Harrison's Reports (1951)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’s Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 SIXTH AVENUE United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy New York 20, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXIII SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 1951 No. 13 HIGH FILM RENTALS AROUSING EXHIBITORS Warning that a “slump is no time for a gouge,” Abram F. Myers, National Allied’s general counsel and chairman of the board, had this to say in a bulletin issued to his membership last week : “Complaints are being received from exhibitors in many territories to the eifect that they are being confronted with demands for higher film rentals and more onerous terms, although receipts continue to decline. The complaints are more bitter in territories that are hardest hit, but the dissatisfaction is quite general. The exhibitors feel that the distributors are seeking to saddle on them all losses resulting from the current slump. “We do not presume at this time to assess the blame for the decline in theatre attendance. But this much is certain: The exhibitors are no more to blame for it than the producer-distributors. The truth is, it is a common disaster and the hardships should be shared by all. For many years the producer-distributors, for reasons of their own, have preached that we are all in the same boat.' Now is an excellent time for them to practice what they preached. “It gives no pleasure to have to state these hard facts, especially when all industry elements should be pulling together to lick this depression. But the unrest is spreading and the complaints reaching Allied are increasing in number and violence. The polite language so generally employed at the outset of what we had hoped would be an era of good feeling is giving way to the fulminations of the Steffes era. In the past we have many times called upon the distributors to exercise self-restraint in the imposition of harsh trade practices and onerous terms, usually without success. In all sincerity we now call upon them, individually, to re-examine their present selling policies so as to abate existing hardships. “We ask them to do this in hopes of avoiding further interncine strife. If the plea is ignored, we can look for an epidemic of protest meetings the like of which was never seen before. “This is definitely not a threat on the part of National Allied. It is merely a forecast based on rumblings which are distinctly heard in Washington and which must certainly be audible in New York. It is offered in the hope of avoiding discord and hard feeling.” Mr. Myers’ plea to the producer-distributors is a most earnest and temperate one, and from published reports of conditions throughout the country, insofar as the motion picture theatres are concerned, it would appear that what he has to say is justified. Indicative of how serious the box-office decline has become are three news items that appeared in this week’s issue of Variety. One news item states that, according to real estate brokers specializing in film houses, the number of motion picture theatres up for sale throughout the country has reached an all-time high. Another news item points out that twice as many theatres are giving away dishes this year than last year. Still another news item has to do with the closing of several of the biggest theatres in Detroit because of poor business, and the expressed fear that half of the city's 181 motion picture houses may be forced to close within two years. Conditions being what they are, the situation calls for some produent thinking on the part of the producer-distributors to help alleviate the stress under which many theatres are operating today. And unless they do something soon, the extra profits they may realize now from excessive rental terms will be a drop in the bucket when compared to the losses they themselves may suffer later as a result of closed theatres. THE TRUE FUNCTIONS OF A CRITIC Because of the furor that has been brought about by Abram F. Myers’ blast at newspaper and magazine critics whose “ivory tower point of view” is hurting the movie business, Harry C. Arthur, Jr., of the Fanchon and Marco Theatres in St. Louis, has sent me a copy of a letter he had written last November to the motion picture critic on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in which he took exception to an article written by that critic. Mr. Arthur’s able defence of the industry, and the intelligent and forceful manner in which he points out what the true functions of a critic should be, make his letter one that should be read, not only by every person in the industry, but also by every critic. Harrison’s Reports is herewith reproducing Mr. Arthur’s letter in full in this issue, and it urges its readers to ask for extra copies to hand to their local critics: “When I was last in St. Louis I read your article in the Magazine Section of the Post-Dispatch and intended writing you several thoughts which occurred to me as I read it. However, I left here immediately and just returned after a trip East and have not had an opportunity to write you until now. My thoughts herewith are based on some thirty-five years in the film business. “Motion picture critics have always puzzled me. A newspaper reporter, with a certain literary talent, but possessive of the same movie-entertainment viewpoint as the general public itself, is selected as a newspaper's movie critic. Ergo, virtually overnight, he forgets the very reason he was selected for the assignment, i.e., his ability to analyze films in terms of the general public’s enjoyment or non-enjoyment, and seems to become an admirer of sophistication and culture, and a would-be uplifter. He yearns to educate the public and becomes a veritable Sage of the Cinema! “Within a few months after accepting the assignment, he has completely lost the ability to view films in terms of general public enjoyment, and insists upon discussing films only from the viewpoint of his own, erstwhile, higher-level preferences, despite the fact that the people themselves — his readers and audiences — haven’t changed their entertainment preferences one whit. “Certainly there are some — critics of course included — who prefer the so-called ‘higher standards’ for their entertainment menu. But this group, in actuality, constitutes only a very small percentage of the American movie-going public. These are the people who rain superlatives when they see such films as ‘Bicycle Thief,' ‘The Search,’ ‘Quartet,’ 'The Heiress' and the like. “But one has only to check his box-office records against such films as ‘Annie Get Your Gun,’ ‘Cheaper By the Dozen,' ‘Francis,’ ‘Ma and Pa Kettle,’ ‘Broken Arrow,’ ‘The Jolson Story,’ ‘Flame and the Arrow,’ ‘Father of the Bride’ and ‘Sands of Iwo Jima’ to see exactly what the public itself prefers in the way of ENTERTAINMENT. These pictures will never win any Academy Awards for dramatic excellence, perhaps, yet to a showman — and to the public itself, they constitute Showmanship at its zenith because they afford the mass public the entertainment it wants! “What is GOOD entertainment — and what is BAD? How can anyone know this for certain, except in terms of Mass Acceptance? Our film industry is dedicated to one main objective: — to serve the type of ENTERTAINMENT to the millions depending upon us for it weekly — at the lowest possible cost to them. It is not our function to pander to the whims and higher-level standards of those few who never have looked to us for their entertainment, and who seldom, if ever, attend motion picture theatres. Our re (Continued on bac\ page)