Harrison's Reports (1954)

Entered as second-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post ofRec at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: United States 316.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Jlexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.60 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. XXXVI SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1954 No. 3 ANOTHER 3-D CASUALTY Abe Montague, general sales manager for Columbia, announced this week that “Miss Sadie Thomp' son,” which is currently playing pre'release engagements in 3-D, will be made available to the exhibitors in both 2'D and 3-D versions, effective immediately. Montague stated that two major factors influenced his decision to relax his original decision of “3-D only.” The first, he said, was the desire of an increasingly large number of theatre owners, who are not equipped for 3-D exhibition, to book the film “at a time when it is at its peak as a boxoffice hit.” He added that, “since our continuing desire is to cooperate to the fullest with our customers, these repeated requests have prompted us to re-examine our releasing policy in an effort to determine if it is feasible to comply with the exhibitors’ demands.” The second factor influencing his decision, Montague revealed, was the “surprising results from controlled day-and'date multiple runs” conducted last week in two major cities. In Richmond, Va., the picture played at the Byrd Theatre in 3-D, while the State Theatre, during the same period, played the film in 2-D. In Sacramento, CaUf., the production was shown at the Tower and Del Paso Theatres in 3-D while the Esquire exhibited in it 2-D. “Results of these tests were most revealing to us,” Montague said. “While those houses showing the film in 3-D reported gratifyingly high grosses . . . those theatres playing it in 2-D registered remarkably close to those high grosses. Thus we found little, from a business point of view, to choose from between 3-D and 2-D, and the surprisingly equal strength shown by the film in both forms was an important factor in causing to us to make it available to theatres in either medium they choose.” If one is to base his opim'on on Columbia’s past record of squeezing the utmost out of the exhibition of its big pictures, Abe Montague’s statement to the effect that exhibitor requests have been a major factor in influencing his decision to make “Miss Sadie Thompson” available in 2-D is just so much eye-wash, for the word has gotten around that the picture in its 3-D exhibitions has fallen below company expectations and is not matching the business done by “Salome,” the previous Rita Hayworth film. Interesting, however, is Montague’s admission that the results of the tests his company conducted in Richmond and Sacramento proved that the picture showed equal box-office strength in either medium. This upholds the contention of this paper that 3-D, even with improved projection and better photography and glasses, adds little if anything to the entertainment values of a picture. Montague’s decision to make “Miss Sadie Thompson” available in 2-D immediately is a wise one, even though the reasons for it are transparent, and it un doubtedly will result in greater financial benefits both to his company and the exhibitors. The reason for it is simple: The picture-goers who dislike 3-D — and there are milhons of them — will stay away from theatres that play the picture in that form, but it is unlikely that those who like 3-D will stay away from the theatres that show it in 2-D. In short, 3-D attracts only a part of the picture-going public whereas 2-D is acceptable to all. MORE ON THE STEREOPHONIC SOUND HASSLE Wilbur Snaper, president of National Allied, reports in a bulletin issued this week "that the Community Theatre in Morristown, N.J., a first-run situation operated by the Walter Reade circuit, is showing “The Robe” without stereophonic sound by means of a “mixer,” which channels the four sound tracks through one horn. Snaper described the operation as being basically Hke four spigots being opened into one funnel from which comes a single stream. He added that exhibitor use of the “mixer” would lessen the cost of stereophonic sound equipment by thousands of dollars since it can be insttilled at a cost that runs about 35% of full stereophonic equipment. Commenting on the fact that the “mixer” requires only one horn, Snaper said: “This amounts to using only one track — just what we have demanded for many weeks. Thus if the mixer is permissible, why not in its stead serve thousands of theatres with much needed pictures on regular one track film? This can and should be done immediately. Up to this point CinemaScope seems to have been only for the publicly owned corporations or largegrossing situations.” “As for myself,” continued Snaper, “I like the CinemaScope size screen or wide screen as I believe it makes for a better presentation, but I must repeat that stereophonic sound adds little if anything to a picture. As a matter of fact, the Radio City Music Hall, in its ads for ‘Knights of the Round Table,’ makes no mention of stereophonic sound and certainly with the type of operation that they have always maintained, if they believed that stereophonic sound would be a great incentive for attendance, it would have been advertised. It is a sincere hope of every exhibitor that 20th Century-Fox readjusts its position so that all theatres may take advantage of and profit by this new presentation.” Whether the use of the “mixer” mechanism by the Walter Reade circuit has been authorized by 20th Century-Fox, or whether the circuit found a loophole in the license permitting it, in its opim'on, to use the mixer, has not been made clear by either the drcuit or the film company. Assuming, however, that the use of this “mixer” is permissible, there appears to be no need for it since the ultimate sound effect is the same as that of regular one-track film.