Harrison's Reports (1954)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

28 HARRISON’S REPORTS February 13, 1954 projection under the trade name of CinemaScope and has produced and released a number of pictures thereunder con' cerning which there is much public curiosity and interest due not only to the extensive advertising of Fox but also to the publicity given them by the newspapers and other communications media because of their novelty and, in the case of ‘The Robe,' the essential merit of the picture; and, “WHEREAS, in hcensing its CinemaScope pictures to the theatres Fox has insisted that as a condition to such licensing each theatre must first install, among other things, equipment or a sound reproduction and distribution method known as Stereophonic Sound which includes three horns or sets of horns behind the screen to add an illusion or impression of direction to the sound issuing from the screen plus a number of speakers or outlets located at different points in the theatre known as auditorium speakers; and, “WHEREAS, installation of stereophonic sound in drivein theatres would be futile and ridiculous as a means of achieving the claimed results for stereophonic sound because no matter from which portion of the wide screen the sound issues it can only be heard in an automobile through a speaker or speakers located within the confines of the car, but even if two or more such speakers are linked together they cannot be much further apart than the ears of the listener and hence can impart little or no sensation of direction; and, "WHEREAS, any attempted application of stereophonic sound to drive-in theatres would require complete re-wiring of such theatres which would involve unearthing the present wires from their hard surface covering as well as numerous other operations which would make the installation prohibitive as to cost even if it could materially improve the quality of the sound, which is an assumption for which there is no factual foundation; and, “WHEREAS, according to an article in The Film Daily, February 3, it appears that Spyros Skouras has approved for use in drive-ins a slight modification of stereophonic sound which requires the use of two speakers in a car, each handling two sound tracks which are blended by means of a mixer so that four sound tracks are reduced to two for left and right reception within the car; and, "WHEREAS, this contributes nothing to the solution of the drive-ins’ problem and only tends to confuse matters because the same digging up and re-wiring would have to be done to accommodate the system; the four wires running from each post to serve the two speakers in each of two cars would constitute a spider's web of wiring dangerous to the public safety; and the sanctioned use of a mixer for blending two channels when such device is rejected for blending four channels constitutes a contemptous insult to the intelligence and disregard for the rights of a large group of customers unmatched in the annals of American business; and, “WHEREAS, Spyros Skouras, as shown by said article, has indicated that CinemaScope pictures will not be licensed to drive-in theatres unless or until they have installed this hybrid equipment which is the same as saying that the drive-in theatres will be arbitrarily cut off from supplies of such pictures; and, “WHEREAS, Fox's attitude in this matter is characterized by a deliberate purpose to favor and confer a monopoly of exhibition upon the ineffectually and only technically divorced theatre circuits which have the same stockholders as the parent film companies, which circuits have only small (if any) investment in drive-in theatres, and flagrantly to discriminate against and put out of business the drive-in theatres which are for the most part owned and operated by independent exhibitors; NOW, THEREFORE, “BE IS RESOLVED: “1. That the actions and policies of Spyros Skouras and 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation, and of any other film company which may follow a like course, in imposing impossible terms and conditions to the licensing of CinemaScope pictures to the drive-in theatres are hereby condemned as hostile, monopolistic and unlawful and violative of the spirit and letter of the decrees in the Paramount Case which contempalte that films shall be offered to all theatres without discrimination in favor of circuit theatres or others; “2. That copies of this resolution be sent to any drive-in operators who did not attend this convention so that they may be informed of the grossly unfair and hostile attitude of Fox and may add their efforts and influence to ours in seeking to bring that company and its present management to their senses; "3. That we hereby declare that we will inform our patrons and other interested members of the public by posters at our theatres, handbills, newspaper ads and in whatever way we can of our inability to present CinemaScope pictures in our theatres; explaining the reasons why and placing the blame where it belongs; and; “4. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Attorney General of the United States for action under the Paramount decrees and, if they be deemed inadequate to prevent those palpable evasions of the purpose and intent thereof, that new actions be instituted to prevent this new attempt to monopohze the motion picture business.’’ As pointed out in last week’s issue, there is considerable merit to the arguments presented by those who are either for or against stereophonic sound. But from the developments that have taken place in the past week, it does appear as if 20th Century-Fox has weakened its position considerably. In regard to the cancellation of the stereophonic sound versus the "mixer” tests, Mr. Lichtman’s statement that “it was never the intention of the demonstration to determine whether 20th Century-Fox would abandon its stated policy of not permitting showings of CinemaScope pictures without full stereophonic sound” is indeed disappointing, for even if we admit that stereophonic sound is superior to single-track sound, the question of whether or not it is of importance to the public cannot be resolved until such a test is made. Because of the unyielding stand taken by 20thFox in this matter, there can be no doubt that Walter Reade and Myron Blank were justified in deciding to cancel the tests. Perhaps the most apt comment on 20th-Fox’s attitude is the one credited by weekly Variety to an unnamed exhibitor, who said: “What 20th-Fox wants is like holding an election with a single ballot and a marking that says, ‘Sign here!’ That may be fine or the one candidate in the running, but it is not the democratic way of handhng things.” As to the furore over 20th-Fox’s insistence that drive-ins install two-channel stereophonic sound equipment, this paper goes along with Mr. Lichtman in deploring as reprehensible the reported abuse heaped on Mr. Skouras at the drive-in convention because of the firm stand he has taken on the matter. No one can deny an exhibitor’s right to disagree with Mr. Skouras, but such disagreement should not be accompanied by a vituperative personal attack, particularly against a man who deserves great credit for having had the courage to risk his company’s assets to develop and promote CinemaScope at a time when the business was sorely in need of a new form of picture presentation to renew the public’s interest in the movies. It does appear, however, from the reasons outlined in the above resolution, that the drive-ins have made out a valid case as to why they should not be required to install twochannel stereophonic sound equipment. The most important reason, of course, is that the cost is prohibitive. According to several supply dealers, the estimated cost of equipping a 750 to 1,000-car drive-in would range from twenty to thirty thousand dollars, and this, mind you, is exclusive of the cost of a CinemaScope lens and approved screen. Even if the two-channel sound system is better than the single-track system, it does seem unreasonable to require a drive-in operator to spend such a huge sum of money on equipment that will not, in the final analysis, give him true stereophonic sound, the purpose of which is to have the sound follow the action across the screen to give the proceedings a life-like quality. Such an illusion is hardly possible if the sound is contained within the confines of an automobile.