK LAUGHS BACK AT TV . . . PREMINGER BROOKS NO 'YES' MEN The New England climate, during your chronicler's recent expedition to the patina of early American culture, was warmed over by several encouraging smoulders of enthusiasm fanned both by public and industry folk. I have never met the ebullient Mr. Ben Sack, the theatreman, but I herewith nominate him for not only pioneer of the year but for the year's best merchandiser. Mr. Sack has not been crying in his black ink over television competition. He is on the attack and quite strategically. It was Mr. Sack's idea to let Boston television habitues knowthat he had some good movies at his theatres and did this in a most simple, effective way. He merely bought the back page of the television section and advertised his attractions just to let the folks who have succumbed to blinking inertia know it was worthwhile to move their buttocks from the home screen to one of his nice theatres. The Boston newspaper which carried this effective attention-grabber then announced on the motion picture page that the Sack theatres were running this type of information every Sunday from here on in. I have heard tales about Mr. Sack's daring tactics in offering tremendous guarantees for attractions. That he gets some mighty good ones speaks well for his gambling spirit and for his hunches. What I see in Mr. Sack's point of view is quite a deal of showmanship and a bank roll to back it up. There must be other gentlemen in our business who have this same love for their work. What Mr. Sack is doing is having fun and making money at the same time. This is an enticing parlay. Would it not be a good thing if his spirit became epidemic? While patroling the Charles River sector and submitting my California metabolism to its freezing air, I learned something about that thing we call word-of-mouth. There seem to be two varieties of word-of-mouth. There is the segment that preaches stay-at-homeism and brags about the fact that it has not seen a movie in years and there is the other portion which talks about how much they enjoyed "To Kill a Mockingbird ". Of course I am being metaphorical in both cases, but the point is quite clear that there is nothing wrong with this business that word-of-mouth won't cure or kill. And let it be said on behalf of the Boston newspapers that they are doing their best to help the industry and are ADAM WEILER going all out to see that the likes of Mr. Otto Preminger are getting an appropriate podium in their columns. And, for that matter, any one who comes from Hollywood has no trouble getting lots of space to talk about his business. And I must say that during my Boston sojourn I was most impressed by Mr. Preminger's statements along with those of his acting discovery, Mr. John Huston, who heretofore was only identified as a fine director. Mr. Huston, as you know, is appearing for Mr. Preminger in "The Cardinal." But first to Mr. Preminger This gentleman, who recently said he wasn't worried about pay-tv because he is not an exhibitor, seemed very much concerned with the interviewer's suggestion that there was a rumor concerning Mr. Preminger's predilection for assuming the arrogance of a tyrant. "Me — a tyrant?" he repeated in apparent astonishment. "Wherever did you get that impression?" And then he spoke to his young publicity assistant: "Do you think I'm a tyrant?" What do you think the young publicity man replied? I'll tell you. He said: "No, sir." So, who dares to say that movie business is loaded with "yes men." Mr Preminger, who, in my opinion, is not only a fine picture maker, but also one of our best public relations experts, really knows how to make an impression. Said he in Boston: "I never start a picture with a message in view. Perhaps one comes out of the story. I like it best when my films leave behind with the audience a hope, a new meaning or a different comment on life. That is what the best books and best paintings do — as well as the best films." Bravo, Mr. Preminger, and cheers for Miss Margoried Adams, a fine newspaper woman who made possible my larceny of the above comments. The interview with John Huston which I read in the Boston RecordAmerican was also reflecting the vast publicity which Mr. Preminger's "The Cardinal" is getting while he is doing scenes in Boston. Let it never be said that money is among Mr. Huston's diversified interests. We have this on his own confession. Mr. Huston had the following to say to Alan Frazer about his acting stint in this picture: "It's just a lark. I'm not even being paid for it." That's what we need in this business, say I, a few more talented amateurs. If Mr. Huston wants to do a real service to the industry, he will take to the rostrum and tell the boys and girls how much joy they are missing by being so sordid as to work for money. Will a few dollar-a-year men step forward. And speaking of the intellectual climate, there is something to be said for the numerous books written in the past months on the history of motion pictures. Mr. Dwight MacDonald, the erudite film reviewer for Esquire magazine, prefacing his comments on these tomes, writes "that the movies have become culturally respectible to an alarming degree. People now discuss movies the way they used to talk about novels and plays, probably for no more complicated reason than that the directors — except those marooned in Hollywood — — have given us some exciting works to discuss." I suppose Mr. MacDonald means that the exciting movies are made by those "furriners", and that our indigenous crop out thar in Hollywood went thata-way — meaning, of course, that these lads are trying to make pictures for 18,000 theatres rather than for two or three thousand. Now I certainly have no objection to these foreign productions, but I do object to the fetish that only exciting and important films are made in France and Italy. For every "Divorce — Iitalian Style" there are likely to be twenty bad Italian pictures. Allow me, Mr. MacDonald, to suggest that there are some rather fine films made here in the U. S. In fact, I can't recall any foreign film of recent vintage that better diagnoses human frailty than "Requiem for a Heavyweight," nor can I recall a foreign film that puts ideologies in better focus than "The Manchurian Candidate." I have no quarrel with the five pictures nominated for the Academy Awards, but I think the time has come for this institution to make special awards — not only for "best pictures" — which too often mean big pictures — but for producers who are sincerely devoted to the idea that the small picture can carry a big wallop. Page 10 Film BULLETIN March 18, 1963