Harrison's Reports (1954)

48 HARRISON’S REPORTS March 20, 1954 AN APPRAISAL OF STEREOPHONIC SOUND Writing in the March 3 bulletin of Allied Caravan of Iowa, Nebraska and Mid-Central, Charlie Jones, secretary of the organization, had this to say in part under the heading, “CinemaScope in Small Theatres:” “Last week this writer had the pleasure with approximately 1 5 other exhibitors to witness a showing of ‘The Robe’ in AlHed member, Arlo Thompson’s beautiful Lake Mills, la. theatre. It was indeed a pleasure to step into an attractive small town theatre that showed every evidence of being the kind of theatre we should all try to run. Clean, eye-catching and well kept. Mr. Thompson’s installation should be seen and heard by all exhibitors, for movies are on the move. Consensus of opinion among those viewing it was that the picture was very good. There was some disagreement as to aspect ratio and screen size, but Mr. Thompson said that he was changing the ratio soon to get a bit more height to the picture. Stero sound was good. And here, let me digress for a moment to elabDrate on sound. Opinions are strictly my own and do not purport being ‘policy’ or opinion of anyone else. Quality of stereophonic sound is good. To deny it is ridiculous. Magnetic reproduction is superior to optic and gives more latitude. The main idea behind what might appear to be hair-tearing madness about ‘insistence’ on Stereo Soimd in CS installations is, to most soberly reflect on the value to the boxoffice of such sound. Any contribution which might have been made over the years by this writer to the information and assistance of members would be destroyed if we implied that we are against progress . . Prompted by Charlie Jones’ remarks, I sought and obtained from 20th Century-Fox a demonstration of the stereophonic sound with magnetic tape recording as against the optical recording so as to put myself in a position where I could properly express an opinion as to the merits of stereophonic soxmd. By comparison, I foxmd that the optical recording sound was lifeless, and the moment I pressed a button that switched to stereophonic sound, life began. The stereophonic sound is rich in overtones, it has body, and one gets a thrill out of it. There is no way for the average person to judge the difference between the two sounds unless he receives a similar demonstration. It seems to me that the 20th Century-Fox should be glad to invite the exhibitors and arrange for such a demonstration, and their failure to do so up to this time is, in my opinion, a serious error. In the present heightened feelings, it is hard to convince the average small exhibitor that there is a world of difference between stereophonic sound and the old optical recording sound. Those who are quick to condemn Spyros Skouras, president of 20th Century-Fox, for insisting on stereophonic sound, should first ask themselves this question: Is it logical to assume that he would risk the good will of the exhibitors unless he had a worthwhile motive? Some exhibitors attribute his so-called intransigent attitude to a desire to give the large theatres an advantage over the small ones. Having known Mr. Skouras for more than 34 years, I dare say that this theory is erroneous in the extreme. His attitude is that, if we are to pry the public away from their television sets, we must give them the best screen presentation possible. And CinemaScope, coupled with stereophonic sound, is the only new screen process thus far demonstrated that offers a means by which this may be accomplished. There is, of course, considerable merit to the claim of many exhibitors, particularly the smaller ones, that the present high cost of equipment for stereophonic sound is beyond their means and that even a substantial increase in grosses will be insufficient to enable them to pay for the equipment and still keep their heads above water. In other words, the concern of these exhibitors is not so much the incurring oi the debt as it is the liquidating of the debt. Until the exhibitors can be shown that they can liquidate such a debt without undue hardship, the impasse between them and 20th Century-Fox probably will continue until such a time as the law of economics takes over and provides a solution to the problem; that is, either the exhibitors will learn that they cannot get along without CinemaScope pictures, or 20th Century-Fox will learn that they cannot afford to lose the exhibitors’ playdates. And if the Tushinsky SuperScope process proves to be a formidable competitor to CinemaScope, the solution to the entire problem may come sooner than expected. In the meantime, let the exhibitors and their leaders look upon the matter impassionately. Let each one of us remember that the man who risked not only his company’s future but also his own to develop a revolutionary new process and thus create a fresh public interest in the movies deserves sympathetic consideration of his views — recognition, at least, of the chances he took. ALLIED REJECTS ARBITRATION BID As anticipated by most every one. National Allied has declined Eric Johnston’s invitation to participate in a new arbitration conference. Writing to Johnston in a letter dated March 7, Ben Marcus, Allied’s president, reminded him of Allied’s position “that any arbitration system, to be of benefit to the independent exhibitors, must provide for the arbitration of disputes involving the terms and conditions of sale, including film rentals.” Marcus added that Allied’s position has been widely publicized and that it was certainly known to the general sales managers of the different distributing companies when they excluded film rentals as a subject of arbitration in the proposed new talks. “Your letter,” stated Marcus, “was presented to the (Allied) board on February 25, and I was instructed to inform you that since the invitation rules out the only kind of arbitration which, in the board’s opinion, would be of immediate, substantial benefit to the independent exhibitors, this association cannot participate in the negotiations.” It is anticipated that an attempt will be made to establish an arbitration system without Allied’s participation, but whether such a system will be meaningful and workable remains to be seen. This paper is of the opinion that it will not work out, and its contention is supported by William F. Rodgers, MGM’s former general sales manager, who, at a recent trade press luncheon, stated frankly that, though an arbitration system could be established without Allied, it will require that organization’s participation to be successful in the long run. If any one is qualified to express an opinion on this matter it is Bill Rodgers, not only because of his vast experience in distributor-exhibitor relations, but also because he was the chairman of the last arbitration conference.