Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1963)

JULY 22, 1963 tewpotnts 1963 I VOLUME 31, NO. 15 HV» ]%fee>d Movies ihui Ent€>rt€tin To the Editor, Dear Sir: Isn't it about time this business of ours learned that people do not go to the movies to pursue their post-graduate studies. Nor, if I am any judge of my own public, do they attend to be lectured at, pontificated to, or instructed in the darker phases of life on this earth. I am certain that this protest serves as no minority report. It is clear from your article in the July 8 Film BULLETIN, based on a research study of leading exhibitors, that there is a swelling reaction against the so-called "adult" pictures. I heartily agree with that president of a midwest chian who declared in your article that many of the pictures seen on television, such as "Three Coins In the Fountain," are better than we have on our screens. And I heartily concur with his conclusion, to wit, they are better because they are entertaining (italics, please) — they are not trying to teach a lesson or raise the morals of the audience. Please don't read these comments as a slam at intelligence or artistic integrity in pictures. I'm all for movies that satisfy the public's hunger for stories dealing with historical subjects or urgent present day issues. But, first of all they have to be entertaining. What I'm trying to say is exactly what the exhibitor wrote in your survey — "People want to check their problems when they walk into a theatre". They want to be entertained. I know those who come to my theatres do, and that must be true of most moviegoers. Of course, entertainment means different things to different people. The art theatre patrons find their pleasure in those "slice of life" pictures from abroad, and I have no complaint with their taste. I play the better ones in my theatres. But an awful lot of the imported pictures are plain tripe, slow, dull and shoddy, and I have a strong feeling that the public is surfeited with that kind of fare. I also think the people have had their fill of the Tennessee Williams' brand of pictures Hollywood turned to in recent years. Too much is too much, and it's time to blow the whistle. A movie ticket has always held the implied promise of a good time. A good time ! Those three little words are something our movie makers ought to think about. When a movie patron buys his ticket he is taking refuge in a darkened shelter from the burdens of his day, or perhaps of his life. We should remember that he wants to check his troubles at the door. Isn't escape what we really should offer him? And isn't that what we should advertise? This is not a new psychological idea. The early film makers accepted it as a simple, uncomplicated truth. Too many of today's producers have lost the flair for making pure escapist movies. They think in terms of big, high-cost spectacles, or, as an alternative, little, gloomy pictures. What happened to that wonderful old idea of making fun pictures? I don't mean just comedies; I'm referring to every type of movie that makes you cry, shiver, or gasp, as well as laugh. Look at the crowds turning out to have fun with "Dr. No" (I've had reports from my managers that many people are asking when another "Dr. No" picture will be coming out). We're getting terrific reports on the business M-G-M's "Captain Sindbad" is doing. This is the kind of colorful, fantastic BULLETIN Film BULLETIN: Motion Picture Trade Paper published every other Monday by Wax Publications, Inc. Mo Wax, Editor and Publisher. PUBLICATION-EDITORIAL OFFICES: 1239 Vine Street, Philadelphia 7, Pa., LOcust 8-0950, 0951. Philip R. Ward, Associate Editor; Leonard Coulter, New York Associate Editor; Berne Schneyer, Publication Manager; Max Garelick, Business Manager; Robert Heath, Circulation Manager. BUSINESS OFFICE: 550 Fifth Avenue, New York 36. N. Y., Circle 5-0124; Ernest Shapiro, N Y. Editorial Representative. Subscription Rates: ONE YEAR, $3.00 in the U. $.; Canada, $4.00; Europe, $5.00. TWO YEARS, $5.00 in the U. S.; Canada, Europe, $9.00. hokum that people always buy — when it's presented as pure fun. Metro is giving it the kind of a slick campaign that will sell millions of tickets. The whole conception smacks of Show Business, as we once knew it. I would love to see more of the same. Look at the long, long success Jerry Lewis has had. Maybe his stuff is wearing a bit thin, but we still do well enough with his picture to hope that he continues making them forever. And look at the steady good fortune American International has had with those outlandish Edgar Allen Poe shockers. They are clothed with comic book qualities, but the audience knows exactly what it's buying — spook house entertainment — ■ and it buys. And, best of all, look at the long run of success Universal has had with those clever, frothy comedies. Does that company have a monopoly on comedy? Seems so, because it's rare to see any other studio undertake to make something light and gay. If anyone in our business has any doubts that comedy is still popular, let them check into the audiences those old fun pictures of twenty and more years ago draw on the Late Shows. The newspapers and television very nicely fulfill the function of illuminating life's varied day-to-day issues and problems. They are welcome to their uncontested monoply in this field. My thesis is this: the entertainment television offers is generally cheap and flimsy, but much of it is fun stuff. The theatre motion picture producer can do a much better job in turning out that kind of entertainment, and we ought to concentrate on it. Let's go after the television audience, instead of reaching tor thai smaller part of the public that isn't tied down in the living room. If you find anything in this letter useful, print it, by .ill inc. ins. Sincerely, JOE 1 XH1B1TOR. Film BULLETIN July 22. I9A3 Page 5