Harrison's Reports (1954)

April 17, 1954 HARRISON’S REPORTS 63 “Calling Scotland Yard” Featurettes (Paramount, May; time, 21 min. each) Under the general title of “Calling Scotland Yard,” Paramount is releasing a group of six three^reel, 27minute crime featurettes, each designed to serve as either the second half of a double bill or as an added attraction in single-feature territories. The featurettes were produced in England by Edward J. and Harry Lee Dan2,iger, and each is a complete story in itself. Each one features an all-English cast, except that Paul Douglas appears at the beginning and end of each subject as a sort of narrator who presents the background leading up to the events of the crime. Mr. Douglas does not play a part in any of the stories. The 2 7 -minute running time of each story, the profuse use of close-ups, and the fact that much of each story is told by dialogue rather than depicted through action, make it obvious that these featurettes were originally designed to be shown on half-hour television programs. The first three featurettes shown to the reviewers include “The Javanese Dagger,” “Present for a Bride” and “The Final Twist.” Each offers fair entertainment values and for the most part should get by with the general run of audiences, although there are moments when the thick British accents of some of the players make it difficult for one to understand the dialogue. The production values are very modest. “The Javanese Dagger” is a story of blackmail and murder, revolving around a once beautiful woman’s lust for revenge. It depicts Yvonne Fumeaux as very much in love with Anthony Nicholls, her titled husband, whose first wife, Vanda Gossell, had run away with Alan Wheatley, an airplane pilot. Their plane had crashed into the sea, however, and both were presumed to be dead. Complications arise when Vanda and Wheatley prove to be alive and try to blackmail Yvonne on the ground that she is not legally married to Nicholls. In a tangle with Yvonne, Vanda accidentally falls on a dagger and, before dying, she accuses Yvonne of stabbing her. This leads to Yvonne’s conviction for murder, but evidence furnished by the conscience-stricken Wheatley eventually leads to her vindication. “Present for a Bride” revolves around Derek Bond, a confidence man, who induces Ha2;el Court, a mannequin, to pose as a countess in order to snare David Horne, a middle-aged bachelor and diamond merchant, for her husband. Haz;el succeeds in marrying Horne, but after the marriage she tries to double-cross Bond on their arrangement to split all the jewels and money that she can wangle out of her husband. Meanwhile Horne discovers that Hazel is a fraud and, when he remonstrates with her. Bond kills him and stuffs his body in the house safe. Hazel and Bond arrange to flee from the country on the following day, but their plans blow up when a repair man makes a periodic check of the safe and discovers Horne’s body. Both Hazel and Bond are picked up by the police before they get very far. “The Final Twist” concerns itself with the efforts of Karel Stepanek to claim insurance for the robbery of his own jewelry shop, during which his elderly assistant had been murdered. An insurance investigator finds circumstantial evidence indicating that Stepanek himself had committed the crime, but testimoney by a neighbor that he had heard Stepanek quarreling with his wife (Catherine Finn) in their apart ment at the time of the murder clears Stepanek and he collects the insurance. Several years later Miss Finn discovers that her husband is carrying on an affair with Patricia Owens, her cousin. Angered, she calls the police and reveals that Stepanek had committed the crime, and that the quarrel overheard by the neighbor was actually a recording made for the purpose of providing Stepanek with an alibi. Thus Miss Finn has her revenge on Stepanek and Patricia, even though she herself goes to jail for complicity in the crime. Each of these featurettes rates an adult classification. A JUSTIFIED PROTEST Under the heading “Dirty Work from Distribution,” Bob Wile, executive secretary of the Independent Theatre Owners of Ohio, castigated Paramount in a recent organizational bulletin for bringing up the subject of city taxes on admissions, particularly during the week when the exhibitors were granted relief from the Federal tax. “On orders from the Paramount office,” charged Wile, “the exchanges wrote to the City Treasurer of every city in the state asking them whether they had a city tax, how much it was, if it were repealed, the date, etc. This kind of a letter has to be read before the City Council. Imagine it being read in the very week when the subject of admission taxes is in the newspapers and the city fathers are looking for more revenue. And the effect in cities where there is no tax or where it has been repealed is worst of all. “All this was done because one or two exhibitors deducted 3% from their receipts before reporting their grosses even though there was no tax. We do not condone this in any way, but it is possible that there was an honest mistake and that the exhibitor, having a circuit, reported a 3% tax in a town where there was none. But honest or crooked, it is no reason to make the innocent suffer with the guilty. “This office has complete information from every town in the state on its admission taxes and will be glad to furnish information on any particular town or city to any particular distributor on request. Furthermore, the letters are not going to get the right answers in many cases. For example, a drive-in has a postoffice box in a town but is located outside the city limits. And many theatres are in suburbs of cities.” Paramount should hang its head in shame for bringing the subject of a tax on admissions to the attention of city and town officials who are constantly seeking ways and means to obtain additional revenue. KIND WORDS FROM THE READERS Dear Mr. Harrison : Keep up the good work! I find your reports on new equipment and processes invaluable. — N J. Yiannias, Maday & Tian' nias, Dubuque, Iowa. * * * Dear Mr. Harrison: For many years it has been my pleasure to be a contributor to your reviewing service and although I have never written you before, I would like to say that I gather a great deal of reliable information from your paper which is extremely interesting in these times of presentation changes. — J. L. Thornley Melbourne, Australia.