Film Daily (1923)

U brAdstreet f FILMDOM ZkRECOCMIZE* Authority XXV No. 31 Monday, August 6, 1923 Price 5 Cents 23 Road Shows Scaramouche" — Metro Plans to rn Picture Over to Regular First-Runs by January Metro organization is making to launch 23 road shows for imouche," the new Rex Ingram :tion on which a large sum of I has been spent, erally speaking, the special tigs will be launched in Septemvith the New York premiere, :ed, at the 44th St. theater. It ; expected that the legitimate r runs will extend over a greatriod than from September to ry and that by the first of the •ear, the regular first-run picccounts will secure the produc In Garrick, Philadelphia? pecial to THE FILM DAILY) adelphia — It is reported here Scaramouche" will open at the :k or Chestnut St. Opera : early in September at $2 top, .vhich it will be road-showed in rge cities at the same price. "Ashes" Opens Tonight ma Talmadge's new production, s of Vengeance" will open at .polio tonight for an indefinite The picture was produced to a full evening's entertainment. : Mille to Make "Beaucaire" Special to THE FILM DAILY) Angeles — In all likelihood, m De Mille will direct "M'sieu aire" which Famous has purI from Douglas Fairbanks. Increases Capital Special to THE FILM DAILY) any — The Paramount AmuseCo.. of New York, chartered a capital of $10,000, has in :d this to $100,000. linois Town Drops "Blues" Special to THE FILM DAILY) in. 111. — The town of Sandwich, here has repealed its Sunday g law by a vote of 490 to 296. theater ran a month there bevillagc officials discovered the rohibited it. Sees a Fight in Michigan .erv well known film man who ■een watching legislative activin various states expressed • the >n on Saturday that the situan Ludington, Mich., will evendevelop into a state-wide fight at state over the "blue" law ion. Again Percentage BY JOE RICKARDS Rickards and Nace, Phoenix, Ariz. I surely will answer your submitted Aronson story for it requires discussion from the other end of the business to counteract such a proposition which is basically wrong from every standpoint of the exhibitor. First — What chance would the exhibitor have to check the negative cost of a picture? Would he not be compelled to accept the estimate cost of such a product and would not past experience prove that the padded cost of pictures is one of the greatest reasons of producer failures? Second — What equitable basis could there possibly be for a producer to determine what each individual exhibitor should be allowed for his individual ability to put over a picture? Right there is the stumbling block of the Aronson scheme as it occurs to me. I trust that you will not temper my observation on this with the thought that ego enters into this explanation.. I want to ask you to look this one over. I am citing our own experience as it is correct and really happened. We bought on the open market — being a closed town — as he terms the brand, a picture. It was a feature on a well known program. It started by playing the "key" city of the district and took what might be rightly called a flop. It did not get nearly as much money on its first run as its owners and the first run theater managers thought it should gross. Now we thought we saw in the picture possibilities overlooked by the first run people and bought it. Paid a legitimate price for it without haggling. The exchange was more than satisfied. We, as I, say saw in the picture a value that they did not seem to discern. We put behind it a campaign of publicity of our own conception. We were the only account in the entire district which did the business to warrant the price asked by the exchange. Not only that but we did a splendid business with it, in fact a phenomenal business. So big did the picture gross that a salesman handling the product asked permission of our firm to use intact the publicity campaign in a neighboring city. Now get this one. The exchange sold the neighbor the picture for $250 guarantee. Then they were to share at 50-50 over a gross of $1,000 and the neighboring exhibitor told us and told the exchange man that there was not a chance to go over that amount as his house exploited under his own plan could not gross that much. The salesman, a bright young fellow handled the publicity campaign taken without a change from our own city and the result was the gross was big enough to turn a net rental of $630 to the exchange where the house manager with his past performance under his own method of exploitation was cock-sure that $1000 would cover the best gross that the picture could do. Am I making my point plain to you when I ask why should my firm have been compelled to give the exchange any part over a fair rental of the excellent business of that picture. The first run account failed to get it over. No other exhibitor as it happens in this particular case did get the picture over with the possible exception of us and what would have occurred had we been tied up on percentage arrangement such as Air. Aronson suggests. We would have been penalized for our own ability to exploit it. You could not dope it any other way. If we had have lost money with the picture would that same exchange have gone down into their pockets and shared the loss with us? Not a chance. They would have resorted to that oft repeated excuse "you did not get behind it. You had the goods but you did not sell them." In this case we did sell them. Sold them big. But we did not get a particle of help from the exchange. In fact the (Continued on Page 4) Allied Will Disband United Artists Going Back to Original Policy— Will, However, Annex Box-Office Names It is only a matter of time before the Allied Producers and Distributor Corp., the subsidiary company of United Artists will disband. In certain distributing quarters, this fact has been known for some little time and it was because of this that THE FILM DAILY, through its West Coast representative sought confirmation of the reports. Douglas Fairbanks is the authority for the statement that Allied will not assume any more outside product and that the subsidiary company will be permitted to gradually fall into the discard when the present releases and contracted product finish out their release life. Continuing Mr. Fairbanks stated in Los Angeles that United Artists will still keep the door open for big stars or producers with recognized box-office value to join the company on the same basis as the original (Continued on Page 2) Mary Rinehart Here Mary Roberts Rinehart, the author, is in town. At the Waldorf-Astoria. Dominion Gets Preferred (Special to THE FILM DAILY) Toronto — Dominion Films, Ltd., has secured Canadian distribution of Preferred for 1923-1924. The company will also release 25 English pictures, each of them to have a special run at Massey Hall in the fall. Authors And What He Thinks of Them— Montague Glass Presents a Few Thoughs Montague Glass in the current issue of "Life" has some interesting things to say about authors and motion pictures. Here are his thoughts: "Somehow or another, the recent moving picture convention held under the joint auspices of the Author's League and Miss Fannie Hurst, leaves one with the impression that the operation of a well-known author selling a manuscript to a moving picture manufacturer has points of resemblance to the usual operation for appendicitis. That is to say, the patient— I mean the author — is strapped down to a stretcher, an ether cone is pressed over his mouth and nose, and • thesia is complete, an appropriate incision is made in the " of his bank account and twenty thousand dollars is inserted. (Continued on Page 4)