Harrison's Reports (1954)

24 HARRISON’S REPORTS February 6, 1954 “I am happy to say that a solution to the problem ap' pears to have arrived faster than expected. At demonstra^ tions held yesterday in Bloomfield, N. J., a method of sound reproduction for drive-ins was provided by the International Projector Corp. Our representative, Alex Harrison, is now in Cincinnati, and he is authorized to tell the convention of its merits and the endorsement we have given it. The system will enable the drive-in operator to provide CinemaScope entertainment on the same level and with the same quality as that currently being offered in regular theatres, with such resounding success. RCA is also working on a similar system and it appears that drive-in operators will soon be provided with the necessary equipment to show CinemaScope pictures. I am sure all other sound equipment manufacturers will compete for this market.” The sound system referred to by Mr. Lichtman requires the use of two in-car speakers, one on the left and the other on the right. Each speaker will handle two of the four sound tracks on CinemaScope film by means of a “mixer” that will channel the four tracks into two tracks. No information on the cost factor has been made available. On the same day that the drive-in convention delegates were taking action in Cincinnati, the board of directors of the Theatre Owners of America, at its winter meeting in Washington, D. C., served notice on the distributors that “the right of every exhibitor to run his theatre in whatever way he wishes is a right that must be preserved to him,” and that “whether an exhibitor installs stereophonic sound or other equipment must rest in his own discretion and choice.” This TOA steind, which parallels that of Allied, was adopted in the form of a resolution, which stated also that the organization will do “whatever is necessary to guard these exhibitor prerogatives zealously, and militantly to fight off all attempts to invade or to encroach upon these rights, to the end that the policies of operation of any exhibitor shall not be dictated by any distributor or by any combination of distributors.” While the resolution did not name any individual distributor, it was quite apparent that it had been inspired by 20th Century-Fox’s insistence on the use of stereophonic sound. A1 Lichtman recognized this, and on Wednesday he issued the following statement in rebuttal : “The resolution passed by the TOA that the exhibitor has the prerogative of deciding what type of equipment he will install in his theatre is in my opinion completely proper. However, on behalf of 20th Century-Fox, I wish to make it clear that this corporation will also continue to exercise its own prerogative to produce and market pitcures in such a manner that will continue to serve the best interests of the public, the industry and ourselves. There would have been no need for the creation of the superior system represented by CinemaScope if theatres had been enjoying a gneral prosperity and if thousands of theatres had not closed due to lack of patronage. “In the lush, boom days, it was extremely difficult for producers and distributors to get theatres to go along with new devices and superior systems because the theatres were naturally doing a big business and wanted things left as they were. However, now that we have all faced the possibility of a general disaster. Twentieth Century-Fox again in line with its policy of serving the best interests of the industry, exhibitors and producers alike, went ahead at its own expense and possible hardship and pioneered the creation of the CinemaScope system. “The success of CinemaScope is well known and I am happy to say that there are now approximately 1600 theatres equipped to show the new medium with 100 more equipping each week. Our faith in CinemaScope, our fight to put it over and the fact that we practically gambled the future of this company has been borne out by its tremendous success. Any doubting exhibitor is certainly free to contact those exhibitors who have experienced the greatest business in their history wherever they have shown CinemaScope pictures. “Our faith in CinemaScope is based on the belief that it will enable producers to make better pictures, thus recapturing the 'lost audience' and gain new ones. ^Ve realize that most exhibitors concede that stereophonic sound is superior to ordinary monaural sound, but we are told by many exhibitors who operate in small towns and neighborhoods that they do not have the cash to lay our for stereophonic sound, even though prices have been reduced considerably and are being reduced daily. We sympathize with those who are in this predictament, and whose sole opposition to stereophonic sound is the immediate, financial one. We have asked the manufacturers and suppliers of stereophonic sound equipment to extend long-term credit to exhibitors, and we state further that if there are any exhibitors who have been unable to receive this credit when requested, let them communicate with us and we will intercede for them in a determined effort to help them secure this credit. “Furthermore, it has been our policy with CinemaScope pictures that exhibitors whh play pictures in the new medium must make a profit. Our system was designed to improve business, and anything short of a profit for the theatre would constitute a failure for the medium and is therefore of great concern to us. “It is to the best interests of all exhibitors to install CinemaScope equipment for the proper showing of these pictures, since it is our earnest belief that the time will come when most pictures will be produced in this medium for the greater prosperity of our business.” Lending his voice to the dispute, Abram F. Myers, National Allied’s board chairman and general counsel, had this to say on The Stereophonic War” in his annual report to his organization’s mid-winter board meeting, held in Cincinnati on February 5 and 6: “CinemaScope was sprung on the industry at a time when something was badly needed to excite public curiosity and re-awaken interest in the movies, and it has served that purpose admirably. In rescuing the anamorphic lens from oblivion, 20th Century-Fox advanced panoramic projection to a high state of excellence and 'The Robe’ was a sufficiently important picture to get CinemaScope off to a flying start. In developing this lens Fox made a notable contribution to the motion picture art for which it deserves full credit. It was Fox’a attempt to dominiate the business by combining the lenses with screens in which it was financially interested and with stereophonic sound, and its insistence that CinemaScope pictures be not played with less than this full line of equipment, that has caused the trouble. It may be that the highly reflective screens that Fox at first insisted must be used contributed to the success of the early CinemaScope presentations, although other screens are demonstrably adequate to the purpose. The current run of 'The Command’ at the Paramount Theatre in New York on a Raytheon screen is a case in point. “The battle is being waged over stereophonic sound which Fox asserts is an integral part of the CinemaScope 'system’ and must be installed as a condition to the licensing and exhibition of CinemaScope pictures. In order to put the controversy in proper perspective, I shall refer to Fox and Skouras interchangeably as he quite obviously is making this a personal fight. It is inconceivable that the whole Fox organization, certainly not the sales personnel who are trained to sell pictures, not to withhold them, are in sympathy with the present policy. Even if we accept Skouras’ claim that he is animated by a pure purpose to benefit the motion picture business, the bhghting effect of his policy on drive-ins and small theatres that cannot afford stereophonic sound is the same. Mr. Skouras voluntarily appeared before our Boston Convention and promised to cooperate in making tests of 'The Robe’ in medium and small theatres without stereophonic sound. Reports on subsequent negotiations and copies of the correspondence with Skouras on the subject have been sent to all directors. Whether it is worthwhile further to pursue this matter is a question for this board to decide. (Continued on inside page)