Harrison's Reports (1952)

12 HARRISON’S REPORTS January 19, 1952 THE PUBLIC DECIDES “It is remarkable," says Billy Wilkerson in his January 7 "Tradeviews" column in his Hollywood Reporter, “the manner in which many exhibitors, in their frantic effort to promote top temporary ticket sales, squander good product in double billing two big box office attractions." Mr. Wilkerson then goes on to opine that the exhibi' tors hurt themselves eventually by following such a policy. It is evident that Billy Wilkerson is unaware of the fact that no exhibitor relishes playing double bills, whether they consist of two top productions or of one top picture supported by a lesser picture; but in one-half of the territories throughout the United States the picture-goers demand double bills, and the exhibitors have no choice but to meet that demand. From time to time, double-billing exhibitors have tried to educate their patrons to accept single bills, but in almost every instance the attempt failed and they were compelled to go back to double billing. Some one should tell Mr. Wilkerson that the doublefeature program is a necessity to those exhibitors who resort to it, because in most cases the top pictures are either milked dry in the single-billing key-runs or are presented together with a stage attraction. In many instances, the top pictures are not made available to certain exhibitors until after the public has forgotten about them. Consequently, the doublebilling exhibitors, in order to retain their patrons, have to offer them a second feature to make their waiting for the top pictures worthwhile. I doubt whether there could be found in this country a single exhibitor who would resort to dual bills if he could make a profit with a single-feature policy. The fact remains, however, that the exhibitors are guided, not by their personal likes and dislikes, but by the preferences of their patrons. And no degree of urging will induce them to revert to a single-bill policy, for they know from experience that it will prove to be as much of a failure as their previous efforts. A STRONG BLAST AGAINST THE SALE OF OLD FILMS TO TV Following through on his campaign against producers who sell their old pictures to television while soliciting playdates from exhibitors for their new pictures, Jack Kirsch, president of Allied Theatres of Illinois and a former president of National Allied, released to the press the following letter he sent to producer Edward Small under date of January 12: “This morning, in glancing through the. feature reviews of one of the trade papers, I ran across the picture ‘Indian Uprising’ which is listed as an Edward Small Production, released through Columbia, and I could not help thinking of an advertisement appearing in the Chicago Herald American . . . announcing the showing of 26 Edward Small Productions over TV Station WNBQ . . . “Now, Mr. Small, what do you think my first reaction was? You guessed it! I was seething with anger at the thought that here was a producer who has spent a good many years in the production of motion pictures for theatre consumption, turning around and selling 26 of his pictures to TV for showing in direct competition with hundreds of theatres in this area who were his customers, and then having the audacity to make another picture expecting those same customers, whom he is trying to put out of business to take a slap on the other cheek by leasing ‘Indian Uprising.’ “Have you any idea, Mr. Small, as to the extent of the harm you have inflicted on the theatres in the Chicago area by making these 26 pictures available for telecasting, many of which, I am sorry to admit, were outstanding pictures of their time? Plenty! And did you ever stop to think that perhaps those theatres who might use ‘Indian Uprising’, when it is released, will have to compete with the showing over TV of a picture made by the same producer? Does that make sense? Certainly not, because you know as well as I do that people are not going to pay to see motion picture entertaiment that they can get free in their homes. How long, Mr. Small, do you think the exhibitors of this country are going to take this kind of treatment lying down? Not for long, Mr. Small, because the exhibitors are losing patience with those producers who are playing both ends against the middle. No, this is not a threat of organized boycott, if that is what you are thinking. No such activity will be necessary on my part or on the part of any organization. The indignation welling up in every individual exhibitor will make itself felt. A snowball will roll down hill of its own motion and gain speed — and size — as it rolls. “I sincerely believe that you are doing the exhibitors of the country a grave injustice by attempting to carry water on both shoulders — to sell to both the theatres and TV. If you think that TV offers you a better source of revenue, you should concentrate on that field. We will miss you but not so much as we would have a short while ago when we regarded you as a loyal friend. If you are going to continue to sell to television, you should, in all fairness, leave the production of pictures for theatre consumption to those who still believe that their future rests with the motion picture industry.” “Woman in the Dark” with Penny Edwards, Ross Elliott and Rick Vallin (Republic, Jan. 1?; time, 60 min.) An indifferent program melodrama, suitable for the lower half of a double bill when no other picture is available. The story is synthetic and uninteresting, but what hurts the picture most is the poor direction and the “hammy” acting of Peter Brocco as an underworld leader. The others in the cast are just so-so, but they are not to blame since there wasn’t much that they could do with the inept script. There are a few fights, which may thrill undiscriminatory moviegoers who like this type of melodrama. The photography is clear: — Peter Brocco, outwardly a respected city alderman but acutally an underworld leader, plans to steal a fabulous jewel collection being displayed at a local jewelry shop. To insure the success of his scheme, he orders John Doucette and Richard Irving, two henchmen, to induce Richard Benedict, a reckless young man, to join the robbery plot. Benedict was a brother of Rick Vallin, a lawyer employed by the insurance company that had insured the jewels, and Brocco felt that once Vallin learned that his brother was one of theives the return of the jewels could be arranged for a handsome consideration. Benedict, unemployed, agrees to join the robbery. On the eve of the robbery, Penny Edwards, a close friend of Benedict’s family, sees Benedict outside the jewelry shop in the company of the two known crooks. She informs Ross Elliott, a Catholic priest, who was Benedict’s other brother. The robbery takes place, and Elliott, visiting his home, establishes belond a doubt that Benedict had been a participant while leading his parents (Martin Garralaga and Argentina Brunetti) to believe that he was asleep in his room. Under pressure from both Elliott and Vallin, Benedict confesses and agrees to help Vallin recover the jewels to save their parents from humiliation. Shortly thereafter Brocco approaches Vallin, who seemingly agrees to pay the sum demanded for the return of the jewels, but with the aid of Benedict he retrieves the jewels without paying anything. Brocco avenges himself by murdering Benedict. Enraged, Vallin corners tthe crooks in a saloon. They gain the upper hand on him, but his life is saved by the timely arrival of the police, summoned by Elliott. The crooks are arrested, and it ends with Vallin breaking off his engagement to Barbara Billingsley, a haughty socialite, so that he might marry Penny. Stephen Auer produced it, and George Blair directed it, from a screenplay by Albert DeMond, who based it on the Nicholas Cosentino’s play, produced on the stage by Standish O’Neill. Adult fare.