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: 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 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New York 20, N. Y. Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXIII SATURDAY, JULY 14, 1951 No. 28 HARRY COHN MAKING HIS PICTURES WHISKEY AND BEER SALESMEN In last week’s issue there was brought out editorially the fact that, in Columbia’s “Never Trust A Gambler,’’ there is blatant advertising of Schenley whiskey, — that the clerk who was serving the heroine in her desire to buy a bottle of liquor says: “I can give you a good buy on Schenley whiskey.” In a print shown to some reviewers a week later, the dialogue has been omitted, but the Schenley bottle is displayed as prominently, and the shelves in the background are full of whiskey bottles, mainly Schenley. Evidently Columbia, stung by that criticism, ordered that the dialogue be eliminated. In that editorial I overlooked bringing to your attention also the fact that, in some scenes, an ad for Eastside Beer is displayed prominently, as well as one for Coca Cola. It will interest you to know also that Columbia’s “The Big Gusher,” reviewed this week, has a closeup in a saloon showing one of the oil workers drinking Schlitz beer. Having been made by public criticism to give up classing our national legislators as crooks, Harry Cohn, Columbia’s president, is now putting the motion picture industry down to the level of saloons and liquor stores. Certainly, Cohn must have looked at the rushes when the pictures were being shot. Why did he not order that the scenes be retaken with the ads for whiskey and beer eliminated? To recognize the need for the elimination of scenes that bring the picture industry down to the level of saloons and liquor stores, a producer, or whoever else is responsible for passing on the master print, must have a delicate taste. And who has accused Harry Cohn of having such a taste? A STAB IN THE BACK The members of the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers held their annual meeting in Hollywood recently and endorsed the serving of their films to television, particularly the subscription or pay-as-you-see systems, such as, presumably, Phonevision, Skiatron and Telemeter, which will require the home TV viewers to pay for film entertainment, for they believe that these systems will bring more revenue to them for their feature films. A resolution adopted by SIMPP expressed the wish that the public should have the greatest possible access to topgrade films, and urged that the Federal Communications Commission speed up the licensing of “worthy” TV sub< scription systems. Governor Ellis Arnall, president of SIMPP, was delegated to present the views of the organization to the Federal agency. Whether or not subscription television will prove profitable to any picture producer who cares to service such a system has yet to be demonstrated, and there are many industryites who will argue logically that no such system can possibly give a producer financial returns that will equal those now obtained from the theatres. Without going into a discussion of the many factors that may limit a producer’s revenue from subscription TV, how ever, this paper believes that the SIMPP action is a stab in the back of the independent exhibitors, who made it possible for them to make profits and continue producing pictures, for if the subscription TV system becomes prevalent — even in a minor way — it may draw off enough theatre patronage to seriously harm many theatres and possibly put them out of business. The attitude of the members of the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers is so antagonistic to the interests of the entire motion picture industry, particularly to those of the independent exhibitors, that each one of us should mark in a conspicuous place in our offices the date that this resolution was passed by the SIMPP members and act accordingly. June 27 is the day. LET US STOP THE “WEEPING” Stating that the public’s loss of confidence in the motion picture industry is attributable to too much “weeping” on the part of exhibitors and studio executives, Norman Nadel, theatre editor of the Columbus, Ohio, Citizen, had this to say, in part, in a recent article: “It was true that people making payments on TV sets would not have as much money to spend on movies, it also was true, if they would have bothered to check, that once the television set was paid for, the customers began dropping into movie houses again. “If the movie men had opened their eyes, they might have noted that other businesses were suffering income reductions — department stores, for example. But were the store executives crying? Not so the public could notice it. As a result, these other businesses maintained the public’s confidence and trust, while the movie business lost it. The customers become wary of a business run by weepers — a business that apparently was dying, to listen to the men in it. “Now there are optimistic notes, but it is hard to convince the public that the film industry is a healthy one, with a long, secure future. There’s been too much weeping.” Mr. Nadel is right! There has been entirely too much “weeping” on the part of industryites, most of it unwarranted. A typical example is the following statement that was included in a publicity release sent out recently by the management of the Rivoli Theatre, on Broadway, New York City, in connection with the closing of that theatre for the summer months: “The temporary closing of the Rivoli Theatre is necessitated by the lack of sufficiently important motion pictures to stand for a long run on Broadway.” When a criticism of this kind comes from a newspaper critic, we are horrified and accuse him of bias, but when it comes from an exhibitor it belongs in the category of “biting the hand that feeds you.” There are many good pictures available today as there ever were. If they cannot enjoy the long runs they enjoyed in former years, the fault lies, not in the fewer good pictures, but in the prevailing business disturbance. Montague Salmon, managing director of the Rivoli, has been in this business long enough to find other excuses for the shutting down of his theatre, the kind that would not do any harm to other theatre owners.